# data[].attributes.headline
Article 7 - Theories of Leadership - Five Leadership Theories and How to Apply Them

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 7 - Theories of Leadership - Five Leadership Theories and How to Apply Them

# data[].attributes.body
This article presented by Benedictine University consists of a quick review of the history of leadership theories and focuses on the application of five theories.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Kathleen Yosko, now CEO of Northwestern Medicine's Marianjoy Rehabilitation Center, began her first job as a hospital president, there was no onboarding process planned, and no one to welcome her. Thinking it was a mistake, Yosko called her headquarters for advice. They told her, "Just do whatever a president does."

Fortunately, Yosko was a seasoned leader and she intuited where to start. But for many others, our first forays into leadership felt much like Yosko's first day: knowing how to start was not obvious. In many companies, individuals are promoted because of their technical skill - they are gifted engineers, accountants, or marketers - but that does not mean they are prepared for leadership. Leadership is a skill that can be learned, but it takes intentionality.

In the past half century, the study of leadership has grown, offering many new theories and frameworks for exploring what it means to be a leader, and how to do leadership well. In this article, we outline five current leadership theories, and offer resources and suggestions for integrating the theories into your own leadership practice. We will explore:

1. Transformational Leadership

2. Leader-Member Exchange Theory

3. Adaptive Leadership

4. Strengths-Based Leadership

5. Servant Leadership

But First, A Quick Review of Leadership History

Before we begin, we need to put leadership theory and practice in the context of history, to understand how the field of study has evolved. The earliest theories of leadership were the Great Man Theories, which emerged in the late 1800s. (Perhaps you can see one primary fault with these theories, just from their name: they assumed only half the world's population could even be considered for leadership.) The Great Man concept evolved into trait-based theories of leadership, which defined leadership by a leader's characteristics, most of which were considered innate. You were either lucky enough to be born with them, or you weren't. (Starting, first, with a Y chromosome.) For many of us, our first understanding of leadership may have aligned with these theories: leaders were often men with dominant personalities. We still see this theory at play unconsciously today, when someone is overlooked for a leadership role because of a quiet personality.

In the middle of the last century, the study of leadership shifted from the study of traits to the study of behaviors: not who the leader is but what the leader does. This allowed for an understanding that leadership could be developed in others. The most prominent leadership theories today build on this understanding, and begin to integrate the perspective of followers and the contextual circumstances in which leaders and followers interact. As business, and our understanding of human nature, grows more complex, leadership theories and frameworks should evolve to accommodate the new contexts and understandings.

Defining Leadership

Before we unpack contemporary theories of leadership, we need to define the term itself. Leadership theory scholar Dr. Peter Northouse defines leadership as "a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal." This definition makes clear that leadership is not a trait or behavior, and it is not a position. You are not made a leader by your job title, you are made a leader by your influence.

Finally, contemporary theories of leadership wrestle with the motivations of leaders: can you be a leader if your goal is selfish or even malicious? The classic question is, "Was Adolf Hitler a leader?" Theories of leadership must wrestle with the moral implications of a leader's motivations. As you'll see in several of the theories below, many theories would answer the question of Hitler with a firm no: Hitler was a dictator, but not a leader. He had positional authority, but did not show true leadership.

To begin our exploration of leadership theories, let's start with one of the most researched and referenced today, transformational leadership.

Transformational Leadership

The concepts of transformational leadership were brought to prominence by political sociologist James MacGregor Burns, in the late 1970s. Burns identified two types of leadership,

Transactional: where a leader influences others by what they offer in exchange, the transaction;

Transformational: where a leader connects with followers in such a way that it raises the level of motivation and morality.

Those two words - motivation and morality - are important, as it demands that transformational leaders be committed to a collective good. This may be a societal good, such as starting a community center or improving air quality, or a more personalized good, such as helping direct reports reach their own potential.

Activating transformational leadership:

If Kathleen Yosko, the hospital CEO who was thrown into leadership with little direction, wanted to employ transformational leadership strategies in her work, she might start with four factors researchers find present in transformational leaders. Northouse (2016) outlines these factors, which can serve as a starting place for test driving transformational leadership:

1. Idealized influence, or charisma: Transformational leaders have an uncanny ability to make you want to follow the vision they establish.

2. Inspirational motivation: Communication is a vehicle of inspiration for transformational leaders; they use words to encourage others and inspire action.

3. Intellectual stimulation: Transformational leaders stretch others to think more deeply, challenge assumptions, and innovate.

4. Individualized concern: Finally, while focused on the common good, transformational leaders show care and concern for individuals.

Leader-Member Exchange Theory

The concept of individualized concern has some carry-over to our second theory, Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). To understand this theory, you only need to think back to junior high: almost every student could be divided into two categories, popular or unpopular.

LMX theory explains that in any group or organization, there are in-group members and out-group members. In-group members work well with the leader, have a personality that fits with the leader's, and are often willing to take on extra tasks or responsibilities. Out-group members are less compatible with the leader; they may hold dissenting opinions, have clashing personalities, or be less willing to take on extra assignments. Not surprisingly, in-group members are more likely to earn promotions; out-group members are more likely to leave.

Activating LMX theory:

For followers, applying the concepts of LMX theory is easy: align yourself with the leader, take on extra tasks, and expect positive results. For leaders, LMX offers a greater challenge, because making your team as productive as possible will mean finding ways to turn out-group members into in-group members. Individualized concern, the final factor of transformational leadership, may offer one path to converting out-group members.

Additionally, LMX theory has important implications for improving diversity and inclusion. If minorities, women, or people with disabilities routinely identify as out-group members, the leader should ask the question, "What is required to be an in-group member here, and are we creating unintentional barriers for others?"

More on Leadership Theory

Continue learning about leadership theory in the next article in this series, where we'll discuss Adaptive Leadership, Strengths Based Leadership, and Servant Leadership, along with the usefulness of leadership theories. >> Read more in part 2 of this series.

__

Amber Johnson is the Center's Chief Communications Officer and Senior Research Associate; she is also a doctoral student in the Center's Ph.D./D.B.A. Program in Values-Driven Leadership.

Want more on Leadership Theory? Find an interview on why leadership theory matters, at this link.

Reference:

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers, Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Leadership Theories & How to Apply Them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Kathleen Yosko, now CEO of Northwestern Medicine's Marianjoy Rehabilitation Center, began her first job as a hospital president, there was no onboarding process planned, and no one to welcome her. Thinking it was a mistake, Yosko called her headquarters for advice. They told her, "Just do whatever a president does."

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 6 - Change - Change Management vs. Change Leadership

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 6 - Change - Change Management vs. Change Leadership

# data[].attributes.body
This is a great read by John Kotter, the same author of Kotter's 8-Steps of Change Management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am often asked about the difference between "change management" and "change leadership," and whether it's just a matter of semantics. These terms are not interchangeable. The distinction between the two is actually quite significant. Change management, which is the term most everyone uses, refers to a set of basic tools or structures intended to keep any change effort under control. The goal is often to minimize the distractions and impacts of the change. Change leadership, on the other hand, concerns the driving forces, visions and processes that fuel large-scale transformation. In this video, I delve a little deeper into the differences between the two concepts, and highlight why we need more change leadership today.
A full transcription of this video post is below:
There is a difference that is very fundamental, and it's very big, between what is known today as "change management" and what we have been calling for some time "change leadership." The world basically uses change management, which is a set of processes and a set of tools and a set of mechanisms that are designed to make sure that when you do try to make some changes, A, it doesn't get out of control, and B, the number of problems associated with it-you know, rebellion among the ranks, bleeding of cash that you can't afford-doesn't happen. So it is a way of making a big change and keeping it, in a sense, under control. Change leadership is much more associated with putting an engine on the whole change process, and making it go faster, smarter, more efficiently. It's more associated, therefore, with large scale changes. Change management tends to be more associated-at least, when it works well-with smaller changes.

If you look around the world right now and just talk to people, it's not just semantics. Everybody talks about managing change and change management, because that's what they do. If you look at all of the tools, they're trying to push things along, but it's trying to minimize disruptions, i.e., keep things under control. It's trying to make sure change is done efficiently in the sense of you don't go over budget-another control piece. It's done with little change management groups inside corporations, sometimes external consultants that are good at that, training in change management. It's done with task forces that are basically given the whole goal of push this thing along, but keep it under control. It's done with various kinds of relationships that are given names like "executive sponsors," where the executive sponsor watches over this thing to make sure that it proceeds in an orderly way.

And change leadership is just fundamentally different-it's an engine. It's more about urgency. It's more about masses of people who want to make something happen. It's more about big visions. It's more about empowering lots and lots of people. Change leadership has the potential to get things a little bit out of control. You don't have the same degree of making sure that everything happens in a way you want at a time you want when you have the 1,000 horsepower engine. What you want to do, of course, is have a highly skilled driver and a heck of a car, which will make sure your risks are minimum. But it is fundamentally different.

The world, as we all know right now, talks about, thinks about, and does change management. The world, as we all know, doesn't do much change leadership, since change leadership is associated with the bigger leaps that we have to make, associated with windows of opportunity that are coming at us faster, staying open less time, bigger hazards and bullets coming at us faster, so you really have to make a larger leap at a faster speed. Change leadership is going to be the big challenge in the future, and the fact that almost nobody is very good at it is-well, it's obviously a big deal.

John Kotter is the chief innovation officer at Kotter International, a firm that helps leaders accelerate strategy implementation in their organizations. He is also the Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership, , at Harvard Business School.

Every business faces the challenge of accelerating change. Kotter pioneered the science of change through decades of Harvard research and real-world experience. Working

... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Change Management vs. Change Leadership -- What's the Difference?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I am often asked about the difference between "change management" and "change leadership," and whether it's just a matter of semantics. These terms are not interchangeable. The distinction between the two is actually quite significant. Change management, which is the term most everyone uses, refers to a set of basic tools or structures intended to keep any change effort under control.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 5 - Organization - Quality Supervision and Organization for Quality Teaching

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 5 - Organization - Quality Supervision and Organization for Quality Teaching

# data[].attributes.body
This is an oldie but goodie! Instead of concentrating solely on ways teachers can improve, this article discusses changing supervision and the organization to seek improvement.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 4 - Change - Transforming Organization Through Instructional Leadership and Supervision (TOILS)

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 4 - Change - Transforming Organization Through Instructional Leadership and Supervision (TOILS)

# data[].attributes.body
Based on three models of leadership, this article begins by defining instructional leadership and supervision and goes on to conclude how this new concept can influence transformation of the organization. If time is a constraint, start at page 194, paragraph 2, where the authors discuss the role of the instructional leader.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 3 - Communication - Literacy Leadership: The Importance of Soft Skills

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 3 - Communication - Literacy Leadership: The Importance of Soft Skills

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses three soft skills essential for a strong professional development program: listening, creating relationships based on trust, and conversations that count.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 2 - Leadership Theories in Chronological Order

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 2 - Leadership Theories in Chronological Order

# data[].attributes.body
Since this article lists the theories in chronological order, it shows how each theory developed along with the environment and the times it was shaped in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For decades, leadership theories have been the source of numerous studies. In reality as well as in practice, many have tried to define what allows authentic leaders to stand apart from the mass! Hence, there as many theories on leadership as there are philosophers, researchers and professors that have studied and ultimately published their leadership theory. A great article to read before diving into the theories is the The Philosophical Foundations of Leadership

Theories are commonly categorized by which aspect is believed to define the leader the most. The most widespread one's are: Great Man Theory, Trait Theory, Behavioural Theories, Contingency Theories, Transactional Theories and Transformational Theories.

The Great Man theory evolved around the mid 19th century. Even though no one was able to identify with any scientific certainty, which human characteristic or combination of, were responsible for identifying great leaders. Everyone recognized that just as the name suggests; only a man could have the characteristic (s) of a great leader.

The Great Man theory assumes that the traits of leadership are intrinsic. That simply means that great leaders are born...

they are not made. This theory sees great leaders as those who are destined by birth to become a leader. Furthermore, the belief was that great leaders will rise when confronted with the appropriate situation. The theory was popularized by Thomas Carlyle, a writer and teacher. Just like him, the Great Man theory was inspired by the study of influential heroes. In his book "On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History", he compared a wide array of heroes.

In 1860, Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher disputed the great man theory by affirming that these heroes are simply the product of their times and their actions the results of social conditions.

The trait leadership theory believes that people are either born or are made with certain qualities that will make them excel in leadership roles. That is, certain qualities such as intelligence, sense of responsibility, creativity and other values puts anyone in the shoes of a good leader. In fact, Gordon Allport, an American psychologist,"...identified almost 18,000 English personality-relevant terms" (Matthews, Deary & Whiteman, 2003, p. 3).

The trait theory of leadership focused on analyzing mental, physical and social characteristic in order to gain more understanding of what is the characteristic or the combination of characteristics that are common among leaders.

There were many shortfalls with the trait leadership theory. However, from a psychology of personalities approach, Gordon Allport's studies are among the first ones and have brought, for the study of leadership, the behavioural approach.

In the 1930s the field of Psychometrics was in its early years.

Personality traits measurement weren't reliable across studies.

Study samples were of low level managers

Explanations weren't offered as to the relation between each characteristic and its impact on leadership.

The context of the leader wasn't considered.

Many studies have analyzed the traits among existing leaders in the hope of uncovering those responsible for ones leadership abilities! In vain, the only characteristics that were identified among these individuals were those that were slightly taller and slightly more intelligent!

In reaction to the trait leadership theory, the behavioural theories are offering a new perspective, one that focuses on the behaviours of the leaders as opposed to their mental, physical or social characteristics. Thus, with the evolutions in psychometrics, notably the factor analysis, researchers were able to measure the cause an effects relationship of specific human behaviours from leaders. From this point forward anyone with the right conditioning could have access to the once before elite club of naturally gifted leaders. In other words, leaders are made not born.

The behavioural theories first divided leaders in two categories. Those that were concerned with the tasks and those concerned with the people. Throughout the literature these are referred to as different names, but the essence are identical.

Associated Theories

The Contingency Leadership theory argues that there is no single way of leading and that every leadership style should be based on certain situations, which signifies that there are certain people who perform at the maximum level in certain places; but at minimal performance when taken out of their element.

To a certain extent contingency leadership theories are an extension of the trait theory, in the sense that human traits are related to the situation in which the leaders exercise their leadership. It is generally accepted within the contingency theories that leader are more likely to express their leadership when they feel that their followers will be responsive.

Associated Theories

Transactional theories, also known as exchange theories of leadership, are characterized by a transaction made between the leader and the followers. In fact, the theory values a positive and mutually beneficial relationship.

For the transactional theories to be effective and as a result have motivational value, the leader must find a means to align to adequately reward (or punish) his follower, for performing leader-assigned task. In other words, transactional leaders are most efficient when they develop a mutual reinforcing environment, for which the individual and the organizational goals are in sync.

The transactional theorists state that humans in general are seeking to maximize pleasurable experiences and to diminish un-pleasurable experiences. Thus, we are more likely to associate ourselves with individuals that add to our strengths.

Associated Theories

The Transformational Leadership theory states that this process is by which a person interacts with others and is able to create a solid relationship that results in a high percentage of trust, that will later result in an increase of motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic, in both leaders and followers.

The essence of transformational theories is that leaders transform their followers through their inspirational nature and charismatic personalities. Rules and regulations are flexible, guided by group norms. These attributes provide a sense of belonging for the followers as they can easily identify with the leader and its purpose.

Associated Theories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leadership Theories - In Chronological Order

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For decades leadership theories have been the source of numerous studies. In reality as well as in practice, many have tried to define what detaches authentic leaders from the mass! Hence, there as many theories on leadership as there are philosophers, researchers and professors that have studied and ultimately publish their leadership theory.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 1 - Decision Making for School Leaders: Five Tips

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 1 - Decision Making for School Leaders: Five Tips

# data[].attributes.body
This article contains information condensed from the book School Leader Internship: Developing, Monitoring, and Evaluating Your Leadership Experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thanks to its partnership with publisher Eye on Education, Education World is pleased to present this administrator tip from School Leader Internship (4th Edition): Developing, Monitoring, and Evaluating Your Leadership Experience, by Gary E. Martin, Arnold B. Danzig, William F. Wright, Richard A. Flanary, and Fred Brown. This article provides school leaders with five factors to consider when making quality decisions.

Decision making is sine qua non to education administration because a school, like all formal organizations, is basically a decision-making structure (Hoy and Miskel, 2001). Decision making is a process that guides actions. Decisions are based on the beliefs, values and previous experiences of individuals. Leaders must know themselves, know why they choose particular paths, know whom to involve, and know which particular decision-making model to use. Today, researchers and theorists know that those at the top cannot accurately gather or predict all alternatives. They know that followers deserve to be involved and that input and collaboration result in better decisions. The first decision is to decide what level of involvement is most effective.

Leaders have at least four options of involvement in decisions: deciding alone, seeking participation and input, seeking collaboration, and letting others decide. These approaches are termed autocratic, participative, collaborative, and laissez fair, respectively. A wise leader uses participative and collaborative strategies for all important decisions. However, such an approach is not always possible, nor is it preferable in all situations. The leader must assess 5 factors to decide on the level of involvement:

Time

Urgency may require the leader to make his or her own decision without consulting others. Participative decisions, especially collaborative decisions, require more time than a decision made alone. If important decisions are at stake, the leader must schedule more time for involvement.

Staff Interest in the Decision

Barnard (1938) found that individuals have a "zone of indifference" in which they simply accept the leader's decision and are apathetic toward the decision. In these cases, the leader would not benefit from trying to gain participation or collaboration. At higher levels of interest, however, more participation or collaboration is appropriate. Leaders who desire more collaboration must generate interest in the decision.

Staff Expertise

Followers who have very low levels of expertise accept the decisions of leaders. Staff members who have higher levels of expertise require either participation or collaboration to arrive at successful decisions. The leader who desires collaboration must raise levels of expertise to successfully involve subordinates.

Importance or Need For a High-Quality Decision

Some decisions are much more important and carry significant consequences. This is usually the case for instruction and learning, whether directly or indirectly. For important questions that demand high-quality decisions, collaboration is the best model. If the decision is relatively unimportant, then the leader should simply make the decision.

Degree of Need for Buy-In or Support for the Decision

Many decisions in schools need staff support for successful implementation and results. A collaborative model often increases buy-in and support.

Education World®
Copyright © 2012, 2017 Education World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Decision-Making for School Leaders: Five Tips | Education World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thanks to its partnership with publisher Eye on Education, Education World is pleased to present this administrator tip from School Leader Internship (4th Edition): Developing, Monitoring, and Evaluating Your Leadership Experience, by Gary E. Martin , Arnold B. Danzig , William F. Wright , Richard A. Flanary, and Fred Brown .