Leadership Models and Theories

In weighing the options for using individual or combined leadership theories in organizational settings, there are many factors to consider. To determine the most cost-effective and feasible solution, several of these factors will be analyzed and recommendations set forth based on this analysis. Among the factors considered are the organization, the vision and goals of the company, culture, traits of followers, and implications of the use of each theory analyzed.

According to Clawson (2006) developing and understanding leadership is elusive.  The six categories of leadership are: trait, power and influence, situational, behavior, transformational, and charismatic.  With many organizations underperforming expectations, savvy leadership is a coveted asset.  Wren (1995) indicates organizations need solid leadership and management. Leadership facilitates change and management facilitates complexity. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast four major leadership theories or models: trait leadership, situational leadership, charismatic leadership, and transformational leadership.  In real life situations these models are used in synergy and often overlap; however for the purposes of this dialog each leadership theory will be analyzed and assessed on its own merit.

Discussion of Individual Leadership Theories

Trait Leadership

Trait leadership is one of the first theories to emerge in this field (Clawson, 2006) and this model of leadership is predicated on characteristics or traits that are deemed necessary for successful leadership.  It is believed particular traits possessed by individuals make them natural leaders.  The basis of this theory is the saying “Leaders are born, not made.”  It is implied therefore, which leadership skills cannot be learned, one must be born with specific traits to lead.

Traits for successful leadership include a drive for responsibility, persistence in completing goals, task completion, problem solving, social initiative, self-confidence and personal identity, responsibility for decisions made and actions taken, a tolerance for stress and frustration, the ability to influence and the capacity to structure social systems (Stogdill & Bass, 1981) .  Self assessment of these traits is accomplished via a 10-point scale questionnaire. Several other variations of this model include varying traits.  A respected leadership author, John Gardner includes willingness to accept responsibility, need to achieve, ability to motivate, capacity to win and hold trust, among other virtues (Gardner, 1990).

In the 1950s organizations grew frustrated with the trait approach to leadership.  While outlining general traits to success, the approach is limiting and does not account for personal development and learning.  Trait identification is based on personality tests, which are limited and possibly flawed. Other limitations in today’s organizational marketplace would include lack of technical focus and flexibility.  Trait leadership potentially can breed egoism as it deems leadership capabilities as genetic attributes.  Additionally, modern values of diversity are generally neglected when considering trait leadership, and traditional organizational leaders in the 1950’s were white males. An example of trait leadership would be to only promote white males with a specific IQ level and demonstrated public speaking ability. Contemporary uses of trait leadership are visible as strong cognitive skills are mandatory in today’s dynamic marketplace.

Situational Leadership

The leadership theory of situational leadership rose to prominence in the 1950s as research focus shifted to what leaders do at work and the effectiveness of these actions (Clawson, 2006).  John Kotter gathered data from 900 senior executives in 100 American corporations.  He indicates, “Leadership is defined as the process of moving a group in some direction through mostly noncoercive means” (Kotter, 1990, p. 5). Although various leadership characteristics are identified, a basic blueprint for successful management includes: vision development, a workable plan to implement the strategy, teamwork and cooperation, hard work toward the vision. The development of leadership skills through education and work experience is accepted and acknowledged.  Organizations in which leadership is weak demonstrated managerial problems like frustration, high turnover, lack of skills, no mentoring or coaching and limited opportunities. Thus, outcomes and results from leadership activities became the focus (Ulrich, Zenger, & Smallwood, 1999).

An effective philosophy when the growth stage of an organization is considered and strategy is matched to leadership need is found in situational leadership. An example of situational leadership is implementing a social media marketing plan to build a brand and generate revenue for a new e-commerce company.  The strategy may employ tools such as SEO, Twitter, and Facebook that a more mature firm would not embrace.  The fast-paced, fluid impact of technology requires sound situational analysis and appropriate strategy execution.

Charismatic Leadership

As Avolio and Yammarino (2002) indicate, exemplary characteristics of a leader are observable via charismatic leadership.  This naïve viewpoint assumes the followers attribute observed behavior of the leader as characteristics.  In charismatic leadership, the leader strives to create a positive impression. Considerable energy extends to image control and self-presentation.  As followers react to contrived behavior, the relationship between leader and follower is predicated upon deception.

The charismatic leader generally experiences dissonance based on the manipulated self image and presentation.  Ego conflicts result because of reduced coherence and fragmentation.  In many instances, as the follower idealizes the leader based on contrived impressions, and responds to the false persona.  The leader may lose emotional coping skills such as accurate self awareness and self confidence.  Wren (1995) attributes manipulation as a natural component of leadership as ruthlessness is sometimes necessary to meet objectives.

Conversely, a charismatic leader is a good communicator.  A solid leader must communicate and instill a new vision in followers.  Charismatic leaders are enthusiastic, personable, energetic, and envisioning. Creating an emotional high for followers to buy into is a tactic to create a new reality.  If a leader is purely charismatic, this hype can lead to disappointment.  Reality may illuminate unrealistic expectations, limitations that were not accounted for, unclear communications, potential distrust and betrayal, and the need for continuing hype (Wren, 1995).

A danger of a charismatic leader is potential damage occurred by false promises and unrealistic outcomes.  A current example would be the Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme in which thousands of individuals and companies participated in a fraudulent investment plan that promised an unrealistic return.  The charm of Madoff overrode the common sensibilities of many organizational decision makers. In contrast, a charismatic leader successfully can mobilize a group of followers into action.

Transformational Leadership

The concept of transformational leadership is perhaps the current ideal.  In transformational leadership the relationship between leader and follower is positive.  Following the philosophy of win-win, the intention of transformational leading is to meet objectives, but also provide growth and personal development for followers.  As Avolio and Yammarino (2002) discuss, transformational leadership brings benefits to followers such as intellectual stimulation, motivation, idealized influence, and personal consideration.  The follower is given an opportunity to go beyond creating a new vision set by the leader.  The follower experiences personal growth on the journey to organizational change.

A transformational leader is a willing role model. Transformational leaders are self-aware and confident.  True confidence and competence translates into organizational success.  As leadership is not sought for personal ego gratification, exchanges between leader and follower are genuine and mutually beneficial. Transformational leaders treat others well, and are often nurturing.  An emphasis is placed on optimism, enthusiasm, and relationships. Behavior is summarized as supporting the organizational goals and vision, linking to personal follower goals, and demonstrating emotional intelligence, Avolio and Yammarino (2002). As learners, we have many leaders.  But the leaders are a solid example of a transformational style.  As followers, we are held to high expectations, nurtured, and guided to a new vision with optimism.

Analysis and Comparison of Leadership Styles

In comparing and contrasting the four major leadership theories: Trait Leadership, Situational Leadership, Charismatic Leadership and Transformational Leadership, each theory is discussed as if used individually.  Real-world leadership is a fluid combination of styles is often employed by the leader to creatively solve problems and accomplish change.

Of further interest is the timeline in which the theories evolved compared with progression of modern organizations.  Pure trait leadership considers attributes that are not learned but genetic.  One could argue that charismatic leadership uses natural talent as well…not everyone can learn to generate charisma.  Situational leadership and transformational leadership make use of learned skills that are obtained by formal education and experience.  A concern of trait, situational, and charismatic leaders is the treatment of followers.  Transformational leadership is the only style that puts significance on the welfare of followers.

Conclusion

Traits important to leadership include self confidence and intelligence, honesty, business acumen, comprehension of technology. Situational leadership recognizes organizational cycles and matches strategy to a scenario, thereby creating an appropriate and viable solution. Charisma in a leader is desirable, as long as there is substance beneath the charm.  Charismatic enthusiasm generates energy to facilitate change. Transformational leadership considers the relationship with followers important.  Optimism and linking follower goals with organizational objectives creates a win-win dynamic.

Wren (1995) states that leadership is intangible, and as a practice is considered a form of creativity.  This intangible creative force challenges us as leaders. Dynamics of the economy, innovation, globalization and competition demands customized leadership solutions and strategies that employ the benevolent aspects of all leadership styles.

References

Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. San Diego, CA: Emerald.

Clawson, J. (2006). Level Three Leadership: Getting Below the Surface (3 ed.). Retrieved fromhttps://ecampus.phoenix.edu/content/eBookLibrary2/

Gardner, J. (Ed.). (1990). On Leadership. New York: Free Press.

Kotter, J. (1990, May-June). What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review, 3.

Stogdill, R. M., & Bass, B. M. (Eds.). (1981). Stogdill’s’ Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Ulrich, D., Zenger, J., & Smallwood, N. (Eds.). (1999). Results-Based Leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Wren, J. T. (1995). The leader’s companion: Insights on leadership through the ages. New York: The Free Press.