Historical Perspective of Leadership Main Blog Page Leadership Theories
Trait theory of leadership is a theory that distinguishes leaders from non-leaders based on personal traits. Early researchers started investigating general qualities or traits that they believed were present in all leaders. Some of these early researchers like Reynolds (1944), Roslow (1940), Page (1935), and Chapin (1945) found some personality characteristics that appeared to differentiate leaders from followers, while other researchers found no personality differences between leaders and followers (Cited in Stogdill, 1974, p. 5). Bass (1990) stated, “The usual procedure in the trait studies was to use voting, naming, ranking, and sociometrics to collect and analyze data” (pp. 67-85). After researchers analyzed numerous studies, they found them to have 26 traits in common. Some of the identified traits were technical skills, ethical conduct, creativity, courage, experience, intellect, achievement, and aloofness (Bass, 1990, p. 85). Personal traits that distinguish leaders from non-leaders as outlined by Maxwell (1998) are character, courage, charisma, initiative, focus, passion, listening, attitude, ability to differentiate, and ability to learn.
One critical problem with trait theory research is the researcher’s belief that there is a distinct set of qualities or traits that distinguish a leader from a follower without regard to a leader’s situation or environmental context.
Gardner (1990) for instance determined that leaders have the following attributes or traits:
• Have stamina and high energy
• Make sound decisions
• Accept responsibility
• Possess knowledge of the issue
• Understand the needs of followers
• Have people skills
• Have a need for victory
• Have motivational skills
• Possess ability to be flexible in crises
Some of Gardner’s attributes are merely behavioral, some are skill based, and others are related to temperament and ability. Gardner, like other researchers, looked not only at the traits of leaders, but also at how they behaved in various situations. Past research has indicated that making a stand-alone list of leadership traits appears to be almost impossible. Modern research needs to look not only at personal traits, but also at the situation in which leaders lead (Bass, 1990, pp. 39-49).
Between the late 1940’s to the late 1960’s, research focused on leadership behavior. Researchers who lacked success finding commonality of traits wondered if all effective leaders shared specific behaviors. One possible outcome of the behavioral model is that leaders can be developed. If the trait theory is accurate, then leaders could only be effective if they possessed specific attributes. The implication is that leaders are born, implying that developing a leader is a futile effort. However, if behavioral theories are correct, a leader could learn specific behaviors in order to become effective. A group of researchers at Ohio State University sought to identify leadership behaviors by generating a list of 1790 desirable behavioral traits. They narrowed down the list and created a questionnaire that they called the Leaders Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). Using the above questionnaire, researchers further narrowed down the list to two behavioral groups, labeled consideration and initiating structure (Bass, 1990, pp. 511-515). Consideration is the amount of concern for well being a leader shows for the followers. Initiating structure is the extent in which leaders define roles, initiate action, organize their followers, and define tasks. The leader who falls within the consideration group has a people-oriented leadership style. A leader in the initiating structure group is task-oriented (Robbins, 2001, P. 316). Researchers also found that leaders in both of groups had higher employee performance than leaders who rated low on initiating structure or consideration. The study also showed that leaders high on initiating structure but low on consideration had higher employee turnover and employee dissatisfaction. A study was also conducted at Michigan University that found two behavioral characteristics that labeled leaders as either employee-oriented or production-oriented. This study like the one at Ohio State, found two behavioral traits, and similar to the Ohio State study leaders with employee-oriented behaviors had the highest level of employee satisfaction and productivity. The two studies found that leaders who had higher employee-orientation and/or higher consideration had the best employee satisfaction and productivity. The previous statement could imply that leaders who lead with their hearts had the highest results (Bass, 1990; Robbins, 2001).
Behavioral research had a certain level of success in identifying and observing consistent relationships between leadership and performance, but does not take into account situations that arise which influence the success of both leaders and followers. (Bass 1990; Robbins, 2001; Gardner 1990).
Researchers conducting trait and behavioral theory found different and contrasting results in various situations, and because of these differences, the contingency theory started to gain momentum. Researchers started to believe that leadership is not only a function of the characteristics or behavior of the leader, but is also situational. Contingency theory delineates that the effectiveness of the leader is dependent on the situations that arise (Bass, 1990, p. 46). Contingency theory is based on the assumption that leadership is both a function of the leader and of the environment (Bass, 1990, p. 38). Gardner (1990) says that the leadership style needed to start a new organization is quite different from the style required to keep it going. Several contingency theory research projects have gained wide recognition. The first of these studies is the Fielder contingency model, which hypothesizes that the level of group performance depends on the leadership style and the level of control necessary by the situation in which the leader leads (Bass, 1990; Robbins, 2001). The Fiedler model describes that a key component in leadership is the individual leadership style, which could be identified through a questionnaire. The objective of such a questionnaire is to find out the type of style possessed by the leader. Fiedler created the least preferred co-worker questionnaire (LPC) to measure whether a leader is task-oriented or relationship-oriented. Once Fiedler outlined the leadership style using the LPC Questionnaire, it was necessary to match the leader with the proper situation. Fielder’s belief was that the leader’s style is fixed resulting in only a particular type of leader for a given situation. To determine the situation Fielder’s model identified three contingency dimensions:
• Leader-follower relations
• Task structure
• Position power
The leader-follower relation dimension as defined by the study indicates that the more the follower likes and respects the leader the more likely he or she will follow. The task structure dimension defines that the level of influence that the leader possesses is directly related to how well the leader communicates goals, methods, and expected standards of performance to the followers. Finally, position power is defined by the study as the amount of power that the organization or group confers to the leader.
Fiedler’s model shows that task-oriented leaders perform better in situations of both high and low control and that relationship-oriented leaders perform better in situations of moderate control. Fielder believes, as does Gardner, that the required leadership style completely depends on the organization’s situational context (Bass, 1990; Gardner, 1990; Maxwell, 1998; Robbins, 2001).
Researcher Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed a leadership model called Situational Leadership Theory (SLT), which emphasizes that a leader’s effectiveness depends on whether followers accept or reject the leader. SLT identified four different leadership styles that deal with contrasting situations. Robbins (2001) outlined these leadership styles as follows:
• Telling
• Selling
• Participating
• Delegating
Telling leadership has a high task and a low relationship orientation. This style indicates that a leader communicates a high level of detail about the tasks that are needed to complete the job. The selling leadership style is similar to telling; the leader communicates the tasks that are needed but also encourages followers to buy-in to the task. Participating style is one where leaders and followers share in the decision-making process and leaders give high support and low direction to followers. Delegating style is where leaders completely empower followers to take control of the task and make appropriate decisions (Bass 1990; Robbins, 2001).
Although the Hersey and Blanchard study has been widely accepted, Bass (1990) argues that the study does not take into account cultural factors, the differences between men and women, and variables that include the structure, politics and symbols within the organization (Bass, 1990, p. 39).
Reinforced-Change is a theory proposed by Bernard Bass in 1960, which states that leadership is an effort by one person to change the motivation, direction, or behavior of another person (Bass, 1990, p 45). Leaders gain influence by rewarding followers for specific behaviors. The followers’ effectiveness is determined by their ability to gain rewards. Effectiveness of the leader is measured by the ability of followers to gain rewards that are handed out by the leader.
Bass (1990) argued that the issue with reinforced-change theory is increased likelihood of follower interaction. In a diverse organization spread across a distributed geographical area, the likelihood of interaction is low compared to that in a small organization that is centrally located. Physical space has a large effect on how a leader interacts with followers. In the reinforced-change theory, a higher likelihood that followers and leaders will interact results in higher organizational effectiveness (Bass, 1990, p. 658). When a leader’s ability to communicate and reinforce good behavior is hindered, the leader must use other means to influence and affect followers of the group. Leaders who are physically in different locations are at a disadvantage compared to leaders who are in the same physical location. The leader-follower relationship is essential for reinforced-change leaders to be successful, and the closer the proximity of the leader, the more effective the leader becomes (Bass, 1990, p. 46).
Charismatic leadership is based on a leader’s inspirational qualities coming to bear in a particular situation (Callan, 2003, p. 3). Charismatic leaders appear in times of conflict when followers have a need that the leader can fill. Charismatic leaders reject routine, but over time, they need to change or they will lose power (Gardner, 1990, p. 35). Charismatic leaders, like Martin Luther King Jr., had dedicated followers, self-confidence, imaginative solutions, and a mission. In his speech in Washington, DC on August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. said “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm).
His dream speech was conceptualized during a period of time when the United States was racially fractured. Followers had a need to be treated fairly and not based on the color of their skin.
Bass (1990) and Callan (2003) believe that charismatic leaders develop based on the situational needs of followers. However, if the influential leader wants to keep power over time, the leader will have to embrace change. While numerous studies have attempted to identify attributes or characteristics of a charismatic leader, none have been completely successful in identifying every attribute. One such study as outlined by Robbins (2001) documented five characteristics of charismatic leaders:
• Leaders who share a vision or a dream
• Leaders who will take large risks in the pursuit of their vision
• Leaders who are follower orientated have cognate needs of the followers
• Leaders who work within the constraints from the environment
• Leaders who exhibit extraordinary behaviors
The concept of charismatic leadership is as important today as it was hundreds of years ago. Charismatic leadership intoxicates its followers to exert extra effort in moving toward the vision that the leader has communicated. The followers of charismatic leaders are motivated, excited, have the respect of their leaders, and have a high level of satisfaction (Bass, 1990; Robbins, 2001; Gardner, 1990).
After the 1960’s, the study of leadership changed to include more of an exchange between leaders and followers. In 1978, these studies led researchers to a new paradigm in leadership that they called transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was first developed by Burns in 1978 and further developed by Bass in 1985 (Bass, 1990, pp. 25).
Burns (1978) stated that transformational leadership is when followers of a group interact resulting in a transformational effect on both the leader and the follower. The transformational effect raises leaders and followers up to a higher level of motivation and morality (p.4). Transformational leadership theory emphasizes the importance of the leader’s behavior, vision, and ability to adapt to constant change. A transformational leader does not just lead; he or she creates leaders as well. Maxwell (1998) said that only leaders could create followers who are also leaders.
The difference between Burns (1978) and Bass (1990) on transformational theory stems from the context in which they were both studied. Burns’ (1978) theory was developed with social movement and politics as its basis. Whereas, Bass’ (1990) theory was based on a management perspective where managers set expectations to meet organizational goals. Bass (1990) defines Burns’ theory as transactional leadership, which is focused on follower rewards, leaders that intervene only when agreed upon standards are not met, and leaders who avoid making decisions until they have no choice. Transformational leadership, as outlined by Bass (1990), states that leaders provide charisma and inspiration, promote intellectual stimulation of followers, and treat every follower differently depending on the follower’s needs. Transformational leaders spend more time coaching followers so they may become leaders (Bass, 1990, pp 23-24). Leaders, who inspire and motivate their followers to exceed their own aspirations for the good of the organization, are transformational leaders (Robbins, 2001, p. 343). They are leaders who sense the needs of their followers and raise their motivation and aspiration through communication and role modeling (Bass, 1990, pp. 23-24).
It is important to note that transformational leadership adds to, but does not replace, transactional leadership (Bass, 1990, p. 53). While transactional leadership adds structure and organization, transformational leadership lifts the followers above self-interest and increases the followers’ knowledge about their place in the overall organization. Transformational leadership also promotes achievement and increases the followers’ confidence so they can become leaders (Bass, 1990, p. 652). Gardner (1990) states that one of the reasons why transformational leadership is important is because transformational leaders always think about change. Transformational leaders also do not accept the status quo, but reevaluate and reinterpret to create new solutions. Transformational leadership creates followers who become leaders, followers who create new ideas, and followers who, after they become leaders, help their organizations by mentoring future leaders (p. 122).
While a large amount of research has been done on the topic of transformational and transactional leadership, there is still a debate among scholars regarding its effectiveness (Bass, 1990; Gardner, 1990; Burns, 1978). It is important to note that ten years after Burns’ (1978) study, Robbins (2001) indicated that there is evidence to support the fact that transformational leadership is associated with low turnover rates, higher follower production, and higher self-actualization (p. 344). Transformational leaders are leaders who inspire and motivate their followers to become leaders themselves and through this transition, learn and become better leaders (Bass, 1990; Maxwell, 1998).
Inspirational and charismatic leadership styles are both similar in that the leader’s qualities and attributes come to bear in particular situations. The difference between inspirational and charismatic leaders is how followers follow the leader. Inspirational leaders lead the followers by motivating, empowering and challenging them. They use storytelling to make a point, remain calm in all situations, help followers see why they will be successful, and have a vision for the future that is attractive and obtainable (Bass, 1990, p. 220). Inspirational leaders empower the followers, whereas charismatic leaders are given power by followers (Bass, 1990; Robbins, 2001).
Bass (1990) states that although there are differences between charismatic and inspirational leadership styles, the research has been unable to find consistent attributes or behaviors that distinguish between them (p. 207). Researchers do however agree on one thing, both inspirational and charismatic leaderships are effective, but inspirational leadership has a better opportunity at building future leaders (Bass, 1990; Robbins, 2001). The inspirational leader motivates, enlarges hopes and intentions, increases the follower’s expectations, and mentors them to become better leaders. Followers learn to develop their own mission and sense about their role. As followers develop new ideas, they communicate them to the leader. The leader in turn listens to the follower’s ideas and implements them and the follower begins to become a leader. This outcome is the motivation of inspirational leaders to motivate followers to become leaders (Bass, 1990; Callan 2003; Kouze & Posner, 2003; Parachin, 2005).
References can be found by Clicking here:
