Leadership theory becomes more sophisticated

The Contingency Approach

However, the Contingency Approach led to greater clarity about the leader’s role. With this approach it was seen that a leader needed to behave in a way that would motivate employees to achieve their work goals. That is, the leader must determine the work goals, coordinate these with an employee’s personal goals and clarify and facilitate the employee’s path toward these goals.

This theory recognizes the contribution of situational constraints that may either facilitate or impede the progress toward goals. It suggests the values or needs of followers must be addressed as well as how effective they perceive their efforts to be.

While the research tends to support the Contingency Approach, one problem with is the assumption that that the individual’s goals and organisational goals are the same.

What this brief history up till the 1970’s shows is that leadership theories have evolved from exclusively focusing on the leader in terms of particular traits to theories that have attempted to capture more of the complexity of leadership, involving both context and followers.

The older leadership theory has been called Transactional leadership because it assumes that people are only motivated by reward and punishment. The leader agrees with their subordinates the exchange of reward (pay and benefits for example) for work done. It’s still very popular today!

Success is based on such values as honesty, fairness, responsibility and the honouring of commitments. There is little interpersonal relationship, focus on a collective interest or any sense of a shared greater purpose.

Since the early 1980’s the latest leadership theory which has dominated the literature is termed the New Leadership approach. This leadership approach not only incorporates the adaptability of the Contingency Approach, but it adds the qualities of vision and charisma and emphasizes the idea of a leader as visionary, able to imagine future accomplishments.

It has been suggested that this shift in theory has resulted from significant changes in global competition, technology, and social values that began to have an impact in the late 1970’s.

The movement from relative security to insecurity as a result of intense competition demonstrated that the ability to adapt and respond, qualities previously associated with effective management, was insufficient. Leaders needed a more proactive stance rather than the previously effective behaviours which had required simply reacting to changes in markets and competition.

The New Leadership approach with its inclusion of vision and inspiration is a more effective leadership style in times of insecurity it is suggested. However, while charisma may be a necessary component of vision, it is not in itself sufficient.

Transformational Leadership Theory

The Transformational Leadership theory, put forward in 1985, added more factors, specifically concern for the individual and the need for intellectual stimulation.

Whilst the Transformational Leader seeks overtly to transform the organization, there is also a tacit promise to followers that they also will be transformed in some way, perhaps to be more like this amazing leader. In some respects, then, the followers are the product of the transformation.

Transformational Leaders are often charismatic, but are not as narcissistic as pure Charismatic Leaders, who su cceed through a believe in themselves rather than a believe in others.

Here's a pithy, ten-minute presentation from a practitioner. Highly recommended!

One of the traps of Transformational Leadership is that passion and confidence can easily be mistaken for truth and reality. Whilst it is true that great things have been achieved through enthusiastic leadership, it is also true that many passionate people have led the charge right over the cliff and into a bottomless chasm. Just because someone believes they are right, it does not mean they are right.

Paradoxically, the energy that gets people going can also cause them to give up.

Transformational Leaders often have large amounts of enthusiasm which, if relentlessly applied, can wear out their followers.

Transformational Leaders also tend to see the big picture, but not the details, where the devil often lurks. If they do not have people to take care of this level of information, then they are usually doomed to fail.

Finally, Transformational Leaders, by definition, seek to transform. When the organization does not need transforming and people are happy as they are, then such a leader will be frustrated. Like wartime leaders, however, given the right situation they come into their own and can be personally responsible for saving entire companies.

Perhaps the latest evolution in the development of leadership theory is Integral leadership. I will leave it to Ken Wilber to summarise this:

"Today’s business and world leaders are faced with unprecedented complexities and rates of change in markets and social conditions. This places extreme pressure on leaders to develop all aspects of themselves to the highest degree possible.

"Development of their cognitive, emotional, interpersonal and ethical capacities, as well as their fundamental sense of self, and more, are all required. In my opinion, only those who develop to this level, who integrate fully to this level, will be successfully equipped to manage a profitable, sustainable growth business or effective organization."

Ken Wilber, author of “A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality.”

I searched for quite a while to find a short video (Ken Wilber's seem l-o-o-o-n-g!) that would help to explain integral theory and leadership. This guy packs a lot into a small space … in the same way that integral theory aims to draw together wide-ranging ideas in the search for a 'theory of everything.' And he's focused on the workplace.

So where we have got to finally, in our understanding of leadership theory is that we can’t make sense of leadership by breaking it apart like some complicated machine. While there are clearly many parts to the understanding, they are all in an sense inter-connected – integral to a full understanding.

The implication of this for leadership development is that we cannot rely on one leadership theory but need to develop the leader as a whole person.