Perspectives seem to differ in many ways that establishment of leadership is conceptualized in the great man theory. It is, however, possible to view the concept of leadership mainly in terms of comparatively stable and enduring features of people. The Leadership can be perceived as a quantifiable and measurable property that is possessed in variety of amounts by different people. On the other hand it is also possible to concentrate on observable behavior of leaders instead of inherent traits. From such a viewpoint leadership primarily exist in the leader’s naturally-built actions. Leadership is viewed in terms of intrinsic characteristic or property rather than in terms of explicit behavior patterns.
The concepts of leadership style and organizational culture lead to various theories that add to the foundation of understanding business management and to the premise of daily operations.
They invest bog, but they often have a parallel spring of income or safe source of cash they can count on to keep them solvent while they work the more exciting high-stakes opportunities.
Producer overwhelmingly do not go it alone.
Cooke, D. J., Michie, C., Hart, S. D., Hare, R. D. (1999). Evaluating the screening version of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL:SV): An item response theory analysis. (1), 3-13. doi:10.1037/1040-3522.214.171.124 The Screening Version of the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL:SV; S. D. Hart, D. N. Cox, & R. D. Hare, 1995) was developed to complement the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 1991), and for use outside forensic settings. The PCL:SV takes less time to administer and requires less collateral information than the PCL-R. An item response theory approach was adopted to determine similarities in the structural properties of the 2 instruments and whether the PCL:SV could be regarded as a short form of the PCL-R. Eight of the 12 items in the PCL:SV were strongly parallel to their equivalent PCL-R items. Of the 4 items PCL:SV items which differed from their equivalent PCL-R items, all 4 were found to be equal or superior to their equivalent PCL-R items in terms of discrimination. The analyses confirmed previous results that the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy have higher thresholds than do the impulsive and antisocial behavioral features; individuals have to be at a higher level of the psychopathic trait before the interpersonal and affective features become evident. The PCL:SV is an effective short form of the PCL-R.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy: Towards a hierarchical model. (2), 171-188. doi:10.1037/1040-35126.96.36.199 Psychopathy is characterized by diverse indicators. Clinical accounts have emphasized 3 distinct facets: interpersonal, affective, and behavioral. Research using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), however, has emphasized a 2-factor model. A review of the literature on the PCL-R and related measures of psychopathy, together with confirmatory factor analysis of PCL-R data from North American participants, indicates that the 2-factor model cannot be sustained. A 3-factor hierarchical model was developed in which a coherent superordinate factor, Psychopathy, is underpinned by 3 factors: Arrogant and Deceitful Interpersonal Style, Deficient Affective Experience, and Impulsive and Irresponsible Behavioral Style. The model was cross-validated on North American and Scottish PCL-R data, Psychopathy Screening Version data, and data derived from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) antisocial personality disorder field trial. . . . We are advocating the future revision of the full PCL-R to assist research into the nature of the disorder; however, we strongly emphasize the necessity of continuing to use the full PCL-R for risk assessment and other applied purposes. [The authors criticise the two factors analysis of PCL-R. They argue that a more appropriate account should include three factors. The interpersonal/affective factor is separated in an interpersonal and an abnormal affect component. Factor I: Arrogant and deceitful interpersonal items: 1. Glibness/superficial charm 2. Grandiose sense of self-worth 4. Pathological lying 5. Conning/manipulative. Factor II: Deficient affective experience: 6. Lack of remorse or guilt 7. Shallow affect 8. Callous/lack of empathy 16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions. Factor III: 3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom 9. Parasitic lifestyle 13. Lack of realistic, long-term goals 14. Impulsivity 15. Irresponsibility. Remaining items that do not fall under any factor: 10. Poor behavioural controls 11. Promiscuous sexual behaviour 12. Early behavioural problems 17. Many short-term marital relationship 18. Juvenile delinquency 19. Revocation of conditional release 20. Criminal versatility. For a three factor analysis of psychopathy in childhood and adolescence, see Frick and Hare 2001b.]
From mid-nineteenth century to the decade of 1940, the research on leadership was dominated by efforts to exhibit that there are intrinsic characteristics or qualities possessed by leaders that distinguish them from followers. The research was directed to identify that inborn abilities are ultimately the spirit of effective and successful leadership. Studies focused on the quantification and measurement of leadership traits and the specific relationship that exist between criteria and traits of leader effectiveness.
Downward influence tactics such as inspiration appeals, consultation and ingratiation are said to be used by transformational leaders to induce employees’ commitment through the transformation of employees’ value systems – the value system that align with the organizational goals (Emans Munduate, Klaver & Van de Vliert, 2003).
Leadership was not perceived as an autonomous property that was entirely separate and distinct from the other trait names that are used in language to recognize differences that exist among people. On the other hand leadership was perceived as a theoretical property, the survival of which was explicable in relations with other fundamental or basic instinctive traits differentiating individuals.
Beck, D.E. and Cowan, C.C. (1996). Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change; Exploring the New Science of Memetics, Cambridge: Blackwell.
The contingency theory of leadership suggests the leader’s ability to lead is dependent upon various situational factors, including the leader’s preferred style, the capabilities and behaviours of follower and various other situational factors.
Butter & Reese (1991) noted that there been several models utilizing the contingency theory concept namely; the normative leadership model (Viam & Yetton 1988 path Goal theory (1971) and the situational leadership model (SLM) by Hersey and Planchard (1977) which stands out in terms of its popularity with practitioners.
As noted by Watson (2004), the development of organizational leaders requires a culture that promotes self-evaluation, lifelong learning, and nurturing.
The SLM depicts four leadership styles grouped by task behaviour and relationship behaviour. It recommends the appropriate leadership styles based on the maturity of subordinate.
Hare (1993) described psychopathy as: . . . a dark mystery with staggering implications for society. . . . To give you some idea of the enormity of the problem that faces us, consider that there are at least 2 million psychopaths in North America; the citizens of New York City has as many as 100,000 psychopaths among them. And these are conservative estimates. Far from being an esoteric, isolated problem that affects only a few people, psychopathy touches virtually every one of us. . . . the prevalence of psychopathy in our society is about the same as that of schizophrenia. . . . However, the scope of the personal pain and distress associated with schizophrenia is small compared to the extensive personal, social, and economic carnage wrought by psychopaths (p. 2). "A complex — and poorly understood — interplay between biological factors and social forces" (p. 174). Factor 1 characteristics are born within certain people and Factor 2 traits emerge from [a] predisposing "seed" (probably polygenic in nature) regardless of (although not oblivious to) environmental factors. (Porter)