13 Major Theories of Leadership in Different Contexts

This article provides a comprehensive analysis on the first generational theories of leadership. From trait theory of leadership to the contingency approach.

Conventional Theories of Leadership

There are a number of approaches to understanding leadership, ranging from the traditional view that leaders are born and not made, to the relatively recent view that leadership is more to do with the situation than to any universally desirable set of attribution. There are several theories of leadership that scholars and philanthropist have over the years identified. Among which include:

The Trait Theory

The first systematic effort by researchers to understand leadership was the attempt to identify the personal characteristics of leaders. It has been argued that there is a predisposition to consider leaders as naturally braver, more aggressive, more decisive and more articulate than other people, so that they stand out in terms of physical characteristics, personality and intelligence. One popular myth is that natural leaders are tall and stand above the crowd like Charles De Gaulle or Abraham Lincoln.

A complicating factor in this trait theory is the question of cultural bias. If there is a bias towards tall leaders, then most leaders will be tall because they are the ones who will be chosen. In the same way, the so called ‘glass ceiling’ prevents women from becoming senior managers in some companies and therefore they do not emerge as leaders. When women do become senior managers, research shows that they can be just as effective leaders as men.

Research has also shown that male and female managers are judged to be equally effective by their subordinates. The research into personality traits, or a set of qualities that can be used to discriminate leaders from non-leaders, has failed to produce any consistent position. It appears that no trait or combination of traits guarantees that a leader will be successful or not.

The Functional or Group Approach

This approach neither focuses attention not on the personality of the leader nor on the man in the job per se but on the functions of leadership, is always present in any group engaged in a task. The functional approach views leadership in terms of how the leader’s behaviour affects and is affected by the group of followers. As such, it concentrates on the nature of the group of followers or subordinates. It thus focuses on the content of leadership.

The functional approach believes that the skills of leadership can be learnt, developed and perfected. Kotler (1990), successful companies seek out people with leadership potential. With careful selection, motivation and encouragement, a reasonable percentage of people can play important leadership roles in business organization.

Action -Centred Leadership

The general theory on the functional approach is associated with the work of John Adair (1984), and his ideas on action-centred leadership. According to him the effectiveness of the leader is dependent upon meeting tree areas of need within the work group- the need to achieve the common task, the need for team maintenance and the individual needs of group members. He symbolizes these needs by three overlapping circles.

Task Functions:

• Achieving the objectives of the work group.
• Defining group task.
• Planning the work.
• Allocation of resources.
• Organization of duties.
• Controlling quality and checking performance.
• Reviewing progress.

Team Maintenance Functions:

• Maintaining moral and building team spirit.
• Ensuring the cohesiveness of the group.
• Setting standards and maintaining discipline.
• Establishing systems of communication.
• Training the group.
• Appointment of sub-leaders.

Individual Functions:

• Meeting the needs of members individually.
• Attending to personal problems.
• Giving praise and status.
• Reconciling conflict between group needs and needs of the individual.
• Training individual.

The action of the leader in any one area of need will affect one or both all other areas of need. The ideal position is where complete integration of the three areas of need is achieved.

The Behavioural Approach to leadership

When it becomes evident that effective leaders did not apparently have any distinguishing traits or qualities, researchers tried to understand how successful and unsuccessful managers behave differently. Instead to find out what effective leaders were, researchers finds out what effective leaders did. The importance of arriving at this conclusion is that it meant to correct actions and behaviour could be learned and training could be provided for leadership.

Stodgill et. al., (1957) at Ohio State University during the 1940s concluded that there were two principal dimensions to leader behaviour. On the one hand there was a concern for people, and on the other a concern for production.

• A concern for people: This behaviour involves a manager’s concern for developing mutual trust with subordinates. This was seen as an employee-oriented approach characterized by managers concern for their employees. The manager’s behaviour encourages mutual trust and two -way communication.
• A concern for production: This behaviour involves managers concern for directing subordinates in order to achieve production targets. It is a task oriented approach, where managers tend to be highly directive and emphasize completing a task according to plan.

The research discovered, as might be expected, that employee turnover rates were lowest and employee satisfaction highest under leaders who were rated high in consideration of people. Conversely, high grievance rates and high turnover were associated with leaders who were rated low consideration on people and high in task orientation. However, it was not, of course, quite as simple as this. The researchers found that subordinates ratings of their leaders effectiveness depended not so much on the particular styles of the leader as on the situation on which the style was used.

The Managerial Grid

Robert Blake and James Mouton (1964) researched into leadership behaviour has shown that it is multidimensional. The management grid identifies a range of management behaviour based on various ways that task-oriented and employee-oriented styles can interact with each other. There are 81 possible interactions, but to attempt to define everyone would not be productive.

However, Blake and Mouton (1964) described five extreme positions:

• Country Club Management: Scores high on concern for people and low on concern for production. This management style may be based on a belief that the most important leadership activity is to secure the voluntary co-operation of group members in order to obtain high levels of productivity. Subordinates of these managers reports generally high level of satisfaction, but managers may be considered too easy going, soft mind and unable to make strict decisions.
• Authoritarian Management: Scores a high concern for production and efficiency and a low concern for people. This management style is task- oriented and stresses the quality of the decision over the wishes of subordinates. Such managers believe that group- centred action may achieve mediocre results. They can be conscientious, loyal and personally capable, but can become alienated from their subordinates who may do only enough to keep themselves out of trouble.
• Impoverished Management: Scores a low concern for both people and production. This management style does not provide leadership in a positive sense but believes in laissez- faire approach, relying on previous practice to keep the organization going.
• Middle-of-the -Road Management: Scores a moderate amount of concern for both people and production. Managers applying this believe in compromise, so that decisions are taken but only if endorsed by subordinates. These managers may be dependable and support the status quo, but are not likely to be dynamic leaders and may have difficulty facing up to innovation and change.
• Team Management: Scores high on concern for both people and production. Blake and Mouton argue that this management style provides the most effective leadership. These managers believe that concern for people and for tasks are compatible. They believe that tasks need to be carefully explained and decisions agreed with subordinates to achieve a high level of commitment.

Blake and Mouton (1964) also explain the positions on their managerial Grid. These ranges from position 9.1 to 9.9 as put below:

• 9.1- The attitude of the manager or the leader is autocratic. He or she could be rightly

called the stern task master. Their concern is not for people but for production. Such managers would not care much if workers go to hell so long as production targets are achieved.

• 9- The attitude of the leader or manager is democratic. In this angle at the left of the grid, there is low concern for production but high interest in taking care of workers. Participative approach is employed here. Rigidity and control is avoided as far as possible. Here communication is not a one-way traffic rather a two-way traffic.
• 1- The attitude here is laissez-faire or impoverished. There is both low concern for production and people. Here nobody is in charge because everybody is in charge. Responsibilities are shifted. Managers and leaders here are not as such interested in taking decisions. They prefer to get minimum work done.
• 5-The leadership style here is the middle of the road or practical leadership whereby concern, support and recognition is given to both production or task and people. Equal recognition is given to both work and the people doing the work. In as much as work is important, the people doing the work are equally important.
• 9.9-Team management, team meaningful leadership style. The attitude here is a high

concern for people with high concern for production. Managers involve people so much in the daily running of the organization. Delegation of authority and responsibility is carried as far as possible. Employees are recognized and they in turn give their best to the organization. Here interdependence is an opportunity as well as a challenge for both management and workers. His approach is recommendable.

Likert’s leadership Theory

Likert’s System of Management (1967): Rensis Likert, Director of the institute for social Research at the University of Michigan developed a universal theory of leadership. Likert’s theory consists of a Continuum of styles ranging from autocratic to participative. Four basic styles of Likert’s systems of management were identified and they are as follows:

• Explosive Autocratic: Managers make all decisions. They decide what is to be done, who will do it and how and when it is to be accomplished. Failure to complete work as assigned will result in threats or punishment. Under this system, management exhibits little confidence or trust in employees.
• Benevolent Autocratic: Managers still make the decision, but employees have some degree of freedom and flexibility in performing their jobs so long as they conform to the specified procedures.
• Consultative: Managers consult with employees prior to establishing the goals and making decisions about the work. Employees have a considerable degree of freedom in making their own decisions as how to accomplish the work.
• Participative team: This is Likert’s recommended system or style of management. The emphasis of the participative team is on a group participative role with full involvement of the employees in the process of establishing goals and making job related decisions. Employees feel free to discuss matters with their manager who displays supportive rather than condescending or threatening behaviour.

Ohio State Leadership Studies

The key concern of the Ohio state leadership studies was the leader’s behaviour in directing the efforts of others toward group goals. After a considerable number of studies had been completed, two important dimensions of leader’s behaviour were identified.

• Initiating Structure: The extent to which the leader establishes goals, defines and structure their roles and the roles of subordinates towards the attainment of goals.
• Consideration: The extent to which leaders have relationship with subordinates, characterized by mutual trust, respect and consideration of employees’ ideas , feelings, warmth, support and consideration for subordinates. The Ohio State Leadership theorists come about four types of leadership behaviour. Consideration and initiating structure are found to be uncorrelated and independent dimensions. They are separate behavioural categories and give rise to four types of leadership behaviours. On these bases, leaders may be:
• Low on consideration and low on structure.
• Low on consideration and high on structure.
• High on consideration and high on structure.
• High on consideration and low on structure.

Research into the effects of these four types of leadership behaviour suggests that some balance is needed between consideration and structure in order to satisfy both individual needs and organisational goals.

Initiating structure and consideration were identified as separate a distinct dimensions of leadership behaviour. As illustrated in the figure above, there are four basic leadership styles representing different combinations of leadership behaviour. A manager can be high in both consideration and initiating structure, low in both or high in one leadership behaviour, the one effective combination that meets the model. Rather, there combination or appropriate was determined was determined by the demands of the situation.

The Situational Theory of Leadership

Blanchard (1982) developed the view that leadership approaches depended very much on the ‘maturity’ of their subordinates. He defined ‘maturity’ as a desire for achievement and willingness to accept responsibility. He developed the theory that the relationship between leaders and followers moves through phases as subordinates ‘mature’ , and that managers need to very their leadership style with each phase.

Explaining the Figure above: the initial phase, when employees first join an organization, a high task orientation is most appropriate (A). New employees have to be instructed in their task and in the organization’s rules and procedures. At this stage a non-directive manager can cause anxiety in the new employee and confusion about what is to be done.

As new employees become familiar with task and procedures, a more employee-oriented style can be introduced. (B) as employees become familiar with the work and culture of the organization they may seek greater responsibility and the leadership style can become participatory. (C) a point may be reached when a high level of delegation can be achieved. (D) at this point, a low relationship and low task exists between leaders and their followers.

Fieldler (1971) Situational Theory of Leadership

Research carried out by Fiedler (1971) was based on the view that managers have difficulty in altering the style which has helped them to achieve success, and that in fact they are not very flexible. It follows from this that trying to change a manager’s style to fit the situation may be both useless and inefficient and, therefore, effective group performance could best be achieved by matching the manager to the situation or by changing the situation to match the manager. For example, an authoritarian manager can be selected to fill a post that enquires directive leadership, or the job could be changed to give an authoritarian manager more formal authority over employees.

Fieldler argued that successful and effective leadership depended on three factors:

• Leader- member relation: This is the most important factor in leader’s effectiveness. The degree to which leaders have the acceptance, confidence, support and loyalty of subordinates is an essential feature of leader effectiveness. When these relations are strong the leader has a firm base from which to influence behaviour of subordinates. When the leader- subordinate relation is weak, the influence of leaders is only through the impersonal authority provided by their position in the organisation.
• Task Structure: This is measured by the complexity or simplicity of the job to be carried out in an organisation. Managers have considerable power where the work of employees is highly structured and routine, because, it is possible in these circumstances to establish very specific criteria to enforce a desired level of performance. Managers will usually need to adopt a democratic, consultative leadership style if the work of an organisation is complex and employees have problem -solving responsibilities which are not routine.
• Leader’s position power: The extent of formal or informal power which a manager is able to exert may be conferred on them by the organization in which they work and the position they hold in it. The chief executives or managing directors of a company will have a great deal of authority because of their position in a commercial organization.

People in these positions can exert an autocratic style of leadership. Managers lower down the hierarchy of a company may have to be more democratic or laissez faire.

The leadership style contrasted by Fieldler (1971) are similar to the employee-centred and task- oriented approaches ; Fielder’s model , however , uses a simple scale to measure leadership style to indicate the degree to which a man described favourably or unfavourable his least preferred co-worker. This was the employee with whom the person could work least well. Fieldler’s theory was that managers who had great concern for human relations. These are described as relationship-oriented leaders who relatively permissive and considerate of the feelings of employees.

On the contrary, it is argued that managers who describe their LPC in an unfavourable manner tend to be task-oriented leaders who are less concerned with human relations and are relatively autocratic in their leadership style. These low LPC managers want to achieve the completion of a task, and the reaction of subordinates to their leadership style is of lower priority to them than the need to maintain production. This approach is a method of measuring the location of managers on the leadership style continuum.

Combinations 1, 2, 3 and 8 are most likely to prove successful for task -motivated leaders. The situation in combination 1 is very favourable to the leader and followers will accept directives in order to maintain their good standing with the leader. Although, the leader’s organization power is diminished in combination 2, the strength of the leader’s personal power, combined with the limited discretion allowed by a structure task, provide considerable opportunities for the task – oriented manager.

In combination 3, the strength of the leader’s personal and organizational power makes forceful leadership possible. In combination 8, the situation facing the leader is so unfavourable that a forceful, directive approach offers the most promising option.

In the other four combinations (4, 5, 6 and 7) a relationship -oriented style is likely to be most effective. These situations require a wide variety of skills and knowledge that can only be provided by encouraging the abilities of a number of people.

The Contingency Approach

Research into trait and Behavioural approaches to effective leadership shows that it depend on many variables, in terms of individual personality, management style, corporate culture and the nature of the task to be performed. There is not one trait or approach which is effective in all situations. The contingency approach focuses on the situational factors which influence leadership.

Robert Tannenbaum and Warner Schmidt (1973) were among first researcher to describe various factors which influenced a manager’s choice of leadership style. They took into account that managers need to consider practical considerations before deciding how to manage. They concluded that there were three main ‘forces’ on a manager’s mind in deciding a leadership style.

• Personal Forces: the managers own background, experience, confidence and leadership inclinations;
• The characteristics of subordinates: the managers need to consider subordinates relative willingness or unwillingness to accept responsibility and take decisions;
• The Situation: The managers need to recognize the situation in which they find themselves, in terms of corporate culture, their colleagues style of work the nature of the tasks to be performed and time pressures.

The above continuum suggests that a manager should consider a full range of options before deciding how to act, from a very autocratic leadership style to a very democratic one. Some problems, for example, which involve everybody, may be best dealt with through laissez-faire leadership. If all employees are accountable and influential in the decision -making process, the best role for the leader may be to follow a ‘hands-off’ approach.

The point about leadership style is that shifts the focus from the individual leader to the functions that leaders perform within an organisation. In order for any group to operate effectively, both tasks and problem -solving functions have to be performed and, at the same time, group- maintenance or ‘social’ functions. It can be argued that any group of people needs to have leadership in both functions, so that, on the one hand, decisions are made, and on the other hand, the ideas and feeling of the whole group are considered.

The social functions can develop the cohesion of the group and may be carried out by encouragement and support, by recognising the importance of all members of the group to its smooth operation.

The Path- Goal Theory of Leadership

This theory was developed by Robert House (1971) and others as an approach to understanding and predicting leadership effectiveness in different situations. The Theory focuses on the leader as a source of rewards and attempts to predict how different types of rewards and different leadership styles affect the performance of subordinates, based on the view that an individual’s motivation depends both on the expectation and the attractiveness of the rewards available. The manager identifies the ‘goal’ and rewards which are available and the ‘paths’ to be taken to reach them.

❖ The Process of Effective Leadership:

• Identifies and communicates to subordinates the path they should follow in order to achieve personal and organizational objectives;
• Helps subordinates along this path;
• Helps to remove obstacles on the path that might prevent the achievement of these objectives.

The manager’s leadership style will influence the perception of the rewards available and what has to be achieved to earn them. An employee- centred manager will offer a wide range of rewards and also be sensitive to individual needs. The rewards may be in terms of pay and promotion, but will also include support, encouragement and recognition.

On the other hand, a task-oriented manager will offer a more limited set of rewards which will be less concerned with individual needs. However, people working for this type of manager will know precisely what they have to do in order to obtain the particular rewards available. So the path-goal theory suggests that the most effective leadership style will depend on the personal characteristics of employees and on the situation in the workplace.

This suggests that managers need to consider the characteristics of their employees and the work to be carried out, before deciding on their leadership style. Vroom and Jago (1988) have criticized the path-goal theory as incomplete because it fails to take into account the characteristics of the type of decision with which they are faced and the situation in which the decision is being made. This can be seen as a further theory of leadership based on the level of participation between managers and employees.

The Participatory Theory of Leadership

Vroom and Yetton (1973) developed a model of situational leadership in order to help managers decide when and to what extent they should involve employees in solving a particular problem. They suggested that managers needed to ask themselves a number of questions before deciding on an appropriate leadership style.

• Is it necessary to make an objective decision with which employees may disagree?
• Do the managers have sufficient information or skill to solve the problem on their own?
• Is the problem structured?
• Is the acceptance of the employees critical for the success of the decision?
• If the decision was made by management, would it be accepted by the employees?
• Do employees share the achievement of the same objectives in solving the problem?

Once these questions have been answered, it is then possible to select a leadership style, although there may be further choices to be made. Vroom and Yetton defined five leadership styles in terms of the degree of participation by subordinates in the decision -making process.

• Autocratic I (AI) – Managers solve the problem or make the decisions themselves, using available information.
• Autocratic II (AII) – Managers obtain information from subordinates before making a decision, and then decide on the solution to the problem themselves. The role of subordinates is to provide information for decision making and they may or may not have been told what the information is for or what the problem is that needs to be solved.
• Consultative I (CI) – Managers share the problem with the relevant subordinates individually and obtain their ideas and information. Managers then make the decision, which may or may not be influenced by the subordinate’s opinion.
• Consultative II (CII)-Managers share the problem with the relevant subordinates as a group and obtain their ideas and information. These may or may not be used in decision making.
• Group Participation (G) – Managers’ share a problem with subordinates as a group. The managers and subordinates together analyse the problem and consider alternative solutions. Managers act as co-coordinators in order to enable the group to reaches consensus, which is then accepted and implemented.

It can be argued that the effectiveness of any decision depends on:

• The quality of the decision;
• The commitment made to the decision maker.
• The time taken to make a decision.

There is a cost factor, certainly in terms of time, in making effective decisions which has to be balanced against the time lag between identifying a problem and solving it. Equally taking a reasonable amount to time may help to develop the ability of other people to analyse problems and arrive at solutions.

With fundamental and important decisions it is usually essential, in order to obtain the best results, for the people responsible for implementing the decision to feel that they have participated in arriving at it. Even if the final decision is not quite the one some people would have chosen, if they have been consulted they may still be able to give it their full support.

By working through the question A to G (in Figure 7 below): managers can arrive at the appropriate level at which to involve their subordinates in the decision under consideration.

Figure 7 shows that, if managers are attempting to decide about buying a new piece of equipment they may answer ‘No’ to question B, ‘Yes’ to D , ‘No’ to E and ‘No’ to F. This means that the managers do not have sufficient information to make a high quality decision; the acceptance of the decisions by subordinates is important for effective implementation; if managers make the decision by themselves it would not necessarily be accepted to subordinates (perhaps because they have to operate the new equipment); and the subordinates do not necessarily share the organizational goals to be attained in solving the problem.