Leadership Theories: A Comprehensive Review

Introduction
The term leadership is a relatively recent addition to the English language. It has been in use only for
about two hundred years, although the term leader, from which it was derived, appeared as early as
A.D. 1300 (Stogdill, 1974). In the first part of this Chapter, different definitions of leadership will be
discussed in order to create a broader understanding of the different perspectives on leadership. In the
second part of the Chapter, some of the well-known leadership theories will be reviewed in order to
provide the reader with a broad perspective on the concept of leadership and how it has evolved over
the last few decades. This will provide the necessary context and background for the interpretation and
understanding of the research results obtained in the study, since the main aim of this study was to
measure leadership behaviour as part of the implementation of a holistic model and process for
leadership development.
1.0 Review of Literature
1.1 Definition of leadership (500 words)
 Concept of Leadership
Like love, leadership is universally desired but difficult to define explicitly. In order to get an
understanding on the concept of Leadership different researchers began with looking at the most
common definitions of leadership. During this examination it was felt by researchers that there has to
be some link between the issues and the concept of leadership. Different studies and analyses of the
popular definitions on leadership reveals that most definitions tend to focus on the individual traits and
characteristics. Eminent personalities had their own views and hence have defined leadership. In order
to fully understand the concept of leadership it is pertinent to define what we mean by leader. A leader
is one or more people who selects, equips, trains, and influences one or more follower(s) who have
diverse gifts, abilities, and skills and focuses the follower(s) to the organization’s mission and
objectives causing the follower(s) to willingly and enthusiastically expend spiritual, emotional, and
physical energy in a concerted coordinated effort to achieve the organizational mission and objectives.
The leader achieves this influence by humbly conveying a prophetic vision of the future in clear terms
that resonates with the follower(s) beliefs and values in such a way that the follower(s) can understand
and interpret the future into present-time action steps. In this process, the leader presents the prophetic
vision in contrast to the present status of the organization and through the use of critical thinking skills,
insight, intuition, and the use of both persuasive rhetoric and interpersonal communication including
both active listening and positive discourse, facilitates and draws forth the opinions and beliefs of the

followers such that the followers move through ambiguity toward clarity of understanding and shared
insight that results in influencing the follower(s) to see and accept the future state of the organization as
a desirable condition worth committing personal and corporate resources toward its achievement.
Sequel to the aforementioned, Leadership is an attempt at influencing the activities of followers through
the communication process and toward the attainment of some goal or goals. Leadership is an influence
process that enable managers to get their people to do willingly what must be done, do well what ought
to be done. (Cribbin, J.J. ‘Leadership: strategies for organizational effectiveness’) Leadership is defined
as the process of influencing the activities of an organized group toward goal achievement.(Rauch &
Behling.) Leadership is discovering the company's destiny and having the courage to follow it.
( JoeJaworski - Organizational Learning Center at MIT.). Leadership is interpersonal influence,
exercised in a situation, and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a
specified goal or goals. (Tannenbaum,Weschler & Massarik)
 Leadership History
From the late 1800s to about 1930, leadership theories emphasized control and centralization of power.
The ‘‘Great Man’’ theory, which suggests that leaders are born and not made, supported the existence
of some mysterious qualities vested in select individuals and frequently passed between generations.
This model faded from popularity in the 1930s and 1940s as ‘‘trait’’ theories appeared that attempted to
identify specific traits qualifying an individual for leadership. Stogdill identified six trait groupings
associated with leadership, including capacity, achievement, responsibility, participation, status, and
situation, but concluded that these traits did not sufficiently explain leadership: ‘‘A person does not
become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits.’’5 The late 1940s brought
more psychoanalytical theories that explored why individuals are motivated to lead, or to follow a
particular leader, with an increased focus on the role of groups and organizations. Investigators in the
1960s emphasized how people are influenced toward shared goals. ‘‘Exchange theories’’ looked at
understanding the social exchanges between individuals and the group, including rewards, status, and
esteem. Situational leadership theory12,13 proposed that the social situation and subordinates’
characteristics influence the leader characteristics necessary to be successful. House14 identified four
important behaviors attributed to the leader—directive (task-oriented), achievement-oriented,
supportive, and participative—and two situational variables: the subordinate’s personal characteristics
and any environmental demands, such as the organization’s rules and procedures. In the 1970s there
was a shift away from social psychology and toward organizational behavior and management science.
Leadership and management roles became generally confused and integrated, and ‘‘attribution

theories’’ emerged there is an element of confusion in the literature about where one starts and the other
ends.
1.2 Leadership theories(1500 words)
Great-Man Theory
The effort toward explorations for common traits of leadership is protracted over centuries as most
cultures need heroes to define their successes and to justify their failures. In 1847, Thomas Carlyle
stated in the best interests of the heroes that “universal history, the history of what man has
accomplished in this world, is at the bottom of the history of the great men who have worked here”.
Carlyle claimed in his “great man theory” that leaders are born and that only those men who are
endowed with heroic potentials could ever become the leaders. He opined that great men were born, not
made. An American philosopher, Sidney Hook, further expanded Carlyle perspective highlighting the
impact which could be made by the eventful man vs. the event-making man (Dobbins & Platz, (1986).
He proposed that the eventful man remained complex in a historic situation, but did not really
determine its course. On the other hand, he maintained that the actions of the event-making man
influenced the course of events, which could have been much different, had he not been involved in the
process. The event making man’s role based on “the consequences of outstanding capacities of
intelligence, will and character rather than the actions of distinction”. However, subsequent events
unfolded that this concept of leadership was morally flawed, as was the case with Hitler, Napoleon, and
the like, thereby challenging the credibility of the Great Man theory. These great men became irrelevant
and consequently growth of the organizations, stifled (MacGregor, 2003). “The passing years have
given the coup de grace to another force the great man who with brilliance and farsightedness could
preside with dictatorial powers as the head of a growing organization but in the process retarded
democratization”. Leadership theory then progressed from dogma that leaders are born or are destined
by nature to be in their role at a particular time to a reflection of certain traits that envisage a potential
for leadership.
Trait Theory
The early theorists opined that born leaders were endowed with certain physical traits and personality
characteristics which distinguished them from non-leaders. Trait theories ignored the assumptions about
whether leadership traits were genetic or acquired. Jenkins identified two traits; emergent traits (those
which are heavily dependent upon heredity) as height, intelligence, attractiveness, and self-confidence
and effectiveness traits (based on experience or learning), including charisma, as fundamental

component of leadership (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991). Max Weber termed charisma as “the greatest
revolutionary force, capable of producing a completely new orientation through followers and complete
personal devotion to leaders they perceived as endowed with almost magical supernatural, superhuman
qualities and powers”. This initial focus on intellectual, physical and personality traits that
distinguished non-leaders from leaders portended a research that maintained that only minor variances
exist between followers and leaders (Burns, 2003). The failure in detecting the traits which every single
effective leader had in common, resulted in development of trait theory, as an inaccessible component,
falling into disfavor. In the late 1940s, scholars studied the traits of military and non-military leaders
respectively and exposed the significance of certain traits developing at certain times.
Contingency Theories (Situational)
The theories of contingency recommends that no leadership style is precise as a stand-alone as the
leadership style used is reliant upon the factors such as the quality, situation of the followers or a
number of other variables. “According to this theory, there is no single right way to lead because the
internal and external dimensions of the environment require the leader to adapt to that particular
situation”. In most cases, leaders do not change only the dynamics and environment, employees within
the organization change. In a common sense, the theories of contingency are a category of behavioral
theory that challenges that there is no one finest way of leading/organizing and that the style of
leadership that is operative in some circumstances may not be effective in others (Greenleaf, 1977).
Contingency theorists assumed that the leader was the focus of leader-subordinate relationship;
situational theorists opined that the subordinates played a pivotal role in defining the relationship.
Though, the situational leadership stays to emphasis mostly upon the leader, it creates the significance
of the focus into group dynamic. “These studies of the relationships between groups and their leaders
have led to some of our modern theories of group dynamics and leadership”. The theory of situational
leadership proposes that style of leadership should be accorded with the maturity of the subordinates
(Bass, 1997). “The situational leadership model, first introduced in 1969, theorized that there was no
unsurpassed way to lead and those leaders, to be effective, must be able to adapt to the situation and
transform their leadership style between task-oriented and relationshiporiented”.
Style and Behavior Theory
The style theory acknowledges the significance of certain necessary leadership skills that serve as
enabler for a leader who performs an act while drawing its parallel with previous capacity of the leader,