Characteristics of Contemporary Theoretical Approaches in Leadership Research

Chapter
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

The focus on more recent theories more or less necessarily means to neglect classical leadership approaches, such as the trait approach, the behavior or style approach, and the situational leadership approach. These theories are criticized for their determined and narrow perspective, which fails to cover leadership reality. Classical approaches assume that there is a unidirectional personal influence of the leader on the followers. Leaders are traditionally seen as having a particular personality with traits different from those of followers. They are conceptualized as active players in the process of leadership. In contrast, followers are regarded as passive and reactive. Additionally, leadership relations in the context of a formal hierarchy are usually understood as situations that are socially predetermined. That means it is always clearly defined who is the supervisor/leader and who is the follower and, consequently, who has power and who does not. A last point of criticism addresses the lack of empirical evidence (e.g., Bryman 1996, 1999; Heller 2002). For example, classical leadership research failed to provide clear empirical evidence for the influence of traits on the emergence of leadership or leadership effectiveness as the result of a certain type of behavior. Following these critical reflections it becomes obvious that it is not sufficient to explain leadership by just concentrating on individual characteristics or patterns of leader behavior that might vary with situational differences. According to a statement expressed by Chemers (1997) some 10 years ago, it can be summarized that 50 years of leadership research have shown that simple answers, which emphasize the universal validity of characteristics, behaviors, or styles, are not suitable for explaining the dynamics of the leadership process (see also Yukl 1994, 2006).

References

  1. Avolio BJ (2005) Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. Am Psychol 62(1):25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryman A (1996) Leadership in organizations. In: Clegg SR, Hardy C (eds) Handbook of organization studies. Sage, London, pp 276–292Google Scholar
  3. Bryman A (1999) Leadership in organizations. In: Clegg SR, Hardy C, Nord WR (eds) Managing organisations. Current issues. Sage, London, pp 26–42Google Scholar
  4. Chemers MM (1997) An integrative theory of leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  5. Dachler HP (1988) Constraints on the emergence of new vistas in leadership and management research: an epistemological overview. In: Hunt JG, Baliga BR, Dachler HP, Schriesheim CA (eds) Emerging leadership vistas. Lexington Books, Lexington, pp 261–285Google Scholar
  6. Heller FA (2002) Leadership. In: Sorge A (ed) Organization. Thompson Learning, London, pp 388–401Google Scholar
  7. Hollander EP (2008) Inclusive leadership. The essential leader-follower relationship. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Hunt JG (1984) Managerial behaviour from a "radical" perspective. In: Hunt JG, Hosking D, Schriesheim CA, Steward R (eds) Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership. Pergamon Press, New York, pp 275–277Google Scholar
  9. Hunt JG (1991) Leadership: a new synthesis. Sage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Kezar AJ, Carducci R, Contreras-McGavin M (2006) Rethinking the "L" word in higher education: the revolution in research on leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. Lord RG, Foti RJ, Phillips JS (1982) A theory of leadership categorization. In: Hunt JG, Sekaran U, Schriesheim CA (eds) Leadership beyond established views. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, pp 104–121Google Scholar
  12. Rost JC (1991) Leadership for the twenty-first century. Praeger, Westport, CTGoogle Scholar
  13. Van Seters DA, Field RHG (1990) The evolution of leadership theory. J Organ Change Manage 3(3):29–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Yukl GA (1994) Leadership in organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  15. Yukl GA (2006) Leadership in organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. Border Region StudiesUniversity of Southern DenmarkSønderborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations