What is Leadership? - The Business School - University of Exeter

Theories of Leadership
Whilst practitioners often see theory as
separate from practice, within an applied
field such as leadership the two are
inextricably related. Traditional and
contemporary theories of leadership
strongly influence current practice,
education and policy and offer a useful
framework for the selection and
development of leaders - in other words:
“There is nothing as practical as a
good theory” (Lewin, 1935).
Theories help shape the way we conceive
the world by simplifying and
summarising large quantities of data but
as a result, they can also give rise to
assumptions and modes of thought that
become unquestioned. For example,
traditional leadership theories have their
roots in US organisational research and
take a particularly individualistic view of
leadership. Contemporary theories are
beginning to redress the balance, but
remain predominantly Anglo-American in
origin. In this article we will discuss
some of the most influential leadership
theories, which offer a valuable context
for the consideration of wider issues
about defining leadership capabilities and
development approaches.
Leadership traits
For the first half of the twentieth century
it was assumed that it would be possible
to identify and isolate a finite set of
traits, which could be used when
selecting and promoting individuals to
leadership positions. This search was
strongly influenced by the ‘great man’
theory that focussed on how (primarily
male) figures achieved and maintained
positions of influence. The assumption
was that these people were born to be
leaders and would excel by virtue of their
personality alone.
In an extensive review of trait studies,
Ralph Stogdill (1974) found some
qualities that appeared more often than
others (see Figure 3). The same set of
traits, however, has not been identified
in other studies (e.g. Bird, 1940;
Stewart, 1963) and with the list growing
ever longer it has now been widely
accepted that no such definitive set of
traits will ever be identified. Some weak
generalizations, however, may exist.
Shaw (1976) and Fraser (1978), for
example found that leaders tend to score
higher than average on scores of ability
(intelligence, relevant knowledge, verbal
facility), sociability (participation,
cooperativeness, popularity), and
motivation (initiative and persistence).
It is clear, though, that none of these are
sufficient in themselves to serve as the
basis for the identification or
development of superior leaders.
Figure 3: Leadership Traits
(Stogdill, 1974, p81)
Strong drive for responsibility,
Focus on completing the task,
Vigour and persistence in pursuit of
goals,
Venturesomeness and originality in
problem-solving,
Drive to exercise initiative in social
settings,
Self-confidence,
Sense of personal identity,
Willingness to accept consequences of
decisions and actions,
Readiness to adsorb interpersonal
stress,
Willingness to tolerate frustration and
delay,
Ability to influence the behaviour of
others,
Capacity to structure social systems to
the purpose in hand.
Leadership styles & behaviours
An alternative to the trait approach was
to consider what leaders actually do,
rather than their underlying
characteristics. Interest in this approach
largely arose from work by Douglas
McGregor (1960), which proposed that
management and leadership style is
influenced by the persons’ assumptions
about human nature. He summarised
two contrasting viewpoints of managers
in industry. Theory X managers take a
fairly negative view of human nature,
believing that the average person has an
inherent dislike of work and will avoid it
if possible. Leaders holding this view,
believe that coercion and control is
necessary to ensure that people work,
and that workers have no desire for
responsibility. Theory Y managers, on
the other hand, believe that the
expenditure of physical and mental effort
www.leadershipsouthwest.com 9