Leadership
Leadership is a topic with universal appeal; in the popular press and academic research literature,
much has been written about leadership. Despite the abundance of writing on the topic, leadership
has presented a major challenge to practitioners and researchers interested in understanding the
nature of leadership. It is a highly valued phenomenon that is very complex.
Through the years, leadership has been defined and conceptualized in many ways. The component
common to nearly all classifications is that leadership is an influence process that assists groups of
individuals toward goal attainment. Specifically, in this book leadership is defined as a process
whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.
Because both leaders and followers are part of the leadership process, it is important to address
issues that confront followers as well as issues that confront leaders. Leaders and followers should
be understood in relation to each other.
In prior research, many studies have focused on leadership as a trait. The trait perspective suggests
that certain people in our society have special inborn qualities that make them leaders. This view
restricts leadership to those who are believed to have special characteristics. In contrast, the
approach in this text suggests that leadership is a process that can be learned, and that it is available
to everyone.
Two common forms of leadership are assigned and emergent. Assigned leadership is based on a
formal title or position in an organization. Emergent leadership results from what one does and how
one acquires support from followers. Leadership, as a process, applies to individuals in both assigned
roles and emergent roles.
Related to leadership is the concept of power, the potential to influence. There are two major kinds
of power: position and personal. Position power, which is much like assigned leadership, is the
power an individual derives from having a title in a formal organizational system. It includes
legitimate, reward, and coercive power. Personal power comes from followers and includes referent
and expert power. Followers give it to leaders because followers believe leaders have something of
value. Treating power as a shared resource is important because it deemphasizes the idea that
leaders are power wielders.
While coercion has been a common power brought to bear by many individuals in charge, it should
not be viewed as ideal leadership. Our definition of leadership stresses using influence to bring
individuals toward a common goal, while coercion involves the use of threats and punishment to
induce change in followers for the sake of the leaders. Coercion runs counter to leadership because
it does not treat leadership as a process that emphasizes working with followers to achieve shared
objectives.
Leadership and management are different concepts that overlap. They are different in that
management traditionally focuses on the activities of planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling,
whereas leadership emphasizes the general influence process. According to some researchers,
management is concerned with creating order and stability, whereas leadership is about adaptation
and constructive change. Other researchers go so far as to argue that managers and leaders are
different types of people, with managers being more reactive and less emotionally involved and
leaders being more proactive and more emotionally involved. The overlap between leadership and
management is centered on how both involve influencing a group of individuals in goal attainment.
In this book, we discuss leadership as a complex process. Based on the research literature, we
describe selected approaches to leadership and assess how they can be used to improve leadership
in real situations.
The Trait Theory
The trait approach has its roots in leadership theory that suggested that certain people were born with special
traits that made them great leaders. Because it was believed that leaders and nonleaders could be differentiated
by a universal set of traits, throughout the 20th century researchers were challenged to identify the definitive
traits of leaders.
Around the mid-20th century, several major studies questioned the basic premise that a unique set of traits
defined leadership. As a result, attention shifted to incorporating the impact of situations and of followers on
leadership. Researchers began to study the interactions between leaders and their context instead of focusing
only on leaders’ traits. More recently, there have been signs that trait research has come full circle, with a
renewed interest in focusing directly on the critical traits of leaders.
From the multitude of studies conducted through the years on personal characteristics, it is clear that many traits
contribute to leadership. Some of the important traits that are consistently identified in many of these studies are
intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability.
In addition, researchers have found a strong relationship between leadership and the traits described by the fivefactor personality model. Extraversion was the trait most strongly associated with leadership, followed by
conscientiousness, openness, low neuroticism, and agreeableness. Another recent line of research has focused
on emotional intelligence and its relationship to leadership. This research suggests that leaders who are sensitive
to their emotions and to the impact of their emotions on others may be leaders who are more effective.
On a practical level, the trait approach is concerned with which traits leaders exhibit and who has these traits.
Organizations use personality assessment instruments to identify how individuals will fit within their
organizations. The trait approach is also used for personal awareness and development because it allows
managers to analyze their strengths and weaknesses and to gain a clearer understanding of how they should try
to change to enhance their leadership.
Strengths
There are several advantages to viewing leadership from the trait approach.
1. First, it is intuitively appealing because it fits clearly into the popular idea that leaders are special
people who are out front, leading the way in society.
2. Second, a great deal of research validates the basis of this perspective.
3. Third, by focusing exclusively on the leader, the trait approach provides an in-depth understanding of
the leader component in the leadership process.
4. Last, it has provided some benchmarks against which individuals can evaluate their own personal
leadership attributes.
Weaknesses
On the negative side, the trait approach has failed to provide a definitive list of leadership traits. In analyzing the
traits of leaders, the approach has failed to take into account the impact of situations. In addition, the approach
has resulted in subjective lists of the most important leadership traits, which are not necessarily grounded in
strong, reliable research.
Furthermore, the trait approach has not adequately linked the traits of leaders with other outcomes such as group
and team performance. Last, this approach is not particularly useful for training and development for leadership
because individuals’ personal attributes
The Path-Goal Theory
Path–goal theory was developed to explain how leaders motivate subordinates to be productive and satisfied
with their work. It is a contingency approach to leadership because effectiveness depends on the fit between the
leader’s behavior and the characteristics of subordinates and the task.
The basic principles of path–goal theory are derived from expectancy theory, which suggests that employees
will be motivated if they feel competent, if they think their efforts will be rewarded, and if they find the payoff
for their work valuable. A leader can help subordinates by selecting a style of leadership (directive, supportive,
participative, or achievement oriented) that provides what is missing for subordinates in a particular work
setting. In simple terms, it is the leader’s responsibility to help subordinates reach their goals by directing,
guiding, and coaching them along the way.
Path–goal theory offers a large set of predictions for how a leader’s style interacts with subordinates’ needs and
the nature of the task. Among other things, it predicts that directive leadership is effective with ambiguous tasks,
that supportive leadership is effective for repetitive tasks, that participative leadership is effective when tasks are
unclear and subordinates are autonomous, and that achievement-oriented leadership is effective for challenging
tasks.
Strengths.
1. First, it provides a theoretical framework that is useful for understanding how directive, supportive,
participative, and achievement-oriented styles of leadership affect the productivity and satisfaction of
subordinates.
2. Second, path–goal theory is unique in that it integrates the motivation principles of expectancy theory
into a theory of leadership. Third, it provides a practical model that underscores the important ways in
which leaders help subordinates.
Criticisms
1. On the negative side, four criticisms can be leveled at path–goal theory.
2. First, the scope of path–goal theory encompasses so many interrelated sets of assumptions that it is
hard to use this theory in a given organizational setting.
3. Second, research findings to date do not support a full and consistent picture of the claims of the
theory. Furthermore, path–goal theory does not show in a clear way how leader behaviors directly
affect subordinate motivation levels.
4. Last, path–goal theory is very leader oriented and fails to recognize the transactional nature of
leadership. It does not promote subordinate involvement in the leadership process.
The LMX Theory
Since it first appeared more than 30 years ago under the title “vertical dyad linkage (VDL) theory,” LMX theory
has been and continues to be a much-studied approach to leadership. LMX theory addresses leadership as a
process centered on the interactions between leaders and followers. It makes the leader–member relationship the
pivotal concept in the leadership process.
In the early studies of LMX theory, a leader’s relationship to the overall work unit was viewed as a series of
vertical dyads, categorized as being of two different types: Leader–member dyads based on expanded role
relationships were called the leader’s in-group, and those based on formal job descriptions were called the
leader’s out-group. It is believed that subordinates become in-group members based on how well they get along
with the leader and whether they are willing to expand their role responsibilities.
Subordinates who maintain only formal hierarchical relationships with their leader become out-group members.
Whereas in-group members receive extra influence, opportunities, and rewards, out-group members receive
standard job benefits. Subsequent studies of LMX theory were directed toward how leader– member exchanges
affect organizational performance. Researchers found that high-quality exchanges between leaders and
followers produced multiple positive outcomes (e.g., less employee turnover, greater organizational
commitment, and more promotions). In general, researchers determined that good leader–member exchanges
result in followers feeling better, accomplishing more, and helping the organization prosper.
The most recent emphasis in LMX research has been on leadership making, which emphasizes that leaders
should try to develop high-quality exchanges with all of their subordinates. Leadership making develops over
time and includes a stranger phase, an acquaintance phase, and a mature partnership phase. By taking on and
fulfilling new role responsibilities, followers move through these three phases to develop mature partnerships
with their leaders. These partnerships, which are marked by a high degree of mutual trust, respect, and
obligation, have positive payoffs for the individuals themselves, and help the organization run more effectively.
Strengths
1. There are several positive features to LMX theory. First, LMX theory is a strong descriptive approach
that explains how leaders use some subordinates (in-group members) more than others (out-group
members) to accomplish organizational goals effectively.
2. Second, LMX theory is unique in that, unlike other approaches, it makes the leader–member
relationship the focal point of the leadership process.
3.
Related to this focus, LMX theory is noteworthy because it directs our attention to the importance of
effective communication in leader–member relationships. In addition, it reminds us to be evenhanded
in how we relate to our subordinates. Last, LMX theory is supported by a multitude of studies that link
high-quality leader–member exchanges to positive organizational outcomes.
Weaknesses
1. There are also negative features in LMX theory. First, the early formulation of LMX theory (vertical
dyad linkage theory) runs counter to our principles of fairness and justice in the workplace by
suggesting that some members of the work unit receive special attention and others do not. The
perceived inequalities created by the use of in-groups can have a devastating impact on the feelings,
attitudes, and behavior of out-group members.
2. Second, LMX theory emphasizes the importance of leader–member exchanges but fails to explain the
intricacies of how one goes about creating high-quality exchanges. Although the model promotes
building trust, respect, and commitment in relationships, it does not fully explicate how this takes
place.
3. Third, researchers have not adequately explained the contextual factors that influence LMX
relationships. Finally, there are questions about whether the measurement procedures used in LMX
research are adequate to fully capture the complexities of the leader–member exchange process.
Transformational Leadership
One of the most encompassing approaches to leadership—transformational leadership—is concerned with the
process of how certain leaders are able to inspire followers to accomplish great things. This approach stresses
that leaders need to understand and adapt to the needs and motives of followers.
Transformational leaders are recognized as change agents who are good role models, who can create and
articulate a clear vision for an organization, who empower followers to meet higher standards, who act in ways
that make others want to trust them, and who give meaning to organizational life.
Transformational leadership emerged from and is rooted in the writings of Burns (1978) and Bass (1985). The
works of Bennis and Nanus (1985) and Kouzes and Posner (1987) are also representative of transformational
leadership.
Transformational leadership can be assessed through use of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ),
which measures a leader’s behavior in seven areas: idealized influence (charisma), inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, management-by-exception, and
laissez-faire. High scores on individualized consideration and motivation factors are most indicative of strong
transformational leadership.
Strengths
There are several positive features of the transformational approach, including that it is a current model that has
received a lot of attention by researchers, it has strong intuitive appeal, it emphasizes the importance of
followers in the leadership process, it goes beyond traditional transactional models and broadens leadership to
include the growth of followers, and it places strong emphasis on morals and values.
Weaknesses.
These include that the approach lacks conceptual clarity; it is based on the MLQ, which has been challenged by
some research; it creates a framework that implies that transformational leadership has a trait-like quality; it is
sometimes seen as elitist and undemocratic; it suffers from a “heroic leadership” bias; and it has the potential to
be used counterproductively in negative ways by leaders. Despite the weaknesses, transformational leadership
appears to be a valuable and widely used approach.