AFE 103

THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP

Introduction
As agreed in our last class, leadership is approached from diverse angles and exhibited in
diverse contexts too. However, the approaches cab be grouped within an identifiable
paradigm. Hence, there are different types of leadership theories; trait theories of leadership,
behavioural leadership theories, contingency leadership theories, and integrative leadership
theories. The aim is to focus on theories related to leadership, and the ways through which the
theories explain and interpret leadership behaviour and effectiveness. The essence of this
preoccupation is to provide the necessary background and context for understanding the
nature and diversity of leadership, and to call attention to possible paradigmatic location of
students’ leadership interest.
1. TRAIT THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP
This theory focuses on the traits possessed by individual leaders. The kind of traits studied in
trait theories of leadership include personality, ability, motivation, power and needs. A Trait
can be defined as an inherent characteristic of a person, while a competency can be defined as
ability of capability of a person to do. It is important to understand that competencies and
behaviour can change, and can therefore be developed, while inherent traits of a person are
difficult to change. The most popular among the traits theories of leadership is the AMT.
 Achievement Motivation Theory
The theory focuses on explaining and predicting behaviour and performance based on a
person’s need for achievement, power and affiliation. David McClelland originally developed
his Achievement Motivation Theory in the 1940s. He believes that everybody has needs, and
that our needs motivate us to satisfy them. Our behaviour is therefore motivated by our needs.
He further states that needs are based on personality, and are developed as we interact with
the environment. All people experience the need for achievement, power, and affiliation, but
to different degrees. One of these three needs (achievement, power and affiliations) tend to
be dominant in each of us, and motivates our behaviour (McClelland, 1960).
According to McClelland (1960), our need for achievement is the unconscious concern for
excellence in accomplishments through individual effort. Those with a strong need for
achievement tend to have an internal locus of control, self-confidence, and high energy traits.
People with a high need for achievement tend to be characterized as wanting to take personal
responsibility for solving problems. They are goal-oriented and set moderate, realistic,
attainable goals. They seek a challenge, excellence and individuality. They tend to take
calculated, moderate risks, they desire concrete feedback on their performance, and they are
hard workers. Those with high need for achievement think about ways in which to improve
work performance, about how to accomplish something unusual or important and about
career progression.
The need for power, according to McClelland (1960), the need for power is the unconscious
need to influence others and to seek positions of authority. Those with a strong need for
power possess a trait for dominance, and tend to be self-confident with high energy. Those
with a strong need for power tend to be characterized as trying to control situations, trying to
influence or control others, enjoying competitiveness where they can win. They resent the
idea of losing and are willing to confront others. They tend to seek positions of authority and
status.
According to Nicholson (1998), people with a strong need for power tend to be ambitious and
have a lower need for affiliation. They are more concerned with getting their own way by for
instance influencing others, than about what others think of them. They tend to regard power
and politics as essential for successful leadership. According to McClelland (1985), power is
essential to leaders because it is an effective way of influencing followers. Without power,
there is no leadership. T successful, leaders must want to be in charge and enjoy the
leadership role.
According to McClelland (1960), the need for affiliation is the unconscious concern for
developing, maintaining, and restoring close personal relationships. People with a strong need
for affiliation tend to be sensitive to others. People with a high need for affiliation tend to be
characterized as seeking close relationships with others, wanting to be liked by others,
enjoying a wide variety of social activities and seeking to belong. They therefore tend to join
groups and organizations. People with a high need for affiliation tend to think about friends
and relationships. They tend to enjoy developing, helping and teaching others. They often
seek jobs as teachers, in human resource management, and in other support-giving
professions. According to Nicholson (1998), those with a high need for affiliation are more
concerned about what others think of them than about getting their own way by, for example,
influencing others. They tend to have a low need for power and they therefore tend to avoid
management roles and positions because they like to be seen as one of the group rather than
as its leader (Nicholson, 1998).
2. BEHAVIOURAL LEADERSHIP THEORIES/APPROACHES
According to the behavioural approach to leadership, anyone who adopts the appropriate
behaviour can be a good leader. Researchers on leadership behaviour who followed the
behaviour approach to leadership, attempted to uncover the behaviours in which leaders
engage, rather than what traits a leader possesses. According to this theory, how an individual
acts or behaves determines how followers respond. For example, followers with autocratic
leader tend to get things done, as long as the leader is present to supervise them. However,
they might be displeased with the style of leadership and even the leader. On the other hand,
followers with democratic leaders perform well, even when the leader is not there to
supervise. The participative techniques and decision-making by majority rule as used by the
democratic leader served to train and involve the group members, so that they performed well
with or without the leader being present (Likert, 1967). Let us discuss two of the theories that
align with the BLT is the OSVLT and PGLT.
 a. Ohio State University Leadership Theory
Researchers at Ohio State University identified through their research two categories of
leader-behaviour types, called consideration and initiating structure (Nystrom, 1978).
According to Nystrom (1978), the categories of consideration and initiating structure can be
described as follows:
I. Consideration structure describes the extent to which a leader is sensitive to
subordinates, respects their ideas and feelings, and establishes mutual trust. Showing
appreciation, listening carefully to problems and seeking input from subordinates
about important decisions, are all examples of consideration.
II. Initiating structure describes the extent to which a leader is task-oriented and directs
subordinates’ work activities toward goal-achievement. This type of leadership
behaviour includes directing the performance of subordinates to work very hard,
providing clear guidelines for work activities and maintaining rigorous control.

b. Path-Goal Leadership Theory

The Path-goal Leadership Theory was developed by Robert House. House attempted to
explain how the behaviour of a leader influences the performance and satisfaction of the
followers. Unlike the earlier contingency leadership models, House’s theory does not include
leadership traits and behaviour variables (House & Aditya, 1997). According to the Path-goal
Leadership Theory, the leader is responsible for increasing followers’ motivation to attain
personal and organizational goals. Motivation can be increased by clarifying what followers
have to do to get rewarded, or increasing the rewards that the follower values and desires.
Path clarification means that the leader works with followers to help them identify and learn
the behaviours that will lead to successful task accomplishment and organizational rewards
(DuBrin, 1998).
3. INTEGRATIVE LEADERSHIP THEORIES
There are theories that combine both the behavioural and trait, as well as other leadership
views.
a. Weber’s Charismatic Leadership Theory
In 1947, Weber used the term charisma to explain a form of influence based on follower
perceptions that the leader is endowed with the gift of divine inspiration or supernatural
qualities (Weber, 1947). Charisma can be described as the influencing of followers resulting
in major changes in their attitudes, assumptions and commitment (Yukl, 1998). According to
Yukl (1998), charismatic leaders are more likely to come forward as leaders during times of
great social crisis. They are often instrumental in focusing society’s attention to the problem
it faces by means of a radical vision that provides a solution.
b. House’s Charismatic Leadership Theory
House (1977) developed a theory that explains charismatic leadership in terms of a set of
verifiable propositions involving observable processes. The theory identifies how charismatic
leaders behave, how they differ from other people as well as the conditions under which they
are most likely to thrive. The inclusion of leadership traits, behaviour, and situational factors,
makes this theory more comprehensive in scope than most other leadership theories.
According to House (1977), the following indicators determine the extent to which a leader is
charismatic:
c. Followers’ trust in the correctness of the leader’s beliefs.
d. Similarity of followers’ beliefs to those of the leader.
e. Unquestioning acceptance of the leader by followers.
f. Followers’ affection for the leader.
g. Willing obedience to the leader by followers.
h. Emotional involvement of followers in the mission of the organization.
i. Heightened commitment of followers to performance goals.
j. Followers believe that they are able to contribute to the success of the group’s
mission.

4. BURNS’ THEORY OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Burns (1978), described transformational leadership as a process in which “leaders and
followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation.” Transformational
leaders appeal to higher ideals and moral values of followers such as liberty, justice, equality,
peace and humanitarianism. In terms of Maslow’s (1954) needs hierarchy theory,
transformational leaders activate higher-order needs in followers. Followers are elevated
from their “everyday selves to their better selves”.
5. LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE THEORY
This theory holds that leadership is a one-on-one exchange in which leaders behave
differently with different members of the group, rather than the same with each member. It
further holds that followers based on the quality of their interpersonal relationships
(exchanges) with a leader, form different group (in-group and out-group). “Insiders” and
“Outsiders” experience very different work outcomes. Leaders interactions with insiders
resemble social interactions, with leaders and followers exchanging resources and enjoying
higher levels of trust and support.
By contrast, in exchange with outsiders, leaders act as supervisors, relying on formal
authority to extract follower performance. At the extreme, leader’s exchange with outsiders
can be very mechanistic, arising from workplace rules, policies and procedures, rather than
spontaneous interactions. Such exchanges are typically characterised by low levels of trust,
interaction, support, and leader-provided rewards. As a consequence of such contrasting
treatment, in-group members perform better and are more satisfied than out-group members.
Hence, leadership is a mutual-influence process whereby leaders respond differently to
different followers and both leaders and followers alter their behaviour depending on the
performance of the other.
References
Bums, James MacGregor. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

House, R.J., & Mitchell, R.R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of
Contemporary Business, 3(4), 81-98.