This article came from a paper I wrote while pursuing my master’s degree in organizational leadership. Apart from adding some headings and correcting a few grammatical mistakes, I haven’t done much to revise it. As I recall, this paper followed the contents of Northouse’s Leadership: Theory and Practice textbook, which was required reading for the class. After rereading this paper, I am struck by how much talk (usually on LinkedIn) still revolves around leaders (e.g., behavior and traits of leaders). I see a lot less about leadership. One should stop and consider the difference between discussing leaders and leadership; there’s a difference. Finally, I will leave you with Northouse’s long-lasting definition of leadership.
Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individual’s to achieve a common goal.
Northouse, p. 6.
Rost (1993) lambasted writers for repeatedly starting their books and articles with an infantile summary of the history of leadership. Instead of exploring the complexities of the last century, these summaries frequently isolate popular theories within a specific period in history. These narratives convey a progressive form of leadership where older leadership theories gave way to newer theories. This portrayal of leadership is understandable because it provides an impression of progress in how people understand leadership (pp. 17-18). These theories experienced periods of dominance, but newer theories did not discredit or cause them to cease (Rost, 1993, 28). In fact, Rost (1993) extensively argued that the theories of the 20th century continue to resurface because they include common elements that fit an industrial paradigm, which is management-oriented (pp. 23-27).
Traits Leadership
A traits approach to leadership was one of the first systematic attempts at studying leadership (Northouse, 2016, p.19). Theorists created great man theories. Coined from William James’ suggestion that the history of the world is the history of great men (Landis, Hill and Harvey, 2014), these theories equated leadership with the innate characteristics of a leader (Perruci & McManus, 2012, p. 49). This leader-centered approach dominated the beginning of the 20th century but was then widely disregarded (Zaccaro, 2007, p. 6) by the 1930s (Perruci & McManus, 2012, p. 50). In 1948, Stogdill concluded that no discernable traits were found between leaders and non-leaders. Researchers were persuaded to consider other approaches to leadership (Northouse, 2016, p. 19, 71). In the 1980s, the traits approach received renewed attention in the excellence theory (Rost, 1993, 28) as new models explored the qualities of effective leaders (Zaccaro, 2007, p. 6).
Skills Approach
Although the traits approach failed to provide an agreeable list (Perruci & McManus, 2012, pp. 50, 59), it is “intuitively appealing” (Northouse, 2016, p. 30). It gave researchers a starting point. The skills approach built off the traits approach (Northouse, 2016, p. 59) but emphasized the leader’s abilities. Both approaches allow organizations to define desirable characteristics and skills for potential management positions (Northouse, 2016, pp. 30, 58).
Behavioral Approach to Leadership
By the Second World War, research began to shift from observing great men to a search for distinguishing behavior in leaders that affected performance as well as the satisfaction of followers (Badshah, 2012, p. 51), although followers were still only viewed as subordinates (Perruci & McManus, 2012, p. 50). Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid provided organizations with a behavioral approach to leadership, offering managers a mirror for examining how they were doing and how they might be more effective (Northouse, 2016, p. 82).
Situational Approach
Developed at the beginning of the 1970s, the situational approach and the path-goal theory provided organizational models for motivating followers to maximize organizational goals (Perruci & McManus, 2012, p. 50; Badshah, 2012, p. 53). Whereas path-goal theory recommends leaders adjust their behavior to influence how subordinates view their work goals (Badshah, 2012, p. 53), the Situational Leadership® II model encourages efficient one-on-one interaction between manager and employee (Rost, 1993, p. 109). Managers could then evaluate the support and direction a subordinate required (Northouse, 2016, p.93). Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) indirectly deals with maximizing goals and explicitly addresses the relationship between leaders and followers and the implications. Organizations aware of in-group and out-group dynamics can provide leaders with an understanding of why some followers are more effective and willing than others and why some individuals are determined only to do what is required (Northouse, 2016, pp. 137-147).
In 1978, instead of focusing on a leader’s traits and behaviors, Burns identified two types of leadership: transformational and transactional (Perruci & McManus, 2012, p. 50). Like task-oriented leadership, transactional leadership focuses on the exchange between workers and followers, emphasizing goal completion (McCleskey, 2014, p. 124). Transformational leadership introduced a relation-oriented leadership view (McCleskey, 2014, p. 124), focusing not on goal completion but on motivating followers to do more than they were initially expected (Badshah, 2012, p. 55). Maslow’s hierarchy theory helped organizations understand the benefits of transformational leadership. This leader helps move followers beyond their own self-interest for the sake of the organization, moving “from lower-level concerns for safety and security to higher-level needs for achievement and self-actualization” (McCleskey, 2014, p. 124).
Servant leadership originated with Greenleaf in 1977. He proposed that leadership would be granted by followers who witnessed clear evidence of servanthood (Badshah, 2012, p. 57). A servant leader does not wait to be established as a leader to serve, but the desire to serve precedes the choice to lead (Shirin, 2015, p. 2). This counterintuitive approach does not emphasize influence or control (Northouse, 2015, p. 240); rather, it places the servant first and ensures that the followers’ highest needs are being met (Shirin, 2015, p. 2; Badshah, 2012, p. 57). Organizations that implement this form of leadership often do so because they experience high profits while creating a healthy environment for employees (Shirin, 2015, p. 1).
Transactional and Transformational Leadership
Authentic leadership can be a characteristic a leader exhibits or something that emerges through interactions (Northouse, 2016, p. 196). Nichols and Erakovich (2013) compared authentic with inauthentic leadership to distinguish motives. Though both types have the potential to transform and motivate followers, a leader perceived as authentic within an organization can have positive effects (pp. 183-185) when followers feel insecure within their environment (Northouse, 2016, p. 195). Adaptive leadership is also relation-oriented. In this approach, the leader is not obsessed with position but is more concerned with helping followers reach their highest potential (Northouse, 2016, p. 258).
Psychodynamic Approach
By the end of World War II, foundations for the psychodynamic approach were being considered. Larry Hirschhorn, in 1988, led the way with the goal of “creating healthier organizational cultures.” This approach appreciates the complexity of individuals and groups, acknowledging that not every decision is rational but that “there is a rationale behind every human act” (Northouse, 2016, pp. 296-309). These organizational cultures have become increasingly complex as globalization has increased (Northouse, 2016, p. 427).
Global Perspective
Today, companies need to consider how to lead across differing world cultures. According to Northouse (2016), GLOBE researchers identified 10 distinct cultures after studying 62 countries (p. 434-435). Researchers have begun defining desired competencies in global leaders (Jokinen, 2005, pp. 199-201). For example, Jokinen (2005) suggested self-awareness, engagement in personal transformation, and inquisitiveness as core competencies in a global leader. These competencies would increase leaders’ willingness to stretch themselves and try and confront new situations (pp. 205-206). Leadership at the beginning of the 20th century focused on leader competencies. From there, researchers began considering how followers and situations influenced leadership. These approaches need to be revisited from a global perspective that includes how leaders and followers behave in different cultures and situations.
References
Andersen, J. A., Örebro universitet, & Handelshögskolan vid Örebro Universitet. (2015). Barking up the wrong tree. on the fallacies of the transformational leadership theory. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(6), 765-777. doi:10.1108/LODJ-12-2013-0168
Badshah, S. (2012). Historical study of leadership theories. Journal of Strategic Human Resource Management, 1(1), 49.
Jokinen, T. (2005). Global leadership competencies: A review and discussion. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(3), 199-216. doi:10.1108/03090590510591085
Landis, E. A., Hill, D., & Harvey, M. R. (2014). A synthesis of leadership theories and styles. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(2), 97-100. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.library.regent.edu/docview/1535935047?accountid=13479
McCleskey, J. A. (2014). Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and leadership development. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(4), 117.
Nichols, T. W., & Erakovich, R. (2013). Authentic leadership and implicit theory: A normative form of leadership? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(2), 182-195. doi:10.1108/01437731311321931
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Perruci, G., & McManus, R. M. (2012). The state of leadership studies. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(3), 49-54. doi:10.1002/jls.21256
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century [Kindle Version].
Shirin, A. V. (2015). Is servant leadership inherently christian? Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, 3(1)
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 6-16. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6