Ads
related to: leadership effectiveness articles
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In reviewing the older leadership theories, Scouller highlighted certain limitations in relation to the development of a leader's skill and effectiveness: [3] Trait theory: As Stogdill (1948) [4] and Buchanan & Huczynski (1997) had previously pointed out, this approach has failed to develop a universally agreed list of leadership qualities and "successful leaders seem to defy classification ...
Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait—situational approaches (see alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. The focus then shifted away from traits of leaders to an investigation of the leader behaviors that were effective.
Fiedler's contingency model is a dynamic model where the personal characteristics and motivation of the leader are said to interact with the current situation that the group faces. Thus, the contingency model marks a shift away from the tendency to attribute leadership effectiveness to personality alone. [5]
Leader development is described as one aspect of the broader process of leadership development (McCauley et al., 2010). Leadership development is defined as the expansion of a group's capacity to produce direction, alignment, and commitment (McCauley et al.), in contrast to leader development which is the expansion of a one's ability to be effective in leadership roles and processes.
Traditionally, leadership development has focused on developing the leadership abilities and attitudes of individuals. [citation needed]Different personal trait and characteristics can help or hinder a person's leadership effectiveness [1] and require formalized programs for developing leadership competencies.
Results concluded that task-oriented leadership and relationship-oriented leadership produce a relatively similar perceived team effectiveness, however actual team productivity was higher for relationship-oriented led teams than for task-oriented teams (measured increase of 8% and 4% respectively). [7]