THE ROLE OF LEADERSHIP IN

ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
1. Introduction
Leading and managing are two terms that are often confused. However there is
undoubtedly a strong connection between them. In fact leading is one of the four
identified main functions of a manager, along with planning, organising and controlling.
Furthermore the leader is one of the ten management roles identified by Henry Mintzberg
(Daft, 2009:2236).

Leadership can be defined as the ability to influence a group of people towards

achieving a vision or set of goals (Robbins et al, 2009: 419). In the context of the study of
Organisational Behaviour, one might be inclined to focus this definition on influencing a
group of subordinates to achieve organisational goals, but this view maybe myopic. Many
great leaders in the corporate world have demonstrated their ability to influence not only
their subordinates, but their customers as well and thereby impact society itself.

This review explores some highlights of the current body of knowledge around the
subject of leadership.

2. Traditional Theories
2.1.

Trait Theories

Trait theories were dominant in the study of leadership during the first half of the
twentieth century. They attempt to differentiate leaders from non-leaders through their
common personal qualities and characteristics. However these studies were largely
unsuccessful until researchers began to frame their studies around the Big Five
personality model.

The Big Five model groups all personality traits into five factors, namely extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to experience. Of
these, extraversion (viz. a liking for being around people and asserting oneself) was found
1

to be the most significantly common characteristic of great leaders. Conscientiousness

(viz. being disciplined and committed) and openness to experience (viz. being creative
and flexible) were also shown to have a strong link to leadership (Robbins et al, 2009:
420421).

In practice one limitation of trait theories is that while the identified characteristics are
common to leaders, it is not the case that anyone possessing those qualities will
necessarily be a good leader. It can only help to increase the probability of selecting
someone suitable for a leadership position. Another limitation is that personality traits are
generally inherent. Therefore they cannot be used to build up leaders.

2.2.

Behavioural Theories

The early failures of trait theories led researchers in a different direction, to study the
behaviour of leaders. Independent studies carried out in the 1940s by researchers at Ohio
State University and the University of Michigan revealed two significant dimensions of
leader behaviour. Michigan referred to these as production orientation (which Ohio State
termed consideration) and employee orientation (which Ohio State termed initiating
structure) (Robbins et al, 2009: 422424).

Based on the work of Ohio State and Michigan, Blake and Mouton of the University of
Texas developed the Leadership Grid model. They named the two dimensions concern
for people and concern for production and ranked each dimension on a scale of 19,
giving a total of 81 different leadership styles. The Leadership Grid along with the five
major leadership styles is shown in Figure 2.1.

When compared to trait theories, the behavioural theories have the advantage that while
traits are inbuilt, behaviours can be learnt. This has the implication that it is possible to
train people to be leaders, rather than simply having to rely on selecting the right people.
However the main disadvantage, as with trait theories, is that exhibiting the respective
behaviours does not necessarily make someone an effective leader.

Low

Concern for People

High

Figure 2.1: Blake-Mouton Leadership Grid

9
1,9

9,9

Country Club

Team

Management

Management

6
5,5
5

Middle-of-the-Road

Management

1,1

9,1

Impoverished

Authority-

Management

Compliance

Low

Concern for Production

9
High

Source: Daft 2009 p.458

2.3.

Contingency Theories

A subsequent realisation that situational conditions can have significant impact on

leadership effectiveness (viz. that one leadership style may prove to be effective under a
particular situation, but quite ineffective under another) led to the development of several
contingency theories of leadership.
2.3.1. Fiedler Model
The Fiedler contingency model proposes that effective group performance depends on the
proper match between leadership style and the degree to which the situation gives control
to the leader. Fiedler developed the Least Preferred Co-worker questionnaire based on
which he classified leadership styles as either task oriented or relationship oriented
(moderates fall in between and are therefore outside the theorys predictions).

The next step is to define the current situation based on three factors, namely leadermember relations, task structure and position power. Fiedlers studies showed that task
oriented leaders are more effective in situations that are highly favourable or highly
unfavourable towards them, while relationship oriented leaders are more effective in
moderate situations (Robbins et al, 2009: 426428).
3

2.3.2. Situational Theory

Hersey and Blanchards situational theory is an extension of the leadership grid after
taking into consideration the characteristics of the followers, rather than just the leader.
Unlike Fiedler, Hersey and Blanchard do not assume that a leaders style is fixed, but
propose that a leader can adopt one of four leadership styles depending on the level of
readiness of the followers.

The four leadership styles based on a combination of relationship and task behaviour are
telling, selling, participating and delegating. The leader must diagnose the readiness level
of the followers based on how able and willing (or confident) they are and apply the
appropriate leadership style. Using an incorrect style can have a negative impact on
performance (Daft 2009: 459461).
2.3.3. Path-Goal Theory
Robert House proposed in the path-goal theory that the role of the leader is to clarify and
support followers along their path to achieving personal as well as organisational goals.
The leader can switch between four types of behaviour, name supportive leadership,
directive leadership, participative leadership and achievement-oriented leadership
depending on the situation, while using rewards to enhance satisfaction and job
performance of subordinates (Daft 2009: 463).

The path-goal theory also proposes two classes of contingency variables, viz.
environmental and personal. The external environmental factors include task structure,
the formal authority system and the workgroup. Personal characteristics of the employee
include locus of control, experience and perceived ability.

A particular leadership behaviour will be ineffective if it is redundant with sources of

environmental structures or incongruent with employee characteristics. For example,
directive leadership behaviour leads to greater employee satisfaction when tasks are
ambiguous or stressful, while supportive leadership behaviour will have similar results
when employees perform structured tasks (Robbins et al, 2009: 431432).

3. Modern Theories
3.1.

Charismatic Leadership

Over a century ago, Max Weber introduced the concept of charisma (from Greek
meaning divine favour) which refers to a rare personal attribute of an individual that
sets him or her apart from ordinary people and on the basis of which he or she is treated
as a leader.

Robert House was the first to introduce the term to the field of Organisational Behaviour
in his charismatic leadership theory. Charismatic leaders have four key characteristics.
They are,
1. Vision and articulation they propose a future that is better than the status quo
and they are able to clarify the importance of the vision in terms that are easily
understood by others.
2. Personal risk they are willing to take on high personal risk, incur high costs
and engage in self-sacrifice to achieve the vision.
3. Sensitivity to followers needs they perceive others abilities and are
responsive to their needs and feelings.
4. Unconventional behaviour they engage in behaviour that is perceived as
novel and counter to norms.

Unlike the other theories considered so far, charismatic leadership maybe inherent but it
may also be acquired through specialised training that focus on developing the above four
characteristics (Robbins et al, 2009: 451453).

The downside of charismatic leaders is that they tend to be larger-than-life, but they may
not always behave responsibly in the best interests of the organisation or even of society
in general. This has often led to disastrous consequencecs. In fact Jim Collins argues that,

The charismatic-leader model has to die. What do you replace it with? The task
that the CEO is uniquely positioned to do: designing the mechanisms that
reinforce and give life to the companys core purpose and stimulate the company
to change (Collins, 1997).

3.2.

Transformational Leadership

Transactional leaders recognise what actions subordinates must take to achieve

outcomes. They clarify these role and task requirements in order to raise confidence.
They also recognise subordinates needs and wants and clarify how they will be satisfied
if necessary efforts are made.

However the transactional method has many shortcomings, for reasons including time
pressures, poor appraisal methods and lack of management skills. Some leaders practice
management by exception, viz. intervening only when things go wrong. Transactions
leadership also fails if the leader lacks the reputation for being able to deliver rewards.

In some organisations, such as in the non-profit sector, non-contingent rewards may work
just as well to boost performance thereby making transactional leadership redundant. At
the other extreme employees may take shortcuts to create an appearance of compliance in
order to earn rewards (Bass, 1985: 146147).

By contrast, transformational leaders inspire followers to transcend their own selfinterests for the good of the organisation. They are capable of having a profound effect on
their followers. They pay attention to the concerns and developmental needs of individual
followers, and also change their awareness by helping them to look at old problems in
new ways.

However transactional and transformational leadership are not opposing approaches to

getting things done. Rather they complement each other. Transformational leadership
builds on top of transactional leadership and achieves greater results (see Figure 3.1). The
best leaders are both transactional and transformational (Robbins et al, 2009: 456457).

Comparing charismatic leadership and transformational leadership, charisma in an

important component of transformational leadership, but transformational leadership is a
much broader concept than charisma and also achieves much more.

Figure 3.1: Characteristics of Transactional and Transformational Leaders

Idealised Influence

Provides vision and sense of mission, instils pride,

gains respect and trust.

Communicates high expectations, uses symbols to
Inspirational Motivation

focus efforts, expresses important purposes in

simple ways.

Intellectual Stimulation

Individualised Consideration

Promotes intelligence, rationality and careful

problem solving.
Gives personal attention, treats each employee
individually, coaches, advises.
Contracts exchange of rewards for effort, promises

Transactional Leader

Contingent Reward

rewards for good performance, recognises

accomplishments.

Management by Exception

Watches and searches for deviations from rules

(active)

and standards, takes correct action.

Management by Exception
(passive)
Laissez-Faire

Intervenes only if standards are not met.

Abdicates responsibilities, avoids making
decisions.

Source: Based on Robbins et al, 2009 p.458

3.3.

Authentic Leadership

Authentic leaders are those who know who they are, know what they believe in and
value, and act on those values and beliefs openly. Their followers consider them to be
ethical people. Therefore the primary quality created by authentic leadership is trust.

Trust can be described as a positive expectation that another will not act opportunistically.
The key dimensions that underlie trust are integrity, competence, consistency, loyalty and
openness.

Integrity refers to honesty and truthfulness. Competence is about the individuals

knowledge and skills (viz. does the person know what he or she is talking about).
Consistency relates to the individuals reliability and predictability. Loyalty is the
willingness to protect and save face for another. Openness means you can rely on a
person to give you the whole truth.

When followers trust a leader, they are willing to take risks. They are willing to be
vulnerable to the leaders actions. However if trust is broken, it can have serious adverse
effects on a groups performance (Robbins et al, 2009: 461465).

3.4.

Servant Leadership

The concept of servant leadership was first described by Robert Greenleaf in1977. It is
leadership turned upside down because the leader transcends self-interests to serve others
and the organisation. Servant leaders truly value other people. They encourage
participation, share power, enhance others self-worth, and unleash peoples creativity,
full commitment, and natural impulse to learn and contribute (Daft, 2009: 473).

The biggest challenge to becoming a servant leader is ego. However it is easy for people
with high self-esteem to become servant leaders as such people have no problem giving
credit others. Although it is considered a relatively new concept, examples of servant
leadership (including the life of Jesus Christ) are well documented in the Bible and it has
thereby influenced rulers over centuries (Vinod & Sudhakar, 2011).

4. Alternate Views
Some disagree with the widely accepted belief in the importance of leadership. After all
much of an organisations success or failure is often due to factors outside the direct
influence of its leadership. In many cases, success or failure is a matter of being in the
right or wrong place at a given time.

4.1.

Attribution Theory

The theory of attribution describes the way in which people try to make sense out of
cause-and-effect relationships. The attribution theory of leadership says that leadership is
merely an attribution that people make about certain others. It has shown that people
characterise leaders as having traits such as intelligence, outgoing personality, strong
verbal skills, aggressiveness, understanding and industriousness.

When an organisation has either very negative or very positive performance, people are
prone to make leadership attributions to explain the performance. A study of 128 U.S.
8

corporations revealed that whereas perceptions of CEO charisma did not necessarily lead
to objective company performance, positive company performance did lead to the
perception of charismatic leadership.

This implies that what is more important is having the appearance of being an effective
leader, rather than focussing on actual accomplishments (Robbins et al, 2009: 473474).

4.2.

Substitutes and Neutralisers

Yet another theory of leadership suggests that in many situations, whatever actions a
leader exhibits are irrelevant. According to this theory certain variables related to the
individual, job and organisation can act as substitutes for leadership, or even neutralise
the influence of the leader on his or her followers.

Neutralisers make it impossible for a leaders behaviour to have any impact on followers
by negating their influence. Substitutes on the other hand not only make a leaders
influence impossible but also unnecessary. For example, individual characteristics such as
indifference to rewards can neutralise a leaders influence, whereas experience and
training can act as substitutes for a leaders support.

Table 4.1: Substitutes and Neutralisers of Leadership

Defining Characteristics

Relationship-Oriented

Task-Oriented

Leadership

Leadership

Individual
Experience/training

No effect on

Substitutes for

Professionalism

Substitutes for

Substitutes for

Indifference to rewards

Neutralises

Neutralises

Highly structured task

No effect on

Substitutes for

Provides its own feedback

No effect on

Substitutes for

Intrinsically satisfying

Substitutes for

No effect on

Explicit formalised goals

No effect on

Substitutes for

Rigid rules and procedures

No effect on

Substitutes for

Cohesive workgroups

Substitutes for

Substitutes for

Job

Organisation

Source: Robbins et al, 2009 p.475

5. Conclusion
In summary, it has been shown that while some people are born with traits that make
them more likely to be good leaders, leadership can be considered a skill that can be
acquired with the correct training. This implies that focus should not only be on selecting
the right people for leadership positions, but also building up a pool of leadership talent
for the future.

It has also been shown that great leaders are those who not only make an impact on their
organisations and even on society, but those who are able to create a profound impact on
the individuals they lead.

The importance of ethical leadership has also been stressed. Recent events in the
corporate sector, including the Golden Key case have highlighted the disastrous
consequences of losing trust.

At a national level, the country has seen the result of strong charismatic leadership in the
recent military victory. However it remains in question if charisma alone can take the
country to the next level in terms of economic prosperity and national reconciliation, or
whether as the literature suggests it will require a transformational or even a servant
leadership approach.

The decision to conduct leadership training for all undergraduate students is noteworthy.
While the effectiveness of the initiative remains to be seen, it must nevertheless be seen
as step in the right direction for the nation.

10

6. List of references
Bass, B. M. (1985), Leadership: Good, Better, Best, Organisational Dynamics, Vol.
13 (3), reproduced in Mainiero & Tromley, 1994.

Collins, J. (1997), The Death of the Charismatic Leader. http://www.jimcollins.com,

retrieved in July 2011.

Daft, R. L. (2009), Principles of Management, New Delhi: Cengage Learning.

Mainiero, L. A. & Tromley, C. L. (1994), Developing Managerial Skills in

Organisational Behaviour, India: Prentice-Hall.

Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A & Sanghi, S. (2009), Organisational Behaviour, Indian

Subcontinent Adaptation, India: Dorling Kindersley.

Vinod, S. & Sudhakar, B. (2011), Servant Leadership: A Unique Art of Leadership,

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 2, No. 11, March.

11