Leadership:

Interpersonal influence exercised in a situation and directed through communication process towards
the attainment of a specialized goal or goals. Leadership is the process of influencing the activities of an
individual or group for goal achievement in a given situation

Difference between leadership and management:

 Based on “organization”- There can be leaders of completely unorganized groups, leadership is a

process of influencing to achieve a set goal, that can be friend’s goals or the like. However,
managers can be there only where organized structures create such goals.
 Based on scope of functions- a manager performs the role of planning, organizing, staffing,
directing and controlling- the five basic functions of a manager. Leadership on the other hand is
directing others’ behaviour to get maximum use of subordinate’s ability. A good manager may
not be an outstanding leader because a manager may just bring out 60-65% of a subordinate’s
ability. A manager can be good leader by inducing zealous response on the part of efficient
subordinates

THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP:

1. Trait theory: Theories that consider personal qualities and characteristics that differentiate leaders from nonleaders.
Read directly from LM Prasad Pg- 266
From Robert organizational behaviour book
A breakthrough, of sorts, came when researchers began organizing traits around the Big Five personality
framework. Most of the dozens of traits in various leadership reviews fit under one of the Big Five giving
strong support to traits as predictors of leadership.
 Extraversion has been found to be the most important trait of an effective leader but it is more
strongly related to the way leaders emerge than to their effectiveness. Sociable and dominant people
are more likely to assert themselves in group situations, but leaders need to make sure they’re not too
assertive
 Conscientiousness and openness to experience also showed strong relationships to leadership. Leaders
who like being around people and are able to assert themselves (extraverted), who are disciplined and
able to keep commitments they make (conscientious), and who are creative and flexible (open) do
have an apparent advantage when it comes to leadership, suggesting good leaders do have key traits in
common.
 Another trait that may indicate effective leadership is emotional intelligence (EI), core component of
EI is empathy. Empathetic leaders can sense others’ needs, listen to what followers say (and don’t
say), and read the reactions of others. A leader who effectively displays and manages emotions will
find it easier to influence the feelings of followers, by both expressing genuine sympathy and
enthusiasm for good performance and by using irritation for those who fail to perform.

2. Behavioral Theory: Theories proposing that specific behaviors differentiate leaders from non-
leaders. Trait research provides a basis for selecting the right people for leadership. In contrast,
behavioral theories of leadership implied we could train people to be leaders.
Two dimensions that substantially accounted for most of the leadership behavior described by employees:
initiating structure and consideration.
 Initiating structure is the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his or her role
and those of employees in the search for goal attainment. It includes behavior that attempts to
organize work, work relationships, and goals.
  Consideration is the extent to which a person’s job relationships are characterized by mutual
trust, respect for employees’ ideas, and regard for their feelings. A leader high in consideration
helps employees with personal problems, is friendly and approachable
While these two dimensions were propounded by Ohio University, similar dimensions were laid out
by Michigan State University:
 employee-oriented leader- emphasized interpersonal relationships by taking a personal
interest in the needs of employees and accepting individual differences among them
 production oriented leader emphasized the technical or task aspects of the job, focusing on
accomplishing the group’s tasks.
3. Contingency Theory:
FIEDLER MODEL: The Fiedler contingency model proposes that effective group performance
depends on the proper match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives the
leader control and influence. The steps in the model are:
 Identifying Leadership Style- For this he created a least-preferred co-worker questionnaire to
identify whether the person is task-oriented or relationship-oriented. This questionnaire
involves asking an individual to think of all the co-workers he has ever worked with and
describe the one he has least enjoyed working with on a scale of 1-8 for each set of
contrasting adjectives (efficient-inefficient, supportive-hostile etc). If one describes the least
favoured person favorably (high score) then the individual is relationship oriented, contrary to
this the individual is task-oriented.
Fiedler assumes an individual’s leadership style is fixed. This means if a situation requires a
task-oriented leader and the person in the leadership position is relationship oriented, either
the situation has to be modified or the leader has to be replaced to achieve optimal
effectiveness.
 Defining the situation- To match the leader with the situation. Fiedler has identified three
contingency dimensions.
- Leader member relations- the degree of confidence trust and respect members have
for their leader
- Task structure- how job assignments are procedurized (i.e structured or unstructured)
- Position Power- the degree of influence a leader has over power variables like hiring,
firing, disciplibe promotions and salary increase.
Fiedler finds that better the lrader-member relation, more structured is the job and
stronger the power position and so more control a leader has.
 Matching Leaders and Situations- Combining the three contingency dimensions Fiedler found
eight situations (later narrowed down to three) in which a leader may find himself. The
Fiedler model proposes matching an individual’s LPC with these situations to achieve
maximum leadership effectiveness. According to Fiedler task-oriented leaders perform best in
situations of high and low control while relationship oriented leaders perform best in
moderate control situations.
Three other models of contingency theory: Just read small summaries-
Situational leadership theory:
Path-goal theory
Leadership participation model-

4. Charismatic Leadership:
A leadership theory that states that followers make attributions of heroic or extraordinary leadership
abilities when they observe certain behaviors. The first researcher to consider charismatic leadership in
terms of OB was Robert House.

Characteristics of Charismatic Leaders:

  Vision and articulation. Has a vision—expressed as an idealized goal—that proposes a
future better than the status quo; and is able to clarify the importance of the vision in
terms that are understandable to others.
 Personal risk. Willing to take on high personal risk, incur high costs, and engage in self-
sacrifice to achieve the vision.
 Sensitivity to follower needs. Perceptive of others’ abilities and responsive to their needs
and feelings.
 Unconventional behavior. Engages in behaviors that are perceived as novel and counter
to norms
Examples of
How charismatic leaders influence followers?
Studies show a four step process
1. It begins with articulating an appealing vision , a long-term strategy for attaining a goal by linking the
present with a better future for the organization.
2. vision statement , a formal articulation of an organization’s vision or mission. Charismatic leaders
may use vision statements to imprint on followers an overarching goal and purpose. They build
followers’ self-esteem and confidence with high performance expectations and belief that followers
can attain them.
3. Next, through words and actions the leader conveys a new set of values and sets an example for
followers to imitate.
4. Finally, the charismatic leader engages in emotion-inducing and often unconventional behavior to
demonstrate courage and conviction about the vision. Followers “catch” the emotions their leader is
conveying.
Extra random points:
 charisma appears most successful when the follower’s task has an ideological component or the
environment includes a high degree of stress and uncertainty. Leena Nair (CEO, Chanel, speaking
from her personal experiences recalls the night she was among a group stuck inside the Taj as it was
under attack and how a girl helped them all remain calm, guided them to safety, gave info, she says
“She showed so much situational leadership, I learned that day that leadership is situational, it doesn't matter if you are
senior or junior, what matters is stepping up.”
 Another situational factor apparently limiting charisma is level in the organization. Top executives
create vision; it’s more difficult to utilize a person’s charismatic leadership qualities in lower-level
management jobs or to align his or her vision with the larger goals of the organization
 Finally, people are especially receptive to charismatic leadership when they sense a crisis, when they
are under stress, or when they fear for their lives. Charismatic leaders are able to reduce stress for their
employees, perhaps because they help make work seem more meaningful and interesting
Disadvantages of Charismatic Leadership: Search for examples of companies ruined by leaders’ greed
 Unfortunately, charismatic leaders who are larger than life don’t necessarily act in the best interests of
their organizations. 60 Many have allowed their personal goals to override the goals of the organization
 Given the belief that it’s CEOs who make or unmake companies, others in top management
don’t seem to matter. Boards seem to have overlooked the elementary truth that it’s the team
as a whole that must perform
 It’s partly because a whole cult has been built around the office of the CEO that boards have
been weakened. Once it’s accepted that some heroic leader—a person with a halo around his
head—is going to deliver, it becomes difficult for the board to act as a check on him. We end up
having boards that cower before domineering CEOs. Risk is concentrated in one person. There’s
lack of dissent within the company