Read the following Article and respond:
Current work Profession: Behavioral Healthcare Office administrator
1.) why did you find it helpful from an organizational development practitioner or leadership perspective?
2.) How can you apply this new knowledge to your current or future professional work?
A short history of
leadership theories
By Gene Early
Our world is changing and so is our understanding of leadership. From the Great Man
Theory of the 19th century, to new research on genetic factors underpinning leadership
behaviours, there’s a wealth of data to examine.
Gene Early, a Leaders’ Quest partner, has explored the history of leadership theory, and
what it teaches us about current trends. His conclusion? That our awareness of the
interconnected world has led to an appreciation of the systemic nature of
contemporary issues.
In today’s globalised world, what demands do leaders of complex organisations face?
And what role can true system leadership play?
Great Man Theory (1840 onwards)
The focus here is on leader as hero, as described by Thomas Carlyle in 1840. Herbert
Spencer (a fellow Victorian) later expressed a contrasting view that heroic leaders are
the product of their time and its prevailing social conditions. Although Carlyle is
credited with initiating this phase of theorising, many before him wrote that a leader
was born, not made. Plato, Lao-tzu, Aristotle – and even Machiavelli – each contributed
to this way of thinking.
Though the historic timeline consistently plants the Great Man Theory
in the 19th century, we can see its deep roots present in many of today’s practical
assumptions about leadership. While there are minor adjustments, the heroic leader
remains rooted in individualistic cultures. Iconic figures continue to capture our
imagination, whether they be Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, or Nelson
Mandela; Jack Welch, Steve Jobs, or Elon Musk; Albert Einstein, Norman Borlaug or
Stephen Hawking.
The shift today is toward system leaders – individuals who have the expertise to
contribute and who recognise that “wicked problems” can only be solved through
collaboration. Even so, many people – followers and leaders – still hold fast to the
assumptions underpinning Great Man Theory, and this influences their cultural
behaviour.
Trait Theory (1910-1948)
The paradigm shifted with the realisation that the identified traits lacked consistency.
In part, this was because no relationship was established between the traits and
leadership, and the context of the leader was not considered. The turning point was
Stogdill’s (1948) survey of 25 years of research, in which he concluded, “A person does
not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits.”
As a result, leadership research shifted away from traits (the internal factor) and
towards behaviours – the external expression of leadership. However, the assumption
that leaders have certain traits continues, and is once more being studied. Today’s
researchers find correlations between certain personality characteristics (charisma,
extroversion, conscientiousness, integrity, and achievement motivation) and
leadership. With advanced research methodologies – including neuroscience – there is
a renewed sense that defined traits can be used to identify potential leaders, explain
leadership and play a part in its development.
Behavioural Theory (1950-1970)
The shift in thinking here was, “If we can’t nail down the internal traits, we can look at
the external behaviours of leaders.” As attention moved to behavioural expressions of
leadership, the nature vs. nurture question came to the fore. Are you born – or can you
learn – to be a leader? With this new emphasis, and under the right conditions, leaders
were seen to emerge as a product of their environment, as well as their nature. Two
studies (Katz, Maccoby, Gurin and Floor in 1951, and Stogdill and Coons in 1957)
identified two primary considerations: task-oriented vs. relationship-oriented
leadership. Engagement with followers also became relevant. However, there was still
no consistency in behaviours across tasks or situations. In other words, the variables of
context confounded the findings. This led to a new focus – on contingency theory.
Contingency Theory (1967-1990)
Contingency theories were developed to account for these contextual variables. They
took account of the people involved, tasks required, situation experienced, nature of
the organisation, and other environmental factors. This research acknowledged that
no single style of leadership was universally appropriate. It’s often the case that the
successful turnaround leader struggles in a mature and stable organisational context,
just as a leader who flourishes in a stable environment may flounder in a turnaround
situation. Fiedler (1967, 1971), who is recognised as one of the trailblazers in this area,
identified three managerial components: leader-member relations, task structure, and
position power. Some contexts favoured leaders who were task-oriented, and some
favoured those who were relationship-oriented. Hershey and Blanchard’s situational
research (1969) suggested that developmental levels of individuals influenced their
leadership styles. Other researchers continued their exploration until interest in this
area began to dry up…not surprisingly, with the aging of its foremost proponents.
Leader-Follower Theory (1990 onwards)
The role of followers (a contextual variable) was a natural extension of contingency
theory. This was a significant departure from the Great Man Theory and its concept of
heroic individuals leading from the front.
One lasting influence prior to this era is Robert Greenleaf’s work on Servant Leadership
(1970), which emphasised the choice of certain leaders to “serve” their followers,
empowering them to live and work to their full potential. As Greenleaf wrote, “The
best test and difficult to administer is: do those served grow as persons; do they, while
being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves
to become servants? And what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they
benefit, or, at least, will they not be further deprived?”
Leader-member exchange theory is another example (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Here, high quality relations are characterised by trust and respect between leader
and follower, while those of lower quality coincide with transactional and contractual
obligations. High quality relations are empirically shown to produce better leader
outcomes. (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007).
Transformational Leadership Theory (1985-2010)
James MacGregor Burns’ classic work, Leadership (1978), introduced the concept
of transforming – rather than transactional – leadership. While both are needed,
he focused on “…a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts
followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents.” This mutuality
deepens the work of leader-follower theories, and adds a moral dimension. His work
influenced many – most notably Bernard Bass (1985, 1998). He detailed the structure
of transformational leadership to include: 1) idealised behaviours (walking the talk),
2) inspirational motivation (offering a compelling vision), 3) intellectual stimulation
(approaching problems from multiple angles), and 4) idealised attributes (showing
strong character in working for the good of the whole).
New Directions in Theory (2010 onwards)
Contextual school of leadership
New contextual factors now being considered include: national culture, hierarchical
levels of leadership, gender, race, etc. Contextual factors are seen to empower – or
inhibit – leadership behaviours and outcomes.
Ethics and moral development
Researchers are looking at the influence of ethics and morals on the behaviour of
leaders (and on organisational outcomes).
Biology and neuroscience
Work is being done on “behavioural genetics of leadership emergence, leadership role
occupancy, effect of hormones on correlates of leadership, neuroscience perspectives,
evolutionary points of view, integrative biological perspectives, and the sociobiology of
leadership…” (Day and Antonakis, 2011).
System Leadership Theory (2015 onwards)
Our awareness of the interconnected world has led to an appreciation of the systemic
nature of contemporary issues (Senge, Hamilton, and Kania, 2015). System leadership
recognises that collaboration is essential to solve wicked problems (Heifetz, 1994;
Heifetz, Kania, and Kramer, 2004).
Building on decades of leadership research and practice, and raising questions about
our collective responsibility for solving wicked problems, we can understand some of
the characteristics of – and need for – true system leadership. Much like Jim Collins’
Level 5 leaders (2001), they have deep humility and fierce professional resolve. The
difference is that they have moved from individual to collaborative responsibility for the
whole. Ego is sacrificed for the common good. The consideration of multiple points
of view is essential. Envisioning and creating the future together replaces reactivity.
External constraints and obstacles are engaged within leaders in order to be resolved for
the system itself. The valuing of emergent insights deepens trust and disciplines action.
Individual – and collective – development leads to system development.
In 2014, Frederic Laloux’s Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations
Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness gave us fresh insight into the
changing requirements for leadership in organisations.
He offers the metaphor of the organisation as a living system, acknowledging its
modern day complexity within our dynamic social and economic culture. Just as
Senge et al have noted, an individual, working alone, is unable to satisfy today’s mix of
personal, organisational, and global demands. Leaders at every level in these cuttingedge organisations are recognised by relinquishment of personal ego and organisational
control, trust in their colleagues and organisational systems. These factors allow
them to self-organise for the good of the whole – with an emphasis on authenticity,
collaboration, and distributed authority.
Conclusion
This short history of leadership theory allows us to step back and think about the
demands placed on leaders today. Several observations are relevant.
First, these different approaches help us focus on individual traits, the behaviours
associated with successful leadership, the relevant context or situation, the nature of
followers (and their relationship to the leader), the type of influence that is brought to
bear (transactional vs. transforming), and the collaboration required to address tough
issues.
Second, we recognise the interconnectivity of our globalizing world and the complexity
of organisational leadership. As a result, it is no surprise that system leadership is today’s
cutting-edge theory. In this context, the importance of optimising the potential of every
player in the system becomes apparent. Different players will have different roles. The
expectation that they will lead from their own strengths – and that their contributions
will be recognised and leveraged – is a significant shift from historical patterns of
hierarchical leadership models.
Third, we acknowledge the speed of change in so many areas of our cultural and
organisational life. Add to the mix the different perspectives, values, and behaviour
patterns of emerging generations, and it’s clear that we need flexibility of mindset and
action – as well as emotional intelligence. As a consequence, we all need to fathom
deeper levels of humility – about what we know as leaders, how we interact with others
(within our organisation, customers, or other stakeholders), and ultimately why we are
doing what we are doing.
This is the challenge we face – and it’s well worth embracing.
References
Carlyle, Thomas. (1840). On Heroes, Hero Worship, and The Heroic In History. London:
Chapman and Hall Ltd. Collins, Jim. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the
Leap and Others Don’t. New York: Harper Business.
Day, D.V. and Antonakis, J. (Eds.). (2011). The Nature of Leadership, 2nd Edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fiedler, F. E.
(1971). Leadership. Morristown, NJ: General Learning
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development
of leader- member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press. Heifetz, R., Kania, J., and Kramer, M. (2004). Leading Boldly. Stanford Social Innovation
Review, Winter.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. (1969). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human
Resources. New York: Prentice Hall.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship
behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269–277.
Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L. G. (1951). Productivity, supervision and morale
among railroad workers. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.