Leadership Theories
1930s and 1940s—Universal Trait Theory:
 Intelligence, extroversion, integrity, emotional stability, and self-confidence.
 While subsequent studies have documented that these and other traits are not
universal (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Clark & Clark, 1994), there are those who still
argue that such traits as “drive, motivation, honesty and integrity, self-confidence,
cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business do matter for contemporary leaders”
(Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991).
In the 1950s, the Ohio State University leadership studies:
 Focused on leader behaviors, identifying two major components: (a) consideration—
behaviors that signal trust, respect, warmth, and communication and (b) initiation of
structure—behaviors that facilitate accomplishment of a task or goal (Clark & Clark,
1994; Barge, 1994).
 Generally, studies have shown that leaders who rate high in both categories are more
effective, including leaders in other cultures such as Japan. These behaviors were
measured by the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, which is still in wide
use. Many training programs are based on these two dimensions, often in the form of
Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid theory.
 Other researchers found that two dimensions did not provide adequate descriptions of
leadership. Gary Yukl (1989), for example, found that the degree of participative
leadership is distinct from consideration and initiation of structure.
Situational leadership theories:
 Fiedler’s (1967) Contingency Theory—Tries to match the leader personality with a
situation. It creates eight combinations of three factors: (a) leader-member relations,
(b) task structure, and (c) position power (Fiedler, 1967). In spite of its wide use in
industry, extensive studies have shown conflicting results (Barge, 1994).
 Robert House's (1971) Path-Goal Theory—The nature of the task (structured vs.
unstructured) and the extent of direction provided by the leader impact the
satisfaction of followers. However, about half of the studies of this theory provide
contradictory conclusions (Schriesheim & Von Glinow, 1977).
 Hershey and Blanchard’s (1982) Situational Leadership Theory—Leaders alter their
style based on the follower’s ability to perform a task and the individual’s willingness
or motivation to perform the task. The leadership styles described are: (1) delegating,
(2) participating, (3) selling, and (4) telling. Hershey and Blanchard’s leadership
theory includes a life-cycle component that seems intuitively accurate. In spite of its
popularity, the research provides only limited support for part of the theory (Barge,
1994).
 Vroom & Yetton’s, (1973) Leader Decision Theory—Provides decision rules for
leaders based upon three leadership styles: (a) autocratic, (b) consultive, and (c)
participative. Although there is support for this theory, there is some evidence that the
leader’s ability to manage conflict may be much more important (Tjosvold, Wedley,
& Field, 1986).


Leader Substitutes Theory—Challenges the impact of leader behaviors on
organizational outcomes (Kerr, 1977). Leader substitutes, based on subordinate, task
and organizational characteristics, may counteract or enhance the leader’s influence
on a group. Substitutes that may reduce or neutralize leadership include: (a) ability,
experience and training; (b) routine tasks; and (c) rigid, unbending rules and
procedures.
Boleman and Deal’s (1984) Four Frames Theory—1) The structural frame—
characterized by a mechanistic hierarchy with authoritarian chain of command and
structured management systems and decision-making tools; 2) The human resources
frame—characterized by collegial relationships, use of empowerment, professional
development, shared values, and consensus decision-making; 3) The political
frame—characterized by conflict and competition that require bargaining, influence,
negotiation, networking and coalition building to reach decisions; and 4) The
symbolic frame—characterized by organic structure with shared sense of mission,
values and beliefs that provide means of interpretation for meaning where leaders act
as facilitators or catalysts to decisions and actions.
Credibility Theory
 Kouzes & Posner (1994) identified four characteristics that most people (defined as
over 51%) admire in leaders: 1) honest (87%), 2) forward-looking (71%), 3) inspiring
(68%), 4) competent (58%). Although the percentages vary slightly, they have since
found that these same four characteristics emerge across many cultural and national
boundaries.
 The authors also described three criteria used by researchers to determine “the
believability of communication” (p. 21): (a) trustworthiness, (b) expertise, and (c)
dynamism. These correlate closely to honesty, competence, and inspiring,
respectively. Jim Kouzes (1994) pointed out that forward-looking, or visionary,
“distinguishes leaders from other credible people” and that “credibility is the
foundation for leadership” (n.a.).
Transformational (Moral) Leadership
 Transformational leadership (Burns, 1978)—“when one or more persons engage with
others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of
motivation and morality . . . and thus it has a transforming effect on both.”
 Transactional leadership—“when one person takes the initiative in making contact
with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things . . . [which] could be
economic or political or psychological in nature.”
Servant-Leadership
 “It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then
conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. The difference manifests itself in the
care taken by the servant—first to make sure that other people’s highest priority
needs are being served.” (n.d.) –Robert Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership