The following theories of leadership, summarised in Figure 2.1, could be broadly categorised as “earlier theories”. However, although these theories tend to have been more strongly in vogue in the past, the conceptual positions taken by them continue to find resonance in current theorists’ attempts to seek new answers to leadership dilemmas, such as destructive leadership behaviour (Krasikova et al., 2013).
Figure 2.1. A limited selection of earlier leadership theories. (Source: Leadership- central.com)
2.2.2.1.1 Trait Theories of Leadership
Trait theories emerged early in the 20th century - “trait” refers to a person’s general characteristics and includes capacities, motives, and patterns of behaviour. These theories viewed the characteristics of leaders to be different from those of non-leaders (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Personality depicts a generalisation about human nature and systemic accounts of individual differences. The concept can be defined as how a person thinks about self (self- identity, beliefs) and how others think about the person (a person’s reputation, an indication of a person’s success in life). Reputation can be regarded as having two sides: the bright side (social performance at its best) and the dark side (impressions created when one’s social guard is down and a person is stressed or ill) (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). In a later section in Chapter Three, destructive leadership traits, or the so called “dark side” of leadership, will be discussed more fully.
The five-factor model of personality consists of the following dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (McCrae & Costa, 1985). Neuroticism can be described as the tendency to show poor emotional adjustment and experience negative affect, such as anxiety, insecurity, and hostility. Extraversion describes the tendency to be sociable, assertive, active and to experience positive affect, such as energy and zeal. Openness to Experience depicts the tendency to be imaginative, nonconforming, unconventional and autonomous, whereas, agreeableness describes a tendency to be trusting, compliant, caring, and gentle. Achievement and dependability comprise the conscientiousness dimension (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Others categorise leadership traits according to drive (achievement, ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative), leadership motivation (personalised vs socialised), honesty and integrity, self-confidence (including emotional stability), cognitive ability, knowledge of the business, and other traits, such as charisma, creativity/originality, and flexibility (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991).
The study of traits as predictors of leadership success has not been without its
controversy (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Questions about the relationship between traits and leadership behaviour were asked by researchers such as Stogdill (as cited in Judge et al., 2002), who concluded that it takes more than a combination of traits to make a leader (Judge et al., 2002; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991).
Nevertheless, the literature on trait theories indicates that, although in general less popular today, there are strong supporters for its correlation with leadership (Hogan &
Kaiser, 2005; Judge et al., 2002; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991) and recent studies focusing on emotionality and leadership, including both leader and follower emotional management, have gained ground (Kollée, Giessner, & van Knippenberg, 2013; Rajah, Song, & Arvey, 2011). Investigating emotional exchange between leader and follower in two laboratory
experiments, Tee, Ashkanasy, and Paulsen (2013) found that followers’ mood influenced leader mood and task performance. Leaders whose followers displayed positive mood were evaluated as performing more effectively and expediently than leaders whose followers expressed negative mood states. Further, it was found that leaders with high neuroticism performed less effectively than leaders with low neuroticism when interacting with followers’ negative mood.
As the popularity of trait theories waned, situational or contingency theories gained in popularity during the mid-1960s (Sorenson & Goethals, 2004). The next section describes leadership theories that emphasise the impact of the situation on the effectiveness of leaders.
2.2.2.1.2 Contingency Theories of Leadership
In essence, contingency theories of leadership attempt to explain the degree of effectiveness of leaders’ behaviours, leader style or orientation in varying situations, such as the
characteristics of the task, in terms of structure, clarity, and predictability; the formal or informal authority of the leader; and the ambiguity of organisational roles. The premise is that these situational variables create a context in which particular behaviours or behavioural strategies are likely to be more effective than others (Chemers, 2004). A number of theorists developed perspectives that could be grouped under the umbrella of contingency theories; of these a few are commented on:
The Contingency Model, as presented by Fiedler (1964), has as its basic premise the theory that “the performance of interacting groups is contingent upon the interaction of leadership styles and the favorability of the situation for the leader” (Mitchell, Biglan, Oncken, & Fiedler, 1970, p. 253). The focus of most of the research in this field is on the leader’s “esteem for his least preferred co-worker”, the so called LPC score. The LPC score is calculated from the ratings given by the leader on 17 bipolar adjective scales, for example, pleasant-unpleasant. The sum of these ratings is the LPC score, with the high LPC leader regarded as being interpersonal relations oriented and the low LPC leader viewed as more task oriented (Mitchell et al., 1970). Situational variables are position power, task structure and leader-member relations; and the situation is considered to be more favourable for the leader when relations with subordinates are good, when the leader has power of position, and
the task is highly structured (Yukl, 2010). Suggestions are that the directive, task-oriented leadership style achieved the best results in predictable situations and when a total lack of predictability and control gave directive leaders the opportunity to create structure and clear direction. The more follower-oriented style, with a tendency to care more about relationships, had better results in situations of moderate control and is conducive to creativity, and the solving of complex problems, as a greater emphasis is placed on eliciting contributions from follower members (Chemers, 2004).
The path-goal theory of leadership explored how the leader’s behaviour influenced levels of satisfaction and motivation in followers. In this regard, leaders influence the perceptions of followers in terms of their belief in the result of expressing effort. The nature of the task, the work context and the characteristics of the followers determine the “best” behavioural style for the leader, for example, supportive, directive, participative or
achievement-oriented (Yukl, 2010). The path-goal theory of leadership introduced a degree of follower focus in the contingency approaches (Chemers, 2004).
Cognitive resources theory describes the impact the stress created from a leader’s response to stressors in the situation, such as, for example, the unrealistic demands from a boss, aspects of the work environment, and a lack of resources. An impediment of resources can include characteristics from followers in terms of skills shortages or interpersonal aspects. The more stressed the leader is, the less capable he or she becomes of utilising cognitive capabilities, as stress interferes with information processing and decision making (Chemers, 2004; Yukl, 2010).
The range of contingency theories (of which three were presented here) tend to complement one another and helped to place leadership in a social context (Chemers, 2004). However, this field of leadership research has elicited a number of criticisms, some of which are: conceptual ambiguity; a “blurring” of the interaction relationships between variables; reliance on a linear model of assumption; embedded symmetrical and nonmonotonic assumptions (Schoonhoven, 1981); and the continuous, increasingly complex, and shifting situational environment that leaders are required to respond to (Yukl, 2010).