Leadership
Keith Davis observes that, “without leadership, an organization is but a muddle of men and machines…Leadership transforms potential into reality. It is the ultimate act which brings to success all the potential that is in an organization and its people”. In 1938, Chester Bernard gave a new definition of leadership and stated that, “leadership is the ability of a superior to influence the behaviour of subordinates and persuade them to follow a particular course of action”. A recent theorist on leadership, Williams (2005), states that, “leadership is an interactive art in which the leader is dancing with the context, the problem, the faction, and the objective”.
These are two types of leadership-

A person in an organization may assume leadership both in a formal and informal way.

Formal Leadership-
 By formal leadership we mean to say that a person assumes leadership role, based on the position that he holds in an organization and in such form of leadership, the leader is designated with the title, along with the authority and responsibility to lead the team.

Informal Leadership-
 In the second form of leadership, a person assumes leadership without any formal sanction of authority and duty. That is, in informal leadership, the ability to influence the group arises outside the formal structure of the organization and people in the organization oblige to such influence even without the formal influence.

Theories of leadership-

Limitations of Trait Theory
The trait theory of leadership is criticised mainly on account of the following inadequacies:
 (i) Skills are sometimes mistaken for traits.
 (ii) No two lists agree about the essential characteristics and traits of a leader.
(iii) The theory fails to pinpoint the intensity of and extent to which each of the agreed traits should be present in an individual.
(iv) At different times and under different situations leaders must display different leadership characteristics. Similarly, different functions, like production, sales and finance require somewhat different leadership abilities.
 (v) Researches have shown that leadership should be looked beyond personal qualifications and traits of the individuals.
Behavioural /Style Theories-
employees will work harder for managers who employ these given styles of leadership rather than for those managers who employ other styles.
 (i) Lewin, Lippitt and White:
 Lewin, Lipitt and White conducted leadership studies in 1939 and constructed a leadership model that had three styles - autocratic, democratic, and laissez faire.
 – Autocratic style of leadership:
The autocratic leader is characterised by centralisation of authority and by decision-making himself alone, and very limited participation by subordinates of the group. The autocratic leader accomplishes the results through use of authority, fear of deprivation punishment and other coercive measures. Autocratic style is conceived by McGregor as ‘hard’ approach to management under Theory X.
– Democratic Style of Leadership:
This is characterised by allowing substantial participation by members of the group in management and in the decision-making process by the leaders. Subordinates are frequently consulted by the manager on wide ranging problems and are allowed sufficient freedom to communicate with the leader and also with their fellow subordinates.
 Democratic style of leadership is based upon positive assumption about human beings. It encourages cooperative spirit and development of subordinates for higher responsibility. This style of leadership substantially contributes to satisfaction on the part of subordinates.
 – Laissez-faire style of Leadership:
Under this style, the leader depends largely upon the group and its members to establish their own goals and make their own decisions. The leader is passive and assumes the role of just another member of the group. Tasks are assigned in general terms.
 – Laissez-faire approach is meant for selective application:
If the subordinate is intelligent, highly qualified and experienced, and desires self-fulfillment, a manager may follow this approach without much risk
(ii) Ohio State Studies
One of the foremost studies that emanated on behavioural theories was the study made by Ohio State University in 1945 by E.A. Fleishman, E.F. Harris and H.E. Burtt. The study narrowed the leadership behaviours into two categories, viz. initiating structure and consideration, under which the various leadership behaviours were clubbed.
(a) Initiating Structure:
 Initiating structure refers to the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his or her role and those of employees in the search for goal attainment. It includes behaviour that attempts to organize work, work relationships, and goals. A leader with initiating structure is generally task oriented, with focus on performance of employees and meeting of deadlines.
 (b) Consideration:
 As per „consideration? category, a leader pays more attention to the employee of the organization rather than the task and shows concern for the well-being, comfort and satisfaction of employees. That is, a leader focuses on the relationships that are characterised by mutual trust, respect for employees? ideas, and regard for their feelings. The two-factor conceptualization of Ohio Studies has been gaining wide recognition in recent times.
It can be found that the two-factor conceptualization of the Ohio study is similar to the two way dimension of the Michigan studies. While the employee-oriented leadership can be compared with the „consideration? component of Ohio studies, production-oriented leadership can be compared with „initiating structure?. While the Ohio studies considered both its components to be important for effective leadership, the Michigan studies gave supremacy to the component of „employee-orientation? over „production-orientation?.

(iii) University of Michigan:
The studies conducted at this University revealed two kinds of styles, viz., production centered and employee-centered, which are respectively similar to ‘initiating structure’ and ‘consideration’ leadership styles, as researched by Ohio State University Studies. These studies conclude that the employee-centered leaders were superior to production-centered leaders. Individuals who were concerned with their people first, and the task later, seemed to get greater production and were had employees with higher job satisfaction and morale. Conversely, production-centered leaders got lower production and employees with poorer morale and less job satisfaction

(iv) The Managerial Grid
Like the Ohio State studies and Michigan studies, the Managerial Grid theory of leadership was also based on the styles of „concern for people? and „concern for production?. The Managerial Grid theory of leadership was proposed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964. This theory which is depicted in a graphical form is also known as the „Leadership Grid Theory?. The grid is a nine-by-nine matrix which outlines 81 different styles of leadership. The grid has 9 possible positions along each axis creating 81 different positions in which the leader?s style may fall.
 
Through the Managerial Grid, 5 kinds of Leadership Style was identified, which include the following:
(i) Impoverished, in which there is low concern for people and production (1 by 1)
(ii) Country Club, wherein the concern for production is low, but for people is high (1 by 9)
 (iii) Task, in which there is high concern for production and low concern for people (9 by 1)
 (iv) Middle of the Road, where there is moderate concern for both the production and the people (5 by 5)
 (v) Team, wherein there is high concern for both the people and production (9 by 9).
This theory, thus offers a useful framework for conceptualizing and understanding the leadership styles. Though behavioural theories make its contribution in understanding leadership effectiveness, it cannot be considered as the utmost option, to determine the success of leadership. In other words, it cannot be said with utmost clarity that a leader depicting a certain kind of leadership traits and behaviours are always successful. At times, the situational contexts play a strong role in determining the effectiveness of leaders.
Contingency theories-
Sometimes the success of a leader does not depend upon the qualities, traits and behaviour of a leader alone. The context in which a leader exhibits her/his skills, traits and behaviour matters, because same style of functioning may not be suitable for different situations. Thus the effectiveness of leadership also depends upon situations. Several research studies, when analyzing the reason for inconsistent results in differing conditions with the same leadership style, laid their focus on situational variables. This theory views leadership in terms of a dynamic interaction between a number of situational variables like the leader, the followers, the task situation, the environment, etc. Some of the noteworthy studies on situational contexts that gained wide recognition include Fiedler?s model, Hersey and Blanchard?s Situational theory, Leader-Member Exchange theory, Path-Goal theory and Leader-Participation model, which has been discussed over here.
(1) Fiedler Model
 Fred Fiedler was the first person to develop a comprehensive model for the contingency theory of leadership in 1967. The basic premise behind this theory is that, effective performance of an organization or a group of people in an organization highly depend upon the style adopted by a leader and the degree to which a situation gives control to the leader. In order to assess the style followed by a leader, Fiedler developed „Least-Preferred Coworker? (LPC) scale, in which the leaders were asked to give their preference on the employee with whom they have least preference to work with. If the least preferred co- worker was described in favourable terms, such response was rated as ‘relationship oriented’ and if rated in unfavourable terms, a leader was regarded as ‘production oriented’. However, in contrast, the response derived from such study did not show a clear cut picture, as some of the responses had a score in the mid range. Through such responses, it was difficult to classify a leader either as a relationship-oriented or a production oriented leader, as the scoring was neither high nor low. Fiedler?s model thus illuminated attention on a new dimension of leadership studies. Thus through this study, it was suggested that, if a situation requires a task-oriented leader and the person in that leadership position is relationship-oriented, either the situation has to be modified or the leader replaced, if optimal effectiveness is to be achieved (Robbins, Judge, & Sanghi, 2007). Based on the results derived, Fiedler has identified three situational factors, viz. leadermember relations, task structure and position power, which determine leadership effectiveness. A brief discussion on such situational factors is as follows:
 (i) Leader-Member Relations: The degree of confidence, trust and respect that members have on their leader;
 (ii) Task Structure: The degree to which the job assignments are structured or unstructured;
(iii) Position Power: The degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as hiring, firing, discipline, promotions, and salary increases.
 Fiedler's model evaluates the effectiveness of leadership, based on the degree of existence of the above mentioned situational factors. The degree varies from good to poor in leader-member relations, high to low in task structure and strong to weak in position power. According to Fiedler, a leadership is said to have more control of organizational situations, if the leader-member relations are good, task assignments are highly structured along with a stronger power positions. Similarly, the situations in an organization would be unfavourable, if the respect that members have for leaders is poor, with unstructured task assignments and weak position power.
 
Fiedler states that a task oriented leader performs better in situations that are very favourable to her/him and in situations that are very unfavourable. That is, when faced with a Category I, II, III, VII or VIII situation, task-oriented leaders perform better. Relationship-oriented leaders perform better in moderately favourable situations – categories IV through VII. In recent years, Fiedler has condensed these 8 situations down to 3. He states that task-oriented leaders perform better in situations of high and low control, while relationship-oriented leaders perform best in moderate control situations. However, one of the major drawbacks in Fiedler model is that the style adopted by a particular leader is fixed. It is assumed that a leader can follow only a particular style in any given situation and the theory suggests change of a leader to fit a situation.
For instance, the assumption is that, if a situation in an organization is highly unfavourable, and the organization is led by a relationship oriented leader, the organization?s performance could be improved by replacing the leader with one who is task-oriented. The other alternative suggested is to change the situation to suit the leader. That is by restructuring tasks or increasing or decreasing the power positions, the leader is expected to bring the situation under control.
 Though Fiedler?s model offers useful propositions, the practical application of the theory is highly questionable. In practice, it is generally difficult to assess how good the leader member relations are, how structured the task is, and how much position-power a leader has (Robbins, Judge, & Sanghi, 2007).

(2) Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory
  One of the path-breaking models that were developed in the leadership studies is that of the Situational Leadership Theory (SLT), that was put forward by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard. The focus of this theory is laid on the followers and the readiness that followers show in accepting a leadership. The basic assumption behind this theory is that, it is the followers who accept or reject a leader and thus, effectiveness of a leader also depends on their followers.
Thus, regardless of what a leader does, effectiveness of leadership depends upon the actions of the followers. By readiness, Hersey and Blanchard mean to say the extent to which people have the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task set by the leader.
 In analysing the leader-follower relationship, the Situational Leadership Theory, equates the relationship with that of a parent and a child. According to Hersey and Blanchard there are four types of leadership behaviour that varies from highly directive to highly laisssez-faire, which again depends upon the ability and willingness of followers to perform a given task.
 According to SLT, if a follower is unable and unwilling to do a task, the leader needs to give clear and specific directions; if followers are unable and willing, the leader needs to display high task orientation to compensate for the followers? lack of ability and high relationship orientation to get the followers to „buy into? the leader?s desire; if followers are able and unwilling, the leader needs to use a supportive and participative style; and if the employee is both able and willing, the leader doesn?t need to do much.
 
This theory, thus gives a new dimension to the study of leadership, and the aspects that appeals in this theory is the importance given to the followers and the capacity of the leader to compensate for the ability and motivational limitations in their followers. However, in spite of the wide recognition and popularity that this theory has gained, it is said to have internal ambiguities and inconsistencies.

 
Path-Goal Theory
Path-Goal Theory was developed by Martin Evans and Robert House in 1970-71, taking inputs from the concept of initiating structure and consideration of the Ohio State Studies and the Expectancy Theory of Motivation.
The base behind Path-Goal theory is that effective leaders clarify the path to help their followers to move forward from their current position towards achieving the work goals. In this process, the leader reduces the roadblock that occurs in the path of the followers, and makes their journey easier.
Thus, the essence of path goal theory is that, it is the leader?s job to provide the followers with the information, support and other resources, necessary for them to achieve their goals (Robbins, Judge, & Sanghi, 2007). This theory identifies four types of leadership behaviour, viz. directive leader, supportive leader, participative leader and achievement-oriented leader. Unlike Fiedler, who assumes the leader to follow a fixed leadership style, the theory put forward by House, assumes the leader to be a flexible person, who can display different kinds of behaviours based on a given situation.
 The four types of leadership behaviour, identified by Robert House are as follows:
 (i) Directive Leader: A directive leader clarifies the followers of the role expected of them, schedules the work to be done and gives the needed direction or guidance as to how to accomplish tasks;
 (ii) Supportive Leader: A supportive leader behaves in an friendly manner with the followers, and the main concern of the leader is placed on the needs of the followers, rather than on accomplishing the tasks;
(iii) Participative Leader: A participative leader involves the followers in the consultation process and also gets the suggestions or views of the followers, before making a decision;
(iv) Achievement-Oriented Leader: An achievement oriented leader set challenging goals for the followers and expects them to perform at their highest level. The above mentioned leadership styles under the path-goal theory is contingent upon two factors such as, characteristics of employees and environmental factors. While environmental factors include aspects such as task structure, formal authority system, work group, etc. employee characteristics include aspects like locus of control, experience, perceived ability, etc.

(5) Leader-Participation Model
The Leader-Participation Model was developed by Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton in 1973 and this theory is called by different names as, Decision-Participation Model and Normative Model. This model was called normative, as it provided a sequential set of rules that should be followed in determining the form and amount of participation in decision making, as determined by different types of situations. According to this model, three set of variables affect the performance of the leader in terms of his capacity as a decision maker, which include:
(i) Quality of the decision;
(ii) Degree of acceptance of the decision by subordinates; and
 (iii) Time required in making the decision. Thus, based on the variables identified, Vroom and Yetton defined 5 different kinds of decision making procedures. That is, it represents a continuum from authoritarian approaches (AI, AII), Consultative approaches (CI, CII) and a group based approach (G2) which is as follows:
 • A1: Leader takes known information and then decides alone
. • A2: Leader gets information from followers, and then decides alone.
 • C1: Leader shares problem with followers individually, listens to ideas and then decides alone.
 • C2: Leader shares problems with followers as a group, listens to ideas and then decides alone.
 • G2: Leader shares problems with followers as a group and then seeks and accepts consensus agreement.
The contingency theories that make an analysis of situational context, thus brings to light the challenging role that a leader has to play. Especially women leaders, whose life is a mix of a complex fabric of personal, professional and community involvements and responsibilities, becomes all the more complex in a contingent situation. Since women leaders function in more than one context (family, work place, community), managing different contexts simultaneously remains a major challenge for women leaders (Klenke, 2011).
 While the theories that have been discussed above are conventional theories, which have unique inputs to offer even to this day, it has also given way to new set of leadership theories viz. Transactional and Transformative theories of leadership, Visionary Leadership theory, etc.
 While the conventional theories laid their focus on the traits, qualities, behaviour exhibited by a leader, the modern theories makes a shift in the way leaders were perceived. From the position of an omnipotent hero and saviours of organizations, the leaders are now looked at as normal people, whose decisions can lead both to success or failure of an organization.
 Thus, the modern theories, gives more importance to the leader-follower equation. While the traditional theories are leader centric, the new theories have follower-centric perspective.

 Transactional Theory of Leadership
The transactional theory of leadership was first discussed by Max Weber in 1947 and was later developed by Bernard M Bass in 1981. There are several assumptions that underlie the transactional theory, which are as follows:
• People perform their best when the chain of command is definite and clear
. • Workers are motivated by rewards and punishments.
• Obeying the instructions and commands of the leader is the primary goal of the followers.
 • Subordinates need to be carefully monitored to ensure that expectations are met. Under the transactional theory of leadership, the leaders guide or motivate their followers in the direction of established goals by clarifying role and task requirements. The

characteristic features exhibited by transactional leaders are as follows:
(i) Contingent Reward: The leader links the goals of the organization to rewards and clearly specifies and expectations , provides the needed resources and set SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely) goals for the subordinates;
 (ii) Management by Exception (Active): The leader actively monitors the performance of the subordinates, watches and searches for deviations from rules and standards, and take corrective actions to prevent mistakes;
(iii) Management by Exception (Passive): In terms of passive management, a leader intervenes only if standards are not met and even use punishments for poor performances; and
 (iv) Laissez-Faire: In this for, the leader gives an environment to subordinates, where they can take decisions. In this form, the leader himself abdicates from responsibilities and avoids making decisions, due to which the followers lack the direction.
This kind of leadership may not be suitable for all occasions and be suitable, where organizational problems are quite simple and clearly defined. The transactional leaders tend to be highly directive and action oriented and their relationship with the followers tends to be transitory and not based on emotional bonds. In taking this style of leadership, gender differences exist. Several studies found that, in using transactional leadership style, women were more likely to focus on the „rewards? component, while the men laid their focus on „punishment? component.
Transformational Theory of Leadership
 Transformational leadership is also equated to an extent with the charismatic leadership. In order to bring transformation in the followers? or employees? interest and reshape their capacity, one critical component that has been considered essential is the charisma of the leader. In this form of leadership, a leader inspires her/his followers to transcend their own self-interests for the betterment of the organization. Transformational leaders pay attention to the developmental needs and concerns of the followers, and inspire followers to give a new outlook for the old problems and thus motivate the followers towards achievement of the goals of the organization, by giving them new perspective. According to Bass and Riggio, there are four dimensions to the transformational theory of leadership, viz. Idealized Influence (II), Inspirational Motivation (IM), Intellectual Stimulation (IS) and Individualized Consideration (IC), which are as follows:
 (i) Idealized Influence (II): In this form of leadership, the leaders act as role models for their subordinates and they exhibit high morals and ethical standards. They further provide the vision and sense of mission, instill pride amidst the followers and gains respect and trust;
(ii) Inspirational Motivation (IM): In this dimension of leadership, leaders inspire their subordinates in various ways and give meaning to their work and bring new challenges and enthusiasm. The leader expresses the organizational purposes in simple terms to the followers and has high expectations on the followers;
(iii) Intellectual Stimulation (IS): In this form, the leaders stimulate the intellectual ability of their followers. That is, through new approaches, the leaders try to stimulate the way of thinking of their subordinates and thus, raise the creativity in them and promote intelligence, rationality and problem solving skills; and
 (iv) Individualized Consideration (IC): The leaders, under this dimension, pay more attention to the individual needs of development of the subordinates so as to achieve success (Kuchynkova, 2013).
Research was also made on the gender differences in transformational leadership and it was found that, women were rated higher than men on most dimensions of transformational leadership and higher outputs were achieved by women, by following this style of leadership. Apart from the above mentioned modern theories of leadership, there have been wide array of studies that have been taking place on leadership in recent times, which is based on the concepts of spirituality, authenticity, chaos and complexity, relationality, ethical leadership, visionary leadership, transcendence, etc
 All such analysis on leadership brings in new dimension to the study of leadership, and is still in the process of evolving a solid theoretical construct. The emerging theories thus, attempt to accommodate new organizational structures characterized by more fluid, temporal arrangements, rapidly changing technologies, increased globalization, and changing workplace demography (Klenke, 2011).
 Some of the substitute theories of leadership are of the view that in such new forms of organization, the need for a single leadership is diminished. However, some of the studies also suggest that in new forms of organizational structure, the need for a leader is felt more, because of the newness of the organizational structure and the followers tend to look at their leaders to make sense of the unfamiliar organizational forms (Klenke, 2011).

A few more leadership styles not discussed above-
The Bureaucratic Style:
 The bureaucratic leader (Weber, 1905) is very structured and follows the procedures as they had been established. This type of leadership has no space to explore new ways to solve problems and is usually slow paced to ensure approval of the ladders stated by the company. Leaders ensure that all the steps had been followed prior sending it to the next level of authority. Universities, schools, colleges and government organisation usually require this type of leader in its organizations to ensure quality, increase security and minimise malpractices. Leaders that try to speed up the process usually leads to frustration and anxiety.
 The Charismatic Style:
The charismatic leader (Weber, 1905) leads by infusing energy and eagerness into their team members. This type of leader has to be committed to the organization for the long run. Otherwise, charismatic leaders are a risk for the institution when they decide to resign for other opportunities because his/ her staff only saw the success of the department is linked to the leader and not the team. It takes time and hard work to gain the team members confidence back with other type of leadership.
The Servant Style:
A servant leader (Greenleaf, 1977) is the leader that facilitates goal accomplishment by giving its team members what they need in order to be productive. It is an instrument employees uses to reach the goal rather than a commanding voice that moves to change. This leadership style, as well as democratic leadership tends to achieve the results in a slower motion than other styles, although employee engagement is higher.
The Environment Style:
 The Environment Leader (Carmazzi, 2005) is the one who nurtures group or organizational environment to affect the emotional and psychological perception of an individual's place in that group or organization. An understaNdng and application of group psychology and dynamics is essential for this style to be effective. The leader uses organizational culture to inspire individuals to and develop leaders at all levels. This leadership style relies on creating an education matrix where groups interactively learn the fundamental psychology of group dynamics and culture fi-om each other. The leader uses this psychology, and complementary language, to influence direction through the members of the inspired group to do what is requjl-ed for the benefit of all.