Leadership Theory

Effectiveness of School Leadership and Management Development in

Cameroon by Frederick Ebot Ashu, Page 14-16

This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by Educational Leadership and
Management Studies (ELMS, ISSN 2056-6409 Online). It has been accepted for
inclusion in ELMS Collection by an authorized administrator. For more information,
please contact ebotashu@caassuk.org

Leadership Theory
Theories of leadership are usually one of the eight different types. While
transformational and distributional leadership theories have recently emerged, most
can be classified from “Great Man”, “Trait” theories, “Behavioural” theories to
“Distribution theories” (see table 2.1).

Table 2.1: From ‘Great Man’ to ‘Distribution’ Leadership

Great Man Theories The great man theory of management is one of the
most primitive theories used to develop an
understanding about management and leadership. The
great man theory argues that competence for
management is inborn–that great leaders are
extraordinary people, born with natural qualities,
destined to lead and not trained to become leaders. The
use of the term "great men", or heroes was highly
influential and intentional since, until the latter part of
the 20th century, management was considered to be a
notion which is first and foremost male, military and
western (Tchombe, 1997).
Trait Theories The trait theory of management was influential from
the 1900s to the 1950s and considered that managers
are born, and not made. The trait theory of
management is based on the measurement of
remarkable patterns of practice in an individual’s
behaviour - both successful and unsuccessful - and is
used to visualize management and leadership
effectiveness.
Behavioural Theories Behavioural management theories give attention to
what managers actually do rather than on their merits.
Different behavioural patterns are observed and
classified as ‘management styles ’. This area of
managing behaviours has certainly attracted most
consideration about leadership from practicing
managers than leaders themselves.
Situational Theories This theory, influential from the 50s to the late 60s,
sought to explain leaders' abilities by looking at the
influence of the situation on managers' expertise and
behaviours, leading to the concept of “situational
leadership”.
Contingency Theory Contingency theory is a behavioural theory based on
the claims that there is no best way to manage or lead
an organisation. To comprehend what adds value to
managers’ or leaders’ effectiveness, researchers used
the “contingency model” in exploring the relationship
between personality traits, situational variables, and
manager or leader effectiveness variables.
Transactional Theory Comparable to the contingency theory of management
is the transactional approach which emphasises the
importance of motivating and directing followers,
focusing on shared benefits derived from a form of
‘contract’ through which the leader distributes such
incentives as rewards or acknowledgement in return for
the dedication or loyalty of the followers (Northhouse,
2001).
Transformational Theory Leadership and Management studies of the 70s and 80s
on one occasion focused on the individual
characteristics of managers and leaders which power
their effectiveness and the achievements of their
organizational performance.
Distributed Theory Since the 1980s management and leadership
researchers have placed great importance on the call for
high-quality leadership practices. The model of
distributed leadership practices has been promoted, as
exemplified by the National Professional Qualification
(NPQH) for Headship, emphasises the role of a school
leader’s and organisation performance (Harris and
Spillane (2008)
Source: Adapted from Tchombe, 1997; Collins, 2002; Bolden et al., 2003; Harris and
Spillane, 2008.

This review explores in more detail the leadership theories that have become visible in
the literature since the 1980s, specifically: transformational leadership (Burns, 1978;
Bass, 1985; Collins, 2002; Lumby et al., 2008); and distributed leadership (Gronn,
2000; Spillane et al., 2001; Bennett et al., 2002; Harris and Spillane, 2008). These
leadership theories have had a particular influence on the content of leadership and
management preparatory programmes.

Transformational Leadership
The theory of “transformational leadership” initially was developed by Burns (1978)
and Bass (1985, 1998) and seek to add value on people’s philanthropic enthusiasm
and personal morals to accomplish great things (McGrath, 2003).
 Transformational leadership promotes knowledge, expertise development and leads to
higher levels of personal morality, motivation and commitment amongst ‘followers’
to the schools’ and educational system objectives (Collins, 2002).
As the leading leadership theory of the 1980’s, transformational leadership argues
that visionary leaders are responsible for the transformation (Collins, 2002) of an
organisation (Bass and Aviolo, 1990; Sergiovanni,1992; Goleman, 1998; Bush and
Glover, 2003; Lumby et al., 2008). Collins (2002) supposed that the supremacy of
transformational leadership in the 80s is the revelation of the organisation or central
system in the future, and their capability to communicate, progress, provide
information or services, and share that vision (Bush and Glover, 2003). These authors
suggest that transformational leaders create knowledge, expertise and a recognition of
goals and mission; that they stimulate support among colleagues for these goals to be
achieved, and are able to persuade followers because they invent meaning within their
school or the central educational system.

Distributed Leadership
Distributed leadership involves sharing leadership responsibilities across school or
educational systems. There is as yet no established meaning of the expression
distributed leadership (McGrath, 2003), nevertheless, drawing from Bennett et al.
(2002) it might be said to include three distinct elements:
Firstly, distributed leadership highlights leadership as an emergent property of a
group or network of interacting individuals. This contrasts with leadership as a
phenomenon which arises from the individual … Secondly, distributed
leadership suggests openness of boundaries of leadership … Thirdly,
distributed leadership entails the view that varieties of expertise are distributed
across the many not the few (p.89).
McGrath (2003) supports the above understanding, agreeing with the suggestion in
Harris (2002) that distributed leadership:
means multiple sources of guidance and direction following the contours of
expertise in an organisation, made coherent through a common culture (p. 89).
Lumby (2003) and Gronn (2002), looked into the management and leadership
distribution implications of transforming the role of aspiring school leaders so as to
build leadership capacity, manage resources and raise standards within and across
educational organisations. McGrath (2003) conceptualises the relationship between
delegation of the management tasks and responsibilities and leadership distribution,
drawing from both Spillane et al. (2001) and Gronn (2000) and suggested:
that it is the analysis of activity that leadership can be discerned, that leadership
does not exist in some Platonic abstract form but is created through the daily
exercise of roles in both macro and micro tasks (Lumby, 2003, p.287).
Rather than a delegated process, the above researchers see it as a natural collaboration
that results in democratic practice, meaning that the:
location of tasks can simultaneously reflect management delegation, a division
of responsibilities between individuals or teams, and also sharing of mutual
responsibility that creates a distribution of leadership (Lumby, 2003, p. 287).
The above definitions suggest that “distribution leadership has normative power”
(Harris and Spillane, 2008, p. 31). It may represent an alternative approach in that
leadership can be delegated, democratic and distributed within an existing structure
or culture in order to improve outcomes (Sergiovanni and Starratt, 1979; McGrath,
2003; Lumby, 2003). If these researchers are right and distributed leadership is made
consistent through common culture then the model of distributed leadership found in
schools may grant insights into the central educational system’s culture (McGrath,
2003).

REFERENCES

Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York:

The Free Press.
Bass. B.M. (1998) Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational
impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990) Developing Transformational Leadership: 1992
and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training. 14(5), 21-37.
Bennett, N., Harvey, J. A., Wise, C. and Woods, P. A. (2002) Distributed Leadership:
A Desk Study Review. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper Row.
Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2003) School Leadership Concepts and Evidence. A review
of the literature carried out for the NCSL. The University of Reading: A review of
the literature carried out for NCTL.
Collins, B. (2002) The Effectiveness of Managerial Leadership Development Programs:
A Meta-Analysis of Studies from 1982-2001. PHD Dissertation. Louisiana State
university: The School of Human Resources Education and Workforce
Development. [online]. Available from: http://www.etd.Isu.edu/docs/available/etd-
0607102-080200/unrest ricted/collins dis.pdf. [Accessed December 2010].
Goleman, D. (1998) Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantum
Books.
Gronn, P. (2000) ‘Distributed properties: a New Architecture for Leadership’, paper
presented to BEMAS Research 2000, Leading Educational Management in Learning
Societies: Research, Policy and Practice, the 6th International Educational
Management and Administration Research conference. 29-31 March, Cambridge:
Robinson College.
Gronn, P. (2002) ‘Distributed Leadership as a Unit of Analysis’. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13(1), 423-451.
Harris, A. (2002) Distributed Leadership in Schools: Leading or misleading? Paper
presented at the British Educational Leadership and Management Association
Annual Conference. Birmingham: University of Aston.
Harris, A. & Spillane, J. (2008) ‘Distribution leadership through the looking glass’.
British Educational Leadership, Management & Administration Society
(BELMAS), 22 (1), 31-34.
Lumby, J. (2003) Distribution Leadership in Colleges: Leading and Misleading.
Educational Management Administration Leadership, 31 (3), 283-293.
Lumby, J., Crow, G., Pashiardis, P. (2008) International Handbook on the
Preparation And Development Of School Leaders. New York: Routledge.
Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching. Second Edition. London: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (1992) Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard
Educational Review, 62 (3), 279–300.
McGrath, J. (2003) Leading in a Managerialist Paradigm: AQ Survey of Perceptions
within a faculty of Education. EdD Dissertation. Birmingham: University of
Birmingham.
nd
Northouse, P. (2001) Leadership: Theory and Practice (2 ed). London: Sage.
Sergiovanni, J.T. (1992) Moral Leadership-Getting to the Heart of School
Improvement. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. and Starratt, R. (1979) Supervision: Human Perspectives. New York:
Mcgraw-Hill International.
Tchombe, T. (1997) Structural Reforms in Education in Cameroon. Yaounde:
Cameroon. [online]. Available from:
http://www.educationdev.net/educationdev/Docs/Cameroon.PDF. [Accessed
December 2010].