Evolution of Leadership and its Impact on Organization
In the early eras, leadership has been widely stimulated by management researchers and experts alike as a vibrant force for good, essential to overcome the countless challenges facing organizations, groups, and even societies and safeguarding a better future. The researchers believe that the importance of leadership is now beyond discussion. Researchers argue that people must question the history to free themselves to think contrarily about the current and the future of leadership. Leadership can be seen as one of the social disciplines’ most studied phenomena. The analysis afforded to leadership is not unanticipated, as it is a dynamic evident in animal species and humankind. It’s a belief that leadership is significant for societal functioning and effective organizational. In the organization, leadership is seen as purpose-driven accomplishment that brings about amendments based on ideas, values, visions, emotion, and symbolic changes. Since 1900 Leadership is necessary and functional for several reasons. On an administrative level, leadership is vital to balance organizational systems, create and identify group values and goals, recognize and assimilate several individual styles and characters in a group, exploit the usage of group associates’ capabilities, and help solve conflicts and problems a group.
At the tactical level, leadership is essential to guarantee the organization’s corresponding operation as it interrelates with a vibrant external environment. That is, the organization needs to familiarize itself with its setting. To achieve this, leaders should observe the internal and external environments, articulate an approach based on the organization’s weaknesses and strengths, and the chances offered by the environment. More so, observe outcomes so that its strategic aims are achieved. Therefore, leadership is mandatory to guide and direct organizational and social resources toward the organization’s planned goals and guarantee that organizational roles are associated with the external environment.
A brief history of leadership research and impact on the global environment
Leadership research is divided into several primary schools, and the schools are categorized into dimensions. In the 19th-century, leadership researchers began to concentrate on the behavioral style of leadership. This type of research focuses on the actions that leaders endorsed and how they were treated in an organization. The researchers came up with two types of leadership styles: initiative structure ( i.e., task-oriented, directive leadership) and consideration ( for example, personal-oriented and supportive leadership). The leadership style is extended to organizational level-effects.
Nevertheless, leadership research encountered crisis because of inconsistent outcomes relating to behavior “styles” of leadership to relevant results. There was no reliable evidence of a generally ideal leadership style across situations or tasks. From these inconsistent findings, it was anticipated that the accomplishment of the leader’s behavioral style should be reliant on the problem. Therefore, leadership perception in the 1960s began to concentrate on leadership contingencies.
Contingency faculty of leadership
The leadership contingency philosophy movement is mainly attributed to scholars in 1967 who specified that leader–associate relations, assignment structure, and the position influence of the leader regulate the effectiveness of an organization and the kind of guidance exercised. Another recognized contingency approach concentrated on the leader’s part in expounding paths to follower objectives. Other scholars prolonged the line of scholarship into the “substitutes -for-leadership” concept by focusing on the circumstances where leadership is pointless as an outcome of aspects such as exact organizational arrangements, follower abilities, and routinized actions. Other lines of study, offering theories of leader policymaking style and several contingencies, comprise associates and Vroom’s work. However, there is some continuing awareness of contingency theories. The general influence of the method seems to have tapered off histrionically.
Relational School of Leadership
* Soon after the contingency movement became popular, another line of research focusing on relationships between leaders and followers (i.e., the relational school) began generating substantial theoretical attention and became the focus of research.
Cynics of leadership school
Leadership research encountered yet another sequence of challenges in the years the 1970s and 1980s. The rationality of questionnaire rankings of leadership was assessed as likely unfair by the unspoken leadership concepts of those providing the evaluations. This position proposes that what leadership does are largely accredited based on presentation outcomes. Therefore for an organization to be successful and meet its goals, it must ensure that leaders come up with achievable objectives and what to be done to meet the goals. A good strategic plan is needed.
Charismatic leadership
In the last section of the 1970s and 1980s, the researchers showed transformed interest in the impression of the “captivating leader,” a concept initially introduced in 1990. Charismatic leaders are naturally thought to apply massive influence and power over their employees as an outcome of their expressive appeal, especially in dangerous situations where conservative wisdom proposes resilient leadership is required. To increase the global environment, leaders should know how to solve a particular crisis without really intimidating them, thus creating room for an effective organization. Charismatic leadership comprised several main points–how they contrasted from other leadership behaviors, and the circumstances under which they were utmost successful. According to characteristics, charismatic leaders had a resilient necessity for power, had extreme self-confidence, and precise, strong principles. Impression organization, articulation of a good vision, cooperating great expectations and articulating confidence in their employees’ capacity were all important behaviors of captivating leaders. The actions of the fascinating leTheo influence leader’s behaviors employees’ attitudes and opinions about the leader.
Transformative leadership
Transformative leadership changed as a visible trend in the late 1970s and 1980s. First presented as thought by scholars in leadership, and then expanded to transforming leadership. Scholars began the procedure of reformulating how the research appeared and understood leadership. The efforts recognized much of the agenda for the concepts of the transformational and transactional leadership paradigm. They distinguished nine variances between those leaders whose interactions with employees were transformational, and those whose connections with followers were transactional. Scholars regarded transformational-type headship as possibly the more influential of the two methods. It occurs when one or additional persons involve with others in a way that leaders and groups raise each other to higher levels of inspiration and morality. With this kind of approach, there will be an increasingly global environment and effectiveness in organizations. Transactional leaders concentrate on the interchange between leader and groups, transformational leaders, still acquainted with employees’ requirements, fascinated by higher wants.