Behavior Leadership Theory

What re totallyy makes a good leader? Psychologist and managers tried to solving this question. Chronologically, the first answer to what makes a good leader was that lead argon non do, they ar born (Fairholm, 1991). This was the first possibleness of Leadership, the Great custody conjecture. Mevery other theories were divided by Fairholm and these are the following theories found on who the leader is, wherein this group focuses on the leaders peculiarity theories base on what the leader does, wherein the behavior speculation belong to this group.It is think on directing leaders behavior so that it butt end be reproduced by followers and the theories found on the Environment of the Leadership. Leadership is a difficult topic to accept because leadership is a fuzzy concept. For decades, fond scientists and practiti integrityrs have been struggling to come up with the ultimate definition of leadership, to explicate its mechanisms, and to draw the line between leade rship and management. They have produced a morsel of definitions and theories.Long time ago, antigenic determinants of leadership has been identified by behavioral theorists, so that muckle could be trained to be leaders. Since the best styles of leadership can be learned, training programs have been developed to change managers leadership behaviors. During the World struggle II, the leaders of the academy left the isle of Traits and set sale for the isle of doingss by the 1940s. They suspected that the X and Y Theory of Leadership of Myers or Briggs, was some kind of fraud. The military wanted to know if leaders could be trained, and if so, what behaviors made them most utile.The honorary society of Leader Professors wanting to get tenure, fame in time of adult male crisis, and fortune decided that some new theory of leadership must(prenominal) be found or all their jobs would be as extinct as dinosaurs. Working with the Army and with universities, two biggest scallywag 2 bureaucracies in the world, it was mostly ab proscribed exertional behavior, being autocratic or democratic to increase the transaction rate or quality. The game of life sentence in organizations was never to be transformed and their quest was to find oecumenic leader behavior styles that correlate with effectiveness and are optimal proceedings in all situations.Squire Fleishman and Sir Katz set off for the islet of Behavior in separate ships as they are desperate to establish a behavioral settlement, only if found out that Scribe Lewin had already established a behavioral settlement and an Iowa University since 1938. On the Isle of Behaviors, leader (transactional) behaviors became observable and their study turned objective and measurable. Different Universities wanted to make its mark and study what do leaders do by using some statistical methods, then the Ohio State and Michigan University argued for the education of the peasants.Fleishman became King of Ohio State and K atz was made King of Michigan University. Lewin was already King at Iowa. Each mustered their armies and active to battle for leader behavior territory. Sir Mintzberg, knighted by the Canadians, resettled in the Isle of Behavior and decided to go and look to see if leaders did any planning, organizing, controlling, or leading. He actually observed and recorded the progress what minutes that leaders do. The world was shocked to discover, that leaders had a hectic, frantic, and fragmented transaction life, and did little of the behaviors thought to take place.Some leaders were only figureheads, however he did confirm Sir Mertons view, but noting all the roles that leaders do. While the Isle of Behavior was oversupplied with two-factor studies of behavior and observations of roles here and everywhere, that great explored, Prince Yukl decided that process was more crucial than some list of universal behaviors. And by 2001, Prince Page3 Howell and dub Costley joined the search for p rocess. They still liked to isolate and measure behaviors, but wanted to do this in the study of processes. They made great maps of the world of leadership, charting each territory.Leaders were reduced from traits or greatness to just psychoalgebraic behavioral equations, to styles or just transactions. But alas most of the Leader Behavior Academy had already set sail for the Isle of Situation. It seemed obvious that Traits and Behaviors to be effective depended upon the Situation. If there were universal behaviors, they are not optimal in all situations. Therefore a great expedition set forth to the Isle of Situation in the 1960s, with new waves of migration each decade since. This is where the arts of transubstantiation were rekindled. The behavior of Leadership has two main theories, transaction and transformation.This is what we call the X dimension of behavior leadership theory. It is the X dimension that focuses on the behavioral School of leadership. The X dimension runs fr om Transactional to transformational leadership, as studied by fire (1978) and Bass (1985). This is a classic dualism in leadership studies. Burns looked at modal thinking (the means over ends reasoning) in the early stages of organic evolution and held that the leaders are transactional in their behaviors. Transactional leadership requires a shrewd centre of attention for opportunity, a good hand at bargaining, persuading, reciprocating (Burns, 1978169).A transformational leader, on the other hand, recognizes and exploits an subsisting need or demand of a potential follower and looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy risqueer needs, and engages the full person of the follower. Eventually transformational leaders were thought to engage in behaviors that Page4 changed the game, even changed the world. Douglas McGregor exposit Theory X and Y in his book, The Human Side of Enterprise, that X and Y theory each represent different ways in which leaders view empl oyees.Theory X managers believe that employees are motivated principally by money, are lazy, uncooperative, and have poor work habits. Theory Y managers believe that subordinates work hard, are cooperative, and have positive attitudes. Theory X is the traditional view of direction and control by managers. The number gay being has an inherent dislike of work and bequeath avoid if he or she can. Because of this human characteristic of dislike of work, most people must be controlled, directed, and menaceened with punishment to get them to put forth fitted effort toward the accomplishment of organizational objectives.The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants security above all. This theory leads of course to an emphasis on the tactics of control to procedures and techniques for telling people what to do, for determine whether they are doing it, and for administering rewards and punishment. Theory X exp lains the consequences of a particular managerial strategy. Because its assumptions are so unnecessarily limiting, it prevents managers from seeing the possibilities inherent in other managerial strategies.As long as the assumptions of Theory X solve managerial strategy, organizations allow fail to discover, let alone utilize, the potentialities of the average human being. Theory Y is the view that individual and organizational goals can be integrated. The expenditures of physical and noetic effort in work are as natural as play or rest. Page5 External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing out effort toward organizational objectives. Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement.The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but also to seek responsibility. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizat ional problems in widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population. Under the condition of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilized. Theory Ys use of goods and services is to encourage integration, to create a situation in which an employee can achieve his or her own goals best by directing his or her efforts toward the objectives of the organization.It is a deliberate attempt to link improvement in managerial competency with the satisfaction of higher-level ego and self-actualization needs. Theory Y leads to a preoccupation with the constitution of relationships, with the creation of an environment which will encourage commitment to organizational objectives and which will provide opportunities for the maximum exercise of initiative, ingenuity, and self-direction in achieving them. Note that with Theory Y assumptions, managements role is to develop the potential in employees and help them to dissolve that p otential towards common goals.Theory X is the view that traditional management has taken towards the workforce. Many organizations are now taking the enlightened view of theory Y. A boss can be viewed as taking the theory X approach, while a leader takes the theory Y approach. calling card that Maslow, Herzberg, and McGreagors theories all tie together Herzbergs theory is a micro mutation of Maslows theory (concentrated in the work place). McGreagors Theory X is based on workers Page6 caught in the lower levels (1 to 3) of Maslows theory, while his Theory Y is for workers who have gone above level 3.McGreagors Theory X is based on workers caught in Herbergs Hygiene Dissatisfiers, while Theory Y is based on workers who are in the Motivators or Satisfiers section. Whatever theory utilize by any organization , the greatest chance of being booming is when all of the employees work toward achieving its goals. Since leadership involves the exercise of influence by one person over oth ers, the quality of leadership is a critical determinant of organizational success. Thus, leaders study leadership in order to influence the actions of his followers toward the achievement of the goals of the organization.Leadership studies can be classified as trait, behavioral, incident, and transformational. earlier theories assumed that the primary source of leadership effectiveness lay in the personal traits of the leaders themselves. Yet, traits alone cannot explain leadership effectiveness. Thus, later search focused on what the leader actually did when dealing with employees. These behavioral theories of leadership sought to explain the relationship between what the leader did and how the employees reacted, both emotionally and behaviorally. Yet, behavior cant always account for leadership in different situations.Thus, contingency theories of leadership studied leadership style in different environments. Transactional leaders, much(prenominal) as those identified in conti ngency theories, clarify role and confinement requirements for employees. Yet, contingency cant account for the inspiration and innovation that leaders need to compete in todays global marketplace. Newer transformational leadership studies have shown that leaders, who are charismatic and visionary, can inspire followers to transcend their own self-interest for Page7 the good of the organization.