Theories of Leadership
Liberty University
AVIA 245 Aviation Leadership
Professor: Jim Molloy
2022
Theories of Leadership:
During the 20th Century, there has been a great interest in research on leadership. Early leadership
theories focused on what qualities distinguished between leaders and followers (i.e., traits), while
subsequent theories looked at other variables such as behavioural and situational factors and skill levels.
While many different leadership theories have emerged, most can be classified as one of eight
major types:
1. “Great Man” Theories:
Great man theories assume that the Leaders are born and not made. Great leaders will arise when
there is a great need, like Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi, Eisenhower, and Winston Churchill.
These theories often portray great leaders as heroic, mythic and destined to rise to leadership when
needed. The term “Great Man” was used because, at the time, leadership was thought of primarily as a
male quality, especially in terms of military leadership. Early research on leadership was based on the
study of people who were already great leaders. These people were often from the aristocracy, as few
from lower classes had the opportunity to lead. Gender issues were not on the table when the ‘Great
Man’ theory was proposed because most leaders were male.
2. Trait Theories:
Similar in some ways to “Great Man” theories, trait theories assume that People are born with
inherited qualities and traits that make them better suited to leadership. Some traits are particularly
suited to leadership. Trait theories often identify particular personality or behavioral characteristics
shared by leaders. People who make good leaders have the right (or sufficient) combination of traits.
Early research on leadership was based on finding the traits which differentiated leaders from non-
leaders. If we look at Ratan Tata of Tata Sons, Kumar Mangalam Birla of Aditya Birla Group, Azim Premji
of Wipro, Kamath of Infosys, Anand Mahindra of Mahindra and Mahindra, all these leaders possess
some common traits.
The traits are vision, self confidence, simplicity, integrity, and adherence to values. Traits are
matched by skills. There have been many different studies of leadership traits and they agree only in the
general saintly qualities needed to be a leader.
Perhaps a day may come when the researchers will find a ‘leadership gene’. But traits alone do not
explain leadership clearly as situational factors are ignored.
3. Behavioral Theories:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Behavioural theories of leadership are based upon the beliefs that great leaders are made, not born
(a big leap from Trait Theory) and exhibit something unique in their behaviour. Behavioural theories of
leadership do not seek inborn traits or capabilities. Rather, they look at what leaders actually do, like
democratically or autocratically. People can learn to become leaders through learning and observation.
This is the crux behind leadership development programmes.
Three important researches on behavioural theories need mention – University of Iowa studies by
Kurt Lewin (democratic leadership style can contribute good and high quality of work), Ohio State
University Studies by Edwin A. Fleishman in 1945(a leader high on initiating structure – defines his own
and subordinates’ roles to achieve goals; and consideration- mutual trust and respect for employees’
ideas and feelings); and University of Michigan Studies by Renesis Likert (identified two types of
leadership behaviour – job- centred behaviour and employee-centred behaviour and later on Black and
Mouton developed management grid).
4. Contingency and Situational Theories:
During researches it has been realised that leadership phenomenon is more than isolating a few
traits or behaviours. According to contingency theory, no leadership style is best in all situations. Success
depends upon a number of variables, including the leadership style, capabilities and behaviour of the
followers and other situational factors. It means a leadership style that is effective in some situations
may not be successful in others. This is the reason that some leaders who seem to have the ‘Midas
touch’ in one situation suddenly appear to be very unsuccessful in another situation. Situational theory
proposes that the best action of the leader depends on a range of situational factors. An effective leader
does not just fall into a single preferred style, different are the situations different are the styles of
decision-making. Factors that affect situational decisions include motivation and capability of followers.
Contingency theory is similar to situational theory. Both believe in that there is no one right way.
But they differ as the situational theory tends to focus more on the behaviours adopted by the leader,
given situational factors (often about follower behaviour), whereas the contingency theory takes a
broader view that includes contingent factors about leader capability and other variables within the
situation.
In case of situational theory the leaders’ perception of the follower and the situation will affect
what they do rather than the truth of the situation. The leader’s perception of themselves and other
factors such as stress and mood will also modify the leaders’ behaviour.
Four important approaches in isolating key situational variables have been very important. These
studies include – Fiedler’s Contingency Model (leadership effectiveness depends on the proper match
between the leader’s style and the degree to which situation gives control to the leader); Robert House’
Path-goal theory (leader’s job is to assist followers to attain their goals and to provide necessary support
and direction to ensure compatibility of their goals with that of the organisation – like E. Sreedharan, of
Delhi Metro); Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton’s leader-participation model(leader can adapt his style to
different situation); and Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard’s Situational Leadership (a leader must
assess the maturity levels of followers to determine which combination of leader behaviours to use in a
given situation.
Types of Leadership:
1. Bureaucratic Leadership:
Bureaucratic leadership follows a close set of standards. Everything is done in an exact, specific way
to ensure safety and/or accuracy. One will often find this leadership role in a situation where the work
environment is dangerous and specific sets of procedures are necessary to ensure safety.
A natural bureaucratic leader will tend to create detailed instructions for other members of a
group. The bureaucratic leadership style is based on following normative rules and adhering to lines of
authority
2. Charismatic leadership:
“Charismatic leadership emphasises primarily the magnetic personality and behaviour of leaders
and their effects on followers, organizations, and society. Sociologists, political historians, and political
scientists have widely accepted the theory of charismatic leadership originally advanced by Weber
(1947). Charisma is regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual
concerned is treated as a leader. Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Lai Bahadur
Shashtri, and Mother Teresa were charismatic leaders. Charismatic leaders inspire via persona,
reputation, and communications and also show courage, competence, and idealistic vision.
Late President John F Kennedy and his look-alike Fmr. President Bill Clinton have often been called
“The most charismatic leaders of 20th century” Another good example would be Adolf Hitler, who rose
from a “Bohemian corporal” to “Herr Fuhrer” due to his ability to captivate people into following him.
3. Visionary Leadership:
A visionary leader perceives challenges and growth opportunities before they happen, positioning
people to produce extraordinary results that make real contributions to life. Some of the visionary
leaders include – Dalai Lama (for his ability to incorporate new ideas into his traditional framework while
being a messenger for peace and enlightenment for the world), Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela
(for his courage and conviction and perseverance against all odds to free and unite people for justice),
and President Obama (for his ability to galvanize and inspire people with the vision that we can
transform our consciousness & world). The list is endless.
4. Strategic Leadership:
Strategic leadership refers to a manger’s potential to express a strategic vision for the organization,
and to motivate and persuade others to acquire that vision. Strategic leadership can also be defined as
utilizing strategy in the management of employees. It is the potential to influence organizational
members and to execute organizational change. Strategic leaders create organizational structure,
allocate resources and express strategic vision. Thus, this type of leadership relates to the role of top
management. Strategic leaders work in an ambiguous environment on very difficult issues that influence
and are influenced by occasions and organizations external to their own. The main objective of strategic
leadership is strategic productivity. Another aim of strategic leadership is to develop an environment in
which employees forecast the organization’s needs in context of their own job. Strategic leaders
encourage the employees in an organization to follow their own ideas.
Strategic leaders make greater use of reward and incentive system for encouraging productive and
quality employees to show much better performance for their organization. Functional strategic
leadership is about inventiveness, perception, and planning to assist an individual in realizing his
objectives and goals.
5. Servant leadership:
The term “Servant Leadership” was coined by Robert K. Greenleaf in The Servant as Leader, an
essay that he first published in 1970. Leaders have a responsibility towards society and those who are
disadvantaged. People who want to help others best do this by leading them. The servant-leader is
servant first and leader next. The servant leader serves others, rather than others serving the leader.
Serving others thus comes by helping them to achieve and improve. Famous examples of servant leaders
include George Washington (America), Gandhi (India), and Cesar Chavez (Venezuela).
6. Substitutes for Leadership:
The term has been brought to light by Kerr and Jermier in 1978. According to them there are
aspects of the work setting and the people involved that can reduce the need for a leader’s personal
involvement, because leadership is already provided from within. The term substitutes mean the
situation where leader behaviours are replaced by characteristics of subordinates, the task at hand, and
the organisation.
7. Transactional and Transformational Leadership:
Transactional leadership is based upon the assumptions that people are motivated by reward and
punishment (Rational Man), social systems work best with a clear chain of command, when people have
agreed to do a job, a part of the deal is that they cede all authority to their manager, and the basic
purpose of a subordinate is to do what their manager tells them to do.
The style of a transactional leader is that he works through creating clear structures whereby it is
made clear as to what is required of subordinates and the rewards that they get for following orders.
Punishments are not always mentioned, but they are also well- understood and formal systems of
discipline are usually in place. To begin with, Transactional Leadership negotiates the contract whereby
the subordinate is given a salary and other benefits, and the company gets authority over the
subordinate.
While the leader allocates work to a subordinate, they are considered to be fully responsible for it,
whether or not they have the resources or capability to carry it out. When things go wrong, then the
subordinate is considered to be personally at fault, and is punished for their failure (just as they are
rewarded for succeeding). The leader often uses management by exception, working on the principle
that if something is operating to defined (and hence expected) performance then it does not need
attention. Exceptions to expectation require praise and reward for exceeding expectation, whilst some
kind of corrective action is applied for performance below expectation. In management versus
leadership spectrum, it is more towards the management end. Transactional leadership is based in
contingency, in that reward or punishment is contingent upon performance.
Transactional Leadership is still a popular approach with many managers, despite its limitation of
ignoring complex emotional factors and social values. When the demand for a skill outstrips the supply,
then Transactional Leadership often is insufficient. Transformational leadership is the answer. It
“recognizes and exploits an existing need or demand of a potential follower… (And) looks for potential
motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower”.
Transformational leadership is based upon the assumptions that people will follow a person who
inspires them, a person with vision and passion can achieve great things, and the way to get things done
is by injecting enthusiasm and energy.
These leaders are focused on the performance of group members, but also want each person to
fulfil his or her potential. Leaders with this style often have high ethical and moral standards.
Transformational Leadership starts with the development of a vision. This vision may be developed
by the leader, by the senior team or may emerge from a broad series of discussions. The next step is to
constantly sell the vision. While doing so, he must create trust and personal integrity. Along with selling,
the leader finds the way forward.And finally, transformation leaders remain upfront and central during
the action and visible – constantly doing the rounds, listening, soothing and enthusing. Transformational
Leader seeks to infect and reinfect their followers with a high level of commitment to the vision. They
are people- oriented and believe that success comes first and last through deep and sustained
commitment. Transformational Leaders are often charismatic, but are not as narcissistic as pure
Charismatic Leaders, who succeed through a belief in themselves rather than a belief in others.
Whilst the Transformational Leader seeks overtly to transform the organization, there is also a tacit
promise to followers that they also will be transformed in some way. One of the traps of
Transformational Leadership is that passion and confidence can easily be mistaken for truth and reality.
Paradoxically, the energy that gets people going can also cause them to give up. Transformational
Leaders also tend to see the big picture, but not the details, where the devil often lurks. If they do not
have people to take care of this level of information, then they are usually doomed to fail. Finally,
transformational leaders, by definition, seek to transform. When the organization does not need
transforming and people are happy as they are, then such a leader will be frustrated.
It is important for the follower to understand the difference between Charismatic Leaders and
Transformational Leaders. They both are Inspiring and both have a Vision and both are not as caring
about people as followers might want them to be. Charismatic Leaders are Inspiring in order to lead for
their own purpose which may or may not benefit the organization or people. “It’s all about me.”
Transformational Leaders are inspiring in order to support a shared vision of improvement for the
organization and its people. “It’s all about the organization.” The visions of transformational Leaders are
practical and achievable in order to improve organization. Transformational Leaders often “downsize”
the work force to improve the organization. Transformational Leaders often “downsize” the work force
to improve organizational efficiency for the good of the organization. On the other hand, Charismatic
Leaders abuse or fire persons who do not agree with them, or who question their vision or otherwise
inhibit their personal accomplishment as Leaders improve organizational efficiency for the good of the
organization.
On the other hand, Charismatic Leaders abuse or fire persons who do not agree with them, or who
question their vision or otherwise inhibit their personal accomplishment as Leaders. To conclude,
transformational and transactional leadership are not opposite to each other, rather they are
complementary. A great transformational leader has to be a great transactional leader as well.
Leadership Styles:
Before we delve into describing leadership styles, it would be proper to distinguish between types
of leaders and styles of leadership. Type of leader is determined and identified by the “personality”
displayed by the leader in terms of core trait along with other traits and personal qualities being
displayed and used to gain the trust of the people and lead them to commit to undertake the major task
facing the organization. On the other hand, “style” of leadership is defined and identified by the
competencies and skills that the leader “applies” to guide facilitate and support the people of the
organization in their efforts to accomplish the task. Leadership style reflects a leader’s decision making
behaviour. It is the result of the philosophy, personality and experience of the leader. Leadership style
refers to how decisions are made to providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people.
Types of Leadership Styles
Three major leadership styles are:
1. Authoritarian or Autocratic
2. Participative or Democratic
3. Free-rein or Delegate
Authoritarian Style:
When the leaders tell their subordinates/followers at their own what work they want to get done,
and how – it is known as authoritarian or autocratic leadership style. It works well if the leader is
competent and knowledgeable enough to decide about each and every thing. All decision-making
powers are centralised in the leader, as with autocratic leaders. No suggestions or initiatives from
subordinates are acceptable. Authoritarian or autocratic leadership does not mean using foul language
and leading by threats. This unprofessional style is known as “bossing people around”. This style should
be used only when the leader has all the information and is short of time and the employees are well
motivated. If the leader wants to gain greater commitment and motivate his subordinates, then it
should be used very rarely.
Participative Style:
In the authoritarian style the leader used to say – “I want you to….”, but in participative style the
leader says – “let us work together to solve this problem”. A Participative Leader, rather than taking
autocratic decisions, seeks to involve other people including subordinates, peers, superiors and other
stakeholders in the process. Here the leader takes his subordinates into confidence about what to do
and how to do, but the final authority vests in the leader. This style can be divided into two – one, where
leader consults, and two, where decision is taken through consensus. Use of this style by a leader is not
a sign of weakness.
It is the strength, your subordinates will respect. This style is used when the employees are
knowledgeable and skilful. This style is also known as consultative, empowerment, joint decision-
making, democratic leadership, Management by Objective (MBO) and power-sharing. It helps in
ascertaining and identifying future leaders among the subordinates. Also, it keeps a team’s spirit and
morale high, as the team members feel that their opinions are valued by their leader. To illustrate, an
advertising manager approaches his subordinates on how to promote a particular product of a
company. The team members brain storm over the issue, some suggest print media and others suggest
electronic media. The participative leader takes all these suggestions, and makes a decision after
weighing their pros and cons.
Free-rein Leadership Style:
In this style the leader says – “you take care of the problem”. Final responsibility always remains
with the leader. A free-rein leader does not lead, but leaves the group entirely to itself. Such a leader
allows maximum freedom to subordinates, i.e., they are given a free hand in deciding their own policies
and methods. It is used when the leader has full trust and confidence in the abilities of his subordinates.
Since a leader cannot do everything. He prioritises the work and delegates certain tasks. This style
may be used but with caution. This style is also known as laissez faire (non-interference in the affairs of
others).
To illustrate, a manager has newly joined a firm. He is still learning how various things move in the
organization. In such a situation, he relies on the suggestions and opinions of his team members and lets
them do the things the way they are used to, till the time he is able to gain sufficient knowledge and can
suggest some more feasible changes.
Forces influencing the Styles:
1. Availability of time
2. Relationships between leader and subordinates (based on trust or on disrespect?)
3. The information is with whom (the leader, employees or both? If the leader knows the problem
but does not have all the information – use participative style)
4. How well the leader knows the task and employees well versed? (Use participative style if the
employees know the job well)
5. Internal Conflicts
6. Levels of stress
7. Type of task (structured, unstructured, complicated or simple?)
8. Systems and procedures (are they well established?)
9. If an employee is just learning the job – use authoritarian style, and if employees know more
than the leader about the job use free-rein style)
Good leaders should be able to master all the styles, to be a better leader. He must be able to use
all the styles depending upon the forces in operation among the leader, followers and the situation. If
the existing procedure is not working go in for authoritarian to establish a new one; if their ideas and
input are to be taken use participative and using delegative style while delegating the procedure to
them for execution. Normally one of styles will be dominant. But bad leaders tend to stick to one style
only.
Before deciding which style to use, a leader should ask two questions, the first is to ask what my
leadership style is. This is to focus on what you enjoy, what you might be good at, what strengths and
weaknesses you have. The second is to ask what leadership style is best for the people, team or
organisation that I’m leading. This is to focus on the needs of the situation, on the criteria for success, on
the approach that will bring about the maximum impact. Modern leadership demands both.
Managerial Grid:
The Managerial Grid, a behavioral leadership model, has been developed by Robert R. Blake and
Jane Mouton. This model originally identified five different leadership styles based on the concern for
people and the concern for production. The optimal leadership style in this model is based on Theory Y
of motivation. The model is represented as a grid with concern for production (on the X-axis) and
concern for people (on the Y-axis); each axis ranges from 1 (Low) to 9 (High). The resulting leadership
styles are as follows:
a. The indifferent (also called as impoverished) style (1, 1):
Evade and elude or low production/low people. In this style, managers have low concern for both
people and production. This leader is mostly ineffective. Managers use this style to preserve job and job
seniority, protecting themselves by avoiding getting into trouble. The main concern for the manager is
not to be held responsible for any mistakes, which results in less innovative decisions. The leader has no
regard for either work or people.
b. The accommodating (also called as country club) style (1, 9):
Yield and comply or high people/low production. This style has a high concern for people and a low
concern for production. Managers using this style are more concerned about needs and feelings to the
security and comfort of the employees, in hopes that this will increase performance. The resulting
atmosphere is usually friendly, but not necessarily very productive due to lack of direction and control.
C. The dictatorial (also called as produce or perish) style (9, 1):
Control and dominate or high production/low people. With a high concern for production, and a
low concern for people, managers using this style find employee needs unimportant; they provide their
employees with money and expect performance in return. Managers using this style also pressure their
employees through rules and punishments to achieve the company goals. This dictatorial style is based
on Theory X of Douglas McGregor, and is commonly applied by companies on the edge of real or
perceived failure. This style is often used in cases of crisis management.
d. The status quo (also called as middle-of-the-road) style (5, 5):
Balance and compromise or medium production/medium people. Managers using this style try to
balance between company goals and workers’ needs. By giving some concern to both people and
production, managers who use this style settle for average performance and often believe that this is
the most anyone can expect.
e. The sound (also called as team style) (9, 9):
Contribute and commit or high production/high people. In this style, high concern is paid both to
people and production. As suggested by the propositions of Theory Y, managers choosing to use this
style encourage teamwork and commitment among employees. This method relies heavily on making
employees feel themselves to be constructive parts of the company.
The grid has been evolving continuously. It has added two more leadership styles -the paternalistic
style: prescribe and guide (alternates between the (1,9) and (9,1) locations on the grid- managers using
this style praise and support, but discourage challenges to their thinking ) and Opportunistic style:
exploit and manipulate(does not have a fixed location on the grid- leaders adopt whichever behaviour
offers the greatest personal benefit). These styles were added to the grid theory before 1999.
Contemporary Leadership Issues:
Leadership is probably the single most subject in management getting the most attention of
business leaders. Some of the current issues relating to leadership development are as under;
1. Emotional Intelligence:
Should a leader have high Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and technical intelligence? Off course, they are
necessary. But more important is to possess Emotional Intelligence (EI). The five components of EI are
self-awareness, self- regulation, self-motivation, empathy and social skills. Without EI one cannot be a
great leader. Indira Nooyee has become President of PepsiCo because she has shown EI.
2. Gender and Leadership:
Does gender make any difference to leadership? Victor vroom and others in their leader-
participation model under contingency theories of leadership find that women managers are
significantly more participative than their male counterparts. The women managers show more
interactive leadership, and thus, better rating from peers, supervisors, and subordinates. Shikha Sharma
of Yes bank and Chanda Kochar of ICICI bank are examples of women managers and best leaders.
3. Cross-cultural Leadership:
Of late the corporations are appointing expatriates as the CEOs or managers. Very recently, GoAir
of Wadia Group has appointed Giorgio De Roni as its CEO, a former chief Revenue officer of Italian
airline, Air One. Mahindra and Mahindra also as a matter of policy sends Indian managers to its foreign
companies and managers from foreign companies are put in India-based companies. The purpose is to
train them in different cultures to avoid any culture shock. Culture plays an important role, and
managers must understand the culture of subordinates. Ratan Tata has rightly pointed a finger at British
managers that they are not like Indian managers, who stay till midnight, if the situation so warrants.
4. Building Trust:
Coca Cola and PepsiCo were accused of pesticides, Reliance Energy of soil pollution, Dow Chemicals
of Bhopal tragedy, Satyam of accounting fraud, and Indian call centres of encroaching upon privacy of
clients. All these incidents show the decreasing public trust in corporate leaders. Trust involves integrity,
competence, consistency, loyalty, and openness. Trust is very critical to leadership. Knowledge and
information can be accesses by a leader only if he is trust worthy. What people talk about ethical
leadership is the same thing.
