Ethics character and authentic transformational leadership behavior pdf

Technical Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences Available online at www.tjeas.com ©2014 TJEAS Journal-2014-4-3/180-188 ISSN 2051-0853 ©2014 TJEAS

New emerging leadership theories and styles

Abdollah Sajjadi

Faculty member of Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch of Tehran

masoud karimkhani, Mohammad Mehrpour

PhD student financial management

ABSTRACT :Leadership is one of the most discussed and important topics in the social sciences especially in organizational theory and management. Generally leadership is the process of influencing group activities towards the achievement of goals. A lot of researches have been conducted in this area .some researchers investigated individual characteristics such as demographics, skills and abilities, and personality traits, predict leadership effectiveness. Different theories, leadership styles and models have been propounded to provide explanations on the leadership phenomenon and to help leaders influence their followers towards achieving organizational goals. Today with the change in organizations and business environment the leadership styles and theories have been changed. In this paper, we review the new leadership theories and styles that are new emerging and are according to the need of the organizations. Leadership styles and theories have been investigated to get the deep understanding of the new trends and theories of the leadership to help the managers and organizations choose appropriate style of leadership. key words: new emerging styles, new theories, leadership, organization

INTRODUCTION

Leadership is one of the most discussed and important topics in the social sciences (Avolio, Sosik, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bass, 1990; Bennis, 2007). Khanka (2006) describes leadership generally as a process of influencing group activities towards the achievement of goals. A lot of researches have been conducted in this area .some researchers investigated individual characteristics such as demographics, skills and abilities, and personality traits, predict leadership effectiveness (e.g., Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004; Mumford,Campion, & Morgeson, 2007). Leadership has been studied in a variety of disciplinary fields from psychology, military, education, management to healthcare, and more recently in nursing. Yet within these fields, the most common conceptualizations of leadership include four elements as central to their definition: leadership (a) is a process, (b) entails influence, (c) occurs within a group setting or context, and (d) involves achieving goals that reflect a common vision (Hunt, 2004; Northouse, 2004; Shaw, 2007; Shortell and Kaluzny, 2006). Different theories, leadership styles and models have been propounded to provide explanations on the leadership phenomenon and to help leaders influence their followers towards achieving organizational goals. Various theories of leadership, which include trait theory, behavioral theory, contingency theory, path-goal leadership theory, situational leadership theory, transactional leadership theory, and transformational leadership theory (Andriessen & Drenth, 1998; Boddy & Paton, 1998; Hodgetts& Luthans, 2000; Khanka, 2006; Ebert& Griffin, 2009) provide important insights about the nature of effective leadership (Chatterjee, Small, & Minkes, 1999; Yukl, 1999). Today with the change in organizations and business environment the leadership styles and theories have been changed. In this paper, we review the new leadership theories and styles that are new emerging and are according to the needs of the organizations.

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 4 (3): 180-188, 2014

181

LEADERSHIP THEORIES AND STYLES

A great deal of scholarship over the past 30 years has been devoted to the analysis and comparison of different leadership styles. There are different leadership styles . Much of this work has dealt with transactional (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003), transformational (Bass et al., 2003), and charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1987), whereas more recent work is beginning to address styles and approaches such as authentic (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), servant (Van Dierendonck, 2011), and responsible leadership (Waldman &Galvin, 2008). Hodgetts and Luthans (2000) identify three leadership styles, comprising of authoritarian leadership, participative leadership and paternalistic leadership. Whereas Khanka (2006) also identity three leadership styles; autocratic or authoritative style, democratic or participative style, and laissez-faire or free-rein style. The difference between the two classifications is the replacement of paternalistic leadership in the former with free-rain style in the later classification. Ahmed (2010) combines the two classes to make four leadership styles; autocratic styles, democratic style, laissez faire style, and paternalistic style. These styles connote different leadership behaviors to achieve goals and keep the team. The early leadership theories are basically, trait theory and behavioral theories. Early studies believed that leaders had some peculiar set of qualities or traits that distinguished them from their peers, rather than the situation in which the leader worked (Boddy & Paton 1998; Ebert &Griffin, 2009) Some of the recent leadership theories include contingency/situational theories, charismatic theories, transactional theories, and transformational theories. Most of these theories were derived from the early leadership theories (Boddy& Paton, 1998; Andriessen&Drenth, 1998; Khanka, 2006;Ebert & Griffin, 2009). Commonly used leadership theories including transformational leadership and more recently, emotionally intelligent leadership have guided leadership research and interventions, presumably due to their emphasis on relationships as the foundation for effecting positive change or outcomes (Hibberd and Smith, 2006). relationally focused leadership styles include transformational leadership which motivates others to do more than they originally intended and often more than they thought possible (Bass and Avolio, 1994), individualized consideration, which focuses on understanding the needs of each follower and works continuously to get them to develop to their full potential (Avolio et al., 1999), and resonant leadership that inspires, coaches, develops and includes others even in the face of adversity (Boyatzis and McKee,2005; Goleman et al., 2002). The task focused (non-relationally focused) leadership styles are primarily management by exception, laissez-faire, transactional leadership, dissonant leadership styles, and instrumental leadership. Active Management-by- Exception focuses on monitoring task execution for any problems that might arise and correcting those problems to maintain current performance levels (Avolio,et al., 1999). Laissez-faire styles are similar in that they are conceptualized as passive avoidance of issues, decision making and accountability (Avolio et al., 1999). Passive– avoidant leadership tends to react only after problems have become serious to take corrective action, and often avoids making any decisions at all (Avolio et al., 1999). Transactional leadership emphasize the transaction or exchange that takes place among leaders, colleagues and followers to accomplish the work (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Dissonant leadership is characterized by pacesetting and commanding styles that undermine the emotional foundations required to support and promote staff success (Goleman et al., 2002). Instrumental leadership focuses on the strategic and task-oriented developmental functions of leaders (Antonakis and House, 2002). Initiating structure referred to the degree to which leaders articulate clear role expectations, create well defined communication channels and focus on tasks and attaining goals (Judge et al., 2004).in the following section some recent leadership theories are discussed with more details. Contingency/Situational theories Contingency/Situational theories draw attention to the situation in determining the most appropriate leadership style and assume that appropriate behavior of a leader varies from one situation to another (Ebert and Griffin, 2009). Charismatic leadership Charismatic leadership theories focus on how leaders are seen through the eyes of their followers. Charismatic leadership is a form of influence based on the leader‘s charisma, a form of interpersonal attraction that inspired support and acceptance (Ebert and Griffin, 2009).

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 4 (3): 180-188, 2014

182

Transactional leadership Transactional theories of leadership entails managing the transactions between the Organization and its members so that the organizational objectives are achieved (Khanka, 2006). Transactional leadership is said to be essentially the same as management in that it involves routine, regimented activities (Ebert and Griffin, 2009) Transformational Leadership According to Hodgetts and Luttans (2000), transformational leaders are visionary agents with a mission who are capable of motivating their followers to accept new goals and new ways of doing things. Over the last 30 years, transformational leadership has become one of the most prominent theories of organizational behavior. There are different schools of leadership theory in the literature, in which transformational leadership can be found amongst the contemporary perspectives (Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004; Turner and Mu¨ller, 2005). Transformational leadership has been defined by the ability of the leader to create a shared vision and a strong identification with team members that is based on more than just rewarding completion of project activities (Bass, 1985; Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004) Through this shared vision, the transformational leader is then able to mobilize commitment and transcendent performance of both the individual and the project as a whole. Such leaders are said to show charisma, as a means of motivating others to integrate into the collective vision, and a strong consideration of and support for individual team member needs (Keegan and Den Hartog, 2004). Developing connections between the leader and individual team members is also thought to help individuals achieve their full potential. As stated Parker and Craig (2008, p. 173) ―. it is reasonable to surmise that in a project, transformational leadership can turn an ensemble of skilled, varied personnel into a multi-skilled, creative and synergized force accomplishing project goals with alacrity.‖ In contrast to leadership based on individual gain and the exchange of rewards for effort, transformational leaders direct and inspire employee effort by raising their awareness of the importance of organizational values and outcomes. In doing so, such leaders activate the higher-order needs of their employees and encourage them to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the organization and its clientele. Research not only has validated the existence of transformational leadership but also consistently has linked the practice of these transformational leadership behaviors with employee performance and satisfaction (Bass and Riggio 2006; Dumdum,Lowe, and Avolio 2002; Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang 2008). Given its emphasis on the importance of an organization‘s mission and outcomes, transformational leadership may be particularly useful in public and nonprofit organizations; as such organizations have strong service- and community-oriented missions. In fact, consistent with transformational leadership‘s emphasis on the motivating potential of organization mission, a key tenet of the literature on public employee motivation (Paarlberg and Perry 2007;Wright 2007) is that ―the more engaging, attractive and worthwhile the mission is to people, the more the agency will be able to attract support from those people, to attract some of them to join the agency, and to motivate them to perform well in the agency‖ (Rainey and Steinbauer 1999, 16). Transformational leaders use idealized influence, inspiration and motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration to achieve superior results (Avolio et al., 1999), and resonant styles are based on the emotional intelligence of the leaders (Boyatzis and McKee, 2005). implicit leadership theories

Implicit theories represent a special form of cognitive schemata that—in analogy to scientific theories—are seen as a cognitive network of everyday concepts. With the help of such naive models people try to explain and predict their own behavior and that of others as well as derive their action strategies. General definitions of implicit leadership theories imply that they are cognitive structures containing the traits and behaviors of leaders (Kenney, Schwartz-Kenney, &Blascovich, 1996). Examples for studies into implicit leadership theories include research focusing on the influence of performance information on the perception of leadership, thereby examining the social construction of leadership (see Lord & Maher,1991, for an overview); the content of implicit leadership theories (e.g., Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994); the effect of implicit leadership theories on the perception of a

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 4 (3): 180-188, 2014

183

specific leader (e.g., Ensaria & Murphy, 2003; Shamir, 1992); and the effect of a fit between implicit leadership theories and actual leader behavior (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Nye,2005; Nye & Forsyth, 1991). Leadership theorists have identified additional behavioral leadership styles that may potentially influence organizational performance on several dimensions. Among these are the authentic leadership approach and servant, spiritual, ethical, moral, responsible, and entrepreneurial styles. Servant leadership Servant leaders have been described as those who place the good of those being led over the self-interest of the leader. Such leaders are said to value and develop people, build community, and share power and status for the common good of each individual, the organization, and those served by the organization (Smith et al.,2004). They also lead by setting an example for others to follow and place emphasis on strong interpersonal relationships (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & enderson, 2008). This style may also be characterized by an altruistic mission to serve others and empathic sensitivity to their needs (Searle &Barbuto, 2011). This form of leadership also addresses the importance of multiple stakeholders. A conceptual model of servant leadership suggests that there are six main characteristics of servant leaders—empowering and developing people, humility, authenticity, interpersonal acceptance, providing direction, and stewardship (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Nonetheless, there may be definitional problems with the construct (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). servant leaders are more inclined toward egalitarianism and to create organizational cultures that are focused on the personal growth of the members, which has been referred to as a spiritual generative culture (Smith et al., 2004). A distinction between servant and transformational leadership is that the former is proposed to be more effective in stable environments that allow a developmental approach, whereas transformational leadership is needed in more dynamic environments (Smith et al., 2004). Sivro (2012) suggested that the role of servant leadership in high-performance organizations showed differential influence on intermediate outcomes such as openness and action orientation, long-term orientation, and workforce quality, depending on whether the leader was in a formal or direct role. At the level of teams, a positive association has also been found between servant leadership and perceived team effectiveness (Irving & Longbotham, 2007). Responsible leadership A particularly relevant leadership style that has emerged from the ethics literature is that of the responsible leader. It has been argued that responsible leadership is distinct from other leadership constructs in that it draws on discourse ethics theory and views leadership as a leader–stakeholder interaction. Moreover, it does not view leadership effectiveness in terms of financial performance as a driver of leadership behavior, but rather as directed toward gaining legitimate solutions for all affected parties (Voegtlin, Patzer, & Scherer, 2012). A central theme of such leadership is the obligation to balance the needs of multiple stakeholders (Waldman & Galvin, 2008) Authentic leadership

The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in scholarly interest in the topic of authentic leadership. In point view of George (2003, p. 12) Authentic leadership is an approach or root construct that can underlie other leadership styles. As such it can enable the effectiveness of the positive leadership styles (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Organizational behavior researchers have identified four dimensions that make up the authentic leadership approach. These include self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing (i.e., evaluating all pertinent data before making a decision; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). It has been proposed that authentic leadership promotes trusting relationships with followers (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, &Walumbwa, 2005). Importantly, a measure of authentic leadership that incorporates these dimensions has been shown to have discriminant validity relative to related leadership constructs such as transformational and ethical leadership (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011;Walumbwa et al., 2008). Authentic leadership is strongly linked with moral leadership (Ladkin & Taylor, 2010) and other values based frameworks, such as ethical and spiritual leadership.

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 4 (3): 180-188, 2014

184

Authentic leadership has also been described as being able to incorporate ―transformational, charismatic, servant, spiritual or other forms of leadership‖ (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 329). Authentic leadership is positively related to intermediate outcomes, such as organizational citizenship behaviors, follower satisfaction (Walumbwa et al, 2008), organizational commitment (Walumbwa et al.,2008), and trust in leadership (Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang, &Avey, 2009; Walumbwa et al., 2008; C. A. Wong & Cummings,2009).,Authentic leaders use their natural abilities, but they also recognize their shortcomings, and work hard to overcome them. They lead with purpose, meaning, and values. They build enduring relationships with people. Others follow them because they know where they stand. They are consistent and self-disciplined. When their principles are tested, they refuse to compromise. Authentic leaders are dedicated to developing themselves because they know that becoming a leader takes a lifetime of personal growth. Walumbwa et al. (2008, p. 94) defines authentic leadership as a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development.‖ Authentic leadership is ―a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self- awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self- development‖ (Avolio &Gardner, 2005, p. 321). ―Goldman and Kernis (2002) described relational authenticity as ‗involving valuing and achieving openness and truthfulness in one's close relationships …and the development of mutual intimacy and trust‘ (p. 19). Based on this definition, Ilies et al. (2005) proposed that leaders with a relational authenticitywill strive for open and truthful relationships with their followers and such orientation will have a number of positive outcomes. Authentic leaders display four types of behaviors. These include balanced processing, internalized moral perspective, relational transparency, and self-awareness‖ (p. 902; from Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005; Gardner et al., 2005a, 2005b; Ilies et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Wong et al. (2010) indicates that Authentic leadership focuses on the positive role modeling of honesty, integrity and high ethical standards in the development of leader–follower relationships‖(p. 890). Neo-charismatic leadership The term neo-charismatic leadership approaches was coined by House and Aditya (1997) to describe a newly emerging leadership paradigm that encompasses theories of charismatic, transformational, and visionary leadership. As previously noted, Bass and Steidlmeier's (1999) discussion of authentic transformational leadership served as a stimulus for interest in the construct of AL. Similarly, uthans and Avolio (2003) readily acknowledged the influence of transformational leadership on their conception of AL. As the field has matured, sharper distinctions between authentic and transformational leadership have been drawn. For example, Avolio and Gardner (2005) describe AL as a root construct that serves as the basis for all forms of positive leadership. They go on to assert that AL ―can incorporate transformational, charismatic, servant, spiritual or other forms of leadership. However, in contrast to transformational leadership in particular, authentic leadership may or may not be charismatic‖ (p. 329). Furthermore, Walumbwa and colleagues (2008) demonstrated that the ALQ accounts for variance beyond measures of transformational (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, MLQ, Form 5x; Bass & Avolio, 1993) and ethical leadership (Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005), thereby providing evidence for the discriminant validity of the AL construct. As such, perhaps it is not surprising that relatively few (eight) AL Publications identify neo-charismatic leadership theories as foundational, despite the early association of the constructs. Ethical leadership Ethical leadership is defined as ‗‗the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making‘‘ (Brown, Trevi ٌ o, & Harrison, 2005, p. 120). In proposing the theory of ethical leadership, Brown et al. (2005) suggested that ethical leadership behavior plays an important role in promoting enhanced employee attitudes and behaviors. In support, prior work has linked ethical leadership to pro social and negatively deviant behaviors (e.g., Avey, Palanski, & Walumbwa, 2010)

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 4 (3): 180-188, 2014

185

Distributed leadership Distributed leadership has become a popular ‗post-heroic‘ (Badaracco 2001) representation of leadership which has encouraged a shift in focus from the attributes and behaviors of individual ‗leaders‘ (as promoted within traditional trait, situational, style and transformational theories of leadership – (see Northouse 2007 for a review) to a more systemic perspective, whereby ‗leadership‘ is conceived of as a collective social process emerging through the interactions of multiple actors (Uhl-Bien 2006). From this perspective, it is argued: Distributed leadership is not something ‗done‘ by an individual ‗to‘ others, or a set of individual actions through which people contribute to a group or organization . . . [it] is a group activity that works through and within relationships, rather than individual action. (Bennett et al. 2003, p. 3) In a review of the literature on DL (including the associated concepts of ‗delegated‘, ‗democratic‘, and ‗dispersed‘ leadership), though, Bennett et al. (2003, p. 7) did manage to identify three premises that seem to be shared by most authors: 1. ‗Leadership is an emerging property of a group or network of interacting individuals‘ 2. ‗There is openness to the boundaries of leadership‘ 3. ‗Varieties of expertise are distributed across the many, not the few.‘ Spillane and Diamond (2007a, pp. 149–152) dispel four common ‗myths of distributed leadership‘ as follows: (1) that DL is a blueprint for leadership and management;(2) that DL negates the role of school principals (or CEOs elsewhere); (3) that from a distributed perspective, everyone is a leader; and (4) that DL is only about collaborative situations. Entrepreneurial leadership Entrepreneurial leadership in a business gains its formal legitimization from the leader‘s status, profession, and leadership capabilities (Guo, 2009). However, while the position of the leader legitimizes entrepreneurial leadership, this kind of leadership cannot be based solely on power and hierarchy. Instead of a hierarchical chain of command and control, entrepreneurial leadership is based on individual skills such as achieving goals innovatively and collecting the requisite resources (Skodvin and Andresen, 2006). Entrepreneurial leaders are able to recognize opportunities and evaluate them through increasing the flow of information. (Hansson and Mønsted,2008). This can manifest itself in the form of entrepreneurial vision, which seems to lead to performance and growth when strategy mediates their relationship. (Ruvio et al.,2010). In this way, through risk taking and initiatives, entrepreneurial leadership aims to create innovations, (D‘Intino et al., 2008).Entrepreneurial leaders are able to work in any organization and in any task, by leading individuals and teams entrepreneurially, and by managing resources productively (Young, 1991). Leaders with entrepreneurial skills and characteristics may possess what it takes to become an entrepreneurial leader. Being an entrepreneurial leader as an employed manager is close to intrapreneurship and being an intrapreneur. These two concepts may overlap somewhat since intrapreneurs are frequently seen in leading positions in entrepreneurial projects and in new initiatives in companies. There is a need to distinguish two categories of entrepreneurial leadership: entrepreneurs who are leaders and leaders who possess an entrepreneurial leadership style without being entrepreneurs themselves. Any individual with an entrepreneurial leadership style in any organization can be deemed an entrepreneurial leader. Chen (2007) states, that risk-taking, pro-activeness, and innovativeness characterize entrepreneurial leadership when it is defined as entrepreneurs‘ way of leading in new ventures. Entrepreneurial leadership is needed in coping with uncertainty. Entrepreneurs in different contexts, such as industry, business ideas, and culture, are able to create a leadership style which enables them to survive in a situation where resources are scarce. Offering encouragement through one‘s entrepreneurial vision in daily routines is typical of an entrepreneur‘s way of leading an owner-managed business (Witt, 1998). Encouraging and motivating others, and showing an example of ―how to do it‖ is typical of the leadership shown by entrepreneurs. In small businesses, entrepreneurial leadership is often rooted in a single decision maker. Entrepreneurs influence the business culture and its characteristics by their daily operational actions. According to Gupta et al. (2004, p. 254), ―Both entrepreneurial leadership and team- oriented leadership require an ability to be effective at bargaining and team building.

CONCLUSIONS

Different theories, leadership styles and models have been propounded to provide explanations on the leadership phenomenon and to help leaders influence their followers towards achieving organizational goals. Today with the

Tech J Engin & App Sci., 4 (3): 180-188, 2014

186

change in organizations and business environment, the leadership styles and theories have been changed. In this paper, we review the new leadership theories and styles that are new emerging and are according to the need of the organizations. A great deal of scholarship over the past 30 years has been devoted to the analysis and comparison of different leadership styles. There are different leadership styles . Much of this work has dealt with transactional (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003), transformational (Bass et al., 2003), and charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1987), whereas more recent work is beginning to address styles and approaches such as authentic (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), servant (Van Dierendonck, 2011), responsible leadership (Waldman &Galvin, 2008) and entrepreneurial leadership (Skodvin and Andresen, 2006).,Ethical leadership(Brown, Trevi ٌ o, & Harrison, 2005, p. 120). In this paper we investigated these leadership theories and styles. In the todays dynamic and changing business and organizational environment each of these styles and theories of leadership tries to help organizations get their goals and become competitive and successful. Managers and leaders of organization should choose the appropriate leadership style according to the organization conditions and needs to survive and be successful.