THEORIES

OF

LEADERSHIP
 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.COM

Leadership is one of the most salient aspects of the

organizational context. However, defining leadership
has been challenging. The following sections discuss
several important aspects of leadership including a
description of what leadership is and a description of
several popular theories and styles of leadership.
THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP
Leadership has been described as the process of social
influence in which one person can enlist the aid and
support of others in the accomplishment of a common
task. A definition more inclusive of followers comes
from Alan Keith who said "Leadership is ultimately
about creating a way for people to contribute to making
something extraordinary happen."
TRAIT THEORY
Trait theory tries to describe the types of behavior and
personality tendencies associated with effective
leadership. This is probably the first academic theory of
leadership. Thomas Carlyle (1841) can be considered
one of the pioneers of the trait theory, using such
approach to identify the talents, skills and physical
characteristics of men who arose to power. (1994) traces
the trait theory approach back to the nineteenth-
century tradition of associating the history of society to
the history of great men.
Proponents of the trait approach usually list leadership
qualities, assuming certain traits or characteristics will
tend to lead to effective leadership. Shelley Kirkpatrick
and Edwin A. Locke (1991) exemplify the trait theory.
They argue that "key leader traits include: drive (a
broad term which includes achievement, motivation,
ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative), leadership
motivation (the desire to lead but not to seek power as
an end in itself), honesty, integrity, self-confidence
(which is associated with emotional stability), cognitive
ability, and knowledge of the business. According to
their research, "there is less clear evidence for traits
such as charisma, creativity and flexibility".
Criticism to Trait Theory
Although trait theory has an intuitive appeal, difficulties
may arise in proving its tenets, and opponents
frequently challenge this approach. The "strongest"
versions of trait theory see these "leadership
characteristics" as innate, and accordingly label some
people as "born leaders" due to their psychological
makeup. On this reading of the theory,
leadership development involves identifying and
measuring leadership qualities, screening potential
leaders from non-leaders, then training those with
potential.
This theory was appealing because it seemed so
straightforward – identify those leaders who have
been successful, isolate their traits, and assume
that all persons who possessed these traits
would be effective also.
Trait theory ran into difficulty rather quickly,
however, in attempting to pinpoint the specific
kinds and number of traits held in common by
successful leaders. Traits that seemed intuitively
connected with effective leaders – intelligence,
independence, friendliness, ambition, integrity,
enthusiasm – were found to be present in both
leaders and non-leaders and never uniformly
present in effective leaders.
Most serious trait theory research ended in the 1950s
because of the frustration of being unable to pin down a
reliable set of traits associated with effective leadership.
Trait theory was the point of departure, however, for more
intensive thought about the nature of leadership. What
would have been the implications for management had
the trait approach proved successful? For one thing, it
might have suggested that one could not learn to become
an effective leader because individuals were either born
with leadership qualities or were not. Those born with the
proper traits would then be promoted to managerial
positions, and those that did not have them would have
been left out. Many current managers today, we are sure,
are thankful that trait theory bore no more fruit than it did.
BEHAVIORAL AND STYLE THEORIES
In response to the criticism of the trait approach,
theorists began to research leadership as a set of
behaviors, evaluating the behavior of 'successful'
leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy and
identifying broad leadership styles. David McClelland,
for example, saw leadership skills, not so much as a set
of traits, but as a pattern of motives. He claimed that
successful leaders will tend to have a high need for
power, a low need for affiliation, and a high level of
what he called activity inhibition (one might call it
self-control).
SITUATIONAL AND CONTINGENCY THEORIES
This theory assumes that different situations call for
different characteristics; according to this group of
theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a
leader exists. According to the theory, "what an
individual actually does when acting as a leader is in
large part dependent upon characteristics of the
situation in which he functions."
Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational
approaches. Building upon the research of Lewin et al., academics
began to normatize the descriptive models of leadership climates,
defining three leadership styles and identifying in which situations
each style works better. The authoritarian leadership style, for
example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the
"hearts and minds" of their followers in the day-to-day
management; the democratic leadership style is more adequate in
situations that require consensus building; finally, the laissez faire
leadership style is appreciated by the degree of freedom it provides,
but as the leader does not "take charge", he can be perceived as a
failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems. Thus,
theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the
situation, which is sometimes classified as contingency theory.
Four contingency leadership theories appear more prominently in
the recent years: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton
decision model, the path-goal theory, and the Hersey-Blanchard
situational theory.
The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader’s effectiveness
on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency. This
results from the interaction of leadership style and situational
favorableness (later called "situational control"). The theory
defined two types of leader: those who tend to accomplish the
task by developing good-relationships with the group
(relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime
concern carrying out the task itself (task-oriented). According
to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and
relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their
leadership orientation fits the situation. When there is a good
leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high
leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable
situation". Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more
effective in extremely favourable or unfavourable situations,
whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in
situations with intermediate favourability.
Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton
(1973) and later with Arthur Jago (1988), developed a
taxonomy for describing leadership situations,
taxonomy that was used in a normative decision model
where leadership styles where connected to situational
variables, defining which approach was more suitable to
which situation. This approach was novel because it
supported the idea that the same manager could rely on
different group decision making approaches depending
on the attributes of each situation. This model was later
referred as situational contingency theory.
The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert
House (1971) and was based on the expectancy theory of Victor
Vroom. According to House, the essence of the theory is "the
meta proposition that leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors
that complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a
manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to
subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit
performance. The theory identifies four leader behaviors,
achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive, that
are contingent to the environment factors and follower
characteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the
path-goal model states that the four leadership behaviors are
fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on
what the situation demands. The path-goal model can be
classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the
circumstances, but also as a transactional leadership theory, as
the theory emphasizes the reciprocity behavior between the
leader and the followers.
The situational leadership model proposed by Hersey
and Blanchard suggests four leadership-styles and four
levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the
model posits that the leadership-style must match the
appropriate level of followership-development. In this
model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only
of the characteristics of the leader, but of the
characteristics of followers as well.
FUNCTIONAL THEORY
Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) is a
particularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to
contribute to organizational or unit effectiveness. This theory argues that the
leader’s main job is to see that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken
care of; thus, a leader can be said to have done their job well when they have
contributed to group effectiveness and cohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991;
Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton, 1986). While functional
leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership (Zaccaro,
Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also been effectively applied to broader
organizational leadership as well (Zaccaro, 2001). In summarizing literature
on functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001),
Hackman and Walton (1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson
(2005)), Klein, Zeigert, Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed five broad functions
a leader perform when promoting organisation's effectiveness. These
functions include: (1) environmental monitoring, (2) organizing subordinate
activities, (3) teaching and coaching subordinates, (4) motivating others, and
(5) intervening actively in the group’s work.
A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to
facilitate these functions. In initial work identifying
leader behavior, Fleishman (Fleishman, 1953) observed
that subordinates perceived their supervisors’ behavior
in terms of two broad categories referred to as
consideration and initiating structure. Consideration
includes behavior involved in fostering effective
relationships. Examples of such behavior would include
showing concern for a subordinate or acting in a
supportive manner towards others. Initiating structure
involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on
task accomplishment. This could include role
clarification, setting performance standards, and
holding subordinates accountable to those standards.
TRANSACTIONAL AND TRANSFORMATIONAL
THEORIES

The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given power to

perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the
team’s performance. It gives the opportunity to the
manager to lead the group and the group agrees to
follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in
exchange for something else. Power is given to the
leader to evaluate, correct and train subordinates when
productivity is not up to the desired level and reward
effectiveness when expected outcome is reached.
The transformational leader (Burns, 2008) motivates its
team to be effective and efficient. Communication is the
base for goal achievement focusing the group on the
final desired outcome or goal attainment. This leader is
highly visible and uses chain of command to get the job
done. Transformational leaders focus on the big
picture, needing to be surrounded by people who take
care of the details. The leader is always looking for
ideas that move the organization to reach the
company’s vision.
 McFarland, D. (1979). Management: Foundations and Practices. Fifth Edition. Macmillan
Publishing Co., Inc. Canada.

LEADERSHIP: THEORY AND RESEACH

A basic definition of leadership is the ability of an individual to

influence others to work beyond ordinary levels to achieve goals.
Such a definition applies particularly to leadership within
organizations, although it could also apply to the leadership of
great men influence in the community and society.

Leadership is more fully defined as a complex phenomenon

combining the personal traits of individuals as well as significant
variables in group or organizational contexts. The earliest
theories of leadership focused almost exclusively on personality
traits, whereas current theory emphasizes the context elements.
Research on leadership can be divided into three
interrelated categories:

(1) the early period, which focused largely on traits

and which viewed leadership as one-dimensional,

(2) the discovery that leadership is multidimensional,

(3) the discovery of the importance of the situational

and contextual factors that produce a contingency
approach to leadership.
TRAIT THEORY
The earliest theories sought to establish the personal
traits necessary for effective leaders. Until the middle
1940s, leadership research centered on identifying the
traits or personal characteristics of individual leaders.
Such traits as honesty and, loyalty, ambition,
aggressiveness, initiative, and drive were deemed
important. The earliest theories held that traits are
inherited, and certain people are born to leaders. Traits
are carried in the genes, and persons endowed with
appropriate traits were “natural” leaders. Later, these
theories held that traits could also be developed through
learning and experience.
Studies of successful leaders nearly always indicated
that there were similarities in personality and
character traits; but many good leaders did not possess
the expected traits, and the presence of the traits did
not reliably predict leadership behavior. Moreover,
traits theory failed to consider the influence of
situational factors. Leadership cannot be understood
apart from its relationship to contexts as well as to
individuals. It has not been possible to identify
universal, specific traits common to all leaders; and the
degree to which managers possess given traits does not
vary directly with measures of effective leadership.
Gouldner cites the following additional weaknesses in trait theory:
1. lists of traits usually do not indicate which ones are most
important and which are least important;

2. traits are often not mutually exclusive – as, for example, in

the case of judgment and common sense;

3. trait studies do not distinguish between traits that are

needed for acquiring leadership and those that are
necessary for maintaining it;

4. trait studies describe, but do not analyze, behavior

patterns; and

5. the trait theory is based on debatable assumptions

regarding personality, which for example, ignore the fact
that a personality is not the mere summation of a collection
of traits, but is a function of the total organization of the
individual.
MULTIDIMENSIONAL THEORIES
Early theories viewed leadership behavior as scalable
in a single continuum, such as the range between
authoritarian versus democratic. With the decline of
trait theories, researches turned to studies of the
relation of leaders’ behavior to desired outcomes such
as job performance or employee satisfaction. These
studies introduced the concept of the situation;
because they also considered personality effects, at
least two dimensions were needed to explain
leadership.
SITUATIONAL AND CONTINGENCY
THEORIES
In the third period of theoretical development, the
situational dimension became a central focus, although
leadership traits have not been completely discarded.
Situational approaches view leadership as a group or
organizational process in which the context greatly
influences leadership behavior. The situational view
emphasizes interpersonal relationships and defines
leadership as a process of influence.
A purely situational view of leadership has one
shortcoming: it fails to take into account that
leadership is a complex process in which the
individual’s traits may well play a part. Like trait
theories, the situational theories by themselves
represent a limited and incomplete explanation. The
situationists may be overlooking the possibility that at
least some traits influence people to attain leadership
responsibilities and that in some cases traits may
increase the chances of their becoming leaders.
PATH-GOAL THEORY
Path-goal theory is based on recent theories of motivation. It is
a situational theory built around two propositions:
1. the leader’s function is supplemental, and
2. the motivational impact of a leader is determined by the
situation. The situational elements include the
characteristic of followers, as well as the environmental
demands and pressures that affect the work and needs
of subordinates. House, the originator of path-goal
theory, believes that the leader behavior is acceptable
to a subordinates to the degree that they perceive it as
an immediate or future source of satisfaction. If
subordinates have needs they can fulfill independently,
they will tend to perceive a considerate leader as a
source of satisfaction. If they are highly task-oriented,
they may desire a more directive leader.
Path-goal theory focuses on the perceptions and
expectations of subordinates, regarding the relation of
effort to performance, the relation of performance to
the expectations of reward, and the strength of the
subordinate’s desire for the rewards expected. The
leader is viewed as a motivator whose task is to increase
personal payoffs to subordinates who attain work goals,
and make the path to these rewards easier by clarifying
it, eliminating pitfalls or blocks to progress, and
providing sources of satisfaction along the way.
CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
In his studies of bureaucracy, Max Weber described prebureauctratic
leadership as charismatic. The leader with charisma is one whose
authority has a legitimacy based on charismatic ground – that is, on
“devotion to the specific and exceptional sanctity, heroism or
exemplary character of an individual person of the normative
patterns or order revealed or ordained by him. Charisma is a
mystical, inspirational quality that some persons reflect in their
social relations. The charismatic leader leads by inspiring – by
winning the emotional commitments of followers and by arousing
their loyalty and enthusiasm. However, Zaleznik and Moment
conclude that this kind of emotional interaction is a mass
phenomenon, rather than a group event in which problem-solving
goals and methodologies evoke rational action. Furthermore,
although the charismatic leader is highly influential, he strives for
general goals rather than detailed ones. He does not consciously try
to engineer measurable outcomes, and his leadership has a
ritualistic, symbolic element. Therefore charisma is less appropriate
for conceptualizing leadership in organizations than are the
situational based theories we have described. Charismatic
individuals are more often found leading social movements in the
THE GREAT ORGANIZERS
There are organizational leaders who exhibit a degree of
charisma. An example is found in the “great organizers”
– men of vast ambition, talent, and energy that they
devoted to the building of huge industrial empires.
Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, and Walter P. Chrysler
are examples. Such men were not entirely charismatic,
yet they had style and commanded a following partly
because of what they were as well as because of what
they knew. Most were hard-working, astute individuals
who could successfully exploit financial and industrial
opportunities. They were men of action, able to
command the allegiance of able followers. In their
relationships with others, however, they remained
dominant.
Leadership of the “great-organizer” type is far less possible
today, although we are perhaps seeing a resurgency of it in the
empire builders who put together huge conglomerate firms.
Some see the conglomerate – the firm built by mergers and
acquisitions and having widely diversified product lines – as
one element in the important transformation from bureaucratic
administration to vigorous, get-up-and-go organizations that
create and take advantage of change. However, although the
managers have charismatic traits, and many have the qualities
of creativity needed by conglomerates, the vast majority do
their work within the bureaucratic mold. Organizations
manufacture their own leaders to their specifications.
Leadership is thus more of a bureaucratic construct than a
charismatic force. All leaders employ their personalities in the
leadership process, but most play their roles as members of
teams rather than as dominant personalities. To let an
organization rely too strongly on a single leader is to jeopardize
the security of the organization if the “great leader” is lost.
BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LEADERHIP
Because of the many inherent problems and ambiguities
with the trait approach, attention shifted to other notions
of leadership. Prominent in the thinking of the 1950s was
what come to be known as the behavioral theory of
leadership. The view of behavioral theory was that what
makes a leader effective is simply what the leader does,
quite independent of personal traits. The focus in this
theory, then, was more on leader effectiveness than in
personal attribute or characteristics. Behavioral theory
had intuitive appeal because it centered around efforts to
discover the behaviors in which good leaders engaged.
The early efforts in behavioral theory identified such
behaviors as communication, delegation, motivation,
planning, handling meetings, and so on, as desirable
leader behaviors. One real value of the theory was its
implication that leaders need not to be born as such but
could be trained to do the right things.
CONTINGENCY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP
There is more ambiguity in the leadership literature as to whether
situational theory and contingency theory are one and the same.
The two terms are often used interchangeably, and this adds to
the problem. For our purposes, however, we have chosen to
treat situational and contingency theory separately but to
acknowledge similarities between the two. Whereas some
researchers have tended to place Tannebaum and Schmidt’s into
behavioral theory, we noted in the last section how their efforts
formed a bridge with situational theory, and therefore, could be
considered a situational theory. Another way of looking at the
similarities between situational theory and contingency theory is
to suggest that whereas situational theory states that leadership
style depends on the situation (without suggesting which style is
appropriate for which situation), contingency theory goes one
step further and attempts to suggest the type of leadership style
that will be effective in specific kinds of situations. Thus,
contingency theory, in a sense, represents an evolution in
sophistication of situational leadership theory.
In developing the view that particular leadership styles
work best under certain conditions, several key concepts
must be presented. The two major concepts are
situational favorableness and leadership style. Fiedler
suggests that the performance of group is contingent
upon the interaction of situational favorableness and
leadership style. More simply stated, the contingency
theory addresses the question, “What kind of leadership
for what kind of situation?” A brief review of the major
concepts will be helpful in understanding Fiedler’s
theory.
Situational Favourableness
The favourableness of a situation for a leader consists
of three main elements; (1) leader-member relations,
(2) task structure, and (3) position power of the leader.

Leader-Member Relations. Fiedler’s basic view is that

leaders have more power and influence if they have a
good working relationship with their members
(employees, subordinates, co-workers) than if they do
not. Thus, the more friendly the leader-member
relations, the easier it is for the leader to obtain good
group cooperation and effort. Leader-member
relations can range from good to poor.
Task Structure. If a task is more highly structured,
specified, or programmed, the situation is more favorable
for the leader. In these situations the leader has more
influence. As Fiedler states:

It is easier, for example, to be a leader whose task it is to set up

a sales display according to clearly delineated steps than it is to
be a chairman of a committee preparing a new sales campaign.

The structure, then, can range from high to low.

Position Power. The position power facet of situational
favorableness refers to the leader’s ability to influence the
behavior of others by the use of coercive, legitimate, or
reward power that is inherent in the job. Thus, for
example, if the leader’s position has been vested with
such prerogatives as hiring and firing, being able to
discipline, to reprimand, and so on, the leader’s position
in relation to members is strong. If a foreman has been
given this type of authority, his position power would be
stronger, for example, than that of a chairperson of a local
charity in the community. Position power can range from
strong to weak. These three elements define the
favorableness of the situation for the leader. If the leader
has good leader-member relations, a highly structured
task, and strong position power, overall situation is said
to be favorable for the leader.
Leadership Style
The second major concept necessary to understand the
contingency theory is that of leadership style. Fiedler
measured style by how high a leader scored on a least
preferred co-worker (LPC) measure. To ascertain
leadership style, Fielder used a questionnaire that
required the leader to describe the person with whom he
or she has been least able to work well – the person he
or she least prefers as a co-worker. The description was
made on a number of 8-point, bipolar adjective scales,
such as the following:
A high LPC score means that the leader has described his
least preferred co-worker in favorable terms and that the
leader is, therefore, an employee oriented or relations-
oriented leader. The high-LPC leader is concerned with
maintaining good relationships in the work situation. A
low LPC score means that the leader has described his
least preferred co-worker in unfavorable terms and that the
leader, therefore, is task-oriented, tending to reject those
with whom he cannot work. The low-LPC leader is
concerned so much with maintaining a friendly, working
environment as with getting the work of the group
accomplished. Research by Mitchell has produced
evidence that high-LPC leaders tend to be more
cognitively complex in their thinking about groups,
whereas low-LPC leaders are inclined to give more
stereotyped, cognitively simple responses.
 Duncan, W. J. (1978). Organizational Behavior: Houngton Mifflin Company. U.S.A

TRAIT THEORIES
Like the “great person theory of history,” the view offered by
trait theories looks upon leaders as individuals who are
superior by virtue of the fact that they possess certain physical
and/or socio-psychological characteristics. It is probably safe
to say that contemporary leadership research places little
emphasis on the importance of biological and psychological
traits as effective predictors of leadership ability. One writer,
for example, notes that personality attributes, such as capacity
(intelligence, alertness, and so on), achievement,
responsibility, participation (sociability), status and so forth,
are correlated with leadership. The same writer, however,
states that a person does not become a leader by virtue of the
possession of some combination of traits, but the pattern of
personal characteristics must have some relevant relationship
to the characteristics, activities, and goals of followers.
Other writers have attempted to predict leadership
through the use of extensive personality typing. There is
little to conclusively suggest that any particular
personality pattern is an effective predictor of leadership
ability and managerial success. Because of the generally
low measure of association with respect to hypothesized
leadership predictors and the large number of potential
traits that could possibly show association, other
answers to the question of leadership have been sought.
SITUATIONAL VIEWS
One of the most popular explanations concerning the
emergent leadership phenomenon is known as the
situational argument. This view, unlike the traitist
position, suggests that the situation makes the leader. In
other words, the leader is the person most likely to
respond to a given set of circumstances.
The particular situation giving rise to leadership is a
very unpredictable phenomenon. In a very general
sense, a college professor who has taken students to
visit a plant may find one of the students leading the
group. Or a plant safety officer is likely to have a great
deal of influence on the company president with regard
to the actions necessary to comply with some standard
of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
One of the most common cases supporting the
situational argument develops when an organization
employs an outside expert as a consultant for a certain
problem. The consultant comes into the organization
with no formal authority or right to influence internal
operations. On the basis of the consultant’s advice,
however, the management may be influenced to take
significant actions, such as redesigning the
organizational structure, diversifying the company’s
product line, or otherwise altering its operations. The
only thing giving the consultant such influence is his or
her perceived expertise and the situation.
Group dynamics has reinforced much of the situational
or positional argument by showing how a person’s
control over information flow in the small-group context
can result it in a member’s acquiring leadership status.
 THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP
A SUMMARY
Theories of leadership have changed drastically in recent
years. Yet, many managers still approach leadership
based on the application of concepts long since proven
false. Therefore, before we examine some of the more
current thinking around leadership, we will first examine
some of the traditional theories and their failings.
SINGLE CONTINUUM THEORIES:
Some of the very earliest leadership theories were the
“Single Continuum Theories”. These theories
attempted to examine leadership effectiveness along a
single dimension or continuum. On one end of this
continuum were those leaders who could he described
as task-oriented, autocratic, closed, etc. On the other
were those who could be described as democratic
people-oriented open etc.
There are two major problems with single continuum
theories:

1. The ends of the continuum are not always “mutually

exclusive”, i.e., it is possible to be both autocratic
and people oriented - (Such a leader could be called
a “benevolent autocrat”.)

2. Such theories are descriptive rather than predictive.

Although they attempt to describe the
characteristics of leaders they do little to predict
what type of person would be effective as a leader.
TRAIT THEORIES:

Another type of early leadership theories were the

“Trait” theories. These theories are based on the idea
that it is possible to identify specific traits or
characteristics held by leaders. Most trait theorists are
seeking to identify a trait profile of the “best leader”
for selection and promotion purposes. Some traits
examined include height, education, sex, self-
confidence, extroversion, etc.
Even when correlations were found, there are several
questions that should be asked:

 Is the correlation the result of a selection stereotype?

For example, a large number of influential leaders
have been found to be relatively tall. However, it
has also been shown that tall people are given
unconscious preference by those who had
responsibility for selecting leaders. As evidence of
this, presidential elections in the U. S. the winner
has been always been the taller of the two
candidates, with the exception of Jimmy Carter,
who was a half inch shorter than Jerry Ford.
 Which variable has caused the correlation? A large
number of effective leaders have been found to have
a high level of self-confidence. However, was it their
self-confidence that led to their becoming effective
leaders or did they gain self-confidence as they
discovered they could effectively lead others? In
one case you would seek out and promote only
people with high levels of self-confidence. In the
other you would not use self-confidence as a
selection factor, but would provide training and
support to increase the self-confidence of current
and potential managers.
 Is the trait indicative of the ability to lead, or does it
indicate an ability to climbing to a top leadership
position. McClelland has found that many
executives have high needs for power and
achievement. It is clear that both traits are
important for individuals who want to climb the
ladder to the top of many large, competitive
organisations. It is not so clear that they are the
traits required of effective leaders.
In fact, there is some research to indicate that these
traits are only beneficial in climbing to the top and
may, in fact, be the cause of ineffective leadership once
the person has reached the upper levels of an
organisation. Thus, the use of such traits as self-
confidence as a factor for selecting future leaders may
only be valid if it is important to identify those with
potential for survival in the climb to the top. If such a
struggle is necessary to reach the top one can assume
that other problems exist.
GRID THEORIES:
A third approach to studying leadership can be termed as
“grid theories”. Most grid theorists have combined a
number of different traits into two distinct continuum
which they believe cover the most essential leadership
characteristics and then crossed these two continuum (or
dimensions) to form some form of grid.
The most commonly known grid approach was developed
by Blake and Mouton and is known by many as simply
“THE GRID”. The two continua used by Blake and Mouton
were “Concern for Production” and “Concern for People”.
The problem with Grids such as Blake and Mouton’s is that
they have a tendency to indicate that there is one “best”
style of leadership. Most current theorists dispute this
concept.
SITUATIONAL THEORIES
Most modern leadership theories can be called “situational”.
They tend to emphasise that there is no “best” leadership style.
Effective leadership is seen as a function of several factors
working together within any situation, including:
 The kind of task being performed, i.e., routine, complex,
dangerous etc.
The characteristics/qualities of the leader, i.e., type of power
base, personality, etc.
The characteristics/qualities of the followers, i.e., training,
professionalism, skills, etc.
The stage of development of the group, i.e., a group of
strangers, a team, etc.
The circumstances under which the task is to be performed,
i.e., supportive, high risk, etc.
Effective leaders must be able to select a set of
leadership behaviour that is most appropriate to the
given situation.