Leadership Theories

1930s and 1940sUniversal Trait Theory:

Intelligence, extroversion, integrity, emotional stability, and self-confidence.
While subsequent studies have documented that these and other traits are not
universal (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Clark & Clark, 1994), there are those who still
argue that such traits as drive, motivation, honesty and integrity, self-confidence,
cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business do matter for contemporary leaders
(Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991).
In the 1950s, the Ohio State University leadership studies:
Focused on leader behaviors, identifying two major components: (a) consideration
behaviors that signal trust, respect, warmth, and communication and (b) initiation of
structurebehaviors that facilitate accomplishment of a task or goal (Clark & Clark,
1994; Barge, 1994).
Generally, studies have shown that leaders who rate high in both categories are more
effective, including leaders in other cultures such as Japan. These behaviors were
measured by the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, which is still in wide
use. Many training programs are based on these two dimensions, often in the form of
Blake and Moutons managerial grid theory.
Other researchers found that two dimensions did not provide adequate descriptions of
leadership. Gary Yukl (1989), for example, found that the degree of participative
leadership is distinct from consideration and initiation of structure.
Situational leadership theories:
Fiedlers (1967) Contingency TheoryTries to match the leader personality with a
situation. It creates eight combinations of three factors: (a) leader-member relations,
(b) task structure, and (c) position power (Fiedler, 1967). In spite of its wide use in
industry, extensive studies have shown conflicting results (Barge, 1994).
Robert House's (1971) Path-Goal TheoryThe nature of the task (structured vs.
unstructured) and the extent of direction provided by the leader impact the
satisfaction of followers. However, about half of the studies of this theory provide
contradictory conclusions (Schriesheim & Von Glinow, 1977).
Hershey and Blanchards (1982) Situational Leadership TheoryLeaders alter their
style based on the followers ability to perform a task and the individuals willingness
or motivation to perform the task. The leadership styles described are: (1) delegating,
(2) participating, (3) selling, and (4) telling. Hershey and Blanchards leadership
theory includes a life-cycle component that seems intuitively accurate. In spite of its
popularity, the research provides only limited support for part of the theory (Barge,
1994).
Vroom & Yettons, (1973) Leader Decision TheoryProvides decision rules for
leaders based upon three leadership styles: (a) autocratic, (b) consultive, and (c)
participative. Although there is support for this theory, there is some evidence that the
leaders ability to manage conflict may be much more important (Tjosvold, Wedley,
& Field, 1986).

Leader Substitutes TheoryChallenges the impact of leader behaviors on

organizational outcomes (Kerr, 1977). Leader substitutes, based on subordinate, task
and organizational characteristics, may counteract or enhance the leaders influence
on a group. Substitutes that may reduce or neutralize leadership include: (a) ability,
experience and training; (b) routine tasks; and (c) rigid, unbending rules and
procedures.
Boleman and Deals (1984) Four Frames Theory1) The structural frame
characterized by a mechanistic hierarchy with authoritarian chain of command and
structured management systems and decision-making tools; 2) The human resources
framecharacterized by collegial relationships, use of empowerment, professional
development, shared values, and consensus decision-making; 3) The political frame
characterized by conflict and competition that require bargaining, influence,
negotiation, networking and coalition building to reach decisions; and 4) The
symbolic framecharacterized by organic structure with shared sense of mission,
values and beliefs that provide means of interpretation for meaning where leaders act
as facilitators or catalysts to decisions and actions.

Credibility Theory
Kouzes & Posner (1994) identified four characteristics that most people (defined as
over 51%) admire in leaders: 1) honest (87%), 2) forward-looking (71%), 3) inspiring
(68%), 4) competent (58%). Although the percentages vary slightly, they have since
found that these same four characteristics emerge across many cultural and national
boundaries.
The authors also described three criteria used by researchers to determine the
believability of communication (p. 21): (a) trustworthiness, (b) expertise, and (c)
dynamism. These correlate closely to honesty, competence, and inspiring,
respectively. Jim Kouzes (1994) pointed out that forward-looking, or visionary,
distinguishes leaders from other credible people and that credibility is the
foundation for leadership (n.a.).
Transformational (Moral) Leadership
Transformational leadership (Burns, 1978)when one or more persons engage with
others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of
motivation and morality . . . and thus it has a transforming effect on both.
Transactional leadershipwhen one person takes the initiative in making contact
with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things . . . [which] could be
economic or political or psychological in nature.
Servant-Leadership
It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then
conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. The difference manifests itself in the
care taken by the servantfirst to make sure that other peoples highest priority needs
are being served. (n.d.) Robert Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership