Leadership taxonomies and theories

Great Man Theory
Great Man Theory of leadership originated in the 19th century. It was made popular by writer 1840s by Thomas Carlyle in the 1840s. Carlyle argued that history is shaped by the actions of great men—leaders in all spheres, such as Shakespeare, Napoleon, or Wagner. His point was that great men are the leaders who inspire and influence all followers and that great leaders had something heroic about them (Carlyle, 1888). It was primarily a Romantic Era theory that lost appeal in the 20th century (Northouse, 2015).
Strengths
This theory points out that great leaders are unique and that they do appear to be born to lead. They have something about them that rises to the occasion. In any given situation, a leader might emerge, but unless that leader is a truly great man it is unlikely that the leader will succeed in his objective. It highlights the need for leaders to be holistically great—i.e., great in an all-around way.
Weaknesses
Spencer in 1896 argued that great societies were what produced great men and that Great Man Theory did not fully explain the role of the environment in the shaping of leaders. He argued that the theory placed too much emphasis on the individual and not enough of emphasis on the influences of external factors, such as philosophy, skills, values, and so on, that society promoted. Spencer (1896) stated that one “must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown.... Before he can remake his society, his society must make him” (p. 31).
Trait Theory of Leadership
Trait theory was advanced by Stogdill and Allport in the mid-20th century. The theory was that good leaders do not have to be great man, because depending on great men in every situation is impractical and yet great leaders do emerge. He argued that good leaders all share similar traits, which can be identified and sought after by those looking for good leaders. Trait theory is still in use today (Badshah, 2012). However, Stogdill (1948) emphasized that there is no one set of traits that all leaders possess.
Strengths
Organizations can use trait theory when they set about looking for candidates for leadership positions. It is a theory with practical utility. Zenger and Folkman (2015) state that leaders should be able to 1) Challenge, 2) Create, 3) Achieve, 4) Inspire, 5) Energize, 6) Assess, 7) Decide. This theory has led researchers to investigate the importance of developing traits in workers so as to groom them to become leaders—traits such as empathy, emotional intelligence, and commitment. Personality tests like the Myers-Briggs are still used today to help people identify personality traits that might identify one as a leader (Cacamis & El Asmar, 2014).
Weaknesses
The theory depends a great deal on personality and character traits. This idea that leaders must have certain traits has been criticized as being an extension of Great Man Theory, simply broken down into identifying the traits that great men tend to have in common. The criticism is not altogether fair, as many great men have had very different personality traits. The theory does clash with other theories of leadership that have evolved from Taylor’s scientific management theory, however (Greenwood, 1996).
Skills Theory of Leadership
This theory is similar to trait theory except it focuses on identifying the practical skills necessary for leadership rather than the traits of character. Skills theory was put forward by Robert Katz in the 1950s, so it is not exactly new in the canon of literature on leadership but rather came about in response to trait theory. Like trait theory, it is still recognized as having value. Katz (1955) identified three skill areas that leaders should be competent in: technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills.
Strengths
The strengths of skill theory are that it opens up the possibility of leadership to everyone who is able to learn and develop the skills necessary for leading; however, this does not really distinguish it from trait theory. It does, though, place more emphasis on practical skills, such as problem-solving and decision-making, rather than traits like empathy. Still, traits like emotional intelligence would figure into the skill of social judgment, which is viewed as a strong leadership skill to have. Thus, there is a great deal of overlap between trait theory and skills theory, even though the latter came about in response to the former (Northouse, 2015).
Weaknesses
The main weakness of the theory is that it is more descriptive of the skills that leaders possess rather than illustrative of how these skills can be used to lead in a concrete manner. Because of the overlap between it and trait theory, it is difficult to discern one from the other, since some critics argue that these skills are only possible if one has the innate ability to develop them; which, of course, takes one all the back to Great Man theory and the idea that great leaders are born out of great environments and have innate characteristics.
Style Theory of Leadership
The style theory posits that the various styles of leadership are what make for great leaders. Autocratic leadership, for example, can work in situations where there are no decision-makers and there is a need for a commander. Or, innovative leadership might work in an environment wherein there are many talented and creative people who simply want support to come up with new ideas to be successful. Kurt Lewin developed this theory in 1939 when he highlighted three specific styles of leadership that lead to success—authoritarian, delegative and participative (Lewin, Lippitt & White, 1939).  The style theory of leadership is still routinely explored by researchers and professionals today, with more and more styles added to the list of effective styles all the time.
Strengths
The managerial grid developed out of style theory and it illustrates that a leader can be people friendly but firm when it comes to performance. It has been praised as being a solid foundation for leadership (Northouse, 2015). It is often argued that the more styles a leader can master, the more utility he will have no matter what the situation or the environment.
Weaknesses
Critics argue that there is more nuance to leading effectively than simply slipping into a style of leadership. If one applies the wrong style of leadership to a situation, it could fail spectacularly. For instance, if an authoritarian leader tries to impose his will on a group that is used to a laissez-faire style of leadership, it could end with all the followers walking out.
Situational Leadership Theory
This theory holds that every situation is going to be different and thus there should be no one-size-fits-all model or theory of leadership to apply. Instead, a leader should be adaptive and responsive to the needs of the situation. A leadership style or certain traits might work better in one situation, but not in another. This theory was developed by Hersey and Blanchard in 1969 in their book Management of Organizational Behavior. It was first known as the Life Cycle Theory of Management but was renamed situational leadership in the 1970s. It is still considered relevant and insightful today and is one of various theories that researchers and professionals pull from when discussing the ins and outs of effective leadership (Northouse, 2015).
Strengths
It focuses on adaptability. For example, a leader of a boys sports team might need to be highly disciplined and autocratic to be successful. A leader of a girls sports team might benefit more by using relational leadership style. The strength of this theory is that it opens the door for various approaches. It suggests that the right path to leadership depends upon the situation and the challenges of the environment.
Weaknesses
The weakness of this theory is that it does not posit any scientific or verifiable way to assess a situation so as to determine what approach one should take. It describes how every situation is going to be different, but it does not give a clear cut guideline that leaders can use to help them assess a situation and respond accordingly. It also tends to focus more on the immediate needs of a situation rather than on the long-term objectives. Rather than being pro-active, it is reactive in nature, which limits its long-term utility in a given situation.
Contingency Theory
Contingency theory evolved out of Spencer’s view that leaders were born out of their environments. The authors of this theory were researchers at Ohio State University in the 1950s. They issued questionnaires in a survey to see what the most effective approach to leadership could be. What they found amid the various responses was that it is all contingent upon the needs of the organization. Thus, Fiedler developed a contingency model that showed how the type of leadership required will vary according to the environment of the organization (Badshah, 2012). As every organization has its own structure, unique relationships, and power positions, it is up to the leader to figure out how to respond appropriately.
Strengths
Contingency theory does provide a model of how to assess an organization’s contingency factors and arrive at an idea of how to lead effectively in response. It has predictive power, and links leadership to a situation. It provides one with the sense that not all leaders or styles will be effective in all situations but that it is better to match the right ones together.
Weaknesses
The main weakness is that it does not explain why some leaders are more effective than others in given situations. It focuses more on matching leaders to situations. It does not teach leaders to adapt but instead focuses on finding the right leader for the right situation. In a limited pool of leaders, this can be a weakness (Northouse, 2015).
Transactional Leadership Theory
Transactional leadership theory stipulates that people follow because of the incentive to follow given by the leader. Whether that incentive is positive or negative is not important. What is important is that the leader understands what motivates the followers to follow him, and that can be a mix of rewards and punishments. Using these incentives, the leader then monitors performance to ensure that the incentives are working effectively. Transactional leadership has been advanced by various theorists throughout the 20th century, from Weber to Hollander to Bass, each showing that leadership is indeed a transactional process (Badshah, 2012). The theory is still widely used today among both active and passive leaders.
Strengths
The theory can be applied by any type of leader, as it puts more emphasis on understanding the needs of the follower and motivating that follower accordingly. One can use the theory actively or passively, which is to say that one can use it and monitor workers closely, or one can act only when performance drops below standard and the leader has to punish.
Weaknesses
The weakness of the theory is that it does not provide any sense of developing relationships between followers and leaders. There is no sense of the follower reaching his fullest potential or of becoming self-actualized. If all incentives are extrinsic, there is too little emphasis given to intrinsic motivation (Northouse, 2015). This lack creates a gap between actual performance and potential performance.
Transformational Leadership Theory
This theory was contrasted with transactional leadership theory by Bass in the 1980s. The purpose of doing so was to show that motivating and incentivizing followers is only part of the problem. Leaders have to give followers a vision to pursue so that they can change themselves inwardly and develop a better disposition for achieving success. This theory holds that followers can transform themselves or be transformed by the leader to reach their fullest potential. It builds on the idea of Maslow’s (1943) theory of human motivation and the hierarchy of needs model, which shows that basic needs must be met first before self-actualization can be reached. Transformational leadership theory explains how a leader can help the person to reach that peak of motivation.
Strengths
This theory allows the leader to develop followers in a personal or in a group manner by using his own leadership skills to communicate, support, motivate, inspire, and assist the worker to reach his full potential. It is not just a system of rewards and punishments but rather a theory in which the leader plays an active role in the development of the follower.
Weaknesses
The main weakness of this theory is that it is more conceptual than practical and not every manager or leader will be able to identify the tasks to be done in order to achieve success. The theory suffers from a lack of practical utility in terms of offering a guide or set of steps to follow. This is partly because the theory depends upon traits of leadership that are not likely to be possessed by all.
Leader-Member Exchange Theory
This theory posits that the relationship between the leader and the follower creates an in-group, which in turn fosters the development of an out-group. The in-group feels good because it is close to the leader and part of the decision-making process. The members of the out-group tend to feel alienated and outside the sphere of influence and power. They can in turn suffer from lower morale and have lower performance than their potential might otherwise indicate. The theory argues that leaders should be cognizant of how their actions affect others around them and not just those followers who are directly being targeted. The theory was developed by Fred Dansereau, George Graen, and William Haga (Dansereau, et al. 1975). It is still considered an important theory in leadership studies and organizational management.
Strengths
It gets into the psychological and sociological aspects of leadership and allows leaders to think more broadly about how their actions have indirect impacts on others. It gets them looking at the bigger picture outside of the in-group dynamic and helps to show that their own actions could be contributing to poor performance on the part of other followers.
Weaknesses
The weakness of the theory is that it does not provide a deep level of insight into how high-quality interactions are created. It also lacks a sense of how to fairly establish a sense of justice within a group or organization. The theory focuses more on psychosocial concepts than on practical managerial solutions. It is thus handcuffed by its own self-awareness.
Servant Leadership Theory
Greenleaf developed this theory in the 1970s to show that leaders are best when they are at the service of followers. The theory has been modeled on Christian leadership concepts. It focuses on leaders being attentive to the needs of followers and helping them to overcome personal issues so that they can reach their potential and achieve success. It is an idealistic form of leadership that can be very useful in one on one situations, but in terms of group contexts it is limited in its utility (Northouse, 2015).
Strengths
It is great at developing and fostering relationships with followers. Servant leadership theory shows that followers need support and engagement from leaders and that leaders can be the support that they need through listening, developing empathy for followers, and being a servant to them. It helps to raise awareness, stewardship, focus and sets a good example of others on how to be selfless. Servant leadership theory essentially posits that the leader should put followers first.
Weaknesses
The theory does not give any clear cut guideline on how to be implemented and thus it is more conceptual than practical. It also does not show how it can be used in large-group settings or in organizations where the leader does not have the time needed to get to know all the needs and issues of every individual worker. It is thus limited in the sense that it does not apply in every type of situation. It would be more effective as a type of leadership among many.
References
Badshah, S. (2012). Historical study of leadership theories. Journal of Strategic Human Resource Management, 1(1), 49.
Cacamis, M. E., & El Asmar, M. (2014). Improving project performance through partnering and emotional intelligence. Practice Periodical on Structural Design & Construction, 19(1), 50-56.
Carlyle, T. (1888). On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History, NY: Fredrick A. Stokes & Brother.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. & Haga, W. (1975). A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership within Formal Organizations: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Role Making Process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 46–78.
Greenwood, R. G. (1996). Leadership theory: A historical look at its evolution. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(1), 3-16.
Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33 (1), 33-42.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. & White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology 10: 271–301.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370.
Northouse, P. (2015). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Spencer, H. (1896). The Study of Sociology. NY: Appleton, 1896.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.