Leadership Theory: Traditional and Contemporary

Significantly, trait theories generally focus on the importance of selecting leaders rather than developing them. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is possibly the best known example of such an approach.[2] However, with the modern focus on coaching, training and developing new leaders, such a selective approach has waned in recent years. Views are mixed, but the approach is regarded by many as inaccurate, principally because personality is in general now seen to be a shifting, rather than a fixed, entity. Such tests run the danger of constructing rather than discovering particular traits. Furthermore, the use of traits to select leaders can be inaccurate due to the commonly observed Fundamental Attribution Error, whereby people judge others automatically based on early, often inaccurate, impressions of them.[3]

Situational Theories

Other traditional theories include Situational and Contingency theories, which are both reliant on the particular context in which leaders find themselves. Situational Theory dictates that a leader should acquire a variety of different styles which they can choose to apply according to the situation. There are three main theorists who maintain a situational approach: Blake & Mouton, Vroom & Yetton and Hersey & Blanchard. Blake & Mouton’s Leadership Grid allowed leaders to chart their concerns for staff against those for production, and demonstrated that a concern for both was realizable.[4]

Vroom & Yetton’s Normative Decision Model suggests that a leader’s decision is based more on the context in which they find themselves and on the attitudes of their subordinates than on their particular personality traits.[5] The model is weighted towards good decision-making rather than good leadership, however, which some find rather limiting. Finally, Hersey & Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory (1982) takes into account the maturity of subordinates when determining the style of leadership necessary: for inexperienced, unskilled staff, a large degree of direction is required, whilst experienced staff can be afforded more autonomy.[6]

Contingency Theory

Contingency Theory is characterized by the work of Fiedler, who does not believe that the same leadership style is suitable for every situation.[7] Thus, in a crisis situation, or one where there is fierce competition over a short time-period, a task-oriented leader is most suitable. In what Fiedler terms a ‘moderate’ or ‘intermediate’ situation, a people-oriented leader is most effective. There is, however, little empirical evidence that such an approach is actually borne out in real work environments.[8]

Path-Goal Theory

Finally, Path-Goal Theory, as developed by Evans (1970) and later by House & Dressler proposes that it is the responsibility of leaders to motivate their subordinates.[9][10] This should be done using Path Clarification, namely the process by which leaders work with their subordinates to identify exactly what they must do to effect necessary results for the organization. There should be a clear, easily navigable path between results and rewards, be they of an intrinsic nature (the enjoyable nature of the work itself) or extrinsic (bonuses, promotions, etc.). It is based on the belief that people adjust their effort according to the outcome they expect from that effort, and that this rational calculation can be traced and replicated by leaders. Unlike Fiedler, who suggests that different leaders are required for different tasks, Evans believes that leaders should modify their style according to the situation.

There is, however, still insufficient empirical evidence to suggest that any of these models function accurately. While they are based on sound concepts (evidence suggests that organizational culture and context are crucial to good leadership), these models are insufficient to properly define that context and culture, and are thus less useful than might be expected.[11]

Contemporary

Contemporary theorists tend to move the focus away from the type of leader and how they should act in a particular context. Instead, the emphasis tends to be more on how leaders can get the best from themselves and from their followers.

Heifetz

Heifetz combines two ideas.[12] The first is the traditional notion that certain issues, where the outcome is predictable and the context is familiar, require management, and others, where the reverse is true, require ‘adaptive’ responses, namely leadership. The second is that followers should be encouraged to consider how they are able to influence certain situations and that the leader’s role in part should be "to reflect the problem-solving back into the followers… [The leader should not] take on the mantle of magician him or herself but persuade followers that they – and only they – can resolve the problems they face." [13]

Transactional and Transformational Leadership

Other contemporary theories are connected with the debate concerning the difference between two types of change theory: transactional and transformational leadership. Transactional leadership concerns motivating followers by clarifying their role, meeting their social needs and providing them with appropriate rewards. Transactional leadership is often very efficient, but because it is essentially reliant upon following sets of established rules, it does not provide an organization with the scope for significant change.

When this is required, transformational leadership is more suitable. As the name suggests, transformational leaders are able to bring about radical change within an organization. Unlike transactional leaders, they do not utilize reward incentives, but rather more abstract qualities such as organizational culture, vision and values to convince their staff to transcend their own self-interested motivation and to work in the best interests of the collective organization. The vision presented by the leader is so appealing that followers are prepared to make sacrifices and work harder in order to achieve it.[14]

Constructive Criticism

Another contemporary theoretical trend is the notion of leaders becoming more productive by actively encouraging constructive criticism and dissent among their subordinates, and by allocating a collective responsibility to subordinates for decisions made within the company. The idea is borne in part from the notion that responsible followers prevent irresponsible leaders and vice versa. [15][16]

Complexity/Chaos Theory

An even more radical and thoroughly controversial new form of leadership theory is that of Complexity or Chaos Theory. This takes the contextual approach of contingency theory and extends it to argue that since the leadership context is governed by the sheer uncertainty of chaos, the leader has only two choices: to adapt to the chaos as it arises, or to attempt to impose order upon that chaos. Chaos/Complexity theory observes that:

• Organizational life is systemic (i.e. ruled by predictable systems, e.g. summer following winter).
• Organizational life is not systematic (i.e. it is unpredictable – it is impossible to state whether it will rain next Thursday).
• A precise causal link explanation for something is impossible due to the infinite number of variables affecting an outcome.
• Diversity is more effective than uniformity at coping with the unexpected.
• ‘Self-organizing principles’ reduce the possibilities for anarchy and turmoil within a structure and argue in favor of ‘distributed’ or ‘deep’ leadership (the internet is often cited as an example of this.)
• Organizational life ‘has no formal leader but multiple nodes of leadership ensure its survival’.[17]
• The systemic nature of organizational life means that focusing purely on one factor, such as leadership, is insufficient to exact radical change.
• There are a number of contributory factors (e.g. organizational structure, economic considerations, staff satisfaction etc.) which must be considered in parallel with any specific leadership initiatives.[18]

Diversity and Stakeholder Theories

Two further theories, Diversity theory and Stakeholder theory, focus on the importance of a broad approach to leadership. Diversity theory exposes the fact that leaders very often recruit in their own image, in a sense forming an organization with a reduced ‘gene pool’, and therefore undermining the ability of the organization to monitor and analyze itself objectively. Diversity theory argues in favor of continual attempts to recruit leaders and staff with differing outlooks to avoid a complacent, inward-looking organization.

Stakeholder theory offers a variant on the notion of diversity, suggesting that leaders should not focus purely on a concern for maximizing shareholder wealth, but rather should look beyond immediate financial concerns to integrate a wider range of stakeholders (staff, local community, governments and the environment) into their planning. Such approaches are evident in initiatives such as the Triple-Bottom Line approach followed by a number of major corporations.

Emotional Intelligence

Finally, the field of Emotional Intelligence has much to say about leadership. According to EI, a leader who demonstrates a high degree of emotional self-awareness, particularly in four key categories – self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and social skill – is more likely to be successful.