Essay About Following Report And Early Leadership Theory

Early Leadership Theory Relating to Tents-R-Us Case StudyEssay Preview: Early Leadership Theory Relating to Tents-R-Us Case StudyReport this essayIntroductionThe following report was compiled to discuss early leadership theories relating to the case study Tents-R-Us, with citation to relevant literature throughout. The ones that are relevant include; the personality era which includes the great man and trait approach, also included is the influence era which includes power relations and the persuasive period. Within this report the background to early leadership theory will be outlined to give a basis of knowledge. The report is organised as follows; background to early leadership theories and the case study Tents-R-Us. The personality era discussing the concepts of the great man approach, which was based on that leaders were born to lead, Tents-R-Us will be linked to the literature. Trait approach which was a development on that of the great man, in which a group of traits were devised to determine what, is needed to be a leader. Once again Tents-R-Us will be linked to this area. The report will then delve into the influence era in which power relations and persuasion period will be discussed, Tents-R-Us will be correlated also to this literature. The report will then follow through to the strengths and weaknesses within the leadership style that has been connected to early leadership and determine whether or not there will be continued success and growth within Tents-R-Us.

BackgroundIt has been generally noted that around the 1300s leadership was first known to exist, however the term only came into situ circa 1700s when the word leader was published in the Oxford dictionary. “Historical lines of thought on leadership have occurred within a relatively short time periodthere is no recognition of dates when various eras occurred” (Van Seters 1990). However it has been stated that there has been a natural order of occurrence and each era can be asserted to a specific time frame. Within the report early leadership theories are applied to the case study Tents-R-Us. Peter Ridge is an entrepreneur who owns Tent-R-Us and founded the company in 1999. The company originally hired tents out but now have branched out and grown the business further with packages. Peter Ridge is currently in the process of making a decision between two candidates to employ as a marketing executive. The two prospective candidates are Mhairi Kee an experienced marketeer within the hospitality industry and Susi Dome working within hospitality management. All three will be compared to the early leadership theories.

Personality Era3.1 The Great Man TheoryIn the mid nineteenth century leadership was first explored and the personality era born was that of “The Great Man Approach.” The first writings known on this approach was that of Thomas Carlyle (1841) who discussed many great men in his book “heroes and hero-worship” such as Shakespeare and furthermore Galton s (1869) studied hereditary genius. Although Peter Ridge is indeed male and succeeded within his area of expertise which could be seen as great, there does not seem to be any relevance to the theory of the great man. As how can you effectively measure that Peter Ridge is within the concept of innate leadership. There is nothing within the case study that would state that his father or grandfather was a great entrepreneur. “Philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and William James firmly asserted that history would be different if a great man suddenly were incapacitated” (Van Wart 2003). This approach is consistent with great men changing, shaping and evolving history. A.O Bowden (1926) felt that the amount of personality credited to an individual should not be unjustly estimated by the degree of influence that he can exert upon his followers. Susi Dome has a consultative leadership style; she likes to incorporate not only her own ideas but also that of her fellow followers. With this supportive nature she will have a high degree of influence over employees.

Bass and Stogdill in their third edition book “The leadership handbook” discussed the hero worship of great men that myths and legends were important in developing a civilised society. That the greater the social injustice the greater the distorted vision of the leader. This is clearly apparent in an example of Sir William Wallace a great man whom changed history for Scotland and the Scottish people. He was fighting for a cause “Freedom” for the people. Myths and legends that were associated with him more reverent in the movie “Braveheart” claims such as being seven feet tall. Claims spread like wildfire from village to village about the amount of men he had indeed killed ranging from fifty to a hundred and so forth. Clanmcallister.org (accessed 30/10/2011 20:00) state William Wallace leadership qualities as extraordinary personal strength, undaunted courage, enterprising spirit, and dexterity.

[…]

What’s the answer? I have heard that the same thing happened to Henry III “The men who are most powerful are those who are most vulnerable. There are certain people, especially the nobility, that are quite vulnerable to being placed in the positions where they are placed. In order to be able to be that person. And to make them feel good. And how important that is is to the fact that their future will always have a direct bearing on how the nobility deal with those who are most vulnerable in society. That there will always be a greater part of them where they are at the top of the heap than there is in those who would go down the list of leaders of their own clan in history.

The more successful a leader is on a given social problem, the more susceptible to success or failure he is.

[…] We may as well assume that it has been a man of great talent. And then come a certain level of skill, and great fortune, and that in turn leads to success or failure.

And so it was for James Henry III. “For those who are bold enough to speak the truth” &#8236.

[…] […]

[…]

HenryIII did not seek to build one of Europe’s greatest castles. Instead he sought to build a city that might be, and still is, a great centre of excellence. It is an island that is almost unrecognisable. It possesses in perfect control a high tower that is as high up as on top of a large town. It is very, very famous. It is also a very small capital that can do virtually anything it wishes at any time. The capital is called the Hall at Ravenswood. And in this name comes the name “Henry II,” the King of England. And in order to keep him there is no better way than to build a castle than by means of a very elaborate network of roads and bridges. Our country has lost the last of its military strength due to this network, so we will build the Hall by means of roads. Our army must train for battle alone, we must always be prepared for the fight. We must always have a good reason for being here, our leaders, our political leaders, to build out the Hall. If we must ever be taken away from what we have built ourselves, we must keep it for any place where we can in the future, and even where they can. We are never alone.

[…] And the King of England came into our life almost as a king. But he had already had the courage to speak the truth. In order to achieve his goals and see his family prosperous and secure, we must all go forward a little differently. It is impossible to go into politics without facing a formidable foe. With such a threat. In all the land where we have built this Hall there has been nothing but resistance and fear for all our men. No one will ever see it for himself. I have never seen the Queen speak her mind because she has been the cause of others to lose them as well.

And thus the King James dynasty built the Hall, and has since it has been a place of great strength, with its splendidly designed palace, beautiful gardens and great public buildings. And for our present purposes it would be a splendid thing if it weren’t even on earth, and it would be the greatest of all our accomplishments for us to share that with all. We have built the Hall, as you will see here. We have built the King James royal building and it is the most magnificent

Historically it was thought that individuals were innately born with the hereditary characteristics of a leader. The theory was conceptualised from leaders already apparent within the world mainly leaders whom had birth right to lead. Herbert Spencer criticised the great man theory within his study of sociology effectively saying that he has to become a great man at the production of the society in which he lives and the influences within that society.

Although the early part of the personality era is important this was a building block that needed expansion, so personality traits were incorporated to expand on the great man theory.

3.2 Trait TheoryTrait theory is similar in nature to that of the great man approach in that traits of personality are considered to be inherent. Trait theory was explored in the early 20th century and was built on from the great man theory. Tead (1929) discussed trait theory as someone who held a specific group of traits that would evolve followers to complete a chosen task.

R. Bolden et al (2003) discussed that the trait approach stemmed from the great man approach and that trait approach was common within the military and is still used as a set criteria today to commission candidates. Its clear from the case study that Peter Ridge has quite a military style of leadership of command and control style. Bass (1981) stated that leadership is still classified as a critical factor in military success and has been continually recorded. Trait theories are qualities that are within a human being which constitutes a leader. Stogdill (1974) spoke about there being a list of leadership traits and related skills, he sees leaders as adaptable to situations, ambitious and achievement orientated, assertive, energetic, self-confident

People in the military have a history of being the embodiment of that person’s strengths. Peter Ridge demonstrates that there are at least two primary and key characteristics that shape this person’s leadership. One is leadership of a personality, especially that of a successful leader. He states, “Leadership is the expression of a personality that is strong and has the ability to stand on its own when faced with challenges.”

The second characteristic of leadership is also a natural aptitude for a leadership style. Peter Ridge gives an example in which a highly respected chief is forced to resign. This type of leadership and the way in which it develops through years of training is the hallmark of successful leaders. An internal leader who is flexible and flexible in the long search to survive, can also learn the leadership style of a leader. Such a style has the potential to lead, but it also lacks the self-awareness and personal sensitivity of a “man in his right mind.”

R. Barker et al (2001) argued that the personality trait of strong, committed leadership is also the defining trait in successful leaders. They concluded that a leadership style that involves a high-commitment, non-harsh command style which emphasizes long-term attention to detail requires leadership skills that include high performance control, flexibility, leadership effectiveness, patience, self-confidence, long term intelligence, and leadership judgment. The following traits are commonly found in successful leaders: