LEADERSHIP THEORIES AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE NIGERIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM BY MAUREEN MARRIS DINZEI

THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE NIGERIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 

BY:  MAUREEN MARRIS DINZEI

dinzeimaureen@gmail.com

Introduction

Leadership can be defined comprehensively as an art or process by which a member of a group or organization perseveres, inspires influences the attitudes, behaviors and actions of others and direct their activities so that the group or organization members work willingly, co-operatively and enthusiastically toward the accomplishment of goals and a new improved position. (Perotomode, 2012). This definition implies that the boss may not necessarily be the leader. This, however, does not preclude the fact that the boss who is the head by virtue of the position he or she occupies cannot transit to become a leader. It points, though to one basic fact of life, that the leader could be a person who does not necessarily occupy a position of pioneer or authority. Such a person may be regarded as the informal leader in the organization.

            Leadership theories date back 100 years. Through time, experience and various settings, theories evolved and represented the human side of the construct, bringing relationships, behavior, and emotion into perspective. In this article, four leadership theories (The Transformational leadership theory, the Behavioural leadership theory, the Situational leadership theory and the Traits leadership theory) were discussed and how they can be applied in today’s administrative system.

  

THE TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY

A relatively new leadership style, identified as transformational leadership, developed through the initial work of Downton (1973). Five years later Burns (1978) looked at the relationship between leaders and followers, focusing on followers’ motives. Bass (1985) established a scale, or continuum, exhibiting the progression from a lazy (or laissez faire) leader to a transactional leader to a transformational leader, believing that leaders are first transactional and evolve to become transformational leaders.

Robbins and Judge (2017) described transactional leaders as those designated in authority positions who motivate through clear goals, defined roles and following specific directions or

requirements; in contrast, they defined transformational leaders as “leaders who inspire followers to transcend their own self-interests and who are capable of having a profound and extraordinary effect on followers” (p. 395). It is plausible that a leader will develop over time and will typically begin with a transactional style (as dictated by management), providing specific orders for a given task. Over time, the leader begins to learn ways to inspire followers, rather than provide direction. From a theoretical perspective, the leadership styles at the bottom (or far left) of the continuum (e.g., laissez faire – productive with minimal motivation, and punishment passive – unlikely to punish) are not effective in stimulating either follower/group performance or productivity or positive psychosocial responses in the followers/group. The two leadership approaches identified as transactional appear higher on the continuum than do laissez faire and punishment passive and labeled as punishment active and reward contingent. Leaders who establish a clear and consistent set of standards or criteria for the group/followers characterize both leadership approaches. Those individuals (followers/group) who meet the expected standards either avoid punishment and/or achieve the promised rewards. From a theoretical and research-based perspective, these transactional approaches as exhibited by a leader in an achievement setting are associated with high productivity and positive achievement outcomes on the part of the followers. Nevertheless, a more transformational style (if based on punishment active and/or reward contingent) can enhance not only followers’ productivity but also their motivation, positive psychosocial feelings, and high group cohesion. Therefore, in an ideal achievement context, a leader would exhibit both the behaviors/characteristics of a positive transactional approach but also exhibit transformational leadership behaviors.

THE USEFULNESS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP TO ADMINISTRATORS

From a business perspective, Jones and George (2017) provided three manners in which managers can transform subordinates:

1. Transformational managers make subordinates aware of how important their jobs are for the organization and how necessary it is for them to perform those jobs as best as they can so the organization can attain its goals.

2. Transformational managers make their subordinates aware of the subordinates’ own needs for personal growth, development, and accomplishment.

3. Transformational managers motivate their subordinates to work for the good of the organization as a whole.

Moreover, the following studies demonstrated how transformational leaders further motivate and inspire their subordinates. For example, Day et al. (2016) integrated other aspects to consider with regard to transformational leadership, such as promoting a greater sense of culture and establishing structure. While their research was primarily in the education system, their results demonstrated support for these components.

        Wang et al. (2011) defined transformational leadership as selfless, maintaining that these leaders sought results for the group, rather than supporting any self-interest. In doing so, they provided support for an increase in intrinsic follower confidence levels that often delivered results surpassing expectations. Additional support from their study demonstrated from a variety of managerial standpoints, including the ability to predict performance outcomes from various transformational techniques, and train motivated professionals to become transformational leaders.

Since the advent of the transformational leadership theory some 30-40 years ago, a plethora of research studies conducted to examine the applicability of its tenants to a variety of achievement-oriented settings. In the next section of this paper, the overall results of this research summarized for three particular achievement settings that include business/marketplace, education, and competitive sport. Within each section, the results of either recent major content review studies, meta-analyses or large-scale multi-site studies used provide a summary of the research work to date.

THE BEHAVIOURAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

The behavioural leadership theory also known as the functional theory tried to determine what effective leaders do – how they delegate tasks, how they communicate with and try to motivate their followers or employees, how they carry out their tasks, and so on. Unlike the trait theory which concentrated on what leaders are, the behavioural theory  concentrates on what leaders do. The behavioural researchers sought to find out what the leaders do, how they lead, how they  motivate subordinates, how they communicate, and so on. They concentrated on leadership functions and styles.

PROPONENTS OF BEHAVIOURAL LEADERSHIP THEORY

1. Iowa University Leadership studies, late 1930s, Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippit & Ralph White Authoritarian, democratic and laissez Democratic style.

2. Ohio state University leadership studies, 1945, E. A. Fleishman, E. F. Harris and H. E. Burtt Initiating structure (directive type) and consideration (participative type)

A combination of high initiating structure and high consideration

3. Michigan University leadership studies, 1946, Resins Likert and his Associates

Production –centred and employee –centred Employee –centred leadership

4. Four systems of management leadership 1961, Rensis Likert. System 1(Exploitative Authoritative) System 2 (Benevolent –authoritative) System 4 (Participative group or democratic style)

5. Managerial Grid, 1964, Robert Blake and Jane Mouton.System 3 (consultative), System 4 (participative group or democratic). Five styles of leadership, i.e

a. Impoverished low concern for production and for people

b. Country club low concern for production and high concern for people

c. Task high concern for production and low concern for people

d. Middle of the road moderate concern for production and for people

e. Team high concern for production and for people Team leadership high concern for both production & people.

HOW TO USE BEHAVIOURAL THEORIES TO RESOLVE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS

.Practical leadership is a generic process that occurs in all other generic processes of administration. What we are calling processes, activities, dynamic elements are also sometime known as functions [Marume 1988]. In an administrative situation certain functions must be fulfilled. The functional approach to leadership tries to determine what functions the leader must fulfill. Once again however you will realize that the way in which these functions have to be fulfilled as well what functions are at all relevant Is also determined by the situation. Moreover it is merely a question of wording to make an attribute of leadership a function of leadership. Thus the difference between the three approaches to leadership apparently amounts to a question of emphasis and choice of first analytical units. The functional approach can therefore differ from the situational approach only in what is used as the first analytical units. In the situational approach these are situations; in the functional approach they are functions. Later we shall make a more complete synthesis of the three approaches; abut we shall first give a concise exposition of the functional approach based on a book by John Adair 1968.Adair advances the familiar criticism of the trait approach: the quite understandably people differ on what the traits of a leader should be. Then in referring to the situational approach he points out that of leaders are needed beforehand we cannot wait for the situation to produce the leader. And he goes on to say that either these two approaches lends itself to teaching anyone how to practice leadership. He then introduces his own approach–the functional approach –by first trying to stipulate the nature of leadership. Groups, like individuals, differ but have certain qualities in common. One of these is certain common needs. These needs must be satisfied. Leadership is then defined as the function of satisfying the needs of a group. These needs can be ascertained and the leader can be made aware of them and taught how to satisfy them. Adair works with all kinds of groups. We must determine how well his theory holds for groups that we could call the staff or organizational groups. In all groups Adair distinguishes a threefold category of needs:

1.      Task needs: the main need of the group is its common task

2.      Team maintenance needs this is the need for creating and cultivating esprit de crops, a feeling of solidarity, which is necessary for the fulfillment of the task –common aim –of the group.

3.      Individual needs; each member of a group has his own personal needs. These are complex and consist of physical, social and occupational needs. Each member may have his own hierarchy of needs. Subsequently the writer makes the point that the categories of needs overlap and influence one another in the group situation. For instance, failure of the group task will affect the feeling of solidarity and decrease individual happiness; whereas success enhances group pride and individual happiness. The functional of leaders are therefore –and they follow from the definition of leadership –to promote the solidarity of the group; ensure that the task has been fulfilled; and make it possible to satisfy individual needs. Continuing his exposition Adair points out that several factors may influence practical leadership functions:

THE SITUATIONAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

The situational approach is another possible approach. Situational theories, such as Hersey-Blan-

chard’s leadership theory, help people choose the right leadership style for their situation. Situational leadership theory states that leaders should change their leadership styles based on the maturity of the people they are leading and the detail of the tasks to be performed. The theory states leaders should change their behaviors based on (1) the competence of the followers (this can be conceived of as maturity/development) and (2) the commitment of the followers (not the detail of the task). In this case, the leader can focus his or her behavior on either the relationship with the followers or the task. Increasing or decreasing the emphasis on the task or on the followers becomes the leader’s focus in achieving the organizational goal.

In this approach, the situation influences the demand that determines who will emerge as a leader for any given situation. For example, a situational theorist will contend that an emerging leader will appear in response to revolutionary upheaval, chaotic politics, social and economic distress, and the weakening of traditional institutions. In these situations, the emerging leader is a result of time, place, and circumstance, and the leader cannot help what he or she does since the result is directed and controlled by the historical moment. An example of a historical crisis can be found when looking at the BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast of the United States in April 2010, where Lieutenant General Russel Honoré was called on to serve as the crisis manager to mitigate the oil spill and its effects.

In the founding of Apple Computer, Steve Jobs’s initial role as the top executive of the company is another great example of a person exercising situational leadership.[21] In 1981, Apple Computer went public and within two years attained Fortune 500 status. Jobs, at the time, also recruited John Sculley, then head of Pepsi-Cola, to be the new chief executive officer (CEO). A leadership power struggle erupted between Sculley and Jobs in 1985 when Apple’s board of directors sided with Sculley to remove Jobs from his leadership of the Macintosh project team.

At the time, Jobs was Apple’s “visionary leader.” The economic and business environment dictated that Jobs assume the leadership role that put him in charge of a team that would develop Apple’s new revolutionary product, the Macintosh computer. Jobs influenced the situation by creating his own product team and then separating them from the core of Apple into a separate building with their own identity. This created a situational atmosphere of a company within a company, which ultimately created friction.

Even though Jobs was successful in developing and debuting the Macintosh computer in 1984 to

widespread acceptance among consumers, the sales did not match the rhetoric, thus placing the company in a negative financial position. This furthered the deteriorating relationship between Jobs (the visionary exercising situational leadership) and Sculley (the steady executive), resulting in Jobs being relieved of his responsibilities and fired from the company he founded.

Situational theorists believe that key historical leaders appeared at a critically important phase of a socially valued cause, quickly devoted themselves to it, and profited greatly from the work of others in the conduct of their leadership. An example of this is the situational leadership role Mayor Rudolph “Rudy” Giuliani found himself in on September 11, 2001. What it takes to be a successful leader has not changed throughout history. The 9/11 attacks provided the situational leadership elements it takes for a leader like Giuliani to emerge. Like Winston Churchill, who took the leadership role of prime minister of England during World War II, Giuliani was provided with a great situational crisis to display personal leadership skills. Though the Churchill and Giuliani crises are vastly different, their leadership reactions to their particular situations were not, with each reacting to solve the problems presented to them. Each leader was faced with dynamic situations requiring crisis action planning and adaptive leadership decision making that affected the health and welfare of the people he led. Giuliani, like Churchill, took control of the situation and did not let others dictate the outcomes. They both used years of personal development and experience to control their emotions and dominate theirteams’ decision making. Their use of cool, logical judgment in their approach to solving problems for a nation, in the case of Churchill, and one of the largest cities in the United States and the victims of terrorist attacks, in the case of Giuliani, created a historical crisis situation where the leaders had to take control in order to make rapid life-and-death decisions for those they led. Warren Bennis [23] concluded that theories to explain who emerges and succeeds as a leader in an organization have to take into account the following circumstances:

< Impersonal bureaucracy

< Informal organization and interpersonal relations

< Benevolent autocracy that structures the relationship between superiors and subordinates

< Job design that permits individual self-actualization

< Integration of individual and organizational goals

As organizations mature, the charismatic founders of a social, technological, or political movement usually give way to bureaucratic successors. In these cases, as the movement matures, so do its followers, and leading them requires new approaches. The situation presents new issues involving the match between the leader and the situation that emerges—be it social changes, an increase in legislative activities, relations among the led and the leader, or the impact of foreign competition on the business environment.

HOW TO USE SITUATIONAL THEORY TO SOLVE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS

According to this theory, leadership is affected by a situation from which a leader emerges and in which he works. In other words, the situation — the group, the problem and its environment will affect the type of leadership. An important aspects of this theory is the interaction between the group and its leader and the people tend to follow the person who is capable of fulfilling their desires.

The leader recognizes his followers' desires and follows such methods (depending on the situation) which satisfy them. The main trust of the situational theory is that the leadership style may be effective under one situation and ineffective under the other. In other words, situational theory emphasizes that there is no one best style of leadership universally applicable to all situations and that the leader has to change his style of leadership from situation to situation. If the leader adopts the same style under all situations, he may not be successful. For example, Winston Churchill was the most effective and successful Prime Minister of Britain during the period of the Second World War, but he was a flop afterwards when the situation changed.

Though this theory states leadership ability of an individual in a given situation and measures his leadership potentialities, it is silent on the point whether this individual will fit in another situation.

  

TRAIT THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

The first known leadership theories are the trait theories. Trait theories of leadership were based on the personal characteristics of a given leader. This approach of identifying specific traits in leaders also dubbed the Great Man approach, because it was assumed that great leaders of that time, shared similar characteristics, or traits ( Northouse, 2016 ). Some of these great leaders included Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi. Welty Peachey and colleagues (2015) researched leadership and sport and showed the progression of leadership theories over time. They identified trait leadership studies ( Stogdill, 1948 ), which concluded that a single trait could successfully anticipate leadership qualities. Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) performed both a qualitative and quantitative review, which demonstrated a strong, positive correlation between leadership traits and five particular traits known as the five-factor model. These traits included neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Robbins and Judge (2017) discussed how the theory was able to forecast leadership outcomes but indicated trait theories do not necessarily provide rationalization of leader behaviors. This essentially means that some inherent characteristics were predictable and gave followers certain expectations of outcomes based on leadership behavior (e.g., kindness, logic, taking action for the greater good). Research dating back roughly 100 years (Bono & Judge, 2004) demonstrated those with particular personal characteristics (such as intelligence, charisma, self-confident, highly energetic, and demonstrate integrity and expertise) exemplified strong leadership. As research evolved, an inconsistent correlation between the two developed (traits and behaviors), causing researchers to consider behavior as a primary component in developing leaders (Jones & George, 2017).

HOW TO USE TRAIT THEORY OF LEADERSHIP TO RESOLVE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS

a.       The ability to delegate authority with firmness. The competent leader must have the ability to delegate powers clearly and firmly whenever it becomes impossible for him to do all work himself. It is his task to ensure that the work is done, that it is properly done and that it is done on time, for this reason he cannot hold himself aloof but must attend to the difficult questions while the more routine matters are attended to by his personnel. This means that he delegates his responsibility provisionally, though he cannot rid himself of it, for his superiors still hold him accountable. When he delegates his authority to a subordinate he does so only on condition that he subordinate uses it correctly.

b.      The ability to be impartial, objective and thorough Impartially is extremely difficult to cultivate, because all men have prejudices, biases, likes and dislikes. The senior official who is worthy of his position must constantly strive to be as impartial as possible, especially where he has to do with personnel matters.

c.       Personal interest in subordinates. Human relations require in the leader interest in some of the affairs of his subordinates. All human beings are subject to illness, bereavements, domestic and financial difficulties and all these factors have a direct or indirect influence on the subordinate’s potential. The leader should therefore take a personal interest in some of the things that vitally concern his subordinates.

d.      The leader must be able to set an example The leader must always set an example. He cannot afford to expert others to make scarifies that he is unwilling to make himself. In this field nothing is more important than the higher official’s constant sense of responsibility in conducting himself with courtesy, consideration and decency. This not only improves the relations of the institution with the public, but also adds to the effectiveness of the instruction itself.

e.       Strictness and sympathy. A good leader is often called upon to handle situations that required the delicate combination of strictness and sympathy. Though he cannot allow himself to be satisfied with poor work and inefficiency he must always remember that he is dealing with people whose sensibilities are as delicate as his own. He certainly may not hesitate in discharging of his responsibilities but he must proceed with the utmost fairness.

f.       The ability to reconcile theory and practice. One of the most different tasks of the leader is that of reconciling theory with practice. He must be fully aware of  the theory and keep himself informed of recent developments in the field of administration. It is his duty to read extensively, to join professional associations and take an active part in their activities in an effort to increase his knowledge and enhance his value to his organisation. Having gained knowledge he must be able to apply his knowledge in his work and ensure that up to date methods are adopted and used once their practically has been proved.

g.      The ability to plan. Since in the preliminary stage of all multi –phase work planning is essential not only in the implementation of policy but also in connection with policy –making the leader must be to plan. Planning is concerned with the examination of situations with due consideration of the objects in view and the resources available. Planning also includes an element of forecasting.

h.      The ability to organize, A leader must be able to organize, because organizing is concerned with the arranging of the human and material resources available with a view to attaining the predetermined aims as and objectives as effectively as possible. 

i.        The ability to direct. Direction is the task of making appropriate and necessary decisions and ensuring that such decisions are embodied in orders and instructions in such a way as to facilitate the running of an enterprise and the achievement of predetermined aims and objectives. Because leaders have to take decisions and give orders and instructions the ability to direct is absolutely essential for leaders.

j.       The ability to select. Personnel. How a leader uses his power to appoint personnel in any institution is vitally important. A competent leader must be able to sum up individuals and evaluate their education, experience and qualifications in relation to the requirements for a particular post. Today the selection of personnel has greatly improved by the use of scientific aids, but the leader must be thoroughly aware of the requirements for the different positions and be able to weigh the qualifications, skills and experiences of the individuals accurately in relation to them.

k.      The ability to inspire and motivate. The leader can do longer act like a general giving orders, but sometimes has to act like the chairman of a committee who does his best to persuade members to cooperate in a spirit of tolerance and mutual understanding. Two of the main pioneers in this field are C. Barnard and O. Tead. Barnard is of the opinion that leaders should use positive incentives to motive their subordinates. Sanctions should be applied for the sake of discipline only.There are many ways to motivate subordinates. Among them being the material, the personal non–material (the opportunity for promotion for example), physical conditions, camaraderie, and tribute. Among the specific incentives Barnard mentions attractive personal associations, environment, the opportunity for greater participation and the condition of communion which is a sense of belonging to a group or an enterprise coupled with personal loyalty and devotion.

According to Barnard the most important incentives are personal non –material factors such as the change to acquire distinction, prestige and personal power.

Tead’s opinion on the motivation of subordinate’s coincides in many respects with Barnard’s. According to Tead every human personality is unique because, like an administrative situation, each is a unique combination of common elements and must be handled accordingly. Human beings have basically two types of interest; the internal, which is concerned with personal integrity and the external, which is concerned with successful relation to the environment. Every individual strives to satisfy his individual and social interests. The internal and external interests are interdependent and the skill with which the individual combines them determines personal

integrity. In effecting this combination the individual seeks and is guided by influences which he holds in sufficiently high regard to use them to determine his choice of behaviour. Some people are also what may be called altruistic being happiest when they are devoted to something worthwhile outside themselves. When attempting to motivate subordinate or when deciding on the steps to be taken to motivate them in a certain way, the leader should give due consideration to these aspects.

REFERENCES

Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press, p. 46.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B., Avolio, B., Jung, D., and Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.

Bennis, W. (2009). On becoming a leader. New York: Basic Books.

Bono, J. & Judge, T. (2002). Personality and transformational and transactional research: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901-910.

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. Cronin, L., Arthur, C., Hardy, J., and Callow, N. (2015). Transformational leadership and task cohesion in sport: The mediating role of inside sacrifice. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 37, 2336.

Day, D. & Antonakis, J. (2012). The nature of leadership. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

 Downton, J. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary process. New York: Free Press.

Fallesen, J., Keller-Glaze, H., & Curnow, C. (2011). A selective review of leadership studies in the U.S. Army. Military Psychology, 23, 462-478.

Fleishman, E. (1967). Performance assessment based on empirically derived task taxonomy. Human Factors, 9, 349-366.

Greenleaf, R. (1970). The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

Griffith, J. (2010). When does soldier patriotism or nationalism matter? The role of transformational small-unit leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, (40)5, 1235-1257.

Jones, G. & George, J. (2017). Essentials of contemporary management (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Jones, G. & George, J. (2017). Essentials of contemporary management (7th ed.). New York,NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Judge T., Bono J., Ilies R., & Gerhardt M. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.

Marume, S. B. M. (1988) Life –work skills: experiential learning: academic work No. 1: unpublished PhD programme: California University for Advanced Studies, United States of America.

 Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Perotomode, V. F. ( 2012). Situational and contingency theory IOSR Journal of Business and Management.  4(3), 13-17

Robbins, S. & Judge, T. (2017). Organizational behavior (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Robbins, S. & Judge, T. (2017). Organizational behavior (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Wang, G., Oh, I., Courtright, S., and Colbert, A. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, (36)2, 223-270.

Welty, P. J., Zhou, Y., Damon, Z., & Burton, L. (2015). Forty years of leadership research in sport management: A review, synthesis, and conceptual framework. Journal of Sport Management, 29, 570-587.