Evolution Of Theories Of Leadership
The evolutions of theories of leadership actually took place from the last decades with a view to bring in soft SHRM in action in place of hard SHRM policies. The earlier theories considered human resource as one of the resource of production and would stick to making full use of it. However in the present day light, human resources are considered as human beings and they are actually nurtured through the present day policies. These way efforts are made to input democracy, human rights and humanity in business operations (Gill, 2002).
Past Leadership Methods
The past leadership supported the idea of directing human resource towards accomplishment of corporate objectives by making full use of their efficiency. However the stakeholders needs were not taken care of. The stakeholders actually include internal people like management and employees, connecting people as supplier, shareholders, retailers, customer etc. While the external stakeholders include government, pressure groups, society, press etc.
The new leadership actually intends to fulfill the needs of all these stakeholders by applying the Strategic Human Resource Management into action. The SHRM involves the fulfilling the external and internal stakeholders needs within the business environment using strategies.
Theory Of Goleman
The theory of Daniel Goleman 2000 emotional intelligence model is completely active. This is because it has all the past ingredients of leadership style with an addition of soft theories for human resource. This is the reason why his theory states types of leadership as Authoritative, Coercive, Democratic, Coach, Pacesetter and Affiliator (Merkert, 2010).
The various kinds of leadership as per Goleman theory can be depicted as below.
Limitations Of All Theories
The limitations that all the theories have are that they are not universally applicable. These can be stated as follow.
Employer attitude can be directed as it is affect the business condition and stage.
Recruitment is made for the best person and still if not successful than the leadership policies can work only to add skills and abilities.
Workplace culture is different in various organizations. Therefore there is no hard and fast rule to follow and achieve success at the workplace.
Career progression is the ultimate desire of every employee which could tempt them towards bringing in employee turnover.
Job security is a must for application of best human resource management policy but may protect the underperformer. Therefore the SHRM cannot support the idea of bringing in employment security fairly for all.
Extensive training is required to achieve higher skills and abilities from employees but its really hard to figure out the kind of training and the time applied for training that could actually bring in desired outcomes.
Strategic Management Process
Strategic Management Process helps in achieving good leadership as it concentrate not only in bringing participation of employees through job expertise and mentoring them for higher job ability but to achieve both job expertize and job ability through collaboration.
A successful company is that applies the SHRM to select best leadership style in the organization with a motive to achieve collaboration. Collaboration therefore brings in formal and informal groups and teams in action which work hard towards achievement of organization goals and objectives.
Difference Between Successful And Unsuccessful Companies
The leadership capabilities differentiate successful from unsuccessful companies as the successful follows the theory of pacesetting leadership which follows soft HRM while the unsuccessful follows commanding leadership that follows hard HRM.
Goleman’s Leadership Styles
Daniel Goleman described various leadership styles which acts as social influence to achieve organizational goals and objectives. Among them the best suitable model in the present day world is pacesetting leadership.
In Pacesetting leadership the leader characteristics includes strong urge is brought within employees to achieve higher standards and collaboration. Efforts are made to achieve challenges and exciting goals for the company. The impact on the business environment is mostly seen in positive shape wherein employees take work personally and shows commitment towards accomplishment of organizational goals. This way high quality results are achieved through employee’s motivation and competent team support (Walumbwa et al., 2005).
Pacesetting leadership helps the organization to support the employees towards achievement of organization goals and objectives. Thus drivers of job performance are brought into action that includes attitude, motivation and job design.
Good leadership capabilities include the followings.
Creating job security to the employees.
Adding skills to employees through extensive training.
Bringing in better communication to achieve employee involvement.
Achieving team work and decentralization of power.
Selective hiring process is followed in which the best peson is selected for the job.
Difference In Leadership
Widening Gap Between Leadership
The two widening gap of leadership style includes pacesetting leadership and commanding leadership. The pacesetting leadership actually supports the employees and bring in soft SHRM in action so that the commitment and high results can be achieved from employees. However the commanding leadership directs the employee toward a desired goal. This direction is followed by process of communication, monitoring, threatening and controlling the business operation.
Personal Thought On Leadership Style
I think that pacesetting leadership is better than commanding leadership. This is because we are all humans and we cannot be directed all the times. The problem or issue will rise at one point of time wherein tight directions are followed in the business process. However the motivation can bring in full time commitment from the employees. Therefore to get higher result direction won’t work as motivation will. This motivation can be achieved by pacesetting leadership which offers soft SHRM so that the stakeholders objectives can be met.
Drivers Of Job Performance
The drivers of job performance include attitude, motivation and job design. These drivers of motivation can be best achieved by applying pacesetting leadership which takes away the employees from the tight control and restriction of the higher level management as in the case of commanding leadership (council, 2006).
Bartram, T. & Casimir, G., 2007. The relationship between leadership and follower in role performance and satisfaction with the leader: the mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, pp.4-19.
council, C.l., 2006. Driving performance and retention through employee engagement. Corporate Leadership Council.
Gadot, E.V., 2007. Leadership style, organizational politics and employees performance: An empirical examination of two competing models. Personnel Review, pp.661-83.
Ghemawat, P., 2005. Regional Strategies for Global Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 83(12), pp.98-108.
Gill, R., 2002. Change management – or change leadership? Journal of Change Management, pp.3 (4), 307-318.
Hamiliton, F. & Cynthia, J.B., 2005. The importance of context, beliefs and values in leadership development. Business ethics: A European Review, p.4.
Jago, A., 1982. Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management science.
Kaiser, R.B., Hogan, R. & Craig, S.B., 2008. Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 96-110, pp.96-110.
Klagge, J., 2007. Leadership development needs of today's organizational managers. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, pp.331-48.
Laura, C. et al., 2010. The role of leadership style in employee engagement. Florida: Florida International University.
Lynne, S., Leskiw & Singh, P., 2007. Leadership development: learning from best practices. Leadership and Organization Development Journal., p.No.5.
Merkert, R., 2010. ITLS Leadership and Policy Seminar Series. Sydney: Cranfield University.
Northouse, P.G., 2004. Leadership theory and practice (3rd edition). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Waldman, D., 2006. Cultural and Leadership predictors of corporate social responsibility values of top managment: A Globe study of 15 countries. Journal of International business studies., 37(6), pp.823-97.
Walumbwa, F.O., Orwa, B., Wang, P. & Lawler, J.J., 2005. Transformational leadership organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, pp.235-56.
Zhang, T., 2010. The relationship between perceived leadership styles and employee engagemetn: The moderating role of employee characteristics. Sydney: Macquerie University.