Who is a leader? This is a question that we’ve debated for decades, perhaps centuries. With these debates have come formal theories about leadership and what makes a good leader. As we’ve researched and tested these theories, they have evolved, updated and, where necessary, been shelved for better ideas and updated understanding. It is worth reviewing the development of our understanding of leadership theories. This article will briefly describe each one, the time they were most influential, and some of the reasons they weren’t the best explanation for the interactions around leadership.
Upfront, it is critical to review each theory in its appropriate context. It is not useful to deride early theories as uninformed or narrow. A key aspect of the change in the theories has been the changes in society. This is not to say that each theory describes how leadership was done in that period; rather, it is to show that our ability to understand leadership is easily constrained by inherent assumptions and biases that affect our everyday thinking. It then leads to the obvious question – what are we blind to now that will affect our understanding in the future?
Leadership Theories
Trait Theory (Early 20th Century and before):
Early leadership theories focused on identifying specific personal traits or characteristics that distinguished effective leaders. Researchers sought to pinpoint inherent qualities such as intelligence, charisma, and confidence that were believed to contribute to effective leadership. Also known as the ‘great man’ theory, it was assumed that leadership was something that some special people were born with, or that they developed those specific traits that enabled them to lead when the majority would follow.
This theory is incredibly persuasive and, despite how much the research and evidence have moved on, society often falls back on it to explain everyday leadership. When we think of leaders, we often think of presidents, generals, coaches, CEOs, and other people in powerful positions. Then we assume that these people got to their positions based on their personalities, so their leadership must be personality based. It’s easy logic – but that doesn’t make it right. Indeed, time and time again, research has shown that this logic is false. The great man theory of trait leadership is easy, but too shallow to be useful.
Behavioural Theories (1940s-1950s):
Behavioural theories shifted the focus from inherent traits to observable behaviours of leaders. Researchers examined how leaders' actions and behaviours influenced their effectiveness. Two prominent perspectives emerged during this period: the Ohio State studies, which identified initiating structure and consideration as key leadership behaviours, and the University of Michigan studies, which emphasised employee-centred and job-centred leadership styles.
Contingency and Situational Theories (1960s-1970s):
Contingency theories recognized that effective leadership is contingent upon various situational factors. The most notable theory was Fred Fiedler's Contingency Model, which emphasized the match between a leader's style (task-oriented or relationship-oriented) and the situational favourableness. Situational leadership theories by Hersey and Blanchard and Vroom and Yetton also gained prominence during this period.
The idea of situational leadership is another one that has become easy to fall back on when thinking about everyday leadership. We believe that certain situations require certain leadership behaviours. For example, in high-stress, time-constrained environments, we often believe that directive behaviours (that is, giving curt commands and being short and sharp) is the best way to get the job done. In other situations, where time is less pressing, we can slow down and be empathetic with followers. Again though, this popular belief doesn’t tell the full story. It might be part of the narrative, but there’s far more to add.
Transformational and Transactional Leadership (1980s-1990s):
Transformational leadership theory, introduced by James MacGregor Burns, highlighted leaders' ability to inspire and motivate followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes. This approach emphasised visionary leadership, charisma, and the ability to empower and develop others. Concurrently, transactional leadership theory, proposed by Bernard Bass, focused on the exchange relationship between leaders and followers, emphasising rewards, punishments, and goal setting.
These two theories remain popular and are often seen as mutually exclusive. They are also extrapolated and deep inferences drawn that aren’t necessarily accurate – often in the manufactured tension between leadership and management. This tension often contends that ‘leaders’ are transformational visionaries who inspire, whereas ‘managers’ are transactional only, with no ability to evoke any positive feeling of influence. In reality, they are not mutually exclusive, and as with so many other theories, there is a spectrum and context of application. Leaders and managers (and these two terms are far from being mutually exclusive as well) must use both transformational and transactional techniques in their roles to be successful.
Authentic and Servant Leadership (Late 20th Century-2000s):
As interest in ethics and morality as part of leadership grew, theories such as authentic leadership and servant leadership emerged. Authentic leadership emphasises leaders' genuine and transparent behaviour, aligning their actions with their values. It is sometimes referred to as ‘values-based leadership.’ Servant leadership emphasises leaders' commitment to serving others and their focus on followers' well-being, growth, and development.
These two theories are closely aligned, and in many ways, hark back to the trait theory of leadership. The greatest difference is the point of reference; these two theories look at the leader’s actions as they affect the followers, and how the leader makes the followers feel. Servant leadership in particular is follower-centric in its outlook. Interestingly, these theories are perhaps the first time that the leadership research starts to examine the leader-follower relationship in detail. It’s funny that it took this long to formally realise that a leader needs followers!
Complexity and Adaptive Leadership (2000s-2010s):
With the recognition of increasing complexity in organisations, leadership theories began to address adaptive challenges. Complexity theory and adaptive leadership approaches, proposed by Ronald Heifetz and others, focused on leaders' ability to navigate uncertainty, facilitate change, and mobilise collective efforts to address complex problems. These theories emphasised the importance of collaboration, learning, and flexibility.
Positive and Ethical Leadership (2010s-Present):
In recent years, leadership theories have increasingly emphasised the positive impact leaders can have on individuals and organisations. Positive leadership theory highlights the importance of strengths, well-being, and positive relationships in leadership effectiveness. Ethical leadership theories focus on leaders' moral and ethical behaviour, emphasizing integrity, transparency, and social responsibility.
If you are thinking that this looks a lot like values-based leadership, you’re not far off the mark. There are two key themes to draw from these approaches; first, as noted above, there’s an emphasis on positive relationships. Not leader-follower dyads, not boss-subordinate interactions – positive relationships. The second theme is that leadership is about being a decent human, and encouraging and supporting those around you to do the same. It’s never about the power, the rewards, the trappings, or anything else that is position-centric. Those things are nice, and you can enjoy them. But, never forget, leadership is about others – not you.
Summary
Overall, leadership theory has evolved from trait-based approaches to more complex, context-dependent perspectives that consider the interplay between leaders, followers, and the surrounding environment. Modern theories emphasize the importance of values, ethics, authenticity, adaptability, and the positive impact of leaders on individuals and organisations.
The key change perhaps has been the shift from ego-based ideals to understanding that leadership is broad, positive, and helpful. These theories barely touch the surface of the complexity and nuance that encompasses leadership, and if you are interested in learning more, consider signing up for monthly emails to help navigate this journey called leadership.
If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.