Title A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Theories of Leadership Subtitle A practical and conceptual analysis of the

contributions of trait, style and contingency approaches to research to the understanding of associated processes of leadership. Abstract This aims of this essay are to explore the nature of the leadership process and to review the main contributions of trait, style (behavioural) and contingency (situational) approaches to leadership research. The essay begins with a brief discussion on the nature of the leadership process (Buchanan & Huczynsci, 1985; McHugh & Thomson, 1995; Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998) and offers a definition of leadership as process of social influence, which often occurs within teams resulting in the willing commitment to and achievement of organisational goals. The contributions of trait, style (behavioural) and contingency (situational) approaches to leadership research are critically evaluated in order to provide an understanding of the leadership process, its contingent variables, and to provide an entitative perspective (Meyer et al., 1985; Hosking & Morley, 1991) on this important component of organisational behaviour. Key Words Leadership, Management, Followers, Subordinates, Influence, Vision, Shared Goals, Trait, Characteristics, Great Man Theories, Style Theories, Behavioural Theories, Leadership Style, Leadership Behaviours, Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaires, LBDQ, Initiating Structure, Consideration, Employee Orientation, Production Orientation, Task, Relationship, Managerial Grid, Participative, Authoritarian, Democratic, Laissez-Faire, Contingency Theory, LPC, Least

Preferred Co-worker, Task Structure, Leader Member Relations, Leader Positional Power, Situational Leadership, Follower Maturity, Job Maturity, Task Maturity, Psychological Maturity, Telling, Selling, Participating, Delegating, Maturity, Readiness, Normative Decision Making Model of Leadership, Entitative, Organisation, Organisational Behaviour.

The Nature of Leadership

In recent years there has been more written about leadership than almost any other facet of management and remains an active area of inquiry (Bass, 1990; Bennis, 1989; Yukl, 1998; Burns 1978) states that leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth. (Burns, 1978, p.2). Yukl (1998) argues that researchers in the field usually define leadership according to their own, subjective perspectives and the aspects of the phenomena of most interest to them, and cites the work of Stogdill (1974) who even after a comprehensive review of the leadership literature concluded that there were almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define it. In reviewing some of the historical definitions of leadership Yukl (1998) argues that leadership has been defined in terms of traits, behaviours, influence, interaction patterns, role relationships, psychosocial constructs of personality, and occupation of an administrative position. 1. Leadership is the behaviour of an individual directing the activities of a group toward a shared goal (Hemphill & Coons, 1957, p.7) 2. Leadership is the influential increment over and above the mechanical compliance with directives of the organisation (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p.528) 3. Leadership is the process of influencing the activities of an organised group toward goal achievement (Rauch & Behling, 1984, p.46) 4. Leaders are those who consistently make effective contributions to social order and who are expected and perceived to do so (Hosking, 1988, p.153) 5. Leadership is the process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective effort, and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose (Jacobs & Jacques, 1990, p.281) 6. Leadership is the ability to step outside the cultureto start evolutionary change processes that are more adaptive. (Schein, 1992, p.2) 7. Leadership is the process of making sense of what people are doing together so that people will understand and be committed (Drath & Palus, 1994, p.4) 8. Leadership is about articulating visions, embodying values, and creating the environment within which things can be accomplished (Richards & Engle, 1986, p.206) (Yukl, 1998, p.2-3)

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 1

(Yukl, 1998; Northhouse, 2001) among others, argue that most definitions of leadership reflect an underlying assumption that it involves a process of intentional influence whereby one person is able to guide and facilitate the activities, relationships, and structural and process determinants of work, of a group or organisation in order to achieve shared goals. Northhouse (2001) cites the work of Fleishman et al., (1991) in arguing that over the past fifty years there have been as many as sixty-five different classification systems developed to define the dimensions of leadership, and Bass (1990) who argued that the components of leadership can be defined in terms of: the focus of group processes; from this perspective the leader is viewed as at the centre of group activity and the process of leadership embodies the will of the group, a construct of personality; this perspective argues that the extent to which a leader is able to influence followers is constrained by a combination of personal characteristics (traits) which are argued to have innate and phenotypical components, an act or behaviour; which enables leaders to bring about change in a group, a power relationship; which exists between leaders and followers and is the prime mechanism of influence, as an instrument of goal achievement; which enables followers to achieve team and organisational objectives (goals) which they share with the leader and includes facets of leadership which transforms followers through vision setting, role modelling and individualised attention. Thus, according to (Northouse, 2001) despite the many ways in which leadership has been conceptualised, it is possible to identify several components which are central to the phenomena of leadership. They are (a) leadership is a process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs within a group context, and (d) leadership involves goal attainment. [Thus, the following broad definition of leadership is proffered]. . Leadership is the process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. (Northouse, 2001, p.3)

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 2

The theme of leadership as a process of social influence is emphasised by McHugh & Thomson (1995) who cite Buchanan & Huczynsci (1985) in defining leadership as: a social process in which one individual influences the behaviour of others without the use or threat of violence (Buchanan & Huczynsci, 1985, p.389) and argue that research has focussed on personality traits, styles of leadership and more recently on situation-contingent styles and the relations between leaders and group members.

Trait Theories of Leadership

The trait approach to leadership research was historically the first systematic approach to the study of leadership developed in the early 1900s. This approach led to the development of what were called great man theories because they focussed on the identification of innate qualities and psychological characteristics possessed by great social and military leaders. A central tenet of this approach was the belief that leaders were born with these traits and only great people possessed them. (Bass, 1990; Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998). In the period 1904-1948, trait theory was the most influential leadership theory with over one hundred studies undertaken, given added support with the advent of psychometric testing in the 1920s and 1930s. Leadership Traits examined during this period included physical characteristics such as the leaders appearance, height and energy level; personal characteristics such as, self-esteem, need for achievement and power, emotional stability, intelligence, sociability, creativity, and educational achievements. Stogdills (1948) review of trait leadership studies suggested that there was no consistent set of traits which differentiated leaders from followers or non-leaders, and an individual who was able to provide leadership in one situation might not be able to transfer this leadership to a different situation. Consequently, trait researchers concentrated on isolating traits, which made leaders more effective in given situations rather than trying to isolate a universal set of leadership traits. (Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998).

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 3

Given the limitations identified above Stogdills (1948) analysis of over one hundred studies undertaken between 1904-1948 argued that within an average group the following traits differentiated leaders from non-leaders (followers); intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility, initiative, persistence, self-confidence and sociability. analysis indicated that; an individual does not become a leader solely because he or she posses certain traits. Rather, the trait the leader possesses must be relevant to situations in which the leader is functioning.Findings showed that leadership was not a passive state but resulted from a working relationship between the leader and other group members. This research marked the beginning of a new approach to leadership research that focussed on leadership behaviours and leadership situations." (Northouse, 2001, p.16) Stogdills (1974) survey, analysed 163 new studies and identified 10 traits which were associated with leadership: The leader is characterised by a strong drive for responsibility and task completion, vigour and persistence in pursuit of goals, venturesomeness and originality in problem solving, drive to exercise initiative in social situations, selfconfidence and sense of personal identity, willingness to accept the consequences of decision and action, readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, ability to influence other persons behaviour, and the capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purposes at hand. (Stogdill, 1974, p.81) According to (McKenna, 1994; Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998), Sogdills (1974) survey provided a more balanced analysis of the roles of traits and the leadership process: whilst the first survey argues that leadership is determined principally by situational factors, the second survey argued moderately that both personality and situational factors are determinants of leadership. (Northouse, 2001, p.17)
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 4

Additionally Stogdills (1948) meta-

A survey by Mann (1959) which analysed the nature of leadership in small groups identified leaders as possessing the following traits: intelligence, masculinity, adjustment, dominance, extroversion and conservatism. This survey placed less emphasis on situational factors than (Stogdills 1948, 1974) surveys and tentatively suggested that personality traits alone could be used to discriminate between leaders and non-leaders, (McKenna, 1994; Northouse, 2001). A meta-analysis of the Manns (1959) findings by Lord et al., (1986) identified: intelligence, masculinity and dominance as follower attributions of leadership but argued strongly that personality traits alone could not be used to differentiate between leaders and non-leaders. In another contemporary review of leadership traits Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) postulate that the following six traits differentiate leaders from non-leaders: drive, the desire to lead, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability and knowledge of the business. According to Northouse (2001) the significance of this study compared with similar research is that: According to these writers [Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991)], individuals can be born with these traits, they can learn them, or both. (Northouse, 2001, p.17-18) In other words characteristics of leadership and thus determinants of the social influence process (Buchanan & Huczynsci, 1985) are a combination of innate and phenotypical constructs of personality and the wider social system. Fig 1 Studies of leadership Traits and Characteristics Stogdill (1948) Mann (1959) Stogdill (1974) Lord, DeVader & Alliger (1986) Alertness Masculinity Persistence Masculinity Insight Adjustment Insight Intelligence Responsibility Dominance Self-confidence Dominance Initiative Extroversion Responsibility Persistence Self-confidence Sociability Conservatism Cooperativeness Tolerance Influence Sociability

Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) Motivation Integrity Confidence Cognitive ability Task Knowledge

[Source: Northouse, 2001, p.18]

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 5

Trait approaches to leadership research have failed to provide any correlation between leadership ability and specific characteristics of the leader, identified traits are often ambiguous, ill defined and fail to take into account the situation. McHugh & Thomson (1995) argue that the most abiding feature of leadership traits in management literature are that they provide good examples of traits considered to be stereotypically male such as dominance, aggression and rationality, rather than traits associated with female constructs of leadership such as, passivity, nurturance and emotionality. Additionally, trait theories focus on the leader rather than followers or the leadership process and in emphasising the identification of traits fail to link these to leadership outcomes such as organisational effectiveness, productivity or follower satisfaction, (Yukl, 1998). The trait approach to leadership research is particularly weak in describing how a leaders traits affect the facilitation and outcome of group processes in particular organisational settings. From an educational perspective trait theories do not provide a conceptual framework which can be used as the basis of management and leadership development programmes. Even if definitive traits could be identified, teaching new traits is not an easy process because traits are not easily changed. For example, it is not reasonable to send managers to a training programme to raise their IQ or to train them to become introverted or extroverted people. training. (Northouse, 2001, p.24) In summarising the legacy of the trait line of research McHugh & Thomson (1995) return to Stogdills (1974) review in arguing that most interesting evidence relates to the disconfirmative findings on the acceptability of leaders to group members, which appear to show that groups prefer high-status members as leaders and that the characteristics of followers determine the acceptability of leadership characteristics. The point is that traits are relatively fixed psychological structures, and this limits the value of teaching and leadership

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 6

Style/Behavioural Theories of Leadership

The failure of trait theories of leadership which viewed leadership as a quality anchored in the personality of a particularly individual which enabled them to assume an influential role within society, resulted in a new approach to leadership research which gave rise to a set of approaches collectively known as style or behavioural theories of leadership. These theories viewed leadership as a phenomenon, which did not resided solely in the personality of an individual but could be cultivated as distinct patterns of learnt behaviour, (McKenna, 1994). Thus, representing a shift in emphasis from viewing leadership as a trait to conceptualising leadership as an activity, with a focus on what leaders do and how they act, and expanding the study of leadership to include the actions of leaders towards followers in differing organisational contexts each with associated criterion for leadership effectiveness. Researchers utilising the style approach conceptualised leadership as composed of two general types of behaviours; task (production) related behaviours and relationship (group) related behaviours. Task related behaviour emphasises leader control and is often bounded in organisational procedures and rules, whereas relationship orientated behaviour is more responsive to the needs of followers and emphasises the role of leadership in motivating and developing work teams. The main studies on leadership style were undertaken in the USA at Ohio State University beginning in the late 1940s, based on the findings of Stogdills (1948) research and at the same time a group of researchers at the University of Michigan began to explore the nature and function of leadership in small groups. These studies coupled with later work by Blake & Mouton (1964, 1978, 1985) comprise of the bulk of research relating to style (behavioural) theories of leadership. Research at the Ohio State University was initiated to identify how individuals behaved when they were leading a group or providing organisational leadership. Leadership behaviours were analysed using a Leadership Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) that asked subordinates (followers) in military, educational and industrial contexts to identify the frequency of certain types of leadership behaviour. The original LBDQ developed by (Hemphill & Coons, 1957)

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 7

consisted of 150 items, five years later a shortened version known as LBDQ-XII was developed by Stogdill (1963) and became the more widely used instrument. Data collected from the extensive use of the LBDQ-XII allowed researchers (Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Stogdill, 1963, 1974) to categorise subordinates responses around two general types of leadership behaviours; initiating structure and consideration. Initiating structure indicates a concern with defining and organising roles, or relationships within the organisation, establishing well defined channels of organisation and work organisation, and establishing procedures for completing the work and communication within the work team these behaviours are frequently termed task or production orientated behaviours. A high score on this dimension characterises individuals who play an active role in directing group activities p.364) Consideration behaviours are concerned with building relationships with subordinates (followers), and focus on meeting individual and group needs, building trust and mutual respect and are representative of a climate of good rapport, two way communications and participative leadership. The two categories of behaviours identified by the LBDQ-XII represented the core of the style approach and were considered central to what leaders do: leaders provide structure for subordinates and they nurture them in order to achieve the objectives inherent in the structuring of work. (Northouse, 2001; McKenna, 1994, Yukl, 1998) make the important point that these two behaviours were distinct and independent and were not considered as end points of a single continuum, but as two distinct continua of leadership behaviour. Thus, a leader could be high in initiating structure and low or high in task behaviour, or, a leader could be low in initiating the structure but low or high in consideration behaviour. That is, the degree to which a leader exhibited one behaviour was not constrained or related by the degree to which s/he exhibited behaviours on the other continuum. through planning, communicating information, scheduling, trying out new ideas and practices, and so on. (McKenna, 1994,

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 8

At the same time as the Ohio State studies were been undertaken researchers from the University of Michigan (Cartwright & Zander, 1960; Katz & Khan, 1951; Likert, 1961) identified two types of leadership behaviour which they called employee orientation and production orientation. Employee orientation describes leadership behaviour characterised by concern for the needs of subordinates (followers), valuing their individuality and taking a genuine interest in developing good interpersonal relationships within work groups. These behaviours are analogous with the leadership behaviours identified as consideration by the Ohio State researchers. Production Orientation describes leadership behaviours, which are concerned with the production aspects of the work and stress the importance of the technical aspects of work organisation and view subordinates as a means to get the work done, a resource to be exploited in completing the task. These behaviours are analogous with the leadership behaviours identified as initiating structure by the Ohio State researchers. The key difference between the Michigan and Ohio State studies were that the Michigan researchers originally conceptualised employee orientation and production orientation as opposites ends of the same continuum. Thus, suggesting that leaders could not simultaneously be highly orientated towards production and employees. However, later research by (Khan, 1956) suggested that in fact these behaviours were capable of being conceptualised on two independent continua and that leaders were able to simultaneously show a high regard for employee and production needs. The 'leadership grid' (Blake & Mouton, 1978, 1985, 1991) which was originally conceptualised as a 'managerial behaviour grid' (Blake & Mouton, 1964) is a model of leadership behaviour which has been extensively used in organisational and managerial development. It is designed to develop managerial self-awareness (and presumably leadership self-awareness) in relation to how managers can facilitate the achievement of organisational objectives through combinations of two behaviours namely; concern for production and concern for people - these are loosely analogous to initiating structure/production orientation and consideration/employee orientation respectively. Concern for production and concern for people are tested as separate dimensions of leadership style and are not shown as a point on a single continuum but rather as a point on a two dimensional grid, (see fig 2 on page 11).
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 9

The leadership behaviour questionnaires (LBQs) used, result in a leader being able to score between a maximum (9, 9) - 'Team Management' or a minimum of (1, 1) - 'Impoverished Management'. In an idealised organisational/managerial (leadership) development programme participants once they have established a datum of behaviours from the LBQs then utilise a planned series of development activities to develop leadership behaviours commensurate with other points on the grids. However, essentially Blake & Mouton's (1978, 1985, 1991) model does not add any additional insight into the leadership process than the other style (behavioural) models of leadership and does not attempt to conceptualise a contingent relationship between leadership behaviours and the wider environment.

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 10

Fig 2 Leadership Grid [Source: Adapted from: Blake & Mouton, 1991, p.29; McKenna, 1994, p.365] High C 10 O N 9 c e 8 r n 7 F o 6 r 5 P e 4 o p 3 l e 2 1 Low 1

(1,9) Country Club Management

Thoughtful attention to the needs of the people for satisfying relationships leads to a comfortable, friendly organisational atmosphere and work tempo

(9,9) Team Management Work accomplishment is from committed people; interdependence through a 'common stake; in the organisational purpose leads to relationships of trust and respect

(5,5) Middle of the rode Management

Adequate organisational performance is possible through balancing the necessity to get work out while maintaining morale of people at a satisfactory level.

(1,1) Impoverished Management

Exertion of minimum effort to get the required work done is appropriate to sustain organisational membership

(9,1) Task Management

Authority-Compliance Management: efficiency in operations results from arranging conditions of work in such a way that human elements interfere to a minimum degree

4 5 6 Concern for production/Results

The five basic types of managerial style (including leadership style) are described as: 1,1 Impoverished Management. Mangers with a 1,1 style fail to demonstrate a concern for people or results. These managers are going through the motions of managing but are really not contributing anything to the organisation. Their management style is characterised by a lack of leadership. 9,1 Task/Authority-Compliance Management. This managerial style emphasises results but shows little concern for people. Managers with a 9,1 style exhibit leadership behaviours, which focus on the arrangements of work conditions and discount the importance of creativity and interpersonal processes. Since these managers tend to lead by issuing orders, individual initiative by subordinates (followers) may be view as insubordination. 1,9 Country Club Management. The 1, 9 manager is primarily concerned with people and their feelings, attitudes and needs. Leadership behaviour is characterised by a low concern for results and an attempt to create work environments with pleasant social environments with positive interpersonal relationships. 5,5 middle of the Road Management. Mangers with a 5,5 style have a moderate amount of concern for both results and people. Managers who use this leadership style try to balance employee morale with acceptable levels of work output and try to resolve conflict through accommodation and compromise. 9,9 Team Management. The 9,9 manager demonstrates high concern for people and results and views relationships between these two dimensions of leadership as complementary rather that antagonistic. Leadership is characterised by participative decision making and problem solving, the integration of

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 11

follower objectives with those of the organisation by developing work teams that utilise team members contributions in an independent way.

An interesting expansion on the idea that leadership style consisted of two types of behaviour namely those related to achieving the task often conceptualised as autocratic and those relating to developing interpersonal relationships often conceptualised as democratic (Lippitt & White, 1968; Lewin, 1968) is offered by Likert (1967) who articulates four styles of leadership related to specific management cultures that he believed were present in organisations (see fig 3 on page 13) Yukl (1998) argues strongly that despite a large number of studies conducted by researchers from both Ohio State and Michigan University aimed at determining how best leaders could combine their task and relationship behaviours so as to maximise the impact of these behaviours on followers in order to further the aims of the organisation, in a vain search for a universal style of leadership; given the complexity, and contextually, multiply contingent nature of the leadership process it is not surprising that such approaches yielded ambiguous and contradictory results. Researchers were not able to establish a link between leadership behaviours and the outcomes of the leadership process such as organisational productivity and efficiency, job satisfaction and staff morale, and team effectiveness that were universally transferable. Northouse (2001) argues that whilst approaches to leadership derived from the work of (Blake & Mouton, 1967, 1978, 1985; Blake & McCanse, 1991) would argue that a high-high (9,9 -Team Management) approach to leadership to be optimal this might not be effective in all situations eg in crisis (or even war), in developing an immature team. Hunt (1991) argues behavioural approaches to leadership tend to focus on micro-level perspectives constructed from an individual manager-subordinate relationship and neglects the role of managers in dealing with inter-organisational and environmental relationships, in which the leadership outcomes such as networking, alliance and group formation are critical and largely ignored by the narrow behavioural constructs proposed by the proponents of style theory. Hence, such approaches failed to develop theories which explain how leadership behaviour contributes to the flexibility and adaptation of the organisation to turbulent and globalised economies, which some researchers (Schein, 1992) would argue, once social validity has been established, are determinants of organisational culture.

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 12

Fig 3 - Comparison of Likert's (1967) cultural determinants of leadership Style with Michigan & Ohio State University studies on leadership style. Dominant Culture Leadership Behaviours Exploitive Authoritative The leader utilises downwards communication to threaten followers in a climate of negative reinforcement. Decision-making takes place at the apex of the organisation and excludes subordinates who are psychologically estranged from the aims of the organisation and the leadership process. The leader uses a degree of positive reinforcement especially in relation to financial remuneration to encourage desirable behaviours amongst followers. Communication is mostly downward and upward communication tends to be restricted to what subordinates perceive that their managers want to hear. Most decision making occurs at the top of the organisation but limited delegation exists in relation to clearly defined operational tasks. The leader uses both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in order to positively reinforce desirable subordinate behaviours, upward communication is still limited to what subordinates perceive that their managers want to hear. Subordinates (followers) have a moderate amount of influence in operational issues but policy making is conducted by senior managers only. The leader discusses both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards with followers and involves them in the setting of group objectives, and establishing work processes. The emphasis is the exchange of accurate information, with individuals being a member of more than one work team spread across established organisational structures, the leaders and followers are psychologically close and every attempt is made to integrate individual objectives (needs) with those of the organisation.

Task Behaviours (Concern for production/ initiating structures)

Benevolent Authoritative

Continuum of leadership behaviours

Consultative

Participative

The corollary to this argument is that style theorists in an arguably over eager effort to identify core leadership behaviours effectively reduced organisations to closed social systems, which provide a wholly inadequate conceptual framework for the analysis of contemporary leadership behaviour associated with interrelated globalised markets and associated economic systems.

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 13

Relationship Behaviours (Concern for people/Consideration)

Additionally, style theories of leadership tend to consider leadership behaviours as mutually exclusive rather than considering how leaders select and use patterns of behaviours to achieve their objectives and how the social context shape these (and indeed how in turn leadership behaviours shape the context). Kaplan (1986) argues that far more complex behavioural taxonomies are required than those proposed by the proponents of style theory to adequately describe and explain 'real-life' leadership actions, and that such taxonomies need to take into account the instrumentality of first level outcomes in selecting future leadership behaviours. McHugh & Thomson (1995) cite Stogdill's (1974) review of leadership research in arguing that: "In view of the complexity of leadership behaviour and the variety of situations in which it functions, a conditional and multivariate hypothesis seems more reasonable than a simplistic, bipolar view of leader follower relationship [which is a central tenet of style research (see fig 3)]" (Stogdill, 1974, p.407 in McHugh & Thomson, 1995, p.289) Whilst style theories of leadership marked a shift in the emphasis of leadership research from the identification of personality traits to what leaders actually do in practice. Resulting in a conceptually simple framework for categorising leadership behaviour, which in turn could be used as a framework for self-reflection and planned leadership, management and organisational development activities, which provided added credence to the notion that the antecedence of leadership behaviours had both genetic and environmental components. The lack of emphasis on the contextual components of leadership and the contingent nature of leadership behaviour is a significant and fundamental weakness of this strand of research.

Contingency Theories of Leadership

The failure of style (behavioural) theories of leadership to take into account situational and contextual variables led to new multi-variable research which investigated which types of leadership behaviour would be best suited to certain contextual and situational variables. This led
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 14

to the development of contingent theories of leadership which are often referred to as 'leadermatch' theories, because of the attempt to match leaders to appropriate situations. (Fiedler's 1964, 1967; Fielder & Garcia, 1987) are amongst the best known. Fiedlers (1964, 1967) Contingency Theory Following the analysis of the leadership styles of many leaders (both good and bad), Fiedler was able to make empirically grounded generalisations about which styles of leadership were best for given organisational contexts. The theory attempts to predict how the preferred style of the leader, the positional power of the leader and the structure of the job or task interrelate to determine the effectiveness of the leader. Thus, leadership effectiveness was predicted to be dependent on the situational favourableness, which was viewed as contingent on levels of task structure, leadermember relations, the leader's positional power and the leaders preferred style, (Northouse, 2001). The leader's preferred style is determined using the Least Preferred Co-worker Questionnaire (LPC) which measures the leader's esteem for her/his least preferred co-worker. To arrive at a LPC scale leaders were asked to rate both their Most Preferred Co-worker (MPC) and LPC. Leaders who described their LPC and MPC similarly were classified as having a high preference for relationship orientated behaviour whereas those who described their LPC much more negatively than their MPC were said to demonstrate a preference for task orientated behaviour. The situational variable of task structure is a direct reference to the degree to which the organisation and/or the wider operating environment clarifies the way in which tasks are to be carried out by for example the use of procedures, protocols, rules and regulations. "The degree of structure in the job or the task can be measured by establishing the extent to which one can be specific about the solution to the work problem. The leader finds it easier to force compliance in a structured job situation than in an unstructured job situation." (McKenna, 1994, p.380) The positional power of the leader refers to the authority vested in the leader by the organisation as distinct from any other power base the leader may use to influence followers. Positional power is
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 15

strong if the leader has the ability to reward or punish followers, organise work, define methods of group working and define organisational policy. Leader Member Relations is often regarded as the most important of contextual variable and refers to the extent to which the leader is trusted, liked and respected by followers. Taken collectively, these three variables determine the conditions of 'favourableness' of various organisational contexts defined by unique combinations of these variables, (see fig 4 below).

High LPC score: Realtionship Oreintated

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

Correlations between leader LPC and group Performance

0 I -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 II III IV V VI VII VIII

Low LPC score: Task Oreintated

-1

Favourable to the leader I Good II Good III Good IV Good V Good Unstr Strong

Unfavourable to the leader VI Poor Unstr Weak VII Poor Unstr Strong VIII Poor Unstr Weak

Situational Variables

Leader - Member Relations Task structure Leader Positional Power

Structured Structured Structured Structured Strong Weak Strong Weak

Leadership effectiveness

Low - Middle LPCs (Task Orientated)

High LPCs (Relationship Orientated)

Low LPCs

Fig 4 - A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness, Fiedler, 1967, p.146

Based on empirical research findings the theory predicts that in very favourable (octants 1-3) or very unfavourable (octant 8) conditions leaders with low LPC scores (who have a preference for
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 16

task orientated behaviour) are likely to perform best. In other situations which were either moderately favourable or moderately unfavourable (octants 4-7) then leaders with middle to high LPC scores (who have a preference for relationship orientated behaviour) are likely to perform best. McHugh & Thomson (1995) argue that whilst many studies have cast doubt on Fielder's (1967) model it does fit with the notion that democratic (relationship orientated) leaders are preferred in most situations and that autocratic (task orientated) leaders are preferred in crisis or novel situations where there is a strong need amongst followers for quick decision making and for work to be organised. However, it does not adequately explain why autocratic, task orientated leaders are preferred in situations which Fielder's (1967) model describes as favourable. (Northouse, 2001; McKenna, 1994; Hunt, 1996; Yukl, 1998) identify the indirect measure of preferred leadership style using the LPC score which tends to result in leaders with either high or low LPC scores with few intermediate scores, as a major flaw in the research methodology. "Although it takes only a few minutes to complete the instructions on the LPC scale are not clear; they do not fully explain how the respondent is to select his or her LPC. Some respondents may get confused between an individual who is the least liked co-worker and their least preferred co-worker. Because their final LPC score is predicated on who they choose as a least preferred co-worker, the lack of clear directions on who to choose [and utilise to project their leadership style by reacting to observed behaviours in others] makes the measure of the LPC problematic." (Northouse, 2001, p.81) Such criticisms reinforce the difficulty in universally utilising the theory within real life contexts given the complexity of the three contingent variables each of which requires its own research instrument, especially given that many researchers argue that by considering only three contingent variables Fiedler (1967) provides an incomplete picture of the leadership process and its outcomes. (Yukl, 1998, p.285-6) provides an excellent summary of many of the criticisms of contingency theory, see fig 5 below.

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 17

Criticism LPC Score

Fig 5 - Criticisms of Fiedler's (1967) Contingency Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, (Adapted from Yukl, 1998, p.285-286) Researcher/Writer
The LPC score is a "measure in search of meaning" (Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977, p.23). Its interpretation has been changed in an arbitrary fashion, and the current interpretation is speculative. LPC scores may not be stable over time, (Yukl, 1991). The model is not really a theory, since it doesn't explain how a leader's LPC score affects group performance (Ashour, 1973). There are no explicit intervening variables or leader behaviour variables to provide the causal link between the leader's LPC score and group performance

Not a Theory

Causal Variable Leader's LPC Score

End Result Variable Group Performance

Situational Variables Leader-Member Relations Leader's Positional Power Task Structure Weak Empirical Support Arbitrary weightings assigned to situational variables Lack of emphasis on medium LPC leaders
The empirical support for the model is weak because it is based on correlational results that fail to achieve statistical significance in a majority of cases, even though correlations may be in the right direction (McMahon, 1972; Vecchio, 1983) The weights used to compute situational favourability were determined in an arbitrary manner, and no explicit rationale was presented for them. The model does not explain why three different aspects of the situation should be combined and treated as a single continuum of leadership favourableness. (Shiflett, 1973) The model and most of the empirical research neglects medium LPC scores, these leaders probably outnumber high and low LPC leaders. Research suggests that medium LPC leaders are more effective than either high or low LPC leader in at least 50% of situations (octants 4-7), presumably because they are able to better balance affiliation (relationship orientated behaviours) and achievement (task orientated behaviours) more successfully. (Kennedy, 1982; Shiflett, 1973) The model treats task structure as given, whereas in many organisational situations, organising the work is the main concern of the leader. Research suggests that modifying the task structure has up to ten times the effect on group performance. (O'brien & Kabanoff, 1981)

The model treats task structure as given

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 18

Situational Leadership Hersey & Blanchard (1969, 1977, 1985) Situational leadership is a contingency model of leadership first proposed by Hersey & Blanchard (1969) and was based on Reddins (1967) 3-D Management Style theory. The situational approach has been further developed by Hersey & Blanchard (1977, 1985) and by Blanchard et al., (1985, 1993). The theory focuses on leadership in different situations and focuses on the need of the leader to adopt different leadership styles depending on the maturity of individual employees. Maturity includes two related components: Job Maturity; the extent to which a subordinates task orientated knowledge and technical skills are contextually appropriate, and Psychological Maturity; which is concerned with the subordinates level of self-esteem, selfconfidence and self-respect. According to theory, the level of subordinate maturity determines the optimal pattern of leadership behaviour along a task orientated/relationship orientated behavioural continuum: as subordinate maturity increases from a minimum level to a moderate level the leader should utilise more relationship orientated behaviour and less task orientated behaviour, as subordinate maturity increases beyond a moderate level the leader should decrease the amount of relationship behaviour whilst continuing to decrease the amount the task related behaviour. Situational Leadership theory suggests that there is no such thing as a common style of good leadership, no one best way to influence people all the time, but that a leader will be effective when s/he matches her/his style to her/his own requirements, those of her/his subordinates and the task itself in the context of the situation or environment. The individual manager needs to work out which approach to use, which combination of task and relationship behaviour is appropriate, depending on the circumstances, which prevail. A subordinate or team working competently has the knowledge and skills to perform the task, is willing to take responsibility for the job, and is highly committed to achievement of the task. A developed subordinate or group can be described as 'ready, willing and

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 19

able'.

The relative lack of these characteristics shows the degree of

underdevelopment or immaturity. (Kakabadse et al., 1988, p.165) Fig 6 Situational Leadership Theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977) (Northouse P, 2001, p.54) Key Task Behaviour Relationship Behaviour Little

Amount of leader Behaviour

Much

M1 Low

M2

M3 Moderate Follower Maturity

M4 High

Combinations of task and relationship behaviours are further sub-divided into four categories of leadership behaviour Telling is for low maturity followers (M1); people and/or teams who are unable and unwilling to take responsibility and need clear, specific directions and supervision. This style is called 'telling' because it requires telling people what, how, when and where to perform. It emphasises directive behaviour. Selling is for individuals and/or groups of moderate maturity (M2); People who are willing but unable to take responsibility need directive behaviour because of their lack of ability, and supportive behaviour to reinforce the team's willingness and enthusiasm

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 20

Participating is for moderate to high maturity individuals and teams (M3). The follower has the ability but lacks self-confidence or enthusiasm, so the leader needs to maintain two-way communications to support the follower's ability. The style is called 'participating' because the leader and follower share in decision making, but the leader is the facilitator. Participating involves high relationship behaviour and low task behaviour. Delegating is for high maturity individuals and teams (M4). The people have both ability and motivation and little direction or support is needed. Followers are permitted to decide how, when and where to perform. They are psychologically mature and therefore do not need above-average amounts of two-way dialogue. (See fig 7 on page 22) Situational leadership theory has been used extensively in the development of managers and has stood the test of time and the marketplace! It provides a practical, intuitive and sensible approach to optimising leadership behaviour based on easily identifiable (observable) contingent variables; which can be applied in a variety of contexts. Thus, providing a conceptual framework with a high prescriptive value, which emphasises the importance of leader flexibility and sensitivity to organisational and subordinate needs. (Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998)

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 21

Fig 7 Situational Leadership II Blanchard et al., 1985 [Source: Adapted from Northouse, 2001, p. 55; Yukl 1998, p. 271]
High Low Task/High Relations Participating High Task/High Relations Selling

Relationship Behaviour

S3 S2 S4 S1

Delegating Low Low Task/Low Relations Low

High M4

Telling High Task/Low Relations High

Low M1

Task Behaviour
Moderate M3 M2

Job-related development MATURITY of followers Key S1 S2 S3 S4 HT - High Task LR - Low Relations HT - High Task HR - High Relations LT - Low Task HR - High Relations LT - Low Task LR - Low Relations

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 22

Despite its extensive use as a framework for management development the theory attracts the following criticisms: There are only a limited number of research studies to test the underlying assumptions of the theory, which raises concerns about the theoretical basis of the approach. (Yukl, 1998; Northouse, 2001) argue that the ambiguous conceptualisation concerning the development levels of subordinates; in their 1977 model Hersey & Blanchard identify four levels of maturity (M1 unwilling and unable, M2 willing and unable, M3 Unwilling and able and M4 willing and able). In their 1985 model these levels of maturity have been replaced by a series of development levels (D1 high commitment and low competence, D2 low commitment and some competence, D3 variable commitment and high competence and D4 High commitment and high competence). The authors of situational leadership do not explain the theoretical basis for these changes in the composition of each of the development levels. Further they do not provide an explanation for how competence and commitment are weighted across different development levels. (Northouse, 2001, p.60) Maturity is composed of diverse levels (ie task complexity, subordinate confidence, motivation and ability), and questionable assumptions are made about how to weight and combine them, (Barrow, 1977). (Yukl, 1998, p.272) The theory is narrow in scope because it only uses one situational variable namely the maturity of the subordinate and the model fails to identify any interim variables which would delineate a causal relationship between the leaders behaviour and subordinate performance such as subordinate motivation, role clarity, task structure etc.

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 23

Normative Decision Making Model of Leadership Vroom & Yetton (1973) Vroom & Yetton (1973) developed a decision making model of leadership which is contingent on two variables; decision quality and decision acceptance. Vroom argues that possible decision making processes, which a leader might use in dealing with an issue affecting a group of subordinates, are summarised in fig 8. Fig 8 Vroom & Yetton (1973) Possible Decision Making Processes
AI AII You solve the problem or make the decision yourself, using information available to you at that time. You obtain the necessary information from your subordinate(s), and then decide on the solution to the problem yourself. You may or may not tell your subordinates what the problem is when getting the information from them. The role played by your subordinates in making the decision is clearly one of providing necessary information to you, rather than generating or evaluating native solutions. You share the problem with the relevant subordinates individually, getting their ideas and suggestions without bringing them together as a group. Then you make the decision that may or may not reflect on your subordinates influence You share a problem with your subordinates as a group, collectively obtaining their ideas and suggestions. Then you make the decision that may or may not reflect your subordinates influence. You share a problem with your subordinates as a group. Together you generate and evaluate alternatives and attempt to reach agreement (consensus) on a solution. Your role is much like that of a chairperson. You do not try to influence the group to adopt your solution and you are willing to accept and implement any solution that has the support of the entire group.

CI

CII GII

Processes AI and AII are designated autocratic processes, CI and CII consultative processes, and GII is a group process. (GI applies to single subordinate issues.) Having identified these processes Vroom and Yetton's research programme then proceeded to answer two basic questions: What decision-making processes should managers use to deal effectively with the problems they encounter in their jobs? What decision-making processes do managers use in dealing with their problems and what factors affect their choice of processes and degree of subordinate participation?

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 24

In attempting to answer the first question Vroom & Yetton (1973) developed a detailed normative model of decision making based on the rational principles consistent with existing evidence on the consequences of management decision-making on organisational effectiveness and identified three classes of consequences (situations), which influence decision effectiveness: The quality or rationality of the decision - clearly a process that jeopardised this would be ineffective. The acceptance or commitment on the part of the subordinates to execute the decision effectively - if this commitment is necessary then processes, which do not generate it even though they give a high quality decision, would be ineffective The amount of time required to make the decision - a decision process which took less time, if it were equally effective, would normally be preferable to one which took longer. The normative Decision Model (fig 9) provides a predictive, logical (rational) model of decisionmaking contingent on the above variables. The normative model requires that all managers, if they are to be rational and effective, have to be able to be able utilise a range of leadership behaviours, ranging from autocratic to consultative to participative. This is a pleasing rational model of decision making and Vroom has found that it works well in helping managers to describe and plan their own decision making processes. There is, however some doubt that what they actually do conforms to what they say they do and, in practice, leadership is more than taking decisions with a group or for a group. Even Vrooms more complicated model is not complicated enough, it seems. (Handy, 1993, p.106)

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 25

Fig 9 - Vroom V H, 1973 Decision Tree Model of Leadership [Source: Vroom, 1974 in Pugh (Ed), 1990, p.317)
Is there a quality requirement such that one solution is likely to be more rational than another? Do I have sufficient information to make a quality decision? Is the Problem Structured? Is Acceptance of the decision by subordinates critical to effective implementation? If you were to make the decision by yourself, is it reasonably certain that it would be accepted by your subordinates? E No Yes Yes Yes 1 - A1 2 - A1 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 4 - A1 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 10 - AII 11 - CII Yes Yes No Yes 12 - GII Yes Yes No Yes 9 - AII Do subordinates share the organisational goals to be obtained in solving the problem? Is conflict among subordinates likely in preferred solutions?

3 - GII 5 - A1 6 - GII Yes Yes No Yes 7 - CII Yes Yes No Yes

Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

8 - CI

Yes Yes

14 - CII

13 - CII

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 26

Summary Historical approaches to leadership research discussed in this essay whilst providing important insights into the processes of leadership as distinct from management, they are based on research paradigms which are entrenched in an entitative concept of organisation which Hosking & Morely (1991) argue dominate the disciplines of organisational behaviour and human resource management. Such an approach focuses on the characteristics of individuals and groups within organisations, and the person and the organisation are viewed as separate and distinct entities. They cite Meyer (1985) who in relation to entitative streams of research states that: [We] have proceeded on the assumption that organisations were well defined units with identifiable, more or less permanent boundaries. We have assumed that since we know what organisations were, entities called organisations were appropriate for research (Meyer, 1985, p.57) Central to entitative perspectives is that the concept of organisation is seen to require explanation as a whole, thus emphasising the separateness and independence of individuals, organisations and contexts. Thus, individual behaviour is theorised independently of context and the extent to which context shapes behaviour and behaviour shapes context is ignored. (Hosking & Morley, 1991; Thomson & McHugh, 1995). This short chapter draws heavily on the work of Hosking & Morley (1991) to presents an alternative, social constructivist view of organisations, organising and thus leadership, which emphasises a contextually interdependent relationship between organisational entities and their environment. Meyer (1985) as cited by (Hosking & Morley, 1991; Thomson & McHugh, 1995) argues that entitative approaches to the study of organisational behaviour, human resource management and thus leadership are characterised by five defining features. Membership and Organisational Boundaries: the organisation unlike informal grouping defines by nature of its boundaries and structures who is and who is not a member. Thus, such specifications for organisational membership differentiate one organisation from another, and separate an organisation from its environment.
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 27

Organisational Identity: the organisation has an identity of its own which is recognised by all of its members and none-members alike. Organisational Purpose: the organisational entity has a clearly defined purpose(s) which is more or less understood by all of its members this is what some researchers refer to as the existence of shared goals and/or values. Organisational Structure: the organisational entity has a structure that is clearly defined and related to the stated and understood organisational purpose(s). The structure is assumed to be a relatively stable feature of the organisation that defines accountability for organisational outcomes and serves to organise and control work primarily through the use of authoritarian power. Organisational-Environmental Independence: the organisation and the environment are viewed as separate and independent entities. Thus the underlying assumption pervading trait, style and contingency approaches to leadership research is the understanding of organisations as well defined entities [which] has pervaded research, whether research has addresses closed-system, open system or evolutionary theory. (Meyer, 1985, p.57). Given the discontinuous change which characterises contemporary operating environments, advances in technology which blurs the organisational environmental boundaries, and the adoption of organisational forms which promote an open systems relationship with the market, then clearly there is a need to adopt approaches to leadership research which recognises both detailed and dynamic complexity (Senge, 1990), and a realisation that organisations exist in a symbiotic relationship with their environments.

References
Adair J, 1984, The Skills of Leadership, Aldershot: Gower Publications Ashour A S, 1973, The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: An evaluation, Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 9, p.339-355 in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall Barrow J C, 1977, The variables of leadership: A Review and conceptual framework, Academy of Management Review, 2, p.231-251 in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall Bass B M, 1990, Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research: New York: Free Press
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 28

Bennis W G, 1989, On Becoming a leader, London: Hutchinson Business Books Ltd Blake R R & McCanse A A, 1991, Leadership dilemmas Grid solutions, Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Blake R R & Mouton J S, 1964, The managerial grid, Houston TX: Gulf Publishing Blake R R & Mouton J S, 1978, The new managerial grid, Houston TX: Gulf Publishing Blake R R & Mouton J S, 1985, The new managerial grid III, Houston TX: Gulf Publishing Blake R R & Mouton J S, 1991, The leadership grid III, Houston TX: Gulf Publishing Blanchard K, Zigarmi D & Nelson R, 1993, Situational Leadership after 25 years: A retrospective, The Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), p.22-36 Blanchard K, Zigarmi P, Zigarmi D, 1985, Leadership and the one minute manager: increasing effectiveness through situational leadership, New York, William Morrow Publishing Buchanan D & Huczynski A, 1985, Organisational Behaviour: An Introductory Text, London: Prentice-Hall Burns J M, 1978, Leadership, New York: Harper Row Cartwright & Zander, 1960, Group Dynamics research and theory, Evanston, IL: Row- Peterson Fiedler F E & Garcia J E, 1987, New approaches to leadership: cognitive resources and organisational performance, New York: John Wiley Drath & Palus, 1994, Making Common Sense: Leadership as meaning making in a community of practice, Greensboro, NC: Centre for Leadership, p.4 Fiedler F E, 1964, A contingency model of leadership effectiveness, in Berkpwitz (Ed), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 1, p.149-190, New York: Academic Press in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall Fiedler F E, 1967, A theory of leadership effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill Fleishman E A & Harris E F, 1962, Patterns of leadership behaviour related to employee grievance and turnover, Personnel Psychology, 15, p.43-56 Handy C, 1993, Understanding Organisations, Harmondsworth: Penguin Business Harrison R, 1987, Harnessing personal energy: How companies can inspire employees, Organisational Dynamics, Autumn, p.4-21 in Yukl G, 1999, An evaluation of conceptual
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 29

weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Summer 99, 10(2), p.285 Hemphill J K & Coons A E, 1957, Development of the leader behaviour description questionnaire in Stogdill R and Coons A E (Eds), Leader behaviour: its description and measurement, Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of business research, Ohio State University Hersey P & Blanchard K H, 1969, Management of organisational behaviour: Utilising human resources, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall in Northouse P, 2001, Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd Ed), London: Sage Publications Hersey P & Blanchard K H, 1977, Management of organisational behaviour: Utilising human resources, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall in Northouse P, 2001, Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd Ed), London: Sage Publications Hersey P & Blanchard K H, 1985, SL II: A situational approach to managing people, Escondido, CA: Blanchard Training and Development Inc Hersey P & Blanchard K H, 1993, Situational leadership after 25 years: A retrospective, the Journal of Leadership studies, 1(1), p.22-36 Hosking D M, 1988, Organising, Leadership and Skilful Process, Journal of management studies, 25, p.153 Hosking D M & Morely I E, 1991 A Social Psychology of Organising People, Processes and Contexts, London: Prentice Hall House R J & Mitchell T R, 1974, Path-Goal theory of leadership, Contemporary Business, 3 (Fall), p.81-98 in McKenna E, 1994, Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Students Handbook, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hunt J G, 1996, Leadership: A New synthesis, London: Sage Publications Jacobs & Jacques, 1990, Military executive leadership in Clark K E and Clark M B (Eds), Measures of Leadership, West Orange, NJ: Leadership library of America Kakabadse A, Ludlow R & Vinnicombe S, 1988, Working In Organisations, Harmondsworth: Penguin Business Kaplan R E, 1986, The wrap and woof of the general managers job in Schneider B & Schoorman (Eds), Facilitating work effectiveness, Lexington: MA: Lexington Books Katz D & Khan R L, 1951, Human organisation and worker motivation, New York: John Wiley

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 30

Kennedy J K (Jr), 1982, Middle LPC leaders and the contingency model of leadership effectiveness, Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 30, p.1-14 in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall Khan R L, 1956, The prediction of productivity, Journal of social issues, 12, p.41-49 Kirkpatrick S A, & Lock E A, 1991, Leadership: Do traits matter?, The Executive, 5, p.48-60 in Northouse P G, 2001, Leadership, Theory and Practice, Chp2, London: Sage Publications Likert R, 1961, New patterns of Management, New York, McGraw-Hill Likert R, 1967, The Human Organisation: its management and value, New York, McGraw-Hill Likert R, 1994, Profile of Organisational Characteristics, Ann Arbor, MI: Rensis Likert Associates, in Dunham-Taylor J, 2000, Nurse Executive Leadership Found in Participative Organisations, 30(5), p.241-250 Lord R G, Devader C L and Alliger G M, 1986, A meta analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An Application of validity generalisation procedures, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, p. 402-410 Mann R D, 1959, A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small groups, Psychological bulletin 56, 241-270 McHugh D & Thompson P, 1995, Work Organisations: A Critical Introduction, London: Macmillan Business McKenna E, 1994, Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Students Handbook, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates McKenna E, 2000 (3rd Ed), Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Students Handbook, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates McMahon J T, 1972, The contingency theory: Logic and method revisited, Personnel Psychology, 25, 697-711 in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall Meyer M, Stevenson W & Webster S, 1985, Limits to Bureaucratic Growth, New York: Walter de Gruyer Mullins L, 1999, Management and Organisational Behaviour, London: Pitmans Publishing Northhouse P G, 1997, Leadership - Theory and Practice, London: Sage Publications Northouse P G, 2001, Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd Ed), London: Sage Publications

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 31

OBrien G E & Kabanoff B, 1981, The effects of leadership style and group structure upon small group productivity: A test of a discrepancy theory of leadership effectiveness, Australian Journal of Psychology, 33(2), p.157-158 in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall Podsakoff P M, MacKenzie S B, Ahearne M & Bommer W H, 1995, Searching for a needle in a haystack: Trying to identify the illusive moderators of leadership behaviours, Journal of Management, 21, p.423-470 Porter E H & Lawler E E, 1968, Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Homewood, IL: IrwinDorsey in McKenna E, 1994, Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Students Handbook, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Porter L W & Bigley G A, 1997, Motivation and transformational leadership: Some organisational context issues in Yukl G, 1999, An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Summer 99, 10(2), p.285 Rauch C F & Behling O, 1984, Functionalism: Basis for an alternative approach to the study of leadership in Hunt J G, Hosking D M, Schriesheim & Stewart R (Eds), Leaders and Managers: International perspectives on managerial behaviour, New York: Pergamon Press, p.46 Richards & Engle, 1986, After the vision: Suggests to corporate visionaries and vision champions in Adams J D (Ed), Transforming Leadership, Alexandria, VA: Miles River Press, p.206 Schein E H, 1992, Organisational Culture and Leadership (2 Ed), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Schriesheim C A & Kerr S, 1977, Theories and measures of leadership a critical approach in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall Segne P, 1990, The fifth discipline the art and Practice of the learning organisation, Century Business, London, UK Shiflett S C, 1973, The contingency model of leadership effectiveness; some implications of its statistical and methodological properties, Behavioural Science, 18(6), p.419-440 in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall Stogdill R M, 1948, Personal factors associated with leadership: A Survey of theory and research, New York: Free Press Stogdill R M, 1963, Manual for the leader behaviour questionnaire, Ohio state University, Bureau of Business research Stogdill R M, 1974, Handbook of leadership: a survey of literature, New York: Free Press Vecchio R P, 1983, Assessing the validity of Fiedlers contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A closer look at Strube and Garcia, Psychological Bulletin, 93, p.404-408, Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 32

Vroom V H & Yetton P H, 1973, Leadership and decision-making, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press Yukl G, 1998 (4th Ed), Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall

A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership Research Page 33