Comparative analysis of four leadership models and theories

Leadership As A Montage Of Models The Connections Among Four Different Leadership Theories What is leadership? Can it be defined through simple terms, or does it change based on the situation and individual eader? If so, what leadership theories exist? What models can be put into practice and when should they be used? Scholars concerned with the practice of leadership have been considering these questions as they conduct studies, read previously written literature, and observe the movements of social, business, and political leaders. As these scholars have come up with many different kinds of leadership models, however, it can become difficult for the student of leadership to determine how models are different from one another and how they can be applied in various situations. Through examining the differences and similarities in four of these models-the leadership passages model, the servant leadership model, situational leadership, and leadership as a point of view-students of leadership can understand both the complex nature of leadership as well as the different models that one can use to become an effective leader. The leadership as passages model suggests that an effective leader must go through certain prerequisites in order to reach the highest height of management and leadership. Charan et al. (2003) who propose this model, argue that there are "six turns in the pipeline [that are] major events in the life of a leader" (chapt. 12). Much like a young person must go through rights of passage in growing up, a leader moves from manager of one's self to a manager of others, a manager of managers, a functional manager, a group manager, and an enterprise manager (Charan et al., 2003, chapt. 12). According to these scholars, each leader needs to follow in these steps so that he or she "become[s] familiar with the skills, time applications, and work values demanded by each passage, as well as the particular leadership gestalt" (Charan et al., 2003, chapt. 12). The scholars suggest that many problems in contemporary leadership stem from a misapplication of these passages. Because organizations are often concerned only with economic success or failure, they do not spend time thinking about the necessary "skills, time applications, and values" of the different levels (Charan et al., 2003, chapt. 12). By understanding and implementing developmental programs targeting these different passages, however, the authors argue that companies and organizations could have a better barometer through which to gauge leadership. Further, the authors of this model argue that its application will solve a variety of contemporary problems in leadership. For instance, they suggest that applying this model would make the human resources task of fitting certain people with certain jobs much easier. One of the current problems in leadership is the fact that employees are often placed in leadership roles when they cannot handle this responsibility. In addition, those who could handle leadership roles are occasionally left out. By incorporating this model, managers and human resources personnel could judge a person's ability for advancement by the accomplishments he or she has made in one area rather than by economic or company developed leadership assessments (Charan et al., 2003, chapt. 12). In addition, the model would be helpful in addressing personal development problems by allowing individuals an easy way to assess for themselves their shortcomings (Charan et al., 2003, chapt. 12). Unlike the passages model, which focuses on how leaders are developed, the servant-leadership model is most concerned with the motivations of leaders. In fact, Greenleaf (2003) argues that there is a major difference between the person who is leader first and the one who is servant first-the person who is servant first has ingrained "natural feeling that one wants to serve," while the leader first is often self- focused (chapt. 9). Like the passages model, however, the servant leadership model is, ultimately, focused on the end result. The end result of the passages model to create an effective leader that has the knowledge and skills developed through six different phases, while the end result of the servant leadership model is the creation of new servant leaders who, after being served, have developed enough to have the desire and ability to serve (Greenleaf, 2003, chapt. 9). Thus, the differences between the two models' end results can be summed up by pointing out that one is aimed at creating the most effective leader possible while the other is focused on creating a myriad of leaders. To achieve both of these ends, though, one impetus is needed-the individual. The passages model points to the young businessperson at the stage of managing him or herself as the tool needed to begin the leadership process, while the servant leadership model calls for one who has more inspiration than others and the desire to seek a following. Indeed, Kouzes (2003) points out that all leadership begins with the individual, suggesting that "the leader's primary instrument is the self" (chapt. Introduction). Despite the fact that both models focus on the individual as the impetus of leadership, their different end results spring from different methods of development. While the passages model focuses on developing the leader through rites of passage or leadership levels, the servant leadership model is based more on intangible concepts such as a dream, acceptance, and empathy (Greenleaf, 2003, chapt. 9). Furthermore, Pree (2003) argues that leadership is a way of thinking, and that servant leaders must frame their minds to understand that they owe "certain things to the institution" (chapt. 5). Pree (2003) identifies a list of concepts that leaders are responsible for, including the values of an organization, the cultivation of future leaders through giving them the ability to develop their skills and talents, the improvement of organizations, an expression of maturity and rationality, and for encouraging the organization to move in a progressive or upward manner (chapt. 5). The servant leadership model, then, can address those concepts that the passages model may create-egoism and self-centeredness in leaders. By defining leadership as servant hood through responsibilities, then, the concept of servant leadership can solve the egotism problems common in contemporary leadership. Two other models, the situational leadership model and leadership as a point of view model, share characteristics of both the passages and servant leadership model while adding their own unique formulas for solving problems in contemporary leadership. For instance, the situational model suggests that situational variables-the "leader, follower(s), superior(s), associates, organization, job demands, and time"-all impact the leadership event (Hersey & Blanchard, 2003, chapt. 8). Thus, this model suggests that a leader's style should be based not on some empirical model of leadership, but instead, the readiness of those who are being led (Hersey & Blanchard, 2003, chapt. 8). Thus, the situational model, like the passages and servant leadership model, place a burden on the individual as the impetus of leadership and argue that that leader must go through a process to achieve an end result, in this case a successful leadership event. Thus, the end result of situational leadership is different from the previous models, as is the process, which calls upon leaders to changes styles based on variables rather than progressing through certain levels or dwelling on the motivation for leadership. As Clawson (2006) points out that the world of leadership and management is changing in an important way (chapt. 2), the mode of situational leadership will properly address the modern challenge of changing roles and concepts in leadership, organizations, and management, as the situational model allows for changes to best suit changing variables. Similarly, the leadership as a point of view model suggests that "being a leader depends on point of view, not on title or status" (Clawson, 2006, chapt. 1). Like the situational model, then, this model allows for more flexibility. As in all of the models, the individual is still seen as the impetus of leadership, but the process and end results are different. Like the passages model, the leadership as a point of view model focuses on developing one extraordinary leader its end result. The process of achieving that end result is similar to the servant leadership process, in that it requires the leader to focus not on levels or situations, but instead on a formula for success, namely "seeing what needs to be done, understanding all the underlying forces play in a situation, [and] having the courage to initiate action to make things better" (Clawson, 2006, chapt. 1). Still, the model's process contains facets similar to the situational model by asking leaders to look at underlying forces, as well as facets similar to passages model by suggesting that leadership is a function of a person's own qualities, which must be developed over time. By focusing on the leadership as point of view model, organizations can solve problems relating to the confusion of leaders as those with titles and those without, giving real leadership responsibilities to those who undertake a leadership point of view. Thus, leadership models are diverse, each suggesting the same impetus of leadership-the individual-but preparing that individual for different end results through different processes. Still, each of the models is useful for preparing an individual for different types of leadership situations. Thus, leadership cannot be defined by a simple, dictionary definition. Instead, it is the culmination of theories and models working together to create a flexible ideal that can be manipulated according to circumstances. Though the comparison of the four mentioned models, it is easy to see how similarities and differences exist in leadership models, how they stand apart and overlap in order provide options for different leadership events.