26 Theories of leadership

Dr. Sulakshna Dwivedi

1.      Learning Outcome

2.      Introduction

3.      Theories of leadership – a classification

4.      Trait theories

5.      Behavioural theories

6.      Contingency theories

7.      Summary

1.    Learning Outcome

After completing this module the students will be able to:

• Understand the various theories or paradigms of leadership theories Understand the crux of trait theory of leadership and its limitation
• Understand the gist of behavioural theories of leadership and its limitation Understand the essence of contingency theories of leadership
• Understand various models of contingency theory of leadership

2.  Introduction

In the last chapter we studied about what leadership is and what are its core elements. Different  people  have  defined  leadership  in  different  ways.  There  are  almost  as  many definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define it (Stogdill, 1974). The most popular definition of leadership is that it is a process whereby an individual influences a group of people to achieve a common goal. This view is called process view of leadership.

Another way of defining the leadership is that it is blend of some inherent characteristics that makes a person leader or this could be put in another way that leaders are some special persons. This view is called trait view/approach to leadership. Besides it, there are numerous ways of defining the leadership. The ways in which academicians and researchers think, perceive  and  define  the  leadership  took  the  form  of  various  approaches  or  theories  or paradigms of leadership.

3. Theories of leadership – a classification or paradigms of leadership theories

In this pursuit of finding and developing effective leaders, various researches were carried out and over the period many shifts in paradigms are observed e.g. according to Lussier, leadership theory paradigm can be divided into five namely traits theory paradigm, behavioural theory paradigm, contingency theory paradigm, integrative theory paradigm and from management to leadership paradigm. Peter Northouse has classified different view points on leadership as approaches e.g. trait approach, skill approach, behavioural style approach, situational approach etc. Overall the theories of leadership can be classified as trait theory, behavioral theory and contingency theory.

4.  Trait theory

The first systematic attempt to study leadership was trait approach. An initial theory under this approach was “great man theory”, which states that leaders are born not made; great leaders can arise when there is a dire need. The Great Man theory was originally proposed by Thomas Carlyle in the year 1840. This theory believed that great leaders are special people and emphasised on innate and distinguished characteristics or traits (physical, intellectual or personality) of an individual as the basis of effective leadership. The ‘Great Man theory’ was criticised on the ground that if leaders are born then there is no need to study leadership or to train or develop people to become great leaders. But of course, it provided a basis of study i.e. traits. Next theory which emerged out of ‘great man theory’ was the trait theory of leadership.

Trait theory of leadership states that people are born or made with certain traits which differentiate between leader and follower. In the decades of 1930-40’s almost thousands of researches were carried out to find out an exhaustive list of traits that are essential to be an effective leader. In the early 20th century, trait theory was quite rampant but in mid -20th century, trait approach was challenged because of non-universality of traits (Stogdill, 1948). At the end of 20th century again there was resurgence in the importance of trait approach. In 1986, Devader and Alliger found a strong association between personality traits and individuals’ perception of leadership. Further many researchers have evinced interest in trait approach in recent times (Zaleznik, 1977; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Bass, 1990). Therefore in trait approach a shift has been witnessed from identifying the qualities of great persons to impact of situations on leadership and again the renewed interest in the crucial role of traits in effective leadership. Some of the important researches and their findings or their list of traits are given as follows:

The most comprehensive study which gives a good overview of this approach was carried out by Stogdill (1948, 1974). Stogdill surveyed and analysed previous studies that were carried out regarding traits of effective leaders. A brief summary of Stogdill’s surveys is as follows.

Similarly Mann (1959) concluded on the basis of more than 1400 studies regarding personality traits and leadership that following are traits that a leader should have: Intelligence, masculinity, adjustment, dominance, extroversion and conservatism.

Lord et al. (1986) revaluated the findings of Mann (1959) by using Meta –analysis and found that intelligence, masculinity, dominance as important traits of effective leaders. In emphasizing the importance of leadership traits, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) contended that “it is unequivocally clear that leaders are not like other people”. They found that following six traits differentiate leaders from non-leaders which are given as follows:

• Desire to lead
• Honesty and integrity Self confidence
• Cognitive ability
• Knowledge of the business

But each research came out with different list of traits that effective leader should posses. Trait theory is also called a universal theory because an attempt was made to find out universal list of traits that effective leader possess. But researchers failed to get that list hence this theory was criticized on many grounds. Trait approach was criticised on another ground that it took a passive outlook of the leadership process as leaders and their traits were alone central point of making of effective leaders. Followers, situations and other variables were ignored in the trait approach. Another criticism of this approach are subjective interpretation of traits; non-differentiation of specific value of a trait; no correlation (causal) evidence was found between traits and their impact on performance, satisfaction etc. Though leaders can take cue from these lists to find out their strengths and weaknesses and can improve upon them to become effective leader. But as traits are relatively fixed psychological frameworks and cannot be easily changed hence require rigorous training to accumulate or acquire these traits over the period of time such as self confidence and knowledge etc.

5. Behavioral theory

In the decades of 1950-60’s, the focus of research got shifted from trait to behaviour in the constant quest of findings the answer to the question that makes an effective leader and distinguishes him from followers. After the criticism of trait theory researchers started focusing on behaviours instead of traits.

Behavioural style approach to leadership was based on the opinion that leadership process is not just trait based which are innate and inherent rather it is based on distinctive patterns of behaviours.

According to Newstorm, leadership style is, “The total pattern of explicit and implicit leaders’ actions as seen by employees”.

Two major points emerged out of this definition.

(a) The total pattern of behaviours consists of combination of philosophies, traits, skills and attitudes.

(b) Second important point in the definition is as seen by employees. This emphasised that employees don’t get influenced by leaders’ action but how they perceive leader is.

According to Newstorm, “leadership is truly in the eyes of beholders”. Behavioural style unlike trait approach is not innate and can be developed, changed or cultivated or ingrained over the period of time.

Even behaviour is a combination of philosophies, traits, skills and attitudes. Hence trait and behaviour are not independent rather interconnected. As behaviour emerged out of traits hence both go hand in hand.

The major studies under this theory paradigm were:

1. University of Iowa state studies
2. Ohio state studies on leadership behaviour
3. University of Michigan studies
4. Managerial grid by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton

5.1. Findings of Iowa studies on effective leadership

In 1939, Kurt Lewin and colleagues in University of Iowa State explored three different leadership styles with particular reference to decision-making. Following three leadership styles were identified:

1. Autocratic leadership style
2. Democratic leadership style
3. Laissez faire (free-reins leadership style)

5.1.1.    Autocratic leadership style

Where the leader centralizes the entire decision making power to him and tries to control the followers. Lewin and his associates found through their experiments that this style causes the highest level of discontent.

Main features

• Centralization
• Strict controlling
• No delegation of authority

Application

Autocratic leadership style is useful in conditions where followers are not mature or skilled enough.

5.1.2.   Democratic leadership style

Where the leaders allow their followers to take part in decision making and leaders believes those followers are mature and able enough to take decisions. Democratic decision-making is usually welcomed by the people, particularly if they have been used to autocratic decisions with which they are discontented. But with wide range of opinions sometime it elongate the decision making process.

• Main features
• Decentralization Delegation
• Lesser control

Application

Democratic leadership style is useful where employees are skilled and mature enough to take their decisions.

5.1.3.  Laissez faire (free-reins leadership style)

In this type of leadership style, a leader curtails his participation in decision-making and gives freedom to followers to make their own decisions and implement them. Laissez-faire works well when people are able and motivated in making their own decisions.

• Main features
• Followers have complete autonomy on their work related decisions.
• Decentralization Delegation
• Autonomy

Application

This style is useable where followers are skilled, able and professional andwhere no crisis situation is there in the organization or organization is going through a smooth phase.

5.2 Major Findings of University of Ohio State studies (1964):

According to Ohio State studies, which was carried out in mid 1940’s to mid 1950’s, following are the behaviours of effective leaders:

Consideration: The degree of mutual trust, respect, warmth, camaraderie, liking between leaders and followers and involvement of subordinates in decision making.

Initiating structure: The degree to which a leader defines and structures the roles in the  work  activities  which  includes  planning,  organizing,  scheduling  etc.  These activities are essentially the task behaviours.

Leaders who are high in both initiating structure and consideration behaviours are considered high-high leaders and these leaders achieved high group task performance and satisfaction.

5.3  Findings of University of Michigan studies:

Researchers at University of Michigan created two questionnaires with 1800 items. LOQ (Leader Opinion Questionnaire) filled by supervisors and LBDQ (Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire) completed by subordinates (LBDQ: Hemphill and Coons, 1957). Besides these two, more questionnaires of leadership effectiveness were also used.

On the basis of their research they concluded that there are two behaviours that effective leader exhibits at their work place and which distinguishes them from followers as:

Employee orientation Production orientation

Employee orientation: Describes the behaviour of leader whose orientation is mainly humanistic in nature. They view their subordinates as human beings first rather than means to an end. They value their individuality and treat them unique and take care of their personal needs. Those who are high on employee orientation are more supportive and facilitate their employees.

Production orientation: It refers to leader’s behaviour that is focused on production or technical aspects of job and also called job-centric. In production orientation goal accomplishment with work facilitation is the mainly stressed. In this orientation workers are treated as means to an end.

Earlier these two behaviours was conceptualised as opposite ends of a single continuum i.e. if a leader has high employee orientation this means that he is less production oriented and vice versa. But after some more researches, these two constructs were reconceptualised as two independent constructs. This implies that leader should strive to be both production as well as employee centric.

5.4 Managerial grid: Managerial grid is the most extensively used model for training and development of leaders. It was first published in 1960’s and since then it has been revised and refined many a times (1964, 1978, 1985, and 1991).Robert Blake and Jane Mouton of University of Texas developed this model. In 1991, this model was revised and renamed as Leadership Grid with Anne Adams McCanse replacing Mouton. It explains how leaders try to accomplish the goals of an organization through their two types of orientations i.e. concern for production and concern for people. These are quite similar to production and employee orientation of Michigan State studies or task and relationship leadership behaviors’ of Ohio State Studies.

Concern for production:

• Policy decisions
• Product development Process issues
• Sales volume
• Production targets Work loads

Concern for people

• Good working conditions
• Fair and equitable salary structures Good relations
• Trust building
• Commitment enhancing

Fig.1: Managerial Grid

Source: Stephen P. Robbins, Organizational Behaviour- concepts, controversies & Applications

The Leadership grid depicts 5 major leadership styles. The two leadership behavioural orientations are represented on both the axis. On x-axis concern for production and on y-axis, concern for people is represented. Each of the axes is drawn on 9 point scale where 1 depicts less concern and 5 depict moderate concern and 9 represents high concern. Majority five types of leaders are depicted on various combinations of two orientations as:

(1, 1)    Impoverished management

(5, 5)   Middle of the road managers

(9, 1)   Task leadership (authority oriented leadership)

(1, 9)    Country club management

(9, 9)   Team management

Robert Blake and Jane mouton divided the grid into 9 x 9 matrix or 81 cells.

(1, 1) – When both concern for production as well as for people is less it is called impoverished management style.

(9, 1) – When concern for production is high and concern for people is less it is called authority obedience relationship style. These leaders are hard task managers. Their main focus is on production results even at the cost of relationship or employee orientation.

(5, 5) – Middle of the road

When both concern for production as well as for people are moderate and equal it is known as middle of the road management. Hence, the leaders focuses on the relationship with their employees as well as equal but moderate concern is also given to production.

(1, 9) – Country club management

When leader is less concerned about production and more concerned about people it is called country club management style.

(9, 9) – Team management

This is desired leadership style where both concern for production as well as for people are high among the leaders. This implies that utmost importance is given to both the employees as well as production.

Leadership grid is extensively used in leadership development programs. The Grid has been criticized on the ground that though Robert Blake and Jane Mouton have classified leadership styles into five categories on the basis of two leadership orientation i.e. concern for production and concern for people, yet nothing new has been added into the literature.

6.  Contingency theory

In late 1960’s, it become clear that in all situations no one best leadership style works. Therefore, in contingency theory, the focus is on situational variables. This theory emphasize that leadership effectiveness is contingent upon situations. An effective leader with particular set of traits and behavioural styles may be effective in particular situation but may not be effective in another situation. That’s why this theory diverted attention of researchers and academicians from trait and behavioral styles to situational factors that’s why the name situational leadership theory (SLT) also.

Under contingency paradigm, following theories and models are covered:

• Fiedler contingency model Cognitive resource theory
• Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s leadership Continuum Hersey Blanchard’s situational leadership model
• Path goal theory
• Vroom’s normative model of leadership

6.1 Fiedler’s contingency model of Leadership Effectiveness:

Fred Fiedler developed contingency model in 1967. This theory attempts to predict how style of leader, task structure, leader-member relations and position power act in a combination to achieve productive outcome in the organization.

Assumptions of this model

• Leadership styles are fixed
• Relationship based leadership style (people – oriented)
• Task based leadership style (Production – oriented)

To arrive at leadership style, LPC (least preferred coworkers) questionnaire is used. LPC is the person with whom leader finds difficulty to cooperate and MPC (Most preferred coworkers) are those who are easy to cooperate with. Leaders are asked to rate both MPC and LPC and if the ratings are similar for both, the leaders are classified as ‘high LPC leaders’ and vice- versa.

• Situational favorableness for a leader depends upon
• Leader –member relations Task structure
• Position power

Leader –member relations: The degree to which there is mutual trust, respect, confidence and understanding between leader and followers. L-M relations are categorized as good where trust, respect and mutual understanding between leader and follower are high and bad where these are less.

Task structure

As job is a collection of different tasks. Task structure means specific tasks are required to do the job. It also means degree to which tasks are procedurized. Task structure could be high as well as low. High task structure means strict, specific set procedures are to be required to finish the job, while, low task structure means where no set procedures are required to do the job.

Position power

Power which derived from a position or vested in a position or that goes with formal structural position is called position power. The power to hire, fire and recommendations, praise etc. is called postion power. Position power can be both high as well as low.

Fig.2    : Fiedler’s contingency model of Leadership Effectiveness

(Source: Stephen P. Robbins, Organizational Behaviour- concepts, controversies & Applications)

6.2  Hersey Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model

This model was developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard as ‘Life Cycle Theory’ (Hersey and Blanchard, 1969) and later it was named as Situational leadership Model (Mid –1970’s). Paul Hersey is a well known author of the book’ Situational leader’ and Ken Blanchard is author of the book, ‘One Minute Manager’. This theory states that different situations demands different types of leadership. An effective leader has to be able to switch his leadership style to each situation. Each situation is characterized by different readiness/development levels of employees which consist of ability and maturity. Maturity refers to their willingness to do the work.

Fig.3    : Hersey Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model

(Source: Stephen P. Robbins, Organizational Behaviour- concepts, controversies & Applications)

The four levels of readiness of employees are depicted in the figure are given as follows:

• Able and willing to do the work Able but unwilling
• Unable and willing Unable and unwilling
• Leadership style and classified into two types viz.
• Task centred leadership style (Directive behaviour)
• Relationship oriented behaviour (Supportive behaviour)

According to this theory, a leader has to analyse each situation and then match their work to the situation e.g. when employees are both able and willing, low relationship and low task oriented behaviour can work well and leader can choose to delegate the work to employees.

In second situation, when employees are able but unwilling, hence could be apprehensive then a leader should follow high relationship oriented and low task oriented leadership style and make the employees participate in the work.

In the third situation, employees are willing but unable therefore selling style is prescribed which is both high task and high relationship oriented behaviour (Directive as well as supportive). Selling means convincing and making them complete the work.

In the last situation, maturity level is quite low (both unable and unwilling) so telling style with high task and low relationship oriented behaviour is prescribed for such set of employees.

Overall, Hersey Blanchard’s situational leadership theory is prescriptive model which prescribed four leadership behavioural styles according to different situations and style switching is the crux of managing employees of different readiness or maturity level.

6.3 Cognitive resource theory (CRT)

This theory was developed by Fred Fiedler and Joe Garcia in 1987 as reconceptualization of Fiedler’s model. The theory emphasizes on the impact of leaders’ cognitive resources e.g. intelligence, experience, competence on his reaction to stress. This theory states that generally in stressful situations people tend to think or take their decisions irrationally and or emotionally but person’s intelligence and experience intervene in the process of irrational thinking and try to alleviate the impact of stress thus assist leaders in taking sensible, logical and analytical decisions.

• Intelligence assists in thinking logically in low- stress situations
• Experience aids in taking logical and sound decisions in high- stress situations
• A leader’s cognitive ability ameliorates the performance outcome of the group when leader is directive in his approach.

When tasks are simple and subordinates are able and willing to handle them cognitive ability to take decisions become immaterial

6.4 Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s leadership continuum

Originally developed in 1958 and was revised in the year 1973.Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt developed contingency theory in a form of leadership behavior continuum from boss centered to subordinate centered leadership.

This model emphasizes on extent of participation of leader and followers in decision making process. Tannenbaum and Schmidt developed a continuum of 7 leadership styles between two   major    styles   i.e.   autocratic   and   participative.    It   is    a   unidimensional    model.

Fig.4  : Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s leadership continuum

(Source: Stephen P. Robbins, Organizational Behaviour- concepts, controversies & Applications)

Contingency variables of Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s Leadership Continuum Model:

Supervisor factor (leader):

Based on leader’s ability, perception, confidence or trust in subordinates, personality, values, and behaviors’ leader will choose a particular style which may be autocratic or participative

Subordinate factors (followers): Based on subordinates’ personality, abilities, competence, motivation etc. a leader will choose a particular leadership style e.g. if subordinates are able and willing then participative style is appropriate and if subordinates are unable and unwilling then autocratic or job-centered or telling style is suitable for the leader.

Environmental factor (situation): Environmental factors include organizational climate, size, structure, process; top level management etc. will act as a deciding factor in determining a particular leadership style.

It is propounded in the theory that depending upon subordinate factors and environmental factors a leader can choose any of the seven leadership style from the continuum.

The major criticism of this theory came from Yukl, 1998 who opined that this model provides a broader framework or a range of leadership styles that a leader can choose from but nothing concrete is there like which style to choose and when.

6.5 Path goal theory of leadership

Originally derived from Expectancy theory of motivation and used by Georgopoulous and his associates at University of Michigan many years back in analyzing the impact of leadership on performance. Path goal theory of leadership is mainly attributed to Martin Evans(1970) and Robert House(1971). Path goal theory attempts to explain the impact of leadership behavior on satisfaction, motivation and performance. Major components of this theory are four leadership styles and two contingency factors and their impact on performance and satisfaction.

Fig.5   : Path goal theory of leadership

(Source: Stephen P. Robbins, Organizational Behaviour- concepts, controversies & Applications)

Four leadership styles are

• Directive
• Participative
• Supportive
• Achievement oriented

Directive leadership style involves letting subordinates do the things as directed by leader. This includes giving instructions, guidelines; scheduling and coordinating their task. This is quite similar to initiating structure dimension of Ohio State University.

Participative leadership let subordinates participate in decision making. They consult subordinates and use their suggestions while making decisions.

Supportive leadership are very humanistic in nature and respect the individuality of the subordinates, provide them good working conditions and take care of welfare and wellbeing of their subordinates. This is parallel to consideration style of Ohio State University Achievement oriented leaders set challenging and difficult goals to their subordinates and let them work hard to achieve those goals

Contingency factors

• Environmental factors
• Subordinate factors
• Environmental factors includes
• Task structure
• Formal authority system Work group

Task structure means the degree to which tasks are procedurized. As explained in Fiedler’s model task structure can be high or low. Authority system may be formal or informal. Work group are assessed in the form of cohesiveness or no cohesiveness.

Employee characteristics or subordinate contingency factors include

• Locus of control Experience
• Perceived ability

Locus of control is the orientation of an individual with regard to his control over goal achievement or it is the degree to which one thinks that he can control his fate. It can be internal as well as external. Internals feel that they are the master of their destiny and externals believe that outside factors or unforeseen forces are responsible for their goal achievement.

Perceived ability is the perception about his ability with respect to a particular job.

According to Path goal theory of leadership, as per the different combinations of contingency factors (Environmental and personal characteristics) an effective leader would choose a particular leadership style (four) and change it as per the situations. So unlike Fiedler’s Model leadership style are not fixed and need to be amenable to situations.

6.6 Vroom and Yetton’s normative leadership model

In 1973, Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton developed Leadership decision – making model to improve leadership effectiveness and answered the question” when the leader should take charge to decide and when he should let the followers take part in decision-making. The theory is called normative leadership theory because certain norms (rules) are followed to answer above question. In 1988, a revised version of this model was presented by Vroom and Jago in terms of four models based on two factors viz. individual and group decisions and time driven and development driven model. Further in year 2000, Victor Vroom presented another revised version entitled Leadership and the decision making process.

Set of seven diagnostic questions are:

1. Decision significance (How important is the decision?)
2. Importance of commitment (How important is subordinate commitment to the decision?)
3. Leader Expertise (How is leader’s intelligence and experience because accordingly he will choose any of 5 leadership style depending upon other situational factors?)
4. Likelihood of commitment (Commitment of subordinates towards leader’s decision)
5. Group support for objectives (Do subordinates as a group support and share the goals to be achieved)
6. Group expertise (Do subordinates have enough expertise to take decisions?)
7. Team competence(Do individuals have ability to work together as a team to solve the problem?)

Depending upon leader, followers and situational factors leader would seek participation of followers in decision making process and use any of the 5 leadership styles viz.

• Consult (Group) Decide
• Delegate
• Consult (Individual) Facilitation
• Effects of participation or decision effectiveness depends upon on following four parameters
• Decision quality
• Decision acceptance by subordinates (Subordinate commitment) Subordinate development
• Timely decision

Vroom and Jago’s time driven and development driven Leadership model

Time driven Model: In time- driven model focus is on effectiveness of decision (timely decision) with minimum cost and no value is placed on followers’ development.

Value- driven Model: In value driven model focus is on effective decision with maximum development of followers and less value is placed on cost (Time).

7. Summary

The entire module focuses on different theories of leadership. The first and foremost was trait theory which suggests that some people are born leaders or they have natural flair or some people have innate and inherent characteristics that make these leaders different from non- leaders. In trait theory, we contemplated on studies done by Stogdill (1948, 1974), Mann (1959), Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991). We discussed its criticism, applications and it has started loosing its sheen and the resurgence of this theory in recent years. Next approach was behavioural theory or style approach which focuses on what leaders do on their jobs. The major studies under this paradigm was University of Michigan studies, Ohio state studies on leadership behaviour, Iowa state studies, Managerial grid by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, Autocratic, Democratic leadership style, Laissez faire (free-reins leadership styles). Behavioural theory was also criticized on the grounds that no universal list of behaviors’ was pinpointed that is applicable in all situations, hence, focus shifted on situational theory or contingency theory which states that leadership is contingent upon situations. Under contingency paradigm, the theories and models covered are Fiedler contingency model, Cognitive resource theory, Hersey Blanchard’s situational leadership model, Path goal theory and Vroom-Yetton-Jago’s Normative leadership Model.

Learn More:

• Cambell, J. (1970). Managerial Behaviour, Performance and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Davis Keith (1975). Human Behaviour at Work. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill.
• Hellriegal and Slocum, John, W. (1979). Organisational Behavior. New York: West Publishing.
• Lussier R.N. and Achua C.F. (2010). Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development. Mason (USA): Cengage Learning
• Luthans, Fred (2011). Organizational Behaviour: An Evidence – Based Approach. Singapore: McGraw Hill
• McGregor Douglas (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.
• McKenna E. (2012). Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour. New York: Psychology Press.
• Moorhead, G. & Griffin, R (1994). Organisational Behaviour: Managing People and Organisations. New Delhi: Jaico.
• Newstorm J.W. (2104). Organizational Behaviour: Human Behaviour at work. New Delhi: Mc Graw Hill Education (India) Private Limited.
• Prasad, L.M. (1994): Organisational Behavior, New Delhi: Sultan Chand and Sons.
• Robbins, Stephens. P. (2006). Organizational Behavior: Concepts controversies, and applications-New Delhi: Prentice Hall.