Introduction to Leadership Theory

From Great Man to Trait Theory Systematic research into leadership amongst psychologists and academics can be traced back to the beginning of the 20th century. Leadership was seen as embodied in outstanding leaders such as Churchill, Gandhi and Lincoln and their personalities were studied to see if common traits could be identified that would characterize all leaders. Leadership was perceived as something demonstrated by exceptional, outstanding people. It was believed that certain people, usually men, were born with a specific set of personality characteristics that destined them for leadership. If we could identify these traits, people demonstrating them could be trained for high office. This was known as the great man theory of leadership. However, according to Northouse (1997) of in a major review in 1948, Stogdill suggested that no consistent set traits differentiated leaders from nonleaders across a variety of situations.1

Interest in trait research declined in the 1960s and the rise of humanism in psychology and organizational theory. In part as a result of Stogdills work leadership was reconceptualised as dependent upon relationship and situation and therefore highly contextual. As a result no one set of traits could mark out a person for leadership. Nevertheless, there has been a resurgence of interest in leadership traits. The rise in the competency movement during the 1980s refocused attention back onto the individual and their leadership competencies. One study by Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) even claimed that leaders are distinct kinds of people2. The focus on change during the 1980s also boosted interest in charisma and transformational leadership3. This was accompanied by an increasing interest in the great celebrity leaders of industry e.g. Jack Welch, Richard Branson, Anita Roddick, Rupert Murdoch. Great men and women leaders came back into vogue and the successful transformation of companies and organisations was predicated on having great leaders at the helm. In a second survey conducted in 1974 Stogdill analysed a further 163 studies on top of his original 124 and reached slightly different conclusions. Whilst continuing to emphasise the importance of context, he did identify a set of traits that seemed to be strongly associated with leadership. These included: Drive for responsibility Focus on completing the task
1 2 3

Northouse P G (1997) Leadership Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage See Northouse above p. 14, 16 Lkj;lkj

Vigour and persistence in pursuit of goals Venturesomeness and originality in problem-solving Self confidence Sense of personal identity Willingness to accept consequences of decisions and actions Willingness to tolerate frustration and delay Ability to influence the behaviour of others

Northouse summarises a number of studies that also seem to show positive associations between certain traits and leadership. This leads him to identify five traits that appear regularly in most research in this area: intelligence, self confidence, determination, integrity and sociability. The strengths of the trait approach are clear. Competencies and traits can be used in the selection, training, assessment and promotion of people into leadership positions4. Intuitively this approach makes sense most of us tend to identify leaders in terms of their traits, so there is a common sense appeal in the trait approach. Moreover, despite sometimes conflicting results, there has been over a century of research into trait approach. Exercise Given the obvious appeal of the trait approach to leadership, what do you think are some of the disadvantages?

Possible objections to the trait approach include: They can identify the archetypal superman leader with a list of qualities which few people, if any, match up to. If we take these lists literally, we could end up with very few people meeting the requirements for leadership positions.

However, it is important to differentiate between traits and competencies. Traits are seen as innate and unchanging whilst competencies can be developed through on-the-job and off-thejob experience.

How do you identify a leader? Is it through lists of traits, assessment centres and personality questionnaires or do they emerge naturally through interaction with colleagues in different situations? Leadership has subsequently been seen as dependent on the situation. A leader at the local sports club might not emerge as a leader at work; the person who takes the lead in a project at the beginning might not be the same person who takes leadership at the end. The academic research is contradictory, despite almost a century of work in the area. The research rarely links traits to specific leadership outcomes such as growth, employee retention, customer satisfaction. It seriously under-estimates the vast differences in leadership style. Leaders can be successful without necessarily being sociable, creative or even self confident. Most leaders experience ups and downs in their confidence levels; some leaders can be quiet but authoritative (Badaracco, 2002). Perhaps most interestingly, we have seen how leaders can be successful as leaders without having high levels of integrity. We have seen how Enrons Kenneth Lay, Mirror Groups Robert Maxwell, Hollinger Internationals Conrad Black and the charismatic Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom all managed to lead organisations and people for a considerable period of time before their fraud became apparent. It focuses too much on the personality of the leader and not enough on the dynamics of the relationship between the leader and followers.

It is clear that lists of traits do not capture the complexity of the leadership dynamic - the sum total of a few traits, is not enough to identify a leader or how a leaders emerges in a group. Style Theory In the 1940s, there was a shift of attention away from inherent traits in favour of leadership behaviours. Two projects, the Michigan ad Ohio studies5, focused on the notion of leadership style. Research was conducted into what behaviours were manifested by leaders working in manufacturing organisations. The results identified two different types of behaviour. There were task related behaviours which focused on structuring the task and achieving goals. There were also relationship behaviours which focused on maintaining the motivation and morale of the employee. These sets of behaviour were independent of each other: you could be high on one and low on another, or you could be high (or low) on both. From his studies of leaders behaviour McGregor (1960) proposed that there were two leadership styles Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X leaders
5

The Michigan studies took place in the 1940s and early 1950s (e.g. Katz, Maccoby and Morse, 1950). The Ohio studies spanned between 1948 1962 (e.g. Stogdill, 1948, 1950; Fleishman and Harris, 1962). See Huczynski A A and Buchanan D A (2007) Organizational Behaviour An Introductory Text (Sixth Ed). Harlow: Pearson Educational.

assumed that people were lazy and needed strong supervision in order to elicit good performance. Theory Y leaders assumed that people were naturally self actualising and wanted to perform at their best. Leaders with this assumption adopted a more democratic and consensual style. Another influential style theory was Blake and Moutons management grid. They devised a grid based on two axes concern for results and concern for people. This led to five styles (one style was in the center of the grid) with the most effective style being a high concern for task and a high concern for people. This they termed the team management style.

9. 8. 8. 7. 6. Concern for People 5. 4. 3. 2.

1,9
Country Club Management Thoughtful attention to the needs of people for satisfying relationships, leads to a comfortable, friendly atmosphere and work tempo

9,9
Team Management Work accomplishment is from committed people with a common stake in the organisation. Relationships are characterised by trust and respect.

5,5 Middle of the Road Management 5,5

Adequate performance is possible through balancing need to get work done whilst maintaining morale at a satisfactory level Authority-Compliance Management Efficiency in operations results from arranging conditions of work to ensure that human relations interfere to a mimuim degree

Impoverished Management Exertion of minimum effort to get required work done

1.

1,1 1. 1

9,1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Concern for Results The Blake and Mouton grid was used widely in organisations for consulting, training and leadership development purposes. In later years the name was changed to the Leadership Grid to reflect the growing interest in leadership, but the grid itself remained the same. It is possible to assess your own dominant style both by means of a self-report questionnaire and also by means of feedback from your members of staff. According to Blake and Mouton, most managers have a dominant style and then a back up style to use when the preferred style does not appear to be working. Whilst there is an implication that the team management style is preferable, the idea of the grid is to assess your style and see whether it needs to be changed in any way. It may be that there is too much emphasis on task or on relationship and that more balance needs to be achieved. But this can only come through reflection on both the model, the situation being

dealt with and the feedback from staff. In this respect the grid, and the whole emphasis on management style is not prescriptive. Contingency Theory Style theory tends to promote the idea that there is one best style high on both relationship oriented and task oriented behaviour. The late 60s and 70s were dominated by contingency theory which is based on the idea that there is no one best way to lead. Fiedler (1964, 1967) was one of the earliest researchers to show that effective leadership behaviour varied according to the context. His research analysed a large number of leaders working in different contexts, primarily in the military. He assessed leaders styles, the situation in which they worked and whether they were effective or not. He proposed that leaders varied in their relative concern for task and relationships: some leaders are more task oriented, others are more relationship oriented. However, there was no one best style. The most suitable leadership style depended on a number of factors including the strength of the leader-member relationships, the nature of the leaders power and how the task was structured. Fiedler then developed an elaborate matrix which assessed the best leadership style for a variety of situations. Situations were classified according to clarity or uncertainty of the task, the strength of the team relationships or the degree of formal power held by the leader. This led to 8 possible situations some of which were best managed by task-oriented leaders and others by relationshiporiented leaders. Fiedler believed that each situation required a different leader as it was not possible for most leaders to change their style to meet the needs of the situation. Hersey and Blanchard (1988) however, believed that leaders could adapt their style to meet the needs of the situation. They described four leadership styles appropriate for managing direct reports according to their developmental level. Each style varied according to the degree of task oriented behaviour and the degree of supportive behaviour. The situation varied according to the degree of competence and commitment of the direct report. A delegative style (low task, low support) was appropriate if the direct report was both competent and committed. A supportive style (low task, high support) suited an experienced, competent direct report who lacked confidence. A directive style (high task, low support) was needed for direct reports who lacked experience (hence competence) though commitment was high. A coaching style (high task, high support) was needed for the employee who had some competence who would like to develop further or whose commitment was variable. Contingency theory and the idea that there is no one best style of leadership continues to exert a strong influence on leadership studies today. Transformational Leadership

In 1978 James MacGregor Burns introduced an important concept into the leadership literature. He distinguished between transformational as opposed to transactional leadership. Transformational leadership paved the way for the rise of charismatic leadership in the 80s as you can see from the following description: The goal of transformational leadership is to transform people and organizations in a literal sense to change them in mind and heart; enlarge vision, insight and understanding; clarify purposes; make behaviour congruent with beliefs, principles, or values; and bring about changes that are permanent, self-perpetuating, and momentum building Bass and Avolio, 1994 Transactional leadership is more related to the operational function of leaders. It is short term, tactical, concerned to reinforce current systems and norms and aimed at meeting short term efficiency and profitability goals. Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of Burns model was that it introduced a moral dimension into leadership. The transformational leader was able to achieve high moral aims by inspiring people to rise above their short term interests. The transactional leader, by contrast, is concerned to preserve existing power structures and gets commitment from followers by offering pay and security in return for reliable work. Leadership vs Management In 1977 Zalenznik suggested that there was a difference between the leadership function and the management function. This notion is not dissimilar to the differentiation between transformational and transactional leadership. Leadership is associated with the establishing of direction, the generation of an inspiring vision, the communication and motivation of employees, generating commitment to the strategy and the implementation of radical change. Management, on the other hand is associated with planning, budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, problem solving, monitoring and maintaining order and predictability. In short leadership is about bringing about strategic change whilst management is about operational efficiency. John Kotter, an influential leadership academic, is associated with this view. His books, aimed at both academics and practitioners, are concerned with the processes involved in leading change. Bennus and Nanus have also written extensively about the difference between leadership and management. Originally, it was suggested that one person could not perform the two functions effectively, as they required very different characteristics. Latterly, however, there has been a recognition that leaders need to embody both management and leadership functions (Mintzberg, 2003).

The Leader as Heroic Driver of Change The 1980s were dominated by the rise of the charismatic leader or the leader as hero. There was a sense that these larger than life characters could, following a decade of industrial decline and intensifying competition, lift morale and pave the way to a positive future. Researchers identified four key characteristics of a charismatic leader: A dominant personality, desire to influence others and self confidence Strong role model behaviour and competence Articulation of ideological goals with strong moral overtones High expectation of followers and strong expectation that they will meet these expectations This approach is associated with many well-known writers in the field: Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Peters and Waterman, John Kotter. Problems with this approach became apparent with high profile corporate scandals and the difficulties associated with succession once these high profile leaders left their organizations. Nevertheless the association of leadership with change continues to exert a strong influence in the field. Responsibility, Spirituality and Authenticity in Leadership The 1980s and 1990s were associated with an explosion of interest in leadership. Competition was becoming fiercer, global interdependence more evident and more and more jobs were being lost to low wage economies. In addition, during the 1990s there was a realization of how difficult it was to get change implemented together with an increasing change weariness. This was apparent in both the private and public sectors. There was a growing sense that leadership was the answer to the problems faced by society. Jim Collins, in Good to Great, conducted research into what it was that enabled good or even mediocre companies to suddenly take off and beat the stock market by up to 18 times over a 15 year period. Part of his answer was level 5 leadership. Level 5 leaders combined a quiet humility (in contrast to the charismatic leaders of the 80s) with an absolute determination to achieve their goals. The leaders humility comes from a sense that they will not always have the right answers and to stay ahead they need to learn constantly from the competition, from suppliers, from customers and from employees. Hence there is an emphasis on the need to listen, facilitate discussion, encourage debate, experiment and learn. This echoes the early humanist emphasis on Theory Y leadership, though it derives more from a concern with complexity and the constant need to stay in touch with ever changing events and trends.

The emphasis on humility is not dissimilar to Greenleafs notion of servant leadership where the leaders prime motivation is said to be to serve his or her stakeholders in the pursuit of a higher moral purpose. It also supports the growing interest in the notion of integrity and values in leadership. According to Ciulla: Leadership is not a person or position. It is a complex moral relationship between people, based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a shared vision of the good. The focus on integrity has encouraged a growing interest in spirituality and leadership. Covey, for example, criticizes the emphasis on skills and behaviour in the development of leaders and instead promotes the character ethos. Great leaders in the past, according to Covey, were admired because of their character honesty, integrity, resilience, selflessness, courage. These are not qualities that emerge over night but rather develop through challenging experiences that bring out the leaders core values and inner strengths. In The Eighth Habit he proposes a model of leadership that emphasizes the four human dimensions body, mind, heart and spirit and shows how great leaders access all aspects of their humanity rather than compartmentalizing their lives. Other writers who focus on the spiritual aspects of leadership are and

Another popular approach to leadership, strongly connected to responsibility and spirituality is the idea of being an authentic leader that is having the courage to find your own voice and to be yourself in the leadership role. Chaos Theory and Emergent Leadership Margaret Wheatley is the major exponent of this view which draws on the science of quantum physics and chaos theory to propose a more emergent and less managed view of leadership and change. It is fundamental to this view that change cannot be managed . Rather new stable forms of organizing emerge out of chaos as old certainties and structures dissolve. Systems are highly complex but at the same time highly adaptive eventually order emerges out of chaos but we cannot know what this order is until it emerges. This leaves the leaders task as bringing people on a journey of learning and continual discovery. This approach emphasizes skills such as dialogue, story telling and appreciative enquiry. Authentic Leadership and Distributed Leadership. In the 2000s there has been a growing disillusionment with the notion of leadership. Leaders, whether in the corporate or political world, disappointed their followers. They were not what they appeared to be. Indeed, much of what they appeared to be seemed to be based on spin. As a result there has been increased emphasis on the notion of authenticity in leadership. This is the idea that there is no one best way to become a

leader but rather everyone can take leadership, given the right context. Individuals throughout the hierarchy can recognize their inner leadership qualities, connect with an issue that inspires them and behave openly and with integrity in pursuing their leadership task. Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones, based at the LSE, are exponents of this view. This is supported by the current emphasis on distributed leadership. Distributed leadership acknowledges that change cannot be implemented without people taking leadership throughout the organization. When something needs to be done, leaders emerge though group interactions and are distributed throughout the organization. Summary Today there is a growing emphasis on 4 different aspects of leadership. Leadership is contingent; what makes a great leader in one situation might not work or be relevant in another situation. Leadership is not formulaic. Despite the heavy emphasis on leadership competencies, there is no one best way to be a leader. Rather, every aspiring leader needs to define their own style. Leadership is distributed. Leadership does not reside in one person at the top of the hierarchy. This is not just an academic point. Leaders have learned that it is not easy to implement change. Key to implementation is the readiness of people throughout the organization to see what needs to be done and influence others to address it. Leadership is not individual. There has been too much emphasis on charismatic individuals. Leadership depends upon the ability to influence others and arises out of the relationships between people. In fact the leadership role may change and move from one person to another depending upon the situation.

References Badaracco J L Jr (2002) Leading Quietly. An Unorthodox Guide to Doing the Right Thing. Boston, MA. Harvard Business School Publishing. Bass, B M and Avolio, B J (1994) Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership Bennus, W G and Nanus, B (1985) Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. Bolden R (2004) What is Leadership? Report for Leadership South West & University of Exeter. Burns J M (1978) Leadership Collins Jim (2001) From Good to Great Goffee and Jones (2000) Why Should Anyone Be Led By You? Harvard Business Review, September to October, 62-70 Greenleaf, Robert K (1998) The Power of Servant Leadership Hersey P and Blanchard K (1985) Leadership and the One Minute Manager Huczynski A A and Buchanan D A (2007) Organizational Behaviour An Introductory Text (Sixth Ed). Harlow: Pearson Educational. Kotter, John (1996) Leading Change McGregor D (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise, New York: McGraw Hill Moss Kanter, R (1983) The Change Masters Northouse, Peter G (1997) Leadership Theory and Practice Peters and Waterman (1982) In Search of Excellence Wheatley, Margaret J (1999) Leadership and the New Science Zalenznik, A (1997) Manager and Leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55, 67-68