The cult of individualism and the heroic view of leadership

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review discusses the current status of the study of leadership and provides a focus on strategic leadership theory.
2.1 How leadership is generally defined and the tensions in those definitions
For decades, academic researchers have sought to define what leadership is, and to determine what makes an effective leader (Pfeffer, 1977; Bresnen, 1995; Yukl, 2002). Despite on-going efforts by both the popular press and academic leadership researchers, generating an understanding of leadership that is both intellectually compelling and emotionally satisfying has been difficult (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2003).
As evidenced in both the empirical and the literature review, academic leadership research has proposed many theories and definitions of leadership. Frameworks that integrate the varied meanings of the term leadership have been developed, and arguments have been put forward that management development programmes can be used to grow executives into their strategic roles (Nicholls, 1994). In general, a review of extant leadership theory reveals that at its centre, is a process involving influence that occurs within a group and includes goal attainment (Yukl, 1989).
Obtaining one definition of leadership to which all researchers subscribe has remained extremely challenging, and the successive examination of leadership traits and styles and the effect of contingency factors has produced a body of inconclusive and often contradictory results. Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003) noted the general discontent with the results produced by leadership research.
Leadership, another organisational process, is a useful tool for giving meaning to organisational dynamics and outcomes (Calder, 1977; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978); at the same time, it is a highly complex phenomenon, hence the elusiveness of a common definition (Conger, 1998).
Meindl, J.R., Ehrlich, S.B. and Dukerich, J.M. (1985) concluded that the concept of leadership remained largely elusive and enigmatic due, in the main, to research and methodological complexities. In the same vein Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003) concluded that despite the abundance of writings and empirical studies on leadership, there was still considerable dissatisfaction with what had been achieved, with the academic world still not understanding leadership particularly well. They argued further that finding a common definition of leadership may simply not be possible as two thirds of texts on the subject do not define the matter. Furthermore, even if such a definition was possible, this could possibly stifle new ideas and ways of thinking about the phenomenon.
Storey (2005) propounded that leadership had now become a panacea for all manner of problems within organisations, although as a concept it remained incomplete, insufficiently tested and inadequately debated or properly scrutinised.
Despite the numerous definitions of leadership, its importance as a concept in organisational science remains high.
The following review of the main theories of leadership demonstrates the numerous differences in definition of the concept.

 Trait theory

Trait theory represented the first systematic effort in the study of leadership. The trait perspective was based on an early psychological focus that argued that people were born with inherited characteristics or traits. Traits were typically seen as stable constructs – in-born qualities, rather than skills that need to be developed. The focus was on studying successful leaders so that those traits could be identified. Once the traits were identified, it was assumed that people with similar traits could also become great leaders.
The trait perspective is supported by evidence showing consistent associations of specific traits with leadership emergence and perceptions (Judge and Bono, 2000). Significantly, even though leadership has been recognised as a source of power and competitive advantage in many organisations (van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003), the fact that both historical and recent treatments of leadership have had a trait perspective has led to the absence of general models for the development of leadership skills (Day, 2000; Yukl, 2002; Day and Halpin, 2004; Lord and Hall, 2005).
Adopting the trait perspective meant dismissing the situational context of leadership; it was, however, recently argued that leadership typically involves a complex mix of behavioural, cognitive, and social skills that may develop at different rates, require different learning experiences and be situation-dependent (Day and Halpin, 2004; Mumford, Zacarro, Harding, Jacobs, and Fleishman, 2000; Zacarro and Klimoski, 2001). Clearly, this would suggest that the mixture may differ according to the level at which leadership is practiced within an organisation. Although Stodgill (1948) identified thirteen different traits critical to leaders, he argued that leadership was not an in-born quality, but a social relationship between people. The social exchange perspective has received considerable attention in recent years.

 Contingency theory

Contingency theory refers to different management theories developed concurrently in the late 1960s. Contingency theorists argued that previous theories had failed because they neglected the fact that management style and organisational structure were influenced by various aspects of the environment, namely contingency factors. Contingency and related situational theorists further argued that there could not be one best way to lead (Fiedler, 1967, Hersey and Blanchard, 1988).
These theories focused on the contextual factors that governed the best style of leadership: these and similar situational theories were concerned with styles and situations and not necessarily with the level of leadership (Northouse, 2004). They did not suggest that effective leadership was contingent upon level of leadership, and there is little reference to distinguishing strategic leadership from other types of leadership.
The early promise of contingency models gave way in the late 1970s to a crisis of confidence in the understanding of what leadership actually meant, and even calls from some quarters to drop the concept altogether (Stodgill, 1974; Yukl, 1981; Bryman, 1986).

 Path-goal theory

House (1971) formulated the Path-goal Theory of Leadership, the basic principles of which are derived from the expectancy theory of motivation (Evans, 1996; Northouse, 2004). House (1971) proposed that a leader has the ability to directly impact a group’s dynamics, such as performance, satisfaction and motivation and to influence subordinates in three different ways: offering rewards for achieving performance goals, clarifying paths towards these goals, and removing obstacles to performance. The researcher argued that in order to do this, a leader’s leadership style had to be situational. The styles he advanced were directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented. Later researchers have argued similarly that leadership is about both influence and the achievement of desired purposes, in addition to being values-based (Bush and Glover, 2003).
Path-goal theory is thus concerned with styles of leadership and their subsequent influence on subordinate behaviour. A criticism of the theory is that it does not provide a clear understanding of how leader behaviours directly affect subordinate behaviour. In addition, no distinction is made between the hierarchical level of a leader and his or her ability to motivate employee behaviour.

Leader-member exchange theory

Supporters of the Leader-member Exchange Theory (LMX) (also called Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory or VDL) posited that leadership is a process centred on interactions between leaders and followers (Dansereau, Graen and Haga, 1975). Prior to LMX, academic researchers took the collective nature of subordinates as a given. LMX proponents argued, however, that leaders do not treat followers in a collective way: rather, they form unique relationships with each subordinate. LMX further described how leaders in groups utilise a series of unvoiced, unspoken and implied exchange agreements with their followers to maintain their leadership position (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995).
LMX represents a unique approach to leadership because it is the only theory that makes the concept of dyadic relationships the central variable in the leadership process (Northouse, 2004). It also draws attention to the importance of communication in leadership by arguing that the key to effective leadership is high-quality exchanges between leader and followers. Proponents of LMX theory make little reference to different levels of leadership and the dynamics of the theory.

 Transactional or maintenance leadership

A transactional or maintenance leader has been described as one who operates within an existing system or culture, he or she contrasts with the leader who seeks to change to a new system or culture (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). The transactional leader is driven by a need to maintain the known present. This leader responds to current needs of the system and is focused on making adjustments to any arising variations from the present (Bass, 1985).
While leadership research, which literature review shows to have been focused on lower levels of management, reveals that transactional or maintenance leadership has far lower performance-stimulating potential than charismatic leadership (Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam, 1996) the findings cannot be generalised in relation to the performance of CEOs of large firms, who have not been part of the research samples.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Problem statement
1.3 Background
1.4 Strategic leadership
1.5 Design of the study
1.6 Time in the field
1.7 Contributions and significance of the research
1.8 Limitations of the research
1.9 Overview of subsequent chapters
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 How leadership is generally defined and the tensions in those
2.2 The cult of individualism and the heroic view of leadership
2.3 Tensions in leadership theory
2.4 Limitations of extant leadership research: a focus on supervisory, middle management and students as variables in research
2.5 The challenges of leadership research
2.6 Direct versus indirect leadership
2.7 The relationship between executive characteristics and strategic
2.8 outcomes
2.9 Upper echelons theory
2.10 The importance of the role of the CEO
2.11 Summary and implications
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research design
3.2 Qualitative research methodology
3.3 Qualitative research process
3.4 Qualitative approaches
3.5 Researcher subjectivity
3.6 Prior experience in the field of study
CHAPTER FOUR: MY TIME IN THE FIELD
4.1 Time in the field
4.2 How the research developed over time
CHAPTER FIVE: THE RESEARCH RESULTS
5.1 How the results are arranged
5.2 The 1st level order events: the personal leadership philosophy
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION OF THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF THE STRATEGIC LEADER
6.1 Prising open the black box
6.2 Parallels with authentic leadership
6.3 Leaders as story-tellers
6.4 Parallels with discourse analysis
6.5 Physical and mental renewal of leaders
6.6 Leaders inspire hope and belief
6.7 The leader as servant
6.8 Parallels with the leaderplex model
6.9 Parallels to the leadership pipeline
6.10 Putting leaders on the couch
6.11 Beyond the concept of people leadership
6.12 The importance of the role of the strategic leader
6.13 Summary
CHAPTER SEVEN: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Significance and contribution of the research
7.2 Answering the research question
7.3 General conclusions about strategic leadership
7.4 Limitations of the research and implications thereof
7.5 Implications and opportunities for future research
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT