Introduction

Leadership has been studied upon since the early 1930s. However, even after decades of

research and development in this field the only thing leadership scholars can agree to on

regarding the definition of leadership is that it’s not possible to come up with a common

definition for leadership (Rost, 1993).

• According to Northhouse (2013), even though leadership has been characterised in a

multitude of ways. The following aspects can be identified in the leadership phenomenon: (a)

Leadership is a process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs in groups, and

(d) leadership involved common goals. Based on which the author defines leadership as:

“Leadership is a process whereby an individual influence a group of individuals to achieve a

common goal”. Leadership coaching can be broadly defined as a leader who engages with a

coach to help him or her become a more effective leader (Douglas & Morley, 2000; Peterson &

Hicks, 1999). The author describes the elements of good leadership as Confidence, Charisma,

Determination, Sociability, Integrity, Intelligence

Leadership and management are sometimes used interchangeably in organisations;

however, they are linked. The role of a leader is more visionary and strategic, the role of a

manager is more operational and action oriented. Various leadership theories define leadership

differently: as a set of trait, abilities, behaviours, relationships and influence processes

Contemporary view of leadership combines all of the above elements.

The question of what constitutes leadership is addressed by a number of academics and

practitioners. Some definitions focus on traits, some on personality and intelligence, and others,

more practice oriented on leadership style and skills. According to Stogdill (1974) theory and
research into traits Leaders are born so aim to find the 'ultimate list of traits'. Research could not

prove that traits are the main explanatory factor for leadership and effective leadership. In the

context of leadership trait theories supported by the most psychology based evidence. Other

models, however, have very limited research evidence to support their arguments. They mostly

rely on "what works in practice".

Great Man Theory

At first, leaders were thought to be born and not made. This so-called "great person"

theory of leadership implies that some individuals are born with certain traits that allow them

to emerge out of any situation or period of history to become leaders. This theory focuses

attention on the man or woman on the job and not on the job itself.

Carlyle (1840) as a writer on the subject, promoted the notion of 'great man theory" in his

writings. In his essay on heroes, he tended to reinforce the concept of the leader as a person

endowed with unique qualities that capture the imagination of the masses. The first person who

conducted an authentic study of this approach was Galton. Several early theorists influenced by

Galton's study of the hereditary background of great men attempted to explain leadership on

the basis of inheritance

Woods (1913) studied fourteen nations over periods of five to ten centuries. The

conditions of each reign were found to approximate the ruler's capabilities. The brothers of

Kings (as a result of natural endowment, of course) also tended to become men of power and

influence. Woods concluded that man makes the nation and shapes it in accordance with his

abilities. Wiggam (1931) in his work on the theory, advanced the proposition that the survival

of the fittest and intermarriage among them produces an aristocratic class differing biologically
 from the lower classes. Thus, an adequate supply of superior leaders depends upon a

proportionately high birth rate among the abler classes.

Drucker (1989) supporting this notion says that leadership is of utmost importance.

Indeed, there is no substitute for it. But leadership cannot be created or promoted. It cannot be

taught or learned.

In the final stages, Great man theory evolved into what is known as 'trait theory" of

leadership

Trait Theory

Most of the studies in this area have been conducted during the first half of the twentieth

century. The theory is simple. if the leader is endowed with superior qualities that differentiate

him from his followers, or differentiate an effective leader from an ineffective one, it should be

possible to identify these qualities. This assumption gave rise to trait theories of leadership.

According to this approach, leadership is a conglomeration of set of personality traits. Trait

theorists early in this century contended that there was a finite set of personal characteristics,

inner traits, which distinguished effective from ineffective leaders Trait theory research began

about 1904 and systematically expanded for almost fifty years into a giant body of findings,

information and theory. Hundreds of research models and methods were devised over these years

to find the sought-after set of leadership traits.

The concept of leadership explained on the basis of inheritance or personality traits is not

free from shortcomings. Byrd (1940) in a study of trait theory research up to 1940, identified a

long list of traits which studies have shown differentiated the leaders and the led, but found that

only 5 per cent of the traits were common to four or more of the studies.
 Another study by Jennings (1961) concluded that fifty years of study have failed to

produce one personality trait or set of qualities that can be used to discriminate between leaders

and non-leaders. As the research progressed, the number of traits of suspected importance began

to grow. According to Stogdill (1982) trait theory suffers from a serious drawback that the

personality theorists tended to regard leadership as a one-way influence effect, while recognizing

that the leader may possess qualities differentiating him from followers. They generally failed to

acknowledge the reciprocal and interactive characteristics of the leadership situation.

Leadership & Intelligence

Five "intelligences" that underline leadership are presented by Schedlitzki and Edwards

(2014), although the evidence for this model is very limited. They are Cognitive intelligence,

Spiritual intelligence., Emotional intelligence. Moral intelligence., Behavioural skills.

Cognitive intelligence is defined as “The ability to perceive and understand information,

reason with it, imagine possibilities, use intuition and imagination, make judgements, solve

problems and make decisions”. Spiritual intelligence is defined as “The ability to understand that

human beings have an animating need for meaning, value and a sense of worth in what they seek

and do and to respond to that need”.

According to Salovey and Mayer, 1990 Emotional intelligence consists of Knowing one’s

emotions, Managing emotions, Motivating oneself. ,Recognising emotions in others, Handling

relationships. Whereas, moral intelligence is the ability to distinguish from right from work

based on the universal moral principles.

Leadership Style & Approaches

The concept of leadership styles focuses on task and relationship behaviours. Leadership

skills approach considers technical, human and conceptual skills. Leadership Styles

consider behavioural patterns as the determinant of effective leadership. It focuses on the

dichotomy between: Task behaviours which is Concern for task - the extent to which the leader

emphasises the task objectives, Directive leadership - the extent to which the leader makes all the

decisions regarding group activity. Relationship behaviours deal with Concern for people - the

extent to which the leader emphasises the needs, interests etc. of the group and also Participative

leadership which is the extent to which the leader shares decision-making concerning group

activity.

According to Three-Skill Approach (Katz, 1955) it states the required leadership skills as

Technical Skills: which is primarily functional and problem-solving skills, Human Skills:

which is ability to work effectively as a group member and to build cooperative effort within a

team, Conceptual Skill: ability to see the enterprise as a whole.

Vroom-Yetton model

Every manager needs to be able to make good decisions . A systematic approach to

decision making, such as the Vroom-Yetton Decision Model, allows leaders to bring consistency

and order to a process that might otherwise feel idiosyncratic and instinctive. It can also help you

to determine the most effective means of reaching a decision.

The Vroom-Yetton model is designed to help leaders to identify the best decision-making

approach and leadership style to take, based on your current situation. It was originally

developed by Victor Vroom and Philip Yetton in their 1973 book, "Leadership and Decision

Making." No single decision-making process fits every scenario. Instead Vroom-Yetton offers a

number of different processes and directs you toward the best one for your situation. For

example, if speed and decisiveness are required then it will likely point you toward an autocratic

process. If collaboration is what's needed, then it will nudge you toward a more democratic

process.

Researchers have found that managers are more effective, and their teams more

productive and satisfied, when they follow the model. The simplicity of Vroom-Yetton also

means that anyone – from the boardroom to the factory floor – can use it. Although a little long-

winded at times, it can be particularly helpful in new or unusual situations.

Before you start using the model, leaders need to consider these three factors:

 Decision quality – Sometimes, making the "right" decision is critical, and you'll need to

use a large number of resources (people, time, information, and so on) to ensure that the

action you take has been well thought through and is of high quality.
 Team commitment – Some of your decisions will have a major impact on your team,

while others will go unnoticed. When a decision will likely impact your team, it's best to

use a collaborative process. This will improve the quality of the decision, and you'll likely

deliver a successful result faster.

 Time constraints – When the issue at hand isn't time sensitive, you have more "space" to

research your options and to include others, which will help to boost the quality of your

decision. If your time is limited, however, it may not be feasible to include others or to

undertake thorough research

The framework poses seven "yes/no" questions, which you need to answer to find

the best decision-making process for your situation. As you answer each of the questions,

you work your way through a decision tree until you arrive at a code (A1, A2, C1, C2, or

G2). This code identifies the best decision-making process for you and your team. (Note

that, in some scenarios, you won't need to answer all of the questions.)

 Autocratic (A1): You use the information that you already have to make the

decision, without requiring any further input from your team.

 Autocratic (A2): You consult your team to obtain specific information that you

need, and then you make the final decision.

 Consultative (C1): You inform your team of the situation and ask for members'

opinions individually, but you don't bring the group together for a discussion. You

make the final decision.

 Consultative (C2): You get your team together for a group discussion about the

issue and to seek their suggestions, but you still make the final decision by

yourself.
  Collaborative (G2): You work with your team to reach a group consensus . Your

role is mostly facilitative, and you help team members to reach a decision that

they all agree on.

In general, a consultative or collaborative style is most appropriate when:

 You need information from others to solve a problem.

 The problem can't be easily defined.

 Team members' buy-in to the decision is important.

 You have enough time available to manage a group decision.

An autocratic style is most appropriate when:

 You have greater expertise on the subject than others.

 You are confident about acting alone.

 The team will accept your decision.

 There is little time available.

The underlying assumption of the Vroom-Yetton Decision Model is that no single leadership

style or decision-making process fits all situations. To find the process best suited to your

situation, you need to consider a number of factors. These include time constraints, the level of

team participation required, and the quality of the final decision. The model walks you through

these factors logically, to help you to identify the most appropriate process and style. It is

particularly useful for managers and leaders who are trying to balance the benefits of

participative management with the need to make decisions effectively.

Vroom-Yetton is a useful model, but it's not necessarily appropriate for all eventualities.

It misses out several important considerations, and its rigid structure means that it fails to take

into account subtleties, such as the emotions and dynamics of the team, and the task’s
complexity. The seven questions are imprecise, too – "importance" and "quality," for example,

are vague terms – and it can be difficult to give straight "yes" or "no" answers to them.

Leadership Styles

Kenneth and Heresy (1988) assert that; “effective leader must be a good diagnostician

and adopt style to meet the demands of the situation in which they operate. Different leadership

styles are used that fit to employees on the basis of amount of directions, empowerment, and

decision-making power. Leadership style is defined as the behaviors of leaders, focusing on what

leaders do and how they act.

Leader assumption about human nature will reflect on their leadership style, these believe

will determine what kind of style the leader would adopt. Mcgregor (1960) proposed two

theories of ways how leader approach on workers, these theories are Theory X and Theory Y.

Theory X assumption assume that the average person dislike work and will avoid it if

possible, they only work to be paid and would not do their work if there’s no compensation

given. Second assumption is people need to be directed and controlled, this assumption came

from first assumption where the leader believe that the employees wouldn’t do their task unless

they’re directed and controlled if not they will would be unmotivated to work. Last assumption

under Theory X is people want security, not responsibility, the leader believe that the employees

want their leader to take care of them, protect them, and make them feel safe, because it’s too

difficult for them to set their own goal so they want management to set it for them (e.g.

Employees only focus on task given only and not required to take initiative.
 Theory Y assumption assume that the average person does not inherently dislike work,

doing work is as natural as play. The leaders believe that people see work as satisfying and not as

punishment; it is a natural activity for them even they are happy to work. The next assumption is

people will show responsibility and self-control toward goals to which they are committed, this

suggest that people can and will make a conscious choice to work on their own. And third

assumption is in the proper environment the average person learns to accept and seek

responsibility, they assume that people are inherently resourceful and given a chance will seek

responsibility, they will act independently and be productive.

Can relate authoritarian and democratic leadership to theory X and Y

In 1939, social scientist Kurt Lewin applied his theories to organizational development

and identified three leadership styles: authoritarian, participative/democratic and laissez-faire

esembles a dictator.
They either insist on
doing everything
themselves or
micromanage
others. They make
all decisions and
expect people to
unquestioningly do
what they are told.
Authoritarian/autocratic

Adair (2002) only one person has the full authority and power over the followers or

workers. His decision would be viewed and taken as the golden rule and should never be

questioned and cannot be interrupted by any one.

 Type of leader who gives orders and expect instant obedient without argument. Plans and

policies are made in isolation from the group. Orders are given without explanation for the

reasons or of future intentions. The autocratic leaders do not become part of them at all, but

merely direct it. All decision-making power is theirs, unrealistic in demands, uses excessive

discipline and punishment, does not allow others to question decisions or authority, feels he/she

is the abilities, critical of delivering opinions, rarely gives recognition, is easily offended, uses

others for his/her benefit, actions oriented, highly competitive, useful in the short-term focus.

Milgron (1991) said autocratic style clearly defines the division between leaders and

workers. Autocratic leaders make decision with little or no involvement from employees. these

types of leaders are more confident, surer about and comfortable with the decision-making

responsibility for the strategy plans and company operating. Although research indicates that

autocratic leaders display less creativity than more contemporary (new) styles. However, an

autocratic approach is appropriate in some situations. It is valuable when the business faces a

crisis or when an urgent problem arises that requires an immediate response.

Dawson (2002) state that the autocratic style may show great results in a short time

period. However, excessive use of authority will distort productivity in the long term. People

either get bored and dissatisfied and leave or fall into a malaise of hum-drum repetitive tasks

without creativity and innovation and in short become demotivated.

Ittner (2002) Autocratic leadership style promotes a one-sided conversation and due to

this the creative and leadership skill of the employees become restrictive and all are involved in

repetitive work of daily activities.

he leader makes the

decision with no
input from the team.
He says what to do
 and how to do it—no
questions asked.
The people are “just
following orders.”
he leader makes the
decision with no
input from the team.
He says what to do
and how to do it—no
questions asked.
The people are “just
following orders.”
Hayers (2000) found that workers who fell under pressure reported autocratic supervision

on the part of their leaders. The leaders rarely allowed them to participate in the decision-

making. It was also reported that workers who were under stress also reported harsh supervision

and control on the part of their leaders.

Transactional leaders bond the target to rewards, provide mandatory assets, illuminate

expectations and provide different kinds of rewards for their victorious performance. They set

specific, assessable, achievable, practical and appropriate goals for their subordinates. The leader

actively observes the work of subordinates, monitor for divergence from rules and standards and

take suitable action to prevent mistakes.

Rewards could be of any type like increment of wages or extra bonus or emotional

encouragement etc. Private notes of congratulation to successful followers can also help foster

self-confidence (Eric, 1992).

Democratic

f this style were summed

up in one phrase, it
would be “What do you
think?”(Benincasa,
2012). A democratic
leader wants input from
all team members and
uses consensus to
 reach decisions.
f this style were summed
up in one phrase, it
would be “What do you
think?”(Benincasa,
2012). A democratic
leader wants input from
all team members and
uses consensus to
reach decisions.
f this style were summed
up in one phrase, it
would be “What do you
think?”(Benincasa,
2012). A democratic
leader wants input from
all team members and
uses consensus to
reach decisions.
If this style were summed
up in one phrase, it
would be “What do you
think?”(Benincasa,
2012). A democratic
leader wants input from
all team members and
uses consensus to
reach decisions.
If this style were summed
up in one phrase, it
would be “What do you
think?”(Benincasa,
2012). A democratic
leader wants input from
all team members and
uses consensus to
reach decisions.
If this style were summed up in one phrase, it would be “What do you think?”

(Benincasa, 2012). The participative leader is a leadership style in which employees takes part in

the decision-making process. The participative leader who uses this information, to make

decisions, seeks opinions of the group. The group is kept informed about the future and are

allowed to debate and proposed changes to long-term policy. Participative leadership can be seen
as a leadership styles that relies heavily on the leader functioning as a facilitator rather than

simply issuing orders or making assignments.

Milgron and Ittner (2002) state that this style is usually considered a benefit for the most

companies. Debashis (2000) conclude that when organization need creative problem solving,

conducting meetings for organization or department, training people for leadership roles and

performing the day to day organizational tasks. This style provides confidence to employees who

will help them for meeting deadlines, and departmental goals, to provide efficient team inputs.

Laissez-Faire

Basically a hands-off leader. From the French phrase that means “leave it be,” it describes

leaders who allow their people to work on their own. The leader defines the goal and team

members make the decisions and basically act independently and the leader is still ultimately

responsible.

Laissez- faire leadership is characterized by delayed decisions, lack of involvement and

feedback, and no attempts to satisfy the needs of the subordinates or motivate them (Bass &

Avolio, 1990). Rather, the laissez-faire leadership style involves leaving the subordinates with

too much responsibility, diverting attention from hard choices, and abdicating responsibility

(Bass, 2008). Furthermore, Bass (2008) argues that laissez-faire leaders “refuse to take sides in a

dispute, are disorganized in dealing with priorities, and talk about getting down to work, but

never really do” (p. 143). These characteristics of laissez-faire leadership should make the

subordinates feel ignored and isolated (Loi, Mao, & Ngo, 2009)
 Researchers distinguished a laissez-faire style that is marked by a general failure to take

responsibility for managing (Burns,1978). Laissez-faire leadership is generally perceived as

ineffective (Krasikova, Green, & LeBreton, 2013).

Waggoner (1999) said this is viewed as effective option. As compared to other typical

styles, delegative leaders rarely make decisions; leave this portion on the employees. Mostly,

these leaders delegate responsibility to their employees and offer guidance to trusted team

members.

Transformational

Transformational leadership is a commitment to a vision and empowering others to

achieve that vision (burns, 1978). Efficiency and motives are mandatory for transformational

leadership include a commitment to a change as a process, ability to reconceptualize systems, to

build networks and tolerance to complexity.

The positive feature of transformational leadership is that, it is very useful in health care

area like hospitals and NHS's. It can be very helpful for fresher staff on practice and also for

students on training. Transformational leaders provide guidance, motivation and encouragement

about their practice which can assist them to enhance their perception regarding workplace and

advanced care work. The leaders create an environment where they can feel comfortable and

facilitate them to communicate their concerns about practice and also articulate their viewpoints

which can be obliged in research practice. "Leaders have ability to generate enthusiasm and draw

people together around a vision through self-confidence"(Fisher, 2009).

 The negative part of transformational leadership is that, some leaders may have

narcissistic inclinations, flourishing on power and manipulation. Moreover, some followers may

have dependent characters and form strong and unfortunate bonds with their leaders (stone,

Russell and Patterson, 2003). It can create conflicts between the leader and followers which can

affect the results. The morality of transformational leadership has been questioned, especially by

libertarians and organizational development consultants (Griffin, 2003). Key criticism is that

within it transformational leadership has potential for the abuse of power (Hall, Johnson,

Wysocki and Kepner 2002).

Moreover, transformational leaders use flexible authority, strategies as inspirational

appeals and ingratiation, as well as hard tactics, such as barter and power, is more useful in

motivating subordinates than transactional leaders use only hard plans. Meta-analytical evidence

supports the generalizable findings that transformational leadership is more effective, productive,

innovative, and satisfying to followers than is transactional leadership (Lowe, Kroeck &

Sivasubrahmaniam, 1996). Laissez-faire leaders may lack the personality traits that are typically

associated with effective leadership (Derue et al., 2011)

Servant

Leadership must primarily meet the needs of others. The focus of servant leadership

is on others rather than upon self and on understanding of the role of the leader as a servant.

Self‐interest should not motivate servant leadership; rather, it should ascend to a higher

plane of motivation (Greenleaf's, 1977) .

 The servant leader's primary objective is to serve and meet the needs of others, which

optimally should be the prime motivation for leadership (Russell and Stone, 2002 ). Servant

leaders develop people, helping them to strive and flourish (McMinn, 2001 ). Servant leaders

provide vision, gain credibility and trust from followers, and influence others (Farling et al.,

1999).

Servant leaders, however, derive influence from service itself. They develop

relationships where followers are encouraged to follow their lead of service. McKenna

(1989) notes that servant ‐power is a category of influence outside the traditional kinds of

power. Real servanthood is a leadership style that relies upon the influence of self ‐giving

without self ‐glory.

Since servant leaders do not rely on charisma, the risk of manipulation in this form

of leadership comes from a different source. Servant leaders rely upon service, and in so

doing, they endear the followers to the leaders in reciprocal relationships. Cialdini

(2001) identified reciprocation as a primary means by which to influence people. According

to the principle of reciprocation, when you do something for another person they are

psychologically obliged to return the favor. Optimally, servant leaders have motives that

have the best interest of others in mind. Therefore, they should develop a positive form of

reciprocation whereby they encourage followers to respond not by serving the leader but by

serving others.

Of course, this law of reciprocity can potentially be used negatively. Persons who

seek to be servant leaders, but have poor motives, can take advantage of others by inducing

them to return acts of service. Such self ‐centered service can rapidly degenerate into a form

of manipulation that can be more subtly coercive than overt exploitive behavior. However,
those who use service for manipulative purposes abdicate the real responsibility of genuine

servant leadership.

Triarchic theory of intelligence

The triarchic theory of intelligence was formulated by Robert J. Sternberg, a prominent

figure in research of human intelligence. The theory by itself was among the first to go against
the psychometric approach to intelligence and take a more cognitive approach. The three
metacomponents are also called triarchic components. Sternberg's definition of human
intelligence is "(a) mental activity directed toward purposive adaptation to, selection and shaping
of, real-world environments relevant to one's life" (Sternberg, 1985, p. 45). Thus, Sternberg
viewed intelligence as how well an individual deal with environmental changes throughout their
lifespan. Sternberg's theory comprises three parts: componential, experiential, and practical.
Sternberg associated the workings of the mind with a series of components. These components
he labeled the metacomponents, performance components, and knowledge-acquisition
components (Sternberg, 1985).

The metacomponents are executive processes used in problem solving and decision
making that involve the majority of managing our mind. They tell the mind how to act.
Metacomponents are also sometimes referred to as a homunculus. A homunculus is a fictitious or
metaphorical "person" inside our head that controls our actions, and which is often seen to invite
an infinite regress of homunculi controlling each other (Sternberg, 1985).

Sternberg's next set of components, performance components, are the processes that
actually carry out the actions the metacomponents dictate. These are the basic processes that
allow us to do tasks, such as perceiving problems in our long-term memory, perceiving relations
between objects, and applying relations to another set of terms (Sternberg, 1997).

The last set of components, knowledge-acquisition components, are used in obtaining

new information. These components complete tasks that involve selectively choosing relevant
information from a mix of information, some of it relevant and some of it irrelevant. These
components can also be used to selectively combine the various pieces of information they have
gathered. Gifted individuals are proficient in using these components because they are able to
learn new information at a greater rate (Sternberg, 1997).
 Whereas Sternberg explains that the basic information processing components underlying
the three parts of his triarchic theory are the same, different contexts and different tasks require
different kinds of intelligence (Sternberg, 2001).

Componential – analytical sub theory

Sternberg associated the componential sub theory with analytical giftedness. This is one
of three types of giftedness that Sternberg recognizes. Analytical giftedness is influential in being
able to take apart problems and being able to see solutions not often seen. Unfortunately,
individuals with only this type are not as adept at creating unique ideas of their own. This form
of giftedness is the type that is tested most often (Sternberg, 1997).

Experiential – creative sub theory

Sternberg's 2nd stage of his theory is his experiential sub theory. This stage deals mainly
with how well a task is performed with regard to how familiar it is. Sternberg splits the role of
experience into two parts: novelty and automation.

A novel situation is one that you have never experienced before. People that are adept at
managing a novel situation can take the task and find new ways of solving it that the majority of
people would not notice (Sternberg, 1997).

A process that has been automated has been performed multiple times and can now be
done with little or no extra thought. Once a process is automatized, it can be run in parallel with
the same or other processes. The problem with novelty and automation is that being skilled in
one component does not ensure that you are skilled in the other (Sternberg, 1997).

The experiential subtheory also correlates with another one of Sternberg's proposed types
of giftedness. Synthetic giftedness is seen in creativity, intuition, and a study of the arts. People
with synthetic giftedness are not often seen with the highest IQ's because there are not currently
any tests that can sufficiently measure these attributes, but synthetic giftedness is especially
useful in creating new ideas to create and solve new problems. Sternberg also associated another
one of his students, "Barbara", to the synthetic giftedness. Barbara did not perform as well as
Alice on the tests taken to get into school but was recommended to Yale University based on her
exceptional creative and intuitive skills. Barbara was later very valuable in creating new ideas for
research (Sternberg, 1997).
Practical – contextual sub theory

Sternberg's third sub theory of intelligence, called practical or contextual, "deals with the
mental activity involved in attaining fit to context" (Sternberg, 1985, p. 45). Through the three
processes of adaptation, shaping, and selection, individuals create an ideal fit between
themselves and their environment. This type of intelligence is often referred to as "street smarts."

Adaptation occurs when one makes a change within oneself in order to better adjust to
one's surroundings (Sternberg, 1985). For example, when the weather changes and temperatures
drop, people adapt by wearing extra layers of clothing to remain warm.

Shaping occurs when one changes their environment to better suit one's needs (Sternberg,
1985). A teacher may invoke the new rule of raising hands to speak to ensure that the lesson is
taught with least possible disruption.

The process of selection is undertaken when a completely new alternate environment is

found to replace the previous, unsatisfying environment to meet the individual's goals (Sternberg,
1985). For instance, immigrants leave their lives in their homeland countries where they endure
economical and social hardships and go to other countries in search of a better and less strained
life.

The effectiveness with which an individual fit to his or her environment and contends
with daily situations reflects degree of intelligence. Sternberg's third type of giftedness, called
practical giftedness, involves the ability to apply synthetic and analytic skills to everyday
situations. Practically gifted people are superb in their ability to succeed in any setting
(Sternberg, 1997). An example of this type of giftedness is "Celia". Celia did not have
outstanding analytical or synthetic abilities, but she "was highly successful in figuring out what
she needed to do in order to succeed in an academic environment. She knew what kind of
research was valued, how to get articles into journals, how to impress people at job interviews,
and the like" (Sternberg, 1997, p. 44). Celia's contextual intelligence allowed her to use these
skills to her best advantage.

Sternberg also acknowledges that an individual is not restricted to having excellence in

only one of these three intelligences. Many people may possess an integration of all three and
have high levels of all three intelligences.
Challenges

Psychologist Linda Gottfredson criticizes the unempirical nature of triarchic theory.

Further, she argues it is absurd to assert that traditional intelligence tests are not measuring
practical intelligence, given that they show a moderate correlation with income, especially at
middle age when individuals have had a chance to reach their maximum career potential, and an
even higher correlation with occupational prestige, and that IQ tests predict the ability to stay out
of jail and stay alive (all of which qualifies as practical intelligence or "street smarts").
Gottfredson claims that what Sternberg calls practical intelligence is not a broad aspect of
cognition at all but simply a specific set of skills people learn to cope with a specific
environment (task specific knowledge).

There is evidence to suggest that certain aspects of creativity (i.e. divergent thinking) are
separable from analytical intelligence, and are better accounted for by the cognitive process
of executive functioning. More specifically, task-switching and interference management are
suggested to play an important role in divergent thinking. A more recent meta-analysis found
only small correlations between IQ and creativity (Kim, 2005).

Leadership & Power

The concept of power is related to leadership because it is part of the influence process.

Power is the capacity or potential to influence. People have power when they have the ability to

affect others’ beliefs, attitudes, and courses of action. Ministers, doctors, coaches, and teachers

are all examples of people who have the potential to influence us. When they do, they are

using their power, the resource they draw on to effect change in us. The most widely cited

research on power is French and Raven’s (1959) work on the bases of social power. In their

work, they conceptualized power from the framework of a dyadic relationship that included both

the person influencing and the person being influenced. French and Raven identified five

common and important bases of power: referent, expert, legitimate, reward, and coercive (Table
1.1). Each of these bases of power increases a leader’s capacity to influence the attitudes, values,

or behaviors of others.

Table 1.1 Five Bases of Power

Based on followers’ identification and liking for the leader.
Referent Power
A teacher who is adored by students has referent power.
Based on followers’ perceptions of the leader’s
Expert Power competence. A tour guide who is knowledgeable about a
foreign country has expert power.
Associated with having status or formal job authority.
Legitimate
A judge who administers sentences in the courtroom
Power
exhibits legitimate power.
Derived from having the capacity to provide rewards to
Reward Power others. A supervisor who gives rewards to employees who
work hard is using reward power.
Derived from having the capacity to penalize or punish
Coercive Power others. A coach who sits players on the bench for being
late to practice is using coercive power.

In organizations, there are two major kinds of power: position power and personal power.

Position power is the power a person derives from a particular office or rank in a formal

organizational system. It is the influence capacity a leader derives from having higher status than

the followers have. Vice presidents and department heads have more power than staff personnel

do because of the positions they hold in the organization. Position power includes legitimate,

reward, and coercive power (Table 1.2).

Personal power is the influence capacity a leader derives from being seen by followers as likable

and knowledgeable. When leaders act in ways that are important to followers, it gives leaders

power. For example, some managers have power because their subordinates consider them to be

good role models. Others have power because their subordinates view them as highly competent

or considerate. In both cases, these managers’ power is ascribed to them by others, based on how

they are seen in their relationships with others. Personal power includes referent and expert
power (see Table 1.2).

Table 1.2 Types and Bases of Power

Position Power Personal Power

Legitimate Referent
Reward Expert
Coercive

In discussions of leadership, it is not unusual for leaders to be described as wielders of

power, as individuals who dominate others. In these instances, power is conceptualized as a tool

that leaders use to achieve their own ends. Contrary to this view of power, Burns (1978)

emphasized power from a relationship standpoint. For Burns, power is not an entity that leaders

use over others to achieve their own ends; instead, power occurs in relationships. It should be

used by leaders and followers to promote their collective goals. In this text, our discussions of

leadership treat power as a relational concern for both leaders and followers. We pay attention to

how leaders work with followers to reach common goals.

The Rational Approach to Organization Change

There are two approaches to organizational change, rational and emotional (Hughes,

Ginnet & Curphy, 2005). The rational approach provides leaders with a structured process on

how to facilitate change and an appreciation of the reasons for success or failure of change in

their institutions. Rational approach relies on the perspective that a change manager needs both

quality management and leadership skills. Emotional approach depends only on leadership skills.

Rhetoric by transformational leaders raises the emotions of followers and inspires them to

embrace the vision for change. Transformational leaders succeed by building trust, confidence,

and image that they market as seemingly unshakable.

 Rational change depends on a plan that takes into account dissatisfaction (D), model of

change (M), process (P), resistance (R), and amount of change (C) required. These factors

combine in a formula (C=D×M×P>R) that estimates the amount of change anticipated. In this

regard, it is easy to understand the expected success and causes of failure. Rational approach to

change, unlike emotional approach, is not entirely reliant on emotional influence. However, it

takes into account emotion in the form of the dissatisfaction among the participants or followers

of the change process. Emotions are the essential fuel for organizational change. Leaders

technically heighten dissatisfaction among employees to a level at which they are ready to take

action. Rational change utilizes both leadership and management skills in successfully

implementing change whereas emotional change only relies on leadership attributes.

The best approach to organizational change is rational change. It is systematic and hence

tangible and actionable. It has a design for development and execution of change. Change occurs

upon implementation of actions in the change plan. To cater for resistance associated with the

emotional impact, the followers committed to change are in charge of creating the plan. There is

often a temporary drop in performance or productivity as followers learn new systems and skills.

Four reactions to change that make up the SARA Model:

 Shock

 Anger

 Rejection

 Acceptance

Leaders should:

 Recognize the four reactions to change.

  Understand that individual followers can take more or less time to work through

the four stages.

 Understand that people are not likely to take any positive action toward a change

initiative until they reach the acceptance stage.

 Understand that where people are in the SARA Model often varies according to

organizational level.

Thomas and Kilmann approach

Thomas and Kilmann describe five general approaches to managing conflict based on how

cooperative or uncooperative the parties are and how assertive or unassertive they are.

• Competition: reflects a desire to achieve one’s own ends at the expense of someone else.

This is domination, also known as a win–lose orientation.

• Accommodation: reflects a mirror image of competition - entirely giving in to someone

else’s concerns without making any effort to achieve one’s own ends. This is a tactic of

appeasement.

• Sharing: is an approach that represents a compromise between domination and

appeasement. Both parties give up something, yet both parties get something.

• Collaboration: reflects an effort to fully satisfy both parties. This is a problem-solving

approach that requires the integration of each party’s concerns.

• Avoidance: involves indifference to the concerns of both parties. It reflects a withdrawal

from or neglect of any party’s interests.

All individuals are capable of using all five conflict-handling modes. None of us can be

characterized as having a single style of dealing with conflict. But certain people use some
modes better than others and, therefore, tend to rely on those modes more heavily than others—

whether because of temperament or practice