Skills and Situational Theories

A leadership theory that has wide universal appeal and I feel has greatly influenced the modern take on leadership, is the situational theory of leadership. This theory dictates how one should employ their leadership styles in various situations, and that the leadership style should change according to that situation. I like the fact that this theory acknowledges that different styles of leadership can work across a wide range of situations, that there isn’t some sort of one-size-fits-all type of leadership. I have definitely seen this theory in action. From my own personal experience, my mom knows how to vary her tactics over different situations. For instance, when I’m confronted with some sort of school project that’s really intimidating me, my mother uses a more supportive style of leadership to encourage me, for she knows I’m perfectly capable of doing the project, I just need that support to succeed. But on another occasion, like if I’m home for the weekend and helping out around the house, then she employs a directive leadership style, in which she specifically tells me what to do and how to do it. Not that this is the most inspiring form of leadership, but it does get the job done efficiently.
Another appealing theory of leadership is the skills based approach, which emphasizes the skills that make a person a good leader. And what’s so lovely about this theory is that these skills can be learned. Unlike the trait theory in which you are either born a leader or you aren’t, the skills theory posits that basically anyone can be developed into a leader. Three skills that relate to different levels of (management) leadership in this theory are technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills. I have seen these different skills in different levels of leadership at the movie theater I used to work at. The Team Leaders (the lowest level of management) had to have really excellent technical skills in how the theater was physically run, because they were the ones who trained all the new hires. They also had to have tremendous human skills, because they were constantly working with people both higher and lower than them, not to mention countless customers. They didn’t really need conceptual skills though. My General Manager (the highest level of management) definitely had those missing conceptual skills, he was always going on about the vision he had for the theater at our meetings. And he had great human skills as well; he knew how to inspire all of his employees into working harder. What he lacked though were technical skills. It was very entertaining when he would try his hand at the concession stand, or at ushering, and we all ended up realizing he knew little more than a new hire. But what this all has shown me is that leadership in a managerial context requires certain skills, or sometimes not, it just depends on the level of the job in question.

Great Man and Trait Theories

Have you ever noticed that there are certain characteristics that set leaders apart from non-leaders? Well, leadership philosophers and researchers (especially during the 1930s through the 1950s) have. Tons of research was published that tried to pin point exactly what made a person a leader, which included physical appearance, personality traits, etc. These lists and ideas of what makes a leader a leader ended up being called the Trait Theory, which states that there are certain defining characteristics and traits that set leaders apart from the rest of humanity. Five traits that researchers have found that are strongly associated with effective leadership are intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability. I am inclined to believe that these traits do help to make a good leader, simply for the fact that it would be hard to imagine a leader lacking any of these traits! Leadership is not a passive role that is just conferred to you, leadership is something that needs to be actively chosen, hence determination and a certain degree of self-confidence is required. Also, effective leaders do need to collaborate with followers, and trust is usually only gained by people who have integrity and sociability, making those traits a no-brainer. Leaders also have to have some intelligence to make good decisions, and to persuade others to follow suit. I feel there is some valid information integrated into the Trait Theory, even if it’s too simplistic. After all, I’ve worked in groups at school on some project or other, and it isn’t the dumb, unmotivated, and antagonistic people who naturally rise up to be leaders. No, it’s the people possessing the above mentioned traits who take on leadership roles, and who we as followers listen to and chose in good faith to lead us.
One of the issues with the Trait Theory is that if you aren’t born with the necessary characteristics, you are doomed to be a follower forever. That is why a separate approach to Trait Theory came onto the scene, called the Strengths-Based approach. This approach was derived from positive psychology, and says to focus on the traits that you have going for you, instead of trying to address what you might be lacking. What ends up happening is that leaders are then needed to be matched up with specific situations that fit their strengths. I would normally like this approach because it acknowledges the potential in everyone to be a leader. But I have issues with it in that the areas where a person is lacking should be addressed, not ignored. By addressing the issue, there is a possibility of rectifying it, and so make a better leader of that person. For instance, I’m not a horribly shy person (anymore), but I have a problem with public speaking. I know the only way to get better at public speaking is by practicing it! And so I’ve taken on an internship in which I teach English to refugees. It’s only a small group of about fifteen people, but I’m still taking on that issue of public speaking, and little by little I have been getting more confident in my abilities as a public speaker and as a teacher.

History Of Leadership

As I mentioned in a previous post, the definitions of leadership are constantly changing, that change with each passing decade. But to reflect this changing definition there are changing theories of leadership as well. The first cohesive and well-defined theory of leadership was the Great Man Theory. Leaders were born, not made! You can sort of see why this theory had such a following, and why even today it is still going strong. For there is a recognition that our leaders were born to rule, that there is something special or significant about them that you can’t attribute to learned behaviors or situations. I feel there is a link between the Great Man Theory of leadership and what Leo Tolstoy wrote in his essay, “Rulers and Generals are History’s Slaves”. In the Great Man Theory, men are born into leadership roles, they have no choice. According to Tolstoy, leaders have no choice in the grand scheme of things to be anything but people who affect the world, history is conspiring against them. I feel I’ve seen this theory at work, for instance: I’ve known the current youth leader of my church since we were both in elementary school, and he is someone that people are just naturally drawn to, someone they naturally elect to leadership roles because he just seems to fit the bill without any effort. In fact, there was really no question of whether or not he would take over for his older brother (who was the previous youth leader, but left to get his Masters Degree). It was almost as if it were preordained… I feel personally that this friend of mine never particularly “learned” to be a leader; he was just gifted with those abilities (and the position that needed to be filled) right from the start.
Another interesting concept (but not really a theory) of leadership by another prominent intellectual is that the means of leadership is preferably by way of the law, but can also be achieved through dishonesty and fear. That is, the theory propagated by Machiavelli in “The Prince” is that the best method of ruling is by honesty and being just, but if the only way to achieve the desired result is to be dishonest and not just, then that is the proper course of action. Namely, the ends justify the means. I feel like I’ve seen the perfect example of this in the character of Col. Mathieu in the film, “The Battle of Algiers”. The character is portrayed in a pretty sympathetic light, a decent man who is trying to lead in a just way. But to win the battle against the FLN (those fighting for independence), he needs to resort to torture to get needed information. In the movie, reporters’ question him at a press conference regarding the ethical issues regarding his methods he calls “interrogation”. Mathieu replies that their entire reason for being in Algiers is to stop the FLN and keep the country as a colony of France. Torture is the only effective means of fighting back. Therefore, as long as the French people deem winning as the most important objective, then he will continue to do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal. In other words, the end justifies the means.