Transformational, transactional, and trait approaches to leadership

Individuals often interchangeably use the words management and leadership, regardless of the fact that the two terms can refer to variant and at times overlapping roles and responsibilities. Leadership, in the organizational context, refers to the ability to set and communicate a vision or a direction towards which an organization should move. While in some situations academics have defined leadership based on personal capabilities of individuals to bring about changes in organizations (transformational leadership), other academics have defined leadership by focusing on the managerial aspect of it, which is based on the capabilities of an individual to guarantee employees' compliance through giving them incentives (transactional leadership). There are several other approaches to leadership such as agency theory in which the skills and capabilities of individuals are considered separate/distinct from the organization and systematic leadership approach in which the emphasis is put on the duty or rather role of an individual to institute changes within the organization's context. More recent leadership approaches focus on the need to have leaders who are both transformational (i.e. charismatic, entrepreneurial and visionary) and transactional (having the ability to organize staff and ensure goals are met) to ensure success in organizations (Northouse P., 2013) (De Vries, 2010).

This paper examines different leadership approaches, styles and aspects of leadership.

Leadership Approaches

Trait Leadership

The trait approach is one of the earliest attempts to study and classify leadership models. And to date the approach is style widely used to select leaders. However, it must be said that the word trait is surrounded by a lot of confusion and ambiguity when used in the organizational context. This is owing to the fact that trait can be used to mean several different attributes such as the abilities of a person, his dispositions, temperaments, personality, demographic attributes or physical attributes (Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004, p. 103). Early in the twentieth century researchers studied leadership traits in an effort to investigate what traits made individuals great leaders and what traits did not. The researchers who conducted these studies later published several innate characteristics or qualities that could be used to assess whether one was a great military, social or political leader. The traits were published with the belief that they were hereditary and that they were only possessed by the people who would become "great" later in life. The very first studies that investigated trait leadership focused only on determining the exact traits that distinguished leaders from the rest (Northouse P. G., 2007). This lead to many theories being formed regarding leadership traits owing to the fact that being a leader is a difficult job that involves taking on serious responsibilities. Thus, it is argued that only the persons with the leadership traits would have the ability to carry out the serious tasks that leaders are faced with (Virkus, 2009).

Trait leadership is now interpreted to mean the personality, physical traits and mental capabilities that are unique to individuals who are great leaders and are absent in persons who are not great leaders. Trait leadership is one of the earliest leadership models and continues to be used in organizational settings (212 books, 2012). Leaders in different fields need to have different traits for them to succeed in their fields. For example, the best social leaders are those that have effective interpersonal skills; are self-driven; emotionally intelligent; sensitive to the needs of others; are sociable and passionate about people. All of these traits are innate -- they are things that persons are born with, things that they cannot acquire. Based on this model of leadership, studies conducted since the early 1900s have led to the compilation of lists of attributes or traits that are unique to great leaders. One such attempt is that of researchers Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991). The two researchers identified 6 traits that distinguish great leaders from weak leaders. The distinguishing traits include:

Knowledge of business -- leaders must be well informed and must have in-depth knowledge of the market that they are operating in so that they can make informed decisions fully aware of all the possible consequences.

Cognitive ability -- great leaders are individuals that are highly intelligent and have the ability to formulate effective plans and find solutions to problems.

Self-confidence -- a great leader has the confidence to make tough choices and the ability to inspire all stakeholders to follow his or her vision for the company.

Honesty -- honesty and integrity are two of the greatest traits that make effective leaders. These two traits form the foundation of trust between an organization and its stakeholders.

Leadership motivation -- great leaders are individuals who have a drive or desire to inspire and convince others to follow his or her vision. He or she also quickly takes charge when situations present themselves.

Drive -- according to Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991), this is one of the most important traits unique to great leaders. This trait collectively describes the energy, initiative, ambition, and achievement characteristics of great leaders. These characteristics represent a high level of effort.

As mentioned before the trait approach focuses on the attributes possessed by the leader and ways to determine the individuals who posses these traits. The main assumption in this leadership model is that the traits / attributes of an individual are critical to how well he or she assumes a leadership role. For companies this has eased the process of selecting leaders. For managers, this leadership model means that they too can assess their traits and understands their strengths and weaknesses and also understand how other people in the organization see them (Northouse P. G., 2007, pp. 23-24). Some of the strengths of the trait leadership model include:

1. It backs the popular argument that great leaders are special people who have an inborn potential to do great things. Societies have a need to see their leaders as special or gifted person, and this model meets this need.

2. This leadership model has a detailed research background and is supported by numerous studies.

3. The approach concentrates entirely on the leader and his role in the leadership process.

4. This approach presents standards that can be used to search for or to assess shortlisted individuals (Northouse P. G., 2007).

In the last few years more and more scholars have become interested in the trait leadership model. This has led to many researchers attempting to describe how personal traits determines ones potential leadership status. According to Northouse (2007, p.16) the study of the trait leadership model started with a focus on the determination and listing of the attributes that a great leader naturally has; next, the focus shifted to encompass the effects of certain situations on the success of a leader, and lately the focus has moved back to the examination of the important role played by traits in the success of a leader.

Critics of the trait leadership model have argued that studies have revealed that there are no great differences between great leaders and those without a leadership potential with regards to the identified 'leadership traits' in fact, some critics have even go ahead to argue that the individuals who have these traits have a lower probability of becoming leaders. It is true that some researchers have established that the links between these traits and the success of a leader are weak. This is however owing to the fact that few of these traits do not clearly distinguish between weak and strong leaders, leading to the mixed results in organizational success when leaders are selected using this model. When studies investigate the trait leadership approach the most common challenge is that that are very many leadership trait variables with small reliabilities and there is no specific rationale to use to select the variables to include in a research. The rationale currently used to pick variables has been referred to as "dustbowl empiricism." Furthermore, there are even fewer studies that have investigated the processes through which persons acquire the qualities or potential for being leaders. If leadership potential is truly specific to some individuals and absent in others, then very little information is available as to what brings about the potential in those who have it (Fleenor, 2011).

Behavioral leadership

As scholars became frustrated with their inability to clearly find the traits that effectively distinguished leaders from non-leaders, they shifted their focus to how leaders behaved (particularly towards those who followed them). The focus shifted from leaders to leadership. This leadership model became a very common way of approaching the leadership question in organizations in the mid twentieth century. Various behavioral patterns were grouped together referred to as styles. The studying of behavioral leadership became a critical component of managerial training. Perhaps one of the most popular training materials that incorporated this leadership approach was the Managerial Grid by Blake and Mouton (1964; 1978). Different researchers came up with schemes to diagnose and classify the various ways in which people worked. In spite of different names, the underlying concepts were very similar. The 4 main styles of working that emerged are:

Participative leadership: in this style of leadership, the individuals in charge heavily consult with others and incorporate their input in their decisions.

Directive leadership: the main distinction of this leadership style is that the leaders take decisions from other parties either a board or another body higher in the hierarchy and they to expect their followers to follow instructions.

Concern for people: In this case leaders look upon their subordinates as people. And thus individuals are not simply considered as a unit of production; instead the leaders focus on developing the people's careers and take care of their needs and interests.

Concern for task: The distinguishing characteristic of this leadership style is the focus on achievement of superior performance outcomes. The leaders with this style of leadership focus on high performance outcomes and organize people and operations in such a way as to meet the expected performance outcomes.

The managerial schemes that emerged during the 1950s and 1960s usually discussed two styles in a one style versus the other kind of manner. For instance, concern for people versus concern for task (Blake and Mouton, 1964); and participative leadership against directive leadership (McGregor, 1960). If you have attended a managerial course then you have encountered at least one of these behavioral leadership model styles or perhaps the comparison of the strengths of one of these styles against the other. Many of the very first authors on this matter looked to concern for people (people-based leadership) and participative leadership, and argued that these leadership styles brought about the greatest possible satisfaction among subordinates. However, when researchers thoroughly investigated this matter, the argument did not seem to hold up (Sadler, 1997). It is however important to note that there are many inconsistencies and differences between studies. The studies were not able to clearly distinguish which style of leadership under the behavioral model had the best results in enabling one group of followers to provide better results than the other. This problem is almost similar to the one found by researchers who were looking into trait leadership, that is, researchers did not clearly relate to the context in which a style of leadership was being used (Wright, 1996, p. 47). The context obviously played a great role in determining the success or failure of a style of leadership. For instance, it is obvious that what works in the organizational context might not work in the hospital ICU room or even what works in the law enforcement circles might not work in politics. What is now clear, however, is that the styles that individuals adopt as leaders are much more influenced by those who are following them and the settings they are operating in, than it was originally thought (Doyle & Smith, 2001).

Situational Leadership

This leadership model focuses on envisioned outcomes and group development. The main argument behind this leadership model is that different settings call for different kinds of leaders. Another argument in this model is that leadership is made up of two elements, the supportive and the directive elements and that an individual must assess how capable and committed his or her subordinates are for a given task. Based on this assessment he or she will then choose the best appropriate element (either supportive or directive), given the desired outcomes and the competencies of the group (Roberts, 2016).

The two elements (supportive or directive) mentioned above can also be referred to as directive behavior and supportive behavior. Directive behavior concentrates on the task at hand and the desired outcome while supportive behavior focuses on the leader-followers relationship.

Directive behaviors include: Formulating visions, showing how the vision will be achieved, setting timelines, evaluation, defining roles, and giving directions.

Supportive behaviors include: Helping followers feel that they are comfortable in the workplace and that their needs and interests are being safeguarded. This is done through social and emotional support and also listening and providing timely feedback.

Delegating Approach: This situational leadership model entails low directive and supportive behavior. The leader in collaboration and support of his followers decides on roles, operations and the desired outcomes. The responsibilities are then assigned to the subordinates and the leader steps back and does something else as the work gets done.

Supporting approach: This situational leadership model entails low directive but has highly supportive behavior. In this approach there is less focus on the outcomes and more on the relationships between the leader and his subordinates. This is done in the knowledge that a positive relationship between the two parties will yield positive outcomes. The leader in this approach will be quick to listen, praise, ask for input and provide timely feedback. Even though the followers have been left to handle the daily operations, the leader is always available to troubleshoot and to help organize new activities.

Coaching Approach: This situational leadership model entails high directive and supportive behavior, meaning that the leader is always available close by to offer directions and to ensure their exact implementation. There is also a focus on outcomes. The leader also strives to ensure that the subordinates are comfortable.

Directing approach: This situational leadership model has low supportive behavior and high directive behavior. The leader focuses on giving instructions with very little interest in the needs and interests of the subordinate.

Overall, the effectiveness of situational leadership is based on the degree of follower development. There are two extremes with regards to the level of development. There are followers with a high degree of development who have the skills and the competencies to finish tasks successfully and there are followers with a low degree of development but they do have the commitment, dilligence and the motivation to carry out jobs. The two extremes and the many variations in between require different leadership styles for achieving the desired outcomes. For example, in the situation where the followers have a high level of development, a delegating approach would be appropriate, while on the other extreme, a directing approach would be more appropriate for followers with a low level of development but having the motivation to carry out the job. This is the underlying argument in the situational leadership approach.

Situational leadership approach emphasizes on the need for leaders to assess situations and use the right approach to get the best out of situations. Followers can be grouped into four general categories based on the level of skill and their motivation.

1. Followers with low level of skill but are highly motivated. Such followers likely to require a directive style of leadership if the desired outcomes are to be achieved.

2. Followers with some level of skill but lacking motivation. This group would require a highly supportive kind of leadership that provides timely feedback and motivates the group towards success.

3. Followers with a degree of skill but lacking commitment. A coaching leadership style would be appropriate for this group. In this case, the group needs a leader who motivates his followers and gets the most out of their skills.

4. Followers with a high level of skill and a high level of commitment. A delegating approach would be the most appropriate for this scenario. The followers in this scenario simply need to be told what to do and then should be given a timeline in which to get the things done (Roberts, 2016).

Strengths:

Easy to understand

Allows objective discussions between a leader and his subordinates on the best leadership style and how best the interests of the followers can be achieved.

Can be used in broad range of settings.

It stresses on the need for flexibility in leadership. A leader needs to constantly read his group and to use the most appropriate leadership style for the group to ensure success.

It gives individuals a prescriptive approach to leadership.

Criticisms:

How does one gauge the followers' development? According to the model this is what you are to accomplish, but no way is given on how to achieve it. This is greatly uncertain.

With reference to the grid, the more skillful a follower, the less dedicated he gets. How is this based in the study? It does not appear to be always true. Can't a well trained subordinate also be greatly dedicated?

The manner through which varied demographic characteristics shall respond is not accounted for in the model. How shall age, education, and sex among others affect the style?

How shall the leadership style vary in case there is an individual or a group which is not addressed. Does the leader change his/her style to the mean degree of development of the group? What does this achieve for the individuals that are on either side end of the range? (Roberts, 2016)

Skilled leadership

The skills approach assumes a leader-focused outlook on leadership. In the skills approach there is a shift from a focus on character traits that are usually seen as natural and largely fixed, to stress on capabilities and skills that could be learned and imbibed. In as much as character definitely plays an important part in leadership, the skills approach proposes that knowledge and skills are required for effectual leadership (Northouse P. G., 2010).

Three-Skill Approach

Founded on field study in administration and his personal observations of leaders in the workplace, Katz (1955, p. 34) proposed that effectual leadership relies on three basic personal skills: technical, human, and conceptual. Katz maintained that these skills are very different form characters or qualities of leaders. Skills refer to what could be achieved by leaders, while character refers to who the leaders actually are. Leadership skills are described as the capability of utilizing one's skills and knowledge to meet a set of objectives/goals.

Technical Skill

This refers to expertise in and knowledge about a particular kind of activity or work. It entails skills in a specialized field, analytical ability, and the capability to utilize suitable tools and methods (Katz, 1955). For instance, in a computer software corporation, technical skill may entail being familiar with software programming and knowledge, the software products of the corporation, and how to make these products work for the users. Likewise, in an accounting company, technical skill may entail knowing and having the skill to implement generally accepted accounting principles to a customer's audit. In these two cases, technical skills entail practical activities with a basic procedure or product in an organization. Technical skills play a crucial role in the production of the actual products an organization is meant to produce.

Human Skill

This refers to knowledge about and capability to work with other individuals. It is very different from technical skill that is all about working with things (Katz, 1955). Human skills are "people skills." They simply are the abilities which assist a leader in effectively working with peers, followers, as well as with his superiors in attaining the goals of the company. These skills permit a leader to help group members in functioning together as a team to meet shared goals. According to Katz, it entails being knowledgeable of one's personal outlook and issues and, at the same time, being knowledgeable of others' outlook. Leaders having human skills adapt their personal skills to those of other people. Additionally, they establish an environment of trust where the workers feel safe and comfortable and where they could feel encouraged to participate in the arrangement of things that will affect them. Being a leader with human skills implies being sensitive to the inspirations and needs of others and also thinking of the needs of other individuals in one's own decision making. Human skill is basically the ability to get along with others as one goes about their work.

Conceptual Skill

Conceptual skills generally refer to the ability to work with concepts and ideas. While human skills deal with individuals and technical skills with things, conceptual skills entail the capability of working with ideas. A leader having conceptual skills is comfortable discussing the concepts and ideas which shape the company together with the difficulties entailed. he/she is quite good at putting the goals of the organization into words and can comprehend and communicate the economic principles which impact the organization. A leader with such skills easily works with concepts and hypothetical ideas. These skills are vital in the development of a strategic plan and vision for a company. For instance, it would call for conceptual skills for a CEO in an unsteady manufacturing company to express a vision for a line of new products which would lead the company into success. Likewise, in a market with limited resources, it would call for conceptual skills for a non-profit health organization's director to develop a strategic plan which could successfully compete with for-profit health organizations. From both cases, it is clear that conceptual skills deal with the mental work of shaping the meaning of policy or organizational matters; knowing what an organization represents and where it is or ought to be going (Northouse P. G., 2010).