Definitions on Leadership

Leadership is an attempt at influencing the activities of followers through the communication process
and toward the attainment of some goal or goals.
Leadership is an influence process that enable managers to get their people to do willingly what must
be done, do well what ought to be done.(Cribbin, J.J. ‘Leadership: strategies for organizational
effectiveness’)
Leadership may be considered as the process (act) of influencing the activities of an organized group
in its efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement. (Stogdill, 1950, p.3)
Theories on Leadership - Leadership has been described as the “process of social influence in
which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common
task” .A definition more inclusive of followers comes from Alan Keith of Genentech who said
"Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something
extraordinary happen." Students of leadership have produced theories involving traits, situational
interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values, charisma, and intelligence among others.
Various theories on leadership are as follows

Great Man Theory of Leadership

Are some people born to lead? If we look at the great leaders of the past such as Alexander the
Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Queen Elizabeth I, and Abraham Lincoln, we will find that they do
seem to differ from ordinary human beings in several aspects. The same applies to the contemporary
leaders like George W. Bush and Mahatma Gandhi. They definitely possess high levels of ambition
coupled with clear visions of precisely where they want to go. These leaders are cited as naturally
great leaders, born with a set of personal qualities that made them effective leaders. Even today, the
belief that truly great leaders are born is common.

Top executives, sports personalities, and even politicians often seem to possess an aura that sets
them apart from others. According to the contemporary theorists, leaders are not like other people.
They do not need to be intellectually genius or omniscient prophets to succeed, but they definitely
should have the right stuff which is not equally present in all people. This orientation expresses an
approach to the study of leadership known as the great man theory.

Assumptions

 The leaders are born and not made and posses certain traits which were inherited
 Great leaders can arise when there is a great need.

Theory

Much of the work on this theory was done in the 19th century and is often linked to the work of the
historian Thomas Carlyle who commented on the great men or heroes of the history saying that “the
history of the world is but the biography of great men”. According to him, a leader is the one gifted
with unique qualities that capture the imagination of the masses.
Earlier leadership was considered as a quality associated mostly with the males, and therefore the
theory was named as the great man theory. But later with the emergence of many great women
leaders as well, the theory was recognized as the great person theory.

The great man theory of leadership states that some people are born with the necessary attributes
that set them apart from others and that these traits are responsible for their assuming positions of
power and authority. A leader is a hero who accomplishes goals against all odds for his followers.
The theory implies that those in power deserve to be there because of their special endowment.
Furthermore, the theory contends that these traits remain stable over time and across different
groups. Thus, it suggests that all great leaders share these characteristic regardless of when and
where they lived or the precise role in the history they fulfilled.

Criticism

Many of the traits cited as being important to be an effective leader are typical masculine traits. In
contemporary research, there is a significant shift in such a mentality.

Conclusion

Prompted by the great man theory of leadership, and the emerging interest in understanding what
leadership is, researchers focused on the leader - Who is a leader? What are the distinguishing
characteristics of great and effective leaders? This gave rise to the early research efforts to the trait
approach to leadership.

Trait Theory of Leadership

The trait model of leadership is based on the characteristics of many leaders - both successful and
unsuccessful - and is used to predict leadership effectiveness. The resulting lists of traits are then
compared to those of potential leaders to assess their likelihood of success or failure.

Scholars taking the trait approach attempted to identify physiological (appearance, height, and
weight), demographic (age, education and socioeconomic background), personality, self-confidence,
and aggressiveness), intellective (intelligence, decisiveness, judgment, and knowledge), task-related
(achievement drive, initiative, and persistence), and social characteristics (sociability and
cooperativeness) with leader emergence and leader effectiveness.

Successful leaders definitely have interests, abilities, and personality traits that are different
from those of the less effective leaders. Through many researches conducted in the last three
decades of the 20th century, a set of core traits of successful leaders have been identified. These
traits are not responsible solely to identify whether a person will be a successful leader or not, but
they are essentially seen as preconditions that endow people with leadership potential.

Among the core traits identified are:

 Achievement drive: High level of effort, high levels of ambition, energy and initiative
 Leadership motivation: an intense desire to lead others to reach shared goals
 Honesty and integrity: trustworthy, reliable, and open
 Self-confidence: Belief in one’s self, ideas, and ability
  Cognitive ability: Capable of exercising good judgment, strong analytical abilities, and
conceptually skilled
 Knowledge of business: Knowledge of industry and other technical matters
 Emotional Maturity: well adjusted, does not suffer from severe psychological disorders.
 Others: charisma, creativity and flexibility

Strengths/Advantages of Trait Theory

 It is naturally pleasing theory.

 It is valid as lot of research has validated the foundation and basis of the theory.
 It serves as a yardstick against which the leadership traits of an individual can be assessed.
 It gives a detailed knowledge and understanding of the leader element in the leadership
process.

Limitations of The Trait Theory

 There is bound to be some subjective judgment in determining who is regarded as a ‘good’ or

‘successful’ leader
 The list of possible traits tends to be very long. More than 100 different traits of successful
leaders in various leadership positions have been identified. These descriptions are simply
generalities.
 There is also a disagreement over which traits are the most important for an effective leader
 The model attempts to relate physical traits such as, height and weight, to effective leadership.
Most of these factors relate to situational factors. For example, a minimum weight and height
might be necessary to perform the tasks efficiently in a military leadership position. In business
organizations, these are not the requirements to be an effective leader.
 The theory is very complex

Implications of Trait Theory

The trait theory gives constructive information about leadership. It can be applied by people at all
levels in all types of organizations. Managers can utilize the information from the theory to evaluate
their position in the organization and to assess how their position can be made stronger in the
organization. They can get an in-depth understanding of their identity and the way they will affect
others in the organization. This theory makes the manager aware of their strengths and weaknesses
and thus they get an understanding of how they can develop their leadership qualities.

Conclusion

The traits approach gives rise to questions: whether leaders are born or made; and whether
leadership is an art or science. However, these are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Leadership
may be something of an art; it still requires the application of special skills and techniques. Even if
there are certain inborn qualities that make one a good leader, these natural talents need
encouragement and development. A person is not born with self-confidence. Self-confidence is
developed, honesty and integrity are a matter of personal choice, motivation to lead comes from
within the individual, and the knowledge of business can be acquired. While cognitive ability has its
origin partly in genes, it still needs to be developed. None of these ingredients are acquired overnight.

Transformational Leadership Theory

Creating high-performance workforce has become increasingly important and to do so business

leaders must be able to inspire organizational members to go beyond their task requirements. As a
result, new concepts of leadership have emerged - transformational leadership being one of them.

Transformational leadership may be found at all levels of the organization: teams, departments,
divisions, and organization as a whole. Such leaders are visionary, inspiring, daring, risk-takers, and
thoughtful thinkers. They have a charismatic appeal. But charisma alone is insufficient for changing
the way an organization operates. For bringing major changes, transformational leaders must exhibit
the following four factors:

Figure 1: Model of Transformational Leadership

Inspirational Motivation: The foundation of transformational leadership is the promotion of

consistent vision, mission, and a set of values to the members. Their vision is so compelling that
they know what they want from every interaction. Transformational leaders guide followers by
providing them with a sense of meaning and challenge. They work enthusiastically and
optimistically to foster the spirit of teamwork and commitment.

Intellectual Stimulation: Such leaders encourage their followers to be innovative and creative.

They encourage new ideas from their followers and never criticize them publicly for the mistakes
committed by them. The leaders focus on the “what” in problems and do not focus on the blaming
part of it. They have no hesitation in discarding an old practice set by them if it is found
ineffective.

Idealized Influence: They believe in the philosophy that a leader can influence followers only
when he practices what he preaches. The leaders act as role models that followers seek to
emulate. Such leaders always win the trust and respect of their followers through their action.
They typically place their followers needs over their own, sacrifice their personal gains for them,
ad demonstrate high standards of ethical conduct. The use of power by such leaders is aimed at
influencing them to strive for the common goals of the organization.
 Individualized Consideration: Leaders act as mentors to their followers and reward them for
creativity and innovation. The followers are treated differently according to their talents and
knowledge. They are empowered to make decisions and are always provided with the needed
support to implement their decisions.

The common examples of transformational leaders are Mahatma Gandhi and Obama.

Criticisms of Transformational Leadership Theory

 Transformational leadership makes use of impression management and therefore lends itself
to amoral self promotion by leaders
 The theory is very difficult to e trained or taught because it is a combination of many leadership
theories.
 Followers might be manipulated by leaders and there are chances that they lose more than
they gain.

Implications of Transformational Leadership Theory

The current environment characterized by uncertainty, global turbulence, and organizational instability
calls for transformational leadership to prevail at all levels of the organization. The followers of such
leaders demonstrate high levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and engage in
organizational citizenship behaviors. With such a devoted workforce, it will definitely be useful to
consider making efforts towards developing ways of transforming organization through leadership.

Transactional Leadership Theory

The transactional style of leadership was first described by Max Weber in 1947 and then by Bernard
Bass in 1981. This style is most often used by the managers. It focuses on the basic management
process of controlling, organizing, and short-term planning. The famous examples of leaders who
have used transactional technique include McCarthy and de Gaulle.

Transactional leadership involves motivating and directing followers primarily through

appealing to their own self-interest. The power of transactional leaders comes from their formal
authority and responsibility in the organization. The main goal of the follower is to obey the
instructions of the leader. The style can also be mentioned as a ‘telling style’.

The leader believes in motivating through a system of rewards and punishment. If a subordinate does
what is desired, a reward will follow, and if he does not go as per the wishes of the leader, a
punishment will follow. Here, the exchange between leader and follower takes place to achieve
routine performance goals.

These exchanges involve four dimensions:

Contingent Rewards: Transactional leaders link the goal to rewards, clarify expectations,

provide necessary resources, set mutually agreed upon goals, and provide various kinds of
rewards for successful performance. They set SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic,
 and timely) goals for their subordinates.

Active Management by Exception: Transactional leaders actively monitor the work of their

subordinates, watch for deviations from rules and standards and taking corrective action to
prevent mistakes.

Passive Management by Exception: Transactional leaders intervene only when standards are

not met or when the performance is not as per the expectations. They may even use punishment
as a response to unacceptable performance.

Laissez-faire: The leader provides an environment where the subordinates get many

opportunities to make decisions. The leader himself abdicates responsibilities and avoids making
decisions and therefore the group often lacks direction.

Assumptions of Transactional Theory

 Employees are motivated by reward and punishment.

 The subordinates have to obey the orders of the superior.
 The subordinates are not self-motivated. They have to be closely monitored and controlled to
get the work done from them.

Implications of Transactional Theory

The transactional leaders overemphasize detailed and short-term goals, and standard rules and
procedures. They do not make an effort to enhance followers’ creativity and generation of new ideas.
This kind of a leadership style may work well where the organizational problems are simple and
clearly defined. Such leaders tend to not reward or ignore ideas that do not fit with existing plans and
goals.

The transactional leaders are found to be quite effective in guiding efficiency decisions which are
aimed at cutting costs and improving productivity. The transactional leaders tend to be highly directive
and action oriented and their relationship with the followers tends to be transitory and not based on
emotional bonds.

The theory assumes that subordinates can be motivated by simple rewards. The only ‘transaction’
between the leader and the followers is the money which the followers receive for their compliance
and effort.

Difference between Transactional and Transformational Leaders

Transactional leadership Transformational Leadership

Leadership is responsive Leadership is proactive

Works within the organizational culture Work to change the organizational culture by
 implementing new ideas

Transactional leaders make employees Transformational leaders motivate and empower

achieve organizational objectives through employees to achieve company’s objectives by
rewards and punishment appealing to higher ideals and moral values

Motivates followers by appealing to their Motivates followers by encouraging them to transcend

own self-interest their own interests for those of the group or unit

Conclusion

The transactional style of leadership is viewed as insufficient, but not bad, in developing the
maximum leadership potential. It forms as the basis for more mature interactions but care should be
taken by leaders not to practice it exclusively, otherwise it will lead to the creation of an environment
permeated by position, power, perks, and politics.

Continuum of Leadership Behaviour

The leadership continuum was originally written in 1958 by Tannenbaum and Schmidt and was later
updated in the year 1973. Their work suggests a continuum of possible leadership behavior available
to a manager and along which many leadership styles may be placed. The continuum presents a
range of action related to the degree of authority used by the manager and to the area of freedom
available to non-managers in arriving at decisions. A broad range of leadership styles have been
depicted on the continuum between two extremes of autocratic and free rein (See figure 1). The left
side shows a style where control is maintained by a manager and the right side shows the release of
control. However, neither extreme is absolute and authority and freedom are never without their
limitations.

The Tannenbaum and Schmidt continuum can be related to McGregor’s supposition of Theory X and
Theory Y. Boss-centered leadership is towards theory X and subordinate-centered leadership is
towards theory Y.
Figure 1: Continuum Leadership Behaviuor.

A manager is characterized according to degree of control that is maintained by him. According to this
approach, four main styles of leadership have been identified:

 Tells: The manager identifies a problem, chooses a decision, and announces this to

subordinates. The subordinates are not a party to the decision making process and the
manager expects them to implement his decisions as soon as possible.
 Sells: The decision is chosen by the manager only but he understands that there will be some
amount of resistance from those faced with the decision and therefore makes efforts to
persuade them to accept it.
 Consults: Though the problem is identified by the manager, he does not take a final decision.
The problem is presented to the subordinates and the solutions are suggested by the
subordinates.
 Joins: The manager defines the limits within which the decision can be taken by the
subordinates and then makes the final decision along with the subordinates.

According to Tannenbaum and Schmidt, if one has to make a choice of the leadership style which is
practicable and desirable, then his answer will depend upon the following three factors:

 Forces in the Manager: The behavior of the leader is influenced by his personality,

background, knowledge, and experience. These forces include:
i. Value systems
ii. Confidence in subordinates
iii. Leadership inclinations
iv. Feelings of security in an uncertain situation
 Forces in the subordinate: The personality of the subordinates and their expectations from the
leader influences their behavior. The factors include:
i. Readiness to assume responsibility in decision-making
ii. Degree of tolerance for ambiguity
iii. Interest in the problem and feelings as to its importance
 iv. Strength of the needs for independence
v. Knowledge and experience to deal with the problem
vi. Understanding and identification with the goals of the organization

If these factors are on a positive side, then more freedom can be allowed to the subordinate by
the leader.

 Forces in the situation: The environmental and general situations also affect the leader’s
behavior. These include factors like:
i. Type of organization
ii. Group effectiveness
iii. Nature of the problem
iv. Time pressure

When the authors updated their work in1973, they suggested a new continuum of patterns of
leadership behavior. In this, the total area of freedom shared between managers and non-managers
is redefined constantly by interactions between them and the environmental forces. This pattern was,
however, more complex in comparison to the previous one.

Conclusion

According to Tannenbaum and Schmidt, successful leaders know which behavior is the most
appropriate at a particular time. They shape their behavior after a careful analysis of self, their
subordinates, organization, and environmental factors.

Different Types of Power

Power has been an important aspect of human civilization since time immemorial. Power might be
physical, political or social. In the context of business as well, power dynamics tend to influence
decisions and people transactions heavily. So defining power can be difficult as it is understood and
interpreted in several ways however power can definitely not be called a force which gets you what
you want. Power basically emanates from position or authority which can influence people both
positively and negatively.

For simplicity and understanding purposes power is usually classified into following categories:

1. Coercive Power- This kind of power involves the usage of threat to make people do what one
desires. In the organizational set up, it translates into threatening someone with transfer, firing,
demotions etc. it basically forces people to submit to one’s demand for the fear of losing
something.
2. Reward Power- As the name suggests, this type of power uses rewards, perks, new projects
or training opportunities, better roles and monetary benefits to influence people. However an
interesting aspect of this type of power is that, it is not powerful enough in itself, as decisions
related to rewards do not rest solely with the person promising them, because in organizations,
a lot of other people come into play like senior managers and board.
3. Legitimate Power- This power emanates from an official position held by someone, be it in an
organization, beurocracy or government etc. The duration of this power is short lived as a
 person can use it only till the time he/she holds that position, as well as, the scope of the
power is small as it is strictly defined by the position held.
4. Expert Power- This is a personal kind of power which owes its genesis to the skills and
expertise possessed by an individual, which is of higher quality and not easily available. In
such a situation, the person can exercise the power of knowledge to influence people. Since, it
is very person specific and skills can be enhanced with time; it has more credibility and
respect.
5. Referent Power- This is a power wielded by celebrities and film stars as they have huge
following amongst masses who like them, identify with them and follow them. Hence, they
exert lasting influence on a large number of people for a large number of decisions; like from
what car to buy to which candidate to choose for a higher office in the country.

So, power can be defined in a number of ways however what is important is the usage of the power
by people who possess it. Within the organizational context the power dynamics and equations need
to be carefully managed as they have a huge impact on the motivation and engagement level of
employees. It also defines the organization’s culture in general and people transactions within the
organization in particular. A very hierarchy and power driven organization finds it difficult to
accommodate new and innovative ideas, any change is vehemently refused, egos clash and lesser
opportunities are made available for the high performers, thus delaying organizational growth. On the
other hand, in an organization which is flat in structure, people are encouraged to innovate and
explore, thus bringing in new concepts and ideas to accelerate organizational growth and expansion.

The Great Man theory evolved around the mid 19th century. Even though no one was able to
identify with any scientific certainty, which human characteristic or combination of, were responsible
for identifying great leaders. Everyone recognized that just as the name suggests; only a man could
have the characteristic (s) of a great leader.

The Great Man theory assumes that the traits of leadership are intrinsic. That simply means that great
leaders are born...they are not made. This theory sees great leaders as those who are destined by
birth to become a leader. Furthermore, the belief was that great leaders will rise when confronted with
the appropriate situation. The theory was popularized by Thomas Carlyle, a writer and teacher. Just
like him, the Great Man theory was inspired by the study of influential heroes. In his book "On Heroes,
Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History", he compared a wide array of heroes.

In 1860, Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher disputed the great man theory by affirming that
these heroes are simply the product of their times and their actions the results of social conditions.
https://www.leadership-central.com/leadership-theories.html#axzz3WIVQOtyx

The trait leadership theory believes that people are either born or are made with certain qualities
that will make them excel in leadership roles. That is, certain qualities such as intelligence, sense of
responsibility, creativity and other values puts anyone in the shoes of a good leader. In fact,  Gordon
Allport, an American psychologist,"...identified almost 18,000 English personality-relevant terms"
(Matthews, Deary & Whiteman, 2003, p. 3).
The trait theory of leadership focused on analyzing mental, physical and social characteristic in order
to gain more understanding of what is the characteristic or the combination of characteristics that are
common among leaders.

There were many shortfalls with the trait leadership theory. However, from a psychology of
personalities approach, Gordon Allport's studies are among the first ones and have brought, for the
study of leadership, the behavioural approach.

 In the 1930s the field of Psychometrics was in its early years.

 Personality traits measurement weren't reliable across studies.
 Study samples were of low level managers
 Explanations weren't offered as to the relation between each characteristic and its impact on
leadership.
 The context of the leader wasn't considered.

Many studies have analyzed the traits among existing leaders in the hope of uncovering those
responsible for ones leadership abilities! In vain, the only characteristics that were identified among
these individuals were those that were slightly taller and slightly more intelligent!

Among the core traits identified are: 1. Achievement drive: High level of effort, high levels of ambition,
energy and initiative 2. Leadership motivation: an intense desire to lead others to reach shared goals
3. Honesty and integrity: trustworthy, reliable, and open 4. Self-confidence: Belief in one’s self, ideas,
and ability 5. Cognitive ability: Capable of exercising good judgment, strong analytical abilities &
conceptually skilled 6. Knowledge of business: Knowledge of industry and other technical matters 7.
Emotional Maturity: well adjusted, does not suffer from severe psychological disorders. 8. Others:
charisma, creativity and flexibility

Strengths of Trait Theory • It is naturally pleasing theory. • Researches have validated its foundation
and basis of the theory. • Serves as a yardstick against which the leadership traits of an individual can
be assessed. • It gives a detailed knowledge and understanding of the leader element in the
leadership process

Limitations of The Trait Theory • The theory is very complex • Presence of some subjective judgment
in determining who is regarded as a ‘good’ or ‘successful’ leader • The list of possible traits tends to
be very long. More than 100 different traits of successful leaders in various leadership positions have
been identified which are mostly generalities. • Disagreements over which traits are the most
important for an effective leader • Most of the physical traits such as, height and weight, to effective
leadership are related to situational factors

The Contingency Leadership theory argues that there is no single way of leading and that every
leadership style should be based on certain situations, which signifies that there are certain people
who perform at the maximum level in certain places; but at minimal performance when taken out of
their element.
To a certain extent contingency leadership theories are an extension of the trait theory, in the sense
that human traits are related to the situation in which the leaders exercise their leadership. It is
generally accepted within the contingency theories that leader are more likely to express their
leadership when they feel that their followers will be responsive.

Trait theory Trait theory tries to describe the types of behavior and personality tendencies associated
with effective leadership. This is probably the first academic theory of leadership. Thomas Carlyle
(1841) can be considered one of the pioneers of the trait theory, using such approach to identify the
talents, skills and physical characteristics of men who arose to power. Ronald Heifetz (1994) traces
the trait theory approach back to the nineteenth-century tradition of associating the history of society
to the history of great men.

Proponents of the trait approach usually list leadership qualities, assuming certain traits or
characteristics will tend to lead to effective leadership. Shelley Kirkpatrick and Edwin A. Locke (1991)
exemplify the trait theory. They argue that "key leader traits include: drive (a broad term which
includes achievement, motivation, ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative), leadership motivation
(the desire to lead but not to seek power as an end in itself), honesty, integrity, self-confidence (which
is associated with emotional stability), cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business. According to
their research, "there is less clear evidence for traits such as charisma, creativity and flexibility".

Although trait theory has an intuitive appeal, difficulties may arise in proving its tenets, and opponents
frequently challenge this approach. The "strongest" versions of trait theory see these "leadership
characteristics" as innate, and accordingly labels some people as "born leaders" due to their
psychological makeup. On this reading of the theory, leadership development involves identifying and
measuring leadership qualities, screening potential leaders from non-leaders, then training those with
potential.

Behavioral and style theory. In response to the criticism of the trait approach, theorists began to
research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of 'successful' leaders, determining
a behavior taxonomy and identifying broad leadership styles. David McClelland, for example, saw
leadership skills, not so much as a set of traits, but as a pattern of motives. He claimed that
successful leaders will tend to have a high need for power, a low need for affiliation, and a high level
of what he called activity inhibition (one might call it self-control).

The Managerial grid model theory Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939
the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated
the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate.

In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making, praise and
criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project management) according to
three styles: (1) authoritarian, (2) democratic and (3) laissez-faire. Authoritarian climates were
characterized by leaders who make decisions alone, demand strict compliance to his orders, and
dictate each step taken; future steps were uncertain to a large degree.

The leader is not necessarily hostile but is aloof from participation in work and commonly offers
personal praise and criticism for the work done. Democratic climates were characterized by collective
decision processes, assisted by the leader. Before accomplishing tasks, perspectives are gained from
group discussion and technical advice from a leader. Members are given choices and collectively
decide the division of labor. Praise and criticism in such an environment are objective, fact minded
and given by a group member without necessarily having participated extensively in the actual work.

Laissez faire climates gave freedom to the group for policy determination without any participation
from the leader. The leader remains uninvolved in work decisions unless asked, does not participate
in the division of labor, and very infrequently gives praise. The results seemed to confirm that the
democratic climate was preferred.

The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by
Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the
leaders' concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.

Situational and contingency theory Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait
theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of
great men as Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) said that the times produce the person and
not the other way around. This theory assumes that different situations call for different
characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader
exists.

According to the theory, "what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part
dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions." Some theorists started to
synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building upon the research of Lewin et.al, academics
began to normalize the descriptive models of leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and
identifying in which situations each style works better.

The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the
"hearts and minds" of their followers in the day-to-day management; the democratic leadership style
is more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally, the laissez faire leadership
style is appreciated by the degree of freedom it provides, but as the leader does not "take charge", he
can be perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems.

This theorist defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation, which is sometimes,
classified as contingency theory. Four contingency leadership theories appear more prominently in
the recent years: Fiedler contingency model, VroomYetton decision model, the path-goal theory, and
the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory.

The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader’s effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called
situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational
favorableness (later called "situational control"). The theory defined two types of leader: those who
tend to accomplish the task by developing good relationships with the group (relationship-oriented),
and those who have as their prime concern carrying out the task itself (task-oriented).

According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and relationship oriented leaders
can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member
relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a
"favorable situation". Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely
favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in situations
with intermediate favorability.

Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973) and later with Arthur Jago (1988), developed
a taxonomy for describing leadership situations, taxonomy that was used in a normative decision
model where leadership styles where connected to situational variables, defining which approach was
more suitable to which situation. This approach was novel because it supported the idea that the
same manager could rely on different group decision making approaches depending on the attributes
of each situation. This model was later referred as situational contingency theory. The path-goal
theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971) and was based on the expectancy
theory of Victor Vroom.

According to House, the essence of the theory is "the meta proposition that leaders, to be effective,
engage in behaviors that complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that
compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work
unit performance.

The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and
supportive; those are contingent to the environment factors and follower characteristics. In contrast to
the Fiedler contingency model, the path-goal model states that the four leadership behaviors are fluid,
and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on what the situation demands. The path-goal
model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the circumstances, but also
as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes the reciprocity behavior between the
leader and the followers.

The situational leadership model proposed by Hersey and Blanchard suggest four leadership-styles
and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits that the leadership-style
must match the appropriate level of follower ship-development. In this model, leadership behavior
becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers
as well.

Functional theory Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) is a
particularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute to
organizational or unit effectiveness.

This theory argues that the leader’s main job is to see that whatever is necessary to group needs is
taken care of; thus, a leader can be said to have done their job well when they have contributed to
group effectiveness and cohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman &
Walton, 1986). While functional leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership
(Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also been effectively applied to broader organizational
leadership as well (Zaccaro, 2001).

In summarizing literature on functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001),
Hackman and Walton (1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert,
Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed five broad functions a leader provides when promoting unit
effectiveness. These functions include: (1) environmental monitoring, (2) organizing subordinate
activities, (3) teaching and coaching subordinates, (4) motivating others, and (5) intervening actively
in the group’s work.

A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to facilitate these functions. In initial work identifying
leader behavior, Fleishman (Fleishman, 1953) observed that subordinates perceived their
supervisors’ behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to as consideration and initiating
structure.

Consideration includes behavior involved in fostering effective relationships. Examples of such

behavior would include showing concern for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards
others. Initiating structure involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on task
accomplishment. This could include role

clarification, setting performance standards, and holding subordinates accountable to those

standards.

Transactional and transformational theory The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given power
to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team’s performance. It gives the opportunity to
the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined
goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct and train
subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level and reward effectiveness when expected
outcome is reached. The transformational leader (Burns, 2008) motivates its team to be effective and
efficient. Communication is the base for goal achievement focusing the group on the final desired
outcome or goal attainment. This leader is highly visible and uses chain of command to get the job
done.

Transformational leaders focus on the big picture, needing to be surrounded by people who take care
of the details. The leader is always looking for ideas that move the organization to reach the
company’s vision.

DEFINITION OF LEADERSHIP

There are as many definitions of leadership as there are scholars who have attempted to analyze and
understand the concept, but there is no universally accepted definition ofit1. The word ‘leader’ stems
from the root leden meaning ‘to travel’ or ‘show the way’. It has been derived from the verb “to lead.”
This also implies “to advance,” “to expel,” “to stand out,” to guide and govern the actions of others. A
leader is a person who leads a group of followers.

“Leadership is fundamentally the ability to form and mould the attitudes and behaviour of other
individuals, whether informal or formal situation and that management relates to the formal task of
decision and command.”

3.5 Leadership Styles -

Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and
motivating people. Kurt Lewin (1939) led a group of researchers to identify different styles of
leadership. This early study has been very influential and established three major leadership styles.
The three major styles of leadership are:

• Authoritarian or autocratic

• Participative or democratic

• Delegative or Free Reign

Although good leaders use all three styles, with one of them normally dominant, bad leaders tend to
stick with one style.

Authoritarian or autocratic -

This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it
accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. Some of the appropriate conditions to use
it are when one has all the information to solve the problem, one is short on time, and ones
employees are well motivated.

Some people tend to think of this style as a vehicle for yelling, using demeaning language, and
leading by threats and abusing their power. This is not the authoritarian style, rather it is an abusive,
unprofessional style called bossing people around. It has no place in a leader's repertoire.

The authoritarian style should normally only be used on rare occasions. If one have the time and want
to gain more commitment and motivation from other employees, then one should use the participative
style.

Participative or democratic -

This style involves the leader including one or more employees in the decision making process
(determining what to do and how to do it). However, the leader maintains the final decision making
authority. Using this style is not a sign of weakness; rather it is a sign of strength that your employees
will respect.

This is normally used when one has part of the information, and ones employees have other parts.
Note that a leader is not expected to know everything -- this is why one employs k n o w l e d g e a b l
e and s k i l l f u l employees. Using this style is of mutual benefit -- it allows them to become part of
the team and allows one to make better decisions.

Delegative or Free Reign -

In this style, the leader allows the employees to make the decisions. However, the leader is still
responsible for the decisions that are made. This is used when employees are able to analyze the
situation and determine what needs to be done and how to do it. One cannot do everything! One
must set priorities and delegate certain tasks.
This is not a style to use so that one can blame others when things go wrong, rather this is a style to
be used when one fully trust and confidence in the people below one. Do not be afraid to use it,
however, use it wisely!

NOTE: This is also known as lais…sez faire (or lais…ser faire), which is the noninterference in the
affairs of others. [French : laissez, second person pl. imperative of laisser, to let, allow + faire, to do.]

me of the important leadership styles are as follows:

Autocratic leadership style: In this style of leadership, a leader has complete command and
hold over their employees/team. The team cannot put forward their views even if they are best
for the team’s or organizational interests. They cannot criticize or question the leader’s way of
getting things done. The leader himself gets the things done. The advantage of this style is that
it leads to speedy decision-making and greater productivity under leader’s supervision.
Drawbacks of this leadership style are that it leads to greater employee absenteeism and
turnover. This leadership style works only when the leader is the best in performing or when the
job is monotonous, unskilled and routine in nature or where the project is short-term and risky.

The Laissez Faire Leadership Style: Here, the leader totally trusts their employees/team to
perform the job themselves. He just concentrates on the intellectual/rational aspect of his work
and does not focus on the management aspect of his work. The team/employees are welcomed
to share their views and provide suggestions which are best for organizational interests. This
leadership style works only when the employees are skilled, loyal, experienced and intellectual.
Democrative/Participative leadership style: The leaders invite and encourage the team
members to play an important role in decision-making process, though the ultimate decision-
making power rests with the leader. The leader guides the employees on what to perform and
how to perform, while the employees communicate to the leader their experience and the
suggestions if any. The advantages of this leadership style are that it leads to satisfied, motivated
and more skilled employees. It leads to an optimistic work environment and also encourages
creativity. This leadership style has the only drawback that it is time-consuming.
Bureaucratic leadership: Here the leaders strictly adhere to the organizational rules and
policies. Also, they make sure that the employees/team also strictly follows the rules and
procedures. Promotions take place on the basis of employees’ ability to adhere to organizational
rules. This leadership style gradually develops over time. This leadership style is more suitable
when safe work conditions and quality are required. But this leadership style discourages
creativity and does not make employees self-contented.

Types of Leadership:
1. Bureaucratic Leadership:
Bureaucratic leadership follows a close set of standards. Everything is done in an exact, specific way
to ensure safety and/or accuracy. One will often find this leadership role in a situation where the work
environment is dangerous and specific sets of procedures are necessary to ensure safety.
A natural bureaucratic leader will tend to create detailed instructions for other members of a group.
The bureaucratic leadership style is based on following normative rules and adhering to lines of
authority

2. Charismatic leadership:
“Charismatic leadership emphasises primarily the magnetic personality and behaviour of leaders and
their effects on followers, organizations, and society. Sociologists, political historians, and political
scientists have widely accepted the theory of charismatic leadership originally advanced by Weber
(1947). Charisma is regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the
individual concerned is treated as a leader.

Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Lai Bahadur Shashtri, and Mother Teresa were
charismatic leaders. Charismatic leaders inspire via persona, reputation, and communications and
also show courage, competence, and idealistic vision.

Late President John F Kennedy and his look-alike Fmr. President Bill Clinton have often been called
“The most charismatic leaders of 20th century” Another good example would be Adolf Hitler, who
rose from a “Bohemian corporal” to “Herr Fuhrer” due to his ability to captivate people into following
him.

3. Visionary Leadership:
A visionary leader perceives challenges and growth opportunities before they happen, positioning
people to produce extraordinary results that make real contributions to life. Some of the visionary
leaders include – Dalai Lama (for his ability to incorporate new ideas into his traditional framework
while being a messenger for peace and enlightenment for the world), Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson
Mandela (for his courage and conviction and perseverance against all odds to free and unite people
for justice), and President Obama (for his ability to galvanize and inspire people with the vision that
we can transform our consciousness & world). The list is endless.

4. Strategic Leadership:
Strategic leadership refers to a manger’s potential to express a strategic vision for the organization,
and to motivate and persuade others to acquire that vision.

Strategic leadership can also be defined as utilizing strategy in the management of employees. It is
the potential to influence organizational members and to execute organizational change. Strategic
leaders create organizational structure, allocate resources and express strategic vision.

Thus, this type of leadership relates to the role of top management. Strategic leaders work in an
ambiguous environment on very difficult issues that influence and are influenced by occasions and
organizations external to their own.

The main objective of strategic leadership is strategic productivity. Another aim of strategic leadership
is to develop an environment in which employees forecast the organization’s needs in context of their
own job. Strategic leaders encourage the employees in an organization to follow their own ideas.
Strategic leaders make greater use of reward and incentive system for encouraging productive and
quality employees to show much better performance for their organization. Functional strategic
leadership is about inventiveness, perception, and planning to assist an individual in realizing his
objectives and goals.

5. Servant leadership:
The term “Servant Leadership” was coined by Robert K. Greenleaf in The Servant as Leader, an
essay that he first published in 1970. Leaders have a responsibility towards society and those who
are disadvantaged. People who want to help others best do this by leading them. The servant-leader
is servant first and leader next.

The servant leader serves others, rather than others serving the leader. Serving others thus comes
by helping them to achieve and improve. Famous examples of servant leaders include George
Washington (America), Gandhi (India), and Cesar Chavez (Venezuela).

6. Substitutes for Leadership:

The term has been brought to light by Kerr and Jermier in 1978. According to them there are aspects
of the work setting and the people involved that can reduce the need for a leader’s personal
involvement, because leadership is already provided from within. The term substitutes mean the
situation where leader behaviours are replaced by characteristics of subordinates, the task at hand,
and the organisation.

7. Transactional and Transformational Leadership:

Transactional leadership is based upon the assumptions that people are motivated by reward and
punishment (Rational Man), social systems work best with a clear chain of command, when people
have agreed to do a job, a part of the deal is that they cede all authority to their manager, and the
basic purpose of a subordinate is to do what their manager tells them to do.

The style of a transactional leader is that he works through creating clear structures whereby it is
made clear as to what is required of subordinates and the rewards that they get for following orders.
Punishments are not always mentioned, but they are also well- understood and formal systems of
discipline are usually in place.

To begin with, Transactional Leadership negotiates the contract whereby the subordinate is given a
salary and other benefits, and the company gets authority over the subordinate.

While the leader allocates work to a subordinate, they are considered to be fully responsible for it,
whether or not they have the resources or capability to carry it out.

When things go wrong, then the subordinate is considered to be personally at fault, and is punished
for their failure (just as they are rewarded for succeeding).

The leader often uses management by exception, working on the principle that if something is
operating to defined (and hence expected) performance then it does not need attention. Exceptions to
expectation require praise and reward for exceeding expectation, whilst some kind of corrective
action is applied for performance below expectation.
In management versus leadership spectrum, it is more towards the management end. Transactional
leadership is based in contingency, in that reward or punishment is contingent upon performance.

Transactional Leadership is still a popular approach with many managers, despite its limitation of
ignoring complex emotional factors and social values.

When the demand for a skill outstrips the supply, then Transactional Leadership often is insufficient.
Transformational leadership is the answer. It “recognizes and exploits an existing need or demand of
a potential follower… (And) looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and
engages the full person of the follower”

Transformational leadership is based upon the assumptions that people will follow a person who
inspires them, a person with vision and passion can achieve great things, and the way to get things
done is by injecting enthusiasm and energy.

These leaders are focused on the performance of group members, but also want each person to fulfil
his or her potential. Leaders with this style often have high ethical and moral standards.

Transformational Leadership starts with the development of a vision. This vision may be developed
by the leader, by the senior team or may emerge from a broad series of discussions. The next step is
to constantly sell the vision. While doing so, he must create trust and personal integrity. Along with
selling, the leader finds the way forward.

And finally, transformation leaders remain upfront and central during the action and visible –
constantly doing the rounds, listening, soothing and enthusing.

Transformational Leader seeks to infect and reinfect their followers with a high level of commitment to
the vision. They are people- oriented and believe that success comes first and last through deep and
sustained commitment.

Transformational Leaders are often charismatic, but are not as narcissistic as pure Charismatic
Leaders, who succeed through a belief in themselves rather than a belief in others.

Whilst the Transformational Leader seeks overtly to transform the organization, there is also a tacit
promise to followers that they also will be transformed in some way

One of the traps of Transformational Leadership is that passion and confidence can easily be
mistaken for truth and reality. Paradoxically, the energy that gets people going can also cause them
to give up.

Transformational Leaders also tend to see the big picture, but not the details, where the devil often
lurks. If they do not have people to take care of this level of information, then they are usually doomed
to fail.

Finally, transformational leaders, by definition, seek to transform. When the organization does not
need transforming and people are happy as they are, then such a leader will be frustrated.
It is important for the follower to understand the difference between Charismatic Leaders and
Transformational Leaders. They both are Inspiring and both have a Vision and both are not as caring
about people as followers might want them to be.

Charismatic Leaders are Inspiring in order to lead for their own purpose which may or may not benefit
the organization or people. “It’s all about me.” Transformational Leaders are inspiring in order to
support a shared vision of improvement for the organization and its people.

“It’s all about the organization.” The visions of transformational Leaders are practical and achievable
in order to improve organization. Transformational Leaders often “downsize” the work force to

improve the organization. Transformational Leaders often “downsize” the work force to improve
organizational efficiency for the good of the organization. On the other hand, Charismatic Leaders
abuse or fire persons who do not agree with them, or who question their vision or otherwise inhibit
their personal accomplishment as Leaders improve organizational efficiency for the good of the
organization.

On the other hand, Charismatic Leaders abuse or fire persons who do not agree with them, or who
question their vision or otherwise inhibit their personal accomplishment as Leaders
To conclude, transformational and transactional leadership are not opposite to each other, rather they
are complementary. A great transformational leader has to be a great transactional leader as well.

Leadership Styles:
Before we delve into describing leadership styles, it would be proper to distinguish between types of
leaders and styles of leadership. Type of leader is determined and identified by the “personality”
displayed by the leader in terms of core trait along with other traits and personal qualities being
displayed and used to gain the trust of the people and lead them to commit to undertake the major
task facing the organization.

On the other hand, “style” of leadership is defined and identified by the competencies and skills that
the leader “applies” to guide facilitate and support the people of the organization in their efforts to
accomplish the task.

Leadership style reflects a leader’s decision making behaviour. It is the result of the philosophy,
personality and experience of the leader. Leadership style refers to how decisions are made to
providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people.

Types of Leadership Styles

Three major leadership styles are:
1. Authoritarian or Autocratic

2. Participative or Democratic

3. Free-rein or Delegate

Authoritarian Style:
When the leaders tell their subordinates/followers at their own what work they want to get done, and
how – it is known as authoritarian or autocratic leadership style.
It works well if the leader is competent and knowledgeable enough to decide about each and every
thing. All decision-making powers are centralised in the leader, as with autocratic leaders. No
suggestions or initiatives from subordinates are acceptable.

Authoritarian or autocratic leadership does not mean using foul language and leading by threats. This
unprofessional style is known as “bossing people around”.

This style should be used only when the leader has all the information and is short of time and the
employees are well motivated. If the leader wants to gain greater commitment and motivate his
subordinates, then it should be used very rarely.

Participative Style:
In the authoritarian style the leader used to say – “I want you to….”, but in participative style the
leader says – “let us work together to solve this problem”.

A Participative Leader, rather than taking autocratic decisions, seeks to involve other people including
subordinates, peers, superiors and other stakeholders in the process.

Here the leader takes his subordinates into confidence about what to do and how to do, but the final
authority vests in the leader. This style can be divided into two – one, where leader consults, and two,
where decision is taken through consensus. Use of this style by a leader is not a sign of weakness.

It is the strength, your subordinates will respect. This style is used when the employees are
knowledgeable and skilful. This style is also known as consultative, empowerment, joint decision-
making, democratic leadership, Management by Objective (MBO) and power-sharing.

It helps in ascertaining and identifying future leaders among the subordinates. Also, it keeps a team’s
spirit and morale high, as the team members feel that their opinions are valued by their leader.

To illustrate, an advertising manager approaches his subordinates on how to promote a particular

product of a company. The team members brain storm over the issue, some suggest print media and
others suggest electronic media. The participative leader takes all these suggestions, and makes a
decision after weighing their pros and cons.
Free-rein Leadership Style:
In this style the leader says – “you take care of the problem”. Final responsibility always remains with
the leader. A free-rein leader does not lead, but leaves the group entirely to itself.

Such a leader allows maximum freedom to subordinates, i.e., they are given a free hand in deciding
their own policies and methods. It is used when the leader has full trust and confidence in the abilities
of his subordinates.

Since a leader cannot do everything. He prioritises the work and delegates certain tasks. This style
may be used but with caution. This style is also known as laissez faire (non-interference in the affairs
of others).

To illustrate, a manager has newly joined a firm. He is still learning how various things move in the
organization. In such a situation, he relies on the suggestions and opinions of his team members and
lets them do the things the way they are used to, till the time he is able to gain sufficient knowledge
and can suggest some more feasible changes.

Forces influencing the Styles:

1. Availability of time

2. Relationships between leader and subordinates (based on trust or on disrespect?)

3. The information is with whom (the leader, employees or both? If the leader knows the problem but
does not have all the information – use participative style)

4. How well the leader knows the task and employees well versed? (Use participative style if the
employees know the job well)

5. Internal Conflicts

6. Levels of stress

7. Type of task (structured, unstructured, complicated or simple?)

8. Systems and procedures (are they well established?)

9. If an employee is just learning the job – use authoritarian style, and if employees know more than
the leader about the job use free-rein style)

Good leaders should be able to master all the styles, to be a better leader. He must be able to use all
the styles depending upon the forces in operation among the leader, followers and the situation. If the
existing procedure is not working go in for authoritarian to establish a new one; if their ideas and input
are to be taken use participative and using delegative style while delegating the procedure to them for
execution. Normally one of styles will be dominant. But bad leaders tend to stick to one style only.
Before deciding which style to use, a leader should ask two questions, the first is to ask what my
leadership style is. This is to focus on what you enjoy, what you might be good at, what strengths and
weaknesses you have.

The second is to ask what leadership style is best for the people, team or organisation that I’m
leading. This is to focus on the needs of the situation, on the criteria for success, on the approach that
will bring about the maximum impact. Modern leadership demands both.

Managerial Grid:
The Managerial Grid, a behavioural leadership model, has been developed by Robert R. Blake and
Jane Mouton. This model originally identified five different leadership styles based on the concern for
people and the concern for production. The optimal leadership style in this model is based on Theory
Y of motivation.

The model is represented as a grid with concern for production (on the X-axis) and concern for
people (on the Y-axis); each axis ranges from 1 (Low) to 9 (High). The resulting leadership styles are
as follows:

a. The indifferent (also called as impoverished) style (1, 1):

Evade and elude or low production/low people. In this style, managers have low concern for both
people and production. This leader is mostly ineffective. Managers use this style to preserve job and
job seniority, protecting themselves by avoiding getting into trouble.

The main concern for the manager is not to be held responsible for any mistakes, which results in
less innovative decisions. The leader has no regard for either work or people.
b. The accommodating (also called as country club) style (1, 9):
Yield and comply or high people/low production. This style has a high concern for people and a low
concern for production. Managers using this style are more concerned about needs and feelings to
the security and comfort of the employees, in hopes that this will increase performance. The resulting
atmosphere is usually friendly, but not necessarily very productive due to lack of direction and control.

C. The dictatorial (also called as produce or perish) style (9, 1):

Control and dominate or high production/low people. With a high concern for production, and a low
concern for people, managers using this style find employee needs unimportant; they provide their
employees with money and expect performance in return.

Managers using this style also pressure their employees through rules and punishments to achieve
the company goals. This dictatorial style is based on Theory X of Douglas McGregor, and is
commonly applied by companies on the edge of real or perceived failure. This style is often used in
cases of crisis management.

d. The status quo (also called as middle-of-the-road) style (5, 5):

Balance and compromise or medium production/medium people. Managers using this style try to
balance between company goals and workers’ needs. By giving some concern to both people and
production, managers who use this style settle for average performance and often believe that this is
the most anyone can expect.

e. The sound (also called as team style) (9, 9):

Contribute and commit or high production/high people. In this style, high concern is paid both to
people and production. As suggested by the propositions of Theory Y, managers choosing to use this
style encourage teamwork and commitment among employees. This method relies heavily on making
employees feel themselves to be constructive parts of the company.

The grid has been evolving continuously. It has added two more leadership styles -the paternalistic
style: prescribe and guide (alternates between the (1,9) and (9,1) locations on the grid- managers
using this style praise and support, but discourage challenges to their thinking ) and Opportunistic
style: exploit and manipulate(does not have a fixed location on the grid- leaders adopt whichever
behaviour offers the greatest personal benefit). These styles were added to the grid theory before
1999.

Contemporary Leadership Issues:

Leadership is probably the single most subject in management getting the most attention of business
leaders. Some of the current issues relating to leadership development are as under;

1. Emotional Intelligence:
Should a leader have high Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and technical intelligence? Off course, they are
necessary. But more important is to possess Emotional Intelligence (EI).

The five components of EI are self-awareness, self- regulation, self-motivation, empathy and social
skills. Without EI one cannot be a great leader. Indira Nooyee has become President of PepsiCo
because she has shown EI.
2. Gender and Leadership:
Does gender make any difference to leadership? Victor vroom and others in their leader-participation
model under contingency theories of leadership find that women managers are significantly more
participative than their male counterparts.

The women managers show more interactive leadership, and thus, better rating from peers,
supervisors, and subordinates. Shikha Sharma of Yes bank and Chanda Kochar of ICICI bank are
examples of women managers and best leaders.

3. Cross-cultural Leadership:
Of late the corporations are appointing expatriates as the CEOs or managers. Very recently, GoAir of
Wadia Group has appointed Giorgio De Roni as its CEO, a former chief Revenue officer of Italian
airline, Air One.

Mahindra and Mahindra also as a matter of policy sends Indian managers to its foreign companies
and managers from foreign companies are put in India-based companies.

The purpose is to train them in different cultures to avoid any culture shock..Culture plays an
important role, and managers must understand the culture of subordinates.

Ratan Tata has rightly pointed a finger at British managers that they are not like Indian managers,
who stay till midnight, if the situation so warrants.

4. Building Trust:
Coca Cola and PepsiCo were accused of pesticides, Reliance Energy of soil pollution, Dow
Chemical’s of Bhopal tragedy, Satyam of accounting fraud, and Indian call centres of encroaching
upon privacy of clients.

All these incidents show the decresing public trust in corporate leaders. Trust involves integrity,
competence, consistency, loyalty, and openness. Trust is very critical to leadership. Knowledge and
information can be accesses by a leader only if he is trust worthy. What people talk about ethical
leadership is the same thing.