Universalistic approaches

Early research into leadership focused predominantly on the belief that leaders possessed certain inherent qualities which predisposed them to leadership positions.

The 'Great Man' theory of leadership refers to the notion that people are born leaders—that at birth, leaders already possess the qualities and characteristics they need to become leaders... The Great Man theory dominated until the mid-20th century.

According to Daft (2008), advances in the field of psychology led some researchers to suggest that perhaps leadership did not derive from genetic endowment but was rather a result of the diversity of traits that leaders possess. This led to a move away from the Great Man theory towards what has been come to be known as the Traits Approach to leadership.

A few researchers, Stogdill included, persevered with the traits approach. In 1974, Stogdill published Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of the Literature, in which he identified certain key leadership traits which to this day provide us with some useful insights into the nature of effective leadership. They include, but are not limited, to:

* strong sense of responsibility
* desire to complete tasks
* perseverance and drive in pursuit of goals
* innovation in problem-solving
* drive to exercise initiative in social settings
* healthy self-confidence
* keen sense of personal identity
* willingness to accept consequences of decisions and actions
* readiness to absorb interpersonal stress
* ability to influence the behaviour of others. (Stogdill, 1974: 81)

The next phase in the evolution of leadership as a discipline was the development of behavioural theories. The questions asked were:
1. What do successful leaders actually do?
2. What behaviours do effective leaders exhibit?

One of the earliest leadership behavioural studies was conducted by Kurt Lewin in 1939. This study highlighted the relationship between leader behaviour and follower performance. In essence, the researchers identified three commonly used leadership styles:
1. Autocratic Leadership
Typically the leader maintains tight control of most group activities, and makes decisions without consulting others.

2. Democratic Leadership
Typically the leader encourages group participation and makes decisions based on group opinion (majority rule.) This style employs delegation of tasks and follower empowerment.

The leader's source of power or influence stems from follower support and loyalty, which are founded on good relations.

3. Laissez-Faire Leadership
Typically this style involves a general lack of leadership activity—followers are left to decide their own priorities and methods for undertaking work.

Lewin's research concluded that, when considering leadership success in terms of follower performance, the democratic style of leadership consistently tended to produce the best results (Manning & Curtis, 2007: 19).

The next significant study in the development of behavioural theories was conducted in 1945 by Ohio State University in the US. The university developed the Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) which was designed to get followers to assess their leaders' behaviours towards them

1. Initiating Structure [Task-oriented]
2. Showing Consideration [People-oriented]

Around the same time, the University of Michigan (under the supervision of Rensis Likert) commenced studies into leadership behaviour. The studies corroborated Ohio State's findings by identifying two dimensions of leadership behaviour:

1. Job-centred behaviour (similar to Initiating Structure)
2. Employee-centred behaviour (similar to Showing Consideration).

Out of a possible 81 combinations, Blake and Mouton identified five major leadership styles:
1. Impoverished management (low concern for production/low concern for people)
2. Authority-compliance management (high concern for production/low concern for people)
3. Middle-of-the-road management (medium concern for production/medium concern for people)
4. Country club management (low concern for production/high concern for people)
5. Team management (high concern for production/high concern for people). (Blake &
McCanse, 1991: 29)

Contingency approaches

The next phase of leadership theory is most notable for the emphasis it places on the importance of 'the situation' in the leader-follower relationship. Perhaps the earliest and best-known contingency theory is Fiedler's contingency model of leadership (Fiedler, 1967). The contingency model is based on the relationships between the following trilogy: leader, followers, and situation. Fiedler built on the classic behaviour approaches and tried to determine the extent to which a given leader's style is task-oriented or relationship-oriented. Hence, he argued that leader effectiveness was dependent on two interrelated factors:
1. Leadership style
2. The degree to which the situation allows the leader to control and influence.

Once the leadership style has been identified, Fiedler's contingency model then seeks to assess the situational favourability or the degree to which the situation allows the leader to control and influence his/her followers.

The universalistic approaches to leadership considered the behaviour of leaders in terms of their relationships with followers. What they failed to take into account, however, was the possibility that leaders do not interact with all followers in the same way.

In 1969, Hersey and Blanchard put forward a model of leadership that further developed the ideas which had been expounded in the Ohio State studies and Blake and Mouton's grid approach. They kept the two broad categories of leader behaviours, namely 'initiating structure' and 'consideration', however they later renamed them to 'task behaviours' and 'relationship behaviours'.

One of the key differences in their approach was the underlying assumption that effective leadership styles would vary according to differences in the
followers' 'readiness' levels (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969).

Hersey and Blanchard prescribed four leadership styles for leaders—telling (high task, low relationship, follower level low), selling (high task, low relationship, follower level moderate), participating (low task, high relationship, follower level high) and delegating (low task, high relationship, follower level very high) - based on the abilities and confidence levels of the followers.

Originally formulated by Robert House, the path-goal theory of leadership is based on the premise that a leader's responsibility is to augment follower motivation to achieve personal and organisational goals (House, 1971). In this model, the emphasis is on the follower and the situational variances that stem from both the personal characteristics of the followers and the work environment. As with the theories described earlier, the path-goal theory fits
into contingency theory because of its analysis of the leadership trilogy: leader, follower, and situation.

The path-goal theory does have some limitations. Firstly, it excludes a number of other variables that have been found to have an impact on the leadership process. Secondly, the model unrealistically assumes that the only way to increase follower performance levels is to increase their motivation levels. Finally, it does not take into account the roles leaders play in follower selection, follower training and the development and redesigning of
follower work (Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992).

In 1973, Vroom and Yetton published their book Leadership and Decision Making, which put forward a normative decision model specifically designed to improve areas of leadership effectiveness. It was based on the observation that the level of input followers have in the decision-making process varies due to a number of factors related to the leader, follower and the situation.

Essentially, Vroom and Yetton's contingency model provides leaders with a decision-making tool that stresses selecting the best decision-making style based on the situation. This in turn produces followers who accept decisions and commit to achieving outcomes, resulting in better business results for the organisation and effective leadership outcomes.

Contingency approaches to leadership seek to define effective leadership through the analysis of three variables: the leader, the followers and the situation. All four models or approaches discussed in this section are similar in that they assert that in order to improve their effectiveness, leaders need to adjust their behaviours and leadership styles to suit either follower variables or situational variables.

Emotional approaches

More recently, researchers have returned to leadership traits and styles in their efforts to understand leadership. In this section, we will begin by expanding upon the study of leader personality and values. This will assist us greatly when we look at two of the most recent leadership theories: the Charismatic Leader and Transactional versus Transformational leadership.

In his acclaimed book The Nature of Human Values, Milton Rokeach (1973) categorised values into:
1. Instrumental values
These are modes of behaviour (how you believe you should act on a day-to-day basis).
They tend to fit into two broad categories, Personal and Social.
2. Terminal values
These refer to desired end states (goals worth pursuing).
They also tend to fit into two broad categories, Morality and Competence.

The values we develop in our lives determine our attitudes towards ourselves and others, which are expressed as likes or dislikes concerning people, places, things or events. Daft (2008) discusses how our attitudes are formed based on our evaluation of:
* thoughts (ideas and thoughts)
* feelings (emotions towards the item)
* behaviour (how we act based on our thoughts and feelings towards the item).

Now that we have considered some of the literature and theory relating to leadership styles (personality, values and attitudes), we can look at one of the more recent approaches to leadership—the charismatic leader. This approach attempts to update the trait theories and continue the search for leadership qualities, specifically 'charisma'.

* Vision—the leader is goal-oriented and capable of inspiring others to work towards accomplishing the goal.
* Ability—the leader knows how to do the job and does it well.
* Enthusiasm—a leader possessing passion for the cause or job keeps his/her followers interested and motivated.
* Stability—the leader displays emotional stability thereby maintaining the confidence of followers.
* Concern for others—the leader cares about follower well-being thereby generating loyalty.
* Self-confidence—self-confidence enables the leader to overcome difficulties and remain calm under pressure.
* Persistence—the leader demonstrates perseverance and fierce resolve in the face of obstacles, change and uncertainty.
* Vitality—the leader exhibits tremendous energy and stamina in pursuit of goals.
* Charisma—the leader displays that 'special' quality which captivates other people's interest and inspires them to follow.
* Integrity—integrity encompasses honesty, courage and strength of character, this inspires trust in the leader.

In 1947, a sociologist called Max Weber suggested that societies could be classed into one of three authority systems:
1. The Traditional Authority System. Authority is conferred onto individuals according to tradition or unwritten laws (e.g. birthright).
2. The Legal-Rational Authority System. Authority is conferred onto individuals because of the laws that govern the position, i.e. the power is in the position.
3. The Charismatic Authority System. Authority is conferred onto individuals because of their special characteristics or unusual qualities which set them apart from others. The Charismatic Authority System usually stems from revolutions.

Weber argued that charismatic leaders would often arise out of the margins of society and come forward as leaders in times of great social crisis. Hence, according to Weber, a charismatic leader emerges because of his or her environment—the situation.

Charismatic leaders:
* set goals for the future
* set high performance standards
* publicly express confidence in followers' ability to meet high performance expectations
* motivate followers to achieve goals by appealing to their sense of self-esteem and self-efficacy.

In 1978, the debate surrounding charismatic leadership took a sharp turn with the publication of James MacGregor Burns' Leadership. Burns proposed that leadership could be either transformational or transactional. He proposed to move beyond charisma alone and claimed that transformational leaders possess not only charisma but other qualities as well.

Transactional leadership is often referred to as 'just good management'. In his study, Burns noted that while transactional leadership was often quite effective, it rarely promoted organisational change. In fact, transactional leadership is often associated with maintaining the status quo. Transformational leadership, as its name indicates, is said to transform organisations by its challenge to the status quo and is often characterised by driving change.

Burns asserted that transactional and transformational leadership were two extremes in a continuum. Thus, a leader is either transactional or transformational. However, Bass and Avolio (1994) suggest that transactional and transformational leadership are two independent dimensions. Consequently, a leader may be just transformational, just transactional, both transactional and transformational or neither transactional nor transformational.