leadership approaches
Introduction
Historical analysis of the origin of different leadership approaches helps in understanding the development of the society. The study of leadership as a phenomenon can be traced to the beginning of civilization (Management Association, Information Resources, 2016). Leaders were authoritarians who ensured that employees worked as expected to enhance productivity. According to the Management Association (2016) the Industrial Revolution and accompanying new technology caused a paradigm shift in leadership roles (p 39). Common people endowed with requisite skills, ascended into positions of authority, and brought with them new ideologies on steering organizations. There are three main leadership approaches: transformational, transactional, and Laissez-Faire which prescribe varied roles to leaders based on their historical background.
Transactional leadership was first mentioned in Max Weber’s discussion of the socioeconomic considerations f the organization (Nikezić, Purić, & Purić, 2012). Weber observed that mechanization of industries resembled bureaucratic leadership in that it established a routine(Management Association, 2016). His assertion motivated the rise of two contrasting theorist groups: relationship-oriented classical management theorists and task-oriented scientific management theorists. Transactional leadership is founded on classical principles borrowed from concepts of bureaucratic authority. The approach is considered a traditional theory since it aims at maintaining a status quo. The theory was founded on reciprocity since followers respect instructions from the leader who in turn rewards them for their compliance (Nikezić, Purić, & Purić, 2012). Such transactions between leaders and followers maintain a status quo without considering organizational goals. Expansion of the transactional leadership technique became the basis of transformational leadership.
Transformational leadership as a term was first used by James Victor Downtown, Jr.; but the concept was developed and defined by James MacGregor Burns in the late 1970s and expanded upon by Bernard M. Bass (Ross & Kendall, 2016). In a 1978 book titled Leadership, Burns introduced transformational leadership as the collaboration between leaders and followers towards achieving higher motivation and morale. Later on, Bass, an industrial psychologist, incorporated the aspects of respect, trust, and admiration to Burns’ original proposition. He advanced from the moral perspective of the theory and focused on the efficacy of the leadership style. Bass developed a model simulating transformational leadership and the roles of such a leader. In his view, a transformational leader creates a vision, stimulates growth mindset, offers individualized attention, and becomes the source of idealized influence. Over the past few decades, it has become the most preferred leadership style (Management Association, Information Resources, 2016).
The term Laissez-faire is associated with early 18th century French economists who called on their government to allow businessmen to conduct their trade without unnecessary interference. The idea was made famous by Scotchman Adam Smith who proposed the removal of all restrictions in his book The Wealth of Nation (Ladenburg, 2007). Later on American colonists borrowed his idea and rebelled against England and the unfair trade restrictions they had imposed (p 15). The theory received a boost from Charles Darwin in his theory of ‘natural selection’ that showed nature could survive, thrive, and protect itself without man’s interference. During the Industrial Revolution, the same principle was revived as American factories pushed for the government to loosen business restrictions. German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin affirmed behavior as a construct of both individual and environment. In 1939, together with a group of other psychologists, classified leadership styles as autocratic, bureaucratic, and Laissez-Faire (Mukhopadhyay, 2016). During a group research conducted in 1930 on organizational psychology and group dynamics, Lewin and his associates recognized an alternative approach that required minimal managerial oversight (St. Thomas University, 2014).