Leadership_Theories

Leadership theories The earliest theory termed intentionally “Great Man” was based on the belief that leaders are exceptional people, born with innate qualities and destined to lead. The use of the term 'man' was intentional since until the latter part of the twentieth century, leadership was thought of as a concept which is primarily male, military and Western. I think we can safely assume EYPs will be a mixture of both sexes and that few will be born destined to lead. This basic theory was quickly developed into the identification of a list of traits or attributes which could then be isolated and that people with such traits could then be recruited, selected and installed in leadership positions. The problem with these “Trait Theories” was that no consistent list of traits could be identified. Some leaders had certain traits but the absence of them did not necessarily mean the person was not a good leader. Stodgill ( 1974) devised a list of the main leadership traits and EYPs will certainly need to display many of these traits if they are to be successful leaders but if any are missing does that mean they would ultimately fail' The answer is almost certainly no and as traits are very difficult to measure we have to examine more complex theories. The focus then highlighted behaviour - leading the theorists was McGregor (1960) with his X/Y Behaviour Theory which related a leader’s beliefs and assumptions to output and performance. Theory X leaders prefer an autocratic style whilst Theory Y leaders prefer a more participative style. Most managers fall someway between X and Y on the continuum and it was always assumed that a more effective manager would be nearer Y than X however it has now been evidenced that output and productivity remains relatively similar wherever a leader/manager sits on the scale even though staff may feel more fulfilled. Blake and Mouton (1964) took this a step further with their Managerial Grid which graphically compared a concern with people with a concern for production or outcome. They discovered that the most effective type of leadership behaviour is a high concern for both people and outcome which must be our first “essential EYP behaviour”. One would hope that EYPs will all hold the belief that other staff will: enjoy and have a real interest in early years work, be honest, be open, show initiative, enjoy responsibility and have a real concern for outcomes for the children. Whilst all laudable beliefs, as we now know, this leaning towards the Y end of McGregor’s continuum will not be enough on its own to improve outcomes for children. Whilst behavioural theories helped managers develop particular leadership behaviours they give little guidance as to what constitutes effective leadership in different situations. Contingency or situational theories then emerged indicating that the style to be used is dependent upon such factors as the situation, the people, the task, the organisation, and other environmental variables. Fiedler’s Contingency Model (1967) concludes that there is no single best way for a manager to lead. Situations will create different leadership style requirements for a manager. For example, in a highly routine environment where repetitive tasks are the norm, a relatively directive leadership style may result in best performance, however, in a more dynamic environment a more flexible participative style may be more productive. The early years workforce works in a wide range of settings, including full daycare, nursery and primary schools, playgroups, out of school settings and children’s centres as well as home based childcare, crèches and family support centres. The training and accreditation of EYP’s has initially been focussed on staff from the private, voluntary and independent sector, Children’s Centres and Local Authority or further education staff involved in the training of the Early Years workforce. Thus the first EYP’s will find themselves leading staff in a variety of different situations including nurseries, sessional groups, childminding networks and Children’s Centres or providing training opportunities for the workforce as a whole. Fiedler looked at three situations that could define the condition of a managerial task: 1. How well do the manager and the employees get along' 2. Is the job highly structured, fairly unstructured, or somewhere in between' 3. How much authority does the manager possess' The task-motivated style leader experiences pride and satisfaction in the task accomplishment for the organisation, while the relationship-motivated style seeks to build interpersonal relations and extend extra help for the team development in the organisation. Importantly he found each person has his or her own preferences for leadership. EYPs will probably find themselves in a fairly unstructured environment with good position power and requiring good leader-member relations. This combination points to a relationship - orientated leader under Fiedler’s model and gives us another pointer in determining the “essential EYP behaviours”. The Hersey-Blanchard Leadership Model (1977) also takes a situational perspective and explains that the developmental levels of a leader's subordinates (i.e. the early years staff) play the greatest role in determining which leadership styles/behaviours are most appropriate. The theory is based on the amount of direction (task behaviour) and socio-emotional support (relationship behaviour) a leader must provide given the situation and the "level of maturity" of the followers. For Blanchard the key situational variable, when determining the appropriate leadership style, is the readiness or developmental level of the staff. To determine the appropriate leadership style for an EYP to use in a given situation, the EYP must first determine the maturity level of the staff in relation to the specific task that the EYP is attempting to accomplish through the effort of the staff. As the level of staff maturity increases, the EYP should be able to reduce his or her task behaviour and increase relationship behaviour until the followers reach a moderate level of maturity. As the followers begin to move into an above average level of maturity, the EYP should be able decrease not only task behaviour but also relationship behaviour. A criticism levelled at this early work on situational leadership styles was that they were too black and white and described extremes whereas, in practice, the behaviour of most leaders is somewhere between the two. Tannenbaum & Schmidt’s Leadership Continuum 1958 identified 4 main leadership styles: • Autocratic: The leader takes the decisions and announces them, expecting staff to carry them out without question (Telling) • Persuasive: The leader takes all the decisions for the group without discussion or consultation but believes that people will be better motivated if they are persuaded that the decisions are good ones. He or she does a lot of explaining and 'selling' in order to overcome any possible resistance to what he or she wants to do. (Selling) • Consultative: The leader confers with the group members before taking decisions and considers their advice and feelings when making decisions. They may, of course, not always accept the staff advice but they are likely to feel that they can have some influence. Under this leadership style the decision and the full responsibility for it remain with the leader but the degree of involvement by subordinates in decision taking is very much greater (Consulting). • Democratic: The leader would characteristically lay the problem before his or her subordinates and invite discussion. The leader's role is that of chair, rather than that of decision taker. He or she will allow the decision to emerge out of the process of group discussion, instead of imposing it on the group (Joining). EYPs will inevitably find themselves in situations in which each of the above styles is likely to be more appropriate than others and thus “an essential EYP behaviour” must be to be flexible enough to be able to recognise a situation and respond appropriately. John Adair’s widely publicised Action-Centred Leadership Model (1973) is that the action-centred leader gets the job done through the work, team and relationships with fellow managers and staff. Adair describes how an action-centred leader must: • direct the job to be done by structuring the task • co-ordinate and foster the work team as a whole • support and review the individual people doing it The three areas of Task/Team/Individual will grow in importance as the situation changes but the challenge for the leader remains the same to successfully manage all sectors, including intersections, of the model. Adair’s situational leadership model certainly seems to be a good fit for EYPs struggling to gain the credibility of fellow professionals whilst improving outcomes for children. The question remains however does it include all the EYP “essential leadership behaviours” which have so far identified and consequently is it the best' The answer is, again, probably not as the theories discussed so far have concentrated on the leader as a person who stands out as being somehow different and “leading” the rest of the staff. Therefore, I will now examine the importance of the leaders’ relationship with their staff and an interdependency of roles. A team leader who has the capacity to both lead and, significantly, also to follow. Katzenbach and Smith in Key Behaviours of Leaders (1994) identify the critical behaviours of leaders as:  Asking questions instead of giving answers  Providing opportunities for others to lead you  Doing real work in support of others instead of only the reverse  Becoming a matchmaker instead of a "central switch"  Seeking common understanding instead of consensus EYPs will lead the learning, care and development across the EYFS and whilst they may be an excellent role model, leading staff and setting development they will, almost certainly, not be experts on everything. The ability to follow as well as lead will be a critical success factor and another for my list of “essential leadership behaviours”. In the late 1970’s, Meredith Belbin conducted a study of teams focusing on the factors separating successful and unsuccessful teams a feature of which was shared leadership. Belbin found that the composition of the team was important and that individual differences in style, role and contribution far from underlining personal weaknesses, were a source of potential team strength. Balanced teams comprised of such individuals who engaged in complementary role behaviour performed better than unbalanced teams. Nine distinctive roles were identified in the study, with most people being found to be a mix of two or three roles whilst also avoiding others with which they were uncomfortable. Where there was an individual with clear, useful and appreciated attributes they would fit into a team on the basis of the strengths they brought. These people would also have weaknesses that belonged to the same cluster of characteristics as the strength itself. These potential deficiencies were considered the price that has to be paid for a particular strength, a price that is worth paying, and were referred to as ‘allowable weaknesses. Belbin found no ‘ideal’ individual team member who could perform all of the roles. Belbin suggests team leadership can be learned through understanding the nature of leadership and the qualities required. In the complex and rapidly changing Early Years environment of today no one person will have all the answers to leadership. A team leadership style based upon the development of the strengths and the allowable weaknesses of all of the roles will add to the already identified “essential leadership behaviours” allowing a more holistic, or participative, style of leadership where teamwork, problem solving, decision making and innovation can flourish with heightened teamwork and work performance. James MacGregor Burns in his book ‘Leadership’ (1978) was the first to put forward the concept of “transforming leadership”. Burns defined transforming leadership by suggesting that: “Transformational leadership occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality.” Burns proposes that the transforming leader shapes, alters, and elevates the motives, values and goals of followers achieving significant change in the process. This basis of this theory is therefore directly relevant to the leadership notion of an EYP being an “agent of change” envisaged by central government. Bernard Bass (1985) developed Burns’ concept of transforming leadership in ‘Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations’ into ‘transformational leadership’ where the leader transforms followers – which accurately describes the ultimate role and objective of EYPs. Encouragingly for potential EYPs, Tichy and Devanna in their work ‘Transformational Leadership’ (1986) built further on this idea and described the concept of transformational as not due to charisma but rather a behavioural process capable of being learned - an important distinction for potential EYPs. Transformational leadership challenges the more traditional “bottom line” orientated transactional leadership model- both are necessary but the transformational model probably best meets the needs of our changing times. Covey’s ‘Principle-Centred Leadership’ (1992) work suggests that transformational leadership ‘transforms’ people and organisations in a literal sense – changing them in mind and heart; enlarging vision, insight, and understanding; clarifying purposes; making behaviour congruent with beliefs, principles, or values; and bringing about changes that are permanent, self-perpetuating, and momentum building. This definition very accurately describes the situation EYPs will encounter and need to address. Hooper and Potter (1997) extend the notion of transformational leadership and identify seven key competences of “transcendent leaders” who are able to engage the emotional support of their followers and thus effectively transcend change. 1) Setting direction 2) Setting an example 3) Communication 4) Alignment 5) Bringing out the best in people 6) The leader as a change agent 7) Providing decision in a crisis and on the ambiguous I feel this list, of seven key competencies, is a fairly accurate description of the envisaged role an EYP will perform and must form the basis for my model of “essential EYP behaviours”. The need for a leader to be accepted by their followers and a realisation that no one individual is the ideal leader in all circumstances has given rise to a new school of leadership thought. Referred to as ‘informal’, ‘emergent’ or ‘dispersed’ leadership, this approach argues a less formalised model of leadership where individuals at all levels in the organisation and in all roles can exert leadership influence over their colleagues and thus influence the overall leadership of the organisation. Heifetz (1994) distinguishes between the exercise of “leadership” and the exercise of “authority” – thus dissociating leadership from formal organisational power roles whilst Raelin (2003) talks of developing “leaderful” organisations through concurrent, collective and compassionate leadership. It is a more collective concept, and would argue for a move from an analysis and development of individual leader qualities, as with EYPs, to an identification of what constitutes an effective or more appropriate leadership process within an organisation. Finally, Badaracco (2002) in “Leading Quietly” introduces the notion of a “quiet leader”. Quiet leaders don’t fool themselves about how much they really know and understand but rather make sure their motives are strong enough to carry them through the difficulties. He identifies the three quiet virtues of restraint, modesty and tenacity which may seem ordinary but this is, in fact, where there value lies. They are familiar, natural, sensible ways of thinking and acting which everyone can practice and cultivate. EYPs struggling for immediate, and probably unattainable, professional credibility may well benefit from exhibiting these powerful virtues as quiet leaders do things that matter, generally make the world a better place and for that gain enormous, almost immediate, respect from colleagues. Dispersed leadership model might be a direction that EYPs may lead their settings in the future, but I feel the starting point has to be based a little further back and include the following “essential EYP behaviours” I have identified: • a high concern for both people and outcome • a relationship motivated style • the flexibility to change leadership styles depending on situation • the ability to follow as well as lead • a team leadership style • able to communicate and engage the emotional support of staff • quiet leadership traits of restraint, modesty and tenacity The EYP leadership model containing the 7 “essential EYP behaviours” I have identified, can be described as a hybrid transformational leadership style and would, I feel, be would be an excellent starting point for aspiring EYPs to model their behaviour upon. It is too soon to determine the relevance of the EYP national standards although early feedback from both candidates and assessors is encouraging. The robustness of the pathways is a different matter with a large question mark over the Full pathway. EYPs achieving the status via this route may well find it very difficult to establish credibility and already one candidate, whilst on placement, has reported to me a conversation with a very experienced but lesser qualified practitioner who, when they were introduced, said, “We hate people like you.” This proved to be a useful discussion stimulus for the group back at college about how to counter this extreme negativity but, nevertheless, gives an indication of the difficulties many EYPs will face. The implications for future practice are clear – EYPs must begin to perform immediately on appointment if scepticism from areas of the workforce is to be overcome and credibility established. I intend to provide all candidates, mentors and training providers with a summary of my research to initially stimulate discussion and ultimately focus on the qualities and skills vital for a successful EYP and the crucial importance of a planned transformational leadership style. Covey (1981) in Principle Centred Leadership identified that almost every significant breakthrough is a break with traditional ways of thinking. The introduction of EYPS is truly a break with. EYPs will only achieve limited success, if any at all, without the required organisational learning and cultural development that will be needed across the early years sector if EYPs are truly to become the required “agents of change”, outcomes for children really are significantly improved and this much needed improvement sustained.