Jeremy Reece
Introduction to Educational Leadership
LEAD 7000 02
Dr. Bill Akey
Wednesday, March 5, 2009
Mid-Term Examination
1. Describe your own leadership theory in detail. Which of the theories studied this
semester is closest to your own approach to leadership? Give specifics on why you
think this theory is similar to your own.
I feel that the situational approach to leadership is most closely related to my personal style
of leadership. According to Northouse, “leadership is a process whereby an individual
influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (2007).” However, until the
situational approach to leadership was presented, no style, approach, or theory of leadership we
reviewed encouraged the leader to examine the specific characteristics of the situation presented,
much less the skill level or development level of the subordinates associated with the situation or
task. As a mid-level manager in an institution of higher education, I do firmly believe that each
situation presented will contain a new set of factors that must be considered to complete a task in
the most efficient manner possible. Without completely examining your situation or task, before
creating work assignments or assigning personnel to complete the assignments, a leader will not
have completely prepared for the task, and could experience unexpected difficulties in
completing the task to productivity standards.
With each task I encounter, I feel it is my responsibility to document my resources available
in support of my goal or objective, to uncover potential roadblocks or threats to the successful
completion of the task, and to identify the personnel best suited to help with the task or
responsibility. When considering personnel, it is paramount to ensure that the team members are
aware of what is necessary to complete the task satisfactorily; although, depending on the
development level or skill level of the employee, my involvement in the task may be required or
minimized.
However, one piece of the situational approach that troubles me is the competence and
commitment levels of employees. I do not agree that employees I have encountered with
medium levels of experience and knowledge are less committed to an organization or task than
new or fully mature team members are. Northouse notes this criticism when he writes, “Why do
subordinates who learn a task become less committed (2007)?” It is my belief that each
employee should be examined, as situations are examined in the situational approach, to
determine their competence and commitment levels to the organization.
Only after each of these items have been addressed, and the team members have been
identified, do I move forward with a task or responsibility. I agree with Northouse, “Effective
leadership occurs when the leader can accurately diagnose the development level of subordinates
in a task situation and then exhibit the prescribed leadership style that matches the situation
(2007).” As many colleagues have noted in class, I believe that a large number of these steps are
reviewed and noted sub conscientiously; however, they are still necessary for a leader to be
successful.
2. Select any two theories we have studied thus far from the Northouse text. Compare
and contrast the two theories. Be specific in your explanation and cite the text.
Also, find at least two additional citations that support your argument from current
journals.
The trait approach was one of the first attempts to study leadership and the “traits” exhibited
by strong, successful leaders. By examining leadership in this way, the abilities necessary to
lead were held only by those who were born with these qualities. These qualities, like
intelligence, responsibility, confidence, and sociability, separated leaders from their followers.
This body of research was led by Stogdill, Mann, Lord, Kirkpatrick, and Locke. Each
contributed their findings in an attempt to identify the ultimate set of traits possessed by a
successful leader, and as you would expect, their findings uncovered separate traits they
determined to be important. However, five major traits seemed to appear consistently across
studies: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability (2007). The trait
approach and associated research also examines the personality exhibited by leaders, as well as
their emotional intelligence. According to Northouse, extraversion was the personality type most
closely associated with an effective leader, and with respect to emotional intelligence, a leader
who is more sensitive to his emotions and the emotions of others will be the most effective
(2007).
The skills approach moves away from the examination of leadership as personality
characteristics or traits, and focuses on the skills all successful leaders must possess. Most
importantly, the skills approach presents leadership and the skills associated with effective
leadership as something that can be learned or developed through training (2007). According to
Northouse, “Through job experience and training, leaders can become better problem solvers and
more effective leaders (2007).”
This body of research was led by Katz, Zaccaro, and Mumford. Katz was determined to
move the study of leadership away from a set of traits over which individuals had little or no
control, to a study of skills that could be developed or enhanced with appropriate training and
recognition by the individual. As a result, Katz developed the “Three-Skill Approach,” in which
he articulated the three skill sets needed by managers at various levels within an organization:
technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills. According to Katz, while human skills are
necessary for all levels of leaders, technical skills are less important for top-level leaders or
executives. Moreover, conceptual skills, which are very important for mid-level and top-level
leaders, are less important for low-level leaders (2007). Once again, according to Katz, as an
individual moves within an organization, their awareness of necessary skills and the
development of these skills is possible.
Also related to the skills approach, Mumford and his associates developed a “capability
model.” Like the “Three-Skill Approach,” according to Mumford, the skills necessary to lead
effectively are developed or learned over time. His more complex model includes competencies,
individual attributes, leadership outcomes, career experiences, and environmental influences
(2007). According to Northouse, “…problem-solving skills, social judgment skills, and
knowledge are at the heart of the skills model. These three competencies are the key factors that
account for effective performance (2007).”
Both the trait approach and the skills approach are intuitively appealing, but they are
appealing for different reasons. The trait approach presents leaders as, “…special people who
are out front, leading the way in society (Northouse, 2007).” This model of leadership fits well
with the public’s view of what it takes to be a strong, successful leader (2007). The skills
approach is appealing because it presents leadership as a set of skills that are available to
everyone. Furthermore, these skills of effective leadership can be developed through training
and career experiences. Both approaches helped to shape our understanding of leadership, and
both attempted to present leadership in a way that could be easily understood by individuals and
organizations.
Interestingly, both the trait approach and the skills approach examined leadership from the
leader’s perspective, identifying characteristics or skills possessed by a leader for effective
leadership to occur. However, neither approach looked at the impact of subordinates and their
relationship with effective leadership, essentially leaving them out of the leadership equation.
Both approaches diverge by examining leadership as something that is inherent, trait, as
opposed to something that is learned, skills. The trait approach also completely ignores the
importance of situational or environmental factors, while the skills approach does address these
important influences, at least in a minor way, with Mumford’s model. Another example of the
divergent nature of the two approaches surrounds their applicability in training models.
According to Northouse, the skills approach, “…provides a structure for leadership education
and development programs that include creative problem solving, conflict resolution, listening,
and teamwork (2007).”
References
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.