Evolution of Leadership Theories

For centuries leaders have been analyzed in order to determine what the traits and characteristics of a successful leader are. Leadership, as defined by Koontz and Weihrich (2008) is “the art or a process of influencing people so that they will strive willingly and enthusiastically toward the achievement of group goals” (p. 311). Leadership plays an important role in employee’s participation, creativity, recruitment to an organization, their commitment to the organization, and productivity levels. Over the years, there have been a number of theories surrounding leadership such as the “Great Man” theory, which, according to Riaz and Haider (2010), “assumes that leaders are born and have innate qualities, therefore, leaders

Trait Approach consists of leadership theories looking to identify what qualities great leaders possess so future leaders can be identified based on these qualities. These theories have been referred to as the “Great Man” theories because the traits were based from research of readily identifiable extraordinary leaders (Northhouse, 2016, p. 19). Researchers believed all great leaders must share certain qualities, which makes them able to distinguish themselves above all others. This seemed like a logical approach, however it became apparent determining an absolute required set of traits for leadership proved difficult. Traits which make one an effective leader may only work in certain situations or with certain followers. Intensive studies were conducted during the 20th century with several theories identifying varying sets of traits

Several attempts have been made over the years to explain the characteristics of an effective leader. Trait, behavioural/style, situational-contingency and transformational theories are some of the theories that have been proposed to explain these

Northouse (2010) stated that the trait theory appears to be the first attempt to examine leadership effectiveness, in that, researchers attempted to find universal individual characteristics that might differentiate a leader from a nonleader (House & Aditya, 1997). However, one of the problems with the early trait studies was the insufficient information about reliability properties of the trait measures, which in turns appeared to influence the validity of the trait measures as well (House & Aditya, 1997). Furthermore, most of the earlier studies concerning leadership traits were done in the 1930s, but there was a re-emergence in the 1970s, with clarifications to address certain theoretical issues with previous studies on traits (House & Aditya,

Inadequate leadership in the military health system is a long-standing problem that until recently was not addressed on a large scale. Backed up by the results of an extensive review on military health care, former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel admitted that the level of care provided is adequate, but also stated that there is much room for improvement (Pellerin, 2014). When examining the subject organization in detail, in this case a Naval Branch Health Clinic, several probable causes for problems present themselves. The first conflict that becomes evident is in the relationship that exists between the professional staff and clinical managers; the second involves a lack of leadership structure and poor enforcement of existing policies. The final point of discussion involves the insufficient development in place for future leaders. We must first analyze each issue in detail, and then discuss methods for assessing causes which will allow us to apply solutions to the problems.

Copuious research has been organized regarding leadership theories and styles. “The current leadership body of knowledge is a fragmented and “messy landscape” comprising inputs from a variety of contributors including academics, practitioners, and consultants, with numerous self-proclaimed experts and commentators thrown in for good measure.” (Latham, 2014, p.12). Contingent to this week’s assignment I will include four leadership theories, including the founder, the year the theory was introduced, and the key components of the theory. Also, I will include the Leadership Theory Taxonomy in the Apenidx area.

Robbins and Judge (2017) concluded that individuals, who possess traits, by themselves, does not guarantee that these individuals will be great leaders; however, presence of certain traits can help to predict the leadership potential of an individual (p. 385). Robbins and Judge (2017) defined leadership as, “the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of goals” (p. 382). Explaining how leadership happens cannot be answered by trait theories (Robbins & Judge, 2017, p. 384).

The word leadership has lost its power. A leader, in today’s vernacular, liberally signifies any individual who occupies a position of authority or management. Leadership is more than a discounted buzzword or entitlement. There are an infinite number of interpretations of leadership and no singular, definitive solution. However, despite the seemingly insurmountable challenge that leadership is, authors James Kouzes and Barry Posner scientifically defined what makes a great leader. Their book, The Truth About Leadership: the no-fads, heart-of-the-matter facts you need to know, provides ten truths that define proper leadership.

Research on leadership in 1920s and 1930s only focused on leader traits such as characteristics which would differentiate leaders from non-leaders (Robbins and Coulter, 2012). Furthermore, the early year leadership has been related with individual skills and personal qualities in the leader (Nivala and Hujala, 2002). Besides, the very first systematic approach to leadership is the trait approach (Zaccarro et al., 2004). This approach emphasize that a leader with a certain characteristic is important for having effective leadership. But trait approach only concentrate on leader and neglect the situation factors or followers. And Gibb (1954) also noted that “numerous studies of the personalities of leaders have failed to find any consistent pattern

The Great Man theory assumes that the traits of leadership are instinct; this simply translates to the idea that great leaders are born not made (Greenleaf, 1977). Trait Theory of Leadership focused on analyzing mental, physical and social characteristic in order to gain more understanding of what characteristic or the combination of characteristics leaders had in common. The Contingency Leadership theory argues that there is no single way of leading (Greenleaf, 1977). The situations specific needs will require a particular leadership style. Transactional Theories is characterized by interactions made between the leader and the followers; valuing the positive and mutually beneficial relationship, or in laments terms punishment and reward systems (Greenleaf, 1977).

According to the trait-based theory of leadership, certain integrated patterns of personal characteristics develop the ability to lead a group of people effectively. (Zaccaro 2007). Here the word ‘trait ' is defined as "The distinguishing personal characteristics of a leader, such as intelligence, honesty, self-confidence and even appearance" (pg 612, Samson & Daft 2014). Trait-based leadership is based on the idea that people born with certain qualities and characteristics are more suitable for leadership. It was achieved by identifying the traits of many leaders, both successful and unsuccessful, and looking into their physical, emotional, and cognitive traits that made them who they were. (Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. 2011). By studying the likes of leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi and even controversial leaders like Hitler, researchers interpreted

As a result of the various definitions of leadership which have evolved over the years, many approaches to leadership have progressed changing the focus and direction of leadership (Rost, 1991). Early theories such as the trait and behavioural approaches focus on identifying the qualities and characteristics presented by great leaders and what those great leaders did and how they acted in particular situations; which characterised them as a “successful” leader (Northouse, 2014; Zaccaro, 2007; Yukl, 2010). The trait theory identifies that if the leader is endowed with superior qualities that differentiate themselves from their followers, then it should be possible to identify these qualities from a leader (Bass and Stogdill, 1990). The trait theory explains leaderships in terms of personality and character of an individual. Bass and Stogdill (1990) posed two questions; “What traits distinguish leaders from their followers? What is the

Bass (1990; Koh, 1990) posited the historical evolution of leadership as commencing with the trait theory in the 1930s until to 1940s , in which the assumption was that leaders were born with special qualities which made them effective leaders. As a result, distinction was employed on in discovering universal traits which stood out between leaders and non-leaders (Koh, 1990). Early studies investigated traits such as Intelligence, dominance, age, sex, height, and weight, but at last the trait theory was disputed when confirmation could not be established that specific traits were connected with effective leaders (Koh, 1990; Yukl, 2002).

With regard to the leadership trait theory, it was proposed in the attempt to understand and provide some explanations as to why some people make successful leaders while others fail to do so. This theory assumes that some

Great Man Theories – this theory assumes that leadership can be inherited, that they are born not taught. The Great Man theory reveals great leaders as heroic, mythic and certain to rise to leadership when needed. A leader is born with the required core characteristics of a great leader including confidence, intelligence and social skills. The term Great Man theory was used because at the time leadership was thought to be a primarily male quality.