Your Online Discussion: Leadership Journal
will let you start thinking about yourself as a leader. This reflection will also help you to start preparing your Leadership Development Plan Assignment.
1. Reflecting on your experience to date, and what you’ve learned so far, what do you believe about Leadership? What specifically has informed your view of leadership?
2. Which dominant and/or emerging leadership theory/theories resonate with you? Why?
3. How does an understanding of the leadership theory (question 2) link to what you have read/understood before?
4. What (if any) is the connection to the organizational metaphor you discussed in Discussion #1?
5. How do these theories “fit” with your own definition and ideas of my emerging leader identity? Where are the gaps? Where might there be alignment? What might this mean to your understanding of leadership?
Requirements:
Assignment Details and Outline
This assignment is a reflective essay and is to be written in the first-person. The use of examples from the literature, as well as personal experience to support one’s claims and assertions, is expected.
The use of examples/personal experience to support your claims and assertions are expected. You must cite relevant theory/theories discussed in class to support your response, as well.
Include the in-text citations or reference list.
Minimum 12 point font.
Use of APA 7 formatting is required.
Maximum 1300 words (200-250 words/question) in length (not including the in-text citations or reference list)
Minimum 12 point font, double spaced lines, 1-inch margins
Use of APA 7 formatting is required.
Rubric:
Assessment Criteria
Unsatisfactory = 0
Novice = 1
Progressing = 2
Proficient = 3
Score (Max 3)
Critical Analysis of your emerging definition of Leadership
Discussion posting shows little or no evidence that an analysis of the leadership theories explored and/or one’s emerging definition of leadership. No links included to readings or emerging understanding of leadership. Posting is vague and does not include supporting materials, links to concepts from readings, in-class discussions, outside resources, or specific real-life application
Discussion posting repeats and summarizes the necessary information found in the readings. Few links to concepts from readings, in-class discussions, outside resources, or specific real-life applications are provided. Minimal analysis of findings as it relates to leadership contexts indicating a limited emerging understanding of leadership.
Discussion posting displays an understanding of the leadership theories evidenced by an analysis of the findings related to one’s own experiences with leadership in different contexts. Links made to concepts from readings, in-class discussions, outside resources, or specific real-life applications. Displays correct use of terminology. Posting explores connections between and among theories and experiences
Discussion posting displays an excellent understanding of the leadership theories explored and their respective links to the emerging understanding of self as leader and leadership definition. The correct terminology is used. Posting integrates readings, in-class discussion, and real-life application. Discussion utilizes well-sourced resources to support assertions made.
APA References/Citation
No Sources Cited
APA formatting may not be used, or it contains many errors.
Some Sources Cited
APA formatting is used but contains many errors.
Most Sources Cited.
APA formatting is used but may contain minor errors.
All sources cited.
APA formatting is correct and error-free.
Participation in the Learning Community
Discussion posting does not contribute to the ongoing conversation. Limited to no responses/questions posed/posted to peers. Questions that are posted do not generate deeper thinking of others. No evidence of critical thought in replies to questions.
Discussion posting sometimes contributes to the ongoing conversation, as evidenced by affirming statements or references to readings or asking relevant, probing questions. Some responses/questions posed/posted to peers. Questions generate some additional thinking; however, probes to hidden assumptions not evident.
Discussion posting contributes to ongoing conversation evidenced by affirming statements or references to readings, asking relevant, probing questions. Assumptions are questioned/clarified by proposing alternative point of view
Discussion posting actively stimulates and sustains further discussion and deep thinking by building on peer’s postings or responses, including, but not limited to, building a focused argument around an issue, asking a new related question, challenging assumptions by providing an alternative point of view.
Etiquette in Dialogue and Quality of Writing
Posts on the discussion board show disrespect for the viewpoints of others. Posts contain numerous grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. Personal and authentic voice not present
No sources are cited
Leadership Theories
CHAPTER 1, 2, & 3
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Historical Approach of Major Approaches
Various theories can be categorized into six basic approaches.
Great Man Theories
Trait Theories
Behaviour Theories
Contingency Theories
Influence Theories
Relational Theories
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Leadership Era
Era 1: Pre-industrialized & pre-bureaucratic.
Organizations were small and run by single individuals.
Era 2: Emergence of hierarchy and bureaucracy.
Organizations require rules/regulations.
Era 3: World was no longer stable.
Era of the team leader and change leader.
Change of organizational structure/culture.
Era 4: Digital mode & Social media
Represents agile leadership.
Organizational flexibility.
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Exhibit 1.4 – Leadership Evolution
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Historical Theories of Leadership (slide 1 of 3)
Great man theories
Leadership was conceptualized as a single “Great Man” who put everything together and influenced others to follow along based on the strength of inherited traits, qualities, and abilities
Trait theories
Picture of an ambitious, desirable future for the organization or team
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Trait Theories- Researchers looked to see if leaders had certain traits or characteristics such as intelligence or energy, that distinguished them from non-leaders.
Contingency- one thing depends on the other, and for leaders to be effective there must be an appropriate fit between the leader’s behaviour and style and the situation. A leadership style that works in one situation may not work in the other.
5
Historical Theories of Leadership (slide 2 of 3)
Behavior theories
Leaders’ behavior toward followers correlated with leadership effectiveness or ineffectiveness
Contingency theories
Leaders can analyze their situation and tailor their behavior to improve leadership effectiveness
Also known as situational theories
Leadership cannot be understood in a vacuum separate from various elements of the group or organizational situation
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Behaviour Theories- Researchers looked at what a leader does rather than who he/she is.
Contingency Theories- The idea behind contingency theories is that leaders can analyze their situation and tailor their behaviour to improve leadership effectiveness.
6
Historical Theories of Leadership (slide 3 of 3)
Influence theories
Examine the influence processes between leaders and followers
Charismatic leadership (Chap.13)—Influence based on the qualities and charismatic personality of the leader
Relational theories
Focus on how leaders and followers interact and influence one another
Transformational leadership (Chap.12) and servant leadership (Chap.6) are two important relational theories
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Four Core Leadership Theories
Trait Theories
Behavioral Theories
Contingency Theories
Power and Influence Theories
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Great Man Approach
A leadership perspective that sought to identify the inherited traits leaders possessed that distinguished them from people who were not leaders
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Implications for Leadership
Change from Great Man to rational management to team leadership to agile leadership:
Leadership reflects the era or context of the organization of the society.
Some organizations still struggle to transition from stable to a chaotic environments.
Era 3- Diversity, team leadership, empowerment, and horizontal relationships become popular.
Era 4: Leadership focus on change management, facilitating a vision and values to encourage performance, agility, and continuous adaptation.
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Exhibit 1.2 – The New Reality for Leaders
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Traits
The distinguishing personal characteristics of a leader, such as intelligence, honesty, self-confidence, and appearance
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Trait Theories
Trait Theories
E.g. The Five Factor Model
What type of person makes a good leader
Leadership is an innate, instinctive quality that you have or don’t have.
Helps us to identify traits/qualities (empathy, likability, assertiveness, etc.)
Traits are external behaviours that emerge from the things going on in our minds.
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Behavior Approaches
Autocratic
Centralizes authority and derives power from position, control of rewards, and coercion
Effective when the skill difference between the leader and subordinates is high
Democratic
Delegates authority, encourages participation, relies on subordinates’ knowledge for completion of tasks, and depends on subordinate’s respect for influence
Effective if subordinates possess decision-making skills
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Behavioral Theories
Behavioral Theories
Classical Conditioning.
Operant Conditioning.
Observational Learning.
What does a good leader do?
Focus on how leaders behave.
E.g. Do leaders dictate what needs to be done or involves the team in the decision making.
Kurt Lewin suggests there are three types of leaders:
Autocratic, Democratic, Laissez-Faire
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Contingency Theories
Contingency Theories
Situational Leadership, Path Goal Theory, Fiedler’s Contingency Model, Decision-Making Theory
How does the situation influence good leadership?
There is no one correct type of leadership, it depends on the situation.
When you need to make quick decisions, which style is best?
When you need the full support of your team, is there a more effective way to lead?
Should leaders be more people-oriented or task-oriented?
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Hersey & Blanchard Situational Theory
Hersey and Blanchard’s extension of the Leadership Grid focusing on the characteristics of followers as the important element of the situation, and consequently, of determining effective leader behavior
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory—Leader Style
Telling style
Directive approach that reflects a high concern for tasks and a low concern for people and relationships
Selling style
Based on a high concern for both relationships and tasks
Participating style
Characterized by high relationship and low task behavior
Delegating style
Reflects a low concern for both tasks and relationships
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Exhibit 3.3 – The Situational Model of Leadership
Source: Adapted from The Hersey and Blanchard Situational Leadership Model / The Center for Leadership Studies, Inc.
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory—Follower Readiness
Low readiness
Use the telling leader style
Moderate readiness
Use the selling leader style
High readiness
Use the participating leader style
Very high readiness
Use the delegating leader style
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Contingency and Contingency Approaches
Contingency
Theory meaning one thing depends on other things
Contingency approaches
Approaches that seek to delineate the characteristics of situations and followers and examine the leadership styles that can be used effectively
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Fiedler’s Contingency Model
A model designed to diagnose whether a leader is task-oriented or relationship-oriented and match leader style to the situation
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Fiedler’s Contingency Model— Leadership Styles
Relationship-oriented leadership
Concerned with people
Establishes mutual trust and respect
Listens to employees’ needs
Task-oriented leadership
Motivated by task accomplishment
Provides clear direction and performance standards
Measure with a least preferred coworker (LPC) scale
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Situation
Leader–member relations
Group atmosphere and members’ attitudes toward and acceptance of the leader
Task structure
Extent to which tasks performed by the group are defined, involve specific procedures, and have clear, explicit goals
Position power
Extent to which the leader has formal authority over subordinates
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Exhibit 3.4 – Fiedler’s Classification: How Leader Style Fits the Situation
Source: Based on Fred E. Fiedler, “The Effects of Leadership Training and Experience: A Contingency Model Interpretation,” Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1972), p. 455.
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
The Vroom–Jago Contingency Model
A contingency model that focuses on varying degrees of participative leadership and how each level of participation influences the quality and accountability of decisions
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
The Vroom–Jago Contingency Model
Focuses specifically on varying degrees of participative leadership and how each level of participation influences the quality and accountability of leadership decisions.
A number of situational factors influence the likelihood of participative or autocratic approach.
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
The Vroom–Jago Contingency Model
Starts with the idea that a leader faces a problem that requires a solution.
Decisions to solve the problem might be made by the leader alone or the inclusion of the followers.
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
The Vroom–Jago Contingency Model
Situational factors shape the likelihood that either a participative or autocratic approach will produce the best outcome
Tells the leader precisely the correct amount of participation by subordinates to use in making a particular decision
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
The Vroom–Jago Contingency Model
It is an applied model because:
It tells the leader precisely the correct amount of participation by subordinates to use in decision making.
The model has three major components:
Leader participation styles.
A set of diagnostic questions with which to analyze a decision situation.
A series of leadership decisions.
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
The Vroom–Jago Contingency Model
The model employs five levels of subordinate participation in decision making.
From highly autocratic leader
To highly democratic leader
Five decision making styles:
Decide alone
Consult individually
Consult group
Facilitate
Delegate
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Exhibit 3.7 – Five Leader Decision Styles
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Diagnostic Questions (slide 1 of 2)
Decision significance
How significant is this decision for the project or organization?
Importance of commitment
How important is subordinate commitment to carrying out the decision?
Leader expertise
What is the level of the leader’s expertise in relation to the problem?
Likelihood of commitment
If the leader were to make the decision alone, would subordinates have high or low commitment to the decision?
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Diagnostic Questions (slide 2 of 2)
Group support for goals
What is the degree of subordinate support for the team’s or organization’s objectives at stake in this decision?
Goal expertise
What is the level of group members’ knowledge and expertise in relation to the problem?
Team competence
How skilled and committed are group members to working together as a team to solve problems?
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Selecting a Decision Style
Timesaving-based model
Use when a decision has to be made immediately
Development-based model
Use when it is important to develop the thinking and decision-making skills of followers
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Exhibit 3.8 – Timesaving-Based Model
Source: Reprinted from Organizational Dynamics, 28, no. 4, Victor H. Vroom, ‘‘Leadership and the Decision-Making Process,’’ pp. 82–94, Copyright 2000, with permission from Elsevier.
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Exhibit 3.9 – Employee Development-Based Model
Source: Victor H. Vroom, ‘‘Leadership and the Decision-Making Process,’’ Organizational Dynamics 28, no. 4 (Spring 2000), pp. 82–94. This is Vroom’s adaptation of Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s Taxonomy.
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Substitutes for Leadership
Substitute
Situational variable that makes leadership unnecessary or redundant
Neutralizer
Situational characteristic that counteracts the leadership style and prevents the leader from displaying certain behaviors
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Exhibit 3.10 – Substitutes and Neutralizers for Leadership
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Path–Goal Theory
A contingency approach to leadership in which the leader’s responsibility is to increase subordinates’ motivation by clarifying the behaviors necessary for task accomplishment and rewards
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
The four types of behavior are not ingrained personality traits as the earlier trait theories; rather, they reflect types of behavior that every leader is able to adopt, depending on the situation.
40
Leader Behavior (slide 1 of 2)
Supportive leadership
Shows concern for subordinates’ well-being and personal needs
Leader’s behavior is open, friendly, and approachable, and the leader creates a team climate and treats subordinates as equals
Directive leadership
Tells subordinates exactly what they are supposed to do
Leader behavior includes planning, making schedules, setting performance goals and behavior standards, and stressing adherence to rules and regulations
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Leader Behavior (slide 2 of 2)
Participative leadership
Consults with subordinates about decisions
Leader behavior includes asking for opinions and suggestions, encouraging participation in decision making, and meeting with subordinates in their workplaces
Achievement-oriented leadership
Sets clear and challenging goals for subordinates
Leader behavior stresses high-quality performance and improvement over current performance
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Exhibit 3.5 – Leader Roles in the Path–Goal Model
Source: Reprinted from Organizational Dynamics, 13 (Winter 1985), Bernard M. Bass, “Leadership: Good, Better, Best,” pp. 26–40, Copyright 1985, with permission from Elsevier.
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
According to the path-goal theory, the leader’s responsibility is to increase subordinates’ motivation to attain personal and organizational goals. As illustrated in exhibit 3.5, the leader increases follower motivation by either (1) clarifying the follower’s path to the rewards that are available, or, (2) increasing the rewards that the follower values or desires.
43
Situational Contingencies
Personal characteristics of group members
Ability and skills
Needs and motivations
Work environment
Degree of task structure
Nature of the formal authority system
Work group itself
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Exhibit 3.6 – Path–Goal Situations and Preferred Leader Behaviors
©2018 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
01Leadership
theory
– past and present
In order to forecast how successful leaders will flourish in an increasingly uncertain future, it is necessary to understand how the theory and appli-
cation of leadership has developed since the concept was first seriously
considered around the end of the 19th century. I therefore begin this book
by reviewing how leadership theory has developed over the past 100 years
or so into approaches designed to meet the challenges facing leaders in this
culturally diverse, communication-driven age, where change is a constant
and only those organizations that are able to adapt and innovate will
succeed.
That is not to say that academics and, in particular, philosophers long
before our modern age did not have an appreciation of how wise leaders
get the best out of their followers. As I mention in the Introduction, Lao
Tzu, for example, in his book Tao Te Ching, written for Chinese political
leaders in the
5
th century bc, emphasized the importance of leader–follower
relationships. However, recent decades have seen an exponential increase
in the study of leadership.
Before we review past leadership theories let us understand what we
mean by the term leadership. In 1966 the Smith Richardson Foundation
commissioned Ralph M Stogdill to undertake a systematic analysis and
review of the literature on leadership, which culminated in him publishing
the book Handbook on Leadership in 1974. In it, he sought to group the
various definitions of leadership into 11 classifications, namely:
● a focus of group process;
● personality and its effects;
● the art of inducing compliance;
● the exercise of influence;
● act or behaviour;
● a form of persuasion;
5
Leadership Psychology6
● a power relation;
● an instrument of goal achievement;
● an effect of interaction;
● a differentiated role;
● the initiation of structure.
Whilst there are many different definitions of leadership, it is generally
agreed that the act of leading people involves influencing them to undertake
a course of action that contributes to an objective defined by the leader: his
or her vision. The word ‘lead’ derives from the Anglo-Saxon for a journey,
a road, a way. Thus, leading is concerned with moving from one place to
another; from one situation to another. It therefore involves change and it
is, indeed, in periods of great change that exceptional leaders emerge. Perhaps
one of the best definitions of leadership is from Charles Handy (1992): ‘A leader
shapes and shares a vision which gives point to the work of others.’
We will now consider the following theories, which encapsulate the
progression of leadership thinking up to the modern day:
● great man theory;
● trait theory;
● behavioural theory;
● situational leadership;
● functional leadership;
● relationship theory.
great man theory
It was only in the 19th century that historians and philosophers began to
consider the concept of leadership and those who displayed it, mainly in a
military and political context. Indeed, it was entirely through consideration
of recognized, historical heroes that the first leadership theory was con-
ceived. The great man theory proposes that at times of need leaders will rise,
almost mystically, to control events and lead people to safety or success.
Hence, history can be explained to a large extent by the emergence of these
highly influential men – the great man theory does not mention women –
of their times.
It was the Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle in the 1840s who developed
the great man theory, saying: ‘The history of the world is but the biography
of great men’, using the example of figures such as Muhammad, Luther and
Napoleon to make his case. Moreover, he proposed that by studying such
heroes one could not help but develop one’s own potential heroic nature.
Implicit to Carlyle’s theory is that these great men are born to lead: they
have inbred qualities that come to the fore when their leadership destiny
unfolds. Of course, his examples were largely political, religious or military
Leadership theory – Past and Present 7
men from the aristocracy and upper classes, hence the theory dismisses the
potential of those of lower social status (and the entire female gender!) to
rise to positions of leadership. Great leaders were born, not made.
trait theory
The trait theory followed from the great man theory as a means of categor-
izing the qualities displayed by successful leaders. By identifying these traits
it was believed that people having them could be identified, recruited and
placed in positions of authority. This practice was applied in particular for
officer selection within military organizations and, indeed, still is to some
extent.
Table 1.1 sets out the main leadership traits (genetically determined char-
acteristics) and skills identified by Stogdill (1974). More recent authors have
proposed different sets of qualities required by leaders, as shown in Table 1.2.
It is interesting to note how the required leadership qualities change
through time, according to the challenges that leaders face. Bennis (1998),
Ta b l e 1. 1 Stogdill’s leadership traits and skills
Traits Skills
Adaptable to situations
Alert to social environment
Ambitious and achievement
orientated
Assertive
Cooperative
Decisive
Dependable
Dominant (desire to influence
others)
Energetic (high activity level)
Persistent
Selfconfident
Tolerant of stress
Willing to assume responsibility
Clever (intelligent)
Conceptually skilled
Creative
Diplomatic and tactful
Fluent in speaking
Knowledgeable about group task
Organized (administrative ability)
Persuasive
Socially skilled
Leadership Psychology8
Ta b l e 1. 2 Various authors’ proposed leadership qualities
Authors Leadership Qualities
Lord, DeVader
and Alliger (1986)
Dominance, masculinity, conservativeness
Kirkpatrick
and Locke
(1991)
Drive (achievement, ambition, energy, tenacity and
initiative); leadership motivation (personalized or socialized);
honesty/integrity (trusting relationship between leaders
and followers); selfconfidence (emotional stability);
cognitive ability (able to process large amounts of
information and develop strategies); knowledge of
business (to enable wellinformed decisions to be made
and understand consequences).
Bennis (1998) Building teamwork (committed to organizational goals);
understands the business; conceptual thinking (select
innovative strategies); customerdriven (create value for the
customer); focused drive (goalfocused); drives profitability
(costeffective and efficient operations); systems thinking
(connects processes, events and structures); global
perspective (addresses cultural and geographic differences);
emotional intelligence (understands own emotions).
Daft (1999) Alertness, originality, creativity, personal integrity and
selfconfidence.
Adair (2009) Enthusiasm, integrity, toughness, fairness, warmth, humility.
for example, proposes that leaders should be customer-driven and have a
global perspective, reflecting the service-driven, international nature of business
in the 21st century.
Note also that the earlier review by Lord, De-Vader and Alliger identified
masculinity as a trait. This is due to the relatively recent involvement of
women in prominent roles (Collinson and Hearn, 2003) and the adoption
of leadership styles by women that tend to promote more interactions with
employees, information-sharing, and employee participation in decision-
making (Meyerson and Fletcher, 2000). However, research by Welte (2004)
found that women hold 51 per cent of management and professional positions
and therefore traditional stereotypes should be challenged. Any beneficial
gender-specific traits do not, however, appear to be readily translated in more
senior positions, as female participation still tends to be more prevalent in
junior management posts.
Leadership theory – Past and Present 9
Whilst it is generally accepted that leaders, male or female, require a certain
set of traits if they are to be effective, there is no consensus as to a definitive
list of those required. Surely, each situation faced by the leader will call for
a different combination of qualities, as will the environment within which
the leader operates – military, business or charity, for example. Yet even
within one sector, opinions are divided as to the most desirable leadership
qualities.
A further limitation of the trait theory is that it assumes that leadership
qualities are inherent, stable characteristics that leaders are born with.
Zaccaro, Kemp and Bader (2004) define them as ‘stable and coherent inte-
grations of personal characteristics that foster a consistent pattern of leadership
performance across a variety of group and organizational situations’. That
being so, leaders will be selected according to the qualities they possess, set
against those required of the position they are being considered for. Such an
approach implies that the required qualities cannot be developed by means
of training or the benefit of experience. Yet it is difficult to imagine a personal
characteristic that cannot at least be enhanced as a leader becomes more
experienced or knowledgeable.
Hence, whilst the trait theory adds to the question of what makes a great
leader, it cannot be the complete answer, as was generally accepted during
the first half of the 20th century. Stogdill (1975) quoted Carter (1953) and
Startle (1956) in maintaining that the trait theory had reached a dead end,
and suggested that attention be directed towards the behaviour of the leader.
Behavioural theory
Behavioural theories emerged in response to the criticisms of the trait
approach, in particular the lack of consensus as to the necessary, measured
‘Lots of women enter the workforce:
69 per cent of junior managers are women.
But by the time it’s middle management the
number is 40 per cent; by the time it’s
director level it’s 25 per cent; and for CEOs
it’s single digits.’
Ann Francke
Chief Executive
Chartered Management Institute
BEST leadership quote
Leadership Psychology10
qualities required by leaders and also the assumption that they are inborn.
Hence, the focus of leadership thinking turned towards the behaviour of
leaders and how it related to their followers. The view now was that leaders
are made not born, with the behaviour of leaders (what they do) being more
important than their physical, emotional or mental traits. Moreover, effective
leadership, it was now believed, could be developed through the teaching of
relevant skills and the observation of others.
Early work on the concept of leaders’ behaviour was undertaken by the
German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin and colleagues (1939) who
identified three different leadership styles that were applied, in particular,
when making decisions, namely:
● Autocratic: here the leader takes decisions without any consultation
with other team members. This style is considered most appropriate
when speedy decisions are required and there is no need for team
input or agreement, for example in a crisis situation where safety
considerations are paramount. In Lewin et al’s experiments, however,
it was found that the application of the autocratic style caused the
greatest level of discontent amongst team members.
● Democratic: democratic leaders sought team input, to a greater or
lesser extent, in the decision-making process. This style is important
when team consensus is required, and will be appreciated by
members who value their views being sought. It can, however, be
difficult to manage when there is a wide range of opinions.
● Laissez-faire: the laissez-faire style requires leaders to take a back step
and allow people a high degree of decision-making. It does, though,
necessitate both capable and motivated team members, and no
requirement for central co-ordination of resources, for example.
Adoption of the laissez-faire approach is a conscious decision by the
leader, rather than an excuse from one who is lazy or otherwise occupied.
Lewin, Lippit and White (1939) discovered that the democratic style was
most effective in producing effective decision-making. Conversely, excessive
autocratic styles tended to lead to revolution, whilst some team members –
those less able and capable of self-regulation – responded less well to the
laissez-faire approach than when they were being actively led.
Although Lewin et al’s research may now be seen as limited, it was highly
influential for its time and was a precursor for further thinking about the
impact of a leader’s behaviour. For example, a study was undertaken at
Michigan University, aimed to determine the methods and principles of
leadership that lead to higher levels of satisfaction and productivity in staff.
Two general leadership behaviours were identified: an employee-orientation
and a product-orientation. The former represents leaders showing concern
for members of the organization, whilst product-orientation leaders focus
primarily on the task to be completed. The study found that productivity
was increased most by the application of the employee-orientation style of
leadership.
Leadership theory – Past and Present 11
F i g u r e 1. 1 The Blake Mouton Managerial Grid
C
o
n
ce
rn
f
o
r
P
e
o
p
le
‘Country Club’
management
Impoverished
management
Team
management
Task
management
Middle-of-the-Road
management
Concern for Production
This concept of leaders adopting a greater concern for their people or for
levels of productivity was expanded by Blake and Mouton (1964) who
devised their Managerial Grid (see Figure 1.1), based upon two behavioural
approaches: i) concern for people: the degree to which a leader considers the
team members’ needs, interests and personal development when planning
the achievement of a task; ii) concern for production: the extent to which
a leader sets objectives, and defines efficiency and production targets when
planning a task.
The grid has two axes: concern for people and concern for production,
and identifies five styles of management:
● Country club – high people / low production: here, leaders try to
ensure that their people feel secure and comfortable in their roles,
assuming that as long as they are happy they will work harder.
This results in a relaxed and fun work environment, but one where
production suffers due to lack of direction.
● Task management – high production / low people: similar to
Kurt Lewin et al’s (1939) autocratic leadership style, such leaders
believe that employees are only a means by which tasks are
completed. Their needs are always secondary to the requirement
for efficient production. The leaders use rules, procedures and
punishment to pressurize their people to achieve goals.
● Impoverished – low people / low production: these leaders are largely
ineffective as their main concern is to avoid being held responsible for
any problems that occur. Yet problems will occur in an environment
where disorganization, dissatisfaction and disharmony prevail.
Leadership Psychology12
● Middle-of-the-road – medium people / medium production: whilst
at first sight appearing to be an ideal compromise position, the reality
is that neither the people’s potential nor that of productivity are
realized. Leaders adopting this style are ready to accept average
performance, in the belief that this is the most that anyone can
reasonably expect.
● Team management – high people / high production: according to
Blake and Mouton (1964) this is the style that leaders should aspire
to and adopt. Employees understand what the organization is trying
to achieve and willingly accept their importance in meeting agreed
goals. When all contributors strive towards organizational success,
both people and production needs coincide. The resulting culture is
one of trust and respect, which results in high-performing teams.
We have seen that the great man theory of leadership assumed that leaders
had an inherent set of traits that made them ‘born leaders’. Behavioural
theories, on the other hand, focus on the actions of leaders rather than their
inborn qualities, and assume that people in leadership positions can learn to
adapt their behaviour through teaching and experiential observation. This
leads us to consider the extent to which either inherent qualities or learnt
behaviour contributes most to effective leadership: are leaders born or made?
In 2005, Richard Arvey, professor of human resources and industrial
relations at the University of Minnesota, and colleagues conducted a study
of 325 selected pairs of identical and fraternal male twins who were born
between 1961 and 1964 and were raised together. Previous studies of twins
who were reared apart had proved that similarities in terms of personality,
interests and attitudes were due to genes rather than environmental influences:
the environment makes them different, whilst their genes make them similar.
As identical twins share 100 per cent of their genes, with fraternal twins
only about 50 per cent, Arvey et al’s study sought to quantify the contribution
of genetics and environmental factors in leadership.
To do so, participants were asked a series of questions centred on the
wish to influence others; a desire to be the centre of attention; the ability to
persist when others give up; being comfortable in other people’s company.
The assumption was that, as those questions have a genetic component, if
the respondents answered positively they were probably ‘genetically wired’
for leadership. The study then took an inventory of the leadership roles that
the twins had held throughout their lives, including as supervisors, directors,
vice-presidents or presidents. Arvey explained: ‘A great deal of personality is
genetic-based. If your personality is such that you aspire to, and have held,
these positions, then the roles also suggest a genetic link.’
What they found was that approximately 30 per cent of leadership is based
on genetics, whilst the remaining 70 per cent is dependent upon environ-
mental factors. They concluded: ‘While environmental influences determine
many of our leadership behaviours and the roles we obtain, our genes still
exert a sizeable influence over whether we will become leaders. Although
Leadership theory – Past and Present 13
30 per cent may not seem like a high number, statistically it is strong. Leaders
aren’t just made!’
It should be stated, however, that the study merely considered those
who became leaders, and why. It did not take into consideration leadership
effectiveness. Nonetheless, the research does shed light on the ‘are leaders
born or made?’ conundrum, suggesting that neither extreme position tells the
complete story. It appears that leadership is both inherited and acquired.
When examining the differences between individuals with regard to whether
they took up leadership roles, over one-quarter of the differences were ex-
plained by genetics. The remaining almost three-quarters were accounted
for by external influences such as training, job experiences and education,
as well as other forms of environmental exposure.
Returning to the behavioural theory of leadership, whilst it is undoubtedly
helpful to understand the impact on people and performance of a leader’s
actions, it could be said that it gives insufficient attention to the differing
situations that a leader will face. The behaviour, or actions, adopted are
seen to have an impact on people and productivity regardless of the environ-
ment in which the leadership is operating at the time. Yet situations change
and will call for leaders to adapt their style according to the challenges they
face at that time.
situational leadership
Also known as the contingency model, the situational approach to leader-
ship requires leaders to adapt their style according to the situation they face:
there is no one optimal style, rather leaders should be able to be flexible and
adaptable. This approach has generated a number of models, the most signi-
ficant of which are detailed below.
The least preferred co-worker model
An early proponent of situational leadership theory was Fielder (1967) who
encouraged users to consider someone they least like working with, in any
situation, and then score this person on a table that included extremes such
as unfriendly/friendly; tense/relaxed; hostile/supportive; insincere/sincere, etc.
The model works on the principle that task-oriented leaders tend to view
their co-workers more negatively, resulting in a low score, whilst relationship-
oriented leaders tend to score them more highly.
Task-oriented leaders were seen to be very effective at task organization
and completion but only considered their relationship with followers when
they were satisfied that the task was under way satisfactorily. On the other
hand, relationship-oriented leaders would prioritize relationships, even ahead
of the task, and were particularly proficient at connecting with people and
avoiding and managing conflict.
Leadership Psychology14
The next stage in Fielder’s approach was to determine the ‘situational
favourableness’ of the leader’s situation, according to three factors:
● leader–member relations: the level of trust and confidence between
leader and followers;
● task structure: the type of task being faced – clear and structured
or vague and unstructured;
● leader’s position – the extent to which the leader has to direct
followers and provide reward or punishment.
Fielder concluded that task-oriented leaders operate best when the situation
is either extremely favourable, that is, when:
● there is a great deal of trust, respect and confidence;
● the task is very clear;
● followers accept their leader’s position of authority without question.
Or when the situation is extremely unfavourable, when:
● there is no mutual trust and respect;
● the challenge facing the group is vague or undefined;
● the culture within the group is anarchic, even rebellious – perhaps
during a crisis or change situation.
Conversely, Fielder found that relationship-oriented leaders function best in
less extreme situations: those that are neither favourable nor unfavourable.
Although the least preferred co-worker model was one of the first to link
a leader’s style to the situation faced, it was subsequently criticized on the
following grounds:
● Fielder believed, as was a common conception at that time, that
a person’s personality was fixed and could not be changed. His
theory was based upon matching a leader (according to his or her
personality) to a particular situation. Hence, it does not allow for
the potential for leaders to adapt their approach to different
circumstances.
● It offers no guidance to leaders as to how they can improve their
performance through training and development interventions.
● The approach is an insufficiently flexible model for leadership
within the modern, constantly changing work environment.
● It infers that leaders should be replaced if their style does not match
the situation they face – which obviously poses many employment
difficulties.
● Finally, if your least preferred co-worker is a genuinely confused
or unpleasant individual, then under Fielder’s theory you may be
classified as task-oriented when, in reality, you may be very much
a people person!
Leadership theory – Past and Present 15
The path–goal model
A further situation leadership theory, following on from Fielder’s least pre-
ferred co-worker model, was first developed by psychologist Robert House
in 1971 and republished in 1997. It seeks to address one of the limitations
of the least preferred co-worker model in that it asserts that leaders can, and
should, adapt their behaviour according to the challenges and opportunities
of each situation. It is called the path–goal theory because House suggested
that the main role of leaders is to motivate their followers by: i) increasing
or clarifying followers’ personal benefits by striving for and achieving the
group’s goal; ii) clarifying and clearing a path for the achievement of the
group goals. The model proposes that leadership styles should be influenced
by the characteristics of both the followers and their workplace.
Follower characteristics include:
● How confident and experienced they are.
● How much control the group members feel they have with which to
execute and achieve their goals.
● What attitude they have towards authority and those that wield it.
Do they want to be directed or left to their own devices? What do
they think of their leader?
Workplace characteristics include:
● The kind of task to be completed: repetitive, uninteresting, structured
– or the reverse.
● Whether the leader’s authority is defined and understood.
● Is there a sense of team spirit within the group?
House used these two sets of characteristics and suggested four leadership
behavioural styles, as detailed in Table 1.3.
Whilst the path–goal theory does match leadership styles to four different
situations (combinations of workplace and follower characteristics) it fails
to give weight to any emotional bonds that may occur between leader and
follower and the subsequent influence those may have on behaviour. For
example, if you have a respectful and trusting relationship with your leader
you are likely to go above and beyond the minimum effort required to
achieve organizational goals.
Hersey and Blanchard’s model
This model explores the relationship between leader and follower and was
first published in 1969 by Dr Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard (of The One
Minute Manager fame). They posited that the competence, confidence and
developmental levels of specific followers should play the greatest influence
on determining the most appropriate leadership style (Hersey and Blanchard,
1977). Moreover, the model requires leaders to adapt their approach according
Leadership Psychology16
to the progression of the followers’ development (or ‘maturity’ as they call it).
For example, as a follower moves into a high-maturity state, less interaction
and feedback would be required from the leader. Hence, the leader should
first assess the maturity level of the employee (experience, skill level, confidence,
commitment, etc) in relation to the task and then adapt their leadership style
accordingly.
The theory suggests four leadership styles: telling, selling, participating
and delegating – to be adopted according to the level of maturity of the em-
ployee (as listed in Table 1.4).
Ta b l e 1. 3 Path–goal leadership styles
Leadership Style Workplace
Characteristics
Follower
Characteristics
Directive – clarifies
the goal, gives clear
direction and expects
followers to follow
instructions
● Unstructured,
interesting tasks
● Clear, formal authority
● Good teamworking
● Inexperienced team
members
● A belief they lack
power
● Desire to be directed
Supportive –
demonstrates concern
for followers’ welfare
and seeks to provide
a supportive working
environment
● Simple, predictable
tasks
● Unclear or weak
authority
● Poor teamworking
● Experienced,
confident team
members
● A belief they have
power
● Rejection of close
control
Participative – consults
with followers before
taking any decisions
involving goalsetting
● Unstructured,
complex tasks
● Authority could be
clear or unclear
● Teamworking could
be good or poor
● Experienced,
confident team
members
● A belief they have
power
● Preference to have
control over their work
Achievement-oriented
– sets challenging goals
and has confidence in
followers achieving
them
● Unstructured,
complex or
unpredictable tasks
● Clear, formal authority
● Teamworking could
be good or poor
● Experienced,
confident team
members
● A belief that they have
insufficient power
● Acceptance and
respect for the leader
in setting the goals
Leadership theory – Past and Present 17
One criticism of both the path–goal and Hersey–Blanchard approaches is
that they suggest that a leader should adopt a style according to the defined
characteristics of the workplace or their followers: once the situation is
defined and understood, then use the recommended style.
Tannenbaum and Schmidt leadership continuum
In the belief that situations change continually and, hence, leaders should
also be able to change their approach, contingency theorists Tannenbaum and
Schmidt (1958) proposed that leadership behaviour varies along a continuum
from the autocratic extreme to one where followers are heavily involved in
decision-making (see Table 1.5).
Ta b l e 1. 4 Hersey–Blanchard leadership model
Maturity Level of Follower Leadership Style
Low maturity – lacks experience,
skills and confidence to achieve task.
May also be unwilling to do so
Telling – leader gives firm instructions
and deadlines. Closely monitors
progress
Medium maturity / limited skills –
lacks ability but is enthusiastic to
achieve task
Selling – leader explains task and
how / why it should be achieved.
Remains available to offer support
Medium maturity / adequate skills –
is capable of achieving task but lacks
confidence or commitment to do so
Participating – leader works with
follower, seeks input and encourages
commitment
High maturity – is capable, confident
and committed to task completion
Delegating – leader gives responsibility
for goalsetting and achievement
Ta b l e 1. 5 Tannenbaum and Schmidt leadership continuum
Leadership Style Application
Autocratic Makes decisions without input from followers and tells
them what actions to take / the autocratic leader does
not expect to be questioned by subordinates
Persuasive Still makes decisions without group input but seeks to
persuade followers to buy into the decision by selling
it as a good one
Leadership Psychology18
Functional leadership
One of the most long-standing leadership models is John Adair’s Action-
Centred Leadership (ACL). First conceived in 1973, the model is still used
across the world, as well as extensively in the UK, where Adair has worked
with the NHS to introduce the model in several of its regions. It is a func-
tional approach to leadership in that it is concerned with what actions a
leader takes to accomplish a task. It is based upon the principle that a leader
achieves a task through individuals working together in a team. Hence, in
order to be effective, a leader must meet the needs of the task, the team and
the individual. The model is represented by three overlapping circles (as
shown in Figure 1.2).
Leadership Style Application
Consultative Followers are asked to contribute to the decision
making process, although the decision remains the
responsibility of the leader
Democratic The leader presents the problem to the group and
encourages a discussion about any possible solutions.
The leader facilitates the discussion, that leads to
a group decision
Ta b l e 1. 5 continued
F i g u r e 1. 2 Adair’s Action-Centred Leadership model
Task
Needs
Team
Needs
Individual
Needs
Leadership theory – Past and Present 19
The circles overlap to represent the fact that if a leader fails to meet the
needs of either the task, team or individual it will impact on the other two
circles. The ACL concept can most succinctly be described as the leader ‘taking
actions to fulfil functions to meet the needs of the team, task and individual’.
Moreover, Adair proposes that leadership functions differ according to the
level the leader operates at, specifically:
● Team leadership: leaders of a team of up to, say, 20 people with
clearly defined tasks to achieve.
● Operational leadership: leaders of one of the main parts of the
organization, with responsibility for more than one team leader.
● Strategic leadership: leaders of a whole organization, with a number
of operational leaders reporting to them.
The roles and functions of the three levels of leadership are set out in
Table 1.6. ACL is, therefore, a model that offers the opportunity to introduce
a co-ordinated leadership approach throughout an organization, understood
and applied by all levels of leadership within it.
Another functional leadership model, more prescriptive than Adair’s and
targeted mainly at strategic leaders, is Kouzes and Posner’s Five Practices
of Exemplary Leadership. James Kouzes and Barry Posner contributed to
research into the trait theory of leadership during 1983–87 by surveying 630
managers and conducting 42 in-depth interviews, from which they identified
10 key leadership traits:
● honest;
● forward-looking;
● inspirational;
● competent;
● fair-minded;
● supportive;
● broad-minded;
● intelligent;
● straightforward;
● dependable.
It is, however, important to note that their research differed from previous
work on the subject as they sought opinions as to the most important traits
the interviewees looked for in their ideal leader, as opposed to the actual traits
displayed by real-life, successful leaders.
Kouzes and Posner continued and extended their research over the follow-
ing 20 years by conducting hundreds of interviews, reviewing thousands of
case studies and analysing very many questionnaires. The work culminated
in their best-selling book The Leadership Challenge, which introduced their
Leadership Psychology20
Ta b l e 1. 6 Adair’s leaders’ roles and functions
Leadership Level Role Functions
Team leaders ● Achieve the task
● Develop the individual
● Build and maintain the
team
● Defining the task
● Planning
● Briefing
● Controlling
● Supporting
● Motivating
● Evaluating
● Setting an example
Operational leaders ● Achieving the
departmental task
● Providing opportunities
for development
● Building and maintaining
the departmental culture
As above, plus:
● Influencing
● Informing
● Interpreting
● Implementing
● Networking
● Succession planning
Strategic leaders ● Delivering the strategic
vision
● Ensuring opportunities
for development of all
● Building and maintaining
organizational culture
As above, plus:
● Providing direction
● Strategic thinking and
planning
● Making it happen
● Relating the parts to
the whole
● Building key partnerships
● Releasing the corporate
spirit
● Choosing and developing
today’s and tomorrow’s
leaders
functional leadership model that they called the Five Practices of Exemplary
Leadership, which is summarized as follows:
1 Model the way: set an example by demonstrating shared values.
Achieve small successes that build confidence, commitment and
consistent progress.
Leadership theory – Past and Present 21
2 Inspire a shared vision: communicate an exciting, motivational
and meaningful future. Encourage others to share that vision by
appealing to their values, interests and aspirations.
3 Challenge the process: seek challenging opportunities to change,
grow, innovate and develop. Be prepared to experiment and take
calculated risks and learn from any mistakes and failures.
4 Enable others to act: encourage collaboration by promoting shared
goals and building trust. Use delegation and empowerment to
develop increased competence, whilst offering visible support.
5 Encourage the heart: recognize and reward individual contributions
to group goals. Celebrate team achievements regularly.
Kouzes and Posner (2008) conclude that ‘good leadership is an understandable
and universal process’ and one that comprises a set of observable behaviours
that, with training and experience, can be applied by those in senior leadership
positions to great effect. For them, leadership is a learnt skill, not an inherent
quality available only to a select few. Leaders are made not born.
relationship theory
Relationship leadership theory describes leaders who are primarily motivated
by, and concerned with, the interaction they have with their followers. They
work hard to understand and communicate with their people and seek to
find ways to make the work experience enjoyable and rewarding through
creating a positive and enriching working environment. Such leaders recognize
that the key to organizational success lies with the people who work within it.
This approach argues that leaders should find ways to motivate their people,
rather than passively applying leadership styles to followers or situations.
They can achieve high levels of motivation by transforming followers’ attitude
and commitment through communicating a meaningful and appealing vision
and facilitating a collective and collaborative culture whereby it can be realized.
Two very different models of relationship theory are considered below,
namely transformational and leader–member exchange.
Transformational leadership
James Burns (1978) in his book Leadership was the first to put forward
the concept of ‘transforming leadership’, describing it as occurring ‘when
one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and
followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality’.
Bass (1985) subsequently developed Burns’s concept of transforming
leadership into ‘transformational leadership’ where the influence is
imposed only by leader to follower, unlike Bass who conceived it as a
potentially two-way process.
Leadership Psychology22
The transformational model assumes that people will follow a person
who creates an attractive vision and is able to inspire them through his or
her enthusiasm and energy. It contrasts with transactional leadership, which
assumes people are motivated by reward and punishment and that their
prime purpose is to undertake tasks, as directed by their manager.
Bass, with colleague Avolio (1994), developed the concept to categorize
five transformational styles applied by leaders:
● Idealized influence: express their beliefs and values and have a strong
sense of purpose.
● Inspirational motivation: communicate their optimism regarding the
future; have a compelling vision of the future; talk enthusiastically
about what needs to be achieved; and express confidence in ability
to achieve.
● Intellectual stimulation: seek different perspectives to problem-solving;
encourage creative thinking; question ideas that have not been
questioned before.
● Individualized consideration: spend time teaching and coaching
individuals; consider individuals’ needs, abilities and strengths;
listen to people.
● Idealized attributes: build respect; have power and competence;
make sacrifices for others; and instil pride in others.
Hooper and Potter (1997) alternatively proposed seven key competencies
required of transformational leaders:
● setting direction;
● setting an example;
● communications;
● alignment;
● bringing out the best in people;
● the leader as a change agent;
● providing clear decisions in a crisis and in ambiguous situations.
Much has been written about the need for transformational leaders to be
charismatic. Certainly, we would describe many leaders who have been
instrumental in achieving change on the world stage as being charismatic:
Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, even Adolf Hitler,
being notable examples. In a business context, company leaders such as Steve
Jobs (Apple), Richard Branson (Virgin) and ‘Jack’ Welch (General Electric) are
often cited for their charisma. They certainly all demonstrate exceptional
communication skills, applied on a very powerful emotional level. Charis-
matic leaders focus heavily on developing group identity: creating a sense of
elitism that separates it from other groups. Such group identity will be in-
extricably linked at an emotional level to the leader, thus creating a potentially
Leadership theory – Past and Present 23
powerful force for change. But do transformational leaders have to be charis-
matic? I consider this question in more depth in Chapter 8.
In Jim Collins’s book Good to Great (2001) he describes the results
of five years spent researching American companies that made the leap from
achieving good results to great results, and sustained them for at least 15 years.
He also compared those to a control group of companies that either failed
to make the leap or, if they did, failed to sustain it. The overall objective of
the research was to discover what essential factors distinguished both groups.
The good-to-great companies included well-known names such as Gillette,
Kimberly-Clark and Wells Fargo. What Collins found was that the leaders
of all these companies were, in fact, self-effacing individuals who did not
seek the spotlight in any respect or at any time. They could in no way be
described as charismatic; rather, modest and humble. That is not to say
that they were found to have no ego or self-interest: they were, in fact,
incredibly ambitious – but their ambition was, first and foremost, for their
institution, rather than themselves. They channelled the needs of their ego
away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company.
They were truly inspirational leaders, motivating their people to create
great companies – but not by having a charismatic personality.
Leader–member exchange theory (LMX)
Unlike relationship leadership, which encourages leaders to work hard to
build mutually supportive and rewarding working environments for all
members of the organization, LMX theory seeks to explain relationships
that leaders can have with individual followers. It is inevitable that leaders
relate differently with different team members and this theory assumes that
the senior person in the relationship develops an exchange with each sub-
ordinate member; and that the quality of these leader–member exchanges
influences the degree of mutual respect, trust, loyalty, support and commit-
ment. Psychological research associated with LMX theory has added
knowledge to the understanding of group relationships and processes, in
particular the tendency for groups to develop subgroups – some of which
are regarded as in-groups and others as out-groups.
Members of the in-group, often forming an inner circle of advisors, are
favoured by the leader, receiving more attention and support, whilst those
from the out-group receive less. Due to the favoured attention received by
the in-group members they tend to be more motivated, with higher levels of
performance. Not surprisingly, therefore, they are less likely to leave their job,
and tend to benefit from enhanced promotion and remuneration opportunities.
These positive relationships tend to form soon after the subordinate joins
the larger group and usually follow three stages:
1 Role-taking: the leader quickly assesses the new arrival’s skills and
qualities and may offer him or her opportunities to demonstrate his
or her capability.
Leadership Psychology24
2 Role-making: in this stage both parties undergo informal and
unstructured negotiations to create a role for the member with
vague promises of benefit in return for loyalty and commitment to
the leader. A demonstration of trust is important at this stage, with
any suggestion of betrayal by either party resulting in the member
being relegated to the out-group. Members who have similar interests
and profile (including gender) to the leader have a greater chance of
gaining entry to the in-group as they will have been assessed as being
more likely to demonstrate the required loyalty.
3 Routinization: here, social exchanges between leader and follower
become established as the latter works hard to retain his or her
in-group membership through building and sustaining trust and
respect.
In-group members are more likely to receive and enjoy more rewarding
work, be offered additional responsibility, and be invited to contribute to
the leader’s decision-making. Not surprisingly, out-group members display
less job satisfaction as a result of the apparent favouritism shown by their
leader to in-group colleagues. It is, therefore, incumbent on the leader to
recognize his or her tendency to favour certain team members and the
implications of doing so on organizational efficiency. The extent of group
differentiation may be significant in some organizations, but much less so
in others. However, research by Liden, Sparrowe and Wayne (2006) found
that some differentiation is healthy within an organization, as members of
the out-group recognize that they must perform better to gain their leader’s
favour.
Whilst LMX, as a theory, is helpful in understanding and rationalizing
relationships between leaders and individual subordinates, it is less useful
in describing leadership behaviours that promote high-quality, supportive
relationships with followers. At best, it generalizes the need for leaders to
demonstrate trust, respect and openness. At worst, it may appear to justify
the leader apportioning special attention to those viewed as being valid
members of the in-group.
shared social identity
Haslam, Reicher and Platow (2011), in their book The New Psychology of
Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power, propose a new way of consider-
ing leadership: not simply about getting people to do things, rather getting
them to want to do things. It is, they suggest, about achieving influence, not
securing compliance – winning the hearts and minds of others and harness-
ing their energies and passions. Leadership is not about raw power or incentiv-
ization, as these are indicators and consequences of the failure of leadership.
The authors recognize that the application of force can be used to affect the
behaviour of others: threatening the dire consequence of disobedience is,
Leadership theory – Past and Present 25
indeed, likely to result in obedience. The same outcome may occur if a great
inducement was offered, but neither approach is likely to result in people
considering that they have ownership of what the leader is trying to achieve.
More likely, they will reject the objective, as it has been forced upon them
– either by carrot or stick. In contrast, if the leader can inspire them to take
a desired course of action, they are likely to continue the journey, even if the
leader is absent.
The authors argue that, if effective leadership depends upon influence
as opposed to coercion or incentive, a leader needs to focus on the mental
states and processes that encourage followers to listen to leaders and to buy
in to their vision. Such psychological processes always depend on the social
content: good psychology indicates what to look for in our social world,
as opposed to merely looking only in the head. More specifically, the social
factors include the culture of the group being led; the nature of the institutions
within which the leadership is being applied; and the gender of the leaders
themselves. These factors influence the ‘mental glue’ that binds leaders and
followers together in sharing a common vision – what drives them to push
together in a desired direction, and what encourages them to keep pushing.
The book seeks to offer an alternative approach to the traditional
psychology of leadership, which the authors suggest has previously con-
centrated on the traits, character and qualities of recognized leaders. They
characterize this approach as treating leadership as an ‘I thing’: quoting
Drucker (1992):
The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say ‘I’.
And that’s because they have trained themselves not to say ‘I’. They don’t
think ‘I’. They think ‘team’. They understand their job to be to make the team
function… there is an identification (very often quite unconsciously) with task
and with the group.
The authors propose that effective leadership is never about ‘I’: it is about
how leaders and followers come to see each other as part of a common
group – as members of the same in-group. Leadership is very much a ‘we
thing’. This concept requires a greater understanding of what it involves,
where it comes from, and how it works – the answers to which centre on
issues of social identity, a shared group membership that encourages members
to engage with each other as fellow representatives of a common in-group.
Members stop thinking of what divides them as individuals, rather focusing
on what unites them as in-group members. The psychology behind this
approach is founded in terms of four principles, as set out below.
1. the leader must be seen as ‘one of us’
Leaders will be more effective if they are perceived as representing a social
identity that other ‘in-group’ members share; one that distinguishes them from
other ‘out-groups’. The leader needs to be seen as an ‘in-group prototype’ –
one who stands for the group representing it, as opposed to standing apart
from it.
Leadership Psychology26
2. the leader must be seen to ‘do it for us’
Their actions must been seen to be directed towards the interests of the in-
group, which will encourage followers to devote their energies towards
achieving their leader’s vision. The leaders must stand up for the shared
social identity, rather than his or her personal interests or, even worse, the
interests of an out-group.
3. the leader must ‘craft a sense of us’
Leaders do not simply work within pre-existing constraints; they actively
advance a sense of ‘who we are’. They seek to craft an identity that they, and
their vision, are prototypical of the group. Representing the group, and their
norms, values and priorities, are powerful influences in shaping the under-
standing of ‘who we are’. A powerful example here is Nelson Mandela
wearing the Springbok rugby shirt whilst celebrating, with the team, their
World Cup Final win in 1995.
4. the leader must ‘make us matter’
Successful leaders are ‘identity impresarios’ who initiate identity-embedding
structures, for example goals, practices and activities. This ensures that the
rhetoric of ‘us’ is translated into a world in which the group’s values are
realized and its potential fulfilled.
‘Our CEO sits in an open-plan office
and dresses down most of the time
– you rarely see him in a suit and tie.
We have a lot of new starters here
who will come in and say ‘I just met
the CEO. I didn’t realize it was him.’
He really puts himself on the same
level as everyone else. In terms of
communication, his style is very
laid back, very human – there is no
corporate speak, no autocratic style.
He is very much one of us and is
believable because he backs up his
words with actions.’
BEST leadership quote
Antony Smith
Culture and Development Manager
Bourne Leisure
Leadership theory – Past and Present 27
Chapter summary
The understanding that wise leaders are more effective in influencing the
behaviour of those that follow them has been acknowledged for very many
centuries, although serious study of the ‘science’ of leadership has happened
much more recently. If this book is to propose approaches that leaders
should take to meet the challenges of the 21st century, it is necessary to under-
stand how leadership theory has developed to the present day.
Initial thinking in the 19th century was that, in times of need, leaders will
emerge to guide their people to safety or success. These ‘great men’ were
born to lead as a result of the inherent qualities they were born with. This
understanding led to attempts to identify the qualities, or traits, they were
equipped with. Several authors proposed sets of traits they believed were
necessary for effective leadership.
However, due to the impossibility of agreeing a definitive set of necessary
leadership qualities, research turned towards the behaviour of proven
successful leaders and how others can learn and develop those skills. This
led to many theories proposing appropriate leadership styles necessary to
impact positively on followers’ performance. Yet these behavioural theories
tended not to consider the challenges faced by leaders that are due to the
environment in which they operate.
Hence, the situational, or contingency, approach was conceived, requiring
leaders to adapt their style to the situation they face. Again, a number of
theories were conceived, largely considering situations in terms of variations
of task, followers’ characteristics, and operational environments. Functional
leadership took a similar approach in that it focused on what a leader must
do to achieve the required task through people working together in teams.
‘We’ll never call you employees; we’ll
never treat you like employees. We’ll never
call you staff; we’ll never treat you like staff.
You’re family and we’ll treat you like family.
The only thing we ask in return is that you
treat each other with the same respect –
like family.’
Karen Forrester
Chief Executive
TGI Friday’s
BEST leadership quote
Leadership Psychology28
The imperative of leaders to understand the critical importance of followers
in achieving their objectives led to relationship theory. Here, leaders are
encouraged to find ways to inspire and motivate their people to achieve a
shared vision, rather than applying a specific leadership style. Seeking
similar relational outcomes, contemporary psychologists have proposed
a leadership approach based upon an understanding of the social context
surrounding group formation, whereby leaders and followers come to
see each other as members of the same group, with leaders becoming the
‘in-group prototype’ that stands for, and represents, fellow group members.
All communications with, and behaviour towards, their people should be
designed to cement that feeling of common purpose – a shared identity.
Thus, the understanding and application of leadership has developed
from the great man theory, based upon the assumption that ‘leaders are
born’, to current thinking that recognizes that it is no longer realistic to
assume that people will blindly follower a leader, whatever situation they
face. In my view, and those of the leaders interviewed for this book, 21st-
century leaders must work hard to build relationships with their people
in the understanding that, without their support, they will be isolated and
ultimately unsuccessful in whatever situation they face or environment they
operate in.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
