Leadership Theories: Definitions, Evolution, and Key Perspectives

This essay offers a comprehensive exploration of leadership, beginning with definitions and the historical evolution of the concept. It delves into various leadership theories, including the Great Man Theory, Trait Theory, Contingency Theories (Situational), Style and Behavior Theory, and Process Leadership Theory. The essay examines the core principles, strengths, and weaknesses of each theory, providing a broad perspective on the development of leadership thought over time. It emphasizes the shift from early theories focusing on inherent traits to more complex models that consider situational factors, behaviors, and processes. The essay also touches upon the confusion between leadership and management roles and provides insights into different leadership styles, such as autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. This comprehensive overview aims to provide readers with a deep understanding of the multifaceted nature of leadership and its impact on organizational effectiveness.

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,

prior to that particular act while suggesting that each individual has a distinct style of leadership with
which he/she feels most contented. Like one that does not fit all heads, similarly one style cannot be
effective in all situations. Yukl (1989) introduced three different leadership styles. The employees
serving with democratic leaders displayed high degree of satisfaction, creativity, and motivation;
working with great enthusiasm and energy irrespective of the presence or absence of the leader;
maintaining better connections with the leader, in terms of productivity whereas, autocratic leaders
mainly focused on greater quantity of output. Laissez faire leadership was only considered relevant
while leading a team of highly skilled and motivated people who excellent track-record, in the past.
Feidler & House (1994) identified two additional leadership styles focusing effectiveness of the
leadership. These researchers opined that consideration (concern for people and relationship behaviors)
and commencing structure (concern for production and task behaviors) were very vital variables. The
consideration is referred to the amount of confidence and rapport, a leader engenders in his
subordinates. Whereas, initiating structure, on the other hand, reflects the extent, to which the leader
structures, directs and defines his/her own and the subordinates‟ roles as they have the participatory
role toward organizational performance, profit and accomplishment of the mission. Different
researchers proposed that three types of leaders, they were; autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire.
Without involving subordinates, the autocratic leader makes decisions, laissez-faire leader lets
subordinates make the decision and hence takes no real leadership role other than assuming the position
and the democratic leader accesses his subordinates then takes his decision. “He further assumed that
all leaders could fit into one of these three categories”.
Process Leadership Theory
Additional leadership theories with a process focus include servant leadership, leaming organizations,
principal centered leadership and charismatic leadership, with others emerging every year. Greenleaf
introduced servant leadership in the early 1970s. A resurgence of the discussion of servant leadership
was noted in the early 1990s.
Servant leaders were encouraged to be focused to the anxieties of the followers and the leader should
sympathize with them take-care of and nurture them. The leadership was imparted on a person who was
by nature a servant. “The servant leader focuses on the needs of the follower and helps them to become
more autonomous freer and knowledgeable”. The servant leader is also more concerned with the “have-
nots” and recognizes them as equal (Greenleaf, 1996). The leaders in leading organizations are to be the
steward (servant) of the vision of the organization and not a servant of the people within the
organization. Leaders in learning organizations clarify and nurture the vision and consider it to be

greater than one-self. The leader aligns themselves or their vision with others in the organization or
community at large. These process leadership theories and others that have emerged often suggest that
the work of leaders is to contribute to the well-being of others with a focus on some form of social
responsibility. There appears to be a clear evolution in the study of leadership. Leadership theory has
moved from birth traits and rights, to acquired traits and styles, to situational and relationship types of
leadership, to the function of groups and group processes and, currently, to the interaction of the group
members with an emphasis on personal and organizational function of groups and group processes and,
currently, to the interaction of the group members with an emphasis on personal and organizational
moral improvements (Yammarino, 1999).
Transactional Theory
The leadership theories, by the late 1970s and early 1980s, activated to diverge from the specific
perspectives of the leader, leadership context and the follower and toward practices that concentrated
further on the exchanges between the followers and leaders. The transactional leadership was described
as that in which leader-follower associations were grounded upon a series of agreements between
followers and leaders (House & Shamir, 1993). The transactional theory was “based on reciprocity
where leaders not only influence followers but are under their influence as well”. Some studies revealed
that transactional leadership show a discrepancy with regard to the level of leaders‟ action and the
nature of the relations with the followers. Bass and Avolio (1994) observed transactional leadership “as
a type of contingent-reward leadership that had active and positive exchange between leaders and
followers whereby followers were rewarded or recognized for accomplishing agreed upon objectives”.
From the leader, these rewards might implicate gratitude for merit increases, bonuses and work
achievement. For good work, positive support could be exchanged, merit pay for promotions, increased
performance and cooperation for collegiality. The leaders could instead focus on errors, avoid
responses and delay decisions. This attitude is stated as the “management-by-exception” and could be
categorized as passive or active transactions. The difference between these two types of transactions is
predicated on the timing of the leaders‟ involvement. In the active form, the leader continuously
monitors performance and attempts to intervene proactively (Avolio & Bass, 1997).
1.3 Relation of theories to personal experiences
Being optimistic is one of the things which have given me a quality of a team leader. My effectiveness
as a team leader has shown through honesty and integrity, which are the two ingredients which have
made me a good leader (Chemers, 2014, pp.19). To bring effectiveness in my leadership I always make
sure that am confident enough to ensure others follow my commands. In order to gain the respect of my

colleagues, I always show some swagger, ooze with confidence and assertiveness. I reflect my degree
of confidence required to avoid overconfidence to ensure that my colleagues trust me as their leader.
Basing on transformational leaderships, I have a quality of a charismatic leader where I always have a
belief on myself.
As a leader, it’s hard to persuade your colleagues to others. I try to set an example to others to follow.
There are times when the situation gets tough; my workmates look up to me waiting my reaction on the
situation. I always try to handle them well. My positive thinking has been always visible through
actions. When there is pressure I stay calm and try to level up motivation. In my working I practice the
principle of John Quincy Adams, “as a good leader, your actions inspire others to dream more, learn
more, do more and become more.” I also apply the assumption of transformational leadership, that
people will follow a person who inspires them. I like to inspire my juniors so as to overcome current
and future problems easily.
On the part of accountability, I make sure that all my juniors are accountable for what they are doing. I
congratulate those who are doing well and assist those who are struggling to realize their mistakes and
work together to improve. I always follow the approach of Arnold H Glasow which states, “a good
leader takes little more than his share of the blame and little less than his share of the credit.” When
everyone is held accountable for their actions it creates a sense of responsibility among the subordinate
and will make them take the business more seriously.
I also used emotional intelligence theory to evaluate myself. I am a excelling, I have calm assuring
performance and I am in control no matter what the situation. I like to have complete trust in all around
me. I speak with clarity and kind. I used the four elements of emotional intelligence theory in
evaluation. I used the element to test how I understand myself. It showed that I have more strengths
than weaknesses. It also shows that I understand my emotions and am able to identify their impact to
my duties.
I used self-management as the second element to evaluate myself. This measures the ability to control
what you say and do, while avoiding making rushed decisions. Under this I scored very low since I had
a challenge in decision making. But I showed trust in my working. I actively apply conscientiousness,
leading and I can adapt easily to changes. Social awareness is the other element, where I scored highly
since I have the ability to understand the emotions of my team. I treat people around me very well
according to their emotional reactions. I also have ability to understand other people, expertise in

building talents and valuing diversity. The other element is social skills; which creates a link between
leadership and emotional intelligence. My scores here were average since my social skills were not very
good because I was not a good communicator. My ability of conflict resolution has improved from last
assessment. I have been setting an example so as my juniors can follow by demonstrating the
acceptable values and behaviors. Since I cannot do everything right, I mostly focus on key
responsibilities while I leave the rest for others. I do this through empowering my juniors and delegate
duties to them. I always avoid micromanaging my subordinates, to avoid development of lack of trust
for them. I delegate tasks to my juniors, then provide them with all resources and I support them
achieve the goals. I also give my subordinates a chance to stand the responsibility. In my leadership I
never follow a dictatorial style; I have developed an empathy with my subordinates (Van Wart, 2014,
pp.109). I have made my leadership effective through understanding the problems of my subordinates. I
also try hard to provide them with the suitable solutions to their problems (Miner, 2015, pp.63). When
the aspects of emotional intelligence were evaluated to explore my self-awareness, social awareness,
self-management and social skills, it showed an improved emotional quotient from last assessment
(Understanding Emotional Intelligence, 2014). It showed that I could now act confidently on
experienced areas and I was capable to know the feeling of being under pressure. Still I was limited in
taking decisions without support, keeping all pressures within my duties.
Behavioral theory assumes that there are styles of leadership which are effective while others are not.
The functional behaviors of a successful leader include; determining goals, motivating employees for
achieving the goals, effective communication, building team spirit and ability to interact effectively.
Evaluation under this model involved my actual behavior and action and not my traits or characteristics.
Under this model, three skills were tested; technical, human and conceptual (Ang & Van Dyne, 2015,
pp.79). My effectiveness was portrayed by this model. I interacted effectively with my juniors where I
give them motivation and always tried building team spirit for them to achieve the goals, but the
method I used to communicate to them were not effective (Ang & Van Dyne, 2015, pp.80). My
favorable behavior provided a greater satisfaction to my colleagues and always recognized me as their
leader.

2.0 Personal Development
2.1 The concept of Reflection and Reflective Model
Dewey described reflection as a process that enabled learning from a continued series of
experiences from which continuity of meaning occurs over time (Ramsden, 1992). He proposed
that reflective thinking involved a systematic, scientific process of describing an experience,
articulating questions that arise from that experience to generate theories or hypotheses, and then
taking intelligent action to test such theories (Ramsden, 1992). This concept of reflective
thinking was, however, largely placed within the context of education, where students aim to
gain knowledge and understanding through learning (Kember et al, 2001). In a professional
context, reflection is known to be of benefit in experiential learning, and for the development of
critical thinking skills, which facilitate the integration between theory and practice (Royal
College of Midwives (RCM), 2009). Reflection involves identifying accomplishments within a
situation in order to look forward. It heightens self-awareness and allows practitioners to see
things clearly and make the best decisions (Johns, 2009). It also provides a useful focus because
it enables one to explore the influences that shape and guide individual practice (Kirkham, 1997).
When used well, reflection enables learning, and within professional practice it allows
practitioners to demonstrate their progression to achieve learning outcomes and required
standards (Heyer, 2015). Reflection provides a structure in which to evaluate learning, allowing
theories and concepts to become entrenched in practice, and fostering continual thought and
innovation (Heyer, 2015). There are many different models of reflection but the work of Gibbs
(1988), SchÖn (1983), Kolb (1984) and Johns (2000) are particularly relevant to midwifery and
nursing education.
Boud's triangular representation is one of the reflective model that can be described as the
simplest kind of the following; this learning is never completed or able to be transferred without
reflecting on it further in different contexts. That is why even how simple it is, it can still be
compared to other kinds since it is still valid and accepted as one of the process. The Atkins and
Murphy Model can be seen to explicitly support the kind of deeper level reflection, it is more
complex to other kinds of reflective thinking since it talks about critical thinking. It is a kind of

thinking that focuses on the deeper understanding of things than thinking for the sake of just
thinking. It is more precise and deep compared to all kinds of reflective thinking.
Similarly, Gibb's Reflective Cycle this kind of model pays attention to your personal feelings and
reactions. It acknowledges that your personal feelings influence the situation and how you have
begun to reflect on it. It shows more of you and it makes you feel that what you see and perceive
is original because that is your true self. (Heyer, 2015). It is imperative to note that the use of
Gibb’s model represents a fundamental shift from the ideas of Kolb (which has a four staged
cyclical framework; concrete experience; observation and reflection; forming abstract concepts
and testing in new situation) in that Gibb’s model specifically refers to the key processes within
reflection itself, rather than reflection as a process within general learning. So therefore, Gibb's
Reflective Cycle seems more productive than others.
2.2 Analysis of leadership elements of MBA
2.3 Reflection on Qualities
2.4 Plan and Strategy for Development

References
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors
and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly,
15, 5–32. 2. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994).
Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997) Full range leadership development: manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mindgarden, Palo Alto, Calif.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997) Full range leadership development: manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mindgarden, Palo Alto, Calif

Burns, C., & West, M. A. (2003). Individual, climate, and group interaction processes as
predictors of work team innovation. Small Group Research, 26, 106-117.
. Dess, G. G., & Picken, J. C. (2000). Changing roles: Leadership in the 21st century.
Organizational Dynamics, 29 (4), 18–33
Dobbins, G. H., & Platz, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in leadership: How real are they?
Academy of Management Review, I, 118-127.
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, K. (1991). Change-centered leadership: An extension of the two
dimensional model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7, 17–26.
Feidler, F., & House, R. (Eds.). (1994). Leadership theory and research: A report of progress.
Greenleaf, R. (1996). On becoming a servant-leader. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power &
greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic,
and visionary theories. M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research:
Perspectives and direction, 81–107.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic,
and visionary theories. M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research:
Perspectives and direction, (pp. 81–107). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
House, R., & Aditya, R. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal
of Management, 23, 409-474.
Jung, D.I. (2001): Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on
creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13:185-195
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2015). Handbook of cultural intelligence. Routledge, pp76-85
Antonakis, J., & Day, D. V. (Eds.). (2017). The nature of leadership. Sage publications,
pp. 23- 31.