Comparing and Contrasting Four Leadership Models and Theories
The following paper outlines the comparison and contrast of four leadership models and theories. The purpose of this paper is to acquaint readers with the basic concepts underlying each model and theory. A review of the scholarly studies on leadership shows that there is a wide variety of different theoretical approaches to explain the complexities of the leadership process (e.g., Bass, 1990; Bryman, 1992; Gardner, 1990; Hickman 1998; Rost, 1991). Some researchers conceptualize as a trait, or as behavior, while others view leadership from a political perspective, or from a humanistic viewpoint.
The paper begins with a description of leadership trait theory, a theory that concerns itself solely with leader characteristics. Following this, two theories are reviewed. They are: transactional leadership and contingency approach to leadership. The paper concludes with a look at transformational leadership. Although these leadership theories or models could be considered contingency models, they are addressed separately because of the emphasis that they place on morality and follower development.
Trait TheoryIn the early 1900s, leadership traits were studied to determine what made certain people great leaders. The theories that were developed were called, "great man" theories because they focused on identifying the innate qualities and characteristics possessed by great social, political, and military leaders (e.g. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Mohandas Gandhi). It was believed that people were born with these traits and only "great" people possessed them. During this time research concentrated on determining the specific traits that clearly differentiated leaders from followers (Bass, 1990; Jago, 1982). Although different researchers identified a variety of leadership traits and characteristics, it is generally thought that there are five major leadership traits: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability.
In the mid-1900s, the
The paper begins with a description of leadership trait theory, a theory that concerns itself solely with leader characteristics. Following this, two theories are reviewed. They are: transactional leadership and contingency approach to leadership. The paper concludes with a look at transformational leadership. Although these leadership theories or models could be considered contingency models, they are addressed separately because of the emphasis that they place on morality and follower development.
Trait TheoryIn the early 1900s, leadership traits were studied to determine what made certain people great leaders. The theories that were developed were called, "great man" theories because they focused on identifying the innate qualities and characteristics possessed by great social, political, and military leaders (e.g. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Mohandas Gandhi). It was believed that people were born with these traits and only "great" people possessed them. During this time research concentrated on determining the specific traits that clearly differentiated leaders from followers (Bass, 1990; Jago, 1982). Although different researchers identified a variety of leadership traits and characteristics, it is generally thought that there are five major leadership traits: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability.
In the mid-1900s, the
References: volio, B.J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageAvolio, B.J. & Gibbons, T.C. (1988). Developing transformational leaders: A life spanapproach. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990a). The implications of transactional and transformationalleadership for individual, team and organizational development. Research inOrganizational Change and Development, 4, 231-372Bass, B.M. (1990). Bas and Stogdill handbook on leadership. A survey of theory and research,New York Press: Free PressBryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: SageFielder, F.E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Volume. 1, pp. 149-190). New York:Academic Press. Fielder, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-HillFielder, F.E. & Garcia, J.E. (1987). New approaches to leadership: Cognitive resources andorganizational performance. New York: John Wiley. Fielder, F.E. (1995). Reflections by an accidental theorist. Leadership Quarterly, 6(4) 453-461Gardner, J.W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free PressHickman, G.R. (Ed.) (1998). Leading Organizations: Perspective for a new era. ThousandOaks, CA: SageHill, M.A. (19184). The law of the father. In B. Kellerman (Ed.). Leadership:Multidisciplinary perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice HallKuhnert, K.W. (1994). Transforming leadership. Developing people through delegation. In B.M. Bass & B.J. Avolio (Eds.). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp. 10-25). Thousand Oaks. CA: sageKuhnert, K.W. & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership. A constructive/ developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review. 12(4)., 648-657. Rost., J.C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger. Shamir, B. House, R.J. & Arthur, M.B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science. 4(4), 577-594. Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership. A survey of the literature. Journal of psychology, 25, 35-71