UGANDA MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE (UMI)

COURSE : PhD (Management and Administration)

MODULE : Institutional Management Theories and Models

LECTURER : Dr. Stella Kyohairwe

TITLE : Leadership Theories and Styles: the evolutionary

perspective revisited.

STUDENT : Nelson Woira Kyagera

PhD/WKD/1/005

DATE : May 2013

Abstract

Leadership is a major way in which people change the minds of others and move organizations
forward to accomplish identified goals. This process can be understood from a number of
theoretical perspectives. Some of the core leadership theories include the Great Man leadership
theory, Leadership Traits theory, Behavioral leadership theory, Contingency leadership theory,
Participative leadership theory, Transactional leadership theory, Transformational leadership
theory and the Path-Goal theory. A leader on the other hands may be Autocratic/Dictatorial,
Democratic/Participative, Paternalistic or Laissez Faire in style. As a result of this variability,
individual leaders may lead differently at the same or different times. This paper traces the
paradigmatic development of leadership theories and assesses their relevance in organizations as
contextualized in real situation scenarios. An examination of how leadership theories influence
emergent leadership styles is also made. The paper concludes in agreement with the notion that
leadership is a central variable in the equation that defines organizational success or failure and
also that to a great extent, leadership theories provide explanations about the constructs of
leadership styles that are discernible in different paradigms.
Key Words: Leadership Theories, Leadership Styles, Paradigms, Effective Leadership.

INTRODUCTION

Intensified academic interest in the area of leadership can be traced to the 1930s though there are
scholars who had variously postulated on this subject earlier. Notable among the scholars that
contributed to this discipline in earlier times are; Fredrick Taylor (1911), a proponent of
Scientific Management based on his time/motion studies of productivity and Marx Weber (1922)
who expounded about Bureaucracy in which a leader possessed power by virtue of his position.
Also Mary Parker Follett (1926) advocated for participatory management in many ways the same
as participatory leadership with the underlying assumption being “power with” as opposed to
“power over”. In the 1930s there emerged renewed interest in Leadership theory and practice as
this period witnessed Luther Gullick ( 1937) proposing POSDCORB as the work of the
Executive that included Planning, Organizing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting and
Budgeting as core responsibilities. Around this time Chester Barnard (1938) also proposed a new
definition of Leadership as “the ability of a superior to influence the behavior of subordinates
and persuade them to follow a particular course of action”. Accordingly one may surmise that
effective leadership is a key factor in the life and success of an organization. It transforms
potential into reality and it is the ultimate act which brings to success all of the potential that is in
an organization and its people. In this regard, effective leaders propose new solutions when old
ones lose their effectiveness and as result these leaders take their organizations forward.

1
LEADERSHIP THEORIES
Leadership is a central variable in the equation that defines organizational success or failure
(Yukl, 2002; Durbin, 2004) and it has also been recognized as the factor that empowers people
and ultimately determines which organizations succeed or fail (Bennis and Nanus, 1985).
Leadership is therefore a major way in which people change the minds of others and move
organizations forward to accomplish identified goals. Over time, a number of leadership
theories have been proposed and these include; the Great Man leadership theory, Leadership
Traits theory, Behavioral leadership theory, Contingency leadership theory, Participative
leadership theory, Transactional leadership theory, Transformational leadership theory and the
Path-Goal theory.

It has been advanced by Lussier and Achua (2009) that it is plausible to view the development of
leadership theories in an evolutionary perspective beginning the 1900s to date. Therefore a
categorization into five general paradigms emerges. According to Hughes (2003), a paradigm
does not mean one set of views that everyone must agree on, rather it means views that exist for
a time and are revealed in the discipline’s practices. The leadership paradigms proposed by
Lussier and Achua (2009) are; The Trait Theory paradigm (1900s to 1940s) which attempts to
explain distinctive characteristics accounting for leadership effectiveness; the Behavioral
Leadership Theory paradigm (1940s to 1950s) that attempts to define distinctive styles used by
effective leaders or to define the nature of their work; the Contingency Leadership Theory
paradigm (1960s) which offers explanation that the appropriate leadership style is based on the
leader, followers and situation; and the Integrative Leadership Theory paradigm (1960s to
1980s) where there is an attempt to combine the trait, behavioral and contingency theories to
explain successful leader – follower influencing relationships. The fifth paradigm is the one
where there is a shift from the older autocratic style to the newer participative leadership style of
management known as ‘From Management to Leadership’ (1980s to date).

THE EVOLUTION OF LEADERSHIP THEORIES

The Great Man theory dominated the period 1900 to 1940 with the key assumption being that
leadership is an innate ability so some people are born to lead. According to this theory, there
are two fundamental assumptions. First, leaders are born and not made; and secondly, that great
leaders are born when there is a need for them. According to Eckmann (2005) the origins of the

2
term Great Man Theory is associated with the nineteenth century Scottish historian Thomas
Carlyle, (1841) who declared, “The history of the world is but the biography of great men”.
Carlyle argued that heroes shape history through the vision of their intellect, the beauty of their
art, the prowess of their leadership and, most important, their divine inspiration. Some examples
of leaders in this category are religious leaders like Jesus and Muhammad; political leaders such
as Churchill and Gandhi and military leaders such as Napoleon.
The basic idea of this theory suggests that in times of calamities, when there is a need for sound,
result-oriented and effective leadership, a Great Man would solve the unaddressed issues. This
theory is relevant in turbulent times in a country such as in times of war or famine but also serves
best in respect to traditional leaders and monarchies such as the Buganda, Toro and Bunyoro
kingdoms in Uganda

Building on the Great Man Theory through research, Ghisseli (1963) contributed to what is
termed the Leadership Traits Theory, focusing on universal traits that are common to all
effective leaders. The key assumptions here are that; leaders have inherited talent and traits in
them that make them ideal candidates to become leaders and that all those who have leadership
traits will become successful and efficient leaders in the time to come. In this regard some of the
leadership traits identified by Ghisseli include: self-confidence, high energy, dominance,
sensitivity, flexibility, intelligence, integrity, stability, and internal locus control. A case in point
is the process through which most schools Uganda in the colonial and the immediate post
colonial eras used to select student leaders where the teachers would deliberately set out to
identify those students that exhibited the traits identified above and in many cases these would
serve as school prefects and many also became leaders in their own right in different spheres
after school. This type of leadership was also evident in rural communities in Busoga during
Local Council elections at village level in the 1990s as many local leaders were elected based on
their perceived leadership traits. This trend later changed as the politics became increasingly
commercialized.

The Behavioral theory of leadership emerged in the subsequent period of the 1960s to 1970s and
according to Blake and Moulton (1964), Behavioral theory states that leaders are not born, but
they are made through hard work, talent, enthusiasm, and consistency plus reasoning abilities.
This theory assigns more importance to the tasks which are performed by leaders practically,

3
rather than their strong mental skills and inner intelligence. Thus, the behavioral theory is a sign
of hope for all those who wish to become good managers or leaders. A case in point is the
Uganda Civil Service where over time officers were recruited and progressively trained in
service as a basis for promotion to higher leadership positions in their respective departments.
Therefore a good number of the career civil servants in the high echelons of the service such as
Permanent Secretaries, Directors and Commissioners are products of the application of the
behavioral leadership theory. However in the Uganda Civil Service today, there is also a window
for direct recruitment to these high positions so the current crop of leaders is a combination both
systems, namely; direct recruitment and promotion through ranks based on training and
experience.

The Contingency theory of leadership focuses on establishment of the leadership behaviors that
succeed in specific situations. A key proponent of this theory is Fiedler (1951, 2002) who
observed that Contingency Leadership theories focus on particular variables related to the
environment that might determine which particular style of leadership is best suited for the
situation. According to this theory, no leadership style is best in all situations and it also
emphasizes the importance of situational factors including the work performed, the external
environment and the characteristics of the followers
Success depends upon a number of variables, including the leader’s style, qualities of the
followers and aspects of the situation. In the multiparty political dispensation in Uganda today
some of the leaders elected to parliament appear to engage the contingency theory as they
usually behave contingent to the situation and the political mood of their followers. Chemers
and Ayman (1993) observe that these theories stressing the unique effects of situation or culture
have been challenged by the revival of universalistic theories that reassert the existence of an
overriding "best” leadership style.
Situational Leadership Theories on the other hand propose that leaders choose the best course of
action based upon situational variables. Therefore different styles of leadership may be more
appropriate for certain situations

Vroom and Yetton (1973) posit that Participative Leadership theories suggest that the ideal
leadership style is one that takes the input of others into account. These leaders encourage
participation and contributions from group members and help group members feel more relevant

4
and committed to the decision-making process. In participative theories, however, the leader
retains the right to allow the input of others.

According to Bass and Bass (2009), the Transactional Leadership Theory suggests that one thing
is always traded for another. An ideal transactional leader would try his best to guide and help
his followers so that they deliver good performance, as per his expectations. This theory also
suggests that the interests of people should be safeguarded for the benefit of the organization.
Exhibiting transactional leadership means that followers agree with, accept or comply with the
leader in exchange for praise, rewards, and resources or the avoidance of disciplinary action
(Bass etal, 2003). Transactional leadership occurs when the leader sets expectations, standards or
goals to reward or discipline a follower depending on the adequacy of a follower’s performance.
Most leaders of Non Government Organizations and Community Based Organizations in Uganda
today are transactional leaders. The expectations, goals, standards and targets are usually set in
the Annual Work Plans and the Staff Performance contracts of most NGOs where rewards or
sanctions are specified.

In the Transformational Leadership theory, it is assumed that people are inspired and respect the
qualities of a leader. At the same time, it is taken for granted that the leader is happy and
passionate about his job. In this way, through impressive co-operation between the leader and the
followers, tasks can easily be accomplished. Here greater attention is paid to understanding how
certain leaders are better equipped to elevate a follower’s motivation and performance to higher
levels of accomplishments Accordingly some scholars advance that transformational leadership
is at the core of what constitutes adaptive leadership where leaders are trained to exemplify the
highest level of ethical and moral conduct. Citing the US Army doctrine Manual 22- 100, they
conclude that this type of leadership is common in the military because here; leadership, morale,
cohesion, and commitment have long been identified as critical ingredients to unit performance
(Bass etal, 2003).

With regard to the Path Goal theory of leadership, House and Mitchell (1974) made two general
propositions. First, that leader behavior is acceptable and satisfying to subordinates to the extent
that the subordinates see such behavior as either an immediate source of satisfaction or
instrumental to future satisfaction. Secondly, that leadership behaviour is motivational i.e.
increases effort, to the extent that such behaviour makes satisfaction of subordinate’s needs

5
contingent on effective performance and also that such behaviour complements the environment
of subordinates by providing coaching, guidance, support, and rewards necessary for effective
performance. The stated goal of leadership is to enhance employee performance and employee
satisfaction by focusing on employee motivation. This theory emphasizes the relationship
between the leader’s style, characteristics of the subordinates and the work setting. The leader
must use a style that best meets the subordinates’ motivational needs. In this regard therefore
alternative leadership behaviors that may be adopted by the leader include the following;
directive leadership where the leader gives instructions, expectations, time lines, and
performance standards; supportive leadership where the leader is friendly and approachable,
attends to the well being of subordinates, and treats everyone as equal; participative leadership in
which the leader invites subordinates to give ideas, share opinions and integrates their
suggestions into the decision making process; achievement-oriented leadership where the leader
challenges subordinates to perform at the highest level possible and the leader has high standards
of excellence and seeks continuous improvement. The Path Goal Theory also recognizes
subordinate characteristics which include; the need for affiliation in which subordinates prefer
supportive leadership; preferences for structure where subordinates prefer directive leadership;
desires of control in which subordinates prefer participative leadership; and self-perceived level
of task ability in which subordinates prefer achievement orientated leadership .

The Path Goal theory is therefore about how leaders motivate subordinates to accomplish
designated goals. In Uganda today, the Path Goal theory is discernible in the corporate and
business world where production and service provision is commensurate to market requirements
and the need to ensure customer satisfaction. This calls for a leadership that ensures manager
acceptability, inclusion and motivation of subordinates for the firm to achieve the desired
business goals.

LEADERSHIP STYLES IN RELATION TO THE LEADERSHIP THEORIES

The characteristics exhibited by a leader portray his or her leadership style. Lewin etal (1939)
conducted experiments in organizational decision making where they observed that typically
there are three leadership styles which include; Autocratic/Dictatorial, Democratic/Participative,
Paternalistic or Laissez Faire. They discovered that; the most effective leadership style was the
democratic leadership, excessive autocratic leadership leads to revolutions, and that laissez faire

6
leadership leads to less coherent work patterns and exertion of less energy by subordinates.
Consequently, individual leaders may lead differently at the same or different times.

The Autocratic or Dictatorial leader is one who uses fear and threat to get the job done, entertains
no suggestion and no initiative from subordinates, does not trust anybody, uses top down
communication and cares less about the wellbeing of staff.

The Democratic/Participative leader on the other hand encourages decision making from
different perspectives, consults and uses persuasive techniques, applies two-way communication
and cares about staff.

The Laissez Faire leader is a let-it-be leader, shares leadership responsibilities with others in the
group and relies on teamwork and interpersonal relationships. This type of leadership can be
very useful in businesses where creative ideas are important,

The other leadership style is the Paternalistic leader who acts a ‘father-figure’ and may be
considered a benevolent dictator. He/she can make decisions but may consult and also believes
in the need to support staff.

Avery (2009) developed a conceptual framework of leadership paradigms in many ways similar
to the one proposed by Lussier and Achua (2009). In this framework, paradigms are considered
to be broad sets of ideas arranged according to time of their emergence and also along various
continua reflecting different aspects of leadership. Here four key paradigms are identified
namely; Classical (antiquity to 1970s), Transactional (1970s to 1980s), Visionary (Mid 1980s to
2000) and Organic (beyond 2000). Both Lussier etal and Avery’s concepts of leadership
paradigms offer explanations in terms of what theories emerged in what era along the time
continum. However Avery goes a step further to propose specific leadership factors that are
associated with each paradigm, thematically classified as; the basis of leadership, source of
follower commitment and the leader’s vision. This framework can therefore be used to explain
the influence of the leadership theories (associated with a particular paradigm) on the existing
leadership styles.

The Great Man and the Traits theories of leadership which belong to the Classical paradigm
influence the Dictatorial and Autocratic leadership styles because the basic assumption here is

7
that one is born to lead and does not have to necessarily consult. Leadership power is derived
from the leader’s innate abilities and leadership dominance is through respect and power to
command and control. The source of follower commitment is fear or respect, obtaining rewards
or avoiding punishment. In this case the leader’s vision is unnecessary for follower compliance.
The Transactional and Situational theories are dominant in the Transactional paradigm and do
influence the Democratic/Participative leadership style because in this case the basis of
leadership is interpersonal influence over and consideration of followers, and creating
appropriate management environments. The source of follower commitment is negotiated
rewards, agreements and expectations. The vision is not necessary and may not ever be
articulated. The Path Goal and Transformational leadership theories are related to the Visionary
paradigm and also influence the Participative leadership style because it is based on emotion, the
leader inspires followers, the source of follower commitment is sharing the vision, and leader
charisma plus individualized consideration may be involved. The vision is central and followers
may contribute to the leader’s vision. The Participative leadership theories influence the laissez
faire leadership style because the basis of leadership is mutual sense – making within the group
and leaders may emerge rather than being formally appointed. Source of follower commitment is
based on buying in the group’s shared values and processes plus self determination. In this case
the vision emerges from the group and is a strong cultural element (Avery, 2009). The
Paternalistic leadership style where leaders act a ‘father-figure’ and may be considered a
benevolent dictator is influenced by a hybrid of Great Man/Traits theories and the Situational
theories because here leader charisma is important but an element of consultation and
paternalistic support to subordinates also exists. Leadership dominance is through respect and
power to command and control. The source of follower commitment is respect and obtaining
rewards though the leader’s vision may be a selling point.

In their study on leadership styles and associated personality traits, Van Eeden etal (2008)
proposed the Full Range Model of leadership which includes laissez faire behaviour,
transactional leadership and transformational leadership. The model conceptualizes leadership in
terms of the behaviours associated with various styles and this conceptualization was empirically
supported. This model is visible in the Participative Leadership theories, the Integrative
Leadership Theory paradigm and the ‘From Management to Leadership’ paradigm (Lussier and
Achua, 2009) that emerged in 1980s to date.

8
CONCLUSION

Several leadership theories have been proposed by organizational development scholars at

different times dating from antiquity to date. Some of the scholars such as Lussier and Achua
(2009) and Avery (2009), have advanced a classification of these theories in paradigms,
reflecting views that exist for a time and are revealed in the discipline’s practices. These
paradigms can also be viewed as broad sets of ideas arranged according to the time of their
emergence and also along various continua reflecting different aspects of leadership. In this
regard, each theory consists of leadership characteristics that enable us to locate it in a particular
paradigm. The relationship between the theories and the associated leadership styles can be
explained based on three key thematic factors, namely; the basis of leadership, source of follower
commitment and the leader’s vision (Avery, 2009). These themes offer the primary basis for
distinction between theories. Relatedly, Avery also proposes a comparison between leadership
paradigms based on the following variables; key players, followers knowledge base, sources of
leader power, decision making, management and leadership, the philosophy of management and
complexity, cultural dimensions, diversity, adaptability, responsibility and accountability,
matching structure, and matching context. The degree or extent of each these variables differs
from paradigm to paradigm. It is pertinent to note here that the leadership paradigms proposed
can broadly be distinguished from one another but are not mutually exclusive. This is
particularly so because multiple paradigms may be simultaneously discernible in any given
organization or its parts especially where an organization is undergoing major change.

It can therefore be concluded that leadership theories have been proposed overtime and will
continue to evolve, among other reasons, to provide explanations about emergent leadership
styles in organizations and society at large. This relationship underscores the importance of
leadership functions and supports the notion that leadership is a central variable in the equation
that defines organizational success or failure (Yukl, 2002; Durbin, 2004). Leadership has also
been recognized as the factor that empowers people and ultimately determines which
organizations succeed or fail (Bennis and Nanus, 1985).

In the main, an effective leader’s key functions include; providing direction, motivating
members, creating a conducive environment, and most importantly managing change with the
key objective being to move organizations forward and accomplish identified goals.

9
REFERENCES

Avery, G. C., Bell, A., & Hilb, M. (2004). Understanding leadership: Paradigms and cases.
SAGE Publications Limited.

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications. Free Press.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2),
207-217.

Bryman, A. (1999). Leadership in organizations. Managing organizations: Current issues, 276-

92.
Bryman, A. (1986). Leadership and organizations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Chemers, M. M., & Ayman, R. E. (1993). Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
directions. Academic Press.
Eckmann, H. L. (2005). Great Man Theory: A personal account of attraction.

Ghiselli, E. E. (1963). The validity of management traits in relation to occupational level.

Personnel Psychology, 16(2), 109-113.

House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory.
The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352.

Hughes, C.O (2003) Public Management and Administration: An Introduction (3rd ed). New
York; Palgrave - Macmillan
Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2009). Leadership: Theory, application, & skill development.
South-Western Pub.

Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002). Transformational
leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of applied Psychology, 87(2), 304-311.

Van Eeden, R., Cilliers, F., & Van Deventer, V. (2008). Leadership styles and associated
personality traits: Support for the conceptualisation of transactional and transformational
leadership. South African Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 253-267.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making (Vol. 110). University
of Pittsburgh Press.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/theories/leadership_theories.htm
p uiz.htmhttp://psy hology.a out. om/li a y/ uiz/ l‐leade ship uiz.htmhttp://psy hology.a
out. om/li a y/ uiz/ l‐leade ship uiz.htmhttp://psy hology.a out. om/li a y/ uiz/ l‐leade
shipquiz.htmhttp://psy hology.a out. om/li a y/ uiz/ l‐leade ship uiz.htm

10