Leadership Theory Integration

Part 1
History of Modern Leadership Studies Since 1900
The evolution of modern leadership studies begins with the Great Man Theory, which originated in the 19th century and carried over into the 20th century. It came about as people looked at the world’s greatest leaders who stood out from the run of the mill individuals of their time and made a significant difference upon the course of human history. Individuals like George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln or Napoleon Bonaparte—they were seen as Great Men who were born with something special that made them into great leaders. The idea was promoted by Thomas Carlyle (1888) and other writers, such as Herbert Spencer (1896), who added his own twist on the theory by arguing that Great Men were as much products of their own day and age as anything else. Great Man Theory got the ball rolling in leadership studies, and out of it developed trait theory, which still plays some part in how people think about leadership even today.
Thanks to Spencer’s (1896) arguments, particularly 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,” focus on leadership shifted from the man himself to the characteristics he embodied (p. 31). Trait theory was developed by Gordon Allport in the 20th century. Allport argued that great leaders tend to share the same traits; however, this theory was disputed by Stogdill (1948), who argued that different leaders possess different traits and that they are by no means all the same in terms of characteristics. Some leaders are autocratic; some are soft-spoken; some are sensitive to the needs of others; some rule with an iron fist. This sense of different leaders having different traits forced the study of leadership into a new direction. Katz (1955) put forward skills theory, which posited that leaders may not all have the same traits, but they do need to possess skills in three distinct areas in order to be successful: technical, human and conceptual skills. Kurt Lewin along with Lippitt and White (1939) put forward style theory to focus not on traits or skills but rather on leadership styles. They focused on three styles in particular—authoritarian, delegative and participative—but since then many other styles have been developed and researched by scholars in the field.
By the 1960s, researchers were beginning to look at leadership in a more contextual way, and so situational leadership theory was born. Hersey and Blanchard were the ones to bring it to life; its big focus was on how leaders succeed if they are able to adapt to the environments in which they find themselves. It could just as easily explain why Washington had success in the American Revolution as it could why Henry Ford succeeded in the automotive industry. Contingency theory had been developed in the decade prior, and it focused on how leaders succeeded when they responded to the unique needs of the organization. Essentially similar to situational theory, it helped to steer the field towards the notion that leaders respond to their environment and address the needs of the people, groups or organization therein (Badshah, 2012).
However, once it was understood that leaders adapted to their surroundings, the question of what techniques and methods they should use in order to produce successful outcomes became the question. How to motivate people within these different situations and contexts soon became the focus. Out of this focus came transactional leadership theory, transformational leadership theory, leader-member exchange theory, and servant leadership theory. Each came in the latter half of the 20th century and explored in different ways the manner in which leaders achieve their desired ends. Transactional leadership theory posited that leaders use some incentive—good or bad—to spur on progress. Transformational leadership theory posited that leaders spur on progress by getting followers to buy in to the vision and the mission, using communication techniques, motivational and inspirational methods, and supportive systems. Leader-member exchange theory posited that leaders create in-groups and out-groups; in-groups consist of people who are near the leader, while out-groups consist of people who are not near the leader. Out-groups tend to feel marginalized, which hurts morale, so in this theory leaders should focus on being inclusive and making everyone feel that they are part of the team. Servant leadership theory is really the heart of modern leadership theory in that it focuses on the spirit of leadership, which is service to others or to the vision/mission of the organization. It is the idea that a leader dedicates and commits himself entirely to others so that they can in turn achieve their or their organization’s objective (Badshah, 2012).
Each of these theories has influenced the workplace in their own small ways. Leadership styles have ranged from autocratic (as a result of Great Man theory) to democratic (as a result of leader-member exchange theory). Leaders tend to embrace situational leadership theory as well as servant leadership theory—but there is no hard and fast rule when it comes to leadership. Indeed, some leadership scholars argue that followers have to be just as informed as leaders because sometimes leaders get it wrong. Chaleff (2015) calls this theory intelligent disobedience, and he argues that followers must be educated and trained to be like guide dogs for the blind: in those occasions wherein a leader makes a decision that a follower knows will cause harm, the follower should disobey and act autonomously until that time wherein the occasion for harm has passed. What Chaleff (2015) brings to the field of leadership is the role that followership plays as well. For, indeed, leadership is not a concept that exists in isolation: it is really about a relationship between leaders and followers, and so it stands to reason that followership also be understood.
Establishing a Universally Acceptable Definition for Leadership
What the scholarship and literature on leadership shows is that no one has been successful in establishing a universally accepted definition for leadership. The reason for this is that leadership differs from place to place, from person to person, from situation to situation, and from follower to follower. The closest that anyone has gotten to establishing a universally acceptable definition for leadership would be with the concept of servant leadership, which has described the essence and heart of leadership as being in service to something external to oneself and helping others to put themselves into that same service.
Attempts to define leadership from a universal perspective have not failed necessarily—but they have shown that leadership can be perceived as subjectively as one can perceive it objectively. There is no one-size-fits-all type or definition of leadership. Leadership works in some ways for some people and in other ways for other people; some who try to act like leaders who found success in certain situations might fail because the situation or context is different. A leader on a girls’ volleyball team might have to be a totally different kind of leader on in a factory workplace. Leadership traits, qualities, styles and theories have differed over the past century because leadership is such a complex phenomenon—there is no way to categorize it in a clinical manner.
My Favorite Leadership Definitions by Key Thought Leaders
My favorite leadership definition is from Robert Greenleaf, who is one of the biggest promoters of servant leadership theory. His quote is “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.” This quote comes directly from the Robert E. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership website. The reason I select it as my favorite definition for leadership is simple: it does not attempt to define leadership except to say that a leader is there to serve the needs of others—and this is essentially the truest thing that can be said about a leader, any leader, at any time. Every great leader has served something or someone greater or outside himself. Napoleon served the French empire. Washington served the war for American independence. Lincoln served the Union. Ford served the vision of the auto industry. Elon Musk today serves the vision for the electric vehicle industry and sustainability. Gandhi served the vision for Indian independence. Malcolm X served the black community. Every great leader recognizes that he is in service to something outside himself—and that is why people follow him; they want to serve that thing as well and they will get behind the one who forges the path ahead. Greenleaf recognized the power of service, which is a concept that goes all the way back to Christ, Who is often recognized as the original servant leader.
The other great leadership definition that gets to the heart of leadership comes from Herb Kelleher, founder of Southwest Airlines: “Power should be reserved for weightlifting and boats, and leadership really involves responsibility” (US Chamber of Commerce, 2020). This is an important definition to apply to leadership because it gets at what leaders must be, aside from servants: they must be accountable and responsible. That means they have to know why they are doing a thing and what is expected of them. If they do not have a sense of this then they cannot have a sense of responsibility because being responsibility means caring about the thing one has care over and taking pains to make sure everything comes out the way it should.
One cannot care for or be responsible for something the does not know or love. Or, even if he does know it, if he does not love it he is not going to care about its outcome. Responsibility is equal to love, which is the basis for servant leadership, as Greenleaf points out. Thus, service and responsibility really go together in the concept of leadership, which is why I chose these two definitions.
Leadership without love or leadership without responsibility is leadership that will be doomed to failure. For example, one can see in the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe over which BP’s leaders presided rather poorly that leadership is more than just title. It is the ability to provide oversight, to be invested, to be engaged, to make the right decisions, and to be accountable when things go wrong. Leaders who are aloof and ambivalent about everything but their own position and power are not true leaders. They are rather obstacles to the vision and mission that they should be serving.
Leaders have to know that they are there to lead for a reason and the reason is not their own vainglory or ambition. They are there to serve a vision and mission and they serve it best by loving it and taking responsibility for their own and for their followers’ actions. Leaders are selfless and accountable, and they show through their own example that the vision and the mission are what matter most.
Part 2
Comparing and Contrasting Leadership Theories
Adaptive Leadership
Adaptive leadership is the idea that long-term problems can be solved by systemic change, which in turn can be supplied by receiving input from the entire organization and using that information to make strategic system-wide alterations for sustainable, long-term outcomes. Adaptive leaders look at both the macro and the micro to gain understanding of an organization and insight into the nature of its problems. They also incorporate feedback from all stakeholders within the organization so that they can make the most informed decision possible. Instead of communicating a vision to followers, it listens to what followers have to say and then uses that to create a more robust system in which the organization can operate to maximize its potential. It is more of a bottom-up approach than a top-down approach to leadership (DeRue, 2011).
The theoretical basis for adaptive leadership is in systems theory, which posits that there are various dynamic aspects to an enterprise that are integrated and that impact one another. Thus, to understand how to improve an organization, one must understand the complex nature of the system. Upon this basis, adaptive leadership is situated with a view towards bringing together all the various aspects of the organization in a more integrated and efficient manner.
Adaptive leadership could be applied in a real world organization that is struggling to bring together its various parts in a coherent and cohesive way. It may have everything in needs in terms of resources but for some reason it is not clicking. The adaptive leader can identify issues such as silos in certain departments and work to eliminate them by emphasizing one culture that all must be part of. He can streamline communications, make sure protocols are standardized and followed by all, and use feedback from all stakeholders to develop an optimal plan that integrates everyone towards the objective.
The cons of adaptive leadership are that such a comprehensive approach is time-consuming and the impact is not immediately seen or measurable. It is an approach that requires a great deal of trust and patience. It is similar to the theory of Kaizen or continuous improvement, often implemented in Asia (Manos, 2007).
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is the idea that a leader can transform workers by communicating a vision to them and motivating them to buy into the vision. The vision is the corporate ideal that the organization has for itself. The leader messages that vision and inspires the workers to want to strive to reach it. The transformational leader thus transforms the organization by appealing directly to the workers to take the vision and mission more seriously so that they can maximize performance for the good of the organization. It differs from adaptive leadership in that it does not seek to make systemic changes but rather to change the orientation of the workers so that they are open to whatever the organization needs them to be. It is a good approach to utilize in a change management type of situation because it enables the leader to relate to the workers, oversee the change process, break down resistance, and use feedback from workers to create a better atmosphere for everyone (Ghasabeh, Soosay & Reaiche, 2015).
The theoretical basis for transformational leadership is that motivation is key to success and performance and that if employees are not motivated the organization will not succeed. Thus, the transformational leader tends to have an inspirational spirit and character. Oftentimes, transformational leaders can implement other leadership styles as well, and they can be used in almost any setting because the focus is on improving morale by encouraging workers to buy into the vision of the organization. They can work with adaptive leadership situations easily.
Transformational leadership can be applied in a real world situation in which an organization is faced with an obstacle that requires it to change the way it conducts operations. For instance, an organization has to switch to virtual teaching instead of in-class teaching. Teachers have to use computers and prepare classes in a totally different way. There is likely to be some resistance, so a transformational leader is there to explain the reason for the change in logical and rational terms so that everyone understands why it is important and necessary to do in order for the organization to survive. The leader not only explains why it is necessary to make the change but also inspires the workers to want to make the change because it will be good for them and for the organization in the end.
The cons or transformational leadership are that it provides mainly a conceptual approach and does not come with standardized guidance the way adaptive leadership does. The reason for this is that transformational leaders must assess the situation as it unfolds and every situation is going to be unique. Nonetheless, it can be an effective concept of leadership for managing change because it keeps everyone united and moving in the right direction.
Authentic Leadership
Authentic leadership is the idea that the best approach a leader can take is to build honest relationships with followers. In doing so, the leader is able to establish his own legitimacy, which endears him to followers and in turn compels them to follow him where he aims to lead them. Honesty serves as the foundation for the relationship, and because honesty is a virtue and value much admired, particularly in an organization where leaders tend to only allow followers to see a limited amount of information, followers are grateful to their leader for being upfront and open. The authentic leader also aims not only to be transparent but to embody other virtues and values as well. Authentic leaders are open and honest and ethical. They create an ethical culture so that workers act with the some forthrightness and accountability that the leader demonstrates in his own person. Authentic leadership puts forward the notion that the best way to lead is by example (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). It is distinct from transformational leadership in the sense that the authentic leader is not trying to persuade anyone through motivational or inspirational speeches; he is simply telling the truth about who he is, where they all are as an organization and where the organization needs them to be. He does not go out sugarcoat or to spin anything. He trusts that his followers will respond as is needed of them based on the facts. There is no sense among authentic leaders that workers will not be on board for moving in the right direction.
Additionally, authentic leadership differs adaptive leadership in the sense that the latter is focused on making systemic changes for long-term goals. Authentic leaders are focused on simply telling the truth about what is going on. Authentic leaders do not seek to make any big dramatic changes based on a macro-micro perspective. They are there to build relationships with workers based on honest assessment of the facts. In so doing, they trust that everyone will come together to keep the organization moving towards its goals.
The theoretical basis for authentic leadership is the ethical system of virtue ethics, which posits that the moral thing to do in any given situation is that which completes or betters the individual character. In order for a society to succeed, its people must behave in a moral manner according to a system of ethics that enables them to act virtuously. Authentic leadership is rooted in this theoretical base.
It can be applied in a real world situation where morale has plummeted because of misdeeds from leaders at the top. For instance, at Enron, the leaders were engaged in unethical dealings and it destroyed the company. Authentic leadership was needed to restore the trust and to rebuild relationships between leaders and workers.
There are not really any cons to authentic leadership, but there might be limitations to its application. In some organizations, such as the military, it is impossible for leaders to be totally transparent to followers or lower-level soldiers because of the sensitivity of certain information.
Servant Leadership
Servant leadership is the idea that a leader’s role is to serve others—either those workers and followers over whom he sees or the vision and mission of the organization. Servant leadership requires leaders to be selfless in their devotion to the needs of their followers. The aim of the servant leader is not his own glory but rather to develop the potential of his followers so that they can rise up and become self-actualizing. What makes servant leadership unique from a conceptual standpoint is that instead of followers being there to serve the leader, the leader is there to serve the followers. In reality, no leader expects his followers to serve him because he is not the end to which they are all working. Rather, every leader knows that the is there to serve some outside purpose and so his aim is to get everyone else to serve that purpose as well. In this sense, servant leadership is very much like transformational and even authentic leadership. It is a philosophy of leadership more than anything because it is so primarily concerned with the essence of leadership. It is unlike adaptive leadership in the sense that it does not look to make structural changes to the organizational system. It looks instead to help the individual worker achieve his potential by supplying the emotional and social and intellectual support he needs to develop himself personally and professionally so that he can reach his highest potential and thus perform optimally for the organization (Van Dierendonck, 2011).
The theoretical basis of servant leadership is often associated with the Christian ethic or the Golden Rule—do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The notion is that to succeed in life, one has to give all of oneself and that giving begets more giving from those who receive, as one after another passes it on.
A real world example of servant leadership in action is Herb Kelleher’s example of servant leader at Southwest Airlines. He showed his employees a great deal of love because he wanted them in turn to show customers the same kind of affection and gratitude. His belief was that customers would come back, sensing that they were appreciated for their business—and it worked. Southwest grew from nothing into an airline rivaling the majors. With Kelleher, his servant leadership was often described as charismatic because it was so unusual to see a leader display such affection (Gibson & Blackwell, 1999). The only cons of servant leadership are that it requires a totally selfless leader in order to have a genuine impact.
References
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The leadership quarterly, 16(3), 315-338. Badshah, S. (2012). Historical study of leadership theories. Journal of Strategic Human Resource Management, 1(1), 49.
Carlyle, T. (1888). On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History, NY: Fredrick A. Stokes & Brother.
Chaleff, I. (2015). Intelligent disobedience. ILA Member Connector.
DeRue, D. S. (2011). Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process. Research in organizational behavior, 31, 125-150.
Ghasabeh, M. S., Soosay, C., & Reaiche, C. (2015). The emerging role of transformational leadership. The Journal of Developing Areas, 49(6), 459-467.
Gibson, J. W., & Blackwell, C. W. (1999). Flying high with Herb Kelleher: a profile in charismatic leadership. Journal of leadership studies, 6(3-4), 120-137.
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.
Manos, A. (2007). The benefits of Kaizen and Kaizen events. Quality Progress, 40(2),47.
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.
US Chamber of Commerce. (2020). 8 Herb Kelleher quotes. Retrieved from https://www.uschamber.com/co/good-company/growth-studio/herb-kelleher-leadership-quotes
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of management, 37(4), 1228-1261.