Early Approaches to Leadership
The Trait Approach to Leadership
The trait approach to leadership is based on early leadership research that assumed a good leader is born, not made. Primarily, this research attempted to describe successful leaders as precisely as possible. The reasoning was that if a complete profile of the traits of a successful leader could be drawn, it would be fairly easy to identify the individuals who should and should not be placed in leadership positions.7
Many of the early studies that attempted to summarize the traits of successful leaders were documented. One of these summaries concluded that successful leaders tend to possess the following characteristics:8
-
Intelligence, including judgment and verbal ability
-
Past achievement in scholarship and athletics
-
Emotional maturity and stability
-
Dependability, persistence, and a drive for continuing achievement
-
The skill to participate socially and adapt to various groups
-
A desire for status and socioeconomic position
Evaluations of these trait studies, however, have concluded that their findings are inconsistent. One researcher said that 50 years of study have failed to produce one personality trait or set of qualities that can be used consistently to differentiate leaders from nonleaders.9 Still, researchers continue to examine the issue. A recent study by Frank Walter and Helka Bruch analyzes the phenomenon of the charismatic leader and identifies some traits inherent in such leaders.10 Thus far, however, research has failed to definitively articulate a trait or combination of traits that indicate an individual will be a successful leader. Leadership is apparently a much more complex issue.
Contemporary management writers and practitioners generally agree that leadership ability cannot be explained by an individual’s traits or inherited characteristics. They believe, rather, that individuals can be trained to be good leaders. In other words, leaders are made, not born.11 That is why thousands of employees each year are sent to leadership training programs.12
Companies are finding that the benefits of building leadership talent include not only enhancing company success but also gaining an advantage in attracting the best college graduates as new hires.
Behavioral Approaches to Leadership
The failure to identify predictive leadership traits led researchers in this area to turn to other variables to explain leadership success. Rather than looking at traits leaders should possess, the behavioral approach looked at what good leaders do. Are they concerned with getting a task done, for instance, or do they concentrate on keeping their followers happy and maintaining high morale?
Two major studies were conducted to identify leadership behavior, one by the Bureau of Business Research at Ohio State University (referred to as the OSU studies), and the other by the University of Michigan (referred to as the Michigan studies).
The OSU Studies
The OSU studies concluded that leaders exhibit two main types of behavior:
-
Structure behavior is any leadership activity that delineates the relationship between the leader and the leader’s followers or establishes well-defined procedures that the followers should adhere to in performing their jobs. Overall, structure behavior limits the self-guidance of followers in the performance of their tasks, but although it can be relatively firm, it is never rude or malicious.
Structure behavior can be useful to leaders as a means of minimizing follower activity that does not significantly contribute to organizational goal attainment. Leaders must be careful, however, not to go overboard and discourage follower activity that will contribute to organizational goal attainment.
-
Consideration behavior is leadership behavior that reflects friendship, mutual trust, respect, and warmth in the relationship between leader and followers. This type of behavior generally aims to develop and maintain a good relationship between the leader and the followers.
Research by consulting firm Lore International Institute reveals that, to succeed in the workplace, it’s important for leaders to demonstrate trustworthiness, honesty, and an ability to collaborate. According to the findings, leaders can “kill” trust between themselves and workers by being (1) credit hogs and taking credit for the good ideas of others, (2) lone rangers and working mostly by themselves and not closely with other workers, (3) egomaniacs and believing that success will come only through the efforts of management as opposed to those of workers, or (4) mules and being stubborn and inflexible.13
The OSU studies resulted in a model that depicts four fundamental leadership styles. A leadership style is the behavior a leader exhibits while guiding organization members in appropriate directions.14 Each of the four leadership styles depicted in Figure 13.2 is a different combination of structure behavior and consideration behavior. For example, the high-structure/low-consideration leadership style emphasizes structure behavior and deemphasizes consideration behavior.
Figure 13.2 Four fundamental leadership styles based on structure behavior and consideration behavior
The OSU studies made a significant contribution to our understanding of leadership, and the central ideas generated by these studies still serve as the basis for modern leadership thought and research.15
The Michigan Studies
About the same time the OSU leadership studies were being carried out, researchers at the University of Michigan, led by Rensis Likert, were also conducting a series of historically significant leadership studies.16 After analyzing information based on interviews with leaders and followers (i.e., managers and subordinates), the Michigan studies pinpointed two basic types of leader behavior: job-centered behavior and employee-centered behavior.
Job-centered behavior is leader behavior that focuses primarily on the work a subordinate is doing. The job-centered leader is interested in the job a subordinate is doing and in how well the subordinate is performing that job.
Employee-centered behavior is leader behavior that focuses primarily on subordinates as people. The employee-centered leader is attentive to the personal needs of subordinates and is interested in building cooperative work teams that are satisfying to subordinates and advantageous for the organization. Considerable research has been focused on this relationship and its outcomes, which are sometimes referred to as the Pygmalion effect, a phenomenon in which the more leaders believe their subordinates can achieve, the more the subordinates do achieve.17
The results of the OSU studies and the Michigan studies are similar. Both research efforts indicate two primary dimensions of leader behavior: a work dimension (structure behavior/job-centered behavior) and a people dimension (consideration behavior/employee-centered behavior). The following sections focus on determining which of these two primary dimensions of leader behavior is more advisable for a manager to adopt.
Effectiveness of Various Leadership Styles
An early investigation of high school superintendents concluded that desirable leadership behavior is associated with strong leader emphasis on both structure and consideration and that undesirable leadership behavior is associated with weak leader emphasis on both dimensions. Similarly, the managerial grid described in Chapter 11 implies that t he most effective leadership style is characterized by a high level of consideration and an effective structure. Results of a more recent study indicate that subordinates always prefer a high level of consideration.18
Comparing Styles
One should be cautious, however, about concluding that any single leadership style is more effective than any other. Leadership situations are so varied that pronouncing one leadership style as the most effective is an oversimplification. In fact, a successful leadership style for managers in one situation may prove ineffective in another situation. Recognizing the need to link leadership styles to appropriate situations, A. K. Korman noted, in a classic article, that a worthwhile contribution to leadership literature would be a rationale for systematically linking appropriate styles with various situations in order to ensure effective leadership.19 The life cycle theory of leadership, which is covered in the next section, provides such a rationale.