An Evaluation of the Development of Leadership and Management Theories and their Application in

Contemporary Organisations

Ayodele Osunmakinde

Center for Enterprise and Innovation

De Montfort University Leicester

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 The Development of Leadership and Management Theories

3.0 Critical Evaluation of the Transformational Leadership Theory and the Contigency
Management Theory

4.0 Transformational Leadership Theory and Contingency Management Theory in Practice (A

Case Study of Steve Jobs and Apple Inc).

5.0 Conclusion

6.0 References
ABSTRACT

Leadership and management are closely related yet distinct concepts widely studied and
theorised over the years. More recent theories seek to account for new developments not covered
in the former and become more relevant to practice in contemporary organisations. Still, the gap
between theory and practice remains. In evaluating the development of leadership and
management theories and their relevance in modern organisations, this study evaluates the
transformational and contingency management theories. It concludes that the transformational
leadership and contingency management theories apply to contemporary organisations facing a
changing world. However, the model of transformational leadership theory implemented is
contingent on the situational factors at play. At Apple Inc., we see that given the dynamic and
virgin nature of the technology industry, Steve Jobs combined an autocratic leadership style with
the tenets of the transformational leadership theory to produce effective results. Still, future
attempts to theorise these concepts should involve a greater level of engagement between
industry and academia to increase the potential for the resulting theory to fit with practice.
Finally, this essay recognises that situational factors differ and that what is proper for one
organisation may be improper for the next. Hence, these findings may be unique to Apple Inc.
and possibly other contemporary organisations in the technology industry, implications for future
research.

Critical Evaluation of the Development of Leadership and Management Theories and their
Application in Contemporary Organisation

1.0. INTRODUCTION

There sometimes is a gap between theory and practice. After several decades of theorising the
concept of leadership and management, by the early 21 st century, some scholars still described
most of the earlier studies on leadership and management as fragmented and internally
inconsistent (Gill, 2003) and directionless (Zaccaro and Klimoski, 2001). Particularly with the
increasing complexities of business activities, changing commercial environment, and growing
competition, it is increasingly important that leadership and management theories are improved
upon to reflect and account for the current realities faced by contemporary organisations.
Although there are several leadership and management theories, this study evaluates the
transformational leadership theory and the contingency management theory as modern theories
that have tried to address the above concern. The objective of this essay is to critically evaluate
these theories in terms of their relevance to current practice and their applicability to the
contemporary organisation selected for this study.

Apple Inc., a multinational technology company that develops, designs, and sells computer
software, consumer electronics, and online services, is selected as a recent case study
organisation for this study. With total annual revenue of $229 billion in 2017, Apple is the third-
largest mobile phone producer and most significant information technology (IT) company by
revenue globally. In August 2018, it became the first U.S. public company with a valuation of
over US$1 trillion and over 1.3 billion products in use worldwide. It has repeatedly retained its
position as the world's most valuable brand and enjoys an extraordinary level of brand loyalty.
Indeed a large part of this success can be attributed to the leadership and management approach
adopted. The co-founder and former CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs, has also received posthumous
accolades for the stellar heights he achieved at Apple, including being often referred to as a
transformational leader. This makes Apple Inc. a suitable case study for critically evaluating
leadership and management theories in a contemporary organisation.
Leadership and management are closely related concepts studied for an extended period across a
wide range of disciplines. However, there remains so much uncertainty and debate about their
conceptual underpinnings. Issues surrounding their similarities and differences remain a well-
worn debate in the literature. While most of the earlier debates centre on whether leadership is
different from or the same as management, more recent studies have focused on the practicality
of leadership and management theories in today’s globalised world.

This review adopts a more balanced view that leadership and management are different concepts
and that both are needed in organisations. It concludes that the transformational leadership and
contingency management theories apply to contemporary organisations facing a changing world.
However, the model of transformational leadership theory implemented is contingent on the
situational factors at play. Unlike criticisms in the literature that transformational leadership
theory ignores situational contingencies, this study argues that the transformational leadership
theory is not a closed model and can be adapted to suit diverse situations. At Apple Inc., we see
that given the dynamic and virgin nature of the technology industry, Steve Jobs combined an
autocratic leadership style with the tenets of the transformational leadership theory to produce
effective results.

The following section summarises the development of leadership and management theories over
the years with the above introduction. It highlights the transformational leadership theory and the
contingency management theory as modern theories critical to the discourse. This is followed by
a critical evaluation of the above ideas to underscore their strengths and weaknesses and their
applicability in contemporary organisations. The subsequent section describes the leadership and
management approach at Apple Inc. and evaluates this against the selected theories to determine
how well the theory fits with practice. The last section concludes the essay with suggestions on
directions for further studies.

2.0 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT THEORIES

Similar to most theoretical discourse, the development of leadership and management theories
has traditionally stemmed from both terms' definitions. The word ‘leadership’ originates from the
Anglo-Saxon word ‘leader, meaning around ‘a path’ or ‘a road’, signifying some form of
direction giving. On the other hand, ‘Management’ comes from the Latin word ‘manus’,
meaning handling things (machinery, objects and so on). Based on the above conceptualisation,
some studies (Bennis, 1989; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Hickman, 1990; Rost, 1991) have firmly
rejected the argument that leadership and management are synonymous. Most of the earlier
debates centre on whether leadership is different from or the same as management. Four
dominant positions include 1. Leadership is a much broader concept than management (Hersey
and Blanchard, 1988). 2. Leadership and management are the same. 3. Leadership is one of the
many functions (Bass, 1985a; Mintzberg, 1980). 4. Leadership is different from management
because some people are leaders and managers (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Kotter, 1990). In
trying to differentiate the two concepts, some studies have, in extreme cases, conceptualised
them as mutually exclusive (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Zaleznik, 1977). This suggests that
individuals can either be leaders or managers, but not both (Yukl, 2002).

Further distinctions between leaders and managers that have been used to advance this argument
include phrases like: The manager administers, the leader innovates; the manager is a copy, the
leader is an original; the manager maintains, the leader develops (Bennis, 1989: 45). Managers
do things right; leaders do the right things (Bennis and Nanus, 1985: 21). Management is about
telling and arranging. Leadership is about enhancing and nurturing (Attributed to Tom Peters).
We manage things, but we lead people (Attributed to John Adair). Thus, this view that leadership
is more important than management for effective organisational performance (Ford and Harding,
2007), guiding organisations to enduring results and competitive advantage, dominated the
leadership literature in the mid-1980s.

Another famous distinction between leadership and management is linked to the notion of
change. Kotter (1990) suggests that management produces effective results which keep things
working orderly while leadership creates helpful change. Still, both are needed if nations and
organisations are to prosper. Yet another distinguishing factor is tied to the nature of problems
faced. Management is linked with dealing with issues that have been seen before, while
leadership deals with new complex problems that have not been seen before (Grint, 2005b,
2008). This conceptualisation of both concepts as mutually exclusive not only downplays
management at the expense of leadership (Ford and Harding, 2007; Ford et al., 2008), but it also
does little to further our understanding of leadership (Rost, 1991; Yukl, 1994). It presents a
wrong notion of managers as impersonal, dull, tedious, and unimaginative (Hickman, 1990). It
also has further manipulative and exploitative implications for individual identities in the
workplace as people are pressured to succumb to the demands of ‘becoming a leader’ (Alvesson
and Willmott, 2002).

This review aligns with a more balanced view conceives managing and leading as distinct
processes but does not view leaders and managers as different kinds of people (Bass, 1985a,
1990; Hickman, 1990; Rost, 1991). There is broad support for this view as most studies agree
that succeeding as a manager involves leading (Yukl, 2002), such that leadership can be seen as a
managerial skill (Bass, 1985a). In essence, this point of view allows us to conclude that
leadership and management are different concepts needed in organisations. With the above
conceptualisation, the review of the development of the respective theories is differently done for
both images.

In chronological order, some of the dominant leadership theories include the trait theory,
behavioural theory, participative leadership, situational leadership, contingency theories,
transactional leadership, and transformational leadership. Trait theory holds that some people are
born with inherent particularly suited to leadership and that good leaders have the right
combination of these traits. The behavioural theory holds that leaders are not born but are made.
Here, successful leadership is based on learnable definable behaviours. Participative leadership
theory assumes that people are more committed to activities where they have been involved in
the decision making; people are more collaborative and less competitive when working on joint
goals. It also assumes that the quality of the decision reached improves with more people
involved in the decision-making process. The level of involvement in decision making may
depend on the leader’s beliefs and preference or the type of decision being made.

Situational leadership holds that an effective leader makes decisions based on the situational
factors available. Some situational factors include (subordinate effectiveness, subordinate ability,
organisation of the work, cooperation and cohesiveness, resources and support, and external
coordination with other teams (Yukl, 1989). Contingency leadership theory assumes that the
leader’s ability to lead depends on the dominant situational factors such as the leader’s leadership
style and capabilities, the behaviours and capabilities of the followers, and other situational
factors. In essence, there is no one best way to lead as a leadership style considered effective in
one situation may be unsuccessful in another. It is similar to the situational theory but differs in
that the contingency theory recognises the leader’s capability while the situational approach
focuses on the subordinates.

Transactional Leadership assumes that people are motivated by a reward and consequence
system. The transactional leader establishes clear structures that stipulate subordinates’
requirements and what they will get from completing defined tasks. Formal discipline systems
are also found, often in a staff handbook, specifying the punishment for not meeting the assigned
task. Transformational leadership theory assumes that people will follow a person with vision
and passion who inspires them; and that enthusiasm and energy are essential ingredients for
accomplishing an extraordinary outcome. The central tenets are that the transformational leader
not just brings about change that results in achieving set goals but also transforms the
subordinates through the high achievement of results that inspire them and the delegation of
tasks, which increases their capabilities and belief in themselves.

The management practice can be traced back to the first attempt by men to work together in
groups to accomplish goals. However, it was not until the industrial revolution that the
systematic study and theorising of management began. Management theory can be defined as a
collection of ideas that specifies general guidelines for managing a business or organisation. It
addresses how managers set goals for their organisations, implement effective strategies to
accomplish set goals, and how they motivate and coordinate employees to perform at the highest
standard. Several theories have been discussed in the literature – from a traditional top-down
authoritative approach to a more contemporary human-centred approach. Some dominant
theories can be chronologically categorised under the scientific management theory, bureaucratic
theory, human relations theory, contingency theory and systems theory.

The scientific management theory emphasises the importance of data for evaluating business
processes and generating information necessary for the effective and profitable running of the
business. The availability of data led to standardisation which worked for mechanised
organisations but downplayed the role of personnel in innovation and therefore paid little
attention to the importance of improving staff satisfaction for improved performance.
Bureaucratic management theory emphasises the importance of clearly stating designated roles
for management and employees based on hierarchies that show authority level and clarify who is
in charge. Human relation theory encompasses the motivation theories that emphasise the need to
align employees needs or career goals with the company. The contingency management theory
recognises and highlights the unique complexities and dynamics of organisational structures.
Organisations are influenced by the internal and external environment comprising their physical
and human resources, climate and culture, economic and market conditions. The central
argument is that there is no universally applicable principle for managing an organisation and
that management style should change depending on the situation. The systems theory prioritises
the organisational context, including the overall company goal and how the various segments
functions to achieve this goal.

A look at these theories shows continuous improvements to account for more realistic conditions
such that each new idea comes in addition to the previous view, for example, from the notion
that leaders are born with inherent traits to the notion that it is a learned behaviour and that there
is no one size fits all leadership style. We also see a shift from just suggesting involving
subordinates in the decision-making process to a more transformational kind where they are
empowered and inspired to become leaders. A similar point can be made for the management
theories as well. Hence, the question as applies to this review is: with all of these improvements
to viewing, how to fit or applicable are they in contemporary organisations.
This next section explores transformational leadership theory and contingency management
theory and discusses some of the limitations for practice.

3.0 AN EVALUATION OF THE TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY

AND THE CONTIGENCY MANAGEMENT THEORY

This section presents a critical evaluation of applying the transformational leadership theory and
contingency management theory in practice.

Transformational Leadership Theory

The concept of transformational leadership was first developed in consideration of societal
revolution (Downton, 1973). Transformational leadership moves people up the Maslow’s
‘hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1954, 1968) and satisfies their higher-order ‘needs’ for
psychological fulfilment - achievement, self-actualisation, and self-fulfilment. In simple terms, it
changes how people feel about themselves, raising their motivation and enabling them to
perform beyond expectations (Bass, 1985a). One of the most contemporary versions of the
transformational leadership theory generated the most research is the ‘Full Range Leadership
Model (FRLM)’ (Avolio, 1999; Avolio and Bass, 1993, 2002; Yukl, 1999). The FRLM is
presented and evaluated in this section.

Complete Range Leadership Model (FRLM)

The ‘Full Range Leadership Model (FRLM)’ comprises three dimensions of leadership –
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership (Avolio, 1999; Avolio and Bass,
1993, 2002). Under the FRLM, transformational leadership is characterised by four main
dimensions: idealised influence/attributed charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation and individualised consideration (Bass, 1998; Bass and Riggio, 2006).

• Idealized influence/attributed charisma – Here, leaders demonstrate characteristics that

followers identify with and emulate, thus positioning them as role models for their followers.
Leaders are admired, trusted, respected, and perceived to have extraordinary capabilities,
determination and persistence. Leaders are risk-takers, ‘do the right things, and demonstrate high
moral and ethical conduct standards.

• Inspirational motivation – Leaders motivate and inspire their followers by providing meaning
and challenging their work. They promote team spirit, enthusiasm and optimism; involve
followers in envisioning a bright future; demonstrate commitment to set goals and a shared
vision, and communicate how followers’ expectations will be met.

• Intellectual stimulation – Leaders, stimulate innovation and creativity by reframing problems,

questioning assumptions and approaching old situations in new ways. Followers are included in
generating new ideas, trying new approaches, and creatively solving problems.
• Individualized consideration – The leader serves as a mentor or a coach by paying particular
attention to the individual needs for the growth and achievement of the followers. The leader
uses practical listening skills and delegation of tasks as a tool for developing followers.
Individual differences in needs and abilities are recognised and accepted by the leader. Two-way
communication is encouraged, interactions are personalised, and ‘management by walking
around is encouraged.

For transactional leadership, the sub-dimensions include: contingent reward and management-
by-exception (active and passive) (Bass, 1998)

• Contingent reward – Leaders get the buy-in of the followers by agreeing on what tasks need to
be done. In exchange, the leader rewards or promises a reward for satisfactorily completing the
tasks.

• Management-by-exception (active and passive) – Leaders actively monitor performance

standards and take corrective action to prevent deviations, errors and mistakes in followers’
assignments or wait passively for variations, errors and mistakes to occur and then take
disciplinary action.

Finally, with laissez-faire leadership – The leader ignores problems, avoids taking a stand, does
not follow up and avoids any form of intervention in the follower’s assignment (Bass, 1998).

The level of effectiveness of these dimensions of leadership is directly linked to the level of
involvement of the leader. Therefore, the transformational leadership dimensions are seen as the
most effective, followed by the transactional leadership dimensions, and lastly, the laissez-faire
leadership, which is the least effective and ineffective.

Although there has been empirical support for the FRLM from subsequent studies (Hater and
Bass, 1988; Koh, 1990), there remain concerns about the factor structure of the various
dimensions. Different factor loading structures may apply to different contexts, which has led to
varying conceptualisations of the FRLM (Antonakis et al., 2003; Edwards et al., 2012). Two
other models have been developed by Podaskoff et al. (1990) and Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-
Metcalfe (2000, 2001). The model developed by Podaskoff and colleagues included the
dimensions – articulating a vision, fostering the acceptance of group goals, providing an
appropriate model, high-performance expectations, intellectual stimulation and individualised
support. Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe (2000, 2001) developed a model comprising of
nine dimensions: genuine concern for others; integrity, trustworthy, honest and open;
decisiveness, determination and self-confidence; empowers, creates potential; accessible and
approachable; inspirational networker and promoter; encourages critical and strategic thinking;
clarifies boundaries, involves others in decisions; political sensitivity and skills. Although more
dimensions may appear to be diluting the concept to encompass positive behaviours seemingly
linked to leadership, these models indeed provide a broader appreciation of the idea of
transformational leadership. Still, studying them in comparison to and alongside the FRLM will
be enriching to the literature.

There is empirical evidence from research that shows that people exhibit transformational
leadership in many diverse roles in society, business, and politics (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998).
This includes housewives active in the community (Avolio and Bass, 1994), chief executive
officers (Yokochi, 1989), world-class leaders (Bass, 1985), army colonels (Bass, 1985), school
administrators (Koh, 1990), presidents of the USA (House et al., 1991) etc. Transformational
leadership theories can be credited for providing a more straightforward explanation as to why
some leaders fail, some merely survive, and some transform the societies and organisations they
lead to new heights of achievement. It explains the transformational effect leaders have when
they achieve beyond expectations; and motivate and develop people to their full potential (Gill et
al., 1998).

Transformational leadership has also been shown to increase the likelihood of the financial
success of teams and departments (Howell and Avolio, 1993); commitment to the organisation
(Koh, 1990); trust in the leader (Arnold et al., 2001); enhanced satisfaction with both the leader
and the job (Koh et al., 1995); lower levels of job stress (Sosik and Godshalk, 2000); high self-
esteem in subordinates (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996); high project quality and innovation
(Keller, 1992). Furthermore, the relationship between transformational leadership and positive
organisational outcomes has been substantiated mainly in both field studies (Howell and Avolio,
1993) and laboratory studies (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996) that go beyond essential
correlational findings (Kelloway and Barling, 2000).

Despite the well-discussed impact of transformational leadership, it does not account for
situations where a leader’s moral values are highly questionable, and followers are led into
disaster (Gill, 2006). For example, John F. Kennedy and Adolf Hitler can both be described as
transformational leaders. It, therefore, has the potential to lead organisations or nations on a
destructive path. Furthermore, contrary to the notion that laissez-faire leadership is ineffective, it
has been argued to be effective with groups that consist of highly motivated and competent
individuals (Wright, 1996). Additionally, the high level of leader involvement that is claimed to
drive the effectiveness of transformational leadership may increase followers’ dependency,
reducing their creativity (Eisenbeiß and Boerner, 2013). Others have argued that the FRLM
ignores situational contingencies (Edwards and Gill, 2012) and suggests ‘one best way of
leading’ (Gill, 2006). Transformational leadership has also been criticised for theorising and
researching too much on top-level leaders and the top of the organisation - paying too much
attention to the organisation’s leadership against leadership within the organisation (Jackson and
Parry, 2011). The transformational leadership theory has also been criticised for promoting the
one size fits all approach. However, as discussed above, the transformational process is not a
closed model. Several models can be developed appropriately for specific situations as long as
creating change and transforming the organisation, and people is achieved.
Contingency or Situational Management Theory

This approach accepts the unique complexities and dynamics of organisational structures. It
holds that organisations are influenced by the internal and external environment comprising their
physical and human resources, climate and culture, economic and market conditions. The central
argument is that there is no fixed universally applicable principle for managing an organisation
and that management style should change depending on the situation. It is founded in the
contingency theory of effective leadership and takes a comprehensive view of organisational
management. Here, managers must consider the tasks, people, technology, and environment
before deciding on appropriate solutions to problems. While this approach allows for creativity
amongst highly effective leaders, it does not guide an inexperienced/struggling leader. Therefore,
we expect that some form of contingency management will come into play for contemporary
organisations in a changing world.

4.0 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY AND CONTINGENCY

MANAGEMENT THEORY IN PRACTICE (A CASE STUDY OF STVE JOBS AND
APPLE INC).

CEO and Co-founder of Apple Inc, Steve Jobs, continues to receive posthumous applause for his
disruptive and revolutionary influences in the technology industry. He understandably stands as
an appealing role model for tech innovators looking to establish their inventions. His vision for
Apple Inc. has become the standard for electronic devices - computers, tablets, smartphones,
digital music and apps. However, what was unique about his leadership and managerial style that
propelled Apple to the stellar heights it experiences today, and how fitting is this approach to the
postulations in the already discussed theories? At Apple, we find a mixture of transformational
leadership and an autocratic style that works successfully contrary to the hypothesis. We also see
a practical application of the contingency management theory by Steve Jobs

A critical look at Steve Jobs's journey to becoming a visionary leader shows that his leadership
style was cultivated over time. However, founder at Apple; Jobs was not CEO in the early years
at Apple as he had no engineering or business training. In 1965, he resigned from Apple after
getting kicked out of any management function at Apple by the then CEO, John Sculley. Upon
his return to Apple in 1997, he learned to trust his values and beliefs and disregard conventional
management views. He delegated his CEO duties to Tim Cook, his eventual successor. He
involved himself with tasks he considered himself to be best at creating products, marketing,
recruiting and being the public face of Apple. It could be argued that having a good
understanding of the technology industry at the time and with his much-acclaimed visionary
insight into the potential of Apple, he adopted this product/brand-focused approach to position
Apple for the number one spot which it holds today. This supports the notion that guiding people
or leadership traits is a learned behaviour that requires practice and patience and proves the
effectiveness of the contingency management approach.

Biographers and pundits often refer to the high level of involvement within his business. He had
a reputation for communicating on all levels, both motivating and infuriating employees in the
process. He was also able to maintain an effective balance between rolling up his sleeves and
producing great products himself versus engaging with employees, inspiring them to make great
stuff and tapping into their great ideas. “He famously often came down to the Industrial (i.e.
hardware) Design lab to spend time with the design team and give his opinion and guidance on
their prototypes; most of his workday was spent on product review sessions
(Allaboutstevejobs.com, 2018).”Although this high level of involvement signifies a higher level
of effective leadership according to the transformational theory, he was often known as a micro-
manager in line with the earlier criticism. Nevertheless, this did not reduce creativity as his
autocratic approach kept employees on their toes.

His personality largely influenced his management style. Jobs has been referred to as hot-
tempered, cruel and brutal. There have been cases of him shouting at his employees, describing
their work as not good enough and reducing them to tears. This is contrary to the intellectual
stimulation dimension of transformational leadership, which notes that employees can share their
ideas without fear of being turned down. Nevertheless, he was also charismatic and charming,
making his team feel like geniuses after a good outcome. Some of his employees called this swift
shift in attitude "Steve's hero/shithead roller-coaster", describing the binary view with which he
told the world and treated his fellow staff. In response to a question by his biographer Walter
Isaacson on why he was often derogatory and meant when he felt disappointed with someone's
(hard) work, he replied, "that's just who I am".

Most of his close colleagues agree that he acted this way to get the best out of the team and make
them give their best. And rightly so, most decided they achieved results they never thought they
were capable of under his pressure. The psychology here is that Jobs was so good at celebrating
the team’s success, so much so that, whenever they disappoint him and get a backlash, they work
twice as hard to get back his praise. Apple employee Mike Evangelist wrote: "I was incredibly
grateful for the harsh treatment Steve had dished out the first time. He forced me to work harder,
and in the end, I did a much better job than I would have otherwise. I believe it is one of the most
important aspects of Steve Jobs's impact on Apple: he has little or no patience for anything but
excellence from himself or others (Allaboutstevejobs.com, 2018)."
In his defence, he explained the reason for his impossible demands as: "We have an environment
where excellence is expected. What's great is to be open when [the work] is not great. My best
contribution is not settling for anything but excellent stuff in all the details. That's my job — to
make sure everything is great". Once again, we see a contingency approach such that his
managerial style is guided by his recognition of the demands of the industry and a good
understanding of what is needed to succeed. We also see embedding an autocratic leadership
style within the transformational leadership theory to produce effective results. Hence, unlike
criticisms in the literature that transformational leadership theory ignores situational
contingencies, this study argues that the transformational leadership theory is not a closed model
and can be adapted to suit diverse situations. Again, this was maybe needed and applicable to the
technology industry at the time.
Finally, describing Jobs passion at his funeral, Jony I’ve noted that: "it cost him most. He cared
the most. He worried the most deeply. He constantly questioned: is this good enough? Is this
right? And despite all his successes, all his achievements, he never presumed, he never assumed
that we would get there in the end. And when the prototypes failed, it was with great intent, with
faith, he decided to believe we would eventually make something great (Allaboutstevejobs.com,
2018)." This passion for achieving outstanding results can be considered the most
transformational feature of Jobs legacy. His desire to achieve the impossible and create
incredible products has inspired a revolution in the technology industry with a daily upspring of
innovations and upgrades that improve human lives. In summary, Jobs was a genius and a great
coach who imparted his people with a passion for greatness. Hence, transformational leaders can
transform their subordinates and also create change in their organisations.

5.0 CONCLUSION

By problematising trends in leadership and management theories, this conceptual paper

highlights areas ripe for further theorising to extend the frontiers of research in this regard.

6.0 REFERENCES

https://allaboutstevejobs.com/persona/steve_at_work#management_style

Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. and Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2000) An analysis of the convergent and

discriminant validity of the transformational leadership questionnaire. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 8(3): 158–175.

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. (2001) The development of a new transformational

leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74: 1–27.

Allaboutstevejobs.com, (2018). Allaboutstevejobs Official website. [online] Available at:

https://allaboutstevejobs.com/persona/steve_at_work [Accessed online 18 Sep. 2018]

Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (2002) Identity regulation as organisational control: Producing

the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5): 619–644.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003) Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14: 261–295.

Arnold, K.A., Barling, J. and Kelloway, E.K. (2001) Transformational leadership or the iron
cage: Which predicts trust, commitment and team efficacy? Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 22(7): 315–320.

Avolio, B.J. (1999) Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in Organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1993) Cross Generations: A Full Range Leadership Development
Program. Binghamton, NY: Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton University.

Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1994) Evaluate the Impact of Transformational Leadership
Training at Individual, Group, Organizational and Community Levels. Final report to the W.K.
Kellogg Foundation. Binghamton, NY: Binghamton University.

Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1998) You can drag a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink
except when it’s thirsty. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5: 1–17.

Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (eds) (2002) Developing Potential Across a Full Range of
Leadership: Cases on Transactional and Transformational Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., and Jung, D.I. (1999) Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 441–462

Bass, B.M. (1985a) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1990) Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications, third edition. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1998) Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Bass, B.M., and Avolio, B.J. (1990) Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond.
Journal of European Industrial Training, 14: 21–27.

Bass, B.M., and Avolio, B.J. (1994) Introduction. In B.M. Bass and B.J. Avolio (eds) Improving
Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage,
5–6.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006) Transformational Leadership, second edition. New York:
Psychology Press.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003) Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2):
207–218.

Bennis, W.G. (1989) On Becoming a Leader. Philadelphia, PA: Perseus Books.

Bennis, W.G. and Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York:
Harper & Row.

Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row

Downton, J.V. (1973) Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary
Process. New York: Free Press.

Edwards, G.P. and Gill, R. (2012) Transformational leadership across hierarchical levels in UK
manufacturing organizations. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 33(1): 25–50.

Edwards, G.P., Schyns, B., Gill, R. and Higgs, M. (2012) The MLQ factor structure in a UK
context. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 33(4): 369–382.

Eisenbeiß, S.A. and Boerner, S. (2013) A double-edged sword: transformational leadership and
individual creativity. British Journal of Management, 24: 54–68.

Ford, J. and Harding, N. (2007) Move over management: We are all leaders now. Management
Learning, 38(5): 475–493.

Ford, J., Harding, N. and Learmonth, M. (2008) Leadership as Identity: Constructions and
Deconstructions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gill, R. (2003) Towards a general theory of leadership. Working paper No. LT-RG-03–20. Ross-
on-Wye: Leadership Trust Foundation.

Gill, R. (2006) Theory and Practice of Leadership. London: Sage.

Gill, R, Levine, N. and Pitt, D.C. (1998) Leadership and organizations for the new millennium.
The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(4): 46–59.

Grint, K. (2005b) Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of ‘leadership’. Human
Relations, 58(11): 1467–1494.

Grint, K. (2008) Leadership, Management and Command: Re-thinking D-Day. Basingstoke:

Palgrave.
Hater, J.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988) Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4): 695–702.

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1988) Management of Organisational Behaviour, fifth edition.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hickman, C.R. (1990) Mind of a Manager, Soul of a Leader. New York: Wiley.

House, R.J., Spangler, W. and Woycke, J. (1991) Personality and charisma in the U.S.
Presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,
36: 364–396.

Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993) Predicting consolidated unit performance: Leadership
behavior, locus of control, and support for innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 891–
902.

Jackson, B. and Parry, K. (2011) A Very Short, Fairly Interesting And Reasonably Cheap Book
About Studying Leadership, second edition. London: Sage.

Keller, R.T. (1992) Transformational leadership and the performance of research and
development project groups. Journal of Management, 18: 489–501.

Kelloway, E.K. and Barling, J. (2000) What we have learned about developing transformational
leaders. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21(7): 355–362

Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1996) Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 36–51.

Koh, W.L. (1990) An empirical validation of the theory of transformational leadership in

secondary schools in Singapore. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Koh, W.L., Steers, R.M. and Terborg, J.R. (1995) The effects of transformational leadership on
teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16:
319–333.

Kotter, J.P. (1990) A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs From Management. New York:
The Free Press.

Maslow, A.H. (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.

Maslow, A.H. (1968) Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand.

Mintzberg, H. (1980) The Nature of Managerial Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice – Hall.
(Original work published in 1973.)
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990) Transfromational
leader behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organisational
citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107–142.

Rost, J.C. (1991) Leadership for the Twenty-first Century. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Sosik, J.J. and Godshalk, V.M. (2000) Leadership styles, mentoring functions and job-related
stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 365–
390.

Wright, P.L. (1996) Managerial Leadership. London: Routledge.

Yokochi, N. (1989) Leadership styles of Japanese business executives and managers:

Transformational and transactional. Doctoral dissertation, United States International University,
San Diego, CA.

Yukl, G. (1994) Leadership in Organizations, third edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G.A. (1999) An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic

leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 285–307.

Yukl, G.A. (2002) Leadership in Organizations, fifth edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall International.

Zaccaro, S.J. and Klimoski, R.J. (2001) The nature of organizational leadership: An introduction.
In S.J. Zaccaro and R.J. Klimoski (eds) The Nature of Organizational Leadership: Understanding
the Performance Imperatives Confronting Today’s Leaders. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 3–
41

Zaleznik, A. (1977) Managers and leaders: are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55: 67–
78.