Great Man Theory

Assumptions
Leaders are born and not made.
Great leaders will arise when there is a great need.

Description
Early research on leadership was based on the the study of people who were already great
leaders. These people were often from the aristocracy, as few from lower classes had the
opportunity to lead. This contributed to the notion that leadership had something to do
with breeding.
The idea of the Great Man also strayed into the mythic domain, with notions that in times
of need, a Great Man would arise, almost by magic. This was easy to verify, by pointing to
people such as Eisenhower and Churchill, let alone those further back along the timeline,
even to Jesus, Moses, Mohammed and the Buddah.

Discussion
Gender issues were not on the table when the 'Great Man' theory was proposed. Most
leaders were male and the thought of a Great Woman was generally in areas other than
leadership. Most researchers were also male, and concerns about androcentric bias were a
long way from being realized.

Trait Theory
Assumptions
People are born with inherited traits.
Some traits are particularly suited to leadership.
People who make good leaders have the right (or sufficient) combination of traits.

Description
Early research on leadership was based on the psychological focus of the day, which was
of people having inherited characteristics or traits. Attention was thus put on discovering
these traits, often by studying successful leaders, but with the underlying assumption that
if other people could also be found with these traits, then they, too, could also become
great leaders.
Stogdill (1974) identified the following traits and skills as critical to leaders.

 
 Traits Skills
 Adaptable to situations  Clever (intelligent)
 Alert to social environment  Conceptually skilled
 Ambitious and achievement-  Creative
orientated  Diplomatic and tactful
 Assertive  Fluent in speaking
 Cooperative  Knowledgeable about group
 Decisive task
 Dependable  Organised (administrative
 Dominant (desire to ability)
influence others)  Persuasive
 Energetic (high activity  Socially skilled
level)  
 Persistent
 Self-confident
 Tolerant of stress
 Willing to assume
responsibility
 
McCall and Lombardo (1983) researched both success and failure identified four primary
traits by which leaders could succeed or 'derail':

 Emotional stability and composure: Calm, confident and predictable, particularly

when under stress.
 Admitting error: Owning up to mistakes, rather than putting energy into covering
up.
 Good interpersonal skills: Able to communicate and persuade others without resort
to negative or coercive tactics.
 Intellectual breadth: Able to understand a wide range of areas, rather than having a
narrow (and narrow-minded) area of expertise.

Discussion
There have been many different studies of leadership traits and they agree only in the
general saintly qualities needed to be a leader.
For a long period, inherited traits were sidelined as learned and situational factors were
considered to be far more realistic as reasons for people acquiring leadership positions.
Paradoxically, the research into twins who were separated at birth along with new
sciences such as Behavioral Genetics have shown that far more is inherited than was
previously supposed. Perhaps one day they will find a 'leadership gene'.
Behavioral Theory
Assumptions
Leaders can be made, rather than are born.
Successful leadership is based in definable, learnable behavior.

Description
Behavioral theories of leadership do not seek inborn traits or capabilities. Rather, they
look at what leaders actually do.
If success can be defined in terms of describable actions, then it should be relatively easy
for other people to act in the same way. This is easier to teach and learn then to adopt the
more ephemeral 'traits' or 'capabilities'.

Discussion
Behavioral is a big leap from Trait Theory, in that it assumes that leadership capability can
be learned, rather than being inherent. This opens the floodgates to leadership
development, as opposed to simple psychometric assessment that sorts those with
leadership potential from those who will never have the chance.
A behavioral theory is relatively easy to develop, as you simply assess both leadership
success and the actions of leaders. With a large enough study, you can then correlate
statistically significant behaviors with success. You can also identify behaviors which
contribute to failure, thus adding a second layer of understanding.

Role theory
Assumptions
People define roles for themselves and others based on social learning and reading.
People form expectations about the roles that they and others will play.
People subtly encourage others to act within the role expectations they have for them.
People will act within the roles they adopt.

Description
We all have internal schemas about the role of leaders, based on what we read, discuss
and so on. We subtly send these expectations to our leaders, acting as role senders, for
example through the balance of decisions we take upon ourselves and the decisions we
leave to the leader.
Leaders are influenced by these signals, particularly if they are sensitive to the people
around them, and will generally conform to these, playing the leadership role that is put
upon them by others.
Within organizations, there is much formal and informal information about what the
leader's role should be, including 'leadership values', culture, training sessions, modeling
by senior managers, and so on. These and more (including contextual factors) act to
shape expectations and behaviors around leadership.
Role conflict can also occur when people have differing expectations of their leaders. It
also happens when leaders have different ideas about what they should be doing vs. the
expectations that are put upon them.

Discussion
Role expectations of a leader can vary from very specific to a broad idea within which the
leader can define their own style.
When role expectations are low or mixed, then this may also lead to role conflict.

The Managerial Grid

Description
Leaders may be concerned for their people and they also must also have some concern for
the work to be done. The question is, how much attention to they pay to one or the other?
This is a model defined by Blake and Mouton in the early 1960s.
 
Country Club Team
High  
management management
Middle of the
Mediu
Concern for   road  
m
People management
Impoverishe
Authority-
Low d  
compliance
management
Low Medium High
 
Concern for Production (Task)
 
Impoverished management
Minimum effort to get the work done. A basically lazy approach that avoids as much work
as possible.
Authority-compliance
Strong focus on task, but with little concern for people. Focus on efficiency, including the
elimination of people wherever possible.
Country Club management
Care and concern for the people, with a comfortable and friendly environment and
collegial style. But a low focus on task may give questionable results.
Middle of the road management
A weak balance of focus on both people and the work. Doing enough to get things done,
but not pushing the boundaries of what may be possible.
Team management
Firing on all cylinders: people are committed to task and leader is committed to people (as
well as task).

Discussion
This is a well-known grid that uses the Task vs. Person preference that appears in many
other studies, such as the Michigan Leadership Studies and the Ohio State Leadership
Studies. Many other task-people models and variants have appeared since then. They are
both clearly important dimensions, but as other models point out, they are not all there is
to leadership and management.
The Managerial Grid was the original name. It later changed to the Leadership Grid.

Participative Leadership
Assumptions
Involvement in decision-making improves the understanding of the issues involved by
those who must carry out the decisions.
People are more committed to actions where they have involved in the relevant decision-
making.
People are less competitive and more collaborative when they are working on joint goals.
When people make decisions together, the social commitment to one another is greater
and thus increases their commitment to the decision.
Several people deciding together make better decisions than one person alone.

Style
A Participative Leader, rather than taking autocratic decisions, seeks to involve other
people in the process, possibly including subordinates, peers, superiors and other
stakeholders. Often, however, as it is within the managers' whim to give or deny control
to his or her subordinates, most participative activity is within the immediate team. The
question of how much influence others are given thus may vary on the manager's
preferences and beliefs, and a whole spectrum of participation is possible, as in the table
below.

< Not participative Highly participative >

Leader proposes
Autocratic Team proposes Joint decision
decision, listens Full delegation of
decision by decision, leader with team as
to feedback, decision to team
leader has final decision equals
then decides

 
There are many varieties on this spectrum, including stages where the leader sells the
idea to the team. Another variant is for the leader to describe the 'what' of objectives or
goals and let the team or individuals decide the 'how' of the process by which the 'how'
will be achieved (this is often called 'Management by Objectives').
The level of participation may also depend on the type of decision being made. Decisions
on how to implement goals may be highly participative, whilst decisions during
subordinate performance evaluations are more likely to be taken by the manager.

Discussion
There are many potential benefits of participative leadership, as indicated in the
assumptions, above.
This approach is also known as consultation, empowerment, joint decision-making,
democratic leadership, Management By Objective (MBO) and power-sharing.
Participative Leadership can be a sham when managers ask for opinions and then ignore
them. This is likely to lead to cynicism and feelings of betrayal.
Lewin's leadership styles
Description
Kurt Lewin and colleagues did leadership decision experiments in 1939 and identified three
different styles of leadership, in particular around decision-making.
Autocratic
In the autocratic style, the leader takes decisions without consulting with others. The
decision is made without any form of consultation. In Lewin's experiments, he found that
this caused the most level of discontent.
An autocratic style works when there is no need for input on the decision, where the
decision would not change as a result of input, and where the motivation of people to
carry out subsequent actions would not be affected whether they were or were not
involved in the decision-making.
Democratic
In the democratic style, the leader involves the people in the decision-making, although
the process for the final decision may vary from the leader having the final say to them
facilitating consensus in the group.
Democratic decision-making is usually appreciated by the people, especially if they have
been used to autocratic decisions with which they disagreed. It can be problematic when
there are a wide range of opinions and there is no clear way of reaching an equitable final
decision.
Laissez-Faire
The laissez-faire style is to minimize the leader's involvement in decision-making, and
hence allowing people to make their own decisions, although they may still be responsible
for the outcome.
Laissez-faire works best when people are capable and motivated in making their own
decisions, and where there is no requirement for a central coordination, for example in
sharing resources across a range of different people and groups.

Discussion
In Lewin et al's experiments, he discovered that the most effective style was Democratic.
Excessive autocratic styles led to revolution, whilst under a Laissez-faire approach, people
were not coherent in their work and did not put in the energy that they did when being
actively led.
These experiments were actually done with groups of children, but were early in the
modern era and were consequently highly influential.
Likert's leadership styles

Description
Rensis Likert identified four main styles of leadership, in particular around decision-making
and the degree to which people are involved in the decision.
Exploitive authoritative
In this style, the leader has a low concern for people and uses such methods as threats
and other fear-based methods to achieve conformance. Communication is almost entirely
downwards and the psychologically distant concerns of people are ignored.
Benevolent authoritative
When the leader adds concern for people to an authoritative position, a 'benevolent
dictatorship' is formed. The leader now uses rewards to encourage appropriate
performance and listens more to concerns lower down the organization, although what
they hear is often rose-tinted, being limited to what their subordinates think that the boss
wants to hear. Although there may be some delegation of decisions, almost all major
decisions are still made centrally.
Consultative
The upward flow of information here is still cautious and rose-tinted to some degree,
although the leader is making genuine efforts to listen carefully to ideas. Nevertheless,
major decisions are still largely centrally made.
Participative
At this level, the leader makes maximum use of participative methods, engaging people
lower down the organization in decision-making. People across the organization are
psychologically closer together and work well together at all levels.

Discussion
This is a classic 1960s view in that it is still very largely top-down in nature, with the
cautious addition collaborative elements towards the Utopian final state.
Situational Leadership

Assumptions
The best action of the leader depends on a range of situational factors.

Style
When a decision is needed, an effective leader does not just fall into a single preferred
style, such as using transactional or transformational methods. In practice, as they say,
things are not that simple.
Factors that affect situational decisions include motivation and capability of followers. This,
in turn, is affected by factors within the particular situation. The relationship between
followers and the leader may be another factor that affects leader behavior as much as it
does follower behavior.
The leaders' perception of the follower and the situation will affect what they do rather
than the truth of the situation. The leader's perception of themselves and other factors
such as stress and mood will also modify the leaders' behavior.
Yukl (1989) seeks to combine other approaches and identifies six variables:

 Subordinate effort: the motivation and actual effort expended.

 Subordinate ability and role clarity: followers knowing what to do and how to do it.
 Organization of the work: the structure of the work and utilization of resources.
 Cooperation and cohesiveness: of the group in working together.
 Resources and support: the availability of tools, materials, people, etc.
 External coordination: the need to collaborate with other groups.
Leaders here work on such factors as external relationships, acquisition of resources,
managing demands on the group and managing the structures and culture of the group.

Discussion
Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) identified three forces that led to the leader's action:
the forces in the situation, the forces in then follower and also forces in the leader. This
recognizes that the leader's style is highly variable, and even such distant events as a
family argument can lead to the displacement activity of a more aggressive stance in an
argument than usual.
Maier (1963) noted that leaders not only consider the likelihood of a follower accepting a
suggestion, but also the overall importance of getting things done. Thus in critical
situations, a leader is more likely to be directive in style simply because of the
implications of failure.
Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership
Assumptions
Leaders should adapt their style to follower development style (or 'maturity'), based on
how ready and willing the follower is to perform required tasks (that is, their competence
and motivation).
There are four leadership styles (S1 to S4) that match the development levels (D1 to D4)
of the followers.
The four styles suggest that leaders should put greater or less focus on the task in
question and/or the relationship between the leader and the follower, depending on the
development level of the follower.

Style
 
 
Follower development level

Leadership style in Low High

response to follower R4 R3 R2 R1
development level
Task / directive behavior

Low High
 
S3 S2
High    
Relationshi Partici- Selling
p/ pating
supportive    
behavior Low S4 S1
   
Dele- Telling
gating  

 
S1: Telling / Directing
Follower: R1: Low competence, low commitment / Unable and unwilling or insecure
Leader: High task focus, low relationship focus
When the follower cannot do the job and is unwilling or afraid to try, then the leader takes
a highly directive role, telling them what to do but without a great deal of concern for the
relationship. The leader may also provide a working structure, both for the job and in
terms of how the person is controlled.
The leader may first find out why the person is not motivated and if there are any
limitations in ability. These two factors may be linked, for example where a person
believes they are less capable than they should be may be in some form of denial or other
coping. They follower may also lack self-confidence as a result.
If the leader focused more on the relationship, the follower may become confused about
what must be done and what is optional. The leader thus maintains a clear 'do this'
position to ensure all required actions are clear.
S2: Selling / Coaching
Follower: R2: Some competence, variable commitment / Unable but willing or motivated
Leader: High task focus, high relationship focus
When the follower can do the job, at least to some extent, and perhaps is over-confident
about their ability in this, then 'telling' them what to do may demotivate them or lead to
resistance. The leader thus needs to 'sell' another way of working, explaining and
clarifying decisions.
The leader thus spends time listening and advising and, where appropriate, helping the
follower to gain necessary skills through coaching methods.
Note: S1 and S2 are leader-driven.
S3: Participating / Supporting
Follower: R3: High competence, variable commitment / Able but unwilling or insecure
Leader: Low task focus, high relationship focus
When the follower can do the job, but is refusing to do it or otherwise showing insufficient
commitment, the leader need not worry about showing them what to do, and instead is
concerned with finding out why the person is refusing and thence persuading them to
cooperate.
There is less excuse here for followers to be reticent about their ability, and the key is
very much around motivation. If the causes are found then they can be addressed by the
leader. The leader thus spends time listening, praising and otherwise making the follower
feel good when they show the necessary commitment.
S4: Delegating / Observing
Follower: R4: High competence, high commitment / Able and willing or motivated
Leader: Low task focus, low relationship focus
When the follower can do the job and is motivated to do it, then the leader can basically
leave them to it, largely trusting them to get on with the job although they also may need
to keep a relatively distant eye on things to ensure everything is going to plan.
Followers at this level have less need for support or frequent praise, although as with
anyone, occasional recognition is always welcome.
Note: S3 and S4 are follower-led.

Discussion
Hersey and Blanchard (of 'One Minute Manager' fame) have written a short and very
readable book on the approach. It is simple and easy to understand, which makes it
particularly attractive for practicing managers who do not want to get into heavier
material. It also is accepted in wider spheres and often appear in college courses.
It is limited, however, and is based on assumptions that can be challenged, for example
the assumption that at the 'telling' level, the relationship is of lower importance.

Vroom and Yetton's Normative Model

Assumptions
Decision acceptance increases commitment and effectiveness of action.
Participation increases decision acceptance.
Description
Decision quality is the selection of the best alternative, and is particularly important when
there are many alternatives. It is also important when there are  serious implications for
selecting (or failing to select) the best alternative.
Decision acceptance is the degree to which a follower accepts a decision made by a leader.
Leaders focus more on decision acceptance when decision quality is more important.
Vroom and Yetton defined five different decision procedures. Two are autocratic (A1 and
A2), two are consultative (C1 and C2) and one is Group based (G2).
A1: Leader takes known information and then decides alone.
A2: Leader gets information from followers, and then decides alone.
C1: Leader shares problem with followers individually, listens to ideas and then decides
alone.
C2: Leader shares problems with followers as a group, listens to ideas and then decides
alone.
G2: Leader shares problems with followers as a group and then seeks and accepts
consensus agreement.
 
Situational factors that influence the method are relatively logical:

 When decision quality is important and followers possess useful information, then A1
and A2 are not the best method.
 When the leader sees decision quality as important but followers do not, then G2 is
inappropriate.
 When decision quality is important, when the problem is unstructured and the leader
lacks information / skill to make the decision alone, then G2 is best.
 When decision acceptance is important and followers are unlikely to accept an
autocratic decision, then A1 and A2 are inappropriate.
 when decision acceptance is important but followers are likely to disagree with one
another, then A1, A2 and C1 are not appropriate, because they do not give
opportunity for differences to be resolved.
 When decision quality is not important but decision acceptance is critical, then G2 is
the best method.
 When decision quality is important, all agree with this, and the decision is not likely
to result from an autocratic decision then G2 is best.

Discussion
Vroom and Yetton (1973) took the earlier generalized situational theories that noted how
situational factors cause almost unpredictable leader behavior and reduced this to a more
limited set of behaviors.
The 'normative' aspect of the model is that it was defined more by rational logic than by
long observation.
The model is most likely to work when there is clear and accessible opinions about the
decision quality importance and decision acceptance factors. However these are not
always known with any significant confidence.
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
Description
The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership was developed to describe the way that leaders
encourage and support their followers in achieving the goals they have been set by
making the path that they should take clear and easy.
In particular, leaders:

 Clarify the path so subordinates know which way to go.

 Remove roadblocks that are stopping them going there.
 Increasing the rewards along the route.
Leaders can take a strong or limited approach in these. In clarifying the path, they may be
directive or give vague hints. In removing roadblocks, they may scour the path or help the
follower move the bigger blocks. In increasing rewards, they may give occasional
encouragement or pave the way with gold.
This variation in approach will depend on the situation, including the follower's capability
and motivation, as well as the difficulty of the job and other contextual factors.
House and Mitchell (1974) describe four styles of leadership:
Supportive leadership
Considering the needs of the follower, showing concern for their welfare and creating a
friendly working environment. This includes increasing the follower's self-esteem and
making the job more interesting. This approach is best when the work is stressful, boring
or hazardous.
Directive leadership
Telling followers what needs to be done and giving appropriate guidance along the way.
This includes giving them schedules of specific work to be done at specific times. Rewards
may also be increased as needed and role ambiguity decreased (by telling them what they
should be doing).
This may be used when the task is unstructured and complex and the follower is
inexperienced. This increases the follower's sense of security and control and hence is
appropriate to the situation.
Participative leadership
Consulting with followers and taking their ideas into account when making decisions and
taking particular actions. This approach is best when the followers are expert and their
advice is both needed and they expect to be able to give it.
Achievement-oriented leadership
Setting challenging goals, both in work and in self-improvement (and often together).
High standards are demonstrated and expected. The leader shows faith in the capabilities
of the follower to succeed. This approach is best when the task is complex.

Discussion
Leaders who show the way and help followers along a path are effectively 'leading'.
This approach assumes that there is one right way of achieving a goal and that the leader
can see it and the follower cannot. This casts the leader as the knowing person and the
follower as dependent.
It also assumes that the follower is completely rational and that the appropriate methods
can be deterministically selected depending on the situation.
Contingency Theory
Assumptions
The leader's ability to lead is contingent upon various situational factors, including the
leader's preferred style, the capabilities and behaviors of followers and also various other
situational factors.

Description
Contingency theories are a class of behavioral theory that contend that there is no one
best way of leading and that a leadership style that is effective in some situations may not
be successful in others.
An effect of this is that leaders who are very effective at one place and time may become
unsuccessful either when transplanted to another situation or when the factors around
them change.
This helps to explain how some leaders who seem for a while to have the 'Midas touch'
suddenly appear to go off the boil and make very unsuccessful decisions.

Discussion
Contingency theory is similar to situational theory in that there is an assumption of no
simple one right way. The main difference is that situational theory tends to focus more on
the behaviors that the leader should adopt, given situational factors (often about follower
behavior), whereas contingency theory takes a broader view that includes contingent
factors about leader capability and other variables within the situation.

Fiedler's Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC)

Theory
Assumptions
Leaders prioritize between task-focus and people-focus.
Relationships, power and task structure are the three key factors that drive effective
styles.

Description
Fiedler identified the a Least Preferred Co-Worker scoring for leaders by asking them first
to think of a person with which they worked that they would like least to work with again,
and then to score the person on a range of scales between positive factors (friendly,
helpful, cheerful, etc.) and negative factors (unfriendly, unhelpful, gloomy, etc.). A high
LPC leader generally scores the other person as positive and a low LPC leader scores them
as negative.
High LPC leaders tend to have close and positive relationships and act in a supportive way,
even prioritizing the relationship before the task. Low LPC leaders put the task first and
will turn to relationships only when they are satisfied with how the work is going.
Three factors are then identified about the leader, member and the task, as follows:
  Leader-Member Relations: The extent to which the leader has the support and
loyalties of followers and relations with them are friendly and cooperative.
 Task structure: The extent to which tasks are standardised, documented and
controlled.
 Leader's Position-power: The extent to which the leader has authority to assess
follower performance and give reward or punishment.
The best LPC approach depends on a combination of there three. Generally, a high LPC
approach is best when leader-member relations are poor, except when the task is
unstructured and the leader is weak, in which a low LPC style is better.
 
Leader's Most
Leader-Member
# Task structure Position- Effective
Relations
power leader
1 Good Structured Strong Low LPC
2 Good Structured Weak Low LPC
3 Good Unstructured Strong Low LPC
4 Good Unstructured Weak High LPC
5 Poor Structured Strong High LPC
6 Poor Structured Weak High LPC
7 Poor Unstructured Strong High LPC
8 Poor Unstructured Weak Low LPC

Discussion
This approach seeks to identify the underlying beliefs about people, in particular whether
the leader sees others as positive (high LPC) or negative (low LPC). The neat trick of the
model is to take someone where it would be very easy to be negative about them.
This is another approach that uses task- vs. people-focus as a major categorisation of the
leader's style.

Cognitive Resource Theory

Assumptions
Intelligence and experience and other cognitive resources are factors in leadership
success.
Cognitive capabilities, although significant are not enough to predict leadership success.
Stress impacts the ability to make decisions.

Description
Cognitive Resource Theory predicts that:

1. A leader's cognitive ability contributes to the performance of the team only when the
leader's approach is directive.

When leaders are better at planning and decision-making, in order for their plans and
decisions to be implemented, they need to tell people what to do, rather than hope they
agree with them.
When they are not better than people in the team, then a non-directive approach is more
appropriate, for example where they facilitate an open discussion where the ideas of team
can be aired and the best approach identified and implemented.

2. Stress affects the relationship between intelligence and decision quality.

When there is low stress, then intelligence is fully functional and makes an optimal
contribution. However, during high stress, a natural intelligence not only makes no
difference, but it may also have a negative effect. One reason for this may be that an
intelligent person seeks rational solutions, which may not be available (and may be one of
the causes of stress). In such situations, a leader who is inexperienced in 'gut feel'
decisions is forced to rely on this unfamiliar approach. Another possibility is that the
leader retreats within him/herself, to think hard about the problem, leaving the group to
their own devices.

3. Experience is positively related to decision quality under high stress.

When there is a high stress situation and intelligence is impaired, experience of the same
or similar situations enables the leader to react in appropriate ways without having to
think carefully about the situation. Experience of decision-making under stress also will
contribute to a better decision than trying to muddle through with brain-power alone.

4. For simple tasks, leader intelligence and experience is irrelevant.

When subordinates are given tasks which do not need direction or support, then it does
not matter how good the leader is at making decisions, because they are easy to make,
even for subordinates, and hence do not need any further support.

Discussion
CRT arose out of dissatisfaction with Trait Theory.
Fiedler also linked CRT with his Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Theory, suggesting that
high LPC scores are the main drivers of directive behavior.
A particularly significant aspect of CRT is the principle that intelligence is the main factor
in low-stress situations, whilst experience counts for more during high-stress moments.

Transactional Leadership
Assumptions
People are motivated by reward and punishment.
Social systems work best with a clear chain of command.
When people have agreed to do a job, a part of the deal is that they cede all authority to
their manager.
The prime purpose of a subordinate is to do what their manager tells them to do.

Style
The transactional leader works through creating clear structures whereby it is clear what is
required of their subordinates, and the rewards that they get for following orders.
Punishments are not always mentioned, but they are also well-understood and formal
systems of discipline are usually in place.
The early stage of Transactional Leadership is in negotiating the contract whereby the
subordinate is given a salary and other benefits, and the company (and by implication the
subordinate's manager) gets authority over the subordinate.
When the Transactional Leader allocates work to a subordinate, they are considered to be
fully responsible for it, whether or not they have the resources or capability to carry it out.
When things go wrong, then the subordinate is considered to be personally at fault, and is
punished for their failure (just as they are rewarded for succeeding).
The transactional leader often uses management by exception, working on the principle
that if something is operating to defined (and hence expected) performance then it does
not need attention. Exceptions to expectation require praise and reward for exceeding
expectation, whilst some kind of corrective action is applied for performance below
expectation.
Whereas Transformational Leadership has more of a 'selling' style, Transactional
Leadership, once the contract is in place, takes a 'telling' style.

Discussion
Transactional leadership is based in contingency, in that reward or punishment is
contingent upon performance.
Despite much research that highlights its limitations, Transactional Leadership is still a
popular approach with many managers. Indeed, in the Leadership vs. Management
spectrum, it is very much towards the management end of the scale.
The main limitation is the assumption of 'rational man', a person who is largely motivated
by money and simple reward, and hence whose behavior is predictable. The underlying
psychology is Behaviorism, including the Classical Conditioning of Pavlov and Skinner's
Operant Conditioning. These theories are largely based on controlled laboratory
experiments (often with animals) and ignore complex emotional factors and social values.
In practice, there is sufficient truth in Behaviorism to sustain Transactional approaches.
This is reinforced by the supply-and-demand situation of much employment, coupled with
the effects of deeper needs, as in Maslow's Hierarchy. When the demand for a skill
outstrips the supply, then Transactional Leadership often is insufficient, and other
approaches are more effective.

Strategic Contingencies Theory

Description
Intraorganizational power depends on three factors: problem skills, actor centrality and
uniqueness of skill.
If you have the skills and expertise to resolve important problems, then you are going to
be in demand. And by the law of supply and demand, that gives your the upper hand in
negotiations. It also gives you power from the reciprocity created.
If you work in a central part of the workflow of the organization, then what you do is very
important. This gives you many opportunities to be noticed. It also means you are on the
critical path, such that if your part of the company fails, the whole show stops. Again
creating attention and giving you bargaining power.
Finally, if you are difficult to replace, then if you do make enemies up the hierarchy, then
they cannot just move you out or sideways.

Example
A production manager in an organization is in charge of a key manufacturing operation
(centrality), and understands its complexities very well (uniqueness). From a long
experience, when things go wrong, he is very good at fixing things, both mechanically and
with the unions.

So what?
Using it
Get a job on the critical path through the organization. Become expert in problem solving
in it. Acquire and defend knowledge and skills that nobody else has.
Defending
Do not let any one person become indispensable.

Transactional Leadership

Assumptions
People are motivated by reward and punishment.
Social systems work best with a clear chain of command.
When people have agreed to do a job, a part of the deal is that they cede all authority to
their manager.
The prime purpose of a subordinate is to do what their manager tells them to do.

Style
The transactional leader works through creating clear structures whereby it is clear what is
required of their subordinates, and the rewards that they get for following orders.
Punishments are not always mentioned, but they are also well-understood and formal
systems of discipline are usually in place.
The early stage of Transactional Leadership is in negotiating the contract whereby the
subordinate is given a salary and other benefits, and the company (and by implication the
subordinate's manager) gets authority over the subordinate.
When the Transactional Leader allocates work to a subordinate, they are considered to be
fully responsible for it, whether or not they have the resources or capability to carry it out.
When things go wrong, then the subordinate is considered to be personally at fault, and is
punished for their failure (just as they are rewarded for succeeding).
The transactional leader often uses management by exception, working on the principle
that if something is operating to defined (and hence expected) performance then it does
not need attention. Exceptions to expectation require praise and reward for exceeding
expectation, whilst some kind of corrective action is applied for performance below
expectation.
Whereas Transformational Leadership has more of a 'selling' style, Transactional
Leadership, once the contract is in place, takes a 'telling' style.

Discussion
Transactional leadership is based in contingency, in that reward or punishment is
contingent upon performance.
Despite much research that highlights its limitations, Transactional Leadership is still a
popular approach with many managers. Indeed, in the Leadership vs. Management
spectrum, it is very much towards the management end of the scale.
The main limitation is the assumption of 'rational man', a person who is largely motivated
by money and simple reward, and hence whose behavior is predictable. The underlying
psychology is Behaviorism, including the Classical Conditioning of Pavlov and Skinner's
Operant Conditioning. These theories are largely based on controlled laboratory
experiments (often with animals) and ignore complex emotional factors and social values.
In practice, there is sufficient truth in Behaviorism to sustain Transactional approaches.
This is reinforced by the supply-and-demand situation of much employment, coupled with
the effects of deeper needs, as in Maslow's Hierarchy. When the demand for a skill
outstrips the supply, then Transactional Leadership often is insufficient, and other
approaches are more effective.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

 

Description
Leader-Member Exchange Theory, also called LMX or Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory,
describes how leaders in groups maintain their position through a series of tacit exchange
agreements with their members.
In-group and out-group
In particular, leaders often have a special relationship with an inner circle of trusted
lieutenants, assistants and advisors, to whom they give high levels of responsibility,
decision influence, and access to resources. This in-group pay for their position. They
work harder, are more committed to task objectives, and share more administrative
duties. They are also expected to be fully committed and loyal to their leader. The out-
group, on the other hand, are given low levels of choice or influence.
This also puts constraints upon the leader. They have to nurture the relationship with
their inner circle whilst balancing giving them power with ensuring they do not have
enough to strike out on their own.
The LMX process
These relationships, if they are going to happen, start very soon after a person joins the
group and follow three stages.
1. Role taking
The member joins the team and the leader assesses their abilities and talents. Based on
this, the leader may offer them opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities.
Another key factor in this stage is the discovery by both parties of how the other likes to
be respected.
2. Role making
In the second phase, the leader and member take part in an unstructured and informal
negotiation whereby a role is created for the member and the often-tacit promise of
benefit and power in return for dedication and loyalty takes place.
Trust-building is very important in this stage, and any felt betrayal, especially by the
leader, can result in the member being relegated to the out-group.
This negotiation includes relationship factors as well as pure work-related ones, and a
member who is similar to the leader in various ways is more likely to succeed. This
perhaps explains why mixed gender relationships regularly are less successful than same-
gender ones (it also affects the seeking of respect in the first stage). The same effect also
applies to cultural and racial differences.
3. Routinization
In this phase, a pattern of ongoing social exchange between the leader and the member
becomes established.
Success factors
Successful members are thus similar in many ways to the leader (which perhaps explains
why many senior teams are all white, male, middle-class and middle-aged). They work
hard at building and sustaining trust and respect.
To help this, they are empathetic, patient, reasonable, sensitive, and are good at seeing
the viewpoint of other people (especially the leader). Aggression, sarcasm and an
egocentric view are keys to the out-group wash-room.
The overall quality of the LMX relationship varies with several factors. Curiously, it is
better when the challenge of the job is extremely high or extremely low. The size of the
group, financial resource availability and the overall workload are also important.
Onwards and upwards
The principle works upwards as well. The leader also gains power by being a member of
their manager's inner circle, which then can then share on downwards. People at the
bottom of an organization with unusual power may get it from an unbroken chain of
circles up to the hierarchy.

So what?
Using it
When you join a team, work hard to also join the inner circle. Take on more than your
share of administrative and other tasks. Demonstrate unswerving loyalty. See your
leader's point of view. Be reasonable and supportive in your challenges to them, and pick
your moments carefully.
As a leader, pick your inner circle with care. Reward them for their loyalty and hard work,
whilst being careful about maintaining commitment of other people.
Defending
If you want to be an 'ordinary' member of a team, play your part carefully. There will be
others with more power. If you want to lead an equal team, beware of those who curry
favor.

Transformational Leadership
Assumptions
People will follow a person who inspires them.
A person with vision and passion can achieve great things.
The way to get things done is by injecting enthusiasm and energy.

Style
Working for a Transformational Leader can be a wonderful and uplifting experience. They
put passion and energy into everything. They care about you and want you to succeed.
Developing the vision
Transformational Leadership starts with the development of a vision, a view of the future
that will excite and convert potential followers. This vision may be developed by the
leader, by the senior team or may emerge from a broad series of discussions. The
important factor is the leader buys into it, hook, line and sinker.

Selling the vision

The next step, which in fact never stops, is to constantly sell the vision. This takes energy
and commitment, as few people will immediately buy into a radical vision, and some will
join the show much more slowly than others. The Transformational Leader thus takes
every opportunity and will use whatever works to convince others to climb on board the
bandwagon.
In order to create followers, the Transformational Leader has to be very careful in
creating trust, and their personal integrity is a critical part of the package that they are
selling. In effect, they are selling themselves as well as the vision.

Finding the way forwards

In parallel with the selling activity is seeking the way forward. Some Transformational
Leaders know the way, and simply want others to follow them. Others do not have a
ready strategy, but will happily lead the exploration of possible routes to the promised
land.
The route forwards may not be obvious and may not be plotted in details, but with a clear
vision, the direction will always be known. Thus finding the way forward can be an
ongoing process of course correction, and the Transformational Leader will accept that
there will be failures and blind canyons along the way. As long as they feel progress is
being made, they will be happy.

Leading the charge

The final stage is to remain up-front and central during the action. Transformational
Leaders are always visible and will stand up to be counted rather than hide behind their
troops. They show by their attitudes and actions how everyone else should behave. They
also make continued efforts to motivate and rally their followers, constantly doing the
rounds, listening, soothing and enthusing.
It is their unswerving commitment as much as anything else that keeps people going,
particularly through the darker times when some may question whether the vision can
ever be achieved. If the people do not believe that they can succeed, then their efforts
will flag. The Transformational Leader seeks to infect and reinfect their followers with a
high level of commitment to the vision.
One of the methods the Transformational Leader uses to sustain motivation is in the use
of ceremonies, rituals and other cultural symbolism. Small changes get big hurrahs,
pumping up their significance as indicators of real progress.
Overall, they balance their attention between action that creates progress and the mental
state of their followers. Perhaps more than other approaches, they are people-oriented
and believe that success comes first and last through deep and sustained commitment.
Discussion
Whilst the Transformational Leader seeks overtly to transform the organization, there is
also a tacit promise to followers that they also will be transformed in some way, perhaps
to be more like this amazing leader. In some respects, then, the followers are the product
of the transformation.
Transformational Leaders are often charismatic, but are not as narcissistic as pure
Charismatic Leaders, who succeed through a belief in themselves rather than a belief in
others.
One of the traps of Transformational Leadership is that passion and confidence can easily
be mistaken for truth and reality. Whilst it is true that great things have been achieved
through enthusiastic leadership, it is also true that many passionate people have led the
charge right over the cliff and into a bottomless chasm. Just because someone believes
they are right, it does not mean they are right.
Paradoxically, the energy that gets people going can also cause them to give up.
Transformational Leaders often have large amounts of enthusiasm which, if relentlessly
applied, can wear out their followers.
Transformational Leaders also tend to see the big picture, but not the details, where the
devil often lurks. If they do not have people to take care of this level of information, then
they are usually doomed to fail.
Finally, Transformational Leaders, by definition, seek to transform. When the organization
does not need transforming and people are happy as they are, then such a leader will be
frustrated. Like wartime leaders, however, given the right situation they come into their
own and can be personally responsible for saving entire companies.

Bass' Transformational Leadership Theory

Assumptions
Awareness of task importance motivates people.
A focus on the team or organization produces better work.

Description
Bass defined transformational leadership in terms of how the leader affects followers, who
are intended to trust, admire and respect the transformational leader.
He identified three ways in which leaders transform followers:

 Increasing their awareness of task importance and value.

 Getting them to focus first on team or organizational goals, rather than their own
interests.
 Activating their higher-order needs.
Charisma is seen as necessary, but not sufficient, for example in the way that charismatic
movie stars may not make good leaders. Two key charismatic effects that
transformational leaders achieve is to evoke strong emotions and to cause identification
of the followers with the leader. This may be through stirring appeals. It may also may
occur through quieter methods such as coaching and mentoring.
Bass has recently noted that authentic transformational leadership is grounded in moral
foundations that are based on four components:

 Idealized influence
 Inspirational motivation
 Intellectual stimulation
 Individualized consideration
...and three moral aspects:

 The moral character of the leader.

 The ethical values embedded in the leader’s vision, articulation, and program
(which followers either embrace or reject).
 The morality of the processes of social ethical choice and action that leaders and
followers engage in and collectively pursue.
This is in contrast with pseudo-transformational leadership, where, for example, in-
group/out-group 'us and them' games are used to bond followers to the leader.

Discussion
In contrast to Burns, who sees transformational leadership as being inextricably linked
with higher order values, Bass sees it as amoral, and attributed transformational skills to
people such as Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones.

Burns' Transformational Leadership Theory

Assumptions
Association with a higher moral position is motivating and will result in people following a
leader who promotes this.
Working collaboratively is better than working individually.

Description
Burns defined transformational leadership as a process where leaders and followers
engage in a mutual process of 'raising one another to higher levels of morality and
motivation.'
Transformational leaders raise the bar by appealing to higher ideals and values of
followers. In doing so, they may model the values themselves and use charismatic
methods to attract people to the values and to the leader.
Burns' view is that transformational leadership is more effective than transactional
leadership, where the appeal is to more selfish concerns. An appeal to social values thus
encourages people to collaborate, rather than working as individuals (and potentially
competitively with one another). He also views transformational leadership as an ongoing
process rather than the discrete exchanges of the transactional approach.

Discussion
Using social and spiritual values as a motivational lever is very powerful as they are both
hard to deny and also give people an uplifting sense of being connected to a higher
purpose, thus playing to the need for a sense of meaning and identity.
Ideals are higher in Maslow's Hierarchy, which does imply that lower concerns such as
health and security must be reasonably safe before people will pay serious attention to
the higher possibilities.

The Leadership Challenge

James Kouzes and Barry Posner developed a survey (The Leadership Practices Inventory)
that asked people which, of a list of common characteristics of leaders, were, in their
experiences of being led by others, the seven top things they look for, admire and would
willingly follow. And over twenty years, they managed ask this of seventy five thousand
people.
The results of the study showed that people preferred the following characteristics, in
order:

 Honest
 Forward-looking
 Competent
 Inspiring
 Intelligent
 Fair-minded
 Broad-minded
 Supportive
 Straightforward
 Dependable
 Cooperative
 Determined
 Imaginative
 Ambitious
 Courageous
 Caring
 Mature
 Loyal
 Self-controlled
 Independent
The main part of the book discusses the five actions that Kouzes and Posner identify as
being key for successful leadership:
Model the way
Modeling means going first, living the behaviors you want others to adopt. This is leading
from the front. People will believe not what they hear leaders say but what they see
leader consistently do.

Inspire a shared vision

People are motivated most not by fear or reward, but by ideas that capture their
imagination.
Note that this is not so much about having a vision, but communicating it so effectively
that others take it as their own.

Challenge the process

Leaders thrive on and learn from adversity and difficult situations. They are early
adopters of innovation.

Enable others to act

Encouragement and exhortation is not enough. People must feel able to act and then
must have the ability to put their ideas into action.

Encourage the heart

People act best of all when they are passionate about what they are doing. Leaders
unleash the enthusiasm of their followers this with stories and passions of their own.