Leadership styles Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Leadership styles - Coursework Example 669). In this context, this paper will look into the different types of leadership theories and assess it by looking into some empirical studies relevant to the impact of leadership on the development of faculty members. In the end, hopefully, this paper may help gain an understanding of the different identified types of leadership. The Different Kinds of Leadership In order to understand further the concept of leadership, scholars have continuously defined, examine and refine the concept (Yukl, 2006). As a result of these scholarly endeavours, several types of leadership and leadership theories have been developed (Brinia, 2012). Some of the types of leadership are the following: â€Å"Great Man† Theory. This theory assumes that leadership is inherent to the person. This means that capacity in becoming a leader is naturally inborn in the person. Thus, giving validity to the claim â€Å"a person is born leader† (Brinia, 2012). This theory is also known as the superhero theory. Moreover, the theory refers only to ‘men’ as it looks into the ‘feats’ of illustrious men in history such as Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Steve Jobs and the likes. As such, it presents the notion that great leadership entails having the right man for the job. However, this theory is criticised by Spencer (1896) when he claimed that leaders are not borne but are themselves product of their society. Trait Theory. This theory is comparable with the ‘great man theory’. It holds the view that ‘natural leaders’ possess certain attributes that distinguish them from the rest. These attributes include â€Å"intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility, initiative, persistence, self-confidence and sociability† (Northhouse, 2006, pp. 16). These characteristics provide some advantages to leaders over non-leaders, thus making them suitable as leaders. However, this theory has been questioned on the premise that there are people who possess these attributes but are not leaders. Contingency Theory. This theory holds that leadership effectiveness depends on the various factors influencing not only the organisational conditions but also the leadership situation. These factors may include environment, organisational structure, subordinates and tasks (Brinia, 2012). In effect, this theory presupposes that there is no universal form leadership but that effective leadership behoves the coming together of the leadership condition, subordinates trust to the leaders and the tasks to be performed. Nonetheless, this theory fails to identify or explain why a leader is effective in a particular situation. Situational Theory. This theory maintains that different situations require different kinds of leadership. In other words, an effective leader matches his/her style of leadership depending on the situation and abilities and commitment of his/her subordinates (Northhouse, 2006). From this perspective, the flexibil ity of the leader to adapt to the situation is paramount in addressing issues. As such, the leader must know when to be directive or supportive, thus, matching the needs and demands of the situation and the subordinates. However, this theory is plagued by concerns pertinent to ambiguity of the concept of commitment and the model of subordinates (Northhouse, 2006). In addition, question regarding the validity of the theory is also raised (Northhouse,

Discuss the military strategy of the North from 1861 to the end of Essay

Discuss the military strategy of the North from 1861 to the end of 1862. How successful was this strategy - Essay Example Even though this strategy led to numerous casualties, it was instrumental in grounding the Southern forces. The North strategy was good to an extent that it diminished any possibility of foreign intervention, particularly from the Great Britain (Bradford, 2010). Finally, it is important to look at how successful the North strategy was. To a greater extent, historians and military strategists agree that the strategy applied by the North from 1861 to the end of 1862 was successful. Martin (2003) argues that this view is informed by the outcomes of the strategy. It is considered successful because it made the Southerners to lose morale because they were constantly exhausting their efforts by being prepared to fight without actually doing so. This strategy saw the North destroying vital transportation routes of the Southerners, a strategy that was effective in ensuring that they won the war (Bradford,