People have studied leadership since ancient times, and theories of leadership have been around for centuries (Plato, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and so on). However, it wasn't until the 20th century that modern theories began to take shape. For a number of years, researchers have examined leadership to discover how successful leaders are created. Experts have proposed several theories and approaches, including the trait, behavioral, contingency, and full-range models of leadership. The problem with some of these theories is that they tend to contradict instead of complementing each other. They seek to identify one set of rules or behaviors that turn someone into a leader. The reality is likely a combination of all the theories and some ideas that have yet to be defined. Studying these theories with an open mind and understanding that each has merits is key. Remember that emphasis should not be placed on any one theory.
The Trait Approach
Born out of the Great Man Theory, a study of leadership based on looking at the characteristics of great male leaders, the trait theory is the belief that leaders are born with certain characteristics (or traits) that make them successful. In other words, being a leader is innate or based on the qualities of one's personality. This theory assumes that a person who is born with certain traits will ultimately be a great leader.
Prior to 1945, most studies of leadership sought to identify the individual traits of effective leaders. Trait theories of leadership were the first to approach leadership study systematically. The initial studies looked for traits that were innate to all leaders, including physical attractiveness, sociability, desire for leadership, originality, and intelligence (Adler, 2019). These studies yielded inconsistent results and opened the door to broader perspectives on understanding the behavior of leaders.
However, trait studies have continued since 1945, focusing on traits that potential leaders might look to cultivate. Northouse (2021) shares five major traits that are central to much of this research, including intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability. While numerous leadership traits are important, the most crucial aspect for leaders is to possess the traits needed for a specific situation. Effective leadership emerges when a leader utilizes the appropriate traits in the right context and moment.
The Behavior Approach
In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors. What did effective leaders actually do? Which behaviors made them perceived as leaders? Which behaviors increased their success? Researchers determined two broad categories of behaviors: task-oriented behaviors and people-oriented behaviors.
Task-oriented leader behaviors involve structuring the roles of subordinates, providing them with instructions, and behaving in ways that will increase the performance of the group. Task-oriented behaviors are directives given to employees to get things done and to ensure that organizational goals are met. People-oriented leader behaviors include communicating concern for employee feelings and treating employees with respect. People-oriented leaders genuinely care about the well-being of their employees, and they demonstrate their concern in their actions and decisions. At the time, researchers thought these two categories of behaviors were the keys to the leadership puzzle.
Another question behavioral researchers focused on involved how leaders actually make decisions and the influence of decision-making styles on leader effectiveness and employee reactions. Three types of decision-making styles were studied. In authoritarian decision-making, leaders make the decision alone without necessarily involving employees in the decision-making process. When leaders use democratic decision-making, employees participate in making the decision. Finally, leaders using laissez-faire decision-making leave employees alone to make the decision. The leader provides minimum guidance and involvement in the decision unless requested or absolutely necessary.
As with other lines of research on leadership, the research did not identify one decision-making style as the best. It seems that the effectiveness of the style the leader is using depends on the circumstances.
The Contingency Approach
After the disappointing results of trait and behavioral approaches, several scholars developed leadership theories that specifically incorporated the role of the environment. Specifically, researchers started following a contingency approach to leadership—rather than trying to identify traits or behaviors that would be effective under all conditions, the attention moved toward specifying the situations under which different styles would be effective. The contingency approach includes many different leadership theories, including Contingency Theory (Fiedler, 1967), Situational Leadership Theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969), and Path-Goal Theory (House, 1971).
Contingency Theory: According to Fiedler’s theory, different people can be effective in different situations. Fiedler (1967) posited that leaders are either more task-oriented or people-oriented, and placing the right people in the right situation or changing the situation is important to increase a leader’s effectiveness. The three conditions creating situational favorableness are leader-subordinate relations, position power, and task structure. The situation is very favorable if the leader has a good relationship with most people, has high position power, and the task is structured. The situation is very unfavorable when the leader has low-quality relations with employees, has low position power, and the task is relatively unstructured.
Situational Leadership Theory: According to the situational leadership theory model (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969), employee readiness (defined as a combination of competence and commitment levels) is the key factor determining the proper leadership style. This approach has been highly popular; nearly 80% of Fortune 500 companies (Northouse, 2021). Leaders adapt their style to their subordinate’s “readiness.” If employee readiness is low, the leader may be more direct and more in the weeds of the day-to-day business. As an employee progresses to a higher level of competence and commitment, the leader may “fly a little higher” and allow the subordinates to be more autonomous. This approach is also more flexible, allowing the leader to emphasize tasks or relationships as needed.
Path-Goal Theory: House’s (1971) path-goal theory of leadership is based on the expectancy theory of motivation. The expectancy theory of motivation suggests that employees are motivated when they believe—or expect—that (a) their effort will lead to high performance, (b) their high performance will be rewarded, and (c) the rewards they will receive are valuable to them. According to the path-goal theory of leadership, the leader’s main job is to make sure that all three of these conditions exist. Thus, leaders will create satisfied and high-performing employees by making sure that employee effort leads to performance and their performance is rewarded. The leader removes roadblocks along the way and creates an environment that subordinates find motivational. The theory also makes specific predictions about the style, type of leader behavior, and communication that will be effective depending on the characteristics of employees and the work environment. The styles include directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented leadership behaviors and communications.
Full-Range Models of Leadership
What leadership theories have the greatest contributions to today’s business environment? Below are some of the recent developments in the field of leadership.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership theory is a recent addition to the literature, but more research has been conducted on this theory than all the contingency theories combined. The theory distinguishes transformational and transactional leaders. Transformational leaders lead employees by aligning employee goals with the leader’s goals. Thus, employees working for transformational leaders start focusing on the company’s well-being rather than on what is best for them as individual employees. On the other hand, transactional leaders ensure that employees demonstrate the right behaviors and provide resources in exchange (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978).
Transformational leaders possess four tools, which they use to influence employees and create a commitment to the company goals (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Bycio et al., 1995; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). First, transformational leaders have idealized influence or are charismatic, referring to behaviors leaders demonstrate that create confidence in, commitment to, and admiration for the leader (Shamir et al., 1993). Charismatic individuals have a “magnetic” personality that is appealing to followers. Second, transformational leaders use inspirational motivation, developing a vision that inspires others. Third is the use of intellectual stimulation, which means that they challenge organizational norms and status quo and encourage employees to think creatively and work harder. Finally, they use individualized consideration, which means that they show personal care and concern for the well-being of their followers. Examples of transformational leaders include Steve Jobs of Apple Inc., Lee Iaccoca, who transformed Chrysler Motors LLC in the 1980s, and Jack Welch, who was the CEO of General Electric Company for 20 years. Each of these leaders is charismatic and is held responsible for the turnarounds of their companies.
While transformational leaders rely on their charisma, persuasiveness, and personal appeal to change and inspire their companies, transactional leaders use three different methods. Contingent rewards mean rewarding employees for their accomplishments. Active management by exception involves leaving employees to do their jobs without interference while proactively predicting potential problems and preventing them from occurring. Passive management by exception is similar in that it involves leaving employees alone, but in this method, the manager waits until something goes wrong before coming to the rescue.
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory proposes that the type of relationship leaders have with their followers (members of the organization) is the key to understanding how leaders influence employees. Leaders form different types of relationships with their employees. In high-quality LMX relationships, the leader forms a trust-based relationship with the member. The leader and member like each other, help each other when needed, and respect each other. In these relationships, the leader and the member are each ready to go above and beyond their job descriptions to promote the other’s ability to succeed. In contrast, in low-quality LMX relationships, the leader and the member have lower levels of trust, liking, and respect toward each other. These relationships do not have to involve actively disliking each other, but the leader and member do not go beyond their formal job descriptions in their exchanges. In other words, the member does his job, the leader provides rewards and punishments, and the relationship does not involve high levels of loyalty or obligation toward each other (Dansereau et al., 1975; Erogan & Liden, 2002; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden & Maslyn, 1998).
Servant Leadership
Servant Leadership defines the leader’s role as serving the needs of others. According to this approach, the primary mission of the leader is to develop employees and help them reach their goals. Servant leaders put their employees first, understand their personal needs and desires, empower them, and help them develop in their careers. Unlike mainstream management approaches, the overriding objective in servant leadership is not limited to getting employees to contribute to organizational goals. Instead, servant leaders feel an obligation to their employees, customers, and the external community. Employee happiness is seen as an end in itself, and servant leaders sometimes sacrifice their own well-being to help employees succeed. In addition to a clear focus on having a moral compass, servant leaders are also interested in serving the community. In other words, their efforts to help others are not restricted to company insiders, and they are genuinely concerned about the broader community surrounding their organization (Greenleaf, 1977; Liden et al., 2008). According to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, Abraham Lincoln was a servant leader because of his balance of social conscience, empathy, and generosity (Goodwin, 2005).
Authentic Leadership
Leaders have to be a lot of things to a lot of people. They operate within different structures, work with different types of people, and they must be adaptable. At times, it may seem that a leader’s smartest strategy would be to act as a social chameleon, changing his or her style whenever doing so seems advantageous. But this would lose sight of the fact that effective leaders must stay true to themselves. The authentic leadership approach embraces this value: Its key advice is “be yourself.” We all have different backgrounds, life experiences, and role models. These trigger events over the course of our lifetime that shape our values, preferences, and priorities. Instead of trying to fit into societal expectations about what a leader should be, act like, or look like, authentic leaders derive their strength from their own past experiences. Thus, one key characteristic of authentic leaders is that they are self-aware. They are introspective, understand where they come from, and thoroughly understand their own values and priorities. Secondly, they are not afraid to act the way they are. In other words, they have high levels of personal integrity. They say what they think. They behave in a way consistent with their values. As a result, they remain true to themselves. Instead of trying to imitate other great leaders, they find their own style in their personality and life experiences (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005; George, 2007; Ilies et al., 2005; Sparrowe, 2005).
Summary
This section reviewed some of the most influential leadership theories at a high level. Trait approaches identify the characteristics required to be perceived as a leader and to be successful in the role. Behavioral approaches identify the types of behaviors leaders demonstrate. Both trait and behavioral approaches suffered from a failure to pay attention to the context in which leadership occurs, which led to the development of contingency approaches. Recently, ethics became an explicit focus of leadership theories such as servant leadership and authentic leadership. It seems that being conscious of one’s style and making sure that leaders demonstrate behaviors and communications that address employee, organizational, and stakeholder needs are important and require flexibility on the part of leaders. As you navigate the workplace, reflect on these perspectives to better understand what you may need from your leader and how you may lead followers of your own.
Attributions:
Content for this section has been remixed and modified from the following:
Organizational Behavior was adapted by Saylor Academy (2012) under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License without attribution as requested by the work's original creator or licensor.
BUS401: Defining Leadership Provided by The Saylor Foundation (2020) licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License.
References:
Adler, R. B. (2019). Communicating at work: Strategies for success in business and the professions. (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessment of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478.
Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78;
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A review of recent developments and future research directions in leader-member exchange theory. In L. L. Neider & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership (pp. 65–114), Information Age Press.
Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness, McGraw-Hill; Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leader effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology 1, 149–190). Academic Press.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372.
George, B. (2007). Authentic leaders: They inspire and empower others. Leadership Excellence, 24(9), 16–17.
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 over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.
Goodwin, D. K. (2005, June 26). The master of the game. Time. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1077300,00.html.
Hersey, P.H., Blanchard, K.H., ‘ Johnson, D.E. (2007). Management of Organizational Behavior: Leadership human resources. Prentice Hall.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321–338.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323–352.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81–97.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373–394.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S., J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177.
Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and Practice.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 419–439.