Leadership Theories

1)**Leadership itself, has been accompanied throughout time, by numerous theories, all-claiming to answer the question, Are leaders born or made? Those who accept the verdict, that leaders are born and not made, maintain, ... that there are certain inborn qualities such as initiative, courage, intelligence and humor, which altogether pre-destine a man to be a leader ... the essential pattern is given at birth (Adler, 1991, p. 4) Two leadership theories which concentrate on this point, are the Great man/great woman and the Trait theories. The great man/great woman theory, accordingly to Wrightsman, involves its followers believing that those persons in power, both nationally and internationally, influence major events. A sudden act by a great man could, according to this theory; change the fate of the nation (Wrightsman, 1977, p. 638) The trait theory expands further on this conjecture, by concentrating on the personal characteristics of the leader. The theory, which until the mid-1940s formed the basis of most leadership research, cited traits believed to be characteristic of leaders, the list of which grew in length over the years, to include all manner of physical, personality and cognitive factors, including height, intelligence and communication skills. However, few traits emerged to conclusively differentiate leaders from non-leaders. The traits an individual has may, increase the probability that a person will become a leader, though whether such leadership is guaranteed, is uncertain. Nevertheless, it can be seen to be true that some people are more likely than others to assume leadership positions. The research on trait theories of leadership has shown that many other factors are important in determining leader success, and that not everyone who possesses these traits will be a leader (Adler, 1991, p. 267)

2)*As interest in the trait approach to leadership declined, researchers focused their attention on the leader's actions rather than their attributes, which led to the emergence of the behaviorist theories. The most widely publicized exponent of this approach was Robert Blake and Jane Mouton's Managerial Grid, which attempted to explain that there was one best style of leadership, by various combinations of two factors regarding a concern for production and people. Five leadership styles were determined from this research, of which one, the team management style was deemed as preferable.

3)*Due to the disillusionment with the fore-mentioned trait theory, the situational approach arose, which suggested that the traits required of a leader differed, according to varying situations. The situational approach, which predominated in the 1950s, held that whether a given person became a leader of a group, had nothing to do with his/her personality, but had everything to do with such factors as the flow of events and circumstances surrounding a group. To put it simply, the leader was a person who was in the right place at the right time. Rather than a great man causing a great event to happen, the situational approach claims that great events are the product of historical forces that are gong to happen whether specific leaders are present or not (Adair, 1984, p. 8) Unfortunately, this theory still did not answer, why one member of a group emerged as the leader, rather than another, or why one particular leader proved to be a better leader in some situations than another.

4)* The emergence of a related theory, the interactions approach, attempted to explain the existing anomalies. The interactions theory, proposed that both the characteristics of the individual, and the situation in which the group found itself, accounted for who would become the leader. Resulting from this theory, was the view that leaders are both born and made, due to the leader requiring certain abilities and skill, but as the situation and the needs of the group changed, so too the person acceptable as leader changed.

5)*Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership effectiveness, was one theory, which evolved from this interactions approach. It related the effectiveness of the leader, to aspects of the situation in which the group operated, suggesting that factors such as the task structure, the leaders personal relations with the group and his/her power basis, interact to determine what style of leadership would be effective for the situation, i.e. a task-oriented or group-oriented approach. At one extreme, is the leader who values successful interpersonal relations to the exclusion of task accomplishment. The leader at the other extreme, places the highest value on task accomplishment, at the expense of interpersonal relations (Saks, 1988, p. 490) To determine whether a leader was task-oriented or group-oriented, Fiedler devised a model, which used as its basis,