Leadership Theory
R. Kent Wise, MDiv. MBA
Leadership Theory
The study of leadership has existed throughout history . Each student of leadership has attempted to explain leadership that Buckingham (2005) defines as, “rallying people to a better future. Great leaders get us to feel that the future is possible and better than where we are now.” In fact according to Gardner (1990), ” leadership is such a gripping subject that once it is given center stage it draws attention away from everything else.” Leadership models illustrate the concept in a variety of ways. Bennis (1959) states, “The study of leadership raises the fundamental issues that every group, organization, nation, and group of nations has to resolve or at least struggle with: Why do people subordinate themselves? What are the sources of power? How and why do leaders arise? Why do leaders lead? What is the function of the leader?”
Each model focuses on a different approach. However, according to Gardner (1990) , ” conventional views of leadership are shallow and set us up for endless disappointment.” The purpose of this article is to compare four different leadership approaches. The article will identify challenges today’s leaders encounter and how each model addresses the issues presented.
Trait Leadership Model
The Trait Leadership Model emphasizes personal traits of the leaders. The Trait Model is predicated on the assumption that leaders have similar personality and problem- solving attributes. The “great man” theory of the 19th and early 20th centuries, “asserted that leadership qualities were inherited, especially by people from the upper class.” (Kirkpatrick & Lock, 1991) The 19th and early 20th centuries was dominated by the patriarchal society. The Gentry were the ruling class prompting leaders to be described as “great men”. Historical records document the leadership abuses.
The Trait Leadership Model continues to morph as different studies are undertaken. Clawson (2006) illustrates the metamorphosis by outlining Maccoby and others. Leaders are described as Administrator, Strongmen, Gamesmen, and Developers by Maccoby. The leader’s traits correlate with duties or actions instead of personality. In contrast, John Gardner presents leader attributes from his analysis. According to Gardner (1990), “the attributes of leaders include physical vitality, intelligence, responsible, competence, relationship building, and confidence along with others.” The presupposition is a good leader manifests the aforementioned attributes in the leader/follower relationships.
The Trait Leadership Model incorrectly assumes that good leaders will always be good leaders. The premise that good leaders always exhibit the traits or qualities of a good leader has been proven inconsistent over the years. The Trait Leadership Model does not consider the impact of events in the individual’s lives and the changes that come along with experience. For example, the managers of Enron were able to persuade individuals to invest in their company. However, the attitudes towards their investors and employees changed. Greed replaced honesty. Elitism replaced humility.
Behavioral Model
The Behavioral Model of Leadership (BML) study refocused the research from the characteristics of leaders to what leaders did. According to Clawson (2006), “researchers switched their emphasis to observations of what effective and ineffective leaders actually do.” “The observations recognized two dimensions of leader behavior involving task and relationships.” (Hersey & Blanchard, 1979)
Task-oriented leaders are production driven incorporating a direct, authoritative leadership style. Task-oriented leaders focus on the outcome. The relational leader focuses on the individual placing priority on the relationship. The relational leader finds satisfaction in developing leadership and encouraging others to lead. Relational leaders are participants in the task with their followers. The leadership path used greatly depends on the individual leader.
The Path-Goal theory of leadership is aligned with the Behavioral Model of Leadership. Robert House (1996) states, “The reformulated path-goal theory specifies leader behaviors that enhance subordinate empowerment and satisfaction and work unit and subordinate effectiveness. It addresses the effects of leaders on the motivation and abilities of immediate subordinates and the effects of leaders on work unit performance.” The task is the central focus in this leadership theory and limits the research to the transaction between the leader and subordinate.
The Behavioral Leadership Model limits the parametrical boundaries consistent with the transactional theory. The model analysis includes the motivational effectiveness of the leader. This suggests that the subordinate has the expectation of reward for completing the task. The intrinsic value of the reward determines the level of motivation exerted by the employee. In other words, the employee will do the task if they receive something of value completing the transaction.
Power Model
“The role of power and its relation to values has become a topic of growing interest in business ethics as well as in the literature of management and the sociology or organizations.” (Hiley, 1987) The emergence of power in leadership relationships is contingent upon corporate culture, decision-making structures, and individuals. To fully understand the role of Power in leadership the student first must identify the type of power exerted and second the purpose for exerting the power. Five types of power form the Power theory foundation. In the study of leadership power is used to influence subordinates through; (1) Coercive Power, (2) Legitimate Power (3) Expert Power, (4) Reward Power, and (5) Referent Power.
Coercive Power According to Kotter (1977), “It is also common for managers not to coercively exercise power based on perceived dependence by itself, but to combine it with other methods to reduce the risk of retaliation.” Coercive power alone would alienate the subordinate and create unnecessary tension. Coercive power is the leader’s ability to influence the subordinate through intimidation and control. (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy)
Legitimate Power
Legitimate power reflects the leader’s role. Role is defined as position, title, job description or any other descriptor which would denote a person’s power based on authority, perceived or real. Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (1993) states, “legitimate authority (power) and leadership are not the same thing.” This suggests that legitimate power is based on the relationship of respect between leader and subordinate.
Expert Power
Kotter (1977) states, “Managers usually establish this type of power through visible achievement. The larger the achievement and the more visible it is, the more power the manager tends to develop.” Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (1993) relate expert power to knowledge. Therefore, it is possible for followers to become the leaders on projects/tasks where they possess more knowledge. This dynamic suggests that followers can be leaders given certain situations.
Reward Power
Reward power is power given to a leader based on the leader’s ability to positively reward an individual for the work performed. According to Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (1993), “this can be accomplished through raises, promotions, time off, or granting of tenure.” Reward power is associated with the transactional leadership model where a “transaction” between the leader and subordinate occurs.
Referent Power
Referent power refers to the influence a leader has over subordinates from connecting with them on some conscious or non-conscious level. “Generally, the more a person finds a manager both consciously and (more important) unconsciously an ideal person, the more he or she will defer to that manager.” (Kotter, 1977) Referent power is based on the level of relationship developed between leader and subordinate.
The Power model of leadership illustrates the dynamic of influence an individual exercises over another. Kotter (1977) states, “Americans, as a rule, are not very comfortable with power or with its dynamics.” Therefore, the influence of power has not been researched to the extent of the other models.
Transformational Model
Transformational leadership, through the development of a consensus, moves the ownership paradigm from self-centricity to others centricity. The transformational leadership theory integrates leadership theory to define a “new genre” or new style of leadership. According to Antonakis and House (2002, p. 5), “the Full-range Leadership Theory is an integrative theory of leadership because it is built on, or can be explained by, theories, which, in their time took a bold approach and questioned traditional notions of leadership. Transformational leadership not only focuses on the leader’s traits and behaviors but also includes moral leadership and visioneering.
According to Burns (1978) “transforming leaders create follower awareness of moral and ethical implications and convince them to transcend their self-interest for that of the greater good.” Self-awareness moves the individual into the realm of “becoming” from “doing”. Moving beyond self becomes our way of operating. This concept is on the opposite end from transactional leadership on the leadership continuum.
Conclusion The focus in traditional leadership studies converges on the leader and not leadership. The interaction of the leader with subordinates, their environment, and their experience is placed secondary to groupings of behavior, traits, power dynamics etc. Max De Pree states that “the leader has three tasks to perform: 1) Define reality 2) Become a servant and a debtor to others and 3) Say thank you.” A “good leader” is an individual who has allowed themselves to be transformed through the relationships created. Good leaders are those individuals who allow themselves to grow personally and professionally through interactions with others, their environment, education, and culture/tradition.
All of the traditional Leadership theories fall short of totally encompassing the leadership paradigm. Leaders find themselves operating within the context of authority, environment/culture, their ability to reason, and personal experience. The primacy of leadership falls on the context of authority. To whom or what do we give authority? The other points on the leadership quadrilateral are subject to the authority. At any given time, an individual’s leadership may move from one of the three allowing their leadership style to be adjusted to make a difference in company, in others, and in leaders themselves.
Leadership style cannot be defined by sets of descriptors (traits, behaviors, control dynamics). Leadership is much larger than a list of adjectives. “Leaders are dependent upon followers for the exercise of leadership and the accomplishment of mission.” (De Pree, p. 11)
References
Avolio, B.J. and Yammarino F. J. (2002). John Antonkis and Robert J. House. In Avolio and Yammarino (Eds.) Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. (pp.3-28). Bingley BD16, UK: Emerald Group
Bennis, W. G. (1959). Leadership theory and administrative behavior: The problem of
authority. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4(3), 259-301. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Buckingham, M. (2005). Managers and Leaders. Leadership Excellence, 22(12), 5. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Burns, J. M., (1978). The crisis of leadership. In J. T. Wren (Eds.) The leaders
companion: Insights on leadership through the ages. (pp. 8-10) New York, NY: The Free Press.
Clawson, J. G. (2006). Level three leadership: Getting below the surface. Appendix. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
De Pree, M. (1987). Leadership is an art. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Gardner, J. W., (1990). The cry for leadership. In J. T. Wren (Eds.) The leaders companion: Insights on leadership through the ages. (pp. 3-7) New York, NY: The Free Press.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1979). Behavioral Theories of leadership. In J. T. Wren (Eds.) The leader’s companion: Insights on leadership through the ages. (pp. 144-148) New York, NY: The Free Press.
Hiley, D. R. (1987). Power and values in corporate life. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(5), 343-353. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-353.
Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., and Curphy, G. J. (1993). Power, influence and influence tactics. In J.T. Wren (Eds) The leaders companion: Insights on leadership through the ages. (pp.339-351) New York, NY: The Free Press
Kirkpatrick, S. A. and Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter?. In J. T. Wren (Eds.) The leader’s companion: Insights on leadership through the ages. (pp. 133-143) New York, NY: The Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1977). Power, dependence, and effective management. Harvard Business Review, 55(4), 125-136. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.