CHAPTER 4

LEADERSHIP THEORIES AND MODELS

1. INTRODUCTION

The term leadership is a relatively recent addition to the English language. It has been in use
only for about two hundred years, although the term leader, from which it was derived,appeared
as early as A.D. 1300 (Stogdill, 1974). In the first part of this Chapter, different definitions of
leadership will be discussed in order to create a broader understanding of the different
perspectives on leadership. In the second part of the Chapter, some of the well-known leadership
theories will be reviewed in order to provide the reader with a broad perspective on the concept of
leadership and howit has evolved over the last few decades. This will provide the necessary
context and background for the interpretation and understanding of the research results obtained
in thestudy, since the main aim of this study was to measure leadership behaviour as part of the
implementation of a holistic model and process for leadership development.

Researchers usually define leadership according to their individual perspectives and the aspects
of the phenomenon of most interest to them. After a comprehensive review of theleadership
literature, Stogdill (1974, p259) concluded that “there are almost as many definitions of
leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.” The stream of new
definitions has continued unabated since Stogdill made his observation. Leadership has been
defined in terms of traits, behaviours, influences, interaction patterns, role relationships, and
occupation of a position.

The following are examples of definitions of leadership from some of the well-known writers
and researchers in the field of leadership:
 Leadership is a “particular type of power relationship characterized by a group
member’s perception that another group member has the right to prescribe behaviour
patterns for the former regarding his activity as a group member” (Janda,1960, p. 358).
 Leadership is “interpersonal influence, exercised in a situation, and directed,through
the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals”
(Tannenbaum, Weschler, & Massarik, 1961, p. 24).
 Leadership is “an interaction between persons in which one presents information ofa sort
and in such a manner that the other becomes convinced that his outcomes … will be
1
 improved if he behaves in the manner suggested or desired” (Jacobs, 1970,p. 232).
 Leadership is “the initiation and maintenance of structure in expectation and
interaction” (Stogdill, 1974, p. 411).
 Leadership is “the relationship in which one person, the leader, influences others towork
together willingly on related tasks to attain that which the leader desires” (Terry. 1977,
410).
 Leadership is “the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with the
routine directives of the organization” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 528).
 According to Bray, Campbell and Grant, leadership is the “effectiveness in getting ideas
accepted and in guiding a group or an individual to accomplish a task” (Morris, 1979,
p. 5).
 Koontz and O’Donnell define leadership as “the art or process of influencing peopleso
that they will strive willingly towards the achievement of group goals” (Koontz et.al.,
1984, p. 661).
 “Leadership is an interaction between members of a group. Leaders are agents of
change, persons whose acts affect other people more than other people’s acts affect
them” (Bass, 1985, p. 16).
 “… interpersonal influence exercised in a situation and directed, through the
communication process, toward the attainment of a specialised goal or goals” (Hersey
and Blanchard, 1982, p. 83).
 “Leadership is the process of defining current situations and articulating goals for the
future; making the decisions necessary to resolve the situation or achieve the goals; and
gaining the commitment from those who have to implement these decisions” (Brache,
1983, p. 120).
 Leadership is “the process of influencing the activities of an organized group towardgoal
achievement” (Rauch & Behling, 1984, p. 46).

As can be seen from the definitions reflected above, most definitions of leadership reflect the
assumption that leadership involves a process whereby one person exerts intentionalinfluence
over other people to guide, structure, and facilitate activities and relationships in a group or
organization. Most conceptions of leadership imply that at various times one or more group
members can be identified as a leader according to some observable difference between the
person(s) and other members, who are referred to as “followers” or“subordinates”. According to
Janda (1960), definitions of leadership as a phenomenon involve the interaction between two
2
or more persons. In addition, most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption that
leadership involves an influencing process wherebyintentional influence is exerted by the leader
over followers. The numerous definitions of leadership that have been proposed appear to have
little elsein common. The definitions differ in many respects, including important differences
as towho exerts influence, the purpose of the attempts to influence, and the manner in which
influence is exerted.

The researcher will not attempt to resolve the controversy over the most appropriate definition
of leadership as part of this study. For the purposes of this study, the various definitions will be
viewed as a source of different perspectives on a complex, multifacetedphenomenon. The reason
for this is that in research, the operational definition of leadership will, to a great extent, depend
on the purpose of the research (Campbell, 1977;Karmel, 1978). The purpose may be to identify
leaders, to determine how they are selected, to discover what they do, to discover why they are
effective, or to determine whether they are necessary. As Karmel (1978, p. 476) notes: “It is
consequently very difficult to settle on asingle definition of leadership that is general enough to
accommodate these many meanings and specific enough to serve as an operationalization of the
variable”.

According to Gratton (2007), the new leadership agenda is based on enabling people to work
skilfully and co-operatively within and across the boundaries of the company. Leaders must
ignite energy and excitement through asking inspiring questions or creatinga powerful vision of
the future. The challenge for leaders is that such conditions are emergent rather than controlled
anddirected. The old leadership rules of command and control have little effect (Gratton, 2007).
For the purpose of this research, leadership has been regarded as the process of influencing
others so that they understand and agree about what actions can be taken, how the actions can
be executed effectively, and how to inspire individual and team efforts to accomplish shared
objectives (Kouzes & Postner, 2002).

Another important underlying philosophy upon which this study is based is that leadershipis
different from management. According to Bennis and Nanus (1985, p. 21) the main difference
is that “managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who dothe right thing.”
In the following section the difference between leadership and management will be discussed
in greater detail.

3
 2. LEADERSHIP VERSUS MANAGEMENT

Scholars such as Bass (1990), Hickman (1990), Kotter (1988), Mintzberg (1973) and Rost(1991)
view leading and managing as distinct processes, but they do not assume that leaders and
managers are different types of people. However, these scholars differ somewhat in how they
define the two processes. Mintzberg (1973) developed a list of ten managerial roles to be
observed in his study of executives. The ten roles account for all of management activities, and
each activity canbe explained in terms of at least one role, although many activities involve more
than onerole. Three roles deal with the interpersonal behaviour of managers (leader, liaison, and
figurehead); three roles deal with information-processing behaviour (monitor, disseminator, and
spokesman) and four roles deal with decision making behaviour (entrepreneur, conflict solver,
resource allocator, and negotiator).

Based on the finding of his research, Mintzberg (1973) reached the conclusion that the roles of
a manager are largely predetermined by the nature of the managerial position, butthat managers
do have flexibility in the way each role is interpreted and enacted. Kotter (1990) differentiated
between management and leadership in terms of the core processes and intended outcomes.
According to Kotter (1990) management seeks to produce predictability and order by:
 Setting operational goals, establishing action plans with timetables, and allocating
resources;
 Organizing and staffing e.g. establishing structure, assigning resources and tasks;and
 Monitoring results and solving problems.

Leadership seeks to produce organizational change by:

 Developing a vision of the future and strategies for making necessary changes;
 Communicating and explaining the vision, and
 Motivating and inspiring people to attain the vision.

Management and leadership are both involved in creating networks or relationships in order to
facilitate the taking of action. However, the two processes have some incompatible elements.
Strong leadership can disrupt order and efficiency and too stronga focus on management can
discourage risk-taking and innovation. According to Kotter (1990), both processes are
necessary for the success of an organization. Effective management on its own can create a
bureaucracy without purpose, while effective leadership on its own can create change that is
4
impractical. The relative importance of thetwo processes and the best way to integrate them
depend on the situation that prevails.

Rost (1991) describes management as a relationship based on authority that exists between
managers and subordinates in order to produce and sell goods and services. Hedefined leadership
as a relationship based on influence between a leader and followers with the mutual purpose of
accomplishing real change. Leaders and followers influence each other as they interact in non-
coercive ways to decide what changes they wish to make. Managers may be leaders, but only if
they succeed to build a relationship based oninfluence with their followers. Rost proposes that
the ability to lead is not necessary for amanager to be effective in producing and selling goods
and services. However, even when authority is a sufficient basis for downward influence over
subordinates, good relationships is necessary for influencing people over whom the leader has
no authority, e.g. peers. In organizations where change has become a constant part of the
business environment, good relationships based on influence with subordinates seems necessary
(Rost, 1991).

The following table provides a comprehensive summary of the views and research findings of
leading writers and researchers in this field.

A COMPARISON OF MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP

Table 4.1 Management Leadership
 Planning and budgeting  Creating vision and strategy
 Keeping eye on bottom line  Keeping eye on the horizon
 Organizing and staffing  Creating shared culture and values
 Directing and controlling  Helping others grow
 Create boundaries  Minimize boundaries
 Focuses on objects – producing/selling  Focuses on people – inspiring and
goods and services motivating followers
 Based on position power  Based on personal power
 Acting as boss  Acting as coach, facilitator, servant
 Emotional distance  Emotional connections (heart)
 Expert mind  Open mind (mindfulness)
 Talking  Listening (communication)
 Conformity  Non-conformity (courage)
 Insight into organization  Insight into self (integrity)

5
  Implementation of the leader’s vision  Articulation of an organizational vision and
and changes introduced by leaders, and the introduction of major organizational
the maintenance and administration of change; provides inspiration and deals with
organizational infrastructures. highly stressful and troublesome aspects of
the external environments of organizations.
 Focuses on the tasks (things) when  Focuses on the interpersonal relationships
performing the management functions of (people).
planning, organization, and controlling.  Establishes direction; develops a vision and
 Planning. Establishes detailed the strategies needed for its achievement.
objectives and plans for achieving them.  Innovates and allows employees to do the
 Organizing and staffing. Sets up job any way they want, as long as they get
structure for employees to do the job the results that relate to the vision.
way the manager expects it to be done.
 Controlling. Monitors results  Motivates and inspires employees to
againstplans and takes corrective accomplish the vision in creative ways.
action.  Makes innovative, quick changes that are
 Predictable. Plans, organizes, and not very predictable. Prefers change.
controls with consistent behaviour.
Prefers stability.
 Managers do things right.  Leaders do the right things.

 Focus is on a short-term view, avoiding  The focus is on a long-term view, taking

risks, maintaining and imitating. risks, innovating, and originating.
 Maintains stability  Creates change

Based on the information in Table 2.1 regarding the differences between management and
leadership, the following conclusions can be reached:
 Both leadership and management are concerned with providing direction for the
organization, but there are differences. Management focuses on establishing detailed
plans and schedules for achieving specific results and then allocating resources to
accomplish the plan. Leadership calls for creating a compelling visionof the future
and developing farsighted strategies for producing the changes needed to achieve that
vision. Whereas management calls for keeping an eye on the bottom line and short-
term results, leadership entails keeping an eye on the horizon and the long-term
future.
 Management entails organizing a structure to accomplish the plan, staffing the
structure and developing policies, procedures, and systems to direct employees and
to monitor implementation of the plan. Leadership is concerned with
communicating the vision and developing a shared culture and set of core values
that can lead to the desired future state. Leadership focuses on guiding employees
towards the achievement of a common vision.

6
 Rather than directing and controlling employees, leadership is concerned with
assisting others to grow, so that they can fully contribute to the achievement of the
vision. Whereas the management communication process generally involves
providing answers and solving problems, leadership entails asking questions,
listening, and the involvement of others. It is essential for leadership that
information on direction and on cultural values be communicated in words as well
as in action in order to influence the creation of teams which will both understand
the vision and support it.
 In terms of relationships, management focuses on objects such as tools and reports,
on taking the necessary steps to produce the organization’s products and services.
Leadership relationships, on the other hand, focus on motivating and inspiring
people.
 The source of management power is the formal position of authority in the
organization. Leadership power flows from the personal characteristics of the
leader. Leadership does not demand holding a formal position of authority. Many
people, who hold positions of authority, do not provide leadership. While the
manager often regards herself or himself as a boss or supervisor, the leader regards
herself or himself as a coach or facilitator.
 Whereas management means providing answers and solving problems, leadership
requires the courage to admit mistakes and doubts, to take risks, to listen, and to
trust and learn from others.
 Leadership is more than a set of skills; it relies on a number of subtle personal
qualities that are difficult to perceive but are very powerful. These include
characteristics such as enthusiasm, integrity, courage, and humility. Real leadership
originates from a genuine concern for others. The process of management generally
encourages emotional distance, but leadership fosters empathy with others. Leaders
suppress their own egos, recognize the contributions of others, and let others know that
they are valued.
 Management and leadership deliver different outcomes. Management produces
stability, predictability, order, and efficiency. Good management therefore helps the
organization consistently achieve short-term results and meets the expectations of
various stakeholders. Leadership, on the other hand, leads to change, often to a
dramatic degree. Leadership means questioning and challenging the status quo, so that
outdated or unproductive norms can be replaced to meets new challenges. Good
7
 leadership can lead to extremely valuable change, such as new products orservices
that gain new customers or expand markets.

According to Kotter (1996), good management is required in order to help organizations meet
current commitments, but good leadership is required in order to move the organization into
the future. For much of the 20th century, good management has often been enough to keep
organizations successful, but in the changing business environment of the 21st century,
organizations can no longer rely on traditional management practicesonly to remain successful.
Good leadership is a critical success factor for organizations toremain successful. For this reason
the focus of this study will be on leadership behaviour. Although the importance of good
management is not denied, the challenge facing the organization to transform itself from a state
owned company functioning in a monopolistic business environment to a company that can
function in a competitive environment requires a strong focus on leadership.

In the next section of this Chapter, different theories and research findings on leadership
effectiveness will be reviewed in order to create an understanding of the broader context for this
study which focuses on the measurement of leadership behaviour by means of a 360° Leadership
Assessment Questionnaire, as part o f a Holistic Model for Leadership Development.

2.1 LEADERSHIP THEORIES AND MODELS

In this section, examples of the different types of leadership theories will be discussed, namely
trait theories of leadership, behavioural leadership theories, contingency leadership theories,
and integrative leadership theories. The aim of this section is to provide the reader with a
broad overview of the different types of leadership theories andthe way in which each theory
explains and interprets leadership behaviour and effectiveness. This will provide the reader
with the necessary background and context forthis study, since the main purpose is to measure
leadership behaviour and to demonstratea model for leadership development.

2.2 XAMPLES OF TRAIT THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP

The kind of traits studied in trait theories of leadership include personality, ability,motivation,
power and needs. A Trait can be defined as an inherent characteristic of a person while a
competency can be defined as ability of capability of a person to do something (Geddes &
Grosset, 1998). In the earlier leadership theories the focus seems to be more on the inherent
traits of leaders while the focus of the more recent leadership theories seems to be more on
8
leadership competencies and behaviour. A possible reasonfor this shift in focus may be because
competencies and behaviour can change and can therefore be developed while inherent traits of
a person are difficult to change.

2.2.1 Achievement Motivation Theory

The Achievement Motivation Theory of David McClellan attempts to explain and predict
behaviour and performance based on a person’s need for achievement, power and affiliation.
David McClelland originally developed his Achievement Motivation Theory in the 1940s. He
believes that everybody has needs, and that our needs motivate us to satisfy them. Our behaviour
is therefore motivated by our needs. He further states that needs are basedon personality, and are
developed as we interact with the environment. All people experience the need for achievement,
power, and affiliation, but to different degrees. Oneof these three needs (achievement, power
and affiliations) tend to be dominant in each ofus, and motivates our behaviour (McClelland,
1960).

McClelland’s needs can be described as follows:

 Need for Achievement (n Ach)

According to McClelland (1960), this is the unconscious concern for excellence in
accomplishments through individual effort. Those with a strong need for achievement tend to
have an internal locus of control, self-confidence, and high- energy traits. People with a high
need for achievement tend to be characterized aswanting to take personal responsibility for solving
problems. They are goal-oriented and set moderate, realistic, attainable goals. They seek a
challenge, excellence and individuality. They tend to take calculated, moderate risks, they desire
concrete feedback on their performance, and they are hard workers. Those with high needfor
achievement think about ways in which to improve work performance, about howto accomplish
something unusual or important and about career progression. They perform well in non-routine,
challenging and competitive situations, while people with a low need for achievement do not
have the same characteristics.

Research by McClelland (1960) showed that only about 10 percent of the U.S. population has
a strong dominant need for achievement. According to House, Sprangler and Woycke (1960),
there is evidence of a correlation between a high achievement need and high performance in the
general population, but not necessarily for leader effectiveness. People with a high need for
9
achievement tendto enjoy entrepreneurial-type positions. According to McClelland (1985) good
leaders generally have only a moderate needfor achievement. They tend to have high energy,
self-confidence, openness to experience and they are conscientious (McClelland, 1985).

 The Need for Power (n Pow)

According to McClelland (1960) the need for power is the unconscious need to influence others
and to seek positions of authority. Those with a strong need for power possess a trait for
dominance, and tend to be self-confident with high energy.Those with a strong need for power
tend to be characterized as trying to control situations, trying to influence or control others,
enjoying competitiveness where theycan win. They resent the idea of losing and are willing to
confront others. They tend to seek positions of authority and status. According to Nicholson
(1998), people with a strong need for power tend to be ambitious and have a lower need for
affiliation. They are more concerned with getting their own way by for instance influencing
others, than about what others think of them. They tend to regard power and politics as essential
for successful leadership (Nicholson, 1998). According to McClelland (1985), power is
essential to leaders because it is an effective way of influencing followers. Without power, there
is no leadership. To be successful, leaders must want to be in charge and enjoy the leadership
role. Leaders have to influence their followers, peers, and higher-level managers.

 The Need for Affiliation (n Aff)

According to McClelland (1960), the need for affiliation is the unconscious concern for
developing, maintaining, and restoring close personal relationships. People witha strong need for
affiliation tend to be sensitive to others. People with a high need for affiliation tend to be
characterized as seeking close relationships with others, wanting to be liked by others, enjoying
a wide variety of social activities and seekingto belong. They therefore tend to join groups and
organizations. People with a high need for affiliation tend to think about friends and relationships.
They tend to enjoydeveloping, helping and teaching others. They often seek jobs as teachers, in
human resource management, and in other support-giving professions. Accordingto Nicholson
(1998), those with a high need for affiliation are more concerned aboutwhat others think of them
than about getting their own way by, for example, influencing others. They tend to have a low
need for power and they therefore tendto avoid management roles and positions because they
like to be seen as one of the group rather than as its leader (Nicholson, 1998).

According to McClelland (1985) effective leaders have a lower need for affiliation than they do
10
for power, to the extent that relationships do not impede the influencing of followers. Leaders
with a high need for affiliation tend to have a lowerneed for power and may therefore be reluctant
to enforce discipline, such as whenhaving to instruct followers to carry out tasks they find
disagreeable, for example implementing change. They have been found to show favouritism
towards their friends. Effective leaders do, however, show concern for followers by means of
socialized power (McClelland, 1985). McClelland further identified power as neither good nor
bad. Power can be used forpersonal gain at the expense of others, for instance, personalised
power, or it canbe used to help oneself and others, for instance, socialised power (McClelland,
1985).

2.2.2 Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor (1966) classified attitudes or belief systems, which he called assumptions,
as Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X and Theory Y explain and predict leadership behaviour
and performance based upon the leader’s attitude toward followers. Those with Theory X
attitudes believe that employees dislike work and must be closely supervised in order to carry
out tasks. Theory Y attitudes believe that employees like to work and do not need to be closely
supervised in order to carry out tasks (McGregor, 1966).

Managers with Theory Y attitudes tend to have a positive, optimistic view of employees, and
display a more participative leadership style, based on internal motivation and rewards (Tietjen and
Myers, 1998). In 1966, when McGregor published his Theory X and TheoryY, most managers
had Theory X attitudes (Tietjen & Myers, 1998). More recently, the focus changed from
management to leadership, leading to a change from a Theory X attitude to a Theory Y attitude,
as more managers started to use a more participative leadership style (Tietjen & Myers, 1998).

A study of over 12,000 managers explored the relationship between managerial achievement
and attitude toward subordinates (Hall & Donnell, 1979). The managers withTheory Y attitudes
were better at accomplishing organizational objectives and better at tapping the potential of
subordinates. The managers with strong Theory X attitudes werefar more likely to be in the low-
achievement group (Hall & Donnell, 1979).

2.2.3 Research results on trait theories

The trait research has been reviewed on various occasions by different scholars e.g., Lord, De Vader
and Alliger (1988); Mann (1959); Stogdill (1948, 1974). The two reviews by Stogdill will be
11
compared to discover how conceptions about the importance of leader traits evolved over a
quarter of a century. In his first review, Stogdill (1948) examined the results of one hundred and
twenty-four traitstudies from 1904 ad 1948. A number of traits were found that differentiated
repeatedly between leaders and non-leaders in several studies. The results indicated that a leader
is someone who acquires status through active participation and demonstration of ability to
facilitate the efforts of the group in attaining its goals. Traits relevant to the role of a leaderinclude
intelligence, alertness to the needs of others, understanding of the task, initiative and tenacity
in dealing with problems, self-confidence as well as the desire to accept responsibility and
occupy a position of dominance and control. In the case of certain traits, such as dominance and
intelligence, there were some negative correlations, which may indicate a curvilinear
relationship (Stogdill, 1948).

Despite the evidence that leaders tend to differ from non-leaders with respect to certain traits,
Stogdill found that the results varied considerably from situation to situation. In several studies
that measured situational factors, there was evidence that the relative importance of each trait
depends upon the situation. Stogdill (1948, p.64) therefore concluded that: “A person does not
become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits … the pattern of
personal characteristics of the leader must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics,
activities and goals of the followers.”

In his book, published in 1974, Stogdill reviewed one hundred and sixty-three trait studies
conducted during the period from 1949 to 1970. The research done during this period used a
greater variety of measurement procedures than did previous research, includingprojective tests
e.g. Thematic Apperception Test and the minor sentence completion scale, situational tests, e.g. in-
basket and leaderless group discussion as well as forced choice tests e.g. Ghiselli’s self-
description inventory and Gordon’s survey of interpersonal value(Stogdill, 1974).

According to House and Aditya (1997), there appear to be some traits that consistently
differentiate leaders from others. The trait theory therefore does seem to have some claimto
universality. For the theory to be truly universal, all leaders would have to have the same traits.
However, there does not seem to be one list of traits accepted by all researchers.

2.3 EXAMPLES OF BEHAVIOURAL LEADERSHIP THEORIES

According to the behavioural approach to leadership, anyone who adopts the appropriate
12
behaviour can be a good leader. Researchers on leadership behaviour who followed the
behaviour approach to leadership, attempted to uncover the behaviours in which leaders engage,
rather than what traits a leader possesses.

2.3.1 Leadership Style Theory

Kurt Lewin and his associates conducted studies at Iowa State University that concentrated on
leadership styles (Lewin, Lippett & White, 1939). They identified the following two basic
leadership styles in their studies:
 Autocratic leadership style: The autocratic leader makes the decisions, tells
employees what to do and closely supervises workers (Lewin, et al 1939); (Likert,
1967).
 Democratic leadership style: The democratic leader encourages participation in
decisions, works with employees to determine what to do and does not closely
supervise employees. (Lewin, et al. 1939); (Likert, 1967).

According to Likert (1967), the first studies on leadership behaviour conducted at Iowa State
University by Kurt Lewin and his associates included groups of children, each with its own
designated adult leader who was instructed to act in either an autocratic or democratic style.
These experiments produced some interesting findings. The groups with autocratic leaders
performed very well as long as the leader was present to supervise them. However, group
members were displeased with the autocratic style of leadership and feelings of hostility
frequently arose. The performance of groups who were assigneddemocratic leaders was almost
as good and these groups were characterized by positive feelings rather than hostility. In
addition, under the democratic style of leadership, groupmembers performed well even when
the leader was absent. The participative techniquesand decision-making by majority rule as used
by the democratic leader served to train andinvolve the group members, so that they performed
well with or without the leader being present (Likert, 1967). These characteristics of democratic
leadership may partly explainwhy the empowerment of employees is a popular trend in many
organizations.

This early work implied that leaders were either autocratic or democratic in their approach.
However, work done by Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1969) indicated that leadership
behaviour could exist on a continuum reflecting different degrees of employee participation.
One leader might be autocratic (boss-centred), another democratic (subordinate) centred and a
13
third, a combination of the two styles. The leadership continuum is illustrated in the following
Figure.

Figure

LEADERSHIP CONTINUUM
(Autocratic) (Democratic)
Boss-centred Subordinate
centred
Leadership Leadership
Use of authority by manager
Area of freedom for subordinates

Manager makes Manager presents Manager presents Manager permits

decision and ideas and invites problem, gets subordinates to
announces it questions suggestions, makes function within
Decision defined limits

SOURCE: Tannenbaum, R, & Schmidt, W. (1973). How to Choose a Leadership Pattern.

Harvard Business Review.

The boss-centred leadership style refers to the extent to which the leader takes charge toget the
work done. The leader directs subordinates by communicating clear roles and goals, while the
manager tells them what to do and how to do it as they work towards goalachievement (Likert,
1961). The employee-centred leadership style refers to the extent to which the leader focuses on
meeting the human needs of employees whilst building relationships. The leader is sensitive to
subordinates and communicates to develop trust, support, and respect, whilelooking out for their
welfare (Likert, 1961).

According to Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973), the extent to which leaders should be boss-
centred or subordinate-centred depended on organizational circumstances. Leadersshould adjust
their behaviour to fit the circumstances. For example, should there be timepressure on a leader
or if it takes too long for subordinates to learn how to make decisions,the leader will tend to use

14
an autocratic style. When subordinates are able to readily learn decision-making skills, a
participative style can be used. Also, the greater the skills difference, the more autocratic the
leader's approach, because it is difficult to bring subordinates up to the leader’s expertise level.
Followers may however not be as independent when the leader is autocratic (Heller & Yukl,
1969).

2.3.2 Ohio State University Leadership Theory

Researchers at Ohio State University identified through their research two categories of leader-
behaviour types, called consideration and initiating structure (Nystrom, 1978). According to
Nystrom (1978), the categories of consideration and initiating structure can be described as
follows:

Consideration describes the extent to which a leader is sensitive to subordinates, respects their
ideas and feelings, and establishes mutual trust. Showing appreciation, listening carefully to
problems and seeking input from subordinates about important decisions, are all examples of
consideration.

Initiating structure describes the extent to which a leader is task-oriented and directs
subordinates’ work activities toward goal-achievement. This type of leadership behaviour
includes directing the performance of subordinates to work very hard, providing clear
guidelines for work activities and maintaining rigorous control. These behavioural categories are
independent of each other. In other words, a leader candisplay a high degree of both behaviour
types, and a low degree of both behaviour types.Additionally, a leader might demonstrate high
consideration and low initiating structure, or low consideration and high initiating structure
behaviour. Research indicates that all fourof these leader style combinations can be effective
(Nystrom, 1978).

2.3.3 University of Michigan Leadership Theory

Studies at the University of Michigan compared the behaviour of effective and ineffective
supervisors (Likert, 1967). Over time, the Michigan researchers established that employee-
centred leaders display afocus on the human needs of their subordinates. Leader support and
interaction are the two underlying dimensions of employee-centred behaviour (Bowers &
Seashore, 1966). The significance of this is that, in addition to demonstrating support for their
subordinates,employee-centred leaders facilitate positive interaction among followers and seek
15
to minimize conflict. The employee-centred style of leadership seems to roughly correspondto
the Ohio State concept of consideration (see 3.2.2).

2.3.4 Leadership Grid Theory

Blake and Mouton developed a two-dimensional leadership theory called "The LeadershipGrid"
that builds on the work of the Ohio State and the Michigan studies (Blake & Mouton,1985).
Researchers rated leaders on a scale of one to nine, according to the following two criteria:
concern for people and concern for results. The scores for these criteria were plotted on a grid
with an axis for each criteria. The two-dimensional leadership model andfive major leadership
styles are reflected:

The leadership styles in the Leadership Grid are described by Blake and McGanse (1991) as
follows:
 The impoverished leader (1, 1) has low concern for both production and people;
 The authority-compliance leader (9, 1) has a high concern for production and a low
concern for people;
 The country-club leader (1, 9) has a high concern for people and a low concern for
production;
 The middle-of-the-road leader (5, 5) has balanced, medium concern for both
production and people;
 The team leader (9, 9) has a high concern for both production and people. This
leader strives for maximum performance and employee satisfaction. According to
Blake and McGanse (1991), the team leadership style is generally the most
appropriate for use in all situations.

2.3.5 Research Results on Behavioural Leadership Theories

Blake and Mouton (1978) conducted an extensive empirical research study that measured
profitability before and after a 10-year period to test the Leadership Grid Theory. In the study,
one subsidiary of the company used an extensive Grid Organizational Development program
designed to teach managers how to become 9, 9 team leaders (experimental group), while
another subsidiary did not use the program (control group). The subsidiary using the team
leadership style increased its profits four times more than the subsidiary that did not use the
program. The researchers therefore concluded that team leadership usually led to improved
performance, low absenteeism and low turnover as well as high employee satisfaction (Blake
16
and Mouton, 1978).

Another researcher, however, disagreed with these findings by expressing the view that high-
high leadership is a myth (Nystrom, 1978). A meta-analysis (a study combining theresults of
many prior studies) indicated that although task and relationship behaviour tend to correlate
positively with the performance of subordinates, the correlation is usually weak (Fisher & Edwards,
1988). In conclusion, although there seems to be a measure of support for a universal theory that
applies across organizations, industries and cultures, the high- high leadership style is not
necessarily accepted as the one best style in all situations.

Critics suggested that different leadership styles are more effective in different situations (Jung
& Avolio, 1999). This probably led to the paradigm shift towards contingency leadership
theory. Contingency leadership theory does not recommend using the same leadership style in
all situations, but rather recommends using the leadership style that best suits the situation (Jung
& Avolio, 1999). According to House and Aditya (1997), a contribution derived from
behavioural leadershiptheory was the recognition that organizations require both production
and people leadership. There is a generic set of production-orientated and people-orientated
leadership functions that must be performed to ensure effective organizational performance.
These two functions are regarded as an accepted universal theory becausethey seem to apply
across organizations, industries and cultures. Every organization needs to perform production
and people leadership functions effectively to be successful,but how they are performed will vary
according to the situation (House & Aditya, 1997).

According to House and Aditya (1997), research efforts to determine the one best leadership
style have been insubstantial and inconsistent. In other words, there does notseem to be one best
leadership style for all situations. This has probably spurred researchers on to the next paradigm
– that of contingency leadership theory. The contribution of the behavioural leadership paradigm
was to identify two generic dimensions of leadership behaviour that continue to be important in
accounting for leader effectiveness today (House & Aditya, 1997).

The Ohio State leadership questionnaires as well as modified versions thereof have beenused in
hundreds of survey studies by many different researchers. The results have beeninconclusive
and inconsistent for most criteria of leadership effectiveness (Bass, 1990; Fisher & Edwards,
1988). The only prevalent and consistent finding was a positive relationship between
17
consideration and subordinate satisfaction. As suggested by the Fleishman and Harris (1962)
study, subordinates are usually more satisfied with a leader who is at least moderately
considerate.

Researchers at the University of Michigan also conducted research on leadership behaviour.

The focus of the Michigan research was the identification of the relationship between leadership
behaviour, group processes, and measures of group performance. The initial research consisted
of a series of field studies with a variety of leaders, includingsection managers in an insurance
company (Katz, MacCoby, & Morse, 1950), supervisorsin a large manufacturing company (Katz
& Kahn, 1952), and supervisors of railroad section gangs (Katz, MacCoby, Gurin & Floor, 1951).
Information about managerial behaviour was gathered by means of interviews and
questionnaires. Objective measures of group productivity were used in order to classify
managers as relatively effective or ineffective. The results of this research were captured by
Likert (1961, 1967), and are summarised below:

 Task-orientated Behaviour: Effective leaders did not spend their time and effort doing
the same kind of work as their subordinates. Instead, the more effective leaders
concentrated on task-oriented functions such as the planning and scheduling of the work,
coordinating subordinate activities, and arranging the provisioning of the necessary
resources, equipment and technical assistance. Effective managers also guided
subordinates in setting performance goals that were challenging but attainable. The task-
oriented behaviours identified in the Michigan studies appear similar to the behaviours
labelled “initiating structure” in the Ohio State leadership studies.
 Relations-oriented Behaviour: In the case of effective leaders, task-oriented behaviour
did not occur at the expense of concern for human relations. The effective leaders were
also more supportive of, and helpful to, subordinates. Supportive behaviours which
correlated with effective leadership included showingtrust and confidence, acting in a
friendly manner showing consideration, attempting to understand subordinates’
problems, helping to develop subordinates to further their careers, keeping subordinates
informed, showing appreciation for subordinates’ ideas and providing recognition for
subordinates' contributions and accomplishments. These behaviours appear to be similar
to the behaviours labelled “consideration” in the Ohio State leadership studies.
 Participative Leadership: Effective managers preferred more group supervision
instead of supervising each subordinate separately. Group meetings facilitate
18
 subordinate participation, decision-making, improve communication, promote
cooperation, and facilitate conflict resolution. The role of the manger in group meetings
should primarily be to guide the discussion and keep it supportive, constructive, and
oriented toward problem solving. Participative management however, does not imply
abdication of responsibilities, and the manager remains responsible for all decisions as
well as the consequences.
 Shared Leadership: Bowers and Seashore (1966) extended the scope of leadership
behaviour by suggesting that most leadership functions can be carried out by someone
apart from the designated leader of a group. A manager may at times request
subordinates to share in the performance of certain leadership functions, and
subordinates may at times perform these functions on their own initiative. Group
effectiveness will depend more on the overall quality of leadershipwithin a work unit
than on which individual actually performs the functions. However, the possibility of
shared leadership does not imply that it is not necessaryto have a designated leader.

According to Bowers and Seashore (1966, p. 249), “There are both common-senseand theoretical
reasons for believing that a formally-acknowledged leader, through his/her supervisory
leadership behaviour, sets the pattern of the mutual leadershipamongst subordinates.”

2.4 EXAMPLES OF CONTINGENCY LEADERSHIP THEORIES

2.4.1 Fiedler’s Contingency Leadership Theory

In 1951, Fiedler began to develop the first contingency leadership theory. It was the firsttheory
to focus on how situational variables interact with leader personality and behaviour.Fiedler called
his theory “Contingency Theory of Leader Effectiveness,” (House & Aditya, 1997). Fiedler
believed that leadership style is a reflection of personality (trait-theory orientated) as well as
behaviour (behavioural-theory orientated), and that leadership styles are basically constant.
Leaders do not change styles, they change the situation. The contingency leadership model is
used to determine whether a person’s leadership style istask or relationship orientated, and if the
situation matches the leader’s style to maximiseperformance (House & Aditya, 1997). Fiedler
teamed up with J.E. Garcia to develop the Cognitive Resources Theory based on the
Contingency Leadership Theory (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987).

The Cognitive Resources Theory (CRT), is a person-by-situation interaction theory, in which

19
the person variables are intelligence and experience of leaders. The situational variables are
stress as experienced by leaders and followers. CRT has important implications for the selection
of leaders. Fiedler (1966) recommends a two-step processfor effective utilization of leaders: (1)
recruiting and selecting individuals with required intellectual abilities, experience, and job-
relevant knowledge, and (2) enabling leaders towork under conditions that allow them to make
effective use of the cognitive resources for which they were hired. Some scholars consider
Fiedler’s Contingency Leadership Theory and Cognitive Resources Theory the most validated of
all leadership theories (Hughes, Ginnet & Curphy, 1999).

2.4.2 Leadership Continuum Theory and Model

Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt also developed a contingency theory in the 1950’s
(Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958). They concluded that leadership behaviour is on a continuum
from boss-centred to subordinate-centred leadership. Their model focuses onwho makes the
decisions. Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973) identified seven major styles from which the leader
canchoose. The leadership continuum model is used to determine which one of the seven styles
should be selected to suit the situation in order to maximise performance.

According to Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973), the leader must consider the following three
forces or variables before choosing the best leadership style for a particular situation:

▪ Supervisor: The leader’s personality and preferred behavioural style, expectation,

values, background, knowledge, feeling of security and confidence in the subordinates
should be considered in selecting a leadership style. Based on personality and behaviour,
some leaders tend to be more autocratic and others more participative.
▪ Subordinates: The leadership style preferred by followers is based on personality and
behaviour.Generally, the more willing and able the followers are to participate, the more
freedom of participation should be used, and vice versa.
▪ Situation (Environment): The environmental considerations, such as the organization size,
structure, climate,goals and technology, are taken into consideration when selecting a
leadership style. Managers on higher levels also influence leadership styles. For
example, if asenior manager uses an autocratic leadership style, the middle manager may
tendto follow suit.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1986) developed two major leadership styles, (autocratic and
20
participative) with seven continuum styles, which reflected in a one-dimensional model. The
leadership-styles part of their theory is similar to the University of Michigan LeadershipModel,
in that it is based on two major leadership styles: one focusing on job-centred behaviour
(autocratic leadership) and the other focusing on employee-centred behaviour (participative
leadership).

Figure: Leadership Styles

Autocratic Style
Participative Style
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Leader Leader Leader Leader Leader Leader Leader
makes makes
decision and decisions and presents presents presents defines permits
ideas limits
announces it sells it to and invites tentative problem, and asks the followers to
to followers followers by followers’ decision invites followers to make
ongoing
individually explaining questions. subject to suggested make a decisions
or why it
in a group is a good idea change. solutions decision within
(it and defined
without could also be makes the limits
in
discussion writing) decision.
(it
could also
be
in writing).
One major criticism of this model is that how to determine which style to use, and when, isnot
clear in the model (Yukl, 1998).

2.4.3 Path-goal Leadership Theory

The Path-goal Leadership Theory was developed by Robert House, based on an early version
of the theory by M.G. Evans, and published in 1971 (House, 1971). House formulated a more
elaborate version of Evans’s theory, which included situational variables. House’s theory
specified a number of situational moderators of relationships between task and person-
orientated leadership and their impact (House & Aditya, 1997).House attempted to explain how
the behaviour of a leader influences the performance andsatisfaction of the followers. Unlike the
earlier contingency leadership models, House’s theory does not include leadership traits and
behaviour variables (House & Aditya, 1997).

21
The Path-goal Leadership Model can be used to identify the most appropriate leadershipstyle
for a specific situation to maximise both performance and job satisfaction (DuBrin, 1998).
According to the Path-goal Leadership Theory, the leader is responsible for increasing followers’
motivation to attain personal and organizational goals. Motivation can be increased by clarifying
what follower’s have to do to get rewarded, or increasing the rewards that the follower values
and desires. Path clarification means that the leader works with followers to help them identify
and learn the behaviours that will lead to successful task accomplishment and organizational
rewards (DuBrin, 1998).

According to House (1971), the Path-goal Leadership Theory consists of the following factors:
 Situational factors:
- Authoritarianism is the degree to which employees prefer to, and want to, be told
what to do and how to do a job.
- Locus of control is the extent to which employees believe they have control over
goal achievement (internal locus of control), or goal achievement is controlled by
others (external locus of control).
- Ability is the extent of the employees’ ability to perform tasks to achieve goals.

 Environment factors:
- Task structure, i.e. the extent of the repetitiveness of the job.
- Formal authority, i.e. the extent of the leader’s position power.
- Work group, i.e. the relationship between followers.

 Leadership styles:
Based on the situational factors in the Path-goal Model, the leader can select the most
appropriate leadership style for a particular situation. The original model included only the
directive and supportive leadership styles (from the Ohio State and University of Michigan
behavioural leadership studies). House and Mitchell added the participative and
achievement-oriented leadership styles in a 1974 publication (House and Mitchell, 1974).
These leadership styles can be described as follows:
 Directive: The leader provides a high degree of structure. Directive leadership is
appropriatewhen the followers prefer autocratic leadership, have an external locus of
control, and the skills levels of the followers are low. Directive leadership is also
22
 appropriate when the task to be completed is complex or ambiguous and followersare
inexperienced.
 Supportive: The leader exercises a high degree of consideration. Supportive
leadership is appropriate when the followers do not desire autocratic leadership,
when they havean internal locus of control, and when follower’s skills levels are
high. Supportive leadership is also appropriate when the tasks are simple and
followers have a lot ofexperience.
 Participative: The leader encourages and allows followers’ input into decision-
making. Participative leadership is appropriate when followers wish to be involved,
when they have an internal locus of control and when their skills levels are high.
Participative leadership is also appropriate when the task is complex and followers
have a lot of experience.
 Achievement-orientated: The leader sets difficult but achievable goals, expects
followers to perform at theirhighest level and rewards them for doing so. In essence,
the leader provides both strong direction (structure) and a high level of support
(consideration). Achievement-orientated leadership is appropriate when followers
are open to autocratic leadership, when they have an external locus of control and
when ability of followers is high. Achievement-orientated leadership is also
appropriate when the task is simple, and followers have a lot of experience.

2.4.4 Normative Leadership Theory

An important leadership question is, “When should the manager take charge, and when
should the manager let the group make the decision?” Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton
published a decision-making model with the aim of improving decision-making
effectiveness. Vroom and Yetton (1973) identified five leadership styles as described below:
Two are autocratic (AI and AII), two are consultative (CI and CII), and one is group-
orientated (GII).

 Autocratic Leadership Styles:

AI: The leader makes the decision alone, using available information without input from others.
AII: The leader obtains information from followers but makes the decision alone. Followers are
asked only for information and not for their input into the decision.

 Consultative Leadership Styles:

23
CI: The leader meets individually with relevant followers, explains the situation, and obtains
information and ideas on the decision to be made. The leader makes the final decision alone.
The leader may or may not use the followers’ input.

CII: The leader meets with followers as a group, explains the situation, and gets information
and ideas on the decision to be made. The leader makes the decision alone after the meeting.
Leaders may or may not use the follower’s input.

 Group-orientated Leadership Styles:

GII: The leader meets with the followers as a group, explains the situation, and the decision is
made on the basis of group consensus. The leader does not attempt to influence the group and
is willing to implement any decision that has the support of the entire group. In the absence of
consensus, the leader makes the final decision based on the input of the group.

2.4.5 Situational Leadership Model

Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard published the Life Cycle Theory of Leadership in 1969. In 1977
they published a revised version called the Situational Leadership Model. Unlike the other
contingency theories, situational leadership is not called a theory by its authors, since it does
not attempt to explain why things happen (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). The primary
contingency variable of situational leadership is the maturity level of the follower.Like the Path-
goal Theory, situational leadership does not have a leader variable, and thesituational variable
(task) is included within the follower variable because it is closely related to follower maturity.
Task is therefore not included within the model as a separate variable (Hersey & Blanchard,
1969).

The situational leadership theory is used to determine which of four leadership styles (telling,
selling, participating, and delegating) matches the situation (followers’ maturity level to
complete a specific task) to maximize performance (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). Hersey and
Blanchard (1977) identified leadership in terms of two dimensions, namely, task (T) and
relationship (R) which can either be high (H) or low (T), e.g. high task (HT). They also gave
each leadership style a name: S1 – telling; S2 – selling; S3 – participatingand S4 – delegating.
The Leadership Styles identified by Hersey and Blanchard (1977) can be described as follows:

 Telling (S1) – high-task/low-relationship behaviour (HT/LR)

24
This style is appropriate when leading followers with a low level of maturity (M1). When
interacting with employees, the leader must give very detailed instructions, describing exactly
what the task is and when, where, and how to perform it. The leader closely monitors
performance and provides some support, but most of the time spent with followers is spent on
giving instructions. The leader makes decisions without input from followers.

 Selling (S2) – high-task/high –relationship behaviour (HT/HR).

This style is appropriate when leading followers with a low to moderate level of maturity (M2).
The leader gives specific instructions as well as monitors performance. At the same time, the
leader supports the followers by explaining whythe task should be performed as requested, as
well as answering questions. The leader builds relationships whilst convincing the followers of
the benefits of completing the task in accordance with the leader’s wishes. The leader spends
anequal amount of time between directing and providing support to followers. The leader may
consult employees when making decisions.

 Participating (S3) – low-task/high-relationship behaviour (LT/HR)

This style is appropriate when leading followers with a moderate to high level of maturity (M3).
Whilst interacting with followers, the leader does not spend a lot of time giving general
directions, but spends most of the time on providing encouragement. The leader spends limited
time monitoring performance, letting employees do the task their way while focusing on the
end result. The leader supports followers by providing encouragement and building their self-
confidence.If a task must be performed, the leader will encourage followers to explain how the
task should be accomplished rather than instructing them as to how the task should be performed.
The leader makes decisions together with his/her followers or allowsthe followers to make the
decision.
 Delegating (S4) involves low-task/low-relationship behaviour (LT/LR)
This style is appropriate when leading followers with a high level of maturity (M4). When
interacting with such followers, the leader merely advises them as to what must be achieved.
The leader answers their questions but provides little, if any, direction. There is no necessity to
monitor performance. The followers are highlymotivated and require little, if any, support. The
leader allows followers to make their own decisions. In order to make use of the Situational
Leadership Model, thefirst requirement is to determine the maturity level of the follower(s) and
then to choose the leadership style that matches the maturity level of the follower(s) (Hersey &

25
Blanchard, 1977). The maturity of followers is measured on a continuum from low to high. The
leaderselects the capability level that best describes the followers’ ability and willingness or
confidence to complete a specific task (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977).

According to Hersey and Blanchard (1977), the maturity levels of followers can bedescribed
as follows:

 Low (M1) – unable and unwilling or insecure

The followers cannot or will not do the specific task without detailed direction and close
supervision, or they are insecure and need supervision.

 Low to moderate (M2) – unable but willing or confident

The followers have moderate ability to complete the task, but require clear directionand support
to get the task done properly. The followers may be highly motivatedand willing, but still
require task direction owing to a lack of skills.

 Moderate to high (M3) – able but unwilling or insecure

The followers possess high ability but may lack confidence owing to insecurity to perform
the task. What they need most is support and encouragement to motivatethem to complete the
task.

 High (M4) – able and willing or confident

The followers are capable of performing the task without direction or support. Theycan be left
on their own to do the job. According to Hersey and Blanchard (1977) the maturity levels of
followers can be matchedto the most suitable leadership style in the following way:
Maturity Level of follower Most suitable leadership
style
M1 – Unable and unwilling or insecure S1 Telling – HT/LR
M2 – Unable but willing or confident S2 Selling – HT/HR
M3 – Able but unwilling or insecure S3 Participating – LT/HR
M4 – Able, willing and confident S4 Delegating – LT/LR

Employees usually start working at an M1 maturity level requiring clear direction and close
supervision. As their ability to perform the job increases, the leader can begin to give less
26
direction and be more supportive to develop a working relationship with the followers. Leaders
should gradually develop their employees from M1 levels to M3 or M4 over time.

2.4.6 Research Results on Contingency Leadership Theories

Despite its ground-breaking start to contingency theory, Fiedler’s work was criticized in the
1970’s owing to inconsistent empirical findings and the inability to account for substantial
variance in group performance (Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977). Over the past 20 years, numerous
studies have been conducted to test the theory. According to Strube and Garcia (1981), the
research results tend to support the theory, although not for every situation and not as strongly
for field studies as for laboratory studies.

Hersey and Blanchard have not provided any conclusive evidence that those who use their model
become more effective leaders with higher levels of performance (Cairns, Hollenback, Preziosi
& Snow, 1998). Previous tests of the model have shown mixed results, indicating that the model
may only be relevant for certain types of employee (Vecchio, 1987). In general, the research
results have been negatively impacted by a lack of accurate measures and weak research designs
that do not permit strong inferences about directionof causality (Korman & Tanofsky, 1975;
Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977). Some behavioural scientists have questioned whether contingency
theories have any applicability to help managers become more effective. For example,
McCall (1977) contends that the hectic pace of managerial work and the relative lack of control
over it bymanagers’ makes it impossible to apply complex theories that specify the optimal
behaviour for every type of situation. Managers are so busy dealing with problems that they do
not have time to pause and analyse the situation using a complicated model. McCall (1977) also
questions the implicit assumption of most contingency theories that there is a single best way
for the manager to act within a given situation. Managers facean immense variety of rapidly
changing situations, and several different patterns of behaviour may be equally effective in the
same situation. According to McCall (1977), thecontingency theories do not provide sufficient
guidance in the form of general principles tohelp managers recognize the underlying leadership
requirements and choices in the myriad of fragmented activities and problems confronting them.

According to McCall (1977), the majority of the contingency theories are very complex and
difficult to test. Each theory provides some insights into reasons for leadership effectiveness,
but each theory also has conceptual weaknesses that limit their utility. A major limitation of the
contingency theories is a lack of sufficient attention to some leadership processes that transform
27
the way followers view themselves and their work (McCall, 1977).

2.5 EXAMPLES OF INTEGRATIVE LEADERSHIP THEORIES

2.5.1 Weber’s Charismatic Leadership Theory

In 1947, Weber used the term charisma to explain a form of influence based on follower
perceptions that the leader is endowed with the gift of divine inspiration or supernatural qualities
(Weber, 1947). Charisma can be seen as a fire that ignites followers’ energy andcommitment,
producing results above and beyond the call of duty (Klein & House, 1995). Charisma can be
described as the influencing of followers resulting in major changes in their attitudes,
assumptions and commitment (Yukl, 1998). According to Yukl (1998), charismatic leaders are
more likely to come forward as leaders during times of great social crisis. They are often
instrumental in focusing society’s attention to the problem it faces bymeans of a radical vision
that provides a solution.

2.5.2 House’s Charismatic Leadership Theory

House (1977) developed a theory that explains charismatic leadership in terms of a set ofverifiable
propositions involving observable processes. The theory identifies how charismatic leaders behave,
how they differ from other people as well as the conditions under which they are most likely to
thrive. The inclusion of leadership traits, behaviour, and situational factors, makes this theory
more comprehensive in scope than most other leadership theories. According to House (1977),
the following indicators determine the extent to which a leader is charismatic:
 Followers’ trust in the correctness of the leader’s beliefs.
 Similarity of followers’ beliefs to those of the leader.
 Unquestioning acceptance of the leader by followers.
 Followers’ affection for the leader.
 Willing obedience to the leader by followers.
 Emotional involvement of followers in the mission of the organization.
 Heightened commitment of followers to performance goals.
 Followers believe that they are able to contribute to the success of the group’s
mission.

According to House’s theory, charismatic leaders are likely to have a strong need for power,
high self-confidence as well as strong beliefs and ideals. A strong need for powermotivates the
28
leader to attempt to influence followers. Self-confidence and strong beliefsincrease the trust of
followers in the leader’s judgement. A leader without confidence andstrong beliefs is less likely
to try to influence people, and if an attempt is made to influencepeople, it is less likely to be
successful (House, 1977).

Charismatic leaders are likely to engage in behaviours aimed at creating the impression among
followers that the leader is competent and successful. Effective image management creates
trust in the leader’s decisions and increases willing obedience by followers. In the absence of
effective image management any problems and setbacks may lead to a decline in follower
confidence and undermine the leader’s influence. Charismatic leaders are likely to articulate
ideological goals that are closely aligned to themission of the group, as well as to shared values,
ideals and aspirations of followers. Byproviding an appealing vision of what the future could
be like, charismatic leaders give meaning to the work of the followers and inspire enthusiasm
and excitement among followers.

According to House (1977), charismatic leaders are likely to set an example in their own
behaviour for followers to imitate. This role modelling involves more than just imitation of
leader behaviour. If followers admire and identify with a leader, they are likely to emulate the
leader’s beliefs and values. Through this process, charismatic leaders are able to exert
considerable influence on the satisfaction and motivation of followers (House, 1977).

Charismatic leaders are likely to communicate high expectations regarding follower

performance and at the same time express confidence in followers. Leaders with strong referent
power can influence followers to set higher performance goals and gain their commitment to
these goals. Such commitment will however not occur unless the goals are perceived by followers
to be realistic and attainable. If followers lack confidence in their ability to meet the leader’s
high expectations, they may resist the leader’s attempts to influence them. The expression of
confidence and beliefs by the leader are then questioned. Charismatic leadership is more likely
to be found in a new organization struggling to survive, or an old one that is failing, than in an
old organization that is highlysuccessful (House, 1977).

2.5.3 Conger and Kanungo’s Charismatic Leadership Theory

Conger and Kanungo (1987) developed a theory of charismatic leadership based on the
assumption that charisma is an attribute. Followers attribute certain charismatic qualitiesto a
29
leader based on their observations of the leader’s behaviour. Conger and Kanungo identified
aspects of leadership behaviour responsible for these attributes, based on research findings
comparing charismatic and non-charismatic leaders. The behaviours are not believed to be
present to the same extent in each charismatic leader. According to Friedland (1964) the major
features of the theory can be summarized asfollows:
 Extremity of vision: Charisma is more likely to be attributed to leaders who advocate a
vision that is very different from the status quo, but still within the latitude of acceptance
by followers. Non-charismatic leaders typically support the status quo, or advocate only
small, incremental change. A vision that involves onlya small deviation from current
assumptions and strategies does not clearly set theleader apart from others. However,
followers will not accept a vision that is too radical, and the leader may be viewed as
incompetent or crazy (Friedland, 1964).
 High personal risk: Charisma is more likely to be attributed to leaders who make self-
sacrifices, take personal risks and incur high costs to achieve the shared vision they
support. Trust appears to be an important component of charisma and followers tend to
have more trust in a leader who advocates their strategy in a manner reflecting concern
for followers rather than self-interest. A true charismaticleader is a leader who actually
risks substantial personal loss in terms of status, money or leadership position (Friedland,
1964).
 Use of unconventional strategies: Charisma is more likely to be attributed to leaders
who act in unconventional ways to achieve the shared vision. The leader must make use
of unconventional strategies to achieve the desired goal in order toimpress followers and
convince them that the leader is extraordinary. The uniqueness of a leader’s vision
involves unconventional strategies as well as objectives (Friedland, 1964).
 Accurate assessment of the situation: The risks inherent in the use of unconventional
strategies make it important for the leader to have the skills and expertise to make a
realistic assessment of the environmental constraints and opportunities involved in the
successful implementation of the strategies. Timing iscritical since the same strategy
may succeed in a certain situation at a particular time, but may fail completely if
implemented in a different situation at another time.Leaders must be sensitive to the
needs and values of followers, as well as to the environment, in order to identify a vision
that is innovative, relevant, timely and appealing (Friedland, 1964).
 Follower disenchantment: Charismatic leaders are more likely to emerge when there is
a crisis requiring major change or when followers are otherwise dissatisfiedwith the status
30
 quo. Even in the absence of a crisis, a leader may be able to createdissatisfaction with
current conditions, and simultaneously provide a vision of a more promising future. The
impact of unconventional strategies is greater when followers perceive that conventional
approaches are no longer effective. The leader can convince followers that the conventional
approaches are no longer effective bydiscrediting the old, accepted ways of doing things
in order to set the stage for proposing new ways (Friedland, 1964).
 Communication of self-confidence: Leaders who appear confident about their proposals
are more likely to be viewed as charismatic than leaders who appear doubtful and
confused. The success of an innovative strategy may be attributed more to luck than to
expertise if the leader fails to communicate confidence. A leader’s confidence and
enthusiasm can be contagious. Followers who believe thatthe leader knows how to attain
the shared objective will work harder to implement the leader’s strategy, thereby
increasing the actual probability of success (Friedland, 1964).
 Use of personal power: Leaders are more likely to be viewed as charismatic if they
influence followers with expert power based on advocacy of successful, unconventional
changes, and referent power based on perceived dedication to followers (Friedland,
1964).

2.5.4 Burns’ Theory of Transformational Leadership

Burns (1978, p.20) described transformational leadership as a process in which “leaders and
followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation.” Transformational
leaders appeal to higher ideals and moral values of followers such as liberty, justice, equality,
peace and humanitarianism. In terms of Maslow’s (1954) needs- hierarchy theory,
transformational leaders activate higher-order needs in followers. Followers are elevated from
their “everyday selves to their better selves”. According to Burns (1978), transformational
leadership may be exhibited by anyone in an organizationin any type of position. Burns (1978),
contrasts transformational leadership with transactional leadership. Transactional leaders
motivate followers by appealing to their self-interest. Transactional leaders in the corporate
environment exchange pay and status for work effort. Transactional leadership involves values,
but they are values relevant to the exchange process, such as honesty, responsibility and
reciprocity. Influence in transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority.
Bureaucratic organizations emphasize legitimate power and respect for rules and tradition,
rather than influence based on exchange or inspiration.

31
According to Burns (1978), leadership is a process, not a set of discrete acts. Burns (1978,
p.440) described leadership as “a stream of evolving interrelationships in which leaders are
continuously evoking motivational responses from followers and modifying their behaviour as
they meet responsiveness or resistance, in a ceaseless process of flow and counter flow.”
According to Burns, transformational leadership can be viewed both as an influence process
between individuals and as a process of mobilizing power to changesocial systems and reform
institutions. At the macro level, transformational leadership involves shaping, expressing, and
mediating conflict among groups of people in addition tomotivating individuals.

2.5.5 Bass’ Theory of Transformational Leadership

Bass (1985) defines transformational leadership primarily in terms of the leader’s impact on
followers. Followers trust, admire and respect the leader, and they are therefore motivated to do
more than what was originally expected. According to Bass (1985) a leader can transform
followers by:
 Making them more aware of the importance and value of task outcomes.
 Inducing them to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the team.
 Activating their higher-order needs.

Bass (1985) views transformational leadership as more than just another term for charisma.
According to Bass (1985, p.31), “charisma is a necessary ingredient of transformational
leadership, but by itself it is not sufficient to account for the transformational process.”
Transformational leaders influence followers by arousing strong emotions and identification with
the leader, but they may also transform followers by serving as a coach, teacher and mentor.
The conceptions of transformational leadership proposed by Bass and Burns are similar inmany
respects, but there are some differences. Initially, Burns (1978) limits transformational
leadership to enlightened leaders who appeal to positive moral values and higher-order needs
of followers. In contrast, Bass (1985) views a transformational leader as somebody who activates
follower motivation and increases follower commitment. Bass does not exclude leaders who
appeal to lower-order needs such as safety, subsistence, and economic needs.

With respect to transformational leadership, there are also similarities and also some differences
in the conceptions of the two theorists. Similar to Burns, Bass views transactional leadership as
an exchange of rewards for compliance. However, Bass defines transactional leadership in
broader terms than Burns does. According to Bass, itincludes not only the use of incentives and
32
contingent rewards to influence motivation, butalso clarification of the work required to obtain
rewards. Bass (1985) views transformational and transactional leadership as distinct but not
mutually exclusive processes, and he recognizes that the same leader may use both types of
leadership at different times in different situations.

Bennis and Nanus (1985) identified through their research the following common themesin
terms of effective transformational leadership:
 Development of a vision: Transformational leaders channel the energy of followers in
pursuit of a common vision. According to Bennis and Nanus (1985) these leaders
“move followers to higher degrees of consciousness, such as liberty, freedom, justice,
and self- actualization” (p. 218). Examples from historical leaders include Martin Luther
King, Jr. (“I have a dream”), and President John Kennedy’s goal of “putting a man on
themoon by 1970.” A clear and appealing vision serves some important functions such
as inspiring followers by giving their work meaning and appealing to their
fundamental human need to be important, to feel useful and to be part of a worthwhile
enterprise. A vision also facilitates decision making, initiative and discretion by
followers.
 Development of commitment and trust: To identify a coherent and appealing vision is
not enough. It must be communicated and embodied within the culture of the
organization. A vision mustbe conveyed by means of persuasion and inspiration, not
by edict or coercion. Effective transformational leaders make use of a combination of
captivating rhetoric, metaphors, slogans, symbols and rituals. President Reagan is an
example of a leader who made effective use of anecdotes and metaphors, in contrast
with President Carter, who “never made the meaning come through the facts” (Bennis,
1985, p.17).

The vision must be repeated in different ways and at different levels of detail, from a vague mission
statement to detailed plans and policies. The vision must be reinforced by the decisions and
actions of the leader. Changes must be made in organization structure and management
processes, consistent with the values and objectives contained in the vision. The process of
gaining commitment should start at the top of the organization with the executive team.
Executives should participate in the process of reshaping the organization’s culture, based on
the vision.

33
Commitment to the vision by followers is closely related to their level of trust in theleader. It is
unlikely that a leader who is not trusted can successfully gain commitment to a new vision for
the organization. Trust is dependent not only on the perceived expertise of the leader, but it also
depends on the leader’s consistency instatements and behaviour. Leaders, who frequently move
positions and express contradictory values, undermine the trust and confidence of followers.
Inconsistency reduces the clarity of the vision, and lack of confidence in the leaderreduces the
appeal of the vision. Leaders demonstrate commitment to values through their own behaviour
and by the way they reinforce such behaviour as wellas by the way they reinforce the behaviour
of others (Bennis & Nanus, 1985).

 Facilitation of organizational learning: One prominent theme found by Bennis and

Nanus (1985) was the importance of both individual and organizational learning.
Effective leaders did a number of things to develop their skills and increase the
knowledge gained from experience of success and failure. They recognized the
necessity of continually gathering information about changes in the business
environment. They forced themselves to examine their assumptions and they tested their
ideas by asking for feedback fromcolleagues and outside experts. They created an
information sharing network andinitiated research to gather information required for
effective strategic planning. They made use of experimentation in order to encourage
innovation and to test new products and procedures. They viewed mistakes as a normal
part of doing things and used them as opportunities to learn and develop. In order to
facilitate learning by other members of the organization, the leaders encouraged
managers reportingto them to extend their time horizons, e.g., by requiring them to
make five-year plans, and sponsored seminars to develop planning skills and heighten
awarenessof environmental changes and trends.

Research done by Tichy and Devanna (1986) indicated that effective transformational
leaders have the following competencies:
 They see themselves as risk-takers;
 They are prudent risk-takers;
 They believe in people and are sensitive to their needs;
 They have a set of clear core values which guide their behaviour;
 They are flexible and open to learn from experience;
 They possess strong cognitive skills and believe in disciplined thinking;
34
  They are visionaries who trust their intuition.

2.5.6 Servant-leadership
Servant-leadership is an employee-focused form of leadership which empowers followers to
make decisions and keep control of their jobs. Servant-leadership is leadership that transcends
self-interest in order to serve the needs of others, by helping them grow professionally and
emotionally (Daft, 1999). The focus of servant-leadership is on empowering followers to
exercise leadership in accomplishing the organization’s goals. Traditional leadership theories
emphasize the leader-follower structure, in which the follower accepts responsibility from the leader
and is accountable to the leader. The non-traditional view of leadership however, views the
leader as a steward and servant of the employees and the organization. It is less about direction
or controlling and more about focusing on helping followers do their jobs, ratherthan to have
followers help the managers do their jobs (Greenleaf, 1997).

Servant-leadership requires a relationship between leaders and followers in which leaderslead

without dominating or controlling followers. Leaders and followers work together in amutually
supportive environment in order to achieve organizational goals. According to Greenleaf (1997)
the key to servant-leadership is based on the following four supporting values:

 Strong teamwork orientation: Servant-leadership works best in situations where self-

managed teams of employees and leaders work together in formulating goals and
strategies to deal with a changing environment and marketplace. The leader’s role is
less dominantand more supportive of the process.
 Decentralized decision-making and power: Servant-leadership is evident when authority
and decision-making are decentralized down to where the work gets done and
employees interact with customers. Servant-leadership has a great chance to succeed
in an environment where employees are empowered and have a good relationship with
their managers. Theabsence of this value renders stewardship impossible.
 Equality assumption: Servant-leadership works best when there is perceived equality
between leaders and followers. It is a partnership of equals rather than a leader-
follower commandstructure. The applicability of servant-leadership is enhanced as
leaders find opportunities to serve rather than manage. Honesty, respect and mutual
trust will be evident when equality prevails. These are values that enhance the success
of stewardship.
35
  Reward assumption: Servant-leadership places greater responsibility in the hands of
employees. Servant-leaders are known not for their great deeds, but for empowering
others toachieve great deeds. Servant-leaders offer the best chance for organizations
to succeed and grow in today’s dynamic environment because these leaders do not
only lead, but also coach followers to do the leading. The strong focus on people is
what encourages followers to be more creative, energetic, and committed to their jobs.

Servant-leaders approach leadership from a strong moral standpoint. The servantleader operates
from the viewpoint that everybody has a moral duty to one another.(Hosner, 1995) Leadership
can be seen as an opportunity to serve at ground level,not to lead from the top (Hosner, 1995).

According to Greenleaf (1997) the following behaviours are typical of servant- leadership:
 Helping others discover their inner spirit: The servant-leader’s role is to help followers
discover the strength of their inner spirit and their potential to make a difference. This
requires servant-leaders to be empathetic to the circumstances of others. Servant-
leaders are not afraid to show their vulnerabilities.
 Earning and keeping others’ trust: Servant-leaders earn followers’ trust by being
honest and true to their word. Theyhave no hidden agendas and they are willing to give
up power and control.
 Service over self-interest: The hallmark of servant-leadership is the desire to help
others, rather than the desire to attain power and control over others. Doing what’s
right for others takes precedence over self-interest. Servant-leaders make decisions to
further the goodof the group rather than promote their own interests.
 Effective listening: Servant-leaders do not impose their will on the group, but rather
listen carefully to the problems others are facing and then engage the group to find the
best solution.Servant-leaders have confidence in others.

Spears (2002) describes servant-leadership as a long-term, transformational approach tolife and

work that has the potential for creating positive change throughout society and organizations.
According to Spears (2002), the following ten competencies are critical for servant- leadership:
 Listening – The servant-leader seeks to identify the will of a group and to helpclarify that
will;
 Empathy – The servant-leader strives to understand others and empathize withthem;
 Healing – Servant-leaders recognize that they have an opportunity to help those with
36
 problems, with whom they come into contact. They help them to heal and become “whole”
again since many people experience personal problems;
 Awareness – Servant-leaders have a high level of awareness, especially self-awareness;
 Persuasion – Servant-leaders rely on persuasion, rather than positional power inthe making
of decisions;
 Conceptualization – Servant-leaders show the ability to think beyond day-to-dayrealities;
 Foresight – This enables servant-leaders to understand the lessons from the past,the realities
of the present and the likely consequence of a decision for the future;
 Stewardship – Servant-leaders are committed to serve the needs of others;
 Commitment to the growth of people – Servant-leaders believe that people have an
intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions as workers;
 Building community – Servant-leaders seek to identify some means of buildingcommunity
among those who work within a organization.

2.5.7 Research Results on Integrative Leadership Theories

In one laboratory experiment, several actors were coached to display people-orientated,
autocratic or charismatic behaviours as leaders of four-person work groups (Howell & Grost,
1998). In one instance, actors exhibiting charismatic behaviour acted confidently and expressed
high confidence in followers, set high performance targets, empowered followers, and
empathised with the needs of followers. The results revealed that the four-person work group
of charismatic leaders had higher performance and satisfaction levelsthan the four-person work
groups having an autocratic or people-orientated leader who did not exhibit the same leadership
traits (Howell & Grost, 1998). While some researchers have used these findings to argue that it
is possible to train leaders to be more charismatic, others think it is still too early to make such
a claim (Bass, 1996). Since theactors playing the role of leaders in the study were not trained to
exhibit both high-task andhigh-relationship behaviours, it is uncertain whether the followers of
charismatic leaders would have higher performance or satisfaction levels than followers of people-
orientated or autocratic leaders (Bass, 1996). However, the very fact that it is possible for actors
to exhibit certain charismatic leadership behaviours through training and coaching, lends
support to the notion that these are trainable behaviours.

Collectively, the interactive leadership theories appear to make an important contribution to our
understanding of leadership processes. They provide an explanation for the exceptional
influence some leaders have on subordinates, a level of influence not clearlyexplained by earlier
37
theories of instrumental leadership or situational leadership.

Some of the later theories of leadership reflect themes that can be found in theories from the
1960’s. For example, the importance of developing and empowering subordinates echoes the
emphasis on power sharing, mutual trust, teamwork, participation, andsupportive relationships
by writers such as Argyris (1964), McGregor (1960), and Likert (1967). According to writers
such as Beyer (1999), Bryman (1993), and Yukl (1999), most of the theories of transformational
and charismatic leadership lack sufficient specification of underlying influence processes. The
self-concept theory of charismatic leadership provides the most detailed explanation of leader
influence on followers, but even this theory requires more clarification of how the various types
of influence processes interact, their relative importance, and whether they are mutually
compatible.

More attention should also be given to situational variables that determine whether
transformational or charismatic leadership will occur and whether they will be effective (Beyer,
1999; Bryman, 1992; Yukl, 1999). Some progress has been made in identifying situational
variables that may be relevant for charismatic and transformational leadership (e.g., Conger &
Kanungo, 1998; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Shamir & Howell, 1999; Trice &Beyer, 1986). Only a
small number of empirical studies have actually examined contextual variables (e.g., Bass, 1996;
House et al., 1991; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Klein & House, 1995; Pillai, 1996; Pillai & Meindl,
1998; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Roberts& Bradley, 1988; Waldman, Ramirez,
& House, 1997).

The empirical research relevant to the theories of transformational leadership has generally been
supportive, but few studies have examined the underlying influence processes that account for
the positive relationship found between leader behaviour and follower performance. More
research is required in order to determine the conditions in which different types of
transformational behaviour are most relevant as well as the underlying influence processes that
make them relevant.

2.6 EXEMPLARY LEADERSHIP

Kouzes and Posner (2002) discovered though their studies of leadership experiences thatsuccessful
leaders have certain behaviours in common. They developed a model of leadership based on this
common behaviour which they called (The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership.” The five
38
practices of exemplary leadership identified by Kouzes and Posner (2002) are thefollowing:
 Model the way: To effectively model the behaviours which are expected of others, leaders
must firstbe clear about their own guiding principles. Leaders must find their own voice
and then they must clearly and distinctively express their values.
 Inspire a shared vision: Leaders inspire a shared vision. They desire to make something
happen, to change the way things are, to create something that no one else has ever created
before. Leaders breathe life into the hopes and dreams of others and enable themto see the
possibilities which the future holds.
 Challenge the process Leaders are pioneers – they are willing to step out into the unknown.
They search for opportunities to innovate, grow and improve. They learn from their mistakes
as well as from their successes.
 Enable others to act: Leadership is a team effort. Exemplary leaders enable others to act.
They fostercollaboration and build trust.
 Encourage the heart: Leaders encourage their followers to carry on despite setbacks. They
build a strong sense of collective identification and community spirit that can carry a group
through exceptionally tough times.

39