Distributed Leadership
Distributed leadership offers an expanded leadership and strategy example for
organizations. Bagwell (2019) stated that distributed leadership offers a way to rethink human
capital through a new leadership perspective of multiple individuals at varying levels. Most of the
work in research literature for distributed leadership takes place in an educational setting.
Grigoropoulos and Gialamas (2018) showed that educators are being challenged to evolve and now
more than ever need to become educator-leaders empowered to take on new leadership roles while
opening new knowledge paths and opportunities.
Distributed leadership is creating a change in education as more teachers are taking on the
role of leadership. Jones and Harvey (2017) showed that as educational institutions experience a
change in their industry, they have found a need for a focus on the work of leadership, which
crosses boundaries, shares knowledge, and recognizes the needs for shared responsibility and
collaboration. The understanding that a distributed leadership leader's actions and behaviors have
implications and impact beyond their role and relationships is important to setting the foundation
for showing the need of an organizational leadership framework. Jones and Harvey (2017) showed
that a distributed leadership approach is inclusive and adaptive, which would lead to the desired
sustainable business results. This same inclusive and adaptive approach offered in the
organizational leadership framework may also lead to desired sustainable business results.
Distributed leadership is another example of change that is occurring with leadership and
is where in research the inspiration is found for the foundation of organizational leadership strategy
through an organizational leadership framework. Lahtero et al. (2019) mentioned that classic
leadership theories themselves emphasize a top-down approach with a focus on leaders to
subordinate communication. Most of the leadership research reflects this approach through its
focus on leadership styles, theories, along with their strengths and opportunities in leading others.
Distributed leadership does not mean however that individual leadership is not essential or does
not need to be a focus. Kilicoglu (2018) stated that the core functions of leadership must be present
to distribute. Therefore, the study of individual leadership and pursuit of improved individual
leadership performance should not go away. Instead, this research challenges that the perception
of the leadership field so it is viewed both as evolving and ever-changing behaviors that is just one
portion of a much broader global perspective representing leadership and leaders as a collective
unit and encapsulated in an organizational leadership framework.
In reviewing the research for distributed leadership, Canterino et al. (2020) referred to it as
plural leadership and referenced that while it has gained some attention in the field of management,
most of the studies focus on it in an educational setting. Rao-Nicholson et al. (2020) described
distributed leadership as a shared-goal and collaborative driven method that allows for the sharing
of leadership across groups and organizations towards achievement of common objectives. This
shared leadership vision applies to the organizational leadership framework as it should reveal
direction applicable to all parts of the organization. Latta (2019) pointed to the three originating
characteristics of distributed leadership as a group or network of individuals demonstrating open
boundaries while distributing expertise across many rather than few. Latta (2019) also described
this in the shorter words of collaborative, collective, and coordinated environments, which all have
the commonality of interdependence and coordination. As successful distributed leadership
frameworks are collaborative, collective, and coordinated with interdependence, so must be the
framework of an organizational leadership framework.
The words used to describe a distributed leadership environment all point to sources outside
of the individual leaders and their ability. Kim et al. (2017) used words such as collective,
distributed, integrative, and interdependent, to describe collaborative leadership while pointing to
these words as needs in a distributed leadership environment. Kim et al. (2017) showed that these
skills are needed because distributed leadership offers the ability for crossboundary change and
coalitions, which require a different skill set compared to that of traditional organizational
leadership in a single system environment. This cross-boundary approach shows that often leaders
in the distributed leadership environment are thinking beyond their own experience to understand
how their role, behaviors, and actions affect others and other parts of the organization.
Distributed leadership is about far more than the individual leader. Chitpin (2020) described
the essence of distributed leadership as separating practicing of leadership from the position of
leadership or focusing on the how of leadership and not the what of leadership. In supporting this
statement, Shava and Tlou (2018) provided a different way to think about distributed leadership
when they referenced to it being a way to think about leadership rather than a technique of
leadership. Shava and Tlou (2018) stated that distributed leadership more accurately reflects
divisions of labor and interdependence, highlighting how an individual's behavior can affect the
organization. This highlighting of how individual behaviors affect each other, and the organization
is important and mirrors the call in this research to also highlight how both individual leadership,
leadership as a group, and the various strategies of an organization affect one another. This does
not eliminate the need for leadership or its understanding of an individualized approach but reflects
the need for the unification of leaders which is learned in part through distributed leadership and
offered through the formation of an organizational leadership strategy found in the organizational
leadership framework.
Research showed that for distributed leadership to be effective, there must be a delicate
balance made in the formation and implementation. Mifsud (2017) showed that not enough
structure could lead to struggles and tensions between various co-leaders and those of different
tiers. Furthermore, Chitpin (2020) stated that if left alone, distributed leadership runs the risk
involved with traditional leadership of becoming autocratic and chaotic, and therefore needs to be
well structured. When it comes to distributed leadership, leaders must align with one another.
Canterino et al. (2020) showed that within distributed leadership, coordination between leaders is
relevant in building shared direction and a thriving environment. Zheng et al. (2019) stated that
successful distributed leadership also requires collaboration at levels. The revelation in research
that shows the distributed leadership environment must coordinated, collaborative, and
crossfunctional is more learning that must thread through an organizational leadership framework.
Latta (2019) showed that interpersonal interaction might not be the defining dimension of
distributed leadership but integration. However, too much structure could result in reduced results
in a distributed leadership environment. Mifsud (2017) showed that if there is too much structure
within distributed leadership, it will turn into a complex system of delegation which leads to no
growth or development of individual leadership and no distributed leadership.
Furthermore, Lahtero et al. (2017) stated that when distributed leadership experiences the
perception of a system of task delegation, interaction performance in leader-follower relationships
decreases.
As previously mentioned, the learnings and research of distributed leadership often takes
place in an educational setting. In this setting, educational institutions move away from traditional
leadership and towards distributed leadership. Bagwell (2019) stated that distributed leadership
moves beyond the narrow view of classic leadership theories with one person, a principle,
responsible for all the leadership, and towards a setting where educational institutions have many
leaders engaging and influencing the teaching and learning process. Canterino et al. (2020)
described distributed leadership in an educational setting as the movement away from leadership
efforts focused from a singular individual to leadership efforts spread across members at all levels
of the educational institution.
Particular attention is paid to what has been learned from this expansion of leadership in
an educational setting. Klein et al. (2018) on the development of teacher followers as teacher
leaders, revealed competing views and varying alignments about the roles of teacher leaders, which
seemed to evolve from different experiences in complex interactions, perceptions, and beliefs. In
this setting there is no leadership framework in place that both parties aligned to prior to the start
of development. Klein et al. (2018) used a distributed leadership framework to guide them in their
study to the conclusion that the focus needs shifted from individual teacher leaders to the context
of the teacher leaders’ work in their research. Research on distributed leadership is not the only
thing lacking a leadership framework as Jones et al. (2012) stated there is a lack of a framework
for effective leadership in higher education. This work reveals that as leadership expands from the
single leader in an educational setting to many, a leadership framework is highly recommended.
Research did reveal four ways in which educational institutions could find improvement
through the building of a distributed leadership environment. The first suggestion by Pingping and
Huang (2019) is to establish a vision that aligns with school characteristics while attracting
teachers that will jointly contribute to the development. Supporting this statement, Canterino et al.
(2020) showed that when it comes to change, individual leaders need complementing views of
multiple leaders, which comes from distributed leadership as it helps build a shared vision and
change orientation. The second suggestion by Pingping and Huang (2019) is to standardize
leadership through alignment of responsibility and role clarity. Alignment and clarity are essential
in distributed leadership. When done well, Rao-Nicholson et al. (2020) shared that distributed
leadership offers an organization to be more ambidextrous and better handle the challenge of
aligning strategy resources and capabilities by focusing on shared goals and responsibilities in
cross-functional environments.
The third suggestion that Pingping and Huang (2019) offered is to value and trust the
performance and opinions of the organization's members to cultivate positive interactions amongst
principals and teachers. Their research showed that the more frequently college presidents
demonstrated distributed leadership behaviors, the more likely teachers would be committed to
their organization and desire to help it achieve its goals. The fourth suggestion that Pingping and
Huang (2019) offered is to assume joint leadership and establish rotational systems for various
duties. To this effect, Bouwmans et al. (2019) stated distributed leadership could not co-exist with
formal leadership as the formal leader would influence the scope of distributed leadership. An
approach such as this, or one similar, could allow for each institution to create its leadership
framework that is most effective for their organizational setting rather than conforming to one that
is an industry-standard and may not comply with their specific needs.
While it is complex to implement distributed leadership, it offers many benefits. Alenezi
(2019) revealed that distributed leadership, when expertly planned out, had high levels of impact
on teachers. One reason for this may be what Rao-Nicholson et al. (2020) showed in that distributed
leadership advances the welfare of employees and allows them to partake in the decision-making
process which enhances engagement and productivity. This increase in employee welfare could
stem from what Daniëls et al. (2019) showed in that with distributed leadership focus on
interactions over actions, it highlights collaboration, shared purpose, and shared ownership. This
reflects a benefit beyond leadership and strategy.
There is benefit under distributed leadership for the organization and its leaders. Canterino
et al. (2020) showed that distributed leadership helps individual leaders focus on the direction for
change and avoid the focus of existing structures and status quo. Along the same lines, Jones et al.
(2012) showed that distributed leadership promoted both engagement and ongoing cross-
functional multi-level leadership teams. Yager et al. (2010) stated that distributed leadership has
the potential to serve educational institutions well through creating collaborative learning,
professional development, and a common culture built on the same language, beliefs, and values
that would benefit the school, professionals, and students alike. These benefits are striking and
something that could be achieved in the business world when applied through the similar workings
of an organizational leadership strategy formed in an organizational leadership framework.
Individual Leadership Styles and Theories
The individual leader is an important part of an organizational leadership framework as
they are the end user of the resource who will still need to navigate their personal leadership
abilities into the integration of the whole. Many resources exist for individual leaders and there
seems to be no end to the expansive field of leadership research styles and theories. Just as
expansive are how leadership itself is defined. Hudson (2020) stated that the definition of
leadership is ever evolving to match the research of leadership. For example, Vecchiotti (2018)
showed that further back in the history of leadership as more women entered the role of leadership,
the definitions morphed from that of authority to one who recognized followers. Vecchiotti (2018)
then showed that leadership definitions transitioned again after a new, younger generation emerged
which now places value in definitions such as collaboration, balance, and feedback. One example
of a formal definition is that in the work of Gandolfi and Stone (2018), which reflected leadership
to be a series of components that contain an individual or individuals with a follower or followers
and actions, goals, and objectives.
In reading the research, it can be challenging to determine sometimes if leadership is a
positive or negative experience. Zhao and Li (2019) showed that leadership as a research topic is
complicated and intimidating, leaving those maneuvering through literature feeling as though it is
chaotic and lacked focus. Just as there are views of opportunities in leadership, there are also views
regarding the value of leadership. Grisaffe et al. (2016) stated that leadership is a critical force in
obtaining desired organizational outcomes through employee performance. Leadership must
constantly change and lead change. Anderson et al. (2017) pointed to the fact that as the world
continues to change, the topic of and approach to leadership must also evolve and change as new
generations enter the workforce.
When it comes to styles and theories, the selection of combinations is endless. For example,
in a paper by Kelly and MacDonald (2019), the researchers studied authoritarian, democratic,
laissez-faire, and bureaucratic. Saeed and Mughal (2019) studied transformational, transactional,
and laissez-faire approach in leadership. GÜmÜsay (2019) studied authentic, ethical, and servant
leadership. Seidel et al. (2019) studied authentic, leader-member-exchange, complexity,
distributed, transformational, servant, and situational leadership. The objective of reviewing
individual leadership strategies and theories in this literature review is to look where leadership
research is most plentiful, and the focus is heaviest, with the individual approach to leadership.
This literature review will look at democratic leadership, autocratic leadership, laissez-faire
leadership, strategic leadership, transformational leadership, transactional leadership, coach-style
leadership, bureaucratic leadership, and servant leadership.
Before reviewing these leadership styles, a history of how literature has arrived at these
styles is beneficial. In the 1960s, Douglas McGregor introduced the theories of motivation known
as Theory X and Theory Y. Şahin et al. (2017) reflected that Theory X style managers believed that
employees must be controlled or threatened into an effort that achieves organizational objectives.
Şahin et al. (2017) continued that Theory Y style managers maintain a more positive view of
employees, believe that they enjoy work responsibility, and take creative actions to maximize their
performance. Not long after this body of work, it became further expanded upon as Theory Z
emerged. Barney (2004) discussed the work of William Ouchi, which reflected on the change in
management from psychology in Theory X and Y to sociology in Theory Z, which provided a new
set of tools that increased the role of others in decisionmaking and other focuses of well-being that
increased both satisfaction and loyalty. Today's leadership theories and styles find many
similarities in these theories of the past.
Democratic Leadership. Research shows that the democratic leadership approach favors
individuals and is often found in political systems. Fiaz et al. (2017) showed the democratic
leadership style to be one that focuses on people with an emphasis on group interaction with whom
they share the leadership functions. Fiaz et al. (2017) also revealed that this style is benevolent and
participative, believing that most people are trustworthy, self-motivated, like responsibility and
challenging work. Saleem et al. (2017) showed that the democratic leadership style allows for
maximum participation of employees in the decision-making process. Drouin et al. (2018) showed
that democratic leaders value their team member's input, which may make their decisions more
useful as they capture a wide array of viewpoints. Along with making more effective decisions,
Buzdar and Fatima (2018) stated that the democratic leader is a more rational approach and is
reason oriented when it comes to accomplishing tasks.
The democratic leadership style showed a positive effect on organizational performance in
research. Imhangbe et al. (2019) on leadership behaviors of principals within the educational
system of Nigeria showed that schools with the best performance often had principals who
exhibited the democratic leadership style. Imhangbe et al. (2019) also revealed that this style had
a significant impact on the working atmosphere and teacher's job performance through building
good morale, team spirit, creating confidence, and practical goal setting. Aligning with these
results, Drouin et al. (2018) showed that teachers preferred this style as it felt they could discuss
issues with their leaders. Saleem et al. (2017) demonstrated that schoolteachers were often more
committed to both their profession and institution when the democratic leadership style is in place
with their leadership.
It is not just teachers and educational systems that is able to enjoy the benefits of the
democratic leadership style. Miloloža (2018) showed that companies who are experiencing
stagnation, small companies, and those oriented towards international markets had a positive
impact when the democratic leadership style is in place. However, the democratic process is not
effective in all organizations. Cunningham et al. (2015) showed that the healthcare industry
preferred strategic and coaching approaches to leadership over a democratic approach. Lojpur et
al. (2015) showed that in substantial organizations, the democratic leadership style might not be as
present as these organizations exhibit more control, rules, and procedures. Aside from
organizations, Cunningham et al. (2015) also revealed that males tend to favor the democratic
approach while women favored a strategic approach.
Cunningham et al. (2015) showed that there is a disadvantage to the democratic approach
as it may take additional time for the leader to make their decision while leaders consider the input
from his or her team members. Nagendra and Farooqui (2016) agreed with this approach as their
work showed that not only does the democratic approach bog down the decision-making process,
it also produces workable results that often require an enormous amount of effort. Nagendra and
Farooqui (2016) also showed that due to the democratic leadership decentralized decision-making
process, the chances for poor decision-making and weak execution increase as often, everybody
involved has an equal stake and shared level of expertise. This decentralized decision-making
process is the antithesis of an organizational leadership framework as it leaves strategy and action
to the interpretation of the individual rather than the individuals leading through the synthesized
approach interpreted by the organization. The shifting focus of leadership research from
individualized to a collective unit cannot be about leaders leading leaders.
Autocratic Leadership. Lin et al. (2019) described autocratic leadership as
decisionmaking entirely alone, by a singular leader. The environments in which the autocratic
leadership style appears varied across leadership. Venter and Farrington (2016) showed that the
autocratic leadership environment often appears in small business environments like the family-
owned business where the business is still within the first generation. Venter and Farrington (2016)
also revealed that this is not the preferred style of leadership within that type of business
environment. In other environments, however, autocratic leadership is a more natural way of life.
In a study by Truong and Hallinger’s (2017) school leadership in Vietnam, three of their cases
showed that principals used autocratic leadership to create both control and harmony in a culture
or environment that tended to adopt naturally to this style. This is the environment that many
educational institutions are moving away from in favor of a more distributed leadership process.
Chishty-Mujahid (2016) showed that this leadership style is quite prevalent in any highly
competitive area of business.
Research also reflects other positive attributes of autocratic leadership. Drouin et al. (2018)
showed that the autocratic leadership style might be useful where a quick decision occurs, or a
project is low risk. Bojadjiev et al. (2015) showed that the autocratic leadership style could be of
value when a company is in the early stages of growth or experiencing a crisis. Loiselle (2018)
supported the view of this style in the face of a crisis stating that an autocratic leader may be most
able to act decisively in that type of situation. A knowledgeable or experienced leader may best fill
this role as Chishty-Mujahid (2016) showed that one could expect a well-informed autocratic
leader to make decisions rapidly.
In continuing with the potential upside to autocratic leadership, some may prefer this type
of leadership as it shifts all the responsibility and power to the leader. Harms et al. (2018) showed
that the autocratic leader often takes complete responsibility for their employees. De Hoogh et al.
(2015) showed that autocratic leadership could also benefit those who enjoy a structured, orderly
environment that provides direction and clarity. This statement is supported by Janićijević (2017),
who revealed that the autocratic leaders control their environment through direct supervision. This
example also seems to sometime be of benefit in situations or organizations, as McVicar (2015)
stated that while research shows the style to be less creative, it also shows to be more productive.
The autocratic leadership style also faces much criticism. In research, the autocratic leader
is focused on power and control to accomplish his or her objectives. Hentschel et al.
(2018) revealed that autocratic leaders display behaviors that exhibit dominance and control.
Janićijević (2017) stated that these types of leaders make all the decisions in the organization.
Ritzenhöfer et al. (2019) showed that autocratic leaders control both decisions and direction of
group goals. Fiaz et al. (2017) described the autocratic leader as placing more focus on
performance and less focus on people.
Research reflects upon the many other negative consequences of the autocratic leadership
style. De Hoogh et al. (2015) showed that one such negative consequence of autocratic leadership
is that it limits decision-making for subordinates, which can leave them feeling undervalued or
mistreated, resulting in negative team performance. This theme continued in the research by Lin
et al. (2019), which showed that the autocratic leadership style lessens motivation, purpose, and
value of an employee who can be left feeling treated and evaluated unfairly. Harms et al. (2018)
showed that the autocratic leadership style is often associated with failure, with the leader often
making all the decisions and expecting unquestioning obedience of their employees. Autocratic
leadership is the perfect example of siloed leadership in which those under the autocratic leader
experiences that leader’s sole interpretation of the organization direction which lacks coordination
and collaboration with all working parts of the organization that would be found in an
organizational leadership framework.
Laissez-Faire Leadership. The laissez-faire leadership style in the research reflected a
hands-off approach. Zareen et al. (2015) also showed that this type of leader provides complete
freedom to their employees but at the cost of them having no guidance from their leader. Bambale
et al. (2017) showed that the autonomy of a laissez-faire leader provides leads to increased job
satisfaction and productivity. Rao-Nicholson et al. (2016) showed that autonomy could improve
through this leadership style. Zaman et al. (2017) continued that the perceived freedom and
autonomy from this type of leadership style also creates in the employee mind an understanding
of improved independent decision-making.
Another positive outlook is that the leader knowingly and purposefully selects the
laissezfaire leadership style. In this scenario, this type of leader is allowing employees to make the
most of their business decisions as they believe they excel most when they are left alone to address
their work obligations in their way (AAPL Staff, 2019). The research of Uzunsaf Yamak and
Zihni Eyüpoğlu (2018) showed that the laissez-faire leader has trust and belief in his or her staff.
Some employees may welcome this trust. Zaman et al. (2017) showed that in the laissez-faire
environment might even form better relationships with other employees.
The laissez-faire leader may, along with their employees, strengthen their organization.
Zaman et al. (2017) stated that while this leadership style may not be appropriate in an organization
that must track employee's goals and activities for success, the laissez-faire approach may work
well in an educational or academic setting. In a study of school principals by Buzdar and Fatima
(2018), the researchers showed that while principals with a laissez-faire approach have a low level
of rational thinking, they score high when it comes to experiential thinking. These leaders are often
known to be flexible. Fiaz et al. (2017) showed that the laissezfaire leader is accessible and works
with any structure without any suggestions or criticism. Uzunsaf Yamak and Zihni Eyüpoğlu
(2018) showed that this leadership style works best in collectivistic cultures such as Islamic,
Turkish Cypriots, and Turkish national cultures.
Some do not recognize the laissez-faire leadership style as leadership, while others
recognize it as lacking leadership. George et al. (2017) recognized the fact that some may not
recognize laissez-faire to be leadership. Bligh et al. (2018) best-described laissez-faire as the
absence of leadership. This feeling of absence may stem from what it is the laissez-faire leader
does not do for its employees. Buzdar and Fatima (2018) stated that the laissez-faire leader avoids
making decisions and providing direction to his or her employees. Zareen et al. (2015) showed that
the laissez-faire leader would delegate all decision-making to his or her followers in a manner that
is incomplete disregard to their supervisory duties. DeLotell and Cates (2016) used the word
“indifferent” to describe the laissez-faire leader.
Based on research, the laissez-faire leader does not often bring about positive results within
their organization. Bligh et al. (2018) showed that the laissez-faire leadership style has adverse
effects on employee learning and would be detrimental to any organization that would rely on
continuous learning as part of remaining competitive. Aside from employee learning, Kanwal et
al. (2019) revealed that a laissez-faire leadership environment is known to create feelings of stress
and isolation amongst employees in the work environment. George et al. (2017) showed that
through the laissez-faire leader’s avoidance also brings about high levels of burn out amongst
employees. This isolation and burn out may cause loyalty issues with employees and their
organization. DeLotell and Cates (2016) showed that the laissez-faire approach is not known to
drive organizational commitment from its employees.
Research shows that there are many adverse effects on employees when exposed to a
laissez-faire leadership environment. Kanwal et al. (2019) also showed that this type of leadership
approach is known to create ambiguity amongst employees. This ambiguity may stem from what
Imhangbe et al. (2019) showed in their research that the laissez-faire leadership style offers no
attempt to motivate or recognize the needs of employees while also creating delays in the decision-
making process. Failing to recognize the needs of employees can bring about many opportunities.
van Prooijen and de Vries (2016) showed that the laissez-faire environment could create
insecurities and even thoughts of conspiracy theories amongst employees that their leader is part
of a larger secret plan of the organization, designed to do them wrong. Ågotnes et al. (2018) showed
that the laissez-faire leadership environment is also known as a facilitator in workplace conflict
and bullying. Ågotnes et al. (2018) also showed that the laissez-faire leader might be viewed as a
form of passive-aggressive when leading, which causes emotional exhaustion and reduced job
satisfaction. The laissez-faire leadership approach may be the most dangerous of all in current
business environments as it creates isolation and ambiguity in an environment where this research
has shown these environments are already full of isolation and ambiguity at an organizational level.
With an organizational leadership strategy formed through an organizational leadership framework
ambiguity can be avoided.
Strategic Leadership. The research revealed that strategic leadership is for the few, those
in top management, like the chief executive officer of an organization. Meuser et al. (2016)
described strategic leadership as a leader's ability to anticipate and think strategy while working
with others to create change. Meuser et al. (2016) continued that strategic leadership is often found
in top management levels or leaders of the organization rather than leaders in the organization. In
support of this view, leaders of an organization, Georgakakis et al. (2017) showed that the chief
executive officer is the most central strategic leader with the ability to form both the leadership
team and their behavioral processes. This set up may not be the case in all situations. Simsek et al.
(2015) supported the view of the chief executive officer as the central strategic leader in large firms
but offered that this view may differ in new emerging firms with fewer hierarchical levels and
more substantial entrepreneurial presence.
Strategic leadership takes a more global view or approach to leadership. Shao (2019)
described strategic leadership theory as forming a future vision and communicating it to employees
in a stimulating, motivating, and supportive fashion. This process is not an easy task, as Keeton
(2018) showed that strategic leadership is challenging as it requires motivation through a tangible
vision grounded in values from the organizational culture. Keeton (2018) went on to show that this
task is difficult for the strategic leader to accomplish as they are more separated from the workforce
and therefore need to be influential to remove the risk of being untrustworthy or disruptive to the
workforce. Strategic leadership and the strategic leaders of an organization could use an
organizational leadership framework, created from the vision, mission, and values of the
organization, as a tool to proactively create a culture and align strategic leaders all driving the same
principles throughout the organization.
Top leaders in an organization who practice strategic leadership, such as the CEO, take on
a great deal of responsibility. Shao (2019) showed that strategic leadership theory reflects that the
top manager's demographics and leadership are essential in strategy formation and implementation.
Tang et al. (2016) cautioned that due to the centrality of the chief executive officer in strategic
leadership, there should be an awareness of risk-taking due to overconfidence of the individual
filling that role, especially those who serve as founding chief executive officer. Campos-García
and Zúñiga-Vicente (2019) showed that strategic leadership perspectives could cause leaders to be
negatively perceived by an employee due to more passive and less participative attitudes. However,
research reflected that this risk should be low as Birasnav and Bienstock (2019) stated that they
consider both transformational and transactional leadership as characteristics of strategic
leadership. Birasnav and Bienstock (2019) showed that the promotion of a trust climate in
transformational leaders and the promotion of motivation in transactional leaders work well in
serving the strategic leadership role. These top strategic leaders are key to the formation of an
organizational leadership strategy through the organizational leadership framework.
Transformational Leadership. The transformational leadership style has a plethora of
literature within the research community. Majeed et al. (2019) revealed that transformational
leadership had become the highest form or research in literature. Ei Toufaili (2018) showed that
transformational leadership to be first introduced by James MacGregor Burns in 1978 through his
research on political leaders. Ei Toufaili (2018) continued that this original work showed
transformational leaders see an objective, discover the motivation of subordinates, and desires to
meet those needs, which creates a mutual relationship where those subordinates turn into leaders,
and the leaders turn into moral agents. Alqatawenh (2018) showed that the transformational leader
practices four components of leadership: influence to increase loyalty, inspiration to create a vision,
intellectual stimulation to create innovation, and empowerment to create authority. Expanding
further upon these four components, Ohunakin et al. (2019) showed that the transformational
leader embraces idealized influence through high moral standards, inspirational motivation
through communicating an exciting vision of the future, individualized considerations through
encouraging creative thinking beyond the status quo, and intellectual stimulation through
considering their employee's ability, needs, and aspirations
The first of the four components practiced by a transformational leader is using influence
to increase a follower’s loyalty. Kammerhoff et al. (2019) supported this when it showed that
transformational leadership helped drive commitment in an organization. Commitment can arise
through the spirit of the workplace. Majeed et al. (2019) showed that transformational leadership
could increase spirit in the workplace when partnered with emotional intelligence. The second
component practiced by a transformational leader is using inspiration to create a compelling vision
of the future. A compelling vision can increase motivation and drive results within an organization.
Ghani et al. (2018) described transformational leadership as a future-oriented approach where
leaders motivate employees to achieve organizational goals beyond expectations. This
environment may arise through the leader-follower connection. Long et al. (2016) showed that
transformational leadership enhances emotional ties between leaders and followers. Furthermore,
Ahmad and Saad (2020) showed that the transformational leader could touch the hearts of their
employees.
The third component practiced by a transformational leader is intellectual stimulation to
increase creativity and innovation within an organization. Afsar et al. (2019) stated that
transformational leadership improves employee adaptability and innovation. Ali et al. (2019) stated
that a transformational leadership style is a practical approach in which leaders create positive
change among their followers and acting in the interest of the group. Nging and Yazdanifard (2015)
supported this when it showed that the transformational leadership style is essential to the
implementation of successful change. Aponte (2018) showed that the transformational leader
shows up well in both times of change and times of distress. The fourth and final component
practiced by a transformational leader is using empowerment to create authority. Alqatawenh
(2018) showed that transformational leadership has a positive influence on workplace
empowerment and job satisfaction. This information reflects that leader should understand
empowerment's connection to job satisfaction. Another approach to empowerment is autonomy.
Ahmad et al. (2017) showed that transformational leaders provide employees autonomy to improve
their performance and overcome problems encountered in routine activities. Long et al. (2016)
showed that transformational leaders provide employees a way to critically thinking.
The transformational leadership approach offers applications in a variety of leadership and
organizational settings. Ohunakin et al. (2019) showed that the transformational approach is the
most prevalent for understanding both individuals, groups, and organizational effectiveness within
an organization. Ali et al. (2019) stated that the transformational leadership style offers leaders in
the settings of higher education a greater chance of success in facing the challenges and
complications of the modern world. According to Ahmad and Saad (2020), transformational
leaders can better fill highly demanding roles within an organization. Supporting this statement,
Curtis et al. (2017) showed that the transformational leader is high in rational thinking and
behavioral coping. Based on research, females do this better. Ghani et al. (2018) revealed that due
in part to its interactive style, female leaders prove to be better equipped to utilize the
transformational leadership style. Hentschel et al. (2018) showed that because women do
everything right in transformational leadership and men had lower expectations of the behaviors
involved, when they did exhibit strong transformational leadership, they were more likely to be
promoted for it over women.
While highly regarded, transformational leadership is not without its opportunities.
Almandeel (2017) showed that employees who are high in neuroticism, those who may have high
anxiety, depression, will not respond well to transformational leadership. Supporting this
statement, Curtis et al. (2017) showed that there is not much correlation between transformational
leadership and emotional coping. Kassotaki (2019) showed that transformational leadership is not
as impactful for short-term results but is better at effecting performance over more extended
periods. There are a few more areas as well, where transformational leadership has not been
effective. Tintoré (2019) showed the criticism of transformational leadership as charismatic.
Mozammel and Haan (2016) showed in their study of transformational leadership's impact on the
banking sector in Bangladesh that transformational leadership does not affect or ensure employee
engagement. The transformational leader begins with an objective to create influence, inspiration,
intellectual stimulation, and empowerment amongst followers yet not all transformational leaders
may interpret or have equally effective perceptions of how the organization desires to achieve
results.
Transactional Leadership. Transactional leadership seems to focus on action. Long et al.
(2016) showed that transactional leadership is task-oriented rather than people-oriented. Zheng et
al. (2019) showed that transactional leadership is two dimensional based on contingent rewards
and management-by-exception. Ghani et al. (2018) showed that transactional leadership, which is
also known as managerial leadership, places a focus on responsibility such as administration and
group performance while rewarding performers and punishing failure. Hansen and Pihl-Thingvad
(2019) referred to this approach as a focus on exchange-oriented behaviors. Within the two
dimensions, many researchers went further in-depth regarding each. For example, exploring more
of the reward side, Hansen and Pihl-Thingvad (2019) showed that transactional leadership focuses
on the three dimensions of verbal rewards, material rewards, and contingent sanctions. In the
management-by-exception side, Mgeni and Nayak (2016) showed that transactional leadership is
a style in which the leaders set of behaviors focuses on implementing strategy, improving
hierarchical structure, rewarding performance, and correcting mistakes to increase organizational
performance. Berraies and Zine El Abidine (2019) showed that transactional leadership foundation
is on control and authority.
The transactional leader is focused. Zareen et al. (2015) reflected those transactional leaders
focus on the characteristics of contingent rewards, active management by exception, and passive
management by exception. Regarding contingent rewards, Saeed and Mughal (2019) described
transactional leadership as a leader providing to an employee some benefit or reward for task
completion. Explaining in a bit more detail, Garcia and Russo (2020) showed that transactional
leaders attempt to engage employees through material rewards that cause those employees to repeat
behaviors needed to receive rewards. In regards to management by exception, Kark et al. (2018)
showed that under active management by exception the leaders take counter-active actions when
errors occur while monitoring behavior and under passive management by exception the leader
only corrects action when he or she is made aware of the need.
Research shows there are many downsides to transactional leadership. Regarding the
leaders themselves, Tintoré (2019) stated that transactional leaders focus on promoting their
selfinterests. DeLotell and Cates (2016) showed that transactional leaders are not successful in
driving organizational commitment. This lack of commitment could stem from the fact that Kanwal
et al. (2019) showed that the transactional leader does not pay attention to the emotional needs the
employee, which sacrifices their well-being. Khan et al. (2018) showed that this leadership
behavior does not allow for employees to engage beyond their roles or think critically about the
organization and its goals.
Even though research shows that transactional leadership is reward focused for obtaining
goals and objectives, Brahim et al. (2015) showed that with how transactional leaders lead,
employees might tend to achieve the minimum expectations to achieve rewards and avoid
penalties. Kark et al. (2018) showed that transactional leadership elicits a prevention focus rather
than promotion focuses from their employees. Mgeni and Nayak (2016) showed that transactional
leadership lacks innovation as it does not allow for flexibility within an organization.
Advantages abound though in research with transactional leadership. For example, the
research by Skudienė et al. (2018) contradicted previous research and showed that transactional
leadership has a positive effect on workplace innovation behavior. Skudienė et al. (2018) continued
that it is the contingent reward focus that drives employees towards being an innovation to obtain
such a reward. Garcia and Russo (2020) showed that transactional leadership is positively related
to the impact it has on team performance. Zareen et al. (2015) showed that transactional leadership
could have a substantial impact on employee motivation.
Transactional leadership can also do very well in specific settings. Ghani et al. (2018)
showed that transactional leadership is more suited for the narrow focus of crisis management and
dealing with issues in an organization. Vuković et al. (2018) showed that transactional leadership
is suitable for both parties when short-term goals are the focus. Kassotaki (2019) showed that, at
the time, top management would use transactional leadership due to constraints within the
organization. Khan et al. (2018) showed that transactional leadership occurs when an organization
is stable, and they are trying to maintain the status quo. When it comes to settings that employees
need, Kassotaki (2019) also showed that in an organizational setting where employees demand
secure communication, direction, and specified goals, the transactional leadership style would do
well. Berraies and Zine El Abidine (2019) also showed that the transactional leaders focus is strong
in clarity, making sure that employees know expectations but at the loss of creative thinking. Again,
this leadership style focuses on objectives where other leaders may not interpret or have equally
effective perceptions of how the organization desires to achieve results.
Coach-Style Leadership. Not much research exists on the coach-style leadership
approach. To find a decent amount of information, there is a need to dig back a little further in
history. Berg and Karlsen (2016) described coaching leadership as the facilitation of an individual's
learning and development to increase or maximize their performance. In the coachstyle experience,
Hicks and McCracken (2013) stated that the approach is one that alters perceptions and behavioral
patterns to increase effectiveness. Milner et al. (2018) reflected that this is accomplished using
collaboration to increase the effectiveness of employees. Coachingstyle leaders build collaboration
through what Kasapoglu (2014) stated as creating dialogue that allows employees to determine
their own long-term goals. Cunningham et al. (2015) supported this, showing that a coach helps to
build self-awareness and confidence by asking probing questions and providing advice.
The coach-style leadership approach, as reflected by Harper (2012), is very influential and
useful as it utilizes multiple leadership approaches to transform the leadership skills of others. This
influence may come from what Milner et al. (2018) stated that the coach approach uses trust and
respect to build empowerment that increases performance. Berg and Karlsen (2016) showed that
this is a long-term approach with the end goal of building long-lasting personal strengths
performance. This relationship work is not performed by only the leader.
Kasapoglu (2014) stated that the coach-style leaders support the growth of employees by helping
them to identify and work in their areas of strengths and weaknesses. The employee, due in part to
their involvement, is shown by Hicks and McCracken (2013) to change, which at the heart of the
leadership approach, is more embraced by leaders who experience the collaborative process of
coaching leadership.
There were many benefits shown to come from the coach-style leadership approach. Dello
Russo et al. (2017) showed that coaching leaders are perceived as less manipulative when
providing performance ratings. Dello Russo et al. (2017) also showed that coaching leaders pay
close attention to the needs of their employees to build a more effective alliance. Grant et al. (2010)
revealed that those who experienced coaching leadership were more likely to attain their goals.
Grant et al. (2010) also suggested that this type of development has the potential to reach far
beyond the corporate structure, affecting the well-being of society positively. The objective of an
organizational leadership framework is to reduce current ambiguity in business for the coachstyle
leader creating a common behavioral compass in which to facilitate learning and growth.
Bureaucratic Leadership. Like coach-style leadership, bureaucratic leadership has a
reduced presence in recent research. Researching the term results in work more towards the realm
of politics. Cunningham et al. (2015) showed that the bureaucratic leader focuses on policies and
procedures to lead their team, often in fear of failure or deviation from the organization's
guidelines. Janićijević (2017) stated that the bureaucratic leaders and cultures occur in large,
mature companies and public administrations. Nwibere (2013) stated that a bureaucratic leadership
culture is one that values formality, rules, operating procedures, and a hierarchy. Nwibere (2013)
went on to show that the bureaucratic culture is one that values stability and is not significant when
it comes to organizational success. This stability is reflected by Bush (2014), who showed that
bureaucratic leadership is one that limits flexibility, influence, and decision-making, which stifles
innovation and creativity. Mired in negativity, the limited recent research on the bureaucratic
leadership approach suggested a movement away from it towards other leadership options.
Servant Leadership. In comparison to the leadership styles represented in this literature
review, servant leadership by far had the largest selection of current research. Jeyaraj and
Gandolfi (2019) pointed to the origin of current research stemming from the work of Greenleaf’s
The Servant as Leader. Greenleaf (1977) pointed to the idea stemming from the reading of Hesse’s
Journey to the East as the inspiration for servant leadership. Jeyaraj and Gandolfi (2019) showed
that servant leadership, or at least influences of it, could be found in areas of studies from ancient
monarchies to the Zhou Dynasty, Bedouin-Arab culture, and Confucius. Bavik (2020) pointed to
the observation that servant leadership is often affiliated or associated with religious figures such
as Jesus Christ, Mother Theresa, and Gandhi. This alignment reflects, at times, a contrary
viewpoint. Locke (2019) suggested using caution in this affiliation of Jesus Christ and Christianity,
for example, pointing to it as being potentially irresponsible and distracting to both Christianity
and servant leadership theory.
The servant-leader starts differently than other leadership. Wang, Meng, et al. (2019)
pointed to the servant leader as one who desired first to serve others and, through this desire, is
aspired to lead. Greenleaf (1977) stated that a typical individual who prioritizes the role of
leadership first, have a drive for power or acquisition of material possessions. Gandolfi and Stone
(2018) pointed out that 10 characteristics make up a servant leader: listening, empathy, healing,
awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of
people, and building of community. From these 10 characteristics, Heyler and Martin (2018)
showed that a servant leader could be determined to be successful if their employees are more
likely to be those who have developed into their true potential, seeing their careers possibilities
expand while becoming healthier, wiser, freer, and more autonomous.
Employees of servant leaders experience many benefits from the experience. A study by
Wang, Yu, et al. (2019) showed that servant leadership has a positive effect on career skills, which
promote an employee's career success. Wang, Yu, et al. (2019) showed that this success comes
from the servant leader who fosters growth and development in employees while also positively
influencing psychological and behavioral outcomes. Jaramillo et al. (2015) revealed that servant
leadership leads to an employee-friendly work environment through its focus on the strengths of
the individual over critical evaluation. Supporting this statement, Yang et al. (2019) showed that
servant leaders encourage their employees while supporting them through empowerment and
stimulating them to their full potential. In the research by McCune Stein and Ai Min (2019), the
servant leader reflects an ability to treat their employees ethically. Liu (2019) showed that servant
leadership often creates a safer emotional environment through acceptance, humility, and a focus
on the employee’s emotional well-being.
All of this focus from the servant leader on their employees provide great value and benefit
to the employee's organization. Heyler and Martin (2018) showed that the strong servant leader
could focus on the present while tying that to the broader context of the situation and its future,
making the organization better because of their efforts. It should be noted that this research has
reflected that the broader context in organizations are often mired in ambiguity. Kiker et al. (2019)
showed that half of the companies of Fortunes “Best Places to Work” reveal regular practices
around servant leadership. This could be attributed to the fact that servant leaders act as a
bodyguard, reducing the stressors caused by organizational ambiguity which remains present.
Rivkin et al. (2014) showed that servant leadership has a positive relationship
