Introduction
“What makes a good leader?” This question has been debatable for centuries. Most people would define a good leader as influencers with the ability to captivate the interest of followers and motivate them towards a common goal. (Bolden, 2004). Which eventually begs the question: besides a standard definition, what exactly makes a good leader? Since the early 1800s, various theories like The Great Man Theory and Trait Theory were developed to counter that question. However even in the 21st century, where Contingency, Transactional and Transformational theories exists, there is still no fixed formula for making the cut of a good leader.
The Great Man Theory
The very first theory known to exist is the Great Man theory. This theory …show more content…
Different leadership style implemented in different situation could result in different level of effectiveness. House’s Path-Goal Theory is a good unit of measurement for effective leadership in various situations.
House’s Path-Goal Theory (House and Mitchell, 1975)
This theory focuses on both leader and follower identifying and achieving that common goal by eliminating any obstructions that would hinder the progression towards the goal. Factors such as degree of expectation, level of outcomes contributed to the study of House’s theory. This will, under a mutual leadership behaviour acceptable by both leaders and followers, lead to more effective performance which leads to more deserving incentives.
According to House, there are four kinds of leader behaviour:
Directive Leadership
There is a distinct and clear communication on the expectation of goal between leader and follower. This form of leadership is practiced when the goal is complexed and not of a fixed structure, and followers are …show more content…
He believed that both theories had no differences. It was not until 1985, where Bass argues that Transformational and Transactional leadership are on two different end of the spectrum. (Judge and Piccolo, 2004) This theory is based on the interaction of leaders to followers via transformational or transactional way of leadership. Different practices results in different outcome. (McLaurin, no date)
According to Bass, the transformational leadership consist of 4 dimensions; idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Being an idealised influence refers to the ability to visualised a future based on the value that organization upholds and the possibility of achieving goals. Inspirational motivation refers to the use of emotional and inspirational appeals to captivate follower’s motivation and translate that motivation into self-interest that is valuable to the team. Intellectual stimulation refers to the ability to enhance follower’s interest and awareness in certain difficulty and their ability to critically come up with solutions for that problem. Lastly, individualised consideration refers to the emotional expression of concern towards followers and taking the initiative to take account of their needs. (Rafferty and Griffin,
“What makes a good leader?” This question has been debatable for centuries. Most people would define a good leader as influencers with the ability to captivate the interest of followers and motivate them towards a common goal. (Bolden, 2004). Which eventually begs the question: besides a standard definition, what exactly makes a good leader? Since the early 1800s, various theories like The Great Man Theory and Trait Theory were developed to counter that question. However even in the 21st century, where Contingency, Transactional and Transformational theories exists, there is still no fixed formula for making the cut of a good leader.
The Great Man Theory
The very first theory known to exist is the Great Man theory. This theory …show more content…
Different leadership style implemented in different situation could result in different level of effectiveness. House’s Path-Goal Theory is a good unit of measurement for effective leadership in various situations.
House’s Path-Goal Theory (House and Mitchell, 1975)
This theory focuses on both leader and follower identifying and achieving that common goal by eliminating any obstructions that would hinder the progression towards the goal. Factors such as degree of expectation, level of outcomes contributed to the study of House’s theory. This will, under a mutual leadership behaviour acceptable by both leaders and followers, lead to more effective performance which leads to more deserving incentives.
According to House, there are four kinds of leader behaviour:
Directive Leadership
There is a distinct and clear communication on the expectation of goal between leader and follower. This form of leadership is practiced when the goal is complexed and not of a fixed structure, and followers are …show more content…
He believed that both theories had no differences. It was not until 1985, where Bass argues that Transformational and Transactional leadership are on two different end of the spectrum. (Judge and Piccolo, 2004) This theory is based on the interaction of leaders to followers via transformational or transactional way of leadership. Different practices results in different outcome. (McLaurin, no date)
According to Bass, the transformational leadership consist of 4 dimensions; idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Being an idealised influence refers to the ability to visualised a future based on the value that organization upholds and the possibility of achieving goals. Inspirational motivation refers to the use of emotional and inspirational appeals to captivate follower’s motivation and translate that motivation into self-interest that is valuable to the team. Intellectual stimulation refers to the ability to enhance follower’s interest and awareness in certain difficulty and their ability to critically come up with solutions for that problem. Lastly, individualised consideration refers to the emotional expression of concern towards followers and taking the initiative to take account of their needs. (Rafferty and Griffin,