Understanding Leadership

Leadership is a process, involves influences, occurs within a group context, and involves
goal achievement (Northouse, 2004). Leadership is a process for it involves transactional and
interactive events that appear between the leader and followers and become available for
everyone, not only the formally assigned leader in the group. Leadership relates to influence that
is on how the leaders affect the followers significantly towards mutual cooperation. Leadership
occurs in groups either small or big groups that make impacts on each individual who has a
common purpose. Lastly, leadership involves the group’s goal achievement where the leaders
guide their followers to achieve their common goals together. With these claims, Northouse
(2004) defined leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal.

Theories on Leadership

Different authorities advanced different theories on leadership. These theories on

leadership are the great man theory, trait theory, situational leadership theory, behavioural
theory, participative theory, management theory, and the relationship theory.

The Great Man Theory. The great man theory of leadership assumes that leadership is
inherent and that great leaders are born and not made (Bass, 1990). This implies great leaders are
born with the innate ability to lead others. Knab (2009) stated that leaders naturally possess
certain characteristics of leadership. This theory assumes that leaders will ascend when the need
for them is necessary. This theory progresses into what is now known as the trait theory
(Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991).

The Trait Theory. The trait theory of leadership, according to Waters (2013), examines
human personality such as traits, habitual patterns of behaviour, thought, and emotion and claims
that leadership is rooted in the characteristics of the leader. Just like the great man theory, the
trait theory asserts that the traits of a leader are inherent and innate and that a leader is born and
not developed. Cragg and Spurgeon (2007) stated that this theory suggests that individuals are
born leaders and have an innate dominance about them that naturally gives them positions of
power or importance, that is, leadership is a trait leaders are born with rather than an ability they
develop over time.

Moreover, Adair (1988) claimed that under the trait theory, the traits of leaders are
charisma, intelligence, and courage. On the other hand, Taylor (1994) said that the traits are
character, appearance, social background, intellect, and ability. Meanwhile, Bass (1990)
categorized five trait categories which successful leaders have, namely, accomplishment,
accountability, contribution, status, and situation. In the same way, Kirkpatirck and Locke (1991)
established six traits that differentiate leaders from non-leaders as drive, desire to lead, honesty
and integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and business knowledge.

The Situational Leadership Theory. The situational leadership theory claims that there
is no one best way to lead. According to Waters (2013), under this theory, effective leaders are
those who can adapt their leadership style to the setting for which they are responsible. This
theory maintains that leadership style is characterized in terms of task and relationship behaviors
and claims that there are four main leadership styles – telling, selling, participating, and
delegating. The theory states that not one of the four leadership styles is optimal for use
individually, either at once or all the time; and, that the best leadership style depends on the
maturity level of the individuals in the group.

Situational leadership entails that a person emerges as a leader through specific situations
and contexts. According to Cragg and Spurgeon (2007), situational leadership implies that
leadership potential is embedded in each individual and that leadership is often dictated by
workplace settings and may take place at the individual or a collective level. This understanding
about situational leadership paves the way for the contingency theory and path-goal theory of
leadership.

The contingency theory of leadership is built upon the idea that a leader expresses
behaviour that is contingent upon a specific situation at a specific time. This theory claims that
no single leadership style is best when designing organizational structures. The theory asserts
that the suitability of a particular style of leadership is determined by relating it to set of
variables associated with the organization’s environment (Burns, et al., 2009). Furthermore, this
theory asserts that there are three factors which determine the influence which a leader has over
others, namely, leader-member relations, follower-task structure, and leader-position power
(Jago and Vroom, 2007). According to Hackman and Johnson (2000), leader-member relation is
the relationship denoting trust, loyalty, respect, and affection between the leader and the
follower. Follower-task structure is the flexibility or lack thereof with the performance of a task
by the follower (Hackman and Johnson, 2000). Hackman and Johnson (2000) said that leader-
position power is when the leader has the authority to give incentives or punishment to the
follower.

On the other hand, the path-goal theory of leadership, according to Knab (2009), is based
upon the idea that leaders will be more successful if they explain the path followers need to take
in order to receive incentives. Knab (2009) also claimed that leaders need to increase the quantity
of incentives available to others. Moreover, according to Jago and Vroom (2007), the path-goal
theory of leadership suggests that the leader’s role is to create and manage subordinate paths
toward individual and group goals, to clarify expectations, and to supplement the environment
when sufficient rewards from the environment are lacking. Jago and Vroom (2007) added that
there are four types of leadership behaviors that exist in this theory of leadership – directive,
achievement-oriented, participative, and supportive – and that leaders can assume any of these
four types depending on the situation at the time. Hence, Lunenberg and Orenstein (2004) said
that the path-goal theory of leadership presumes that leaders are flexible as the situation requires
them to be.

Meanwhile, Northhouse (2004) said that there are four types of leadership style under this
theory of leadership: directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating. Northouse (2004) further
said that leaders should reflect upon circumstances to determine the style needed to be effective
leaders.

Upon the other hand, Bolman and Deal (1997) looked at the path-goal theory of
leadership into four major perspectives which they called frames. The four frames are the
structural frame, the human resource frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame. The
structural frame is to be used when there is a stable authority and little conflict. The human
resource frame is to be used when there is low morale. The political frame is to be used when
there are limited resources. Lastly, the symbolic frame is to be used when there is confusion and
uncertainty among the group. The authors suggested that leaders can be in a particular frame
depending on the situation and the environment at a particular time and leaders should be
knowledgeable of all four frames and not be contingent upon only one or two.

The Behavioral Theory of Leadership. The behavioural theory of leadership focuses on

the behaviour of the leader, rather than the qualities, traits, or internal situations. It asserts that a
leader is made and not born. Thus, the theory claims that a follower may become a leader by
learning how to become so through the teaching and observation, knowledge and understanding
of good leadership practice Bennis (1989).

The Participative Theory of Leadership. The participative leadership theory, according

to Bennis (1989), asserts that the minds of many make better decisions than the judgment of a
single mind alone. This theory maintains: that the behavior of a leader is central to achieving
successful outcomes within the organization; that when the leader takes into account the opinions
of the members, then he will ultimately be more valued and appreciated, and that, in turn, the
members will be more dedicated to the decision-making practices as well as becoming more
actively involved.

The Relationship Theory of Leadership. The relationship theory of leadership is also

known as the transformational theory (Bass, 1985). According to Bass (1985), relationship
theory focuses on positive transformation and positive change in the leader and the members
with the organization and the organization itself.

Furthermore, Sagnak (2010) defined transformational leaders as those who increase the
interest of the staff in waiting to achieve higher performance and also those who develop and
reveal commitments and beliefs for the organization. According to Ediger (2009),
transformational leaders inspire their followers to do more than what is expected of them by
raising their level of knowledge about the paths they need to be on and the outcomes of those
paths. On the other hand, Horan (1999) said that the overriding element of successful
transformational leadership is to involve people in the process of leading.

With the assumptions of transformational leadership theory, Kouzes and Posner (2002)
established five practices of exemplary transformational leaders. These five practices are: model
the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the
heart. Modelling the way represents leaders who are leading by example. Leaders set examples
for others in the organization by the leader being involved in what is expected of others.
Inspiring a shared vision is when the leader can express the vision of his organization to others in
a way that shows enthusiasms and finds commonality among the group. Challenging the process
is how the leader evaluates the group and then uses innovative ways to improve. Enabling others
to act is the leader’s ability to create trust among the group and encourage shared leadership to
create teamwork so the group can work toward the organizational goals. Lastly, encouraging the
heart refers to the leader showing appreciation and that he cares about the group and the
organization.

The Management Theory of Leadership. The management theory of leadership is also

known as transactional theory (Bass, 1985). It stresses on leader-subordinate exchange, the role
of the leader, the organization and the overall performance of the group.

According to Leithwood and Janzi (1999), a transactional leader is more like a manager
who oversees human resources, financial resources, materials and technology and ensures that
subordinates receive the materials they need. A transactional leader focuses only on the basic
needs of their staff but do not have the characteristics to provide motivation, satisfaction, or
commitment.

Leadership Styles

Having different theories on leadership, then leadership styles also vary. The most
common leadership styles are identified by Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2002) as visionary,
coaching, democratic, affiliative, pacesetting, and commanding. According to Goleman (2006),
the first four styles – visionary, coaching, democratic, and affiliative - are associated with having
a positive climate where individuals are eager to do their best. Upon the other hand, the last two
styles – pacesetting and commanding – are associated with having a negative climate and success
is generally not accomplished with the exception of situations that are considered life-threatening
(Goleman, 2006). Moreover, Fontaine, Malloy, and Spreier (2006), said that each style has its
own strengths and challenges and is useful in specific situations. The authors added that the most
successful leaders are skilled in all six leadership styles and know when to use the correct style
for the circumstance.

Visionary Leadership Style. Fullan (2001) said that the visionary leadership style is
known to some as authoritative and directs the group to a common goal. However, according to
Fontaine, Malloy, and Spreier (2006), visionary leaders gain support of others not by telling
others what to do, but by being open to the group in terms of challenges and responsibilities, as
well as the direction and goals which it needs to accomplish. Hearn (2013) said that visionary
leaders do not just make themselves knowledgeable on the direction the organization is headed,
but they ensure that everyone involved is knowledgeable of the direction. The author further said
that visionary leaders bring out the best in others while creating a shared sense of purpose
through the group. Moreover, Hearn (2013) said that visionary leadership requires core values,
clear vision, empowering relationships, and innovative action. Core values are demonstrated by
expressing a sense of honesty and releasing a sense of drive, strength, and determination. A clear
vision is demonstrated by the leader who visualizes their future and the direction on how to get
there through knowing what is possible. Relationships are empowered by the leader being
compassionate, treating others with kindness, and making them feel as if they are the greatest
asset to the organization. Hearn (20130) said that if a leader does not encompass all of the
dimensions, a vision cannot be established.

Coaching Leadership Style. Coaching leadership style is a tool for investing in the
future by teaching behaviors, techniques, and procedures to the people of the organization for
their success (Mills, 2007). According to Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2002), the coaching
leader assists individuals with their personal development in their career through determining
their strengths and weaknesses and providing them with the knowledge and tools to accomplish
their goals. Moreover, Fullan (2001) said that this leadership style is a situational type style and
is most effective when the follower is knowledgeable that there is a weakness and is receptive to
the concept of change.

Democratic Leadership Style. The democratic leadership style, also known as

participative leadership style, involves other individuals in decision making (Goleman, 2006).
Democratic or participative leaders, according to Mills (2007), must be clear and decisive about
the direction in which the group needs to go so the group does not consume too much time on a
decision). Around-Thomas (2004) said that this leadership style is most suitable in situations
where the leader needs input, guidance,
or buy-in from other members of the group.

The Affiliative Leadership Style. Mills (2007) said that the affiliative leader is known
for putting his followers above the organization. James (2011) stated that an affiliative leader is
greatly successful at building relationships, trust, and harmony within a group. Affirming the
preceding, Haller (2011) said that the leader of this style values the feelings and emotions of the
people he leads rather than the tasks and goals of the organization. This type of leader believes
that by building strong emotional bonds among others in the group, success will come through
loyalty.

The Pacesetting Leadership Style. Goleman (2006) said that leaders who lead by
example are known as pacesetting leaders. The pacesetting leader pushes himself and members
of the team to achieve levels never achieved before. Members of the team who are poor
performers are identified by the leader and expected to perform as the others in the group, or they
risk being replaced. According to Mills (2007), a pacesetting leader is never satisfied with the
achievements of the team, but is always trying to perform at levels never reached before and
even some which may seem impossible to reach.

The Commanding Leadership Style. The commanding leadership style is commonly

known as authoritarian or directive (Fontaine, Malloy, Spreier, 2006). According to Greenfield
(2007), this type leadership is very demanding of compliance from everyone in the group. Fullan
(2001) said that the commanding leader tells the members of the group exactly what to do and
when it is expected to be done.

Management and Leadership

Management is a process that is similar to leadership in many ways. According to

Northouse (2010), management involves influence, as does leadership. Management entails
working with people, which leadership entails as well. Management is concerned with effective
goal accomplishment, and so is leadership. In general, many of the functions of leadership are
activities that are consistent with the definition of management.

But management is also different from leadership. According to Northouse (2010), the
study of management only emerged around the turn of the 20th century whereas the study of
leadership can be traced back as far Aristotle of Ancient Greece. According to Kotter (1990),
management was created as a way to reduce chaos in organizations, to make them run more
effectively and efficiently. Its primary functions are planning, organizing, staffing, and
controlling. With these functions, Kotter (1990) differentiates management from leadership as:

Table 1
Difference between Management and Leadership by Kotter (2000)
Management Leadership
1. Produces order and consistency 1. Produces change and movement
2. It is about planning and budgeting such as 2. It is about establishing directions such as
establishing agendas, setting timetables, and creating a vision, clarifying big pictures and
allocating resources setting strategies.
3. It is about organizing and staffing such as 3. It is about aligning people such as
providing structures, making job placements, communicating goals, seeking commitment,
and establishing rules and procedures. and building teams and coalitions.
4. It is about controlling and problem solving 4. It is about motivating and inspiring such as
such as developing incentives, generating inspiring and energizing, empowering
creative solutions, and taking corrective actions subordinates, and satisfying unmet needs.

Bennis and Nanus (1985) also maintain that management is different from leadership.
The authors say that to manage means to accomplish activities and master routines while to lead
means to influence other and create visions for change. Thus, managers are people who do things
right while leaders are people who do the right thing.

Rost (1991) says that:

1. Management is a unidirectional authority relationship while leadership is a

multidirectional influence relationship;
2. Management is directed toward coordinating activities in order to get a job done while
leadership is concerned with the process of developing mutual purposes; and,
3. Managers and subordinates join forces to sell goods and services while leaders and
followers work together to create real change.
In the same vein, Zaleznik (1977) states that managers are reactive, prefer to work with
people to solve problems but do so with low emotional involvement, and they act to limit
choices; whereas, leaders are emotionally alive, involved, shapes ideas instead of responding to
them, and acts to expand the available options to solve long-standing problems. The author
further claims that leaders change the way people think about what is possible.
It has to be noted that from the discussion, although there are clear differences between
management and leadership, the two constructs overlap.