Leadership Literature Review - Part 1

2.1 Introduction

Leadership is difficult to define, but is one of those qualities that is well recognized when we see it.

Northouse (2007) and Nahavandi (2006), defined leadership as the process of influencing the followers

in helping them understand and guiding them towards achieving a common goal.

Leadership has been researched and studied from a variety of perspectives. Early research on

leadership focussed on individual traits that differentiated leaders based on their appearance and

personality characteristics. Finding that inherent traits did not fully explained leaders' abilities,

researchers began focussing on behavioral aspects which examined the influence of leaders' behaviors

rather than their personality traits. Subsequent leadership research revolved on contingency theories

that studied the connection between situational variables and leader behaviors. Later on modern

leadership theories like transactional leadership, based on command and control model and the

transformational leadership which emphasized visionary and charismatic leadership style has been at

the forefront of leadership research. Since the 1930s, there have been predominantly four main

‘generations’ of leadership theory that focus primarily on the more traditional, individualistic views of

the leader:

• Trait based theories (1930s -1940s).
• Behavioral theories (1940s-1950s).
• Situational and Contingency theories (1960s).
• Transactional and Transformational theories (1970s).

2.2 Trait based Theory :

Traditionally leadership in the early years has been associated with defining leadership concept

in terms of the innate abilities that was common among leaders and which distinguished them from

non-leaders. Such trait theories explained leadership based on innate personality traits that lead people

naturally into leadership roles. These theories were influenced by the 'Great Man Theory' which argued

that effective leadership is dominated by specific individual characteristics based on the belief that

leaders are exceptional people, born with innate qualities, and destined to lead (Northouse, 2007).

The trait based approach drew attention to the particular innate qualities of the leaders and tried

to explain leadership in relations to individual's personality and character traits, thus in essence,

suggesting leaders were born and leadership is art. Trait based theories focussed on identifying

individual traits of leadership by analyzing physical and personality attributes of individuals such as

physique, appearance, intelligence, self-confidence, drive, and other qualities makes in order to gain

understanding and identifying the combination of key traits that made an individual a successful

leader. The belief was that, if such set of key leadership traits can be known, then individuals with

such traits can be identified and recruited into leadership roles.Stodgill (1974) conducted research on the role of traits in leadership, but could not findconclusive evidence on the definite set of traits needed for an individual to become a good leader.

However his research did conclude that some qualities appeared to be associated with leadership more

often than others such as drive, self-confidence, intelligence, risk-taking, vigor, ability to influence and

willingness to accept responsibility

The main critic of trait based theories is that it suggested that leadership is an innate ability

which cannot be developed by learning, but it failed to offer clear distinctions between leaders and nonleaders(Northouse, 2007). The second critic is that it ignores the impact of the situation (Nahavandi,

2006). The theory assumes that there is a definite set of traits that makes a leader effective in all

situations, i.e. , the same set of traits would work in a military setting as well as in a factory setting .

This led to later research which emphasized that effective leadership arises from behavior and it

involves interaction with other people.

2.3 Behavioral Theory :

Compared to the trait theory, the behavioral theory views leadership from the leader's

behavioral perspective, in lieu of selecting leaders based on their innate qualities. By late 1940s

Leadership researchers dissatisfied with trait theories shifted their interest in leadership behaviors to

explore what leaders actually do . Behavioral theory introduced the leadership style approach that

focused on what and how leaders behaved (Northouse, 2007). Leadership style is the pattern of

behaviors engaged in by the leader when dealing with their followers .The style which leader adopt is

commonly based on combination of their beliefs, ideas, norms, and values. This style approach suggestedthat leadership is composed of two general kinds of behaviors; task-oriented behaviour and

relationship-oriented behaviours. The central intent of the style approach is to explain how leaders

combine these two kinds of behaviors to influence followers in their efforts to reach a goal (Northouse,

2007). Different patterns of leadership behaviours or styles manifested by leaders were observed and

identified . These patterns can be narrowly grouped under the two leadership styles. They are

'autocratic' or 'authoritative' style versus 'democratic' or 'participative' style, which is based on the

contrasting viewpoints of McGregor’s 'Theory X' & 'Theory Y' of worker motivation (Nahavandi,

2006) . It can be therefore viewed as that a leader holding 'Theory X' assumptions would opt for an

autocratic style, whereas one holding 'Theory Y' assumptions would opt for a participative style.

Autocratic orAuthoritative style;

In the Autocratic or Authoritative style, leaders make and enforce decision on to their followers

by rewards or threat. Their concentration is on a stricter control of task completion and do not

entirely trust their followers . The leader takes authoritative dominance over followers, and

announces decisions expecting followers to carry them out without question. Leaders who

exhibit such qualities have been commonly described as aggressive, dominant, forceful,

independent, daring, self-confident and competitive (Northouse, 2007).

Democratic or Participative style;

In the Democratic or Participative style, leaders share decision-making with their followers.

Although the leader will make the final decision, a democratic or participative leader will invite

his followers to contribute to the decision making process.The leaders delegate tasks and have

complete trust in their followers on task accomplishment. Leaders who exhibit such qualities

have been commonly described as having trust in their followers and less controlling

(Nahavandi, 2006).

The behavioral theory suggested that leadership can be learnt and everyone is capable of becoming

a leader. The main critic of behavioral theory is that it ignores the context in which these different

leadership style are used. The styles that leaders adopt can be affected by the environment they are

working within, and those they are working with. However, despite this limitation, behavioral theory

provided useful insight on how we understand leadership.

2.4 Situational & Contingency Theory :

Compared to behavioral theory which narrowly focuses on the leadership style, the

situational-contingency theory includes effects of contingent factors such as leader's behaviors,

follower's behaviors and other situationally contingent variables. Whilst behavioral theories may help

develop specific leadership behaviours, they give little attention to the situational factors, suggesting

that no one leadership style is appropriate under all circumstances. This led to the development of

situational-contingency leadership which argues that there isn't a single appropriate leadership style that

is appropriate across a variety of situations. The theory shoes that the effectiveness of any leadership

style is dependent on the situational factors, and hence the leader must adopt different leadership style

based on the situational context. For example, in some situations an autocratic or task-oriented style

may be most appropriate, whereas some situation may require a participative or relationship-oriented

styles approach. The aim of the situational-contingency leadership research was to identify several

different leadership styles and the types of situations in which they could be effectively adopted.

There were many leadership models and frameworks offered by contingency theory researchers.

Contingency theorist such as Fiedler explained that a leader’s effectiveness is determined by three

factors (Northouse, 2007) :

• Relationship between leaders and followers: The extent to which leader has support and loyalty of followers.
• Task Structure : The extent to which the task is clearly specified to goals, methods and performance standards.
• Leader's Power: The extent to which the leader has power for the purpose of influencing and getting the task completed.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) and John Adair (1973) offered alternative approaches to

situational leadership. According to Adair’s (1973) framework, depending on the situational context a

leader must give appropriate attentions to the task completion, the welfare of the team and the

development of the follower. Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958), presented a continuous spectrum of

leadership styles consisting of four main styles; autocratic, persuasive, consultative and participative

styles. This model suggests that a leadership behaviour can vary along this range of continuum

leadership styles based on the consideration given to the situational factors

In general, the situational-contingency leadership theories makes us to think about what leaders

do across a variety of situations and the degree of their ability to direct their followers. What

distinguishes this approach from behavioral style approach is that, the situational-contingency approach

sees leadership as a process that happens within a situational context, whereas the trait and behavioral

theories sees leadership in terms on individualistic abilities.

…continued in  Part 2