Process Theory

This week's leadership theory was process theory, which basically states that leadership is not just one person doing something for some reason.  Instead, leadership is a series of steps that involves both the leader and the followers, both of whom have important parts.  So far, with all of the definitions of leadership that we have discussed, I think this one is the best because it is the most sensible and general-it fits well with any situation.  

Instead of specifically stating one characteristic that fits leadership, process theory just describes the different components of a large system, and leadership is the entire process.  For example, one model of process theory is the relational leadership model, which states that the process is the relationship between various characteristics of leadership.  Specifically, in any leadership scenario there is a purpose, which is related to including all people involved, empowering others, and acting in an ethical way, which is related to the process as a whole.  As a result, process theory becomes a lot more broad than any other definition we have discussed in class, because it defines leadership by several related characteristics instead of one.  This is also why I think process theory is the best definition.  Since it is so general, I feel like it would fit almost any situation, whereas many other definitions only fit certain cases and can be disproved.  Technically, process theory can't be disproved because it is a relationship between characteristics and not characterized by one definitive trait.

In addition to being the most reliable definition, I think process theory is also the most practical in practice.  It seems like it should be common sense but it is logical for leadership to be a process.  I don't think leadership can be defined by one thing, like genetic traits or the specific situation.  I think any leadership situation can be described as a process that includes participation by both leader and follower.  Politics are a good example of this-ideally, politicians have a clear purpose that they involve their audience with, they have to empower their followers with good decisions (and vice versa-the people decide who they want to empower to make decisions for them), and above all, they have to act in an ethical manner.  Ideally, it is obvious that this process is good leadership, and as is all too often today, bad leadership/politicians are characterized by a lack of one or more of these steps in the process.  The process doesn't have to be characterized by big, important leadership either-just today I was working with a group to decide on several songs to sing for a project.  I, being the leader, was wise to include everyone, allow everyone to pick their own song (but speak up if I thought it was a bad idea), and continuously emphasize the goal of getting the songs set when the group got off track.  In hindsight, I think process theory would be a perfect definition of the leadership that went on in my group.

Behavioral and Situational Theories

By now, we've covered a few more leadership theories in addition to the earliest trait theory-among these are behavioral theory and situational theory.  Basically, behavioral theory is the opposite of what trait theory was-instead of leadership being innate (being born with leadership traits), leadership is now defined by a pre-determined set of behaviors that may or may not be innate but can definitely be learned like any other behavior. On the other hand, situational theory states that what is acceptably defined as leadership can change depending on the context.  For example, it may be more appropriate to define leadership by trait theory in one situation and behavior in another.  Personally, I feel like situational theory is a blend of both the trait and behavior theories that incorporates the best of both, which essentially makes each theory individually useless.  If it's possible to combine two theories into a new one because they are both right on some aspects, then logically there is no point to each individual theory since the new one simply encompasses aspects of both.

As we have discussed in class, there are both pros and cons to the trait theory and behavioral theory.  Long story short, the pros of each are possible explanations for the way leadership works, but the cons of each are that both are too rigid in their definitions.  Neither theory allows for change or extenuating circumstances.  For example, trait theory states that leadership capabilities are beyond the control of the leader-they either have them or they don't, while behavioral theory states that leadership is only defined by the behaviors that leaders exhibit, and thus anyone can be a leader by copying those behaviors.  From these opposing definitions, neither  allows any room for compromise.  However, situational theory basically states that depending on the context, many theories could be incorporated, including both trait theory and behavioral theory.  This makes more sense to me, since it makes sense logically that different circumstances might require different definitions of leadership.  For example, any leader that is not male, tall, and physically strong (such as the renowned mayor of my hometown) disproves trait theory.  Likewise, in societies where only certain "types" of people-certain gender, race, etc-are found in leadership positions, behavioral theory does not apply because simply emulating the behavior does not guarantee leadership.  Examples of this include many countries that appear regularly on the news (mostly in the Middle East/Africa), where the high prevalence of male politicians show that cultural norm and not behavior dictates who is a leader.

I think that situational theory sums up various definitions of leadership nicely in that it accommodates for a variety of possible scenarios.  It basically admits that there is not always one right definition of leadership, but instead suggests that leadership changes as the context changes.

Great Man & Trait Theories

As we have discussed in class, the trait theory of leadership is among the earliest of theories on leadership.  Thus, it makes sense that as leadership has progressed, so too have the theories behind it, and as a result many more ideas have largely taken the place of trait theory.  However, I find it interesting that trait theory seems to be making a small comeback, based on discussions in class.  To me this seems slightly counter-intuitive because it makes sense for ideas to develop along with the development of society.  Ideas are usually disproved or replaced by better ones, and generally society as a whole doesn't revert to previous ideas that have more modern replacements.  This does not mean that previous ideas can't be good though, and in this case I think that trait leadership has some merit and makes sense, although there are obvious problems too.

Scientifically, trait theory isn't very logical because there isn't any proof or testable data behind it.  While it says that people with predisposed genetic traits are more or less able to be leaders, there is no way of proving or testing that statement.  The other problem with the theory is the obvious counterexamples that essentially disprove it.  For example, according to trait theory, leaders including teachers (who have tremendous responsibility over children of various ages) should be tall, male, and physically adept, but that doesn't prevent people like my psychology professor-who is short, female, of minimal physical ability by her own account, and incidentally also one of the better teachers I currently have-from teaching successfully.  As an additional side note, it depends on the specific position, but none of the supposed leader traits are extremely important for someone to be a great teacher.

The upside of trait theory is that while it can't be applied to every situation, there are many situations in which it seems to be blatantly true.  People in leadership positions within politics or the military do actually tend to be  tall, male, and physically adept.  Even people such as the local physical trainers at the recreation center mostly fit the bill, which is understandable because in this case the traits that supposedly allow them to be good leaders are also necessary for them to act as leaders, or at least beneficial.

From these examples that are either in my world or directly related to me, it's obvious that trait theory can't be taken word for word.  I understand its resurgence in society because in certain cases it makes sense, and it's obviously seen.  However, there are many counterexamples that basically disproves trait theory as a definitive statement.  Perhaps a better statement would be to say that in certain situations or in certain environments, traits such as gender, physical size, etc can define a leader.