Grażyna Bartkowiak Vistula University, Warsaw

grazyna.bartkowiak@op.pl
 Introduction
Leadership is both a research area and a
practical skill, regarding the ability of an
individual or organization to "lead" or
guide other individuals, teams, or entire
organizations.
Controversial viewpoints are present in the
literature, among Eastern and Western
approaches to leadership, and also within
the West, on US vs. European
approaches.
 Introduction
In US academic environments leadership
is defined as "a process of
social influence in which a person can
enlist the aid and support of others in
the accomplishment of a common task".
[1][2]

Leadership seen from a European and

non-academic perspective encompasses
a view of a leader who can be moved
both by communitarian goals but also by
the search for personal power.
• . As the European researcher Daniele
Trevisani states:
• "Leadership is a holistic spectrum that can
arise from: (1) higher levels of physical
power, need to display power and control
others, force superiority, ability to generate
fear, or group-member's need for a powerful
group protector (Primal Leadership),
• (2) superior mental energies, superior
motivational forces, perceivable in
communication and behaviors, lack of fear,
courage, determination (Psychoenergetic
Leadership), [3]
 (3) higher abilities in managing the overall
picture (Macro-Leadership),
(4) higher abilities in specialized tasks
(Micro-Leadership),
(5) higher ability in managing the execution
of a task (Project Leadership), and
(6) higher level of values, wisdom, and
spirituality (Spiritual Leadership), where
any Leader derives its Leadership from a
unique mix of one or more of the former
factors.
• Studies of leadership have produced
theories involving
• traits,[4]
• situational interaction,
• function,
• behavior,
• power,
• vision and
• values,[5] charisma, and intelligence,
among others.[2]
 Theories
• Early western history[edit]

• The search for the characteristics or

traits of leaders has continued for
centuries. Philosophical writings from
Plato's Republic[6] to Plutarch's Lives
have explored the question
• "What qualities distinguish an individual
as a leader?”
 Theories
Underlying this search was the early
recognition of the importance of
leadership and the assumption that
leadership is rooted in the
characteristics that certain individuals
possess.
This idea that leadership is based on
individual attributes is known as the "
trait theory of leadership
 Theories
A number of works in the 19th century –
when the traditional authority of
monarchs, lords and bishops had begun to
wane – explored the trait theory at length:
note especially the writings of
Thomas Carlyle and of Francis Galton,
whose works have prompted decades of
research. In Heroes and Hero Worship
(1841), Carlyle identified the talents, skills,
and physical characteristics of men who
rose to power. Galton's Hereditary Genius
(1869) examined leadership qualities in
the families of powerful men.
 Theories
• After showing that the numbers of
eminent relatives dropped off when his
focus moved from first-degree to
second-degree relatives, Galton
concluded that leadership was
inherited.
• In other words, leaders were born,
not developed. Both of these notable
works lent great initial support for the
notion that leadership is rooted in
characteristics of a leader.
 Theories
• Cecil Rhodes (1853–1902) believed that
public-spirited leadership could be
nurtured by identifying young people
with "moral force of character and
instincts to lead", and educating them in
contexts (such as the collegiate
environment of the University of Oxford)
which further developed such
characteristics.
 Theories
International networks of such leaders
could help to promote international
understanding and help "render war
impossible". This vision of leadership
underlay the creation of the
Rhodes Scholarships, which have helped
to shape notions of leadership since
their creation in 1903.[7]
 Rise of alternative theories
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a
series of qualitative reviews of these studies
(e.g., Bird, 1940;[8] Stogdill, 1948;[9] Mann,
1959[10]) prompted researchers to take a
drastically different view of the driving
forces behind leadership.
In reviewing the extant literature, Stogdill
and Mann found that while some traits
were common across a number of
studies, the overall evidence suggested
that persons who are leaders in one
situation may not necessarily be
leaders in other situations.
 Rise of alternative theories
. Subsequently, leadership was no longer
characterized as an enduring individual
trait, as situational approaches (see
alternative leadership theories below)
posited that individuals can be effective
in certain situations, but not others.
The focus then shifted away from traits of
leaders to an investigation of the leader
behaviors that were effective.
This approach dominated much of the
leadership theory and research for the
next few decades.
 Reemergence of trait theory
. New methods and measurements were
developed after these influential reviews
that would ultimately reestablish the
trait theory as a viable approach to the
study of leadership.
For example, improvements in
researchers' use of the round robin
research design methodology allowed
researchers to see that individuals can
and do emerge as leaders across a
variety of situations and tasks.[11]
 Reemergence of trait theory
Additionally, during the 1980s statistical
advances allowed researchers to conduct
meta-analyses, in which they could
quantitatively analyze and summarize
the findings from a wide array of studies.
This advent allowed trait theorists to create
a comprehensive picture of previous
leadership research rather than rely on
the qualitative reviews of the past.
Equipped with new methods, leadership
researchers revealed the following:
 Reemergence of trait theory

• Individuals can and do emerge as

leaders across a variety of situations
and tasks.[11]
• Significant relationships exist between
leadership emergence and such
individual traits as:
 Reemergence of trait theory

• Intelligence[12]
• Adjustment[12]
• Extraversion[12]
• Conscientiousness[13][14][15]
• Openness to experience[14][16]
• General self-efficacy[17][18].
• While the trait theory of leadership has
certainly regained popularity, its
reemergence has not been accompanied
by a corresponding increase in
sophisticated conceptual frameworks.[19]
• Specifically, Zaccaro (2007)[19] noted
that trait theories still:
• Focus on a small set of individual
attributes such as Big Five personality
traits, to the neglect of cognitive
abilities, motives, values, social skills,
expertise, and problem-solving skills.
• Fail to consider patterns or integrations
of multiple attributes.
• Do not distinguish between those leader
attributes that are generally not
malleable over time and those that are
shaped by, and bound to, situational
influences.
• Do not consider how stable leader
attributes account for the behavioral
diversity necessary for effective
leadership.
 Attribute pattern approach
. Considering the criticisms of the trait theory
outlined above, several researchers have
begun to adopt a different perspective of
leader individual differences—the leader
attribute pattern approach.[18][20][21][22][23]
In contrast to the traditional approach, the
leader attribute pattern approach is based
on theorists' arguments that the influence
of individual characteristics on outcomes is
best understood by considering the person
as an integrated totality rather than a
summation of individual variables.[22][24]
 Attribute pattern approach
In other words, the leader attribute
pattern approach argues that integrated
constellations or combinations of
individual differences may explain
substantial variance in both leader
emergence and leader effectiveness
beyond that explained by single
attributes, or by additive combinations
of multiple attributes.
 Behavioral and style theories
In response to the early criticisms of the
trait approach, theorists began to research
leadership as a set of behaviors,
evaluating the behavior of successful
leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy,
and identifying broad leadership styles.[25]
David McClelland, for example, posited that
leadership takes a strong personality with
a well-developed positive ego. To lead,
self-confidence and high self-esteem are
useful, perhaps even essential[26].
.
.

A graphical representation of the managerial

grid model
• Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White
developed in 1939 the seminal work on the
influence of leadership styles and
performance. The researchers evaluated the
performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys
under different types of work climate. In each,
the leader exercised his influence regarding
the type of group decision making, praise and
criticism (feedback), and the management of
the group tasks (project management)
according to three styles: authoritarian,
democratic, and laissez-faire.[27]
In each, the leader exercised his influence
regarding the type of
group decision making, praise and
criticism (feedback), and the
management of the group tasks (
project management) according to three
styles: authoritarian, democratic, and
laissez-faire.[27]
• The managerial grid model is also based
on a behavioral theory. The model was
developed by Robert Blake and
Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five
different leadership styles, based on the
leaders' concern for people and their
concern for goal achievement.[28]
 Positive reinforcement[
. B.F. Skinner is the father of
behavior modification and developed the
concept of positive reinforcement.
Positive reinforcement occurs when a
positive stimulus is presented in
response to a behavior, increasing the
likelihood of that behavior in the future.
[29] The following is an example of how

positive reinforcement can be used in a

business setting. Assume praise is a
positive reinforcer for a particular
employee.
 This employee does not show up to work
on time every day.
The manager of this employee
decides to praise the employee for
showing up on time every day.
As a result, the employee comes to work
on time more often because the
employee likes to be praised.
In this example, praise (the stimulus) is a
positive reinforcer for this employee
because the employee arrives at work
on time (the behavior) more frequently
after being praised for showing up to
work on time.
The use of positive reinforcement is a
successful and growing technique used
by leaders to motivate and attain
desired behaviors from subordinates.
Organizations such as Frito-Lay, 3M,
Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air
Freight have all used reinforcement to
increase productivity.[30]
Empirical research covering the last
20 years suggests that
reinforcement theory has a 17
percent increase in performance.
Additionally, many reinforcement
techniques such as the use of
praise are inexpensive, providing
higher performance for lower costs.
 Situational and contingency theories
. Situational theory also appeared as a
reaction to the trait theory of leadership.
Social scientists argued that history was
more than the result of intervention of
great men as Carlyle suggested.
Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx)
said that the times produce the person
and not the other way around.[31]
This theory assumes that different
situations call for different
characteristics; according to this group
of theories, no single optimal
psychographic profile of a leader exists.
According to the theory, "what an
individual actually does when acting as
a leader is in large part dependent upon
characteristics of the situation in which
he functions."[32]
Some theorists started to synthesize the
trait and situational approaches.
Building upon the research of Lewin et
al., academics began to normalize the
descriptive models of leadership
climates, defining three leadership
styles and identifying which situations
each style works better in.
The authoritarian leadership style, for
example, is approved in periods of crisis
but fails to win the "hearts and minds" of
followers in day-to-day management;
the democratic leadership style is more
adequate in situations that require
consensus building; finally, the laissez-
faire leadership style is appreciated for
the degree of freedom it provides, but as
the leaders do not "take charge", they
can be perceived as a failure in protracted
or thorny organizational problems.[33]
Thus, theorists defined the style of
leadership as contingent to the
situation, which is sometimes classified
as contingency theory. Four contingency
leadership theories appear more
prominently in recent years: Fiedler
contingency model, Vroom-Yetton
decision model, the path-goal theory,
and the Hersey-Blanchard situational
theory.
The Fiedler contingency model bases the
leader's effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler
called situational contingency. This results
from the interaction of leadership style
and situational favorability (later called
situational control).
The theory defined two types of leader:
those who tend to accomplish the task by
developing good relationships with the
group (relationship-oriented), and those
who have as their prime concern carrying
out the task itself (task-oriented).[34]
According to Fiedler, there is no ideal
leader. Both task-oriented and
relationship-oriented leaders can be
effective if their leadership orientation
fits the situation. When there is a good
leader-member relation, a highly
structured task, and high leader position
power, the situation is considered a
"favorable situation".
" Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders
are more effective in extremely
favorable or unfavorable situations,
whereas relationship-oriented leaders
perform best in situations with
intermediate favorability.
Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip
Yetton (1973)[35] and later with Arthur
Jago (1988),[36] developed a taxonomy
for describing leadership situations,
which was used in a normative
decision model where leadership styles
were connected to situational variables,
defining which approach was more
suitable to which situation.[37]
• This approach was novel because it
supported the idea that the same
manager could rely on different
group decision making approaches
depending on the attributes of each
situation. This model was later referred
to as situational contingency theory.[38]
The path-goal theory of leadership was
developed by Robert House (1971) and
was based on the expectancy theory of
Victor Vroom.[39] According to House, the
essence of the theory is "the meta
proposition that leaders, to be effective,
engage in behaviors that complement
subordinates' environments and abilities
in a manner that compensates for
deficiencies and is instrumental to
subordinate satisfaction and individual
and work unit performance.
[40] The theory identifies four leader
behaviors, achievement-oriented,
directive, participative, and supportive,
that are contingent to the environment
factors and follower characteristics. In
contrast to the
Fiedler contingency model, the path-
goal model states that the four
leadership behaviors are fluid, and that
leaders can adopt any of the four
depending on what the situation
demands
• The path-goal model can be classified
both as a contingency theory, as it
depends on the circumstances, and as a
transactional leadership theory, as the
theory emphasizes the reciprocity
behavior between the leader and the
followers.
• The situational leadership model
proposed by Hersey and Blanchard
suggests four leadership-styles and four
levels of follower-development. For
effectiveness, the model posits that the
leadership-style must match the
appropriate level of follower-
development. In this model, leadership
behavior becomes a function not only of
the characteristics of the leader, but of
the characteristics of followers as well.[41]
 Functional theory
. Functional leadership theory (Hackman &
Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962; Adair,
1988; Kouzes & Posner, 1995) is a
particularly useful theory for addressing
specific leader behaviors expected to
contribute to organizational or unit
effectiveness.
 Functional theory
This theory argues that the leader's main
job is to see that whatever is necessary
to group needs is taken care of; thus, a
leader can be said to have done their job
well when they have contributed to
group effectiveness and cohesion
(Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman &
Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton,
1986).
 Functional theory
While functional leadership theory has most
often been applied to team leadership
(Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has
also been effectively applied to broader
organizational leadership as well (Zaccaro,
2001). In summarizing literature on
functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al.
(1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001), Hackman
and Walton (1986), Hackman & Wageman
(2005), Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert,
Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed five
broad functions a leader performs when
promoting organization's effectiveness.
 Functional theory

• These functions include environmental

monitoring, organizing subordinate
activities, teaching and coaching
subordinates, motivating others, and
intervening actively in the group's work.
 Functional theory
A variety of leadership behaviors are
expected to facilitate these functions. In
initial work identifying leader behavior,
Fleishman (1953) observed that
subordinates perceived their
supervisors' behavior in terms of two
broad categories referred to as
consideration and initiating structure.
 Functional theory
. Consideration includes behavior involved
in fostering effective relationships.
Examples of such behavior would include
showing concern for a subordinate or
acting in a supportive manner towards
others. Initiating structure involves the
actions of the leader focused specifically
on task accomplishment.
his could include role clarification, setting
performance standards, and holding
subordinates accountable to those
standards.
 Integrated psychological theory[
The Integrated Psychological theory of
leadership is an attempt to integrate the
strengths of the older theories (i.e.
traits, behavioral/styles, situational and
functional) while addressing their
limitations, largely by introducing a new
element – the need for leaders to
develop their leadership presence,
attitude toward others and behavioral
flexibility by practicing psychological
mastery.
 Integrated psychological theory

• It also offers a foundation for leaders

wanting to apply the philosophies of
servant leadership and authentic l
eadership.[42]
• Integrated Psychological theory began
to attract attention after the publication
of James Scouller's Three Levels of
Leadership model (2011).[43]
 Integrated psychological theory[
• Scouller argued that the older theories
offer only limited assistance in developing
a person's ability to lead effectively.[44] He
pointed out, for example, that:
• Traits theories, which tend to reinforce the
idea that leaders are born not made,
might help us select leaders, but they are
less useful for developing leaders.
• An ideal style (e.g. Blake & Mouton's team
style) would not suit all circumstances
 Integrated psychological theory
. Most of the situational/contingency and
functional theories assume that leaders
can change their behavior to meet
differing circumstances or widen their
behavioral range at will, when in
practice many find it hard to do so
because of unconscious beliefs, fears or
ingrained habits. Thus, he argued,
leaders need to work on their inner
psychology.
 Integrated psychological theory

• None of the old theories successfully

address the challenge of developing
"leadership presence"; that certain
"something" in leaders that commands
attention, inspires people, wins their
trust and makes followers want to work
with them.
• Scouller therefore proposed the Three
Levels of Leadership model, which was
later categorized as an "Integrated
Psychological" theory on the
Businessballs education website.[45] In
essence, his model aims to summarize
what leaders have to do, not only to
bring leadership to their group or
organization, but also to develop
themselves technically and
psychologically as leaders.
• The three levels in his model are Public,
Private and Personal leadership:
• The first two – public and private
leadership – are "outer" or behavioral
levels. These are the behaviors that
address what Scouller called "the four
dimensions of leadership".
These dimensions are: (1) a shared,
motivating group purpose; (2) action,
progress and results; (3) collective unity
or team spirit; (4) individual selection
and motivation. Public leadership
focuses on the 34 behaviors involved in
influencing two or more people
simultaneously. Private leadership
covers the 14 behaviors needed to
influence individuals on
• The third – personal leadership – is an
"inner" level and concerns a person's
growth toward greater leadership
presence, knowhow and skill. Working
on one's personal leadership has three
aspects: (1) Technical knowhow and skill
(2) Developing the right attitude toward
other people – which is the basis of
servant leadership (3) Psychological self-
mastery – the foundation for authentic
leadership.
Scouller argued that self-mastery is the
key to growing one's leadership
presence, building trusting relationships
with followers and dissolving one's
limiting beliefs and habits, thereby
enabling behavioral flexibility as
circumstances change, while staying
connected to one's core values (that is,
while remaining authentic).
• To support leaders' development, he
introduced a new model of the human
psyche and outlined the principles and
techniques of self-mastery, which
include the practice of mindfulness
meditation.[46]
 Thank you for your
attention!