There leaders rewarded or sanctioned follower behavior. The full

There are as many different views of
leadership as there are characteristic that distinguish leaders from
non-leaders. Early leadership theories focused on what qualities distinguished
between leaders and followers, while subsequent theories looked at other
variables such as situational factors and skill level. While many different
leadership theories have emerged, most can be classified as Great Man, Trait, Behavioral,
Situational, Contingency, Transactional and Transformational Theories.

The Full Range Leadership Model (FRLM)
was developed to broaden the range of leadership styles typically investigated
in the field. Its aim is to provide a comprehensive toolbox to the leader so
that he/she selects the leadership style or behavior that is most conducive to
the situation or context. The model is labeled “full range” to
challenge the leadership field to broaden its thinking about what constitutes a
much broader range of leadership styles than the paradigms of initiation of
structure and consideration Avolio & Bass (2004).  Bass cited in Antonakis et al., (2003) argued
that Full Range Leadership Model (FRLM) primarily focused on follower goal and
role clarification and the ways leaders rewarded or sanctioned follower
behavior.  The full range leadership
theory suggests three types of leadership behaviors, transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire leadership represented by nine distinct factors
Avolio & Bass (2004). Robbins (2005) has termed the model as cutting-edge
leadership theory. The theory suggests that the leaders who are charismatic and
motivate employees by inspiring them, consider them individually, and stimulate
their intellectual needs are transformational leaders. The other category of
leaders is transactional who specify tasks and monitor performance to achieve
the tasks by providing a reward system. A third category in this model is the
style of leadership which avoids involvement and is called laissez-faire
leadership style. These three leadership styles described as follows in sub

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Traits and Behavioral Theory

The trait
perspective was one of the earliest theories of leadership in the 1940’s which
assumes that great leaders are born with distinguished personality traits that
make them better suited for leadership and make them different from other
people or their followers. Stogdill’s (1948) survey of the leadership
literature came up with the most comprehensive list of traits. Stogdill’s
observation that leadership situations vary significantly and place different
demands on leaders, destroyed trait theory, leading to the emergence of
situational and behavioral approaches.

theories of leadership state that it is the behavior of leaders that
distinguishes them from their followers. It focuses on the actions of leaders
rather than on mental qualities or internal states with the belief that great
leaders are made, not born. According to this theory, people can learn to become
leaders through teaching and observation. Behavior theories examine whether the
leader is task oriented, people oriented, or both. Studies conducted at the
University of Michigan and Ohio State University in 1945, established two major
forms of leader behavior namely: employee-centered and production-centered
Hersey and Blanchard (1988).

Situational and Contingency Theory

Contingency theory is an approach to
leadership in which leadership effectiveness is determined by the interaction
between the leader’s personal characteristics and aspects of the situation.
Contingency theories are based on the assumption that the relationship between
leadership style and organizational outcomes is moderated by situational
factors related to the environment, and therefore the outcomes cannot be
predicted by leadership style, unless the situational variables are known Cheng
and Chan (2002).

Three models exist in this leadership
approach: Fiedler’s (1967) co-worker theory, House’s (1971) path-goal theory,
and Heresy and Blanchard (1969) situational leadership theory. From this
approach and the three models no leadership style is best in all situations.
Success depends upon a number of variables, including the leader’s preferred
style, the capabilities and behaviors of the followers, and aspects of the
situation. Effective leadership requires adapting one’s style of leadership to
situational factors, and control is contingent on three factors namely the
relationship between the leader and followers, the degree of the task structure
and the leaders’ authority, position or power.

Transformational and Transactional Theory

Over the past twenty five years, a large
body of research has emerged around transformational – transactional leadership
theory. Transactional theories focus on the role of supervision, organization
and group performance and they base leadership on a system of rewards and
punishments for meeting particular objectives. The type of transaction whether
a reward or discipline, depends on the performance of the employee Bass (1985).
As cited by Chan (2005) theorized the transactional leaders appeal to the
subordinates’ self-interests. Transactional leaders attempt to meet the current
needs of their subordinates through bargaining and exchanging. Both leaders and
followers focus on achieving the negotiated performance level. Transformational
theories focus upon the connections formed between leaders and followers.

Transformational leadership is the
leader’s ability to motivate followers to rise above their own personal goals
for the greater good of the organization Bass, (1985) as cited by Murphy &
Drodge, (2004). Bass (1985) theorized the transformational style of leadership
comes from deeply held personal values which cannot be negotiated and appeals
to the subordinates’ sense of moral obligation and values. Bass declared there
were four types of transformational leadership behavior, namely idealized
influence (charisma), inspirational motivation, individualized consideration,
and intellectual stimulation.