1.What are the similarities and differences between the trait and behavior approaches to leadership? 2.What are the major assumptions of the contingency approach to leadership? 3.What are positive and negative impacts of substitutes on leaders and organizations? Provide examples. 4. How can leaders use the LMX Model in improving their effectiveness?

Question 1

There exist some similarities and differences between trait and behavior approaches to leadership that is viewed as theories. Regarding the similarities, the first similarity characterized by the two leading arguments is that both talks about the identifiable plans that any leader should perform in any given condition. Behaviorism is viewed as a trait theory in that it states that leaders must show some everyday personality habits of mind; however, it indicates that these can be demonstrated from any person at any time (Derue et al. 2011). On the other hand, the difference existing between these theories is that behaviorism is a more free type of approach that states that leadership skills can be obtained through just training while the trait theory holds that leadership must have some specific essential features.

Question 2

The contingency approach of leadership is considered to fall under a set of behavioral approach that articulates that there is no a given particular manner of management as it varies from time to time and that a leadership style that appears to be useful in some situations might fail to work in others. An effect to this notion is that leaders who are recommendable in a given place may turn out to be unsuccessful either when shifted to another situation or when some part of the system change (Pertusa-Ortega, Molina-Azorín & Claver-Cortés, 2010). Therefore, the assumption with the contingency approach is that an executive’s effort to manage is contingent by different situational considerations together with a leader’s favorite style, the capabilities, and characters of supporters and other diverse situational considerations.

Question 3

The substitutes for leadership states that, under given conditions, situational considerations may at times substitute for leadership. Moreover, some situational factors are capable of neutralizing leadership such as stop a leader from taking a particular action.  One of the strengths of substitutes is that recognizes the role played by followers in the leadership phase, rather than just the features and characteristics of a leader. Also, alternatives can act as a moderating factor to the effects of transactional leadership characters on performance results. However, there is weak evidence showing the positive sides of substitutes; therefore. A leader’s behavior is the only significant variable in trying to understand an employee’s feedback.

Question 4

Using LMX also known as Leader-Member Exchange Theory is essential in improving effectiveness as it looks into the way leaders and managers come up with relationships with their team members; and also highlights how these relationships can either lead to development or hold people back. This type of theory is also important in capturing the attention towards the significance of proper communication in leadership as it is the way through which leaders and various subordinates, develop, grow and keep beneficial exchanges that in turn improve effectiveness.  Also, when mutual respect characterizes the communication, trust, and commitment, then it also leads to effective leadership (Harris, Li & Kirkman, 2014). The theory also provides opportunities for training and growth within a business as the theory continually alerts one to the preference he or she might unconsciously or even unfairly be showing other team members. This makes a leader offer all of the team member’s effective chances of training, growth, and advancement.

References

Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. E. D., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel psychology, 64(1), 7-52.

Harris, T. B., Li, N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2014). Leader–member exchange (LMX) in context: How LMX differentiation and LMX relational separation attenuate LMX’s influence on OCB and turnover intention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 314-328.

Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Molina-Azorín, J. F., & Claver-Cortés, E. (2010). Competitive strategy, structure and firm performance: A comparison of the resource-based view and the contingency approach. Management Decision, 48(8), 1282-1303.