Despite its shaky beginning, trait theory has continued to exist by adopting more sophisticated platforms of measurement. Findings based on those measures produced relatively more consistent results. Lord et al (1986) re-examined the studies discussed by Mann (1959) and Stogdill (1974) and discovered that the correlation between intelligence and leadership perception was quite a bit higher than originally stated. On this basis, it is now accepted that personality traits have higher associations with the position of an individual in the social strata. There is however, one aspect of leadership, which is very prominent in its characteristic. Leaders are mostly male, which implies that masculinity is an important trait associated with attainment of leadership.
Due to the relative inconclusiveness of the trait approach, Bales (1950) introduced another view of leadership emergence. He highlighted the fact that different kinds of traits are required in different circumstances. This approach stressed the importance of functional demands of the situation. In other words the person, who is most likely to emerge as a leader, is somebody who is best equipped to help the group achieve its objectives in a given situation. New leader may emerge as goals of the group change. The support for this perspective comes from the classic studies of intergroup relations at boys’ summer camps in the USA, conducted by Sherif et al.’s (1961). They divided the boys into different groups, and found that in one group there was a leadership change when the competition between two groups became more intense. The previous leader was replaced by another boy with greater physical ability, who was better equipped to lead the group effectively in the changed circumstances. In an experimental study, Carter and Nixon (1949) demonstrated similar findings by having pairs of high-school students perform three different tasks: an intellectual task, a clerical task and a mechanical assembly task. Those who took the lead in the first two tasks seldom led in the mechanical assembly task.
There are however, several problems with the situational approach. Even though there is evidence to support the idea of the situational influence on leadership selection, there is no support found for the view that under the right circumstances anyone can become a leader. And while the personality factors may not be as crucial as the trait approach proposed, they cannot be totally excluded from the process of leadership emergence. It is a fact that some people take on the leading role more eagerly than others (Gross, 1998).
The important natural follow up to who might be selected as a leader is the question of their effectiveness in that position. That is where the behavioral factors come in. According to an early study by Lippitt et al (1949), it is not personal characteristics but one’s behaviour that leads to successful leadership. They investigated after school activity clubs for young boys for the effects of different leadership styles on group morale and productivity. The boys were subjected to three different leadership styles: autocratic, democratic and laissez-fair. After a while leaders changed groups and with it their particular leadership style. This meant that any effects observed in the groups could be attributed to the leaders’ behaviour rather than to their underlying personalities. The findings were very clear. The democratic leaders were liked much more than the other two types. Where the group productivity was concerned, the democratically led groups proved to be most effective as well. However, their findings were questioned on political bias, because this study was conducted in USA where the democratic style of leadership is the preferred one (Hog &Vaughan, 1998).
Several other leadership styles have been identified since the Lippitt et al study. Bales (1950) made a distinction between task specialist and socioemotional specialist. According to this view, both styles were inversely related and no individual could display both styles simultaneously, but their presence was a certain indicator of leadership potential. This support for this idea came from a major leadership study in the Ohio State carried out by Fleischman and Stogdill, (1974), and later research by Sorrentino and Field (1986) who conducted detailed observations of 12 problem-solving groups over a five-week period. Those members scoring high on both of Bales’ styles were later elected leaders.
Despite the new focus on leadership behaviour over the personality traits, there was an obvious need for a thorough analysis of the situational factors in determining leadership effectiveness. By using interactionist perspective Fiedler (1967) came up with the contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Its main concern was with the interaction of leader’s personal qualities or leadership style and the requirements of the situation. Fiedler accepted Bales’ distinction of two different styles of leadership and devised a measurement scale for their assessment. It was named the least preferred co-worker scale or LPC. The leader’s personality was assessed based on the leader’s liking for the least preferred co-worker. High scorers on this scale are those who evaluate their least preferred co-worker relatively favorably and they tend to adopt a relationship-orientated leadership style. On the contrary, low scorers were found to be more task-orientated. The effectiveness of either style of leadership is contingent on the amount of control a situation allows the leader to have over the group (Eysenck, 2000).
In general the contingency model has accumulated substantial empirical support (Struhe and Garcia, 1981) where task oriented leaders tend to be more successful than relationship oriented leaders regardless of the level of situational control. Relationship oriented leaders nonetheless proved to be more successful when the level of situation control is moderate. This demonstrates that there is no such thing as a good leader for all types of situations.
There are other problems with Fiedler’s contingency model. Because there is a lack of precise definition of different LPC scores, which makes the correlations open to interpretation in more than one way (Eysenck, 2000). Another irregularity which was noticed by Triandis (1993) is that the studies were carried out in cultures where the sense of individual identity is very strong. This could account for the high effectiveness of task-oriented leaders, which may not be the case in collectivist cultures.
Whatever the merits of Fiedler’s model, it completely sees leadership as a one-way influence process, however, to understand leadership effectively, it must be seen as a two-way process. The behaviour and attitudes of the followers inevitably have an effect on leadership. Hollander (1993) argued that leaders and followers are engaged in a social exchange relationship. According to this transactional theory, the leader provides benefits to the followers and they in turn respond by becoming more responsive to the leader’s influence. Follower confidence in the leadership will grow as the leader shows signs of competence and agreement with the norms of the group. After this transaction takes place, the leader is allowed to innovate, even if this means failing to obey some rules of the group (Eysenck, 2000). This freedom of action leads to more productivity and therefore more effective leadership.
In conclusion it is evident that human life is such a complex web of personal interactions and situations that no one formula regardless of its flexibility can truly predict who might emerge as a leader and how effective they are going to be. Therefore, it is not possible to uncritically accept any theories previously discussed. History is full of examples where the most unexpected person ended up holding the wheel of power. Leadership, as Lewin concluded, is a successful combination of the leaders, the led and the group situation.
With the arrival of new technology, the research into leadership is entering a new chapter. Only recently, a study was carried out on identical and non identical twins in the University of Western Ontario. The result showed that over 50% of leadership ability differences were linked to genetics. Although the trait approach has largely been out of fashion for several decades among social psychologists, the view of leadership in the general public remains strongly associated with personal qualities of an individual. The romance and the mystery surrounding leadership live on.
Bibliography
Aronson, E. (1998) The Social Animal. W H Freeman
Brown, R. (2000) Group Processes. Blackwell Publishers
Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper
Eysenck, M.W. (2000) Psychology: A Student’s Handbook. Psychology Press
Forsyth, D.R. (1999) Group Dynamics. Brooks/Cole & Wadsworth
Gardner, H. (1995) Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership. HarperCollins Publishers
Gibb, C.A. (1969) Leadership: Selected Readings. Penguin Books
Gross, R. (1996) Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. Hodder & Stoughton
Gross, R. & McIlveen, R. (1998) Psychology: A New Introduction. Hodder & Stoughton
Hewstone, M. & Wolfgang, S. (2001) Introduction to Social Psychology. Blackwell Publishers
Hog, M.A. & Vaughan, G.M. (1998) Social Psychology. Prentice Hall
Mauric, J. (2001) Writers on Leadership. Penguin Books Sorrentino,R.M. & Field, N. (1986) Emergent leadership over time: the functional value of positive motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1091-9.