Describe Leadership Models and contemporary leadership theories

According to the Fiedler contingency model, it’s important to have the style of leadership matched with how much control that leader has in a particular situation. Based on whether a leader’s style was task-oriented or relationship-oriented, Fiedler’s theory did admit that some people would not be easily recognizable as one or the other, but rather fall somewhere in the middle; and this theory did not allow for the possibility that a leader’s style would change over his or her lifetime based on experience or circumstance.

Situational leadership theory (SLT) is concerned less with leaders’ qualities and more with their followers and how ready they are—that is, are they able and willing to finish a particular task? Basing these also on task and relationship behaviors, the proponents of this theory designated four leadership styles (telling, selling, participating, and delegating—all based on an individual’s task- and relationship-oriented profile) and used that information alongside followers’ readiness stages (both unable and unwilling, unable but willing, able but unwilling, and both able and willing to complete necessary tasks) to describe leadership in relation to leaders’ followers. This particular theory has not been well supported by research studies.

Vroom (the same researcher who gave us the expectancy theory of motivation) and Yetton introduced us to a third contingency theory of leadership, known as the leader-participation model. Their model, as revised by Vroom and Jago, incorporates five alternative styles of leadership and twelve so-called contingency variables (e.g., the importance of the decision, how well structured the problem is, whether there is likely to be conflict among followers over solution alternatives, and time constraints on the leader that may limit follower involvement)—all with an eye to relating the behavior and participation of the leader to decision making. As you can see, this model is very complex—too much so for practical use by managers—and, though research has yielded some promising results, it’s not heavily used in the field.

A fourth contingency theory of leadership, espoused by House and partially reliant on some of the elements from the expectancy theory of motivation, is called path-goal theory. According to this model, a leader needs to provide the requisite support and direction (hence, “path”) to his or her followers in order that they may achieve their objectives (hence, “goal”). There are four types of leader behaviors, as described by this model: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented. These behaviors can change to suit the situation, according to House—unlike Fiedler’s belief that leaders cannot adapt their leadership styles. Evidence does support this theory, though the results are not unmixed.

The most widely studied and supported theories of leadership are these contemporary theories: leader-member exchange (LMX), transactional vs. transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, visionary leadership, and servant leadership.

Leader-member exchange, or LMX, recognizes that leaders often have an “in-group”—that is, for better or worse, they sometimes have favored employees with whom they seem to get along and who receive more perks and status. According to LMX, those in the “out-group” will be awarded lower ratings on their performance reviews, be less satisfied in their jobs, and experience higher turnover as a result; but those in the “in-group,” if both they and the leader work to maintain the relationship, can be very successful and happy and, most likely, will support the leader and help him or her to accomplish necessary tasks. This theory is strongly supported by data and is very popular in the literature today.

Transactional and transformation leadership theories have differing—but not necessarily opposing—philosophies about the nature of the function of a leader and the relationship between leaders and followers. A transactional leader is one who leads via the use of transactions, or social exchanges—in other words, you do something for me, and I’ll do something for you in return. Transformational leaders, on the other hand, are more inspirational and transformative, encouraging those who work for them to achieve beyond their expectations. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the evidence supports the effectiveness of transformational leadership over transactional leadership; and transformational leadership is more strongly correlated with all sorts of important managerial outcomes, such as higher productivity, engagement at work, successful goal attainment, employee wellbeing and creativity, and lower rates of employee turnover.

Charismatic leaders are, as the name implies, enthusiastic, energetic, charming, self-confident, persuasive, and driven—in other words, they exhibit a great deal of charisma that helps them to influence their followers. Charismatic leadership is a mixed bag, in the sense that it is linked to employee satisfaction and performance, but it doesn’t seem to affect performance at an organizational level. Nevertheless, it seems to be a positive trait for leaders, overall.

Visionary leaders are those who are able to “create and articulate a realistic, credible, and attractive vision of the future that improves upon the present situation” (Robbins, De Cenzo, & Coulter, 2015, p. 348). The more clearly articulated and imagistic such visions are, the more likely it is that these leaders will be able to influence their followers to achieve those visions.

Servant leadership is popular with a certain segment of managerial researchers and proponents, and it involves the notion that a good leader puts his or her followers first, a natural outgrowth of the desire to serve them and to humbly take on the tasks necessary to lead. It is mentioned last because it’s more well known in the “popular press” and less widely studied in the managerial research field, but a lot of people find it a useful framework, under the right circumstances. You can find out more about it here, if you are interested.