Next is the behavioural approach to leadership, which focuses on individual’s learned behaviours during the 1930’s and 1940’s. One of the most extensive research studies on this issue was the Ohio State Leadership Studies, which focuses on the effects of leadership styles on group performance. The results indicated two major dimensions of leadership behaviour, labelled, ‘consideration’ and ‘initiating structure.’ Consideration reflects the extent to which the leader establishes trust, mutual respect and rapport with the group and shows concern and consideration for subordinates. It is associated with the two-way communication; participation and human relations approach to leadership. Structure on the other hand reflects the extent to which the leader defines and structures group interactions towards attainment of formal goals and organises group activities. Another research study carried out was the Michigan Studies that also identified two dimensions of leadership behaviours: employee centred behaviour that focused on relationships and employee needs and the second being job centred behaviour that focused on getting the job done.
Furthermore, this approach gives attention to the idea that leadership styles is based on the assumption that subordinates are more likely to work effectively for managers that adopt a certain type of leadership style, such as the autocratic, participative or democratic styles of leadership expressed by Larkin. This idea that leaders adopt a style to make subordinates more productive contradicts the trait approach, revealing its decreasing importance in the way leadership is created. .
There were limitations to these studies as many of the results were based on subordinates’ opinions and could therefore contain bias.
The contingency approach to leadership in the 1970’s argues that to be effective leaders must adjust their style in a manner consistent with aspects of the context, such as the attributes of followers and the nature of the work being done. It focuses on the idea that there is no single style of leadership appropriate to all situations. Although there are three main types of contingency models, the one most relevant is the path-goal theory by House, which expresses the idea that behaviours not fixed, and the Vroom-Yetton model. House identifies four main types of leadership behaviour:
-
Directive Leadership involves letting subordinates knowing exactly what is expected of them and giving them specific directions.
-
Supportive Leadership involves a friendly and approachable manner and displaying the concerns and needs of subordinates.
-
Participative Leadership involves consulting with subordinates and the evaluation of their opinions before making decisions.
-
Achievement-orientated Leadership involves setting challenging goals for subordinates seeking improvement in their performance and showing confidence in their ability to perform.
This theory illustrates that leadership behaviour is determined by two main situational factors: the personal characteristics of subordinates and the nature of the task, supporting the view point that leadership is not based on the inherent characteristics of the leaders and this approach shows that leadership adapts to meets the changing needs of the organisation. The aim of the Vroom model was to enable the leader to enhance both the quality of the decisions that they make and also their acceptability to subordinates. Both illustrate that the leader is an important source of motivation in so far as the behaviour can enhance the desirability of good performance in the eyes of his subordinates and facilitates good attainment of them.
Finally, we have the constitutive approaches to leadership that show that conditions are socially constructed, so an art rather than a science according to Grint. This brings together leadership in the 21st century, which brings forward two types of leaders:
-
Transactional Leader who is someone that treats relationships with followers in terms of an exchange, giving followers what they want in return for what the leader desires.
-
Transformational Leader who is someone that treats relationships with followers in terms of motivation, influencing and inspiring followers to give more than mechanical compliance and to improve organisational performance. This is the same thing as charismatic leadership.
Charismatic leadership is leadership ‘in which the leader presents a revolutionary idea…while the follower accepts this course of action not because its rational likelihood of success…but because of an effective belief in the extraordinary qualities of the leader.’ These types of leaders are experts in their area of influence and they also communicate their high level of motivation and enthusiasm, which become contagious with their followers, clearly supporting the idea that followers create leaders. Examples of such leaders include Richard Branson and Anita Roddick.
In conclusion, it seems most likely that followers create leaders themselves, which is illustrated in the constitutive approaches to leadership. The importance of the trait approach seems to have reduced over time, but it should still be acknowledged that although it is less important today due to newer research studies it does still play a role.
