Running head: WHAT MAKES A LEADER 1

What Makes A Leader?

Kristin Keeby

Arizona State University

WHAT MAKES A LEADER 2
Leadership can take on a variety of different forms based on various factors. Factors such

as context, the characteristics of one’s followers, and one’s own self can all have a significant

impact on the leadership style one exhibits. These leadership styles were discussed in great detail

in the text. Many chapters included case studies and diagrams to help display the leadership

model at hand. Each of the approaches added something new to the study of leadership.

Leadership can be read in a variety of approaches.

Leadership is an extremely complex process for which there are many definitions. The

text defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to

achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2015, p. 6). However, upon further observation, I believe

leadership relates more strongly to the relationship between leaders and their followers.

Therefore, I would define leadership as the relationship an individual has with other individuals

that aids in development, goal-attainment, improved performance, and improved satisfaction. I

feel this definition would further encompass other aspects of leadership that were discussed later

in the text. This definition also touches on how leadership can improve employee performance.

Leadership has a very strong impact on performance as many leadership theories, including

Transformational and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), have shown. The commonality in these

theories is their supportive and relational aspect with followers. Therefore, leaders who take into

account their relationship with their followers as well as follower’s well-being are more likely to

achieve improved performance outcomes. Leadership can, therefore, be described in a multitude

of ways.

The skills approach to leadership is a complex theory comprised of two parts in a

leader-centered fashion. It takes into account Katz’ Three Skills Approach, which includes
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 3
technical, human, and conceptual skills, as well as Mumford and Colleagues skills-based model,

which includes individual attributes, competencies, and leadership outcomes (Northouse, 2015).

The text then defined these skills as “the ability to use one’s own knowledge and competencies

to accomplish a set of goals or objectives” (Northouse, 2015, p. 44). One strength of this

approach includes that it is the first theory to conceptualize the importance of the development of

leadership skills across all management levels. Prior to this theory, research only highlighted the

importance of skills in upper management levels (Northouse, 2015). The theory is also

intuitively appealing in that, the idea of developing skills for leadership makes leadership

available to everyone (Northouse, 2015). Unlike other theories, which can stress innate

characteristics as the basis of leadership, the skills approach says that leaders are made, not born.

Finally, the skills model of leadership is consistent with most leadership training programs and

is, therefore, applicable in most organizational settings. However, there are some critiques for

this theory as well. A criticism of the skills approach is that much of its content extends beyond

leadership. For instance, the approach mentions differing forms of intelligence which, while

highly studied in regards to psychology, are not pertinent in the study of leadership (Northouse,

2015). Additionally, much of what is described in the models of this approach, especially

Mumford and Colleagues’, are in fact highly regarded as traits, despite the fact that this approach

centers around not being a trait model. Finally, this approach may not be applicable to other

contexts surrounding leadership due to its origination in a military setting (Northouse, 2015). It

is, therefore, unclear as to whether or not this theory will then extend beyond that context. The

skills approach to leadership is a leader-centered theory with a multitude of aspects.

WHAT MAKES A LEADER 4
The trait approach is another leader-centered leadership theory. It was one of the first

attempts of scholars to study leadership and was created as a “great man” theory in order to focus

on what made people great leaders (Northouse, 2015). The trait theory focuses on “identifying

the innate qualities and characteristics possessed by great social, political, and military leaders”

(Northouse, 2015, p. 19). It was thought that, should someone possess similar traits, they would

also be a great leader. In this approach, leaders are born not made. This approach has received a

lot of praise. A strength of this approach includes the vast amount of research it has to support its

claims. Since it was one of the first theories to be brought into leadership, it has more research to

go along with it than almost any other theory. The theory also highlights the leader component in

leadership (Northouse, 2015). This allows us to more deeply understand the leader as a concept.

Finally, the approach has a strong applicability to trait assessment which can be used in

organizations to discover those with the potential for leadership. Despite these strengths, this

theory also takes on a lot of criticism. One critique of this leader is that, in all of its research, it

still failed to create a definitive list of leadership traits (Northouse, 2015). Each take on this

approach discusses different traits and, while some include similarities, there is still no definitive

list to encompass the trait theory. The theory also failed to take into account the context of the

leadership, or how different situations may call for different types of leaders, a flaw which was

pointed out by Stogdill (Northouse, 2015). Finally, the approach neglected to look at these traits

in relation to outcomes, therefore, there is little evidence that these traits will improve

performance or results (Northouse, 2015). The trait theory of leadership discusses leadership as a

series of innate characteristics which one either does or does not have.
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 5
The behavioral approach to leadership focuses on the behaviors exhibited by leaders. It’s

main focus is “on what leaders do and how they act” (Northouse, 2015, p. 71). The approach

then splits leader’s behaviors into two categories: task, which facilitates goal accomplishment,

and relationship, which helps followers feel comfortable with themselves, each other, and the

context (Northouse, 2015). Blake and Moulton then created a leadership grid to pin-point various

leadership styles and how they differ from one another, including authority-compliance,

country-club management, impoverished management, middle-of-the-road management, and

team management. Two other points, paternalism/maternalism and opportunism, were added

later on. This approach has many strengths including how it “marked a major shift in the general

focus of leadership research” (Northouse, 2015, p. 80). The theory prompted researchers to look

beyond traits in leadership, and to focus on how leaders acted instead. The theory also earned

praise for conceptualizing the leadership process in a distinction between task and relationship

behaviors. Many claim that a leader’s effectiveness depends on how well they balance these two

behaviors (Northouse, 2015). Finally, this approach is highly applicable for leaders to learn about

themselves and how they come across in their leadership. However, this approach can be

criticized for certain aspects including the fact that, despite its support from a vast amount of

research, none of it has shown how a leader’s behaviors are associated with performance

outcomes. Another critique is that the approach failed to find a universal style of leadership to be

applied in every context, as was the original goal in creating the theory (Northouse, 2015).

Finally, the approach implies that the most effective leadership style is one that is high in task

and relationship behaviors, however, this could not be the case for all situations. The behavioral

approach changed the course of leadership studies.

WHAT MAKES A LEADER 6
The situational approach focuses on the situational aspect of leadership. It states that “to

be an effective leader requires that a person adapt his or her style to the demands of different

situations” (Northouse, 2015, p. 93). This approach splits leadership into two dimensions:

directive and supportive. The idea is that a leader changes the “degree to which they are directive

or supportive to meet the changing needs of followers” (Northouse, 2015, p. 94). A strength of

this theory is its applicability to training programs for organizational leaders. Hersey and

Blanchard found that it had been used in the training programs of more than 400 of the Fortune

500 companies (Northouse, 2015). The theory also has a strong prescriptive value, which can be

very valuable in leadership. Finally, the approach “emphasizes leader flexibility” (Northouse,

2015, p. 99) or that a leader must adapt their leadership style based on their followers needs and

goals. Despite its success in the business world, this theory has still received criticism. One

critique of the approach is that there is little research to stand by the basic assumptions of the

approach, calling into question its validity (Northouse, 2015). The theory also fails to take into

account any variance in the prescriptions that may arise due to demographic characteristics

(Northouse, 2015). Finally, the approach does not fully address how it could vary depending on

one-to-one leadership or group leadership. The situational approach focuses on the context

surrounding the leader.

Path-Goal theory focuses on follower’s goal accomplishment. Its main premise is “about

how leaders motivate followers to accomplish designated goals” (Northouse, 2015, p. 115). It

emphasizes the importance for the leader to use the leadership style that best meets their

follower’s motivational needs, discussing components such as leader behaviors which include

directive, supportive, participative, and achievement oriented leadership, follower characteristics,

WHAT MAKES A LEADER 7
task characteristics, follower goals, and follower motivation. In this focus on motivation, the

theory largely takes into account the expectancy theory of motivation. A strength of this

approach is that it is useful in understanding how leader behaviors affect follower satisfaction

and performance (Northouse, 2015). It also has received praise due to its inclusion of the

expectancy theory, as no other leadership approach deals with motivation so directly (Northouse,

2015). Finally, the theory provides a very practical model for leadership. However, as with any

other leadership theory, it has been criticized. A criticism of this theory includes that it may be

too complex, as many find the various aspects and incorporations to be confusing. It has also

only received partial support from empirical research attempting to test its validity (Northouse,

2015). Finally, the theory fails to adequately explain the relationship between leadership

behavior and follower motivation (Northouse, 2015). In other words, the theory fails to explain

the reasoning behind the prescriptions its offers. Path-Goal leadership is a highly complex and

intricate theory of leadership.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory focuses on both the leader and the follower. It

“conceptualizes leadership as a process that is centered on the ​interactions​ between leaders and

followers” (Northouse, 2015, p. 137). It then hypothesizes that leaders have two groups of

followers: the in-group and the out-group. In-group members are those who tend to go above and

beyond in their work and show immense dedication and loyalty, while out-group members do the

minimum required of them and do not have much drive in terms of their work. Because of this,

in-group members typically receive more opportunities than out-group members. A strength of

this theory is its uniqueness in that it is the only approach that “makes the concept of the dyadic

relationship the centerpiece of the leadership process” (Northouse, 2015, p. 145). Other
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 8
approaches tend to focus on either the leader or the follower, but none place their emphasis on

the relationship between the two. The theory also places its attention on the importance of

communication between leaders and followers. Finally, LMX theory is strongly supported by

research in regards to positive organizational outcomes (Northouse, 2015). That does not mean

that this approach goes without criticism, though. A critique of this theory is that the basics of

this theory (in-groups and out-groups) runs “counter to the basic human value of fairness”

(Northouse, 2015, p. 146). In addition, the basic principles of the theory, including how high

LMX relationships are created, has not been fully developed (Northouse, 2015). Finally, the

measurements of leader-member exchanges vary and have not been studied in empirical

research, calling into question the validity of the scales used (Northouse, 2015). LMX theory

focuses highly on the relationship between a leader and each of their followers.

Transformational leadership is a new approach to leadership. This theory involves “an

exceptional form of influence that moves followers to accomplish more than what is usually

expected of them” (Northouse, 2015, p. 161). Its goal is to help followers exceed expectations

and reach their fullest potential. It includes factors such as idealized influence, inspirational

motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Northouse, 2015). It

strongly involves nurturing and empowering followers. This approach has many strengths

including its support from research, which further states that it is an effective form of leadership.

The approach also “places a strong emphasis on followers’ needs, values, and morals”

(Northouse, 2015, p. 177). Therefore, the very foundation of this approach is considered to be

morally uplifting (Northouse, 2015). Finally, the theory treats leadership as a process that takes

place between leaders and their followers, giving followers a more prominent position in the
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 9
leadership process (Northouse, 2015). However, the theory does have weaknesses. One criticism

is that it treats leadership as a personality trait or a predisposition rather than a behavior which

can be learned, limiting its applicability (Northouse, 2015). The theory also lacks evidence as to

its ability to actually transform. Although it is associated with positive outcomes, there is no

established link between transformational leadership and changes (Northouse, 2015). Finally,

some have criticised that the theory suffers from “heroic leadership” bias in that it “stresses that

it is the​ leader​ who moves ​followers​ to do exceptional things” (Northouse, 2015, p. 179). Many

believe that followers can influence leaders just as much as leaders influence followers, a take

which this theory does not consider. Transformational leadership is a more contemporary theory

of leadership.

Authentic leadership is another new theory of leadership. It is defined in various

perspectives including interpersonal, intrapersonal, and developmental. On the surface, it is

focuses on the authenticity of leaders and their leadership (Northouse, 2015). The theory takes on

two different approaches: the George approach (practical) and the Walumbwa approach

(theoretical). Each discusses characteristics and factors that lead to and are related to authentic

leadership. A strength of this theory is that it fulfilled an expressed need for a trustworthy leader

(Northouse, 2015). This theory gained status in 2001 after the attacks on 9/11, after which, the

public expressed a strong need for a leader whom they could trust. The approach also has a

strong moral dimension, emphasizing that authenticity “requires leaders to do what is ‘right’ and

‘good’ for society” (Northouse, 2015, p. 206). Finally, the approach allows for leaders to develop

authentic behaviors, making this approach much more applicable and readily available for

everyone. Yet, the approach still faces criticism. One critique of this approach is in regards to
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 10
how new and undeveloped the theory is. Because of this, there are still many aspects that have

yet to be addressed and many that could change. Additionally, the significance of the moral

component and how it relates to authenticity is not fully explained. Finally, it is also not clear

how authentic leadership can relate to positive organizational outcomes (Northouse, 2015).

Authentic leadership is a current, changing theory of leadership.

Adaptive leadership focuses on the problems that can arise in a changing organizational

environment. Its main emphasis is on how leaders adapt their leadership to encourage and

prepare followers to deal with change. This theory “stresses the ​activities of the leader​ in relation

to the ​work of the followers i​ n the ​contexts​ in which they find themselves” (Northouse, 2015, p.

257). This approach is more follower centered, setting it apart from other leadership theories. It

was brought into the topic of leadership by Heiftz, who defines the style as “‘the practice of

mobilizing people to tackle tough challenges and thrive’” (Northouse, 2015, p. 258). In doing

this, it takes many factors into account including situational challenges: technical, adaptive, and

technical & adaptive, leader behaviors, and adaptive work. This approach has many strengths

including its follower centered approach. It also provides a prescriptive approach to leadership,

adding to its applicability. Finally, it contributed to the field of leadership studies in including the

concept of a holding environment as a significant part of the leadership process (Northouse,

2015). A criticism of this approach, however, is that it has very little empirical research to test

the claims of the theory (Northouse, 2015). Additionally, many of the concepts discussed in the

theory are in need of further explanation, as some of the major factors including those in regards

to adaptive work remain unclear (Northouse, 2015). Finally, the theory merely hints at but does

not explain how the approach incorporates a moral dimension. It discusses leading to the
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 11
common good but the way to that is not fully explained (Northouse, 2015). Adaptive leadership

involves helping followers through stressful times of change.

Servant leadership is a paradoxical approach to leadership. Its focus is that leaders “place

the good of followers over their own self-interests and emphasize follower development”

(Northouse, 2015, p. 226). The approach can be modeled by three components including

antecedent conditions, servant leader behaviors, and leadership outcomes (Northouse, 2015). The

theory has many strengths including its focus on altruism. It also provides a sort of provocative

and new approach to leadership in that it does not incorporate influence in a traditional way

(Northouse, 2015). Finally, research has suggested that this approach may not always be the best.

This tells us that, when looking to implore leadership styles, this approach is not universal and

may not always create the best outcomes. This approach has also received its fair share of

criticism. One critique of the theory is in its paradoxical nature, which can diminish the potential

value of the approach by making it sounds fanciful or whimsical (Northouse, 2015). The

approach also sparks debate amongst scholars as to the traits, abilities, and behaviors associated

with it (Northouse, 2015). Finally, its altruistic approach can also appear to be utopian in that it

conflicts with the very concept of autonomy and other aspects of leadership (Northouse, 2015).

Servant leadership is a commendable but paradoxical approach to leadership.

Psychodynamic theory of leadership ties in the potential reasons behind human behavior.

This approach is based on the psychoanalytic findings of Sigmund Freud (Northouse, 2015) and

“focuses on the dynamics of human behavior” (Northouse, 2015, p. 296). We can apply this lens

to leadership through the Clinical paradigm. It focuses on various aspects including the inner

theatre, leader-follower relationships, and the shadow side of leadership (Northouse, 2015). A
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 12
strength of this approach is that it provides a new lens with which to study organizational

dynamics (Northouse, 2015). It also involves an analysis of not only the self, but the self in

relation to others and to the context at hand (Northouse, 2015). Finally, this approach focuses

highly on the relationship between leader and follower. However, that does not mean that it goes

without criticism. One critique of this theory is that most of the research supporting this theory

are from clinical observations of individuals with severe mental illness. It, additionally, does not

allow for much in the way of training leaders conventionally, due to its focus on self-awareness.

Finally, Freud’s findings have been the subject of much criticism in the psychological

community, making them an unreliable basis for this theory. The Psychodynamic approach

focuses on the reasons behind leader and follower behaviors.

Three of the models discussed appeared to fit best with my leadership philosophy. These

models included the LMX theory, transformational leadership, and authentic leadership. In

regards to the LMX theory of leadership, I have come to find that the relationship one has with

their leader or followers is incredibly important. In my experience, as a previous manager of

mine and I had a very high LMX, having such led to higher workplace satisfaction and increased

organizational commitment. This also ties into authentic leadership in that having a high LMX

can also increase trust. Therefore, authentic leadership also plays a major role in my leadership

philosophy in that it fosters trust between a leader and their followers. I have found that, if

followers do not trust their leader, or vice versa, significant conflict can arise. One of my leaders

did not trust a follower and the follower did not trust them. Because of this, there was a constant

struggle between the two of them and both experienced decreased job satisfaction. Finally,

transformational leadership fits best with my leadership philosophy as it is the main leadership
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 13
focus of my company at the moment. We aim to influence our followers and inspire them to go

above and beyond in their role. In doing this, we hope to increase job satisfaction and

organizational commitment, which will in turn lead to higher customer connections. Due to this,

this approach or style of leadership has a very prominent place in my exhibition of leadership.

LMX theory, transformational leadership, and authentic leadership, each strongly resonate with

my leadership philosophy.

Transformational leadership resonated positively with me and my management style. As

previously stated, transformational leadership “involves an exceptional form of influence that

moves followers to accomplish more than what is usually expected of them” (Northouse, 2015,

p. 161). The text compares this style of leadership to that of transactional leadership, which

“refers to the bulk of leadership models...focus[ing] on the exchanges that occur between leaders

and their followers” (Northouse, 2015, p. 162). These leaders focus on contingent rewards and

management-by-exception. Pseudotransformational leadership is also touched upon to describe

transformational leadership that is used in a darker sense. These leaders are “self-consumed,

exploitative, and power oriented, with warped moral values” (Northouse, 2015, p. 163). The

transformational leadership approach ties strongly into the charisma demonstrated in the leader

and focuses on four factors: idealized influence or charisma factor, inspirational motivation or

inspiring followers to be a part of a shared vision, intellectual stimulation or stimulating

followers to be creative and innovative, and individualized consideration or how a leader

provides a supportive climate (Northouse, 2015). Bennis and Nanus identified common

strategies for transformational leaders including having a vision, being a social architect, creating

trust, and utilizing creative development of self (Northouse, 2015). This approach was further
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 14
explored by Kouzes and Posner who listed five fundamental practices of transformational leaders

including: model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and

encourage the heart (Northouse, 2015). This approach resonated with me due to its dedication to

improving followers in a caring way. As previously stated, my company has taken on this

approach in all levels of leadership, so it is very dear to my heart and pivotal in my development.

Authentic Leadership additionally resonated with me. As previously mentioned, authentic

leadership focuses on the authenticity of leaders and their leadership (Northouse, 2015). It is

defined through various dimensions including intrapersonal, which “focuses closely on the leader

and what goes on within the leader...emhpasiz[ing] a leader’s life experiences” (Northouse,

2015, p. 196), interpersonal, which states that “authenticity emerges from the interactions

between the leaders and followers” (Northouse, 2015, p. 196), and developmental, which “views

authentic leadership as something that can be nurtured in a leader, rather than a fixed trait”

(Northouse, 2015, p. 196). There are two approaches to this theory, the first of which is the

George approach. He hypothesized that authentic leaders exhibit five dimensions, each with their

related characteristic of leadership including purpose/passion, values/behavior,

relationships/connectedness, self-discipline/consistency, and the heart/compassion (Northouse,

2015). Walumbwa and his associates came up with a different approach which identified four

components of authentic leadership including self-awareness or personal insights, internalized

moral perspective or internal moral standards used to guide behavior, balanced processing or the

ability to analyze information objectively, and relational transparency or being open and honest

(Northouse, 2015). They then hypothesized that these four components were influenced by

factors which included a person’s positive psychological capacities including confidence, hope,
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 15
optimism, and resilience (Northouse, 2015). Other factors discussed were moral reasoning or the

capacity to make ethical decisions and critical life events or major events that shape people’s

lives (Northouse, 2015). This approach resonated with me as I have seen myself grow into a

more authentic leader based on the factors listed. I know there are events in my life that set me

on the path to where I am today. As previously mentioned, I have experienced the importance of

trust in leadership, so this theory has stuck with me. Authentic leadership, because of its

applicability to many of my experiences, resonated with my management style.

Furthermore, adaptive leadership also resonated with my management style. As

previously stated, adaptive leadership, as defined by Heiftz, is “‘the practice of mobilizing

people to tackle tough challenges and thrive’” (Northouse, 2015, p. 258). This model of

leadership focuses on situational challenges which include technical or problems that are clearly

defined with known solutions, adaptive or problems that are not easy to identify, and technical &

adaptive or challenges that are clearly defined but do not have straight-forward solutions

(Northouse, 2015). These situational challenges then determine which leader behaviors will be

used. The various leader behaviors include get on the balcony or taking a step back to gain

perspective, identify adaptive challenges or differentiating between technical and adaptive

challenges, regulate distress or helping others not become overwhelmed by the change, maintain

disciplined attention or encouraging followers to focus on their work, give the work back to the

people or prevent dependence, and protect leadership voices from below or being sure to listen to

those who may be marginalized (Northouse, 2015). After that, the approach focuses on the

adaptive work of the leader, which focuses on creating a holding environment and the

interactions between leaders and their followers. This approach resonated with me as I have been
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 16
through tough organizational change. I have been in situations where the leaders helped

followers through it and in situations where they did not. This approach showed me a detailed

approach as to how to handle these situations in regards to my leadership.

The trait approach was one that did not resonate with my management style. As

previously mentioned, the trait approach was one of the first attempts to study leadership. It is

known as a “great man” theory in order to focus on what made people great leaders (Northouse,

2015). The trait theory focuses on “identifying the innate qualities and characteristics possessed

by great social, political, and military leaders” (Northouse, 2015, p. 19). Many have created lists

of desirable leadership traits including Stogdill, Mann, Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, Kirkpatrick &

Locke, and Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader (Northouse, 2015). However, despite the discrepancies

between these lists, the text focuses on five main traits: intelligence, self-confidence,

determination, integrity, and sociability. Another model used in many leadership studies of traits

is the Big Five Personality Traits model, which includes neuroticism, extraversion, openness,

agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Northouse, 2015). This approach did not resonate with me

as it stressed that leaders were born with an innate set of characteristics that could not be learned.

This truly limited who could be leaders. I would like to believe that anyone could be a leader,

that anyone can develop themselves to become better and grow to make better leaders.

Therefore, I did not particularly care for this theory. My belief that anyone can be a good leader

did not resonate with the trait approach.

Path-Goal Theory also did not resonate with me. As previously stated, the theory

emphasizes “how leaders motivate followers to accomplish designated goals” (Northouse, 2015,

p. 115). Its main objective is to define goals, clarify the path, remove obstacles, and provide
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 17
support for followers (Northouse, 2015). It includes many different leadership behaviors

including directive leadership or a leader who tell followers what to do, how to do it, and when

to do it by, supportive leadership or attending to the well-being and needs of followers,

participative leadership or consulting followers in decision making, and achievement-oriented

leadership or challenging followers to exceed expectations (Northouse, 2015). These leadership

behaviors are thus dependent on follower characteristics which determine how a leader’s

behavior will be interpreted as well as task characteristics (Northouse, 2015). This approach did

not resonate with me as it was too complex, as was a named criticism of the theory. With all of

its aspects it becomes too confusing to apply in everyday life. The complexity of path-goal

theory made it difficult to resonate with.

These five theories have many similarities and differences. In terms of the three I

resonated with, all the theories maintain a strong follower aspect in their leadership, in that they

do not focus solely on the leader. Furthermore, they each focus on how to improve follower

satisfaction. However, they do differ in their goals, per say. While transformational leadership

and authentic leadership are very similar in their goals of having a moral dimension,

transformational leadership further aims to help followers exceed expectations, whereas

authentic leadership aims to build trust, and adaptive leadership aims to help followers through

tough times of change. This relates to the similarities and differences in the two theories that I

did not resonate with. The path-goal theory and trait theory of leadership are very different. Trait

leadership focuses on exhibiting certain innate characteristics whereas path-goal focuses on

exhibiting certain leadership behaviors to help followers reach their goals. Therefore, path-goal

theory can be related to adaptive leadership in that both alter their approach or behaviors to help
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 18
their followers, but could not be related to the trait approach. These five leadership theories were

similar and dissimilar in a variety of ways.

A work situation where one or more of the theories discussed was exhibited was when

my current manager had to cut back everyone’s hours after the schedule had already been posted.

Our district manager got a call and informed the managers in the district that they needed to cut

hours each week and only schedule to forecast. All managers were very stressed and upset at the

idea as their schedules had already been posted and any new labor that had been allotted to them

had been taken away. However, the difficult part was not in redoing the schedule, it was

informing the partners. My manager took on an adaptive approach as a way to guide us through

this stressful time. When hours are cut, there is always a chance that workers will panic as they

might believe this to be a permanent change. Therefore, it was pertinent that my manager ease

worries and guide our partners through this stressful time. This could be seen as a technical and

adaptive challenge, as the challenge was clearly defined, but there was no set solution in terms of

regulating distress. My manager first began by getting on the balcony and making a plan as to

how she was going to go about implementing this new change. After identifying the challenge,

she regulated distress by first telling the supervisors about what would happen so that we could

help in creating a holding environment and maintaining disciplined attention. She then took it

upon herself to carefully explain the situation to our partners so as to inform them but not alarm

them. In doing this she also emphasized that this would not be permanent. Since this took place

recently, we have not yet gotten to the other behaviors listed in the approach. Another approach

that could have been used might have been servant leadership. In placing the good of the

followers over all else, my manager might have neglected to redo the schedules as she was
WHAT MAKES A LEADER 19
instructed to do. Had she done this, partners’ hours would not have been cut and they might be

happy for a while. However, since she did not do as was instructed of her, she would have

disciplined or even let go. The end result of this approach would have been her having to redo

the schedules anyways, as well as a damaged relationship with our district manager, and possibly

even the loss of her credibility or job. Therefore, I believe the adaptive approach was the best

course of action in this situation.

Upon first glance at the list of 200 top paid CEOs I immediately noticed what was

confirmed after much browsing. The vast majority of top paid CEOs in the list are men. When

counting to see exactly how many women were actually on this list, I only found 10. This

touches on how gender still plays a vital role in leadership and how, as is stated in the text, it is

no longer just a glass ceiling, but a labyrinth (Northouse, 2015) that is present in all levels of

leadership. Not only that, but it appears that a majority of these men are white, touching on the

disrimination based on race and ethnicity that the study of gender in leadership neglected to

include (Northouse, 2015). Furthermore, out of the 10 women I counted, only one was noticeably

a woman of color, touching on how people of color are sometimes doubly discriminated against.

The list of top-paid 200 CEO’s was dominated by white men.

Leadership has been as vast and newly explored topic in organizations. The text,

therefore, explored a variety of theories all attempting to find reason or explanation to successful

and unsuccessful leadership. While they all added value to the practice, none of the theories

could entirely encompass leadership. Leadership is a complex concept that researchers are still

delving into today.

WHAT MAKES A LEADER 20
References

Northouse, P. G. (2015). ​Leadership: Theory and Practice, 7th Edition.​ Los Angeles: SAGE

Publications, Inc.