Classical Leadership Theories & New Leadership School Flashcards
(64 cards)
1930: Trait Theories (“Great Man”)
-“Which personal leader attributes determine success?”
-More leadership attributes / characteristics
Leadership Theories in the Course of Time (page 28)
1930 : “Great Man theories”
1950 : “Behavioral theories”
1960: “Situational theories”
1980: “New leadership school”
2025: Next leadership
Which personal leader
attributes determine success? (“Great Man”)
Attributes
-Personality traits
-Stability in different environments
Empirical findings
-Only moderate correlation between
attributes and leadership success
-Partially contradictory findings regarding the relevance of examined attributes
More leadership
attributes / characteristics (“Great Man”)
- Abilities
- Attainments
- Responsibility
- Participation
- Status
Abilities (“Great Man”)
Intelligence, capability of expression, power of judgment, originality
Attainments (“Great Man”)
Success in school, knowledge, success in sports
Responsibility (“Great Man”)
Reliability, initiative taking, self assuredness,
stamina
Participation (“Great Man”)
Social activity, cooperation, flexibility, humor
Status (“Great Man”)
Socioeconomic popularity
Trait Theories Today
- A high number of decision-makers in organizations still
believe that the ability to lead is congenital - Yet, leadership can be learned and trained to a large extent
-In the selection process of leaders, personality and
intelligence tests still play a major role
- Yet, their prognostic quality is limited with complex tasks,
such as a leadership role
Trait Theories Today Rediscovered with limitations
Moderate relationships between leadership success
and the so called “Big Five” personality traits
Extraversion: r=24 (active, sociable, communicative,
determined, dominant)
Openness to experience: r= 24
(creative, cultivated, versatile,intellectual, open-minded)
Agreeableness: r=21
(friendly, flexible, trustful,cooperative, benevolent)
Conscientiousness: r= 16
(reliable, careful,
responsible, planful, persistent)
Neuroticism: r=22
(anxious, easily upset,embarassed, insecure, worried)
–> voir page 34 /35 pour graph
Trait theorie/ “Great Man” – Theories (Stogdill): Strenghts
Intuitively understandable
Long research tradition
Partially supported by empirical research,
particularly in the context of the “big five” theory
Trait theorie/ “Great Man” – Theories (Stogdill): Weaknesses
-Unidimensional explanation of leader
behavior and success through personality
traits and other attributes
-Prominent leaders exhibit different traits
-Disregard of situation, role and task factors
-Development of leadership competencies is
not taken into consideration
1950s: Behavioral Theories -“Ohio-State Studies” (Fleishman, Hemphill) - Leadership Orientations
- Relationship orientation: consideration
- Task orientation: Initiating structure
Relationship orientation
Leader regards the wellbeing of followers
Leader makes an effort to have a good
relationship to followers
Leader treats followers as equals
Leader supports followers with current
practices and concerns
Leader is committed to developing
followers’ skills and abilities
Task orientation
Leader criticizes inadequate work
Leader encourages slow working employees
to invest more effort
Leader rules with an ‘iron fist’
Leader makes sure that followers fully engage in their work
Leader demands inefficient workers to get more out of themselves
1950s: Behavioral Theories (ohio state studies : graph)
page 40
1950s: Behavioral Theories (ohio state studies) : Results
-Both leadership styles show moderately positive relationships with team/organizational performance
- Relationship orientation is on average more strongly related with indicators of leadership
success (e.g., employee motivation, satisfaction with leader, perceived leader effectiveness)
-Relationship orientation is in particular more strongly related to employee job
satisfaction than task orientation
Behavioral Theories (ohio state studies): Strengths
-Distinction of two essential leadership
styles derived from organizational practice
-Empirical research proves effectiveness of both leadership styles regarding different success indicators
-Studies indicate that the combination of
both leadership styles has a positive effect on leadership effectiveness
Behavioral Theories (ohio state studies): Weaknesses
-Rather weak implications of the model due
to the conceptual breadth of the two
categories
- Focus exclusively on leadership style, no consideration of situational or follower aspects
1950s: Behavioral Theories
Managerial Grid (Blake & Mouton)
(1,1) Impoverished Management – Low concern for people and results; minimal effort to manage.
(9,1) Authority-Compliance (Task Management) – High concern for results, low concern for people; efficiency is prioritized over relationships.
(1,9) Country Club Management – High concern for people, low concern for results; focuses on relationships over performance.
(5,5) Middle-of-the-Road Management – Moderate concern for both people and results; aims for balance but may not achieve excellence.
(9,9) Team Management – High concern for both people and results; considered the most effective leadership style as it fosters trust, respect, and commitment.
Managerial Grid: Strenghts
-Integration of both dimensions
consideration and initiating structure:
Interplay between the two dimensions is considered
-Intuitively understandable
-Shared understanding and vocabulary in
business world
- Considers the behaviors of leaders and what they do
- Leaders can assess their actions and
determine how they want to develop
alternative/additional leadership styles
-Implication for organizational practice:
“Adequate” leadership behavior is learnable
(–> leadership training)
Managerial Grid: Weaknesses
-Inconsistent research findings
-Match between leader behavior and
situational characteristics not clear
-What skills do leaders need to balance task
and relational leadership behaviors over
time?
- Leadership style as single determinant of leadership success may be oversimplification
of the complexity of everyday leadership - Neglect of the role of situation and
organizational structure in measuring
leadership success
Situational Leadership Model (Hersey & Blanchard)
low maturity (unable und unwilling)
–> low to moderate maturity (willing but unable)
–> moderate to high maturity (able but unwilling)
–> high maturity (able and willing)
page 53