Hersey (1984) defines leadership as the ability to influence others to contribute willingly to the goals of an organization. Leaders have followers whom they work with to attain the goals that have been created. They provide a guideline about how things should happen in the organization. Leaders aim at working with and through people to achieve the desired objectives. Risk taking is a characteristic of leaders since they always adapt new things without the certainty (Graeff, 1983). Complexity leadership theory is a new leadership concept developed to assist people carry out their leadership activities efficiently. The complex leadership theory suggests that organizations are made up of complicated systems which are made up of diversified agency relationships that interact and affect each other. This inter-relationship leads to bottom-up behavior between all the agents (Marion, Uhl-Bien, 2002). Complex leaders seek to achieve a network that links all activities and people together to achieve a success through diversity of activities. Interdependence among different units in the organization is encouraged to achieve synergies from all departments. In this paper I will discuss leadership theories as developed by various people. A comparison and contrast of the traditional theory and complexity theory models of leadership will be provided. Leadership theories Several theorists have come up with different versions which describe leaders. Great man theory explains that leaders have traits which they are born with and that these traits are unique to each person. This theory states that leaders have genetics aspects which differentiate them from other people. When there is need for a leader in a given situation, a great man arises naturally to solve the leadership issues at hand. Leaders are said to be born but not made. This theory was applied in the military where leaders were selected depending on their natural traits. Leadership was perceived to be dominated by men and women were said not to have the capacity to hold leadership positions (Changing mind, 2010). Trait theory is similar to the great man theory in that it provides that great leaders have specific characteristics. According to this theory leaders are born but not made. People with good leadership traits have a good combination of the traits. Similar to the great man theory, leadership traits are inherited. This theory provides a set of skills which leaders possess: clever, conceptually skilled, creative, diplomatic and tactful, fluent in speaking, knowledgeable about group task, organized, persuasive, and socially skilled (Jones, Heijden, & Bono, p. 22). Situational leadership theory requires the leader to apply different leadership skills depending on the situation. The leader should have the ability to learn the changes in the environment to apply the best skills. Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard suggest that situational leaders are able to match the leadership style with the group they are leading (Mind Tools Ltd, 2010). Leadership requires creating followers within the group. The leader acts like the manager of the group and the subjects are the followers. Leaders work with the followers to achieve the desired goals. The situation of the organization will dictate the approach the leaders will use to guide the followers towards achieving the goals (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). Behavioral leadership theories explain that leaders can be made and are not born. Leadership behavior can be learned, defined and acquired. Behavioral leadership theories seek to identify the performance of leaders rather than their inborn traits. Success in an organization can be defined by actions which can be described or acquired by other. People learn from others and develop better leadership traits from lessons acquired from other people. Unlike the great man theory and the trait theory, behavioral theory focuses on the acquisition of leadership skills (Lussier & Achua, 2009). Participative leadership theory is of the nature that the leader allows the followers to participate in the decision making process. The followers are able to understand the goals of the organization and they work towards achieving them. The leader is involved in the daily activities of the organization and he leads by showing examples to the followers. The leader is able to identify the problems facing the employees. As such the leader and the followers work as a team with common goals. Conflicts within the organization are solved amicably between the team members. Such leaders avoid authoritarian leadership practices and allow democracy to prevail. The rule of the majority is accepted by the followers (Cherry, 2010). Delegating leadership theory provides that the leader allows the followers have control over all the decisions of the organizations. Thy have the mandate to come up with problem solving strategies. The leader is innovative about the management of all the people in the organization. The followers decide when to involve the leader in the decisions made within the organization. Delegating leadership style is appropriate for the followers with high competence and commitment level. A leader who delegates his duties to the followers has trust in them and this improves the morale of the employees. The followers design the way to perform duties and they own all the decisions of the company (Lussier, 2008). Under the coaching leadership model, the leader acts like a teacher to the followers and he/she guides them towards achieving the goals of the company. He identifies the strength and weaknesses of the team and establishes solutions to the problems facing the followers. Opinions are shared among the team members to find out the most valuable decisions to be implemented in the organization. The leader provides roles and tasks to be done and allows the followers give input and suggestions about the performance of the duties. The coaching style is applicable when the followers are more responsible and experienced (Craig, 2009). Similarities between traditional leadership and complexity leadership theories Great man theory provides that leaders are people with special qualities and that they are able to guide their followers to achieve goals of the organization. Similarly, complexity leadership theory supports that leaders must be unique from their followers and they should possess skills which are outstanding so that they can influence their followers to contribute willingly to the goals and objectives of the organization (Bolden, Gosling, Manturano & Dennison, 2003). By being unique leaders show superior qualities than their followers and this provides them with power to influence others. Leaders are said to have the ability to control the decision of others and it is this skill that makes them unique. According to situational leadership theory leaders apply varied skills depending on the situation being experienced in the organization. Leaders have the freedom to decide the actions to take in different circumstances and this requires them to have adequate knowledge about performing different activities in the organization (Marriner-Tomey, 2004). Different levels of the organization require different leadership styles. Similarly, the complexity leadership theory requires all formal systems to be removed in an organization for effective implementation of goals. Informal systems are accepted by the complexity leadership theory such that leaders can use these systems to reduce bureaucracy for effectiveness and efficiency in achieving goals and objectives. Behavioral leadership theories focus on what leaders do instead of their qualities. On the other hand complexity leadership theories explain that it is the acts of people that determine whether they are leaders or not. The aspect of qualities that leaders have is not closely associated with leadership in both theories (Bolden, Gosling, Manturano & Dennison, 2003). Transformational leadership theory provides that a leader should aim at aspiring the followers. The leader must have passion and vision to achieve great things by influencing his/her followers. They must provide enthusiasm and energy to the followers. Similarly, the complexity leadership theory requires leaders to be proactive and to create energy at the organization by influencing all the stakeholders to contribute collectively to the goals which have been agreed upon. The theory suggests that leaders aim at transforming the current status of the organization by encouraging the followers to have the passion for change. The overall aim of the two theories is to bring change within the organization by developing systems which transform the status quo and bringing new and innovative strategies (Hacker, & Roberts, 2003). Contrast between traditional leadership and complexity leadership theoriesComplex leadership differs from other traditional leadership theories in a number of ways. Leaders are said to be created by the systems in an organization under the complex leadership theories. This is achieved by the use of the process of aggregation and emergence. On the other hand, the traditional leadership theories provide that leaders create the system within an organization (Marion, Uhl-Bien, 2002). A complex system requires leaders to use indirect leadership while the traditional leadership theories prefer the use of direct leadership. Complex leadership theories do not encourage the use bureaucracy as compared to the traditional leadership. Traditional leadership theories encourage the use of top-down leadership control system as opposed to the complex leadership theories. Bottom-up behavior is accepted by complex leadership theories contrary to the traditional leadership theories. Leaders are encouraged to control their temper under the complex leadership theories. They are supposed to control systems to ensure emergent issues are dealt with amicably (Marion, Uhl-Bien, 2002). Complex leadership admits informal systems within the organization and tries to simplify complex organizational systems. This is achieved by creating a small difference between leaders and their followers. As such the distinction between leaders and followers is blurred by creating an informal structure of operating activities within an organization. Leadership is seen as an informal system of control where superiors interact freely with their juniors. There are no formal barriers of communication which may hinder people from all levels to interact with each other (Marion, Uhl-Bien, 2002). Complex leaders have the capacity to distribute control over resources to all sectors of the organization. Such leaders are said to have distribution intelligence such that they can determine the best strategies for distributing the resources available for them. Through distribution intelligence, complex leaders are able to connect between diverse issues within the organization. In the modern days, organizations have become complex and there is need to combine all resources to achieve success. Complex leaders are required in the modern organization to carry out complex processes involved in the organization (Marion, Uhl-Bien, 2002). Traditional leadership theories accept the use of commands and controls in achieving goals within the organization. On the other hand, complex leadership theories support the reduction of controls and commands to ensure the entire system has minimum controls. Complex leaders provide their followers with adequate support and freedom to conduct their activities in their own ways. Complex leadership has led to the emergence of innovative ideas of conducting activities within the organization. The need for innovative ideas has generated the need for a system that allows people in an organization to have a favorable environment for developing these innovations (Marion, Uhl-Bien, 2002). The great man theory of leadership differs from the complexity leadership theory in that great man theory perceives leadership as a trait that a person is born with and which is genetic in nature. On the other hand, complexity theory supports that leadership is acquired by experiencing some aspects in life. Great man theory proposes that leaders are specifically males while the complexity leadership theory supports that anybody can become a leaders irrespective of their gender. According to great man theory, leaders are special people with special qualities and are destined to lead. Complexity theory supports that leaders are ordinary people who acquire leadership skills through experiences in life (Bolden, Gosling, Manturano & Dennison, 2003). The trait leadership theory is similar to the great man leadership theory because it accepts the fact that leaders have unique traits. This theory was applied in the military to describe specific leadership traits that the soldiers must possess. People with specific characteristics could be selected, trained, and recruited into leadership roles within the military. On the contrary, complexity leadership theory does not support the fact that leaders must possess specific qualities. In fact any body can become a leader as far as proper environment is provided to support his/her leadership skills (Bolden, Gosling, Manturano & Dennison, 2003). Transactional leadership theories explain that there is a contractual relationship between the leader and the follower such that there are some rewards and recognition acquired when the two parties co-exist. The relationship between the leader and the follower is a mutual one because both parties aim at achieving benefits from the contract. On the other hand, complexity leadership theory does not establish a mutual relationship between the leader and the followers but instead the two parties are perceived to contribute willingly for the benefit of the organization. It is not in all situations that the leader and the follower will benefit from the relationship (Bolden, Gosling, Manturano & Dennison, 2003). Conclusion Leadership provides a person with the skills to work with people to achieve the pre-determined goals and objectives. Complexity leadership theory has brought change in the organizations and traditional leadership concepts are no longer useful. The new theory focuses on reducing bureaucracy and formal procedures in organizations which may hinder people from achieving the goals of the organization. Both the traditional and complexity leadership theories are similar in that they emphasize the fact that leaders have a responsibility to ensure that their followers contribute willingly to the goals and objectives of the organization.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]