Developing A Personal Theory of Leadership
James E. Wiley
LDRS 812
Fort Hays State University
Abstract
Leadership as an academic discipline is still in its development stage. As a field of study, leadership is relatively young yet already rich in information. Before a personal theory of leadership can be considered, a working definition of leadership should be established. It is within the framework of this definition that the elementary components of leadership may be found. Leadership is a transactional relationship between a leader and a follower or followers, in which their individual traits blend in varying situations, for the purpose of achieving mutually beneficial objectives. The following is an attempt to connect leadership as a recognized academic disciplineto the development of a personal theory, what components a personal theory of leadership may consist of, and what the practical applications of a personal theory of leadership may be. To substantiate the components of a personal theory of leadership, past and present leadership studies will be taken into consideration.
Components of an Academic Discipline Relating To Leadership
As we undertake thework of developing a personal theory of leadership, identifyingthe constituents of an academic discipline can be helpful. Why should we make a connection between the academic characteristics of leadership studies and a personal theory of leadership? It is hoped that a personal theory of leadership will begin to emerge as we consider the elements of leadership as an academic discipline. After identifying the components of academic discipline, we can then ask whether leadership studies meets these criteria and if so, what we can derive about the essential elements of a personal theory of leadership. According to a study at Mountain State University by White and Hitt (Chen 2009), there is a widespread consensus that once academic disciplines are formed they “have become authoritative communities of expertise.” It is in the environment of this community of expertise that a personal theory of leadership will be discovered.
According, to White, there are four modern systems used to classify disciplines; codification, level of paradigm development, level of consensus, and The Biglan model. The codification system arranges knowledge in a systematic order. The level of paradigm development suggests that as a discipline matures their paradigms become more defined. The level of consensus asks whether there is an agreed on set of goals, agreement of professional judgment by scholars, agreement on the body of knowledge, and a system to produce future scholars in the field. (Chen 2009). The Biglan Model is based on three dimensions of academia; “the degree to which a paradigm exists”, “the extent to which subject matter is practically applied”, and “the extent to which the field is involved with living or organic matter.”(Chen 2009) From these criteria we can identify the central qualifiers of the academic discipline of leadership. The following is not a comprehensive list of opinions concerning the components of academic discipline and there continues to be debate over what the essential elements may be. However, the most common elements are:
1)A set of theories identified as belonging to the discipline
2)Distinctive methods of inquiry
3)An identifiable community of scholars of the discipline
4)A tradition of scholarly activity and inquiry
(Chen 2009)
Using these four components of an academic discipline, we can begin to consider the question. In the field of leadership studies, are the essential criteria met to validate it as an academic disciplinewhich will help in the establishment of a personal theory of leadership? If the outcome of this evaluation is in the affirmative and leadership continues to grow as an academic discipline, then the possibility of a personal theory is greatly increased.
The first criterion is whether there is a set of theories identified as belonging to the discipline. There are numerous theories and sub categories of theories that have been develop over the past one hundred to one hundred and fifty years. A few examples would be Fiedler’s Contingency Theory, Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory, House’sPath-Goal Theory, and Vroom, Yetton, and Jago’s Normative Decision Making Theory. (Howell et al, 2006) In addition to these behavioral theories is Stogdill’s Trait Theory developed in the late 1940’s and revisited in the 1970’s. (Crawford et al, 2000)As Fred Fiedler stated, “There are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are leadership theories—and there are almost as many theories of leadership as there are psychologists working in the field.” (Fiedler 1971) To say that leadership meets the first element of an academic would be an understatement considering the extensive research, study, and theory development that has taken place over the past century.
The second criterion asks whether there are distinctive methods of inquiry. All of the theories mentioned have distinctive methods of inquiry, some more qualitative as in the study of traits, and others quantitative as in the study of emotional intelligence. (Northouse 2010)
The third element to consider in academic disciplines is the scholars themselves who are researching the field. There is an extensive list of individuals from various disciplines who have contributed to the study of leadership. Among these are individuals who have been pioneers of thought in leadership like Stogdill, Feidler, Vroom, and House. (Chemers 1997)
With more than sixty universities offering doctoral programs relating to leadership, the fourth element of an academicdiscipline, a history of scholarly activity,has without doubt, been established. As mentioned earlier, there are a multitude of theories from diverse perspectives that comprise the field. It is well within reason to agree that leadership studies sufficiently satisfy all the criteria of an academic discipline.This being true, we can now take the elements of the academic discipline of leadership criteria and extract the pieces that will provide a framework for a personal theory of leadership.
Such an attempt was made by James MacGregor Burns. Over a five year period beginning in 2001, Burns pulled together a group of scholars for the express purpose of developing what he called a personal theory of leadership. (Goethals et al 2006) Even after eight separate meetings, each one lasting several days, the assembly fell short of their declared purpose. This is not to diminish the considerable progress that was made in identifying some essential elements of a personal theory of leadership. (2006) We can draw from the abundant research of recognized scholars and identify 1) consistencies in study outcomes and, 2) congruent philosophies which work in concert though they are often categorized as individual theories.
COMPONENTS OF A PERSONAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP
For the purpose of laying a foundation for a personal theory of leadership we need to identify themajor theory concepts that have been discovered during the span of leadership study. I would contend that all studies and sub-theories of leadership can be categorized in one of the following three major “houses” of leadership theory: 1) Behavioral / Trait, 2) Contingency / Situational, 3) Transformational / Transactional. There is some overlap in these components with some discoveries serving as a portal to the next era. A good example of this is Stogdill’s trait studies which led him to believe that traits alone do not explain the effectiveness of a leader, rather effectiveness is a combination of both leader’s characteristics and variables of the situation, followers, and goals which led to the era of contingency / situational theory. (Chemers 1997) These overlaps can be seen as covered breezeways where ideas and applications are shared. While there is bountiful research from many scholars in each of these approaches to leadership studies, for the sake of practicality, only the central elements of these three building blocks will be discussed.As other studies are taken into consideration, it becomes clear that they are in fact, sub-facets of the major theories.
Behavioral / Trait Component of Leadership Theory
Trait theory was considered antediluvian as contingency theories emerged, however, there has been a reemergence of the study of traits as evidenced by articles like Personality And Leadership: A Qualitative And Quantitative Review, in the Journal of Applied Psychology by Judge, Bono,Ilies, and Gerhardt. (Day et al, 2008) We cannot overlook the consideration of an individual’s composition of character as the first building block of leadership in a personal theory of leadership.Early studies of leadership were almost exclusively focused on traits held by the individual leader. Though trait theory resulted in frustration due to an inability to reach consistent outcomes, and the inconsistency of the studies themselves, later work in the 1980’s by Stephen Zaccaro indicated, “Stable aspects of a leader can indeed have predictive validity.” (Chemers, 1997) By this we understand that it is possible to predict with some reasonable expectancy of outcome, the long term effectiveness of an individual in a leadership role if they possess certain traits. Another way to state this is if an individual is deficient in certain traits, their leadership effectiveness is predictably minimized if not nullified altogether. Whether learned by environmental influence or innate, every effective leader exhibits personal characteristics which contribute to the process. While there could be thousands of words to describe leader traits, we can select the major traits that are consistent in past studies.
Based on past and present studies of trait theory, there are five reoccurring traits that have an impact on leadership: Cognitive Intelligence, Resilience, Charisma, Integrity, and Social Intelligence. Although the terminology may be interchangeable, the essence of at least one, if not several, of these five traits was noted as leadership traits in six major trait studies, including Stogdill (1948), Mann (1959), Stogdill (1974), Lord, Devader, and Alliger (1986), Kirkpatrick and Locke (1981), and Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2004). (Northouse, 2010)
Cognitive intelligence includes “perceptual processing, information processing, personal reasoning skills, creative and divergent thinking capacities, and memory skills.” (Northouse 2010) If the leader’s cognitive intelligence is significantly lower than followers, the effectiveness of their leadership is diminished greatly. Locke argued that cognitive ability is valuable to leaders given their responsibility to gather and process large amounts of information. (Locke 1991)
Resilience can be defined as the ability to recover and adjust to difficult situations, especially when they embody hardship and suffering. Resilience not only gets a leader through tough situations, it can actually increase productivity helping the leader learn how to deal with adversity in the future. (Sutcliffe 2003)
Charisma, as defined by Weber (1947), is a “special personality characteristic that gives a person superhuman or exceptional powers and is reserved for a few, is of divine origin, and results in the person being treated as a leader.” A wonderful example of a charismatic leader would be Martin Luther King Jr., whose inspirational speeches motivated the masses toward social change during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s. Charismatic leadership is effective because it links followers and their belief about themselves to the identity of the organization or movement. (Northouse 2010)
Integrity is a trait that is usually not noticed except when absent. The leader follower relationship is one of trust. According to Chrislip and Larson, in order for leaders and followers to collaborate successfully over a long period of time, it is essential that an atmosphere of openness and trust be established and sustained. (Chrislip et al 1994) The power of the leadership position is deeply affected by the level of trust between leader and follower. Leaders who have the trust of their followers have more power and need less power to lead. Contrarily, leaders who do not have the trust of their followers have less power and need more power to lead. The combination of faith and security in the integrity of a leader is indeed powerful. (Goethals 2006)
Social intelligence“capacities refer to a leader’s understanding of the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of others in a social domain and his or her selection of the responses that best fit the contingenciesand dynamics of that domain.” (Zaccaro et al 2004) Social intelligence knows how to get along with people in varying situations and create the best opportunity for the individual and the organization to benefit from the relationship. Dale Carnegie’s book, How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936), is an excellent tutorial on how to develop social intelligence without being manipulative or controlling. As Carnegie eloquently points out, “Dealing with people is probably the biggest problem you will face,” and about 85% of one’s financial success is, “Due to skill in human engineering – to personality and the ability to lead people.” (Carnegie 1936)
Situational / Contingency Component of Leadership Theory
In 1948, Stogdill acknowledged that leadership theory would not be complete unless it included a combination of the leader’s personality and the situation the leader found themselves in.Contingency / Situational theories blend the behavioral tendencies of the leader with the leader situations or scenarios they encounter or create. (Chemers 1997) Fred Fiedler’s Contingency theory is the most widely researched model on leadership. (Bass, 1990) Contingency theory based on the Least Preferred Co-worker scale, addresses what type of leaders respond well in particular situations. Fiedler describes the leadership phenomenon in three dimensions, the leader-member relations, task structure, and leader’s positional power. Fiedler’s model, showed that low LPC (task-oriented) leaders performed better when leader-member relations, task structure, and leader’s positional power were highly favorable or unfavorable to the leader.High LPC leaders, (relationship-oriented), performed better when the three dimensions of leadership were not high or low, but moderate. (Bass, 1990) Fiedler found that low LPC (task-oriented) leaders were more likely to perform in a dominant manner regardless of the leadership dimensions.Using this scale, R.W. Rice further refined the LPC categorizing 1,445 relationships that exist within the LPC model. Rice found that leader LPC scores, whether high or low, stayed fairly consistent. (Rice 1983) Being able to predict the type of situation a leader was best suited for allows for the potential of pre-planning where to place a leader given their strengths. Additionally, if the possibility of adjusting the work situation to either a more task orientation or relational orientation exists, then a leader can modify the situation to fit their personal leadership strengths. The more comfortable a leader is in a given situation, it is more likely their leadership will be effective. According to Chemers, when a “psychological state characterized by excitement, confidence, and personal responsibility” exists, there is a greater possibility that a “positive environment for productivity and effective leadership” will exist as well. (Chemers 1997)
Hersey and Blanchard build on the task-oriented or directive behavior, and the relationship-oriented or supportive behavior of leaders in their situational leadership theory. They developed a four quadrant model. Quadrant 1, called Telling consists of highly-directive and low supportive style of leadership. Quadrant 2 called Selling consists of a highly-directive and highly supportive style of leadership. Quadrant 3 called Participating consists of a low-directive and highly-supportive style leadership. Quadrant 4 called Delegating consists of low-directive and low-supportive leadership style. According to Hersey and Blanchard, quadrant 1 represents a low follower readiness, meaning the follower has a low ability and low willingness to accomplish a task. Quadrant 2 represents those followers who have a high willingness but a low ability. Quadrant 3 represents followers who have a high ability but a low willingness. Quadrant 4 represents followers who have a high ability and a high willingness to accomplish a task. (Hersey 2008) The simplicity of this theory makes it inviting for easy application, however, subsequent research has failed to show consistent results, especially in the Telling and Delegating quadrants. (Howell 2008)
Another significant theory that is housed in the Contingency / Situational family, is the Normative Decision Making Theory (NDMT) first developed by Vroom and Yetton and later revised by Vroom and Jago. Some studies leading up to the NDMT were House’s Path Goal Theory and Yukl’s Multiple Linkage Theory. However, though these studies served to make a connection between leadership styles and the situational factors, they were not specific enough to be tested in a reliable manner and therefore made predictions difficult and inconclusive. (Howell 2008)NDMT “contends that the effectiveness of a decision depends on applying a decision-making style that matches the situation.” (Howell 2008) That is to say, that the five decision making styles: Decide, Consult Individually, Consult Group, Facilitate, and Delegate as identified in the NDMT, if appropriately applied to situations will determine the effectiveness of the leader’s decisions in six ways: Decision Acceptance, Decision Quality, Decision Timeliness, Costs of Decision Making, and Follower’s Development. (Howell 2008) There is evidence according to Vroom and Jago that the NDMT is predictably accurate, however, there has been limited research to verify it. The drawback of the NDMT model is that it is somewhat complex, and not all leaders are likely to have the capacity to apply all five of the decision making styles. One thing we can be reasonably sure of is Contingency / Situational theory needs to be included as one of the foundational components of a personal theory of leadership.
Transformational / Transactional Component of Leadership Theory
To say that leadership/behavioral traits and situational/contingencies equate leadership falls short of the leadership definition. Leadership is a transactional process between the leader and followers. Perhaps the most substantiated study in leadership can be identified as transactional / transformational theory. Transactional leadership could be described as an informal exchange or transaction between leaders and followers in which the follower provides a competent effort, and the leader provides directive influence. (Howell, 2006) Within the context of transactional leadership are multiple factors that contribute to the relationship of leader and follower. Bass’s (1995) Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire is a tool that has been used to measure transactional leadership relationships. Bass’s conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadershipincluded seven leadership factors, which he labeled Charisma, Inspirational, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized Consideration, Contingent Reward, Management-By-Exception and Laissez-Faire Leadership. (Avolio et al, 2010) The distinction between transactional and transformational leadership is based on what is being exchanged between leader and follower. In transactional leadership, the leader is offering reward for productivity. Transactional leadership takes place when "one person takes the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things."(Burns 1978) Transformational leadership refers to the leader’s inspiration of followers to “achieve extraordinary outcomes and, in the process, develop their own leadership capacity.” As Burns points out, there is a moral element in transformational leadership, whereas transactional leadership is equivalent to a politician providing benefits in exchange for votes. (Bass et al, 2006) Burns (1978) asserts “The result of transforming leadershipis a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents.”Transactional / transformational theory must be included in a personal theory of leadership because it is an overarching covering for all leader/follower interactions.