Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Three Levels of Leadership model attempts to combine the strengths of older leadership theories (i.e. traits, behavioral/styles, situational, functional) while addressing their limitations and, at the same time, offering a foundation for leaders wanting to apply the philosophies of servant leadership and "authentic leadership". [2]
Another model that has emerged in the trait leadership literature is the Integrated Model of Leader Traits, Behaviors, and Effectiveness. [3] This model combines traits and behaviors in predicting leader effectiveness and tested the mediation effect of leader behaviors on the relationship between leader traits and effectiveness.
The Vroom–Yetton contingency model is a situational leadership theory of industrial and organizational psychology developed by Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Philip Yetton (1973) and later with Arthur Jago (1988). The situational theory argues the best style of leadership is contingent to the situation.
Fiedler's contingency model is a dynamic model where the personal characteristics and motivation of the leader are said to interact with the current situation that the group faces. Thus, the contingency model marks a shift away from the tendency to attribute leadership effectiveness to personality alone. [5]
Cognitive resource theory (CRT) is a leadership theory of industrial and organisational psychology developed by Fred Fiedler and Joe Garcia in 1987 as a reconceptualisation of the Fiedler contingency model. [1] The theory focuses on the influence of the leader's intelligence and experience on their reaction to stress.
Situational Leadership Theory, now named the Situational Leadership Model, is a model created by Dr. Paul Hersey and Dr. Ken Blanchard, developed while working on the text book, Management of Organizational Behavior. [1] The theory was first introduced in 1969 as "Life Cycle Theory of Leadership". [2]
Transformational leadership is a leadership theory in which a leader's behaviors influence their followers, inspiring them to perform beyond their perceived capabilities. This style of leadership encourages individuals to achieve unexpected or remarkable results by prioritizing their collective vision over their immediate self-interests.
The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the "hearts and minds" of followers in day-to-day management; the democratic leadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally, the laissez-faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it ...