There are many definitions for leadership. Merriam-Webster defines a leader as, “a person who has commanding authority and influence.” Leadership is defined as,” the office or position of a leader, the capacity to lead, and the act or instance of leading”, (Merriam-Webster, 2000). One aspect through all definitions remains constant, leadership is an apparent set of skills and abilities that one possesses (Kouzes, 2003,pxvii). This paper will be a discussion of leadership models through the Pre-Classical, Classical, Modern, and Post-Modern eras. The model’s development and effectiveness will be supported as well as how the models relate to one another.
One of the first leaders, in this case rulers, was King Hammurabi (ca.2123-2071 B.C.), who originated a code of 282 laws which presided over business transactions, personal behaviors, interpersonal relations, penalties, and other social issues (Wren, 1994, p13). King Hammurabi was on the right track to being effective. His model arose from a social need of the time.
In comparison, the leadership in China was seen in the military. General Sun Tzu, (ca 600 B.C.), organized the army into sections, and introduced ranks. He believed in having sound plans for battle to ensure success. “Thus do many calculations [plans] lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat.” (Wren, 1994, p14).Confucius, on the other hand, was known for moral wisdom and his support of a value system. He supported the idea that officials should be given office by demonstrated value and capability; however, this did not convey the best of officials. The system had attempts of reform due to the corruption and manipulation by officials (Wren, 1994,p15). This can still be seen today, some people are placed in leadership positions without having the knowledge, skills, and ability for such positions; merely promoted because of the right political connection or the longevity with the company.
In India, Chanakya Kautilya, (ca.332-298 B.C), exhibited leadership through advice on how to institute and sustain economic, social, and political stability. Kautilya noted that people could not be trusted and warned that in order to maintain stability controls needed to be set up to monitor employees. This included punishments, tempting of employees to prove their trustworthiness, and employees watching each other. He reinforced the thought of more than one advisor, two heads are better than one, and established section with managers. His ideas are very early in theory but convey through to modern day. (Wren, 1994, p15).
The earliest evidences of limits to the number of people a supervisor could manage were in Egypt, in this case about 10 followers to one leader. There was also an apparent separation of each by a dress code. During this period, the role of a supervisor began called a vizier. The pharaoh tended to spiritual matters while viziers attended to worldly matters, a delegation of authority. The viziers were, “directors, organizers, coordinators, and decision makers” (Wren 1994, p 16). One of the complex processes of managing at the time was an establishment to measure the Nile River on which the Egyptian economy depended. This establishment forecasted crops to manage profits, industry, and trade. (Wren, 1994, p16).
The leaders of the Hebrew people combined spiritual and worldly powers, these included Abraham, (ca.1900 BC.), Joseph, (ca.1750 BC), and Moses, (ca.1300 BC). After these leaders’ leadership became the duty of judges who led by control of spiritual power. Men who were deemed capable judged the people, however, brought difficult cases before Moses to be judged. This established a more organizational approach to management (Wren, 1994,p17).
Socrates (469-399 B.C.) pointed out that managerial abilities between private and public matters differed only in scale. He also believed that those that know how to delegate will be successful while those who do not delegate will not be successful (Wren, 1994, p17). Plato (428-348 B. C.), on the other hand, commented on human differences. This in turn, he believe, led to a division of labor, one person might be excel in one task while another will excel in a different task (Wren, 1994, p18). Aristotle (348-322 B.C.) supposed that work would be done better if it received the undivided attention of the worker. He also felt that departments should be divided into the specific matters that they handled. Aristotle’s views on reality formed the basis for scientific management.
Aristotle’s view on leadership was as follows, “He who has never learned to obey cannot be a good commander” (Wren, 1994, p19). Xenophon also believed in the division of specific labor, each person performing his or her specific task in the best possible manner (Wren, 1994, p19).
It can be observed from these ancient peoples that leadership of this era involved delegation, planning, organization, and the division of labor. It is evident that many of the reactions to past models have helped to shape existing leadership.
Machiavelli lived in Italy and wrote a book entitled The Prince, in 1513. According to Wren (1994), Machiavelli was knowledgeable on aspects of ruling successfully and acknowledged three ways to so: “fortune, ability, and villainy.” People who advanced through hard work and knowledge would be more apt to stay there than people who depended on others to rise to a position. Furthermore, Machiavelli’s analytics of human nature was also transpired into the types of leadership he supported. “Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with the assumption that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it”, (Wren, 1994, p31). Machiavelli’s ideas were astonishing for the time; he believed that a ruler could use any leadership style as long as it was appropriate for the purpose.
Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan in 1651, he provided a case for a central leadership since people were without a social government. Hobbes ensued that there needed to be a greater power to convey order from disorder. He furthered this idea that this power would be supreme, either social or religious, and would control all behavior and expression, both social and religious. All people would be inferior to the ruler (Wren, 1994, p32).
The Industrial Revolution created dilemmas for management. Societies needs were more compound with factory and city life. It was a time of change for organizations, management, and workers. Thus the need for management pioneers who came up with solutions to these dilemmas.
Charles Babbage (1792-1871), put forward a scientific approach to management. He was an exceptional scientist devising such instruments as the first calculator and computer. Although he was an extraordinary scientist he was a gruff man and not well liked. After visiting factories and analyzing operations, he made proposals for improving the existing practices, (Wren, 1994, p67-69). Babbage also recognized a main aspect that exists in today’s organizations, “ingenuity, innovation, and improvement are needed if a firm wants to remain viable” Wren, 1994, p67-69). Babbage was also influential in pointing out the worker’s role in an organization. He suggested profit sharing, where wages depended on profits, and a suggestion system where bonuses would be given. Babbage saw the following incentives in this proposal: Workers would have an interest in the organization’s success, it would curtail waste and misconduct, progress would be in every department, and more decent and capable workers would be hired, (Wren, 1994,p69).
Daniel Craig McCallum (1815-1878), originated procedures to oversee a department’s operations. He postulated values of management which included: appropriate separation of responsibilities, someone to ensure that these responsibilities were met, a way to know that the responsibilities were completed, reports on such responsibilities so that corrections could be made, a system of daily reports, and a complete system not only to exhibit errors but to show negligent work, (Wren, 1994, p85).
Henry Poor (1812-1905), took McCallum’s theories a step further, where McCallum was concerned internally, Poor was focused on broader values. He proposed three values: organization, communication and information. Poor insisted that there had to be a division of labor, each with precise tasks. There needed to be communication, so that management had a correct report of operations and information to study the current system and offer modifications to improve service (Wren, 1994, p89). According to Wren, (1994), Poor, articulated issues that face management today and will continue to face. He pointed out other obstacles that still face management today. Government should protect, and not control management. Individual motivation and pride should not be ruined which is also a frequent problem. These ideals make him one of our most great early contributors to management thought (Wren, 1994, p92).
Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) acquired his management skills from working as a telegrapher for the railroad. It was here that he controlled performance costs, and appointed authority and responsibility. Carnegie originated a way to join technology and management to establish more jobs, reduce prices, increase markets, and enhance industrial development; he also instituted many of the ideas of McCallum, (Wren, 1994,p98).
During this time, emphasis had been placed on technical and analytical abilities; little was know on how to manage. There was now a need to bring this information full scale.
Frederick Taylor (1856-1915) was essential to scientific management.Taylor defined management as “knowing exactly what you want men to do, and then seeing that they do it in the best and cheapest way”(Wren, 1994,p129). He had no formal training but relied on his observations to device his ideas. Taylor believed that “systematic management” could be advantageous to fundamental work processes and produce considerable improvement. According to Locke, (as cited in Hough & White, 2001), ” management science, standard times, standardized procedures, goal setting, performance feedback, reward systems, employee training, and personnel selection systems are all outgrowths of Taylor’s ideas.”Frederick Taylor also recognized the need for a more effective way to manage the workers. He did this by developing the “functional foremen”, to differentiate between workers who planned and those who completed the tasks (Wren, 1994, p258). According to Taylor, (as cited in Wren, 1994,p187), the duties of the functional foremen included, hiring and firing of employees, performance records, disciplinary problems, paying employees, and peacemaker.Frederick Taylor had always ascertained that management should look out for both employer and employee, he suggested that the, “mutuality of interests emphasized a long-term growth of both parties to ensure prosperity for each”, (Wren, 1994, p 164).
The railroad hearings brought Taylor’s scientific management into the glare of publicity. The manufacturers and public were fond of the idea to save money. However, the well-established railway workers and machinists objected. (Wren, 1994, p 157). Taylor was determined to initiate scientific management for the Navy yards, he was not successful, and was verbally abused by the Naval bureaucracy. When attempting to implement his scientific management at Army arsenals, representatives from the International Association of Machinists were there to disturb the workers.
By 1911, machinists were against Taylor’s scientific management theory and opposed its introduction. Taylor wanted to install the system at Watertown arsenal but warned to do so carefully. One of the workers refused and was discharged; other workers followed which resulted in the first strike while initiating Taylor’s scientific management. Taylor recognized this as a problem due to not consulting the workers first; he did not blame the union. As an investigation insured, the strike was said to be due to substandard dealings with workers when Taylor’s system was introduced. Union officials harassed Taylor during a committee investigation and it was ruled that their allegations were unsubstantiated. As a result, Taylor was prevented from introducing his scientific management system in any military agencies. (Wren, 1994,p 159-164).
There is always resistance to change, so therefore, it has to be managed, and change has to happen from the top-down. There needs to be consistency in systems and processes. In general, Frederick Taylor understood and implemented the removal of inadequacy in industry through his “systematic management” and was the first to use times to analyze and improve work. (Wren, 1996, as cited in Hough & White, 2001,p 7). Taylor was a remarkable man of his time; his ideas have been a significant contribution to management thought.
Taylor’s Research Pioneers Carl Barth (1860-1939) was one of the more conventional of Taylor’s research pioneers. He worked with Taylor to institute scientific management in several organizations (Wren, 1994,p154).Henry Gantt (1861-1919) was a more unconventional pioneer who also aided Taylor in instituting scientific management. Gantt’s work much like that of Taylor included, “scientific investigation of the task, analysis and study of movements and times, standardization of conditions, and winning worker cooperation”. (Wren, 1994,p 156). Gantt’s graphic aids to management planning and controlling were innovative in management thought. Management could see how plans were making progress and take action necessary to keep undertakings on time or within budget, (Wren, 1994,p 160).
Frank Gilbreth (1868-1924) and Lillian Gilbreth (1878-1972) were considerable contributors of the management thought. Frank was one of the founders of scientific management movement.He first noted the range of techniques and paces used by the workers and developed a suggestion system, which included monetary incentive on, “how to improve work, give better service to customers, or get additional construction jobs,” (Wren, 1994,p163-164). Frank had the ability to understand the importance of employee and employer relationships as well as managing the business by setting up systems of measurements and asking for feedback from employees. “One characteristic of Gilbreth’s lifelong quest was that he asked the workers to help improve methods and achieve motion economy for their own sake as well as for management’s. He not only taught the workers how to handle bricks, but why that way was best. He thought that pride was an essential part of learning a trade and that this came only if workers knew their trade well” (Wren, 1994, p165). “Being a trained bricklayer himself undoubtedly helped Gilbreth win worker cooperation; however, he demonstrated early the need for worker involvement in making improvements, including incentives to do so, an emphasis on training, and, finally, the need to systematize without accelerating the worker’s pace” (Wren, 1994, p165).
Lillian, along with her husband Frank were influential in the concept of ergonomics; functioning smarter instead of functioning more intensely (Wren, 1994, p173). Lillian Gilbreth was an amazing woman of her day to accomplish what she did during the period. She brought a human element into scientific management, before this the idea was that if one was not born with specific attributes one could not succeed. She was instrumental in pointing out that successful management relies on the person and not the work.
As a result, Lillian Gilbreth distinguished three styles of management and how they relate to “individuality, functionalization, measurement, analysis and synthesis, standardization, records and programs, teaching incentives, and welfare.” Traditional, a central power, transitory, the stage in between the other two, and scientific, the Taylor theory. (Wren, 1994,p 190).
A general idea of psychology was in all Lillian’s writings, she contributed to ideas such as: “the application of management and motion study techniques to the home, rehabilitation of the handicapped, elimination of fatigue, and the use of leisure time to create “happiness minutes.” (Wren, 1994, p 191). She was influential working with wounded soldiers and other disabled people to make their lives better (Wren, 1994, p. 192).
Harrington Emerson (1853-1931) believed that waste and ineffectiveness were the problems that permeated the industrial system this could be solved through proper organization. His solution was to install better methods and equipment, centralized the manufacture of material and tools, and installed an individual reward system. Emerson published, Twelve Principles of Efficiency, which became a milestone in the history of management thought. The first five chapters were dedicated to relations with people and the remainder dedicated to methods, institutions, and systems (Wren, 1994, p175).
Morris Cooke (1872-1960) was instrumental in developing new ideas to develop good relationship between labor and management. When asked about his accomplishments, Cooke replied, “Rural electrification, inexpensive electricity in our homes, progress in labor-management relations, conservation of our land and water, and scientific management in industry.” (Wren, 1994,p182).
Unions resisted scientific management. Organizations understood the methods but not always the viewpoints behind methods. Scientific management became essential to organize business practices. Scientific management influenced effectiveness and rationality, gave “purpose to practice, and content to theory” (Wren, 1994, p255).”Scientific management reflected the spirit of its times and prepared the way for
subsequent developments”, (Wren, 1994, p255).
Jules Fayol (1841-1925) believed that management was the logical understanding and combination of, ” the production, sales, financial, and accounting functions of the organization (Wren, 1994, p210). He pointed out that managers hypothesized, but in practice there were inconsistencies and little organized consideration (Wren, 1994, p213). According to Wren, Fayol determined that managers needed certain qualities, knowledge, and experience. These included, “Physical qualities, mental qualities, moral qualities, general education, special knowledge, and experience”, (Wren, 1994, p213).
Max Weber (1864-1920) established structural provisions-based on reason to be certain of organizational effectiveness. “Weber’s work on bureaucracy was conceived as a blueprint for efficiency, which would emphasize rules rather than people and competence rather than favoritism” (Wren, 1994, p229-230).
Fayol and Weber offered plans for managing large organizations. Fayol, “stressed education for management rather than technical training, the importance of planning and organizing, and the ongoing phases of command, coordination, and control”, (Wren, 1994, p230). Weber wanted to evade leadership and organization by “tradition and charisma”, create a rational foundation for authority, and to introduce logical measures for the selection of personnel and the implementation of activities (Wren, 1994, p230).
Mary Parker Follett
Mary Follett (1868), due to being a woman of this period she mostly worked in volunteer organizations. By doing this she realized a need to, “rethink previously held concepts of authority, organization, leadership, and conflict resolution” (Wren, 1994, p302). Follett realized the need for teamwork through her observations. She had a connection between the scientific management era and the social person era (Wren, 1994, p302).
In her book, Creative Experience, Follett established the concept that, “through conference, discussion, and cooperation”, people could bring forth undeveloped ideas and make evident their shared goals, (Wren, 1994, p303). Follett also pointed out group conflict, and how disagreements could be resolved, “voluntary submission of one side, struggle and the victory of one side over the other, compromise, or integration” (Wren, 1994, p304).
Chester Irving Barnard (1886), proposed that through provide for teamwork an organization could, “accomplish three basic goals, to ensure the survival of an organization, to examine the external forces to which such adjustments must be made; and to analyze the functions of executives at all levels in managing and controlling formal organizations”, (Wren, 1994, p313). Barnard hypothesized three executive roles: “to provide a system of communication; to promote the securing of essential personal efforts; and to formulate and define purpose”, (Wren, 1994, p314). Follett and Barnard were concerned with group efforts. They wanted to remodel former ideas of management (Wren, 1994, p321).
Fayol’s Intellectual heirs
William H. Newman (1909-2002). Newman’s developments involved, “planning, organizing, assembling resources, directing, and controlling”, (Wren, 1994,p398). Newman’s ideas had distinctive aspects to Fayol’s, “the distinction between the types of plans; the “assembling resources” element; and the treatment of coordination under directing rather than as a separate activity”, (Wren, 1994,p398).
George Terry (1909-1979), defined management as “the activity which plans, organizes, and controls the operations of the basic elements of men, materials, machines, methods, money, and markets, providing direction and coordination, and giving leadership to human efforts, so as to achieve the sought objectives of the enterprise” (Wren, 1994,p398).
Harold Koontz (1908-1984) and Cyril O’Donnell (1900-1976), defined management as “the function of getting things done through others” (Wren, 1994, p399). Koontz and O’Donnell hypothesized that managers were recognized by the work they execute, which included, ” planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling”, (Wren, 1994,p399). According to Wren, “coordination began and endured as a separate managerial function until 1954; afterward it became an integral part of the entire process”, (Wren, 1994,p400).
As organizations expanded the need to have educated managers and business education was heightened. Koontz was influential with the “management theory jungle” (Wren, 1994,p406). Others set out to improve education in management including, Porter, McKibbin, and Drucker. Fayol’s theories presented an outline for the shift to, “business policy and strategic management”, (Wren, 1994,p424). Quinn, Von Moltke, and Mitzberg also developed strategies. Von Moltke, a military strategist pointed out that, “No plan of operations can look with any certainty beyond the first meeting with the … enemy [because one cannot control] the independent will of the opposing commander”, (Wren, 1994,p 425). Mintzberg observed strategies building up rather than increasing in the intellect of strategists. According to Wren, “this connection suggests a compatibility between general management theory and strategic leadership as firms are led to invent and innovate in a dynamic fashion to survive”, (Wren, 1994, p425).
Management thought was also influenced by behavioral scientists. This brought more of a human relations quality to management. Organizations should encourage “individual maturity”, plans for jobs so that there is better employee participation. Goal setting provides a means of rewarding to promote effectiveness of employees. According to Wren, “leadership theories cycled from traits through contingency notions and back to leader styles and leader-member relations in transformation, charismatic, transactional, and leader-member exchange theories “, (Wren, 1994,p470).
Leadership models must be adaptable to contribute to the doubts of tomorrow but still realistic and functional to offer assistance and direction for leaders. “Leadership models will advance as we see further integration of the world economy, which will force multinational companies to be effective and efficient in different markets of the world”, (Saner & Lichia, 2000,p13). Tomorrow’s business circumstances will be changing; there will be a need for continuous learning of new skills and knowledge, (Saner & Lichia, 2000,p13).
As can be seen from the above models, leadership emphasizes a talent to change one’s style to accomplish success. Admirable leaders are able to undertake various methods to meet the requirements of situations. In any case, leadership involves four features, to lead entails influencing others, where there are leaders there are followers, leaders seem to become visible when an innovative response is needed, and leaders have a concept of what they want to accomplish and why. Consequently, leaders are people who are able to think and act creatively in non-routine situations – and who set out to influence the actions, beliefs and feelings of others (Doyle, 2001).
Doyle, M.E. & Smith, M.K. (2001). “Classical leadership”, the encyclopedia of informal
education. Retrieved on June 5, 2005 from InfoTracOne database on April 9, 2005.
Fullan, M. (2000a). Introduction. In The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership
(p13-15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hough, J.R. & White, M.A. (2001). Using stories to create change: The object lesson of
Frederick Taylor’s “pig-tale”. Journal of Management, Sept-Oct, 27, 585. Retrieved
from InfoTracOne database on April 6, 2005.
Kouzes, J. M. (2003). Becoming a leader. Business leadership A Jossey-Bass reader.
(p.355). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Merriam-Webster Authority & innovation 2000 v2.5
Saner R. & Lichia, Y. (2000). Challenges of the 21st Centry for Leadership
Qualifications: Reflections and Responses. Asian Journal of Public Administration,
22, 1, 75-89.
Wren, D. A. (1994). The evolution of management thought (4th ed.). San Francisco: John
Wiley & Sons.