Leadership

Leadership has probably been most written about, formally researched, and informally
discussed more than any other single topic. Despite all this attention given to
leadership, there is still considerable controversy.

In recent years, many theorists and practitioners have emphasized the difference
between managers and leaders.
Manager Characteristics
Administers
A copy
Maintains
Focus on systems & structure
Relies on control
Short-range view
Asks how and when
Eye on the bottom line
Imitates
Accepts the status quo
Classic good soldier
Does things right
Leader Characteristics
Innovates
An original
Develops
Focuses on people
Inspires trust
Long-range perspective
Asks what and why
Eye on the horizon
Originates
Challenges the status quo
Own person
Does the right thing

The Iowa Leadership Studies

A series of pioneering leadership studies conducted in the late 1930s by Ronald Lippitt
and Ralph K. White. They identified three different styles of leadership- authoritarian,
democratic, and laissez-faire. The authoritarian leader was very directive and allowed
no participation. This leader tended to give individual attention when praising and
criticizing, but tried to be friendly or impersonal rather than openly hostile. The
democratic leader encouraged group discussion and decision making. This leader tried
to be “objective” in giving praise or criticism and to be one of the group in spirit. The
laissez-faire leader gave complete freedom to the group; this leader essentially provided
no leadership.

The Ohio State Leadership Studies

The study identified two dimensions of leadership. They were consideration and
initiating structure. The initiating structure is task or goal orientation. The consideration
structure is recognition of individual needs and relationships orientation. These two
dimensions are separate and distinct from each other. The study was the first to point
out and emphasize the importance of both task and human dimensions in assessing
leadership.

The Michigan Leadership Studies

The Michigan leadership studies identified two distinct dimensions of leadership
behavior from their studies, which they labelled Job (or production), centered

1
leadership and employee centered leadership. The job-centered leadership
emphasized the broad technical and work-related aspects of the job. The employee-
centered leader, on the other hand, tended to emphasize on interpersonal relations and
the delegation of responsibilities.

Traditional Theories of Leadership

There are several distinct theoretical bases for leadership. At first, leaders were felt to
be born, not made. This so-called great person theory of leadership implied that some
individuals are born with certain traits that allow them to emerge out of any situation or
period of history to become leaders. Similar to research on personality, showing the
impact of genetics and neurology/brain research, there is recent interest in the role that
genetics and hardwiring may play in leadership. The great person approach became
associated with the trait theory of leadership. The trait approach is concerned mainly
with identifying the personality traits of the leader. It assumes that leaders are bigger,
brighter, and more intelligent than those being led. In recent years, however, with the
emergence of the importance of “Big Five” personality traits, the trait approach of
leadership effectiveness has resurfaced.

From Traits to States and Skills Development

The statelike (situationally based capacities, those open to development and change, as
opposed to the dispositional, relatively fixed traits) positive organizational behavior
constructs have potential for understanding and developing leadership. Specifically,
both intuitive and beginning research evidence indicate that optimism, resiliency,
emotional intelligence, and especially self-efficacy are related to effective leaders. Katz
identified the technical, conceptual, and human skills needed for effective
management. Yukl includes leadership skills such as creativity, organization,
persuasiveness, diplomacy, and tactfulness, knowledge of the task, and the ability to
speak well. Related to the skills approach is the study of leader “competencies.” One
stream of research has identified several competencies that are related to leadership
effectiveness: drive, motivation, integrity, self-confidence, intelligence, knowledge,
emotional intelligence.

Group and Exchange Theories of Leadership

The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Model

Relevant to the exchange view of leadership is the vertical dyad linkage (VDL) approach,
now commonly called leader- member exchange. LMX theory says that leaders treat
individual subordinates differently. In particular, leaders and subordinates develop
dyadic (two-person) relationships that affect the behavior of both leaders and
subordinates. Over time, the leader will develop an “in-group” of subordinates and an
“out-group” of subordinates and treat them accordingly. Graen and his colleagues have
emphasized that LMX has evolved through various stages: 1. The discovery of
differentiated dyads, the investigation of characteristics of LMX relationships and their

2
organizational implications/outcomes, 3. The description of dyadic partnership building,
4. The aggregation of differentiated dyadic relations to group and network levels.

Contingency Theory of Leadership

Researchers began the search for situational variables that affect leadership roles, skills,
behavior, and followers’ performance and satisfaction.

Fiedler’s Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness (1992)

Contingency model states that good leadership depends on matching or changing
appropriate leadership styles with the proper situation or best “fit.” This model
contained the relationship between leadership style and the favorableness of the
situation. Situational favorableness was described by Fiedler in terms of three
empirically derived dimensions:

1. The leader-member relationship- which is the most critical variable in determining

the situation’s favorableness
2. The degree of task structure- which is the second most important input into the
favorableness of the situation
3. The leader’s position power- obtained through formal authority, which is the third
most critical dimension of the situation.

Situations are favorable to the leader if all three of these dimensions are high. In other
words, if the leader is generally accepted and respected by followers (high first
dimension), if the task is very structured and everything is “spelled out” (high second
dimension), and if a great deal of authority and power are formally attributed to the
leader’s position (high third dimension), the situation is favorable. If the opposite exists
(if the three dimensions are low), the situation will be very unfavorable for the leader.
Fiedler concluded through his research that the favorableness of the situation in
combination with the leadership style determines effectiveness.

Through the analysis of research findings from all types of situations, Fiedler was able to
discover that under very favorable and very unfavorable situations, the task-directed, or
hard-nosed and authoritarian, type of leader was most effective. However, when the
situation was only moderately favorable or unfavorable (the intermediate range of
favorableness), the human-oriented or democratic type of leader was most effective.

The leader who makes a wrong decision in this highly unfavorable type of situation is
probably better off than the leader who makes no decision at all. In essence, what
Fiedler’s model suggests is that in highly unfavorable situations, the effective leader
takes charge and makes the decisions that need to be made to accomplish the task
without asking for input or trying to keep everyone happy.

3
Evans & House’s Path-Goal Leadership Theory (1990)
Path- Goal theory says that an effective leader is one who allows people to achieve their
own task-related and/or personal goals (the leader helps set goals, removes barriers,
and provides rewards). The other widely recognized theoretical development from a
contingency approach is the path-goal theory derived by Martin Evans and Robert
House. It incorporates four major types, or styles, of leadership:

1. Directive leadership- this style is similar to that of that of authoritarian leader.

Subordinates know exactly what is expected of them, and the leader gives specific
directions. There is no participation by subordinates.
2. Supportive leadership- the leader is friendly and approachable and shows a
genuine concern for subordinates.
3. Participative leadership- the leader asks for and uses suggestions from
subordinates but still makes the decisions.
4. Achievement- oriented leadership- the leader sets challenging goals for
subordinates and shows confidence that they will attain these goals and perform
well.

This path-goal theory suggests that these various styles can be and actually are used by
the same leader in different situations. Two of the situational factors that have been
identified are the personal characteristics of subordinates and the environmental
pressures and demands facing subordinates. Using one of the four styles contingent on
the situational factors as outlined, the leader attempts to influence subordinates’
perceptions and motivate them, which in turn leads to their role clarity, goal,
expectancies, satisfaction, and performance.

Subordinate
traits:
Locus of
control and/or
ability

Leader styles Outcomes

Subordinate
Directive Satisfaction
Supportive Perceptions
Role clarity
Participative Motivations
Goal clarity
Achievement Performance

Environmental
Forces:
Task trait
Formal authority system
Primary work group

4
Charismatic Leadership Theories
House’s charismatic leaders are who, by force of their personal abilities, are capable of
having a profound and extraordinary effect on followers. These leaders are high in need
for power, and have high feelings of self-efficacy and conviction in the moral rightness
of their beliefs. That is, the need for power motivates theses people to want to be
leaders. This need is then reinforced by their conviction of the moral rightness of their
beliefs. The feeling of self-efficacy, in turn, makes these people feel that they are
capable of being leaders. These traits then influence such charismatic behaviors as role
modeling, image building, articulating goals (focusing on simple and dramatic goals),
emphasizing high expectations, showing confidence, and arousing follower motives.

Jay Conger and Rabindra Kanungo have developed a three-stage charismatic leadership
model. In the initial stage, the leader critically evaluates the status quo. Deficiencies in
the status quo lead to formulations of future goals. Before developing these goals, the
leader assesses available resources and constraints that stand in the way of the goals.
The leader also assesses follower abilities, needs, and satisfaction levels. In the second
stage, the leader formulates and articulates the goals along with an idealized future
vision. Then in the third stage, the leader shows how these goals and the vision can be
achieved. The leader emphasizes innovative and unusual means to achieve the vision.

Transformational Leadership Theory

Burns identified two types of political leadership: transactional and transformational

Transactional Leaders

1. Contingent reward- contracts the exchange of rewards for effort; promises

rewards for good performance; recognizes accomplishments
2. Management by exception (active)- watches and searches for deviations from
rules and standards; takes corrective action
3. Management by exception (passive)- intervenes only if standards are not met
4. laissez-faire- abdicates responsibilities; avoids making decisions

Transformational Leaders

1. Charisma- vision and sense of mission; instills pride; gains respect and trust
2. Inspiration- communicates high expectations; uses symbols to focus efforts;
expresses important purposes in simple ways
3. Intellectual stimulation- promotes intelligence; rationality; and careful problem
solving

5
4. Individual consideration- gives personal attention; treats each employee
individually; coaches; advises

The Managerial Grid (1964)

The two dimensions of Blake and Mouton grid are “concern for people” along the
“concern for task”. The five basic styles identified in the grid represent varying
combinations of concern for people and task:

1. Low people and Low task (1, 1)- management exertion of minimum effort to get
required work done is appropriate to sustain organization membership.
2. High people and Low task (9, 1)- management thoughtful attention to needs of
people for satisfying relationships leads to a comfortable, friendly organization
atmosphere and work tempo.
3. Low people and High task (1, 9)- management efficiency in operations results from
arranging conditions of work in such a way that human elements interfere to a
minimum degree
4. Mid people and Mid task (5, 5)- management adequate organization performance
is possible through balancing the necessity to get out work with maintaining morale
of people at a satisfactory.
5. High people and High task (9, 9)- management work accomplishment is from
committed people; interdependence through a “common stake” in organization
purpose leads to relationships of trust and respect.

Hersey and Blanchard’s Leadership Theory (1998)

The approach identifies two major styles:

 Task style- the leader organizes and defines roles for members of the work group;
the leader explains the tasks that members are to do and when, where, and how
they are to do them.
 Relationship style- the leader has close, personal relationships with the members fo
the group, and there is open communication and psychological and emotional
support.

Hersey and Blanchard incorporated the maturity of the followers into their model. The
level of maturity is defined by three criteria:

1. Degree of achievement motivation

2. Willingness to take on responsibility
3. Amount of education and/or experience

Although they recognize that there may be other important situational variables, Hersey
and Blanchard focus only on this maturity level of work group members in their model.

6
The key for leadership effectiveness in this model is to match up the situation with the
appropriate style. The following summarizes the four basic styles:

1. Telling style- this is a high-task, low-relationship style and is effective when

followers are at a very low level of maturity
2. Selling style- this is a high-task, high-relationship style and is effective when
followers are on the low side of maturity
3. Participating style- this is a low-task, high-relationship style and is effective when
followers are on the high side of maturity
4. Delegating style- this is a low-task, low-relationship style and is effective when
followers are at a very high level of maturity

The Vroom-Jago Leader Participation Theory (1998)

The model is designed to help leaders choose a decision-making method for solving
problems. For example, with an authority decision, the leader makes the decision. With
a consultative decision, the leader consults others and them decides. And with a group
decision, both the leader and his or her followers participate and decide.

Drucker’s Three Essentials of Leadership

Over the decades one of the more down to earth management writers has been Peter
Drucker. The following list is Drucker’s explanation of what constitutes leadership:

1. Defining, communication, and establishing a sense of mission in a way that’s

understandable to others. This means establishing an organization’s direction,
priorities, and standards, and simply and effectively stating them. Put differently,
a leader is someone who, in the midst of chaos, is “the trumpet that sounds a
clear note.
2. Treating leadership as a responsibility rather than a rank. Good leaders accept
their weaknesses and surround themselves with talented people. Doing so
means they’re not afraid to develop strong and capable subordinates and they
don’t blame others when things go wrong. Although effective leaders do not
normally treat all people similarly, they don’t appear unfair when doing so.
3. Earing and maintaining the trust of others. Effective leaders display above-
average levels of integrity despite evidence that suggest they sometimes lack in
morals.

7
Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence

1. Self- Awareness- the ability to recognize and understand yours moods,

emotions, and drives, as well as their effect on others. It includes self -
confidence, realistic self-assessment, and self-deprecating sense of humor.
2. Self -regulation- the ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods
and the propensity to suspend judgment- to think before acting. It includes
trustworthiness and integrity, comfort with ambiguity, openness to change.
3. Motivation- a passion to work for reasons that go beyond money or status and a
propensity to pursue goals with energy and persistence. It includes strong drive
to achieve, optimism, even in the face of failure, and organizational commitment.
4. Empathy- the ability to understand the emotional makeup of other people and
skill in treating people according to their emotional reactions. It includes
expertise in building and retaining talent, cross-cultural sensitivity, and service to
clients and customers.
5. Social skill- proficieny in managing relationships and building networks and
ability to find common ground and built rapport. It includes effectiveness in
leading change, persuasiveness, and expertise in building and leading teams.

Jim Collins Level 5 Leadership

The level 5 leader sits on top of hierarchy of capabilities and is, according to Collins, a
necessary requirement for transforming an organization form good to great. But what
lies beneath? Four other layers, each on appropriate in its own right but none with the
power of Level 5. Individuals don not need to proceed sequentially through each level of
the hierarchy to reach the top, but to be a full-fledged Level 5 requires the capabilities
of all the lower levels, plus the special characteristics of Level 5.
Level 1 (Highly Capable Individual) - makes productive contributions through talent,
knowledge skills, and good work habits.

Level 2 (Contributing Team Member) - contributes to the achievement of group

objectives; works effectively with others in a group setting.

Level 3 (Competent Manager) – organizes people and resource toward the effective and
efficient pursuit of predetermined objectives.

Level 4 (Effective Leader) – catalyzes commitment to and vigorous pursuit of a clear and
compelling vision; stimulates the group to high performance standards.

Level 5 (Executive) – builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical combination of

personal humility plus professional will.