Leadership involves several activities such as providing motivation to others, inspiring them to take desired actions, assisting them to achieve their individual and group objectives, and building trust among people—especially on the leader’s ability to take decisions for the group (VanVactor., 2010b). Scholars of leadership theories, however, emphasize on the need for leaders to have certain level of knowledge (skill set) (Kotter., 2003). But a pragmatic, dynamic and visionary leader whose plan of action is well communicated and easily accepted tends to have more influence in organizations (Chen & Silverthorne., 2005). But change management studies argue that many employees oppose disruptive innovation no matter the leadership characteristics possessed by their managers. In this regard, it is arguable that employees choose and support managers whose leadership characteristics and philosophies align with the workers’ preferred style of leadership (Dubé et al., 2014). The question is: do workers in healthcare organizations have criteria for ideal managers/leaders? (Agarwal et al., 2017).
–Behavioural theory: This leadership theory concentrates on the behavioural traits of leaders, with the assumption that beliefs, attitudes and actions of leaders determine their likeability, influence and performance. The ‘style theory’ as it is sometimes called, argues that leaders were not born to be successful but adds that success can be achieved through development of learnable behaviours (Kotter., 2003). Thus, this theory emphasizes on observable actions rather than innate qualities. Some styles of leadership under the behavioural theory are status-quo leaders, task-oriented leaders, people-oriented leaders etc (Bossidy & Charan., 2002; Mamon., 2005).
Leaders in healthcare organizations are therefore expected to acquire professional knowledge on proven healthcare management practices in order to correctly decide on what strategies best enhance performance (Stefl et al., 2008). The behavioural theory also suggests that healthcare managers should be flexible and quick to adapt with changing circumstances. Thus, proponents of the theory agree that anyone is capable of becoming a leader and, in other words, easily achieve competitive advantage in their various business outfits if they exploit opportunities from learnable actions (Chan., 2009). But the behavioural theory is flawed because it does not identify which behaviours have positive or negative outcomes (Wong & Giallonardo., 2013). Moreover, the theory does not provide certain guidelines through which behaviours can improve overall organizational performance. This implies that despite the array of leadership styles under the behavioural theory, there is no right model for solving every problem within health care systems (Munir et al., 2012). For example, when there’s a performance issue in a department, the task-oriented manager analyses work process to understand where there’s disruption or low performance in the workflow. But a people-oriented manager will interact with the employees to ascertain if individual problems—such as relationship within the group, financial challenge, marital/relationship issues, level of education, knowledge of given tasks/roles, family matters etc—are responsible for the loophole affecting overall performance of the organization (Andrew., 2010; Munir et al., 2012; Hilsenrath., 2012).
–The Great Man theory: The Great Man theory is one of the outdated leadership ideas that support monarchy and dictatorship in politics. Proponents of the theory opine that rulers are born with divine mandate to lead others. In the business domain, Great Man theory views organizational leaders as individuals possessing natural/extraordinary skills and personal attributes such as wisdom, intelligence, charisma that cannot be taught or learned. Thus, leadership positions are not open for elections and there’s no room for disruptive innovation (Robin & Noshaba., 2015). Moreover, the Great Man theory views change management an aberration (Andrew., 2010; Jaiswal & Dhar., 2017).
With the foregoing analysis, the Great Man theory is more idealistic than practical. The idea that leaders deserve their positions of power because they have special traits is no longer acceptable in business and political domains. The theory encourages nepotism, mediocrity, authoritarianism and tyranny—and this pitfall has stirred numerous political crises, labour union strikes, and civil rights activism. The leadership idea is also flawed in global healthcare systems that depend on technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) for higher productivity and sustainable earnings (Luisa et al., 2015). Additionally, the global business environment has ample space for charismatic/motivational leaders whose character traits are constantly emulated for individual and organizational growth. Nonetheless, some examples of the great man theory are Abraham Lincoln, Alexander the Great, Queen Elizabeth I, and many other social giants who utilized their personal skills to lead nations. Remarkably, these global leadership icons have high levels of ambition and determination are usually believed to have achieved success through their natural leadership talents (Mattia. & Thomas., 2007). The Great Man theory is criticized for not specifying what character traits are specifically innate and those that are learnable (Adefolaju., 2014).
–Contingency theory: According to the Contingency theory, successful leaders are those with excellent interpersonal relationship skills as well as the ability to develop unique and highly efficient ways of working with subordinates (Munir et al., 2012). Such leaders achieve higher goals than their competitors or contemporaries because they have the ability, knowledge and vision to foresee danger and take precautionary steps. According to the Contingency theory, organizational leaders should be flexible enough to ‘think out of the box’ as the situation arises in order to constantly adapt with changing needs of customers. The Contingency theory is sometimes referred to as ‘the situational theory’ because it focuses on analysing organizational strengths and weaknesses, including threats and opportunities within the business environment. The problem is timing context because it measures the success or failure of business strategies following a challenging event (Marchildon & Di Matteo., 2014).
In this regard, the Contingency theory is criticised for ignoring the holistic approach to solving organizational problems. It also discourages leaders from using the big picture to identify workable strategies to create value and achieve sustainable profits (Luisa et al., 2015). Remarkably, the theory suggests that good leaders—no matter the specific leadership style—can adjust to unexpected events and achieve results. Although the ‘situational theory’ also encourages division of labour and specialization as explained in various types of contingency theories (such as Fielder’s Contingency Theory, Evans and House Path-Goal Theory, Hershey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory etc), another shortfall is its focus on the importance of a situation without considering the psychology of employees who take part in the process (Mattia. & Thomas., 2007). Therefore, the Contingency theory does not encourage innovation but favours impromptu response over short- or long-term business forecast (Dubé et al., 2014). In addition, the theory neglects the impact of internal factors (e.g. the type of company, size of the team, and the innate leadership style of an individual) and external factors (e.g. customer demands, government regulations, competitors) that impact a leader and their situation (Chen & Silverthorne., 2005).
–Management theory: The management theory (commonly known as the transactional leadership) concentrates on the principles of administration vis-a-vis: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating and budgeting—or simply PORSDCORB (Mattia. & Thomas., 2007). The transactional leadership concept encourages use of rewards to motivate high-performing employees and punishments to deter lazy workers. The idea behind this management theory is that people work for salaries or promise of a reward—but never out of goodwill. Although the management/leadership style is widely accepted as an effective strategy for increasing employees’ commitment and productivity levels, its use of punishment (consequences) has been criticized because the approach decreases morale within the organization. The management theory is also described as a lazy leadership style due to its dependency on rewards and punishments instead of innovation and technology adoption (Robin & Noshaba., 2015). For example, transactional leaders may offer cash bonus for high=performing employees and extra paperwork for workers performing below expectations (Stefl et al., 2008; Jaiswal & Dhar., 2017).
–Participative theory:
The Participative theory is not common in the corporate world due to its democratic nature. The leadership theory suggests that employees should be involved in the decision-making process. Therefore, managers are expected to dialogue with workers and take note of their opinions (criticisms, complaints or meaningful suggestions) before taking final decisions on an action plan (Robin & Noshaba., 2015). Under this theory, everyone is involved, motivated and recognized in the organization—and the leader’s major responsibility is to monitor and direct work process to achieve set objectives (Bossidy & Charan., 2002).
However, the Participative theory is criticised for making managers appear weak or their roles irrelevant. Leaders adapting principles of this theory don’t achieve best results all the time because they are focused on what people want rather than what the company needs (Munir et al., 2012).