a) Outline two theories of leadership (12 marks)
b) Assess the extent to which these theories are supported by research evidence. (12 marks)
According to Hollander (1985) a leader is the person who has most influence in a group
According to the Personality Trait Theory, there are born leaders who rise to the position of leadership through force of their personality. They take their place in power in any situation regardless of social/historical context. Traits put forward as important for effective leadership include intelligence, sociability, drive, flexibility and height. Perhaps some of the truly great leaders have been described as being charismatic. The charismatic leader has been described as having pride in the objectives they are working towards, a sense of mission and the ability to inspire others. They have an ideological conviction in what they are doing, have high expectations, and are willing to make an extra effort for the other members of the group
However, no strong, consistent and conclusive leadership traits emerged indicating situational factors determine who becomes a leader and that different groups may give rise to different types of leader. French and Raven identified 6 different kinds of power: legitimate power, reward power, coercive power, expert power, and referent power. Leaders may operate from different power bases. Intelligence and relevant knowledge provide information and expert power. Sociability and popularity, and charisma provide reward and referent power. Dominance and assertiveness leads to coercive power.
Unfortunately, the implication of trait theory is that not just anyone can learn to be a good leader, but rather one is born with that ability or not. The trait theory has been criticised for not taking account of the situation. Some have suggested that different situations call for different qualities of leadership. A classic example of this was Winston Churchill whose style of leadership was well suited to leadership during war time, but not during peacetime.
Such criticisms led some to conclude that the trait needed by a leader varies according to the group (or followers), the task, and the situation. The best leader will be the person who is best equipped, in terms of their skills and competencies, to fulfil the objectives of the group in that context. Such theories can be broadly grouped together as interactionist or contingency theories since they acknowledge interaction between personality traits and situational factors. They suggest that the best leader depends both on the situation and the personal attributes of the individual members that make up the group (acknowledging that some adopt the role of leader more readily than others).
According to Fiedler’s contingency theory (1967), effective leadership depends on a match between leadership style and situational control. Fiedler believed that the amount of situational control was determined by the amount of support the leader received from the group, how clearly defined the groups goals and roles were, and how much power the leader has to make members of the group comply. The best leadership style depends on how much situational control there is. Fiedler suggested that leadership style could be assessed from the attitudes of individuals to their least preferred co-worker. He developed the LPC scale to measure this. People who score low on the LPC scale (meaning that they have fairly negative attitudes to their least preferred co-worker) are considered to be task oriented. Those who score high on the LPC scale (meaning that they have fairly positive attitudes to their least preferred co-worker) considered to be relationship oriented. Task oriented leaders tend to be directive, controlling and dominant in relationships with group members. Relationship oriented leaders tend to be more accepting, permissive and considerate to group members. Fiedler proposed that task oriented leaders made the best leaders where situational control was either high, or low whereas relationship oriented leaders were best in situation where situational control was moderate.
Randle (1956) interviewed 1427 executives in the USA and identified characteristics associated with good leaders: drive, motivation, and intelligence were considered to be the most important. Stogdill (1974) reviewed studies of the personalities of leaders and found that they tend to be more intelligent, sociable achievement oriented, experienced, older and taller. Mann (1959) Reviewed over 100 studies and found only weak evidence for leaders being more intelligent extrovert, dominant and sensitive. Shaw (1976) carried out a review of studies which found weak evidence that leaders tend to have more intelligence, relevant knowledge, sociability, popularity, motivation, initiative and persistence.
Studies which support trait theory rely on studies of existing leaders who may have acquired traits trough experience of leadership (e.g. knowledge, popularity, dominance, etc.) rather than prior possession of the traits leading to the emergence of leadership.
A great deal of research evidence has been put forward to support Fiedler’s model. Data suggests that the model can be used to make predictions about the suitability of a person to lead a group in a given situation. However, Fishbein et al. (1969) suggest that since reasons for disliking your least preferred co-worker vary, the distinction is blurred. One person may not like working with people who are more intelligent and pushy, while another may not like working with people who are unpleasant and unfriendly. Mischel (1968) pointed out the LPC score may vary over time and within situations but this does not appear to be taken into account by Fiedler. Rice (1978) has confirmed that the LPC does in fact have low test-retest reliability suggesting that it is not a stable characteristic. In addition, research support is mixed since much of the evidence gathered has be based on laboratory studies rather than field studies. It is also not clear how LPC score should relate to leadership style why your attitude to your least preferred co-worker should affect your ability as a leader in a given situation, and therefore the LPC seems to have dubious face validity.
