Mohammad Mosaddek Hussain :
The word “leader and leadership” denotes a meaning way for leading the people to reach at a common goal that would benefit all the followers involved in the process of leadership but diversity in the cultural aspects the ways of leadership patterns are various in kinds and processes in the global context. So, the mindset, thinking process and ways of leadership are different in terms of socio-economic life, belief, norms, culture and attitudes as a whole. Needless to say that cultural phenomena plays a vital role in shaping the leadership pattern in the diverse cultural habits of people and locality. In the current global canvass we can see the pattern of diversity in cultural aspects are manifold.
Various studies and research were conducted over the past 50 years to identify and analyze leadership behavior and how this affects the personality and people as well. On the other hand, the word Leadership has been defined in various different ways, but most definitions assume that it involves an influence process concerned with facilitating the performance of a collective task to achieve the group goal in an systematic process based on the mass consent on the aforesaid tasks as a whole. The process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person over other people and followers to guide, structure, and facilitate activities and relationships in a group to achieve organizational effectiveness and overall success in course of time. In this connection Robins and Judge (2008) define leadership as “the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of goals (p. 385). Along the ability to influence, intercultural, interpersonal and organizational communication skills are crucial for global leaders. For effective leadership in multicultural settings, a global mindset and diversity understanding are the most important skills required of leaders. Not only that, the global leaders are to be proactive, knowledgeable and able to tackle the emerging situations those are not perceived earlier. This is an extra-ordinary trait for a global as well as a dynamic leader.
Discussions on leadership highlighted that there are several distinct theoretical bases for leadership. At first, leaders were felt to be born, not made. So-called great person theory of leadership, it implied that some individuals are born with certain traits that allowed them to emerge out of any situation or period of history to become leaders. The trait theories concentrate on the leaders themselves and have shown little promise for either the understanding of the leadership process or the relationship with effective leadership performance. Recent research findings show a significant relationship with the “Big Five” personality traits and effective leadership. According to Luthans (2008), there is emerging interest in positive organizational behavior capacities (i.e. hope, optimism, resiliency, emotional intelligence, and, especially, self-efficacy) and effective leaders, and there is continuing concern with leader skills and competences.
It shows that most of the researchers evaluate leadership effectiveness in terms of the consequences of the leader’s actions for followers and its results. Further, it is a process of an exchange between the leader and the followers. The group and exchange theories emphasize the importance of followers.
As it was known that Graen and Uhl Bien (1995) applied a multi-level and multi-domain perspective on leadership, distinguishing between leader-based, follower-based, and relationship-based leadership styles. After the application of these, leader-based style was found to include more structured tasks, strong leader position power, member acceptance of leader, and common understanding of leader and power. Secondly, follower-based became known for more unstructured tasks, weak position power, member non-acceptance of leader, and leader’s absence from responsibilities. Thirdly, the relationship based style included situation favorability for leader between two extremes, accommodated differing needs of subordinates, and could elicit superior work from different types. Now known as Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory, it says the leaders treat individual followers differently; in particular, leaders and their associates develop two-person dyadic relationships that affect the behavior of both (Luthans, p. 417). This research continues to be relatively supportive despite some criticism it received over the years.
Besides, from the social cognitive perspective, it should be taken into account that leader-member exchanges of perceptions and different issues are a reciprocal process, as leaders may be inclined to change follower self-concept in the short run to achieve performance goals and more enduring changes. Meanwhile, followers reciprocally shape leaders’ self-schemas through their responses, both as individuals and through collective process.
Traditional theories of leadership tend to be more situation-based. In particular, Fiedler’s contingency model made a significant contribution to leadership theory and potentially to the practice of human resource management as well.
On the other hand, the situation in which an organization operates plays an influential role in designing and managing the organization effectively. The situational variables and contextual aspects of leadership affect leadership roles, skills, behavior, and followers’ performance and satisfaction. This should be noted that group performance depends on the proper match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives control to the leader. The theory suggests that a key factor to leadership success is the individual’s fixed leadership style and capacity of managing people as a whole. After the research that conducted empirically, , Fiedler concluded that task-oriented leaders end to perform better in situations of high and low control, while relationship-oriented leaders perform best in moderate control situations. It is important to note that contingency theory emphasizes that leaders are not successful in all situations due to different factors. In the current century workplace situation, this theory is still predictive and provides useful information about the type of leadership most likely to be successful. Data from this empirical research theory could be particularly useful to organizations in developing leadership profiles. However, the theory does not clearly explain why people with certain leadership style are more effective in particular situations than others, as well as what to do when the leader and the situation mismatch in the workplace. In addition, use of psychology and sociology has contributed to the development of five major contingency theories: Fiedler’s least-preferred co-worker (LPC) theory (relationships, power, and tasks), Evans’s path-goal theory (paths and rewards), Kerr and Jermier’s leadership substitutes theory, multiple-linkage models (leadership and group effectiveness), and Fiedler’s cognitive resource theory (Robins and Judge, 2008, pp. 386-403).
Yukl’s studies (2002) proposes might be refined into the three jointly inter-reacting categories of task-, relations-, and change-oriented behaviors. On looking at the fields of study covering participative (change-oriented) leadership, delegation and empowerment, Yukl more closely examined Vroom-Yetoon’s model of participative leadership to identify decision procedures in different situations. In his Leadership in Organizations book, he considers some detrimental success of collective participatory efforts by members of an organization to achieve meaningful tasks then gives the following definition of leadership: “Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives” (p. 7). One of the most important and difficult leadership responsibilities is leading change, especially the cultural change. The creation and establishment of a clear and compelling vision is useful to guide the organization through change, and guidelines are necessary for formulating a vision, as well as implementing change for political or organizational or people-oriented actions.
The word “leader and leadership” denotes a meaning way for leading the people to reach at a common goal that would benefit all the followers involved in the process of leadership but diversity in the cultural aspects the ways of leadership patterns are various in kinds and processes in the global context. So, the mindset, thinking process and ways of leadership are different in terms of socio-economic life, belief, norms, culture and attitudes as a whole. Needless to say that cultural phenomena plays a vital role in shaping the leadership pattern in the diverse cultural habits of people and locality. In the current global canvass we can see the pattern of diversity in cultural aspects are manifold.
Various studies and research were conducted over the past 50 years to identify and analyze leadership behavior and how this affects the personality and people as well. On the other hand, the word Leadership has been defined in various different ways, but most definitions assume that it involves an influence process concerned with facilitating the performance of a collective task to achieve the group goal in an systematic process based on the mass consent on the aforesaid tasks as a whole. The process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person over other people and followers to guide, structure, and facilitate activities and relationships in a group to achieve organizational effectiveness and overall success in course of time. In this connection Robins and Judge (2008) define leadership as “the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of goals (p. 385). Along the ability to influence, intercultural, interpersonal and organizational communication skills are crucial for global leaders. For effective leadership in multicultural settings, a global mindset and diversity understanding are the most important skills required of leaders. Not only that, the global leaders are to be proactive, knowledgeable and able to tackle the emerging situations those are not perceived earlier. This is an extra-ordinary trait for a global as well as a dynamic leader.
Discussions on leadership highlighted that there are several distinct theoretical bases for leadership. At first, leaders were felt to be born, not made. So-called great person theory of leadership, it implied that some individuals are born with certain traits that allowed them to emerge out of any situation or period of history to become leaders. The trait theories concentrate on the leaders themselves and have shown little promise for either the understanding of the leadership process or the relationship with effective leadership performance. Recent research findings show a significant relationship with the “Big Five” personality traits and effective leadership. According to Luthans (2008), there is emerging interest in positive organizational behavior capacities (i.e. hope, optimism, resiliency, emotional intelligence, and, especially, self-efficacy) and effective leaders, and there is continuing concern with leader skills and competences.
It shows that most of the researchers evaluate leadership effectiveness in terms of the consequences of the leader’s actions for followers and its results. Further, it is a process of an exchange between the leader and the followers. The group and exchange theories emphasize the importance of followers.
As it was known that Graen and Uhl Bien (1995) applied a multi-level and multi-domain perspective on leadership, distinguishing between leader-based, follower-based, and relationship-based leadership styles. After the application of these, leader-based style was found to include more structured tasks, strong leader position power, member acceptance of leader, and common understanding of leader and power. Secondly, follower-based became known for more unstructured tasks, weak position power, member non-acceptance of leader, and leader’s absence from responsibilities. Thirdly, the relationship based style included situation favorability for leader between two extremes, accommodated differing needs of subordinates, and could elicit superior work from different types. Now known as Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory, it says the leaders treat individual followers differently; in particular, leaders and their associates develop two-person dyadic relationships that affect the behavior of both (Luthans, p. 417). This research continues to be relatively supportive despite some criticism it received over the years.
Besides, from the social cognitive perspective, it should be taken into account that leader-member exchanges of perceptions and different issues are a reciprocal process, as leaders may be inclined to change follower self-concept in the short run to achieve performance goals and more enduring changes. Meanwhile, followers reciprocally shape leaders’ self-schemas through their responses, both as individuals and through collective process.
Traditional theories of leadership tend to be more situation-based. In particular, Fiedler’s contingency model made a significant contribution to leadership theory and potentially to the practice of human resource management as well.
On the other hand, the situation in which an organization operates plays an influential role in designing and managing the organization effectively. The situational variables and contextual aspects of leadership affect leadership roles, skills, behavior, and followers’ performance and satisfaction. This should be noted that group performance depends on the proper match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives control to the leader. The theory suggests that a key factor to leadership success is the individual’s fixed leadership style and capacity of managing people as a whole. After the research that conducted empirically, , Fiedler concluded that task-oriented leaders end to perform better in situations of high and low control, while relationship-oriented leaders perform best in moderate control situations. It is important to note that contingency theory emphasizes that leaders are not successful in all situations due to different factors. In the current century workplace situation, this theory is still predictive and provides useful information about the type of leadership most likely to be successful. Data from this empirical research theory could be particularly useful to organizations in developing leadership profiles. However, the theory does not clearly explain why people with certain leadership style are more effective in particular situations than others, as well as what to do when the leader and the situation mismatch in the workplace. In addition, use of psychology and sociology has contributed to the development of five major contingency theories: Fiedler’s least-preferred co-worker (LPC) theory (relationships, power, and tasks), Evans’s path-goal theory (paths and rewards), Kerr and Jermier’s leadership substitutes theory, multiple-linkage models (leadership and group effectiveness), and Fiedler’s cognitive resource theory (Robins and Judge, 2008, pp. 386-403).
Yukl’s studies (2002) proposes might be refined into the three jointly inter-reacting categories of task-, relations-, and change-oriented behaviors. On looking at the fields of study covering participative (change-oriented) leadership, delegation and empowerment, Yukl more closely examined Vroom-Yetoon’s model of participative leadership to identify decision procedures in different situations. In his Leadership in Organizations book, he considers some detrimental success of collective participatory efforts by members of an organization to achieve meaningful tasks then gives the following definition of leadership: “Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives” (p. 7). One of the most important and difficult leadership responsibilities is leading change, especially the cultural change. The creation and establishment of a clear and compelling vision is useful to guide the organization through change, and guidelines are necessary for formulating a vision, as well as implementing change for political or organizational or people-oriented actions.
