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...…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.