Main Leadership Theories

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,

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

It is one of the earliest leadership theories upon whose tenets many researches on leadership have been done. Although it is not very coherent, its heuristic nature has contributed to its significance in leadership research. Zaccaro and Klimoski (2002) define traits of reference to leadership as the stable personality characteristics, which result in a consistent leadership performance pattern, given different scenarios and groups. They include individual personalities, temperament, rationale, prowess, as well as cognitive abilities. Initially, the theory explored both physical and psychological characteristics that tell apart leaders from non-leaders.

Central to this theory is that leaders have different relationships with different subordinates which leads to the subordinates being placed in two categories; the in-group and the out-group. Subordinates in the in-group have good relationships with the leader. The relationship is

"Leadership is more than just a skill set of an individual, it has also been conceptualized as a social process…[and] social awareness includes…empathy, service orientation, and developing others. Teaching implicit leadership theories develops leaders and leadership by raising awareness of this social context and of one's own implicit leadership theories and how they might or might not match the social context…" (Schyns, et al, 2011, pp. 397-98).

Although not considered the preeminent leadership theory, falling prey to more teachable forms of leadership (i.e. transformational and authentic leadership) trait theory does possess some notable strengths. First, the theory is highly descriptive and intuitive. People naturally gravitate toward that which is straightforward. This strength is the primary reason that trait theory surfaced as the first major approach to leadership studies. As such, society knows a great deal about how “the leader and the leader’s personality are related to the leadership process” (Northouse, 2010, pg. 26). Additionally, trait theory provides an individual with a quick tool which aids in selecting members of an organization as well as an easy means for feedback from

Leadership is the acts of managing the company through organizational changes that are projected to enable the company in meeting meet its objectives. Leaders are anticipated to carry themselves in the right manner to motivate as well as, influencing the rest of the organization positively, since they act as an example to the rest of the employees in the organization (Sheahan, 2006). This paper therefore analyzes the leadership theories and the methods and tools in given situations while selecting the appropriate behavior of different leaders in resolving problems in the organization. The paper also analyses the sources of power within the organization as well as defining the relationship between the power and independency in an organizational setting.

The LMX theory inhabit a unique place between leadership theories since its center of interest on the dyadic correlation between follower and leader. LMX is theoretically described as an interchange process, making it visible to be a

Defined, leadership is, “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013, p. 462). Leaders have the capability to set and achieve goals, to take immediate action in complex situations, and they willingly take risks. For this reason, self-confidence, communication skills, management of others, and a willingness to embrace change are qualities possessed by good leaders.

Thomas Carlyle said that the history of the world was the biography of great men that lead the trait theory of leadership. The trait theory assumed that leadership depended on the personal leader qualities but does not assume that leadership is for a few people (765). Personality traits investigations relating to leadership have been unreliable and unsatisfactory. Many literature reviews have found that the trait approach aged out. All these literature reviews exposed that there are some traits that are related to leadership effectiveness.

According to Simonton (1994, p.411), leadership is the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members. And the leader is a person who has this ability.

“Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.” —Warren Bennis. According to dictionary.com, leadership is defined as the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs a group. This is an accurate definition but leaders can be more than someone who just leads. Leadership is something that you gain with experience not something you are born with. Leaders encourage others to achieve greatness, not just tell them what to do.

The theories that leaders are born of intrinsic characters, and that certain leadership behaviors can be taught, purportedly, there are no set ways to become a leader, have inspired tremendous contentions amongst scholars. Ironically, these arguments have also shared diverse opinions and views that seemingly create a framework of contrast on these viewpoints. Therefore it is clear that characters that are attributed to a leader are in fact nonlinear, and even so, could be argued as a constant dynamic changes to behavioral patterns. Nevertheless, these assumptions have provided us the leverage in defining some of the essential characters of a leader as we look at these three theories in further details.

Leadership is when a person in charged where others look up to you. You have responsibilities that others do not. Being a leader is a big responsibility in itself and leaders take in account responsibility for their actions. You cannot be a great leader if you do not know how to communicate. You must be able to communicate with your teammates and get them on the same page. Leadership is the ability to get a group to come as one. Leaders see the “big picture.” Being a great leader is someone who is trustworthy, respectful, responsible, honest. Someone who knows others are watching therefore they live as a prototype of what is acceptable. They know they are a role model for others and must not act any other way. Prime example to great leaders that have been noticed are Olivia Pope from ABC drama, Scandal and Jay Gruden, the head football coach for the Washington Redskins.

Followership is the study of the nature and impact of followers in the leadership process (Uhl-Bien et al.). It is interesting to notice that followership has a negative connotation in today’s society, as it is mistakenly considered as the simple ability to follow the directions of people in charge. The term “follower” is linked to a passive, weak, conforming, and negative image (insert Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson, & Morris, 2006); therefore, individuals in organizations avoid being labeled as followers. In contrast, the term “leadership” has appeal and is linked to positive images which increase the motivations to be leaders instead of followers. However, individuals in organizations are very likely to play both roles (as he/she has both bosses and subordinates) so the ability to be effective followers is vital to the success of the organization.