Paper instructions:
In order to answer this question you need to provide an analysis of the dimensions and function of leadership and an assessment of how far leadership may be considered to involve enabling the group to achieve its aims and to

maintain good working relationships.

A good beginning would be to point out that most people argue that leaders play an important, possibly a critical, role in many aspects of life, including organisations and workplace settings. Leaders may be elected or emerge as

a group interacts, or may be appointed to that role. A leader is typically seen as the person who is given responsibility for monitoring and directing a group’s activities or who takes primary responsibility for those tasks and is also

often seen as the person who has the good’ ideas and makes things happen. A perceptive answer would go on to argue that it is more difficult to define and describe leadership. Most commonly, leadership refers to the personal

qualities, behaviour, styles and decisions adopted by the leader, i.e. how the leader carries out his/her role. Leadership involves getting other people to achieve the group’s goals, so an organisation will typically look to its leaders to

provide direction and influence, and motivate others to help to achieve its collective aims and objectives. There is also increasing recognition that an important aspect of leadership is a concern with people’s well-being and their

interpersonal relationships. Views of leadership have therefore evolved from an initial interest in leadership traits to the idea that there are different leadership behaviours or styles.

A good answer would consider research which identified different styles of leadership. Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939) examined the impact of three styles of leadership: autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. This study

found that those in the group with a democratic leader were not only the happiest but were the most productive, and were more likely than the other two groups to work effectively when the leader was absent. An extensive

research programme led to the identification of four categories of leadership style €“ exploitative autocratic; benevolent autocratic; consultative; and democratic €“ and the conclusion that the democratic style of leadership was not

only associated with successful groups in a wide range of settings but was applicable to all kinds of organisation (Likert, 1961). Another key dimension of behavioural style, which is similar to but different from the

democratic/autocratic dimension, is the extent to which the leader is participative or directive. Using this dimension, four leadership styles can be distinguished: tells; sells; consults; and delegates. A third aspect of leadership style

is people-oriented v productivity-oriented (Fleishman, 1973). His programme of research identified ten aspects of leadership behaviour, underlying which were two dimensions or factors. The first factor is the extent to which the

leader is task-oriented and initiates structure, while the second factor is how far the leader is person- (socio-emotional) oriented. According to peer ratings, most effective leaders are above average on both dimensions, i.e. they

are competent in both task-oriented and socio-emotional roles.

A good answer would highlight another contrast €“ that between transactional and transformational leadership. Transactional leaders are task-focused and operate a system of contingent rewards. They reward subordinates only

if they perform appropriately such that the reward is seen to be deserved and they are focused on performance goals. In contrast, transformational leaders are focused on articulating a vision or mission and are seen as

possessing the intangible quality of charisma. They treat everyone as individuals and provide intellectual stimulation. There is evidence of a high correlation between transformational leadership and leadership effectiveness.

A perceptive answer would also point out that, although research into different styles of leadership has been productive, the recognition of the importance of the situation in which leadership is demanded has led to the

development of contingency theories. These assume that the effectiveness of a particular leadership style depends on the context in which leader is operating, such that the optimal behaviour for a leader is contingent upon the

situation. Fiedler (1967) suggested that leadership style develops from a person’s relatively stable personality characteristics and assumed that people are oriented to one of two styles. One style is more focused on the task, while

the other is concerned with the interpersonal relationships of people performing the task. Fiedler devised a questionnaire to measure a leaders’ least preferred co-worker (LPC) by asking them to describe the person they least

like working with on 18 bi-polar scales. Fiedler argued that a high LPC leader (i.e. a positive opinion of the co-worker, which implies a person-oriented leader) will be better in some situations and a low LPC leader (i.e. a negative

opinion of the co-worker, which implies a task-oriented leader) in others. Although there is some empirical support for the theory and its prediction that leadership effectiveness will be maximised when the leadership style

matches the leadership type required by the situation, there are also problems (e.g. with the meaning and stability of the LPC score).

On the basis of analysing different perspectives on leadership and its potential functions, an excellent answer would reach a conclusion about how far leadership involves enabling the group to achieve its aims and maintain

good working relationships.