Four Leadership Models: Comparing Theories and Their Applications

Introduction: The Complexity of Leadership

What is leadership? Can it be defined through simple terms, or does it change based on the situation and the individual leader? If so, what leadership theories exist? What models can be put into practice, and when should they be used? Scholars concerned with the practice of leadership have been considering these questions as they conduct studies, read previously written literature, and observe the movements of social, business, and political leaders. As these scholars have proposed many different kinds of leadership models, however, it can become difficult for the student of leadership to determine how models differ from one another and how they can be applied in various situations. Through examining the differences and similarities among four of these models—the leadership passages model, the servant leadership model, situational leadership, and leadership as a point of view—students of leadership can understand both the complex nature of leadership and the different models one can use to become an effective leader.

The Leadership Passages Model

The leadership passages model suggests that an effective leader must move through certain prerequisites in order to reach the highest levels of management and leadership. Charan et al. (2003) propose that there are "six turns in the pipeline [that are] major events in the life of a leader" (chap. 12). Much like a young person must pass through rites of passage while growing up, a leader moves from manager of oneself to manager of others, then to manager of managers, functional manager, group manager, and finally enterprise manager (Charan et al., 2003, chap. 12). According to these scholars, each leader needs to follow these steps so that he or she "become[s] familiar with the skills, time applications, and work values demanded by each passage, as well as the particular leadership gestalt" (Charan et al., 2003, chap. 12).

The scholars suggest that many problems in contemporary leadership stem from a misapplication of these passages. Because organizations are often concerned only with economic success or failure, they do not devote sufficient attention to the necessary "skills, time applications, and values" associated with the different levels (Charan et al., 2003, chap. 12). By understanding and implementing developmental programs targeting these different passages, however, the authors argue that companies and organizations could have a better framework through which to gauge leadership.

Furthermore, the authors argue that applying this model would solve a variety of contemporary leadership problems. For instance, it would make the human resources task of matching certain people with certain roles much easier. One persistent problem in leadership is that employees are often placed in leadership roles before they are ready to handle the responsibility, while others who could handle such roles are overlooked. By incorporating this model, managers and human resources personnel could judge a person's readiness for advancement based on accomplishments made at each level rather than relying solely on economic metrics or company-developed leadership assessments (Charan et al., 2003, chap. 12). In addition, the model would support personal development by giving individuals a clear means of assessing their own shortcomings (Charan et al., 2003, chap. 12).

The Servant Leadership Model

Unlike the passages model, which focuses on how leaders are developed structurally, the servant leadership model is most concerned with the motivations of leaders. Greenleaf (2003) argues that there is a fundamental difference between the person who is leader first and the one who is servant first: the person who is servant first has an ingrained "natural feeling that one wants to serve," while the leader-first type is often self-focused (chap. 9). Like the passages model, however, the servant leadership model is ultimately focused on an end result. The end result of the passages model is to create an effective leader who has developed knowledge and skills through six distinct phases, while the end result of the servant leadership model is the creation of new servant leaders who, having been served, have developed the desire and ability to serve others (Greenleaf, 2003, chap. 9). The key distinction, then, is that one model aims at creating the most capable individual leader possible, while the other focuses on cultivating a broad community of leaders.

To achieve either end, one common impetus is required: the individual. The passages model points to the young businessperson at the stage of managing him or herself as the starting point for leadership development, while the servant leadership model calls for one who has exceptional inspiration and the desire to seek a following. Indeed, Kouzes (2003) notes that all leadership begins with the individual, suggesting that "the leader's primary instrument is the self" (chap. Introduction). Despite this shared focus on the individual as the impetus of leadership, the two models pursue different methods of development. The passages model develops the leader through distinct levels, while the servant leadership model relies on more intangible concepts such as vision, acceptance, and empathy (Greenleaf, 2003, chap. 9).

Furthermore, Pree (2003) argues that leadership is a way of thinking, and that servant leaders must orient their minds to understand that they owe "certain things to the institution" (chap. 5). Pree identifies a set of responsibilities that leaders bear, including upholding the values of an organization, cultivating future leaders by enabling them to develop their skills and talents, improving the organization, expressing maturity and rationality, and encouraging the organization to move in a progressive direction (chap. 5). The servant leadership model can thus address the egotism and self-centeredness that the passages model may inadvertently produce. By defining leadership through servant responsibilities, servant leadership offers a corrective to some of the most common interpersonal failures in contemporary leadership.

Conclusion: Leadership as a Montage of Models

Leadership models are diverse, each identifying the same impetus—the individual—but preparing that individual for different end results through different processes. Each model is useful for equipping individuals for different types of leadership situations. Accordingly, leadership cannot be defined by a simple dictionary definition. Instead, it is the culmination of theories and models working in concert to create a flexible ideal that can be adapted to circumstances. Through the comparison of these four models, it becomes clear how similarities and differences coexist within the broader landscape of leadership studies, and how models stand apart and overlap in ways that offer options for a wide range of leadership events.

References

Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2003). Six leadership passages. In J. M. Kouzes (Ed.), Business leadership: A Jossey-Bass reader (1st ed., chap. 12).

Clawson, J. (2006). Level three leadership: Getting below the surface (3rd ed.).

Greenleaf, R. K. (2003). The servant as leader. In J. M. Kouzes (Ed.), Business leadership: A Jossey-Bass reader (1st ed., chap. 9).

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (2003). Situational leadership. In J. M. Kouzes (Ed.), Business leadership: A Jossey-Bass reader (1st ed.).

Kouzes, J. M. (2003). Introduction. In J. M. Kouzes (Ed.), Business leadership: A Jossey-Bass reader (1st ed., chap. Introduction).

Pree, M. D. (2003). What is leadership? In J. M. Kouzes (Ed.), Business leadership: A Jossey-Bass reader (1st ed., chap. 5).