LEADERSHIP STYLES
Organizational psychologists have struggled with the concept of leadership since the mid twentieth century, changing their focus from personality (‘leaders are born, not made’) to environmental factors (‘circumstances determine who emerges as the leader’) and back to personality again (Bass, 1990; Fiedler, 1967; House, 1977).
Today, there is a lot of interest in charismatic or transformational leadership. This represents a leadership style that enables the leader to exercise diffuse and intense influence over the beliefs, values, behaviour and performance of others (House, Spangler & Woycke, 1991). Such leaders tend to be dominant and self-confident with a need to influence others while believing strongly in their own values. They communicate their goals and visions clearly, and have high expectations of their followers’ performance. The fascination with this kind of leadership is evidenced by the number of books by or about charismatic leaders. Some studies suggest that these leaders inspire effort and satisfaction amongst their employees, resulting in higher productivity. But Howell and House (1995) caution against this type of leadership style because, they argue, it can also have negative consequences. Think of charismatic historical figures who have initiated destruction in their societies (e.g. Adolf Hitler); or particular characters such as the People’s Temple cult leader, Reverend Jim Jones, who persuaded his followers to feed a poison-laced drink to their children and then drink it themselves. Nearly 1000 people died in this incident (Osherow, 1981).
Howell and House distinguish between socialized and personalized charismatic leadership. ‘Socialized leaders’ emphasize egalitarianism, serving collective interests rather than self-interest, and developing and empowering others. They are altruistic, selfcontrolled, follower-oriented (rather than narcissistic), and workthrough legitimate authority and established systems. ‘Personalized leaders’ are more self-interested and manipulative and can engender pathological relationships with their followers, leading to unhappy work outcomes such as poor performance, conflictridden relationships and poor individual wellbeing.
Organizational psychologists have struggled with the concept of leadership since the mid twentieth century, changing their focus from personality (‘leaders are born, not made’) to environmental factors (‘circumstances determine who emerges as the leader’) and back to personality again (Bass, 1990; Fiedler, 1967; House, 1977).
Today, there is a lot of interest in charismatic or transformational leadership. This represents a leadership style that enables the leader to exercise diffuse and intense influence over the beliefs, values, behaviour and performance of others (House, Spangler & Woycke, 1991). Such leaders tend to be dominant and self-confident with a need to influence others while believing strongly in their own values. They communicate their goals and visions clearly, and have high expectations of their followers’ performance. The fascination with this kind of leadership is evidenced by the number of books by or about charismatic leaders. Some studies suggest that these leaders inspire effort and satisfaction amongst their employees, resulting in higher productivity. But Howell and House (1995) caution against this type of leadership style because, they argue, it can also have negative consequences. Think of charismatic historical figures who have initiated destruction in their societies (e.g. Adolf Hitler); or particular characters such as the People’s Temple cult leader, Reverend Jim Jones, who persuaded his followers to feed a poison-laced drink to their children and then drink it themselves. Nearly 1000 people died in this incident (Osherow, 1981).
Howell and House distinguish between socialized and personalized charismatic leadership. ‘Socialized leaders’ emphasize egalitarianism, serving collective interests rather than self-interest, and developing and empowering others. They are altruistic, selfcontrolled, follower-oriented (rather than narcissistic), and workthrough legitimate authority and established systems. ‘Personalized leaders’ are more self-interested and manipulative and can engender pathological relationships with their followers, leading to unhappy work outcomes such as poor performance, conflictridden relationships and poor individual wellbeing.
No comments:
Post a Comment