Identify leader traits and attributes
Special Reprint Leadership Theory: A Historical Look at its
Evolution
Ronald G. Greenwood
About the Author: Ronald G. Greenwood, D.B.A., was the F. James McDonald Professor of Industrial Management at the GMI Engineering and Management Institute. A former assistant for Peter F. Drucker, he was the author of numerous articles and books. He was also a past chairman of the Management History Division of the Academy of Management.
From time to time it is worthwhile to look at the historical evolution of theories. The initial issue of The Journal on Leadership Studies presents an auspicious time to examine briefly the evolution of leadership theory as it is preached in most textbooks today.
Leadership theory traces its roots to trait theory, then moved to the human relations school of thought and its search for the one best way to lead, a movement beginning in the 1960s and continuing in various forms today with contingency and/or situational model, until today there is a marriage of convenience between situational and trait theory. Ralph Stogdill summarized
’ it best twenty years ago, in the preface of his monumental Handbook of !. &dquo; Leadership, &dquo;Four decades (to be read six decades today) of research on
leadership have produced a bewildering mass of findings .... The endless accumulation of empirical data has not produced an integrated understanding
. of leadership&dquo; [Stogdill, p. xvii].’ Stogdill should know. His 1948 article in the Journal of Psychology was the pivotal force in redirecting leadership research
. away from trait theory towards situational analysis.’ Dan Wren, the great . management historian, in his 1994 The Evolution of Management Thought
.
agrees with Stogdill’s assessment, &dquo;Despite the mountains of literature on .
leadership, we still know very little.... Despite the efforts of behavioral scientists to explain leadership, much remains unexplained, suggesting that leadership is still much of an art&dquo; [1994].3
/ One needs to begin a discussion of leadership with a definition of the term. But &dquo;
as Bass has noted, &dquo;There are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept&dquo; [Bass, 1981].
4
..... The Oxford English Dictionary [1933] traces the word &dquo;leader&dquo; in the English .
’
language to about 1300, but the word &dquo;leadership&dquo; first appeared about 1800 . and was applied to political influence [noted in Stogdill, 1974].4 The various
. definitions of &dquo;leadership&dquo; have been reviewed by a number of authors including . : Carroll Shartle [1951 ],5 Cecil Gibb [1954] ~ and Bernard Bass [1960~. The
.
commonality of the definitions is: a person, or persons, exercises influence on , - . others towards a goal or common purpose. That goal or common purpose is
sometimes not consciously known. Hence one possible definition is that readership is the process of influencing people to direct their efforts toward the achievement of some particular goal or goals. But we need not decide on the
~
definition; the one in your mind is undoubtedly appropriate for this article. ’
This article will summarize the meandering of leadership theory. Summarizing the thousands of pages that have been written on the subject could result in your favorite theory or theorist being overlooked, under represented, misinterpreted, or poorly presented here. But future issues of this Journal hopefully will rectify the problem.
Scientific Management View
Let us go to the most famous management writers of the past and to their comments on leadership. Frederick Taylor, whose self designed grave marker calls him the &dquo;Father of Scientific Management,&dquo; says very little about leadership directly; in fact, the term is not listed in the index of his 1911 Shop Management. ’ Taylor does mention a trait and situational approach:
It is, of course, evident that the nature of the organizations required to manage different types of business must vary to an enormous extent, from the simple tonnage works ... to the large machine works, doing a miscellaneous business, with its intricate organization.... It is this great difference in the type of the organization required that so frequently renders managers who have been eminently successful in one line utter failures of a different kind. This is particularly true of men successful in tonnage work who are placed in charge of shops involving much greater detail [Taylor, 1911, pp. 91-92].9
’
’, &dquo; Taylor, believing the work of a foreman or supervisor to be so demanding, , ~. ’ developed his specialized or &dquo;functional foreman&dquo; concept. To be a good foreman
.
’ . one was required to be a well rounded person who possessed nine qualities: .
’ .. brains, education, special or technical knowledge; manual dexterity or strength, . ’ ° &dquo; ;
. tact, energy, grit, honesty, judgment or common sense, and good health [Taylor,
’
..
1911, p. 96J.’° Since Taylor believed that to find a person with more than six of , ,
.
. these traits was &dquo;almost impossible,&dquo; and since a good foreman should be imbued ;~ with all of these traits, Taylor suggested, dividing the foreman’s job into
specialized areas with one foreman overseeing each specialized area. Hence the &dquo;functional foreman&dquo; concept (which was really a functional clerk) which required one person for giving workers instructions, another as inspector, a time and cost expert, a disciplinarian, etc. [Taylor, 1911
5
Early Trait Theory
For the first forty years of the 20th century trait theory was the most accepted leadership approach. The qualities, both in personality and behavior, which differentiate a leader from a follower were studied, or surmised as the case may be, and the reported findings gave rise to what is called trait theory. For instance, C. Bird developed a list of seventy-nine traits from a number of studies [Bird, 1940]. 12 Ordway Tead and Henry Metcalf in their classic Personnel Administration [1920]’3 suggest that &dquo;the efficient, successful executive has certain characteristics which suggest a criterion for use in the selection and training of industrial leaders&dquo; [quoted in the second edition Tead and Metcalf, 1926j14 They list: good physical constitution, character, creative imagination, sound judgment, courage, sense of humor, ability to understand men, genuine interest in people, receptive, cooperative, organizing ability, nervous energy, and technical knowledge [Tead and Metcalf, 1926, pp. 154-156]. In 1929 Tead did list the above traits and added that &dquo;the qualifications differ, also, with the levels of intelligence and culture of the group to be led. Differences are likewise to be noted, depending upon the character of the group, on the race, the generation, and the place in which the leadership is exercised&dquo; [Tead, 1929, p. 153]. 15
Chester I. Barnard’s Functions of the Executive [1938]’6 is frequently referred to as the book which blends the classical with the behavioral views of
management. And so it is, but it has little to offer on the subject of leadership. Barnard believed that leadership has two aspects: the first is individual superiority - in physique, in skill, in technology, in perception, in knowledge, in memory, in imagination&dquo; [Barnard, 1938, p. 260].&dquo; He called this the technical aspect of leadership. The second aspect, which he did not name but said is implied in the word &dquo;responsibility,&dquo; includes individual superiority in
.
determination, persistence, endurance, and courage [Barnard, 1938, p. 260].
In 1948, Ralph Stogdill dealt a crushing blow to a pure trait approach to .~ v
< .
. leadership.’8 Although he was not the only researcher to attack this approach, I .... his analysis was devastating to the theory. The inconsistent findings between
’
. ,.. --:: : the studies suggested that leadership is a dynamic process and varies with leader, followers, and situations. Stogdill surveyed American and German publications published before 1948 &dquo;to determine the traits and characteristics of leaders&dquo; [Stogdill, 1974].19 It is unclear how many studies were investigated, but 124 references were listed. Stogdill found:
The factors which have been found to be associated with leadership , could probably all be classified under the general headings of capacity, ~ achievement, responsibility, participation, and status... The evidence
1~ ;
.
, , suggests that leadership is a relation that exists between persons in a ... social situation, and that persons who are leaders in one situation may
not necessarily be leaders in other situations.... The authors conclude . that these findings provide ’devastating evidence’ against the concept of
the operation of measurable traits in determining social interaction [Stogdill, 1974, pp. 63-64].20
6
Fayol and the Process Contribution
If Taylor is the &dquo;Father of Scientific Management,&dquo; then Henri Fayol is the father &dquo;1l5&dquo;.&dquo;.<> of the principles or process management viewpoint. In 1916 his classic
. ~~’t~ .
&dquo; > Administration industrielle et g6n6rale [General and Industrial Administration] &dquo;
’
was published in the Bulletin de la Société de 1’industrie min6rate; it laid the foundation for the study and practice of the management of organizations
’
[Fayol, 1916] .21 Fayol spent little time on leadership, but in the short mention of the qualities needed by a manager of a big concern, he used a traits approach. Fayol summarized the qualities: health and fitness, intelligence and intellectual vigor, moral qualities, good general education, administrative ability (planning, organization, command, co-ordination, control), general knowledge of business functions, and organizational knowledge [Fayol, 1916, p. 55].
James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley’s immensely popular, Onward Industryl, first published in 1931 and reprinted with some editing under the title Principles of Organization [1939 and without Reiley in 1947] had scant little to say about leadership.22
Few writers were as popular and successful between the wars as Ralph C. . Davis who spent most of his academic life at Ohio State University, but was
~ ,
brought in by Alfred Sloan, Jr. to develop the General Motors Institute ..’ ’
management program in the late 1920s. One of his earliest writings, The .
’
..> ’. i, Principles of Business Organization and Operation [1934]23 was written in . the spring and summer of 1932 when Davis was on a six month leave, which he
’,’&dquo;
’
spent in the Library of Congress. The manuscript was made available to Ohio State students as a mimeographed text, with new editions each year through 1937. The book was greatly expanded and published by Harper in 1940 under the title Industrial Organization and Management.24 Davis writes, &dquo;It is
: . apparent ...that no formula for such success (in leadership), insofar as it relates ~ to executives characteristics, can be written. They are necessarily a function of
’°&dquo; °
the characteristics and requirements of the leader and the particular situation, as well as the innate capacities of the executive himself’ [Davis, 1937, p. 21 ].25 He continues by listing the traits of successful leaders, which include intelligence, personality, courage, tenacity, etc. [Davis, 1937, p. 22] The
’
Fundamentals of Top Management [1951 ] 26 is his most famous book. Although it was written after the war years it is still a process based book. In it Davis does little to expand on leadership theory, although he deletes the listing
’ .&dquo; ;.. , : ’ of traits. 27
.. ,;:; , , :.j .
_. ’:.; ,;’
.
The popular process text by Leon Alford, Principles of Industrial &dquo;., , .. ,
&dquo;
Management,28 also presents the then fashionable traits approach, in the 1940 .. edition. The subject of leadership is not even mentioned in Dexter Kimball’s
... ’ . ~
Principles of Industrial Organization 29 the first textbook on management was ..: . ’ published in 1913. Nor is the subject mentioned in the 1939 edition [Kimball,
. . 1913 and Kimball and Kimball, 1939].30 . ’. ;.. .
7
Many consider the 1955 textbook, Principles of Management by Harold Koontz and Cyril O’Donnell, to be the most important textbook in the tradition of the
... process approach.3’ The book went into the many editions with O’Donnell ’ ’
; dropped after the 8th edition of 1984, and Koontz after the 9th edition in 1988. Each edition the book moved with the times and ultimately advocated a contingency - situational and systems approach to leadership. Although the first edition is thoroughly in the process camp, the book does not advocate a trait approach. Rather, Koontz and O’Donnell cite the trait approach as having little
,~ ° ..: . : promise, but do list the characteristics of leaders: Above average intelligence, ,&dquo; . ,,::,’
’. well-rounded interests or curiosity, ability to communicate, mentally and .
emotionally mature, powerful inner drive, understands the importance of cooperation [Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955, pp. 73-74].32 The 1955 book is vague
’ :../ . in what actually it believes about leadership theory:
The current view is that the leader is equally effective in similar situations but that different skills are employed in widely different ones. Thus, the leadership characteristics of the head of a large-scale enterprise would
, .
be readily transferable to other large-scale firms, but those of the gang ’ ’ boss and the university president might be ineffective in a merchandising
’
enterprise.
The reference to different leadership skills is most likely careless .&dquo;
. terminology on the part of psychologists. From what is now known, there appears to be no reason to suspect different skills at play. Rather, the evidence of low degrees of transferability of this skill should be looked upon as proof that the various characteristics are weighted differently in
. different occupations. Leadership consists of the sum total of the
’ <: &dquo; ~ persuasive factors brought to bear upon prospective followers in order to ’&dquo;
...
’
&dquo;
motivate them. The skill of this accomplishment, given certain .
... environmental factors that may be called advantageous or otherwise, is .&dquo; &dquo; the measure of the quality of leadership. Thus leaders will emphasize .. different motivating factors, depending upon their psychological insight .. ’ ’ &dquo;: .. [Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955, pp. 74-75].33 ’
Human Relations
. Morris Viteles in his 1934 book, The Science of Work, notes that lists of .... ’ : , .,..: ~~
.
qualities of good leaders were developed by various authorities, &dquo;but practically &dquo;
.... all of them, although probably correct in some respects, are in the nature of .’
, surmises.... There seems to be a widespread notion that executive [equates
.. : .... with leaders ?] technique is a matter of a ’sixth sense,’ an ’intuitive faculty’ which ’ .... &dquo; . defies explanation - a ’hunch’ that tells what is the right thing to do at the right .. : ...&dquo;&dquo; &dquo; time&dquo; [Viteles, 1934, p. 401 ].~ Viteles published a self analysis, which David I...::.&dquo; . Craig and W. W. Charters had developed, to ascertain one’s leadership .,-.~.~ , qualities, and which had been published in their own book, Personal .’.
&dquo;
. Leadership in Industry in 1925. It asked questions on one’s forcefulness, : ; ability to inspire confidence, ability to take a personal interest in the men, ability
to get the work done correctly, ability to get and use the ideas of the men, ability
8
to be one of the men, ability to lead rather than boss the men, ability to develop teamwork, ability to show kindliness without being considered easy, ability to reprimand properly, ability to keep from worrying, ability to delegate work properly, ability to call forth the best effort of the men, ability to train men on the job, ability to make a new man feel at home, and self-confidence [Viteles, 1934, p. 403-405 and Craig and Charters, 1925, pp. 235-236].35 But by his 1954 book, Viteles was writing about democratic and permissive leadership styles versus autocratic and authoritarian leadership styles, and that puts him squarely in the human relations area. 36
The Human Relations era, spanning the period between the World Wars, emphasized the needs of individuals (followers), over the needs of the organization (leader). Thus, leadership became more of a study of motivating followers by addressing their needs and answering the question &dquo;What is the nature of man?&dquo; Although we most associate that question with Douglas McGregor and his Theories X and Y, this question is at the heart of the Human Relations movement and predates McGregor by many years. It is a most important concept because how one sees the nature of man determines how one will attempt to lead men.
The concept that the nature of man is essentially good or bad is an old one and central to many of the world’s religions. Original sin, man being bad verses Luther’s and Wesley’s man being saved by faith is a battle not yet ended. The philosophers Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Niebuhr and Peale come to mind when we discuss this topic in Western thought. The concept of Theory X and Theory Y does not have the ramifications or philosophical heritage of the concepts of good and evil, but, similarly they are contrasting theories describing human behavior in a particular circumstance: leading people.
The earliest evidence I traced to the use of the &dquo;X-Y&dquo; concept is a paper written by Harvard’s Fritz Roethlisberger in 1932. He had been working on the interviewing phase of the supervisory training methods program at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company. In the discussions and in a memo between Roethlisberger and the Supervisory Training Department at Hawthorne, Roethlisberger frequently used the terms &dquo;ritualistic thinking&dquo; and &dquo;experimental attitude.&dquo; To answer the Training Department’s questions about the terms he submitted a paper whose initial paragraph is an eye opener:
I believe superiors should seek to develop an &dquo;experimental attitude&dquo; toward problems of human relations. By &dquo;experimental attitude&dquo; I mean an attitude distinguished from the &dquo;ritualistic attitude&dquo; I find so common, especially in certain areas, among supervisors. The ritualist demands a cure-all formula for dealing with people. He says, &dquo;To be fair you must treat every one the same - smile - pat them on the back.&dquo; Or he may be
, &dquo; the opposite type who &dquo;keeps them in their place,&dquo; by opposite tactics, but , still &dquo;treating them all the same.&dquo; In order to avoid a confusion of names ...
I shall call the attitude which I believe needs to be communicated to or , developed among superiors the &dquo;Y-attitude.&dquo; The opposite attitude I shall
call the &dquo;X-attitude.&dquo; In my opinion three things characterize the &dquo;Y-attitude&dquo;: (1 ) A willingness to accept new ideas and a desire to verify
9
them by experience, (2) a logic of continuity, and (3) a logic of relations [Roethlisberger, 1932, p. 1 ].37
Roethlisberger went on to point out that the &dquo;X-attitude&dquo; person:
allows his own experience to color his judgments. He fails to take into account his own feelings toward all phases of the problems with which he must deal and thereby unconsciously allows his own personal background of experiences to sway his judgments. He does not realize that he is himself a part of the human relations problems with which he deals. &dquo;Y&dquo; on the other hand, realizes that the best judgments are those
.
which are made with the realization that his own personal feelings are influencing him and he must, therefore, take these feelings into account [Roethlisberger, 1932, p. 2].38
A quarter century before McGregor, Roethlisberger wrote:
...let me clear up a few things which I do not mean. I do not mean that all people have either a complete &dquo;X-attitude&dquo; or a complete &dquo;Y-attitude.&dquo; To maintain this proposition would be to commit an &dquo;X&dquo; error. Most of us have a mixture of both attitudes. In certain areas we maintain a &dquo;Y-attitude&dquo; while in other areas we continue to live at a &dquo;X&dquo; level. This is as it should be. It is not wise to question everything at the same time. However, there are some who believe that only in certain restricted areas a &dquo;Y-attitude&dquo; can be maintained; for example, a good number of superiors seem to take a &dquo;Y-attitude&dquo; toward machines and an &dquo;X-attitude&dquo; toward operators [Roethlisberger, 1932, p. 3].39
It is quite interesting that in Roethlisberger’s autobiography, The Elusive Phenomena [1974], published three years after his death, he made no mention of his 1932 memo.4° In fact, he gives McGregor credit for the development of the concept. He wrote, &dquo;One of the chief theories of change agentry, first stated by Douglas McGregor [1960], usually appears in a double-headed form known as Theory X and Theory Y. In this form neither is so much a theory as two different orientations toward motivation&dquo; [Roethlisberger, 1977, p. 459].
Roethlisberger was G. Elton Mayo’s disciple and Mayo, more than anyone, is associated with the Human Relations viewpoint. Yet, if one actually analyzed the &dquo;movement&dquo; closely, one would find three foci: the Mayo view of the social system; the Applied Anthropology view of field work and social observation (W. White); and the &dquo;group dynamics&dquo; view of group processes (Lewin). None of these views produced leadership theories, but each focused on the needs of individuals and hence they would guide how leaders should look at the followers and the appropriate style of leadership behavior could be determined.
10
The One Best Way
’B .. In response to the trait theory there emerged the search for the &dquo;One Best Way&dquo; . ’
’! of leadership; the most respected theorists in the field have been Rensis Likert .. and the team of Blake and Mouton. Likert’s work evolved over a long period of
::’ . time. His 1940 publication, with Willits, (4 Vols) and his earlier article, &dquo;A
:
.. Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes&dquo; (1932)41 from his dissertation laid ~ the foundation for the research presented in his classics New Patterns of
’ . Management (1961 ),42 The Human Organization (196713 and with his wife
>. ’,v Jane, New Ways of Managing Change (1976).~ Likert’s work built up steam ’,,~ . ~~~, after W1NI1 when he organized the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social
.
~. , ’:&dquo; Research. Ultimately he concluded that,
. The principles used by the highest-producing managers are essentially the same from industry to industry or for different kinds of work, the specific methods for applying them usually differ markedly from situation to situation....
The basic principles used by the highest-producing managers have been integrated into a general organizational system called System 4.... (which) is made up of interlocking work groups with a high degree of
’
group loyalty among members and favorable attitudes and trust among peers, superiors, and subordinates. Consideration for others and relatively high levels of skill in personal interacting, group problem
...... solving, and other group functions also are present.... , . ’~’ ~ ,
.::,; When an organization shifts to System 4 from a traditional organizational ’
theory, performance improves, costs are reduced, and improvement occurs in the satisfaction and health of the members of the organization
. [Likert, 1976, pp. 16-17].45 ’t’~ 4&dquo;’ ~’
Likert’s focus is conflict resolution which, he feels, can raise the level of human productivity to exceptional levels. He quotes Mary Follett, who was a situational
. theorist writing in the teens and twenties, and her win/win or &dquo;law of the situation&dquo; method of conflict resolution. Follett wrote:
-.r,:’;: ,.~ ~ ;..- r
;’, < ,»;, ~~, ,.i,&dquo; ’ . My solution is to depersonalize the giving of orders, to unite all concerned ’. &dquo;,
’/:&dquo; ’ , in a study of the situation, to discover the law of the situation and obey’ ..
’B’¡- that.... This is ideally, what should take place between foremen and rank
&dquo; ’
and file, between any head and his subordinates. One person should not , &dquo; ’!.., . give orders to another person, but both should agree to take their orders
’ . ’ &dquo; I
’ ,
from the situation [Fox and Urwick, 1973].46
Likert believed that an even better system than 4 would develop. He wrote, .. &dquo;social science research will help create, in the next decade or two, an even , .’ . more effective, complex, and socially evolved management and social system.
’
Some experiments already are providing a glimmering of what System 5 many ’
be like. It appears that it will have the structure and interaction process of ’ °
System 4 but will lack the authority of hierarchy&dquo; [Likert and Likert, p. 33].’&dquo; , :’.. ,
, .
11
Greatly influenced by Likert was another well respected behaviorist, Robert Blake who teamed with Jane S. Mouton. Blake and Mouton’s view of the one best way to lead is now fundamental to all introductory management textbooks.
&dquo;
_
It is an extension of Likert’s work and was influenced, though negatively, by the work of Fleishman. Blake contends that &dquo;the high point of intersection (high structure-high consideration) constitutes a theory which in many respects is ’destructive’ of involvement, commitment, dedication, and particularly of creative or innovative thinking about how problems might be solved in a better way.&dquo;48 As Blake and Mouton studied the problem of leadership in decision making they
. , realized &dquo;that the dimensions needed for an effective description of operational ’
’. ’ ’ ~
conduct are attitudinal variables, not behavior variables&dquo; as in the Ohio State &dquo;
... ’ ’ ; ,:.í’, model:49 Blake and Mouton christened their model &dquo;The Managerial Grid&dquo; and .
I&dquo; used the attitudinal variables &dquo;Concern for People&dquo; and &dquo;Concern for . &dquo; &dquo;
~ Production&dquo;, with a scale of 1 to 9 with 9 being high. Blake writes, &dquo;the origin of
’
.. the Managerial Grid ... fell into place sometime late in 1957 or in 1958.&dquo;~ The ,: classic book, The Managerial Grid51, was published in 1964, with new editions
.. ’ ’
.
~
in 1978 and 1985. After Jane’s death in 1987, Leadership Dilemrnas--Grid ’. :
.
Solutions52, co-authored with Anne A. McCanse was published in 1991. One of the criticisms of the Grid is its failure to handle the various different situations. For instance how would one lead a 18 year old novice against a 50 year old seasoned executive? Blake answered, &dquo;The differences ... are tactical in nature
!’ and relate to the situation itself. They are not differences in the style of ., ,~
. exercising leadership --9, 9 remains the constant strategy.... Thus, the Grid is &dquo;
&dquo;í . a strategic approach that fits all situation, but each of the applications are situational unique.&dquo;53
Contingency and Situational Views
. ,J ’ , ,&dquo;’~ The search for the appropriate style of leadership was conducted by a number ’
&dquo; ’
,:&dquo; .. of people. The first of the post World War II studies to be reported was initiated ....: ’¡:&dquo; h(&dquo;, at The Ohio State University under the stewardship of Ralph Stogdill and Carroll
, ‘.~ ~ ~ < .:i Shartle and a number of other researchers who have attained some stature in - ‘. ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ; v the field: as Coons, Fleishman, Seeman and Hemphill. Beginning in 1945 they .&dquo; &dquo;&dquo; ’;’ ’;’, ~:~g~ v°~ attempted to identify the various dimensions of leader behavior by finding out
’
, ~ / ° how a leader carries out activities. Eventually the research staff narrowed down .... , ,,:&dquo;’~ °~ the activities to a few, then to two which were separate and distinct, and showed
’
.
° ..t’ the most promise as descriptors: &dquo;Initiating Structure&dquo; and &dquo;Consideration.&dquo; Both
’
activities were found important to successful performance and therefore ,’. &dquo;~ ~ leadership effectiveness was strongly tied to a leader being demanding and ~ ~ simultaneously sensitive to the needs of the followers. Most importantly, they ~ found that no single style of leadership is universally effective.
&dquo;
-
H. Sanford as early as 1950, as reported in the first edition of Koontz and . O’Donnell, &dquo;believes that leadership is a relation between leader and follower .. that varies with the behavior of the leader, the predispositions and expectations .&dquo;: of the follower, and the supra-individual characteristics of the social situation in
.
I&dquo;
which leadership occurs&dquo; [Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955, p. 69].~‘ Unfortunately, ’
..., I. this quote did not survive into the second edition. But Sanford derived his quote
12
from a reading of Kurt Lewin’s now famous equation that behavior is a function .
of personality and environment [Lewin, 1935].55
H, ~r~ ~ Fred Fielder is most associated with bringing a contingency or situational , :, approach to the forefront of leadership research. His classic book was the 1967, ,
A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness56, the culmination of years of research. Fielder notes that &dquo;the contingency model was the first leadership theory which operationally measured the interaction between leadership personality and the leader’s situational control in the prediction of leadership performance.&dquo;5’ Although the model has been openly attacked by numerous critics, its fans have produced an equal amount of supportive research. The theory proposes that leaders have various personalities as do the numerous followers and, when combined with the ever changing situations produce the need for leadership styles based on the needs and abilities of the leader and followers and the situation. But this is not a new thought, it is new to have it supported with strong research underpinning. Mary Follett in her classic Creative Experience [1924] wrote:
A very interesting approach to this doctrine [of Gestalt psychology] has been made in the studies of personality. Much psychological study of personality has been concerned with separate &dquo;traits,&dquo; and the fact has been rather astonishingly ignored that personality can never be revealed to us by a study of its constituent traits; moreover, that it is not disclosed merely by adding together these separate traits. No single characteristic
. of a man has much meaning until it is understood in its relation to his other characteristics. Or, more accurately, it is the total interactions and the something being brought into existence by these which make the whole personality. 58
Later in the same volume she wrote:
We should notice, too, what is sometimes forgotten, that in the social situation two processes always go on together: the adjustment of man and man, and the adjustment of man and the situation: in social psychology objective reference is always two-fold.... The ignoring of the total situation is the weakness of many discussions on adjustment
Fielder believes that his &dquo;research shows, for example, that a relatively stress-free relationship with the immediate boss permits leaders to make effective use of their intelligence, but not of their experience. In contrast, stress with the boss causes leaders to use their experience but not their intellectual
. abilities. 1160 .
’ ’
_ ’ ~t Fiedler’s contingency approach has led to a training program which he labels , &dquo;leader match.&dquo; He notes: ...... a .
This training method differs most markedly from others by stating that ’ ’
effective leadership depends on the leader’s personality (measured by :::. .
13
LPC [Least Preferred Coworker Score] as well as the leadership situation (i.e. situational control). It is based on the assumption that it is easier to
. change one’s leadership situation (relations with subordinates, task !
.
,
, structure, and position power) than to change one’s personality. For this ....... reason, Leader-Match trains leaders to modify situational control to fit
their personality.61
As a parting thought, we might go back to Rensis Likert who wrote, &dquo;Since the particular way of applying the principles of supportive relationships must fit the
1&dquo; . immediate situation, appropriate leadership behavior varies widely from one
’/. situation to another&dquo; [Likert and Likert, 1976, p. 109].62 But on the next page ,, :;&dquo;,’ .. Likert attacks Fred Fiedler and the contingency or situational model, for with it
&dquo;no attempt to change the leadership and membership interaction style to a ,
&dquo; more effective model is a static view of organizations. It minimizes the likelihood ,
. of improvement beyond that realized&dquo; [Likert and Likert, 1976, p. 110].63
Conclusion
Many of the theorists have implied that leadership is overcoming conflicts, but leadership is also helping people attain higher levels of output. Peter Drucker said it best, &dquo;Leadership is the lifting of a man’s vision to higher sights, the raising of a man’s performance to a higher standard, the building of a man’s personality beyond its normal limitations.&dquo;64 He also added, &dquo;There is no substitute for leadership. But management cannot create leaders. It can only
.
create the conditions under which potential leadership qualities become effective; or it can stifle potential leadership.&dquo;65
A whole cadre of leadership theorists are ignored in this rather short simple ’
~
overview. And I apologize for that. The concentration on the earlier writers was done because the modern ones are so well covered in most textbooks. In no
- .. ~ way should the most modern theory be implied to be the best or most correct. . &dquo; There is much food for thought in the works listed in the bibliography and a
’,,’ ., < turning to the classics in the original should not hurt one too much. It may be ° ’
°°
. quite surprising to see how are far afield are the textbooks interpretation of these _ . classics. I have included among the classics Bernard Bass’ and Ralph Stogdill’s
.
,
Handbook of Leadership 66(3rd edition, 1990). But as Fielder notes, &dquo;It takes ..~,,.,,
. a lot of shoveling and sifting, at least in the area of leadership, before you really _
’
begin to hit pay dirt. ,61 One gets the feeling that all these theorists are not talking about the same thing. Is there really anything new in this field that we did
’~
not know a quarter of a century ago, or even fifty years ago? The more I read ’ in this area (setting quantification aside) the more I question our progress and .
, respects for those classics of management. ...~.... ’. .
14
References
1 Stogdill, Ralph M. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. New York: Free Press, 1974.1.
2 Stogdill, Ralph M. Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 1948, 25, 35-71.
3 Wren, Daniel A. The Evolution of Management Thought. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley, 1994.
4 Stogdill, Ralph M. Handbook of Leadership: Survey of Theory and Research. New York, Free Press, 1974.
5 Carol L. Shartle. Leader Behavior in jobs. Occupations, 1951, 30, 1654-1666.
6 Gibb, C. A. Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridqe, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954.
7 Bass, Bernard M. Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational Behavior. New York: Harper, 1960.
8 Taylor, Frederick Winslow. Shop Management. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1911. Originally printed in the 1903 in the ASME Proceedings.
9 Taylor, 1911.
10 Taylor, 1911.
11 Taylor, 1911. ,
12 C. Bird. Social Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century, 1940.
13 Ordway Tead and Henry C. Metcalf. Personnel Administration: Its Principles and Practices. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1920.
14 Ordway Tead and Henry C. Metcalf. Personnel Administration: Its Principles and Practice. New York: McGraw Hill, 1926.
15 Ordway Tead. Human Nature and Management: The Application of Psychology to Executive Leadership. New York: McGraw Hill, 1929
16 Chester I. Barnard. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938.
17 Bamard, 1938.
18 Ralph M. Stogdill. Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 1948, 25, 35-71.
19 Ralph M. Stogdill. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of the Theory and Research. New York: Free Press, 1974.
20 Stogdill, 1974.
21 Henri Fayol. Industrial and General Administration [Translation by J. A. Coubrough]. Geneva: International Management Institute, (1929). This is the first English translation of the article and published in book form. There are other translations, the most famous is the 1949 translation by Storrs and titled General and Industrial Management. The French edition is still available.
15
22 James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley. Onward Industry ! New York: Harper & Brothers, 1931. A second edition was titled The Principles of Organization [1939] and a third edition without Reiley was published in 1947. The second and third editions had very little changes from the 1931 edition.
23 R. C. Davis. The Principles of Business Organization and Operation: Columbus, OH: Hedrick, 1934.
24 R. C. Davis. Industrial Organization and Management. New York: Harper and Row, 1940.
25 Ralph C. Davis. The Principles of Business Organization and Operation 4th ed. Columbus, Ohio: Hedrick, 1937. The same quote is found in Industrial Organization and Management [Harper, 1940,
26 Ralph C. Davis. The Fundamentals of Top Management. New York: Harper & Row, 1951.
27 Davis, 1951.
28 L. P. Alford. Principles of Industrial Management. New York: Ronald Press, 1940.
29 Dexter S. Kimball. Principles of Industrial Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1913.
30 Dexter S. Kimball. Principles of Industrial Organization. New York: McGraw Hill, 1913 also see 1939.
31 Harold Koontz and Cyril O’Donnell. Principles of Management: An Analysis of Managerial Functions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955.
32 Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955.
33 Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955.
34 Morris S. Viteles. The Science of Work. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1934.
35 David R. Craig and W. W. Charters. Personal Leadership in Industry. New York: McGraw Hill, 1925, pp. 235-236.
36 Morris S. Viteles. Motivation and Morale in Industry. New York: W. W. Norton Co., 1954.
37 Fritz Roethlisberger. "Some Comments Based on Mr. Roethlisberger’s Interviews with Supervisors" in Data Concerning the Research Group in Supervisory Training Methods, Section 4.1, 1932, Hawthorne Studiers Collection, Harvard University. (See Box 13, folder 4).
38 Roethlisberger.
39 Roethlisberger. 40 Fritz J. Roethlisberger. The Elusive Phenomena. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1977.
41 Rensis Likert. "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes," Archives of Psychology, 1932, 140, 1-55.
42 Rensis Likert. New Patterns of Management. McGraw-Hill, 1961.
43 Rensis Likert. The Human Organization. New York: McGraw Hill, 1967.
44 Rensis Likert and Jane Likert. New Ways of Managing Change. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.
45 Likert and Likert.
16
46 Elliot M. Fox and L. Urwick. Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York: Hippocrene, 1973.
47 Likert and Likert, p. 33.
48 Robert R. Blake. "The Fruits of Professional Interdependence for Enriching a Career" in Management Laureates: A Collection of Autobiographical Essays, Vol. 1, Arthur Bedeian ed. Greenwich, Ct.: JAI Press Inc., 1992, p. 130.
49 Blake, p. 130.
50 Blake, p. 131.
51 Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton. The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1964 (2nd edition 1978 and third edition 1985).
52 Robert R. Blake and Anne A. McCanse. Leadership Dilemmas--Grid Solutions. Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1991.
53 Blake, "The Fruits ...", pp. 132-133.
54 Koontz and O’Donnell, 1955.
55 Kurt Lewin. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. Trans. D. K. Adams and K. E. Zenes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935, p. 29.
56 Fred E. Fiedler. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill 1967.
57 Fred E. Fiedler. "Life in a Pretzel-Shaped Universe" in Management Laureates: A Collection of Autobiographical Essays, Vol. 1. Arthur Bedeian, ed., 1992, pp. 311-312.
58 M. P. Follett. Creative Experience. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1924, pp. 95-96.
59 M. P. Follett, pp. 122-123.
60 Fielder, "Life in..." p. 314.
61 Fielder, "Life in a ..." p. 312.
62 Likert and Likert, 1976.
63 Likert and Likert, 1976.
64 Peter F. Drucker. Management: Task, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: Harper and Row, 1974, p. 463.
65 Drucker. Management, p. 463.
66 Bernard M. Bass and Ralph M. Stogdill. Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. 3rd Edition: New York, Free Press, 1990.
67 Fielder. "Life in a ... "
Editor’s Note: Shortly after the last issue of the Journal went to press, I received word that my good friend Ron Greenwood had succumbed to the cancer he had been fighting for years. I first came to know Dr. Greenwood when he taught a course in my doctoral program a lot of years ago. Through the years, though, he and I have kept in touch and when I came to Flint, Michigan, where he worked and lived--our relationship became even closer. I considered him a mentor and friend ...and he was one of the first to volunteer to help when this Journal was little more than a dream in my mind and heart. He served as contributing editor from the first issue until his recent death. Ron was, to my way of thinking, the consumate teacher and scholar. I learned a lot from him--he will be missed.