The Leadership Theories

Leadership theories are schools of thought brought forward to explain how and
why certain individuals become leaders. The theories emphasize the traits and
behaviors that individuals can adopt to boost their own leadership abilities.

Early studies on the psychology of leadership pointed to the fact that leadership skills
are inherent abilities that people are born with. It was not until recently that formal
leadership theories emerged, despite leadership becoming a concept of interest at the
beginning of time.

Leadership at a Glance
 A leader is crucial to the success of every team. Take an orchestra, for instance,
one that consists of all the best musicians in the world but lacks a conductor. Even
though every member of the orchestra can play perfectly by themselves, they will only
produce an incompatible melody in the absence of a conductor. The same concept
applies to communities, companies, and countries. Without a leader, nothing will ever
run smoothly.
So, what makes leaders who they are? Why are some people elected as
managers and presidents while the rest remain followers? Leadership theories were
developed to find answers to these questions.
Key Leadership Theories
1. Great Man Theory
According to the Great Man Theory (which should perhaps be called the
Great Person Theory), leaders are born with just the right traits and abilities for leading
– charisma, intellect, confidence, communication skills, and social skills.
The theory suggests that the ability to lead is inherent – that the best leaders are
born, not made. It defines leaders as valiant, mythic, and ordained to rise to leadership
when the situation arises. The term “Great Man” was adopted at the time because
leadership was reserved for males, particularly in military leadership.
2. Trait Theory
The Trait Theory is very similar to the Great Man Theory. It is founded on the
characteristics of different leaders – both the successful and unsuccessful ones. The
theory is used to predict effective leadership. Usually, the identified characteristics are
compared to those of potential leaders to determine their likelihood of leading
effectively.
Scholars researching the trait theory try to identify leadership characteristics from
different perspectives. They focus on the physiological attributes such as appearance,
weight, and height; demographics such as age, education, and familial background; and
intelligence, which encompasses decisiveness, judgment, and knowledge.

3. Contingency Theory
The Contingency Theory emphasizes different variables in a specific setting that
determine the style of leadership best suited for the said situation. It is founded on the
principle that no one leadership style is applicable to all situations.
Renowned leadership researchers Hodgson and White believe that the best form
of leadership is one that finds the perfect balance between behaviors, needs, and
context. Good leaders not only possess the right qualities but they’re also able to
evaluate the needs of their followers and the situation at hand. In summary, the
contingency theory suggests that great leadership is a combination of many key
variables.
4. Situational Theory
The Situational Theory is similar to the Contingency Theory as it also proposes
that no one leadership style supersedes others. As its name suggests, the theory
implies that leadership depends on the situation at hand. Put simply, leaders should
always correspond their leadership to the respective situation by assessing certain
variables such as the type of task, nature of followers, and more.
As proposed by US professor Paul Hersey and leadership guru Ken Blanchard, the
situational theory blends two key elements: the leadership style and the followers’
maturity levels. Hersey and Blanchard classified maturity into four different degrees:

● M1 – Team members do not possess the motivation or tactical skills to complete

necessary jobs.
● M2 – Team members are willing and ambitious to achieve something, but they
lack the necessary ability.
● M3 – Team members possess the skills and capacity to accomplish tasks, but
they’re not willing to take accountability.
● M4 – Team members possess all the right talents and are motivated to complete
projects.
According to situational theory, a leader exercises a particular form of leadership
based on the maturity level of his or her team.
5. Behavioral Theory
In Behavioral Theory, the focus is on the specific behaviors and actions of leaders
rather than their traits or characteristics. The theory suggests that effective leadership is
the result of many learned skills.
Individuals need three primary skills to lead their followers – technical, human, and
conceptual skills. Technical skills refer to a leader’s knowledge of the process or
technique; human skills means that one is able to interact with other individuals; while
conceptual skills enable the leader to come up with ideas for running the organization or
society smoothly.
Applying Leadership Theories at the Workplace
To a great extent, leadership theories have helped form and shape the kind of
governance that exists today. Many aspects of these theories can be applied to help
one improve his or her leadership skills.

1. Maximize Your Strengths

As proposed by the Trait Theory, effective leadership depends on the traits that one
possesses. Leaders should strive to focus on their strengths rather than their
weaknesses. The strengths vary from one leader to another and may include:

● A strong will is crucial to staying resilient and seeing leaders through difficult
times. No matter how challenging the situation may be, a strong-willed leader is
able to find inner strength and carry on until he or she overcomes all challenges.
● A decisive nature is another strength that some leaders possess. Decisiveness
means that when others may be perplexed, a leader can calmly assess the
situation and choose one action to unite everyone. But, since they may not
always make the right decisions, they must also be willing to learn from their
mistakes.

2. Be Inclusive Leaders
Some of the more complex situational theories emphasize focusing on people. It
means that they acknowledge individual people to be their greatest assets and not just
mere numbers in their workforce. Being an inclusive leader requires that one constantly
involves other people in their leadership, whether it is by always welcoming the
feedback of others or delegating more responsibility to others than other forms of
leadership.

Key Takeaways
There are numerous ways of defining leadership. Some leadership theories
attempt to explain what differentiates a leader, while some explain how great leaders
come to be. The Great Man Theory believes that the inherent traits that one is born with
contribute to great leadership. Situational Theory recommends leaders to adopt a
leadership style depending on the situation at hand, while the Behavioral Theory is all
about the learning the skills necessary to become a good leader.
Leadership theories don’t only exist in history. They are concepts with actionable
advice that can be adopted by many, from executive managers to community leaders
and government officials.

What is the significant of leadership theory?

The Significance of Leadership Theory Tony Bush The field of educational
leadership and management has four main building blocks; policy, research, practice
and theory. Each of these dimensions provides powerful underpinning for the field but it
is the interplay between these elements that makes the field so engaging. In this
extended editorial, I explore these relationships and endeavor to make the case that
theory deserves more prominence and respect. Schools, colleges and universities are
the settings in which externally driven policies are interpreted, and may be
implemented. The leaders of these educational institutions may also develop and
implement their own policies, although these invariably have to be consistent with, or at
least not contradict, national requirements. Policy formulation is often informed by
political beliefs or ideologies. This leads to the critical question of how these beliefs and
ideologies emerge and are forged into policy and, often, into law. This issue can be
explored through an examination of two major themes that have become globally
significant in the past 20 years. The first of these is the decentralization of educational
powers from the centre to educational institutions. The second is the requirement that
school principals should hold specialist qualifications in leadership. Schools and
colleges operate within a legislative framework set down by national, provincial or state
parliaments. One of the key aspects of such a framework is the degree of
decentralization in the educational system. Decentralized systems devolve significant
powers to subordinate levels. Where such powers are devolved to the institutional level,
this may be regarded as ‘self-management’. The values underpinning this widespread
policy shift are varied and contextual. In many Western countries, the main arguments
are linked to notions of democracy and the perceived efficacy of the market place. In
England, for example, schools and colleges are at the heart of ‘the educational market
place’, with students and parents as customers, choosing from a range of providers.
The international evidence (e.g. Caldwell, 2008: OECD, 1994) suggests that
self-management has been largely successful. It also expands the scope of leadership
and management, providing the potential for principals and senior staff to have a
greater impact on school outcomes than is possible in centralized systems. The belief
that market mechanisms could be transferred successfully from the private sector to
education was based on the implicit theory, or ideology, that customer choice would be
a vehicle for raising educational standards. Many governments (e.g. Canada, England,
France, Scotland, Singapore, and most US states) have introduced a policy requiring
school principals to acquire a formal qualification in school leadership. The widespread
belief, or theory, that school leadership can make a difference to school Educational
Management Administration & Leadership. Teacher participation has been encouraged
by the shift to self-management and the authors report on the outcomes of the
‘Accelerating School-based Curriculum Development’ project in one case study school.
The project encouraged a ‘flattened’ approach to teacher leadership and the authors
interviewed all the participating teachers as well as observing some classroom
activities. They echo Hartley’s comment about the enduring dominance of the hierarchy
but argue that teacher participation enhances the development of professional
knowledge. They conclude that an international ‘distributed leadership’ model is
required. Both these papers suggest that distributed leadership should be seen in
parallel with traditional models, rather than being regarded as an alternative to them
(see also Gronn, 2010; Harris, 2010). Several authors (e.g. Muijs and Harris 2003) link
distributed leadership to teacher leadership. This is partly because the process of
‘distribution’ is likely to mean that teachers are encouraged to lead. The third article, by
Norma Ghamrawi, applies the notion of teacher leadership to three private schools in
Beirut, Lebanon. She conducted interviews with teachers, subject leaders and
principals. She analyses the multiple roles of subject leaders and points to the uneasy
relationships that they may have with teachers, when they switch from a support role to
conducting appraisals. The author concludes that subject leaders play a critical role in
establishing, promoting and nourishing teacher leadership in schools. In the fourth
article, by Richard Caffyn, the focus switches to micro political theory. This became
prominent in the UK in the 1980s, through the work of Hoyle (1986) and Ball (1987).
They focused on the ways in which individuals and groups pursued their interests and
sought to exert power to achieve their aims. Caffyn uses this theory to explore
leadership in two international schools. He identifies five factors that influenced
micropolitics in these schools but focuses mainly on the impact of location. Using a
critical incident approach, he shows how four aspects of location—environment, culture,
clientele and interaction—link to micropolitics. He concludes that the physical
environment can ‘isolate, fragment and create opportunities for micropolitics’. David
Cameron, in the next article, uses a political theory framework, alongside cultural theory,
to examine the relationships between consultants and secondary school leaders in
London, specifically in relation to the Secondary School National Strategy. While
micropolitics are usually associated with single schools, political theory is a broader
concept that may be applied across and beyond organisational settings (Bush, 2010).
The author interviewed 14 consultants and also used his own ‘tacit’ knowledge as one
of the consultants to shape the study. He examines the work of the 268 Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 38(3) consultants and concludes that they
reinforce the power that secondary school hierarchies have over teachers and
departments. The sixth article, by Eugenie Samier and Jacky Lumby, focuses on
bureaucratic theory, notably on the concept of bureau pathology, defined as the
inefficiencies and incompetence that originate in the nature of bureaucratization. They
examine this through a discussion of literature, specifically Gogol’s portrayal of the
phenomenon. They review critiques of bureaucracy and refer to the limitations of
managerialism and performativity. Following a discussion of two of Gogol’s texts, they
conclude that literature provides a way of examining ‘how and why one might fulfil the
role of leader’. In the final article, Keith Morrison explores how complexity theories can
be applied to educational leadership and management and argues that it is particularly
valuable in understanding the nature of change. He notes that there is no consensus on
the definition of complexity and claims that this is ‘indicative of a young theory’.
However, its constituents are thought to include emergence, networking and
non-linearity. He suggests that it is ‘grand’ theory but its lack of precision renders it
difficult to verify empirically. Morrison’s discussion of complexity theory links to my
earlier comments about beliefs and ideology, He notes that it is used prescriptively in
the wider leadership and management literature and considers that this may be
regarded as ‘disguised ideology’. He also urges caution about whether theory ‘on its
own’ ever has the power to catalyze change. This allows me to return to my initial
argument that theory is just one of the four building blocks of educational leadership and
management. Its value can only be judged fully when it is deployed alongside policy,
research and practice. The Significance of Leadership Theory Tony Bush The field of
educational leadership and management has four main building blocks; policy,
research, practice and theory. Each of these dimensions provides powerful
underpinning for the field but it is the interplay between these elements that makes the
field so engaging. In this extended editorial, I explore these relationships and endeavor
to make the case that theory deserves more prominence and respect. Schools, colleges
and universities are the settings in which externally driven policies are interpreted, and
may be implemented. The leaders of these educational institutions may also develop
and implement their own policies, although these invariably have to be consistent with,
or at least not contradict, national requirements. Policy formulation is often informed by
political beliefs or ideologies. This leads to the critical question of how these beliefs and
ideologies emerge and are forged into policy and, often, into law. This issue can be
explored through an examination of two major themes that have become globally
significant in the past 20 years. The first of these is the decentralization of educational
powers from the center to educational institutions. The second is the requirement that
school principals should hold specialist qualifications in leadership. Schools and
colleges operate within a legislative framework set down by national, provincial or state
parliaments. One of the key aspects of such a framework is the degree of
decentralization in the educational system. Decentralized systems devolve significant
powers to subordinate levels. Where such powers are devolved to the institutional level,
this may be regarded as ‘self-management’. The values underpinning this widespread
policy shift are varied and contextual. In many Western countries, the main arguments
are linked to notions of democracy and the perceived efficacy of the market place. In
England, for example, schools and colleges are at the heart of ‘the educational market
place’, with students and parents as customers, choosing from a range of providers.
The international evidence (e.g. Caldwell, 2008: OECD, 1994) suggests that
self-management has been largely successful. It also expands the scope of leadership
and management, providing the potential for principals and senior staff to have a
greater impact on school outcomes than is possible in centralized systems. The belief
that market mechanisms could be transferred successfully from the private sector to
education was based on the implicit theory, or ideology, that customer choice would be
a vehicle for raising educational standards. Leadership is a practical activity, which
takes place in millions of schools and colleges, all over the world. Research is often
used to understand, or to interrogate, practice so that it can be disseminated. Research
reports, such as those in this journal, make good leadership practice available to a
wider audience, providing the potential for systemic improvement. The relationship
between theory and practice is less secure and there is a perception of a theory/
practice ‘divide’. Practitioners tend to be dismissive of theories and concepts for their
perceived remoteness from the ‘real’ school situation. There is some evidence that the
explicit and systematic use of theory as a guide to practice is unusual (Bush, 2010). As
a consequence, theory and practice are regarded as separate aspects of leadership
and management. Academics develop and refine theory while managers engage in
practice, leading to a theory/practice ‘gap’ (English, 2002). Theory is perceived as
esoteric and remote from practice. Yet, in an applied discipline such as educational
management, the acid test of theory is its relevance to practice. Theory is valuable and
significant if it serves to explain practice and provide managers with a guide to action.
Some writers argue that theories of educational leadership and management have
failed to make adequate connections with practice. Fullan (1996), for example, says that
more work needs to be done to develop a meaningful action-based theory of leadership.
This suggests that meaningful explanations of practice are required that can build
robust theories of educational leadership and management and help to guide
school-level practice. If practitioners shun theory, then they must rely on experience as
a guide to action. In deciding on their response to a problem they draw on a range of
options suggested by previous experience with that type of issue. However, ‘it is wishful
thinking to assume that experience alone will teach leaders everything they need to
know’ (Copland et al., 2002: 75). Day (2003: 45) stresses the value of ‘critical reflection’
for practitioners facing complex circumstances. He (2003: 46) cautions that ‘many
principals (and teachers) mistakenly rely mainly upon experience and intuition—with all
the limitations to change which these contain—to guide them through their careers’.
Reflection can be seen as a potential conduit between theory and practice, leading to a
framework for managerial decisions. The relevance of theory should be judged by the
extent to which it informs leadership action and contributes to the resolution of practical
problems in schools and colleges. Bush: Editorial 267 This special themed issue of the
journal focuses on several different aspects of theory. The seven articles were
submitted separately by their authors rather than being commissioned by the editor. I
have brought them together because of the diverse contributions they make to
understanding, developing and implementing theory. The articles engage with several
different aspects of theory and serve to illustrate the variety of approaches that can be
relevant to educational leadership and management. The opening article, by David
Hartley, begins by discussing paradigms of educational leadership and suggesting, with
Kuhn (1970), that the dominant paradigm may be superseded by another model. He
argues that transformational leadership has been normatively supplanted by distributed
leadership. He reviews Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) four paradigms and then applies
them to distributed leadership. However, he concludes that ‘distributed leadership
resides uneasily within the formal bureaucracy of schools’, suggesting that it has not
replaced the traditionally dominant model. In the second article, Edmond Law, Maurice
Galton and Sally Wan apply the concept of distributed leadership to curriculum
decision-making in Hong Kong. Teacher participation has been encouraged by the shift
to self-management and the authors report on the outcomes of the ‘Accelerating
School-based Curriculum Development’ project in one case study school. The project
encouraged a ‘flattened’ approach to teacher leadership and the authors interviewed all
the participating teachers as well as observing some classroom activities. They echo
Hartley’s comment about the enduring dominance of the hierarchy but argue that
teacher participation enhances the development of professional knowledge. They
conclude that an international ‘distributed leadership’ model is required. Both these
papers suggest that distributed leadership should be seen in parallel with traditional
models, rather than being regarded as an alternative to them (see also Gronn, 2010;
Harris, 2010). Several authors (e.g. Muijs and Harris 2003) link distributed leadership to
teacher leadership. This is partly because the process of ‘distribution’ is likely to mean
that teachers are encouraged to lead. The third article, by Norma Ghamrawi, applies the
notion of teacher leadership to three private schools in Beirut, Lebanon. She conducted
interviews with teachers, subject leaders and principals. She analyses the multiple roles
of subject leaders and points to the uneasy relationships that they may have with
teachers, when they switch from a support role to conducting appraisals. The author
concludes that subject leaders play a critical role in establishing, promoting and
nourishing teacher leadership in schools. In the fourth article, by Richard Caffyn, the
focus switches to theory. This became prominent in the UK in the 1980s, through the
work of Hoyle (1986) and Ball (1987). They focused on the ways in which individuals
and groups pursued their interests and sought to exert power to achieve their aims.
Caffyn uses this theory to explore leadership in two international schools. He identifies
five factors that influenced in these schools but focuses mainly on the impact of
location. Using a critical incident approach, he shows how four aspects of
location—environment, culture, clientele and interaction—link to micro politics. He
concludes that the physical environment can ‘isolate, fragment and create opportunities
for micro politics’. David Cameron, in the next article, uses a political theory framework,
alongside cultural theory, to examine the relationships between consultants and
secondary school leaders in London, specifically in relation to the Secondary School
National Strategy. While micro politics are usually associated with single schools,
political theory is a broader concept that may be applied across and beyond
organizational settings (Bush, 2010). The author interviewed 14 consultants and also
used his own ‘tacit’ knowledge as one of the consultants to shape the study. He
examines the work of the 268 Educational Management Administration & Leadership
38(3) consultants and concludes that they reinforce the power that secondary school
hierarchies have over teachers and departments. The sixth article, by Eugenie Samier
and Jacky Lumby, focuses on bureaucratic theory, notably on the concept of bureau
pathology, defined as the inefficiencies and incompetence that originate in the nature of
bureaucratization. They examine this through a discussion of literature, specifically
Gogol’s portrayal of the phenomenon. They review critiques of bureaucracy and refer to
the limitations of managerialism and performativity. Following a discussion of two of
Gogol’s texts, they conclude that literature provides a way of examining ‘how and why
one might fulfil the role of leader’. In the final article, Keith Morrison explores how
complexity theories can be applied to educational leadership and management and
argues that it is particularly valuable in understanding the nature of change. He notes
that there is no consensus on the definition of complexity and claims that this is
‘indicative of a young theory’. However, its constituents are thought to include
emergence, networking and non-linearity. He suggests that it is ‘grand’ theory but its
lack of precision renders it difficult to verify empirically. Morrison’s discussion of
complexity theory links to my earlier comments about beliefs and ideology, He notes
that it is used prescriptively in the wider leadership and management literature and
considers that this may be regarded as ‘disguised ideology’. He also urges caution
about whether theory ‘on its own’ ever has the power to catalyze change. This allows
me to return to my initial argument that theory is just one of the four building blocks of
educational leadership and management. Its value can only be judged fully when it is
deployed alongside policy, research and practice.

References:
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/careers/soft-skills/leadership-theories
Ball S (1987) The Micropolitics of the School: Towards a Theory of School Organization.
London: Methuen.
Bell L, Bolam R, Cubillo L (2003) A systematic review of the impact of school leadership
and management on student outcomes. In: Research Evidence in Education Library.
London: EPPI Centre.
Burrell G, Morgan G (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis.
Aldershot, Ashgate.
Bush T (2010) Theories of Educational Leadership and Management: Fourth Edition.
London: SAGE.
Caldwell B (2008) Reconceptualising the self-managing school Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 36(2): 235–52.
Copland M, Darling-Hammond L, Knapp M, McLaugghlin M, Talbert J (2002) Leadership
for Teaching and Learning: A Framework for Research and Action. New Orleans:
American Educational Research Association.
Day C (2003) The changing learning needs of heads: building and sustaining
effectiveness. In: Harris A, Day C, Hopkins D, Hadfield M, Hargreaves A, Chapman C
(eds) Effective Leadership for School Improvement. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
English F (2002) Cutting the Gordian Knot of educational administration: the
theory–practice gap. The Review 44(1): 1–3.
Fullan M (1996) Leadership for change. In: Leithwood K, Chapman J, Corsan D,
Hallinger P, Hart A (eds) International Handbook of Educational Leadership and
Administration, Vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gronn P (2010) Where to next for educational leadership? In: Bush T, Bell L,
Middlewood D (eds) The Principles of Educational Leadership and Management.
London: SAGE.
Harris A (2010) Distributed leadership: evidence and implications. In: Bush T, Bell L,
Middlewood D (eds) The Principles of Educational Leadership and Management.
London: SAGE.
Hoyle E (1986) The Politics of School Management. Sevenoaks: Hodder and
Stoughton.