Sie sind auf Seite 1von 43





A large and growing volume of literature has been produced on leadership, and a distinct body of
knowledge can be discerned on the subject. Even so, there are still confusions and misunderstandings
of several concepts, and there is a need for adequate illustration and explanation. Leadership research
appears to have been detained by the repetition of studies on a few topics, the application of a few
methods and frameworks, and the discussion of a small number of ideas. In this chapter, the first part
of the literature review is presented. The review focuses on an effort to cover the history of leadership



What is leadership? Many works on leadership start with this question. Many have lamented that the
construction of leadership lacks a common and established definition by which it can be evaluated, no
dominant paradigms for studying it, and little agreement about the best strategies for developing and
exercising it (Hackman and Wageman, 2007; Barker, 1997; Higgs, 2003). Bennis (2007) laments that
it has almost become a clich, that there is no single definition of leadership. In view of others, there
are as many definitions of leadership as the number of people who have attempted to define
leadership (Bass, 1990). The bulk of literature available on leadership makes it difficult to present the
concept of leadership in a single definition (Goethals et al., 2004). However, a few definitions in the
literature are:

Leadership may be defined as the behavior of an individual while he is involved in directing group
activities (Hemphill, 1949, p. 4).
Leadership behavior means particular acts in which a leader engages in the course of directing and
coordinating the work to his group members (Fiedler, 1967, p. 36)


Leadership is the reciprocal process of mobilizing by persons with certain motives and values,
various economic, political and other resources, in context of competition and conflict, in order to
realize goals independently or mutually held by both leaders and followers (Burns, 1978, p. 425).
The capacity to create a compelling vision and translate it into action and sustain it (Bennis, 1989, p.
Leadership involves influencing task objectives and strategies, influencing commitment and
compliance in task behavior to achieve these objectives, influencing group maintenance and
identification and influencing the culture of an organization (Yukl, 1989, p. 253).
The principal dynamic force that motivates and coordinates the organization in the accomplishment
of its objectives (Bass, 1990).
Leadership is the process of persuasion or example by which an individual (or leadership team)
induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader and his or her followers (Gardner, 1990, p. 1).
Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that
reflect their mutual purposes (Rost, 1991, p. 102).
Leadership is a process of social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of
others in the accomplishment of a common task. The main points of this definition are that leadership
is a group activity, is based on social influence, and revolves around a common task (Chemers, 1997,
p. 1).
Leadership is a processa dynamic process in which the leader(s) and followers interact in such a
way as to generate change (Kellerman and Webster, 2001, p. 487).
A process of motivating people to work together collaboratively to accomplish great things (Vroom
and Jago, 2007, p. 18).

However, these definitions over different points in time do show that the understanding of leadership
has travelled from behaviors to actions to eventually a social process that involves the leader,
followers, and situations. Despite the overabundance of leadership definitions, Burns (1978) argues
that leadership is the most observed but least understood phenomenon. It is a field which has both
fascinated and perplexed the researchers and practitioners, creating a significant amount of research


and theories to conceptualize and explain this phenomenon (see: Ayaman, 2000, cited in Goethals et
al., 2004). Other researchers have also talked about the complexity and elusiveness of leadership (see:
Chemers, 1997).

The abundance of literature on leadership is reflected by the increase in the number of articles in its
bible, Stogdills Handbook of Leadership. Only 3,000 studies were listed in the earlier publication and
the number increased to 5,000 within seven years. However, the authors of Stogdills Handbook of
Leadership concluded that the endless accumulation of empirical data has not produced an integrated
understanding of leadership. Despite this assertion, DuBrin (1995) claims that about 30,000 research
articles, magazine articles and books had been written till the mid nineties of 20th century. Goffee and
Jones (2000) observe that nearly 2,000 books were published on leadership in the year 1999. This
depicts the pace of publications on subject leadership with lesser outcomes. Sometimes, it seems as if
researchers are over researching a single topic and repeating each other in various journals and
magazines. Occasionally the new reader or researcher of leadership gets confused with so many
leadership theories. Nevertheless, new arenas and horizons keep arriving in the study of leadership
and researchers are now more interested to break the confinement of social science laboratory
experiments to observe real leaders in action. This is essentially because leadership has become much
more relevant and even more complex in the global world of today.

Various fields of knowledge such as political science, psychology, education, history, agriculture,
public administration, management, anthropology, medicine, military sciences, philosophy, and
sociology have all contributed to an understanding of leadership. These tell how leadership has
attracted the attention of scholars and researchers in numerous research areas. With development in
technology and better availability of research facilities, resources and infrastructure, leadership
researchers of this age are more interested to integrate various concepts of leadership instead of
studying them in isolation in the domain of a single subject. This trend is flourishing and imparting
steady health to leadership understanding.




Leadership is one of the topics in modern research which originated long back in history when people
started understanding the importance of leaders role in various facets of life such as politics,
governmental issues, foreign policy and war. Philosophers, historians, warriors and rulers in the past
have paid much attention to this subject to bring improvement to leadership practices of their times.
Based on the literature available, leadership research can be divided into seven categories:
1. Ancient Approaches to Leadership
2. Classical Approaches to Leadership
3. Transactional Approaches to Leadership
4. Transformational and Charismatic Theories
5. Integrative Theories
6. Miscellaneous Approaches to Leadership
7. Recent Developments



Social and political scholars have recognized the importance of leadership throughout human history
(Chemers, 1997). Ancient leadership approach comprises the writings of early philosophers and
thinkers who put together their thoughts on leaders, leadership and necessity of leadership
development. Encyclopedia of Leadership (Goethals et al., 2004) lists Confucius and Sun Tzu,
Aristotle, Plato, Niccolo Machiavelli, Pareto, Thomas Hobbes, Mary Parker, Bertrand Russel and
several other philosophers and thinkers who have contributed their thoughts to development of
leadership theoretical base. These efforts and other philosophical approaches constitute a rich and
ongoing normative approach to understanding leadership and seek to provide ethical and constructive
views of good leadership. Many of the modern theories of leadership also borrow some ideas from
classical thoughts on leadership. Though these theories mostly discuss leadership in very general
terms at government, regime and military levels, modern theories of leadership try to implement these
ideas in modern business and organizational leadership.


The Republic by Plato appears to be the first attempt to shed light on the theory of politics and
leadership and was written over 2,000 years back. Nichomachean Ethics and Politics are two of
Aristotles books which shed some light on politics and leadership among the early most writing on
the subject. The other famous writings come from Sun Tzu (The Art of War), Niccolo Machiavelli
(The Prince) Vilfredo Pareto (The Treatise on General Sociology) and so on. These are only some
examples of ancient approaches to leadership. Many modern scholars of leadership have written about
the wisdom these ancient approaches offer for a deeper understanding of leadership. Several ideas
offered by these approaches still hold. However, increased complexity of business world due to
industrialization of early 20th century rejuvenated the interest in scholarship of leadership. The
following sections are dedicated to the theories that were presented after the dawn of 20th century.



Early analyses of leadership, from the 1900s to the 1950sthe classical management period,
differentiated between leader and follower characteristics. Frederick Winslow Taylor who is
considered to be the founder of scientific management published his book The Principles of
Scientific Management in 1911 which opened up the horizons of modern management research and
development. He explained that the best way to increase efficiency was to improve the techniques and
methods used by workers. People were seen as instruments or machines to be manipulated by their
managers. Also, the organization was seen as a bureaucratic, well planned and structured big machine.
Taylor initiated time and motion studies to analyze work tasks to improve performance in every
aspect of the organization. In the 1920s Elton Mayo and his colleagues developed the human
relations movement which emphasized that it was beneficial for management to look also into human
affairs. In the famous Hawthorne studies they were able to demonstrate the effect of human
factor to efficiency (Mayo, 1933). The scientific management movement emphasized a concern
for task (output), and the human relations movement stressed a concern for relationships
(people). The recognition of these two concerns has characterized the discussion about leadership
ever since.


Robert Tannenbaum is famous for his continuum of leader behavior, the extremes of which are
authoritarian and democratic leader behavior (Tannenbaum and Schmidt 1958). Kurt Lewin with his
colleagues extended this continuum beyond the democratic leader behavior to include a laissez-faire
style. Rensis Likert (1967) proposed four management styles on a continuum from system 1
through to system 4. System 1 is a task-oriented, highly structured authoritarian management style.
System 4 is a relationships-oriented management style based on teamwork, mutual trust and
confidence. Systems 2 and 3 are intermediate stages between the two extremes. Likerts theory is
quite close to McGregors (1960) classic theories (Theory X and Theory Y). These two theories
represent pure archetypes of managerial beliefs about nature of people that, in turn influence their
managerial and leadership behavior (Goethals et al., 2004). According to Theory X, most people are
passive, dislike work, avoid responsibility and need to be closely supervised and told what to do. They
prefer to be directed, want safety above all and are not interested in assuming responsibility. Theory X
argues that people are self-centered, prone to resist change, and not very clever.

Theory Z is yet another perspective from the classical approaches of leadership and management. As
a matter of fact, several researchers designated their theories as Theory Z. These theorists include
Abraham Maslow and William Ouchi. Abraham Maslow was the presenter of Hierarchy of Needs
Theory (see: Maslow, 1954) which is considered as a classical work in management sciences. He later
posited a transcendent Theory Y leader who epitomized what Maslow called B-values. These values
include truth, beauty, wholeness, dichotomy-transcendence, aliveness-process, uniqueness, perfection,
necessity, completion, justice, order, simplicity, richness, effortlessness, playfulness, and self
efficiency (Maslow, 1971). Such leaders are very rare, almost exceptional. They can easily scan the
full potential of people for transforming them into ideal, but they are frustrated by the mediocre, the
shortsighted, the fearful, and the unimaginative.

William Ouchis Theory Z was presented in 1981 in his book, Theory Z: How American Companies
Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Theory Z essentially advocates a combination of all that is best
about Theory Y and modern Japanese management, which places a large amount of freedom and trust


with workers, and assumes that workers have a strong loyalty and interest in team-working and the
organization. Theory Z also places more reliance on the attitude and responsibilities of the workers,
whereas McGregors theories (X and Y) are mainly focused on management and motivation from the
managerial and organizational perspective.


Motivation Theories

Many classical motivation theories form a foundation of management approaches.


Maslows (1954) hierarchy of needs and Frederick Herzbergs (1966) motivation-hygiene theory are
the most famous. David C. McClellands achievement motive is also very important when describing
the behavior of leaders (McClelland et al., 1953). These classical approaches were the start to study
management and leadership scientifically. One of the main distinctions was the concern for task vs.


Trait Theories

The underlying assumption of trait theory was that leaders have certain characteristics that are utilized
across time to enhance organizational performance and leader prestige. The idea was that traits
affected behaviors and behaviors affected effectiveness. Traits are the distinguishing personal
characteristics of a leader, such as physical characteristics, aspects of personality and aptitudes. Early
research on leadership in the beginning of 20th century examined the leaders who had achieved a level
of greatness, and later on, this approach became famous as Great Man Theory. The underlying idea
behind this approach was that some individuals are born with certain characteristics and qualities
which make them leaders eventually. Bass (1997) argued that leaders during the early twentieth
century were considered to be superior individuals different from the others around them because of
skills, capabilities, inherited money and social standing. The aim of trait theories was to prepare a
master list of traits which would eventually result in an ideal leader.

Stogdill (1948) studied 124 trait studies conducted in the first half of twentieth century and observed
that the pattern of results was consistent with conception of a leader as an individual who acquires


leadership role through demonstration of ability to facilitate the efforts of the group in attaining it
goals. In research of Stogdill (1948), relevant traits included intelligence, alertness to the needs of
others, understanding of the task, initiative and persistence in dealing with problems, self confidence
and desire to accept the responsibility and occupy a position of dominance and control (Yukl, 2002).
However, he asserted two problems with this master-list approach to leadership. He further argued
that no traits were universally required for leadership which varied extensively according to the
characteristics, activities and goals of the followers.

Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) explored a number of traits which distinguished between leaders from
non-leaders, including some of those found by Stogdill. Traits like emotional intelligence, social
intelligence, self awareness, capacity to be optimistic and hopeful despite obstacles, the ability to
empathize others and strong social and interpersonal skills have found a place in the list of some
significant leadership attributes. Nevertheless, the criticism to this approach is that it does not tell
when selected traits are critical or can be omitted without extensive situational analysis (Van Wart,
2005). This is because two leaders can use different sets of traits to attain a goal. Even a similar set of
traits may be beneficial under one situation and disastrous under the other conditions. Till today trait
theories have been unable to present that very much aspired master list for ideal leader and this quest
still persists (Goethals et al., 2004).

Trait approach to leadership has regained some attention in the most recent literature on leadership
(Lim and Daft, 2004). Stephen Zaccaro has championed the field all over again by adding more depth
and thoroughness to the understanding of traits. In his recent works with his colleagues (see: 2001,
2003, 2007), Zacccaro has brought in notable perspectives to understanding of traits. He argues that
the prior rejection of trait-based approaches is not justified through empirical evidence in the
literature. He asserts that traits are significant precursors of leadership effectiveness and combinations
of traits and attributes, integrated in conceptually meaningful ways, are more likely to predict
leadership than are independent contributions of multiple traits. Zaccaro (2007) also observes that
individuals have different patterns of traits that reflect an individuals stable tendency to lead in


different ways across different organizational domains. He also argues that traits of some leaders have
more distal influences on leadership processes and performance while some others have more
immediate effects. This is essentially mediated by situational parameters, as Zaccaro (2007) explains.
According to the modern understanding of traits, a combination of distal attributes (personality,
cognitive abilities, motives, values) and proximal attributes (social appraisal skills, problem solving
skills, and expertise or tacit knowledge) combine to engender leader emergence, effectiveness,
advancement and promotion (see: Zaccaro et al., 2004). Luthans et al (2007) also furthers the
discussion on traits and argue that there are two types of traits: trait-like-traits and state-like-traits.
Trait-like-traits are more rigid and difficult to learn. Examples: intelligence, coping, interpersonal
needs, and so on. State-like-traits are malleable and therefore can be developed and hence learnt
through interventions. Examples: Hope, optimism, resiliency, self-efficacy, and so on. These
developments show that traits are still important as far as leadership is concerned. However, there is
need to focus on traits that can be learned through interventions.



After classical research in leadership which started during first half of 20th century, a new era of
explorations started in the remaining second half. Most popular theories of leadership literature were
presented in this second half which deserves to be reminded as golden period or modern period of
leadership research. During this period, which continues up till today, numerous concepts and
theoretical frameworks of leadership were presented. Trait studies, behavioral studies, contingency
studies came up during the golden period. Wart (2005) establishes that basic research at Ohio State
University and University Michigan and other settings during 1950s started challenging some of the
implicit leadership assumptions of the early management and trait theories. During 1960s, the
development of leadership theories was later known as transactional approach. In the following
sections, discussion will be made on well-known theories which fall under the category of
transactional approach. The discussion has been divided into behavioral and situational approaches.

2.6.1. Behavioral Theories


According to this approach, anyone who adopts an appropriate behavior can become a good leader.
Behaviors can be leaned more readily than traits emphasizing the importance of behavioral
approaches in leadership studies. As the notion of inherited or inherent leadership was dispelled,
behavioral scientists turned their attention to the measurable behaviors of leaders. The idea was to see
what leaders actually do rather than what they actually have in form of traits and attributes. The
criticism which behavioral approaches received was that they emphasized on behaviors and not
situation. That is why some individuals are leaders under one situation but totally non-leaders in the
other. The Ohio State Leadership Studies (see: Halpin and Winer, 1957) laid the foundation for
understanding the difference between successful and unsuccessful leaders and led to modern
conception of leadership styles.

The research identified two leadership dimensions of leadership behavior: consideration and initiating
structure. Consideration means that a leader acts in a friendly and supportive manner, shows concern
and consideration for subordinates and looks after their welfare. The leader creates an environment of
emotional support, warmth, friendliness and trust for the followers. On the other hand, initiating
structure means that the leader defines and structures his/her own role and role of subordinates for
attainment of formal tasks and goals. Leaders scoring high on this dimension define the relationship
between themselves and the staff members. They are critical to poor performance of subordinates,
strict to the deadlines, maintain certain standards of performance, offer new approaches to problem
solving and coordinate the activities of subordinates.

A group of researchers at University of Michigan (see: Katz and Kahn, 1952) also conducted a major
program of leadership research almost at the same time as of the Ohio State leadership studies.
Researchers at Michigan presented their classification of leaders which consisted of productioncentered leaders, employee-centered leaders and participative leaders. This classification is quite
similar to that of Ohio State studies. Production-centered leaders are those who emphasize more on
planning, scheduling, coordinating the activities of subordinates, provide necessary resources and
support for achievement of goals. While on the other hand, employee-centered leaders are more


inclined to their relationship with subordinates. Participative leaders use group supervision instead of
micromanaging every single subordinate. They encourage participation of employees in decision
making, problem solving and other activities at work place.

One of the first theories that tried to make sense of the new behavioral orientation to leadership, the
managerial grid was proposed by Blake and Mouton (1964). It is called Grid theory as it places five
leadership styles on a grid constructed of two behavioral axes. It is a framework for simultaneously
specifying the concern for production and people dimensions of leadership. The five leadership styles
which are located on the grid are: authority-compliance, impoverished management, country club
management, team management, and middle of the road management. Grid theory was the first highly
popular theory of leadership that utilized the task-people duality for effective leadership. Many
researchers criticize the Leadership Grid for dictating one best style, yet the team style includes
adapting to the situation.

2.6.2. Contingency Theories

Contingency theories were primarily championed by those who started thinking about leadership in
relation with situation. In empirical sense, contingency theories guided research into the kinds of
persons and behaviors who are effective in different situations. Fred Fiedler was the first to introduce
contingency in leadership in through his contingency model. Later, many others contributed to the
field. Discussions on situational aspect of leadership are omnipresent in the leadership discourse. For
example, Vroom and Jago (2007), in their recent discourse about role of situation in leadership note
that viewing leadership in purely dispositional or purely situational terms is to miss a major portion
of the phenomenon. The task confronting contingency theorists is to understand the key behaviors and
contextual variables involved in this process. (p. 23). This shows that interest in the contingency or
situational approach remains alive, although modern literature has embraced a broader term of
context (Avolio, 2007). It is plausible to believe that contingency, situation, or context will always
be a relevant consideration in any discussion, framework, or theory of leadership. The following


sections highlight some frameworks presented under the broader label of contingency or situation

Fielder (1963) was the first one to respond to Stogdills (1948) call to formulate trait contingency
models (Goethals et al., 2004). He developed the most widely researched and quoted contingency
model which advocates that the best style of leadership is determined by the situation. His model was
the first in leadership research to integrate leader, follower and situational characteristics. More
specifically, Fiedlers model predicts that those leaders who are more relationship oriented are more
effective in medium situational control and that those who are more task oriented are more effective
in high- and low-control situations. Leaders orientation determines if he/she is in match with
situation or out of match with situation. If leaders orientation matches with the situation, he/she is
predicted to perform more effectively and vice versa. Some criticisms to this theory are on its
conceptual weaknesses and methodological controversy (see: Yukl, 1970; Schriesheim and Kerr,
1977). However, despite the controversies and criticism hurled against this theory, Fiedler was
undoubtedly a pioneer in taking leadership research beyond the purely trait or purely situational
perspectives that preceded his contribution (Vroom and Jago, 2007).

Heresy and Blanchard belong to the group of researchers who advocated a contingency approach in
which different leadership styles hinged upon different factors, mostly situational. Heresy and
Blanchards (1982) model explains how to match the leadership style with readiness of group
members. Readiness of situational leadership is defined as the extent to which a group member has
the ability and willingness or confidence to accomplish a particular task or activity. Based on follower
capacity, ability and motivation, situational leadership model prescribes four different leadership
styles: directing, coaching, supporting and delegating. Some authors have used the words like: telling,
selling, participating and delegating. Here the key point is that as group member readiness increases, a
leader should rely more on relationship behavior and lesser on task behavior. For example, followers
who are low in competence but high in commitment, such as new employees, are eager for
instructions and structure but do not need much supportive behavior. A directive style would be more


useful in such situation. Moderate competence and low commitment calls for a directive and
supportive style. On the other hand, competent subordinates need less specific direction than do less
competent subordinates. These illustrations make this model much useful for training and
development of leadership.

The Path-Goal theory emerged and further developed in 1970s (see: House, 1971; House and Dessler,
1974; House and Mitchell, 1974). The Path-Goal theory illustrates how the behavior of a leader
influences the satisfaction and performance of subordinates. It describes what a leader must do to
achieve high productivity and morale in a given situation. In general, a leader attempts to clarify the
path to a goal for a group member so that he of she receives personal payoffs. The theory went
through a refining process by a number of researchers in the subsequent years. The major proposition
of path-goal theory is that the manager should choose a leadership style that takes into account the
characteristics of the team members and requirements of the task.

The Path-Goal theory actually has been expanded to leadership substitute theory. Kerr and Jermier
(1978) first introduced the concept of leadership substitutes and neutralizers. Their theory
identifies the aspects of certain situations when there is almost no need or importance of leadership.
Substitute of leadership is beneficial in terms that formal leaders have limited time; less leadership
allows them to concentrate on more critical issues and thus to enhance the effectiveness in certain
crucial areas. At the same time, reduction in leadership allows the subordinates to be self-reliant, more
responsible and innovative in the tasks. According to this theory, neutralizers are the characteristics,
which make it effectively impossible for leadership to make a difference. In their study, Kerr and
Jermier (1978) proposed 13 different dimensions which they hypothesized to neutralize the
effectiveness of leaders on followers. This theory has generated a considerable amount of interest (see
Howell, 1997) because it offers an intuitively appealing explanation for why leader behavior impacts
subordinates in some situations but not in others. However, some of its theoretical propositions have
not been adequately tested. The theory continues to generate empirical research.


Another popular theory in leadership research, mostly known as LMX theory, leader-member
exchange theory was first presented in early 1970s in reaction to the dominant behavioral and
contingency models of leadership. It was originally called as Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) and
suggested that leaders adopt different leadership styles with different subordinates. Leaders also
develop different dyadic exchange relationships with different specific subordinates. Such
relationships can be the ones that treat the subordinate as in close relationship with the leader or the
ones that treat the subordinate as more distant and secluded individual. The LMX theory focuses on
the ongoing relationship that leaders and members of their group experience as they negotiate and
exchange mutual perceptions, influence, types and amount of work, loyalty and prerequisites, and so
forth (Van Wart, 2005). An advanced version of LMX advocated the notion that good leaders create
as many high-exchange relationships as possible. Good leaders need loyal, committed, hardworking,
productive, flexible and competent subordinates to advance the group goals and achieve higher level
of accomplishments and innovations.

Though originally developed earlier (Vroom and Yetton, 1973), the theory of decision making went
through some refining process at later stages (see: Vroom and Jago, 1988). This is why the model is
known as Vroom-Yetton-Jago model in todays management studies. The theory is much narrower in
its focus and it deals with the form in and degree to which the leader involves his or her subordinates
in the decision-making process (Vroom and Jago, 2007). Leaders perform the task of decision making
on regular basis and they have to set certain parameter for this in the organizational setup. Therefore,
leaders must choose a style that elicits the correct degree of group participation while making
decisions. Vroom-Yetton-Jago model perceives leadership as decision making process.

The effect of decision procedures on decision quality and acceptance depends on various aspects of
situation. This is natural that a procedure which is very effective and efficient in one set of conditions
and circumstances may prove to be a complete failure in another set of conditions. This theory has a
number of strong points. It delimits the aspects of leadership it endeavors to elaborate. It does not over
simplify the conditions for phenomenon as complex as decision making. Vroom and Jago (2007)


gladly admit that their theory is not the one that encompasses all or even most of what a leader does.
However, they believe that the sharpness of their focus in their framework allows a great degree of
specificity in the predictions that are made.

The Multiple Linkage Model was presented by Yukl in 1981 and then further refined by him in
1989. It is also called an ambitious integrative theory by Chemers (1997). The model includes four
types of variables: managerial behaviors, intervening variables, criterion variables, and situational
variables. The model suggests how different variables join together and affect each other to determine
the organizational performance. The emphasis in the multiple linkage model is on the intervening
variables and the leader behaviors that affect them. The weakness of this model is that these linkages
are not very comprehensive. The strength of the model is that it considers the intervening process
considerably as link between leader behaviors and group outcomes. This model successfully brings
the leader, situation, process, and outcome together.

Fielders scientific curiosity was once again aroused when he came across some empirical findings
that agreed with neither common sense nor with accepted scientific wisdom. Therefore, as an
extension of his contingency model, Fiedler presented the Cognitive Resources Theory in 1986 and
further refined in 1987 with his colleagues. This theory examines the conditions under which
cognitive resources such as intelligence and experience are related to job performance. This theory
argues that group performance is determined by a complex interaction among two leaders traits
(intelligence and experience), one type of leadership behavior (directive leadership), and two aspects
of leadership situation (interpersonal stress and the nature of the groups task). Briefly, Fiedler and
Garcia presented a causal chain in which a leaders cognitive resources have a profound impact on
group performance when the leader actively directs follower activity. This impact is positive for
intelligence under low stress conditions and experience under high stress conditions.




One of the most influential leadership developments of the leadership research is the concept
presented by James MacGregor Burns, first ever presented in 1978 under the title of transformational
leadership. Writing from the political science tradition, Burns discusses various types of leadership,
especially contrasting transactional leadership, which largely appeals to self interested motivations of
followers, with transformational leadership, which attempts to raise followers consciousness to
reform and improve the institutions (Van Wart, 2005). Burns (1978) makes a central distinction
between what he calls transactional and transforming leadership.
Transactional leadership takes place when one person takes the initiative in making contact with
others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things. This type of leadership is best described as
the politics of exchange, in which, for example, a public official bargains jobs for votes.
Transformational leadership, in contrast, has a moral dimension. It may be said to occur when one or
more persons engage with each other in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to
higher levels of motivation and morality. Burns defines transformational leadership as a dynamic,
two-way relationship between leaders and followers. Leaders must connect with the needs and wants
of the followers and establish motivation to accomplish collective goals that satisfy the needs of both
the leader and the followers. Mutual need and empathy are key characteristics of transformational
leadership. He also believes that every person is engaged in the leadership process in one way or
another at different times and in different situations (Burns, 1978).

In 2003, James MacGregor Burns published a follow up book, Transforming Leadership, to explore
and expand his theory nearly thirty years later after his infamous book Leadership in 1978. He
believes that all leaders have a social responsibility to empower people to pursue their own happiness
by affecting social change. He states, leaders working as partners with the dispossessed people of the
world to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - happiness empowered with transforming
purpose - could become the greatest act of united leadership the world has ever known (Burns,
2003). Burns views that a transformational leader not only speaks to immediate wants but elevates
people by vesting in them a sense of possibility, a belief that change can be made and that they can


make them. Motivation, according to Burns, is what powers leadership. Creativity is another key
element of transformational leadership. Transforming leaders have the ability to see possibility and
innovation and to share that vision with others. He believes that leaders seize opportunities, overcome
obstacles and change how the rest of the world acts, thinks and lives. In some cases, Burns believes
that crisis can often be a source of creativity. He cites examples of skillful leaders including military
commanders, presidents and Chief Executive Officers who have applied creativity in times of crisis to
affect great change.

Burns (1978) believed that leaders were either transactional or transformational. However, seven
years later Bernard Bass (1985) proposed that both types of leadership are necessary and that
transformational leadership actually enhances transactional behaviors. Bass conceives the leadership
as a single continuum. It progresses from non-leadership to transactional leadership to
transformational leadership. Non-leadership provides haphazard outcomes; transactional leadership
gives improves and better results which are mostly conventional; but transformational leadership
provides the best outcomes.

Bass (1985) is of the view that transformational leadership is a widespread phenomenon across levels
of management, types of organizations, and around the globe. He characterizes the transformational
leaders as having four significant attributes: charisma or idealized influence - they have conviction
and values and they emphasize the importance of purpose, commitment, and ethical components of
decisions; inspirational motivation - they articulate an appalling vision of future, challenge followers
with high standards, talk optimistically with enthusiasm, and provide encouragement and meaning for
what needs to be done; intellectual stimulation they push followers to consider new points of view,
to question old assumptions, and to articulate their own views; and individualized consideration - they
take into account the needs, capacities, aspirations of each individual follower in the effort to treat
followers equitably. Among all transformational leadership theories, Basss is the most highly
researched and has a good deal of positive support. His approach is more appealing as well as
relatively elegant, considering the large number of styles that it incorporates. Nevertheless, fuzziness


and overlap of the transformational concepts are problematic. To measure transformational leadership,
Bass and Avolios (1995) multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) became the most popular tool
for leadership assessment.

Presented by Tichy and Devanna (1986), and refined later (Devanna and Tichy, 1990), this point of
view about transformational leadership asserts that transformational leadership is about change,
innovation and entrepreneurship. Proponents of this view advocate that managers can be found more
commonly but transformational leaders are rare and they engage in a process which includes a
sequence of phases: recognizing the need for change, creating a new vision, and then institutionalizing
the change. Leaders that are transformational type leaders are individuals who create new approaches
and imagine new areas to explore; they relate to people in more intuitive and empathetic ways, seek
risk where opportunities and rewards are high, and project ideas into images to excite people. They
must bring a change in organizations in three stages. First is the recognizing the need for revitalization
followed by second stage where leader should create a new vision. In the third and final stage,
institutionalizing the change is imperative as new vision is understood and accepted, new structures,
mechanisms, and incentives must be in place. The levels of leader effectiveness in behaviors leading
to transformational change are the intervening variables; the moderating variables are the triggers for
change. Like most other transformational leadership styles, they seem less interested in specifying a
particular leadership style. Rather they are more interested in articulating the general ser of behaviors
that has universal utility.

Kouzes and Posner (1987, 1988) adopted an interesting approach to formulate their ideas about
transformational leadership. They asked the leaders what leads to excellent leadership based on their
personal experiences? They collected responses from over thousand leaders using a critical incident
methodology and focusing on personal best experiences of respondents. They found five major
practices of transformational leaders. They found that transformational leaders: challenge the process,
inspire a shared vision, enable others to act, modeling the way, and encourage the heart. Kouzes and


Posner also developed the instrument known as leadership practices inventory (LPI) to measure the
practices of transformational leaders.

Despite the recognition that the transformational leadership theories have gained, there have been
criticisms as well. Yukl (1999) presents a strong case in this regard and makes several points to
illustrate conceptual weaknesses in transformational and transactional leadership. He believes that the
underlying influence processes for transformational and transactional leadership are still unclear. He
further argues that each transformational behavior includes diverse components, which makes the
definition more ambiguous. The partially overlapping content and the high inter-correlation found
among the transformational behaviors raise doubts about their construct validity. Moreover, some
important transformational behaviors (such as inspiring, developing and empowering) are missing in
the Bass (1996) version of the theory and in the MLQ, which was designed to test the theory (Bass
and Avolio, 1990). The transformational leadership also fails to identify any situation where it can
prove to be detrimental. Extending his critique on transactional leadership, Yukl (1999) argues that
transactional leadership includes a diverse collection of (mostly ineffective) leader behaviors that lack
any clear common denominator.



The credit of introducing the word charisma goes to German sociologist Max Weber (see: Weber,
1968). Charisma is a Greek word meaning divinely inspired gift which imparts an extraordinary
quality to charismatic individuals by which they can influence others hearts and souls, perform
miracles or predict the future. According to Max Weber, charisma is a certain quality of an individual
personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with
supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. Max Weber
believed that charismatic leaders were more likely to emerge during times of crisis and social
upheaval. In organizations, crisis may be some major reform, financial problem or even poor
performance causing damage to organizational reputation and prestige in market. The other definition
of charismatic leadership is in terms of the degree to which the leader engages in the following


behaviors: articulating a captivating vision or mission in ideological terms; showing a high degree of
confidence in themselves and their beliefs; setting a personal example of involvement in and
commitment to the mission for followers to emulate; behaving in a manner that reinforces the vision
or mission; and communicating high expectations to followers and confidence in their ability to meet
such expectations (see: Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1993).

So far, several premises of charismatic leadership have been presented. The first effort in this regard
was made by Robert House in 1977 who was the first to present a fully developed theory of
charismatic leadership. House believed that charismatic leaders were strongly influential on the
followers. He posited that charismatic leaders have their major effects on the emotions and selfesteem of followers - the affective motivational variables rather than the cognitive variables (House et
al., 1988). Once followers are convinced about the ideology of leader, they follow him/her willingly,
become fully involved in the task, obey the commands of leader entirely, feel emotional attraction
towards the leader, consider leaders goals as their own, and believe that they are a part of mission
which must be accomplished under the guidance of their beloved leader. The limitation about Houses
initial theory was the ambiguity about influence process.

In their next version, House et al. (1991) refined Houses (1977) original theory of charismatic
leadership and presented a more complete conceptualization of the theory. They defined charismatic
leadership in terms of three constituents: (1) effects on followers, (2) leader personality and behavior,
and (3) attributions of charisma to leaders by followers and observers. Charismatic leadership is
described as an interactive process between followers and their leader in the first constituent. This
interaction results in the attraction of followers to the leader and strong internalization of the leaders
values and goals by followers. Over time, the followers develop unquestioning acceptance of and
commitment to the leader. The followers trust fully in the correctness of the leaders beliefs and are
willing to obey the leader. The next constituent involves specific leadership traits and behaviors that
give rise to charismatic leadership. The traits that distinguish charismatic leaders from non-


charismatic leaders are self-confidence, need to influence, dominance, and strong conviction in the
moral rightness of their beliefs.

Presented in 1987 by Conger and Kanungo, theory of charismatic leadership focuses on how charisma
is attributed to leaders. The underlying assumption of this theory is that charisma is an attributional
phenomenon. In the later versions, authors of original theory refined it and proposed that follower
attribution of charismatic qualities to a leader is jointly determined by the leaders behavior, skill, and
aspects of situation. Conger and Kanumgo were of the view that the context for emergence of
charismatic leadership has to be problematic in some way which means a situation of crisis, social
unrest, unusual situation and so on. Therefore, situation demand is a moderating factor for emergence
of charismatic leaders, though not necessary always. Because of their emphasis on deficiencies in the
system and their high levels of intolerance for them, charismatic leaders are perceived as
organizational reformers, change agents, visionaries and entrepreneurs.

Later on, Shamir et al., (1993) also presented another version of charismatic leadership theory that
talked about human motivations to explain the leaders influence on followers. They focused on why
leaders are able to influence followers profoundly and motivate their personal interests for the sake of
group. In context of followers, four conditions were identified in their research: personal identification
with the leader, personal identification with the group, the embracement of new values, the enhanced
self-esteem and group efficacy resulting from the leaders expectations of high performance and
expression of confidence in the ability of the followers to meet those expectations. The authors
proposed that the behaviors of charismatic leaders can be neatly clustered into three related, yet
separate, categories: (1) emphasizing ideology behaviors that emphasize collective values and
ideologies, and that link the mission, goals and expected behaviors to followers values and
ideologies; (2) emphasizing collective identity behaviors that emphasize collective identity of the
organization, or the movement and that link the mission and goals and expected behaviors to this
identity; (3) displaying exemplary behaviors leader displaying personal commitment to the values,
identities and goals for which he or she stands for and promotes.


Charismatic leaders enjoy enormous magnitude of position, expert, and personal power. They may
prone to narcissism which may lead them to self-serving ways. They, at times, become forgetful of the
organizational needs and start pursuing their personal goals. The overwhelming power and importance
lead them to ignore the followers, view point of others, realities and facts, need of leadership
development in followers and requirement of coaching and mentoring the subordinates for future.
Toor et al. (2007a) note the criticism that has been made on charismatic leadership. They note that
there has been widespread confusion about the meaning of charismatic leadership (see: Yukl, 1999),
partly due to how different theorists define it (Bryman, 1993). Therefore, more consistent definition of
charismatic is required to alleviate this confusion. Moreover, creators of charismatic theories also
disagree about the relative importance of the underlying influence processes and behaviors in
charismatic leadership (Yukl, 1999). He further points towards a related issue that charismatic
leadership seems advocate socially acceptable behaviors that increase follower perception of leader
expertise and dependence on the leader.

However, there can be manipulative behaviors with which leaders exploit their position and authority.
These manipulative behaviors are known as negative side of charisma as suggested by Conger and
Kanungo (1987) who believe that there are two sides of charisma, positive and negative. Charismatic
leadership depends on leaders passion, confidence, and exceptional ability to persuade and sway
people. Such leaders enjoy enormous magnitude of position, expert and personal power; and are
highly vulnerable to narcissism which may lead to self-serving and self-centered behaviors.
Narcissism makes such leaders forgetful of the organizational needs and they start pursuing their
personal goals (Toor et al., 2007). Overwhelming desire for power and importance lead them to
ignore the followers, view point of others, realities and facts, open feedback, need of leadership
development in followers, and requirement of coaching and mentoring the subordinates for future
(Van Wart, 2005; Conger, 1989).


These perspectives describe both positive and negative sides of charisma and its potential outcomes.
They expand our perspective about the negative charisma which some leaders use for their personal
benefit and which may be disastrous under certain situations. Nevertheless, charismatic leadership
theories do not talk much about non-charismatics and leadership situations which do not encourage
change. Moreover, they describe the leaders as heroic personalities and therefore do not portray the
full picture of leadership.



In 1997, Martin Chemers presented his idea of integrative theory of leadership. He first argues that
literature within leadership and from other organizational theories is fragmented and contradictory. He
points out that there are obvious controversies between popular and scientific approaches which
demand for an integrative framework that transcends the apparent contradictions. One integration
adopts a functional perceptive that hypothesizes that apparent divergences between theoretical
approaches result from attempts to use one theoretical orientation to explain separate and distinct
leadership functions with various processes and effectiveness criteria. A second integration ties
together the central processes that underlie team leadership in an attempt to provide a coherent
understanding of dynamic qualities of effective leadership (Chemers, 1997). He asserts that the first
step in sorting out the commonalities and contradictions among leadership theories is to recognize that
leadership is a multifaceted process. Leaders should be able to analyze information, solve problems,
motivate subordinates, direct group activities, inspire confidence, and so on. In his integrative model
of leadership, Chemers (1997) maintains that there are three functional aspects of leadership: image
management, relationship development, and resource utilization, even though all functions of
leadership may overlap in multidimensional reverberating and dynamic ways.

These three functional facets of effective leadership help to provide some common principles that can
be integrated into a comprehensive theory of leadership, while an additional perspective can be
provided by analyzing the process through which leadership is integrated at intrapersonal,
interpersonal and situational levels (Chemers, 1997). Chemers limits the styles to three major types:


structuring, consideration and prominence. Moreover, the overall integrative process model attempts
to address individual, dyadic, group, and organizational interactions. Integrative process is divided
into three zones each one of which examines a predominant interface of persons and environment.
These zones are: zone of self deployment (here individuals assess persona l characteristics and
situational demands), zone of transactional relationship (here socially constructed reality between
leader and followers is important), and zone of team development (here reality based outcomes are
emphasized). According Chemers, integration across perspectives may allow us to construct a base
from what we know that can provide a stepping stone for moving to the next level of study. He
concludes that it is a challenging task; nevertheless accepting this challenge is worth as to considering
the importance of leadership to organizational and societal success.



2.10.1. Self-Leadership Theory

The notion of self-leadership was presented by Manz (1986). Manz (1992) defines self-leadership as
process of influencing oneself. Various researchers have given their input to this concept of
leadership research (Bass, 1990; Manz, 1992, Sims and Lorenzi, 1992). Although existing
understanding of self-leadership is a new concept, the meaning and importance of self-leadership has
become evident during the last ten years. A number of various fields are contributing to this particular
perceptive. Self-leadership is a universal style and is composed of self-direction, self-support, selfachievement and self-inspiration. This concept does not consider any intervening variables. Selfleadership emphasizes on self reliance, understanding self in depth, conceiving self potentials,
strengths and motives. Concept of self-leadership focuses on the specific strategies that produce
effective form of self-leadership in individuals. These strategies are: behavior-focused strategies,
natural-reward strategies, and constructive thought-pattern strategies (Van Wart, 2005). A
combination of above strategies would help the individuals becoming more effective leaders.
Performance variables of self-leadership include enhanced self-efficacy, higher personal standards,
greater determination and focus and improved self-satisfaction and fulfillment.


One notion about self-leadership is that the best organizations subscribe to and promote the concept of
leadership at all levels within the organization. Each individual provides leadership for those
responsibilities that have been assigned to them. For the highest performing organizations, even the
lowest-ranked staff within an organization must assume leadership and attention to detail for their
responsibilities in a manner similar to the most senior and powerful. Treated with this intention,
followers become self-leaders and organization benefits from individuals at all levels. Self-discipline,
self-analysis, self-goal setting, self-improvement, self-management, self-monitoring, self-fulfillment
are crucial for success and long-term achievement of leaders. Model of self-leadership is generally
useful for development and training of effective leadership. It talks about traits and methodologies to
obtain those traits to become more effective and efficient leaders. The model is not without its
weaknesses. One of the major limitations is that self-leadership is not a true form of leadership if we
define leadership as a process having leaders, followers and organizations.

2.10.2. Servant Leadership Theory

Servant-Leadership is a philosophy which supports people who choose to serve first, and then lead as
a way of expanding service to individuals and institutions. Servant-leaders may or may not hold
formal leadership positions. Servant-leadership encourages collaboration, trust, foresight, listening,
and the ethical use of power and empowerment. First presented by Robert Greenleaf in 1977, this
approach suggests that leaders must place the needs of subordinates, customers, and the community
ahead of their own interests in order to be effective. It emphasizes on upside down leadership because
leaders transcend self interests to serve others and the organizations. Characteristics of servant leaders
include empathy, stewardship, and commitment to the personal, professional, and spiritual growth of
their subordinates. They operate on two levels: for the fulfillment of their followers goals and needs
and for the attainment of the larger mission of the organizations they work for. They value their
followers, respect their ideas and opinions, encourage their participation share power, provide
information, hunt the talent and appreciate it, provide coaching and mentoring, and create the sense of
mutual respect among themselves and their followers.


Servant leadership has not been subjected to extensive empirical testing but has generated
considerable interest among both leadership scholars and practitioners. After carefully considering
Greenleaf's original writings, Larry Spears, CEO of the Greenleaf Center of Leadership has identified
a set of 10 characteristics that he views as being critical to the development of servant-leaders:
listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptulization, foresight, stewardship,
commitment, and community. Russell and Stone (2002) note that the attributes of servant leaders
include vision, honesty, integrity, trust, service, modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others, and
empowerment. On fairly similar lines, in a recent conceptualization of servant leadership, Liden et al.
(2008) offer the following dimensions of servant leadership: conceptual skills, empowering, behaving
ethically, creating value for community, helping subordinates grow and succeed, putting subordinates
first, and emotional healing. Liden et al. (2008) also developed and validated a 28-item servant
leadership scale. In their empirical study, they found that servant leadership is a multidimensional
construct and at the individual level makes a unique contribution in explaining community citizenship
behaviors, in-role performance, and organizational commitment. This scale is rather new and needs
further validation across different cultures.

2.10.3. Collins Model of Level-5 Leadership

This model was presented by Jim Collins (2001) and his team who conducted a 5 years study of 11
companies selected from more than 1400 that had been listed in the Fortune 500 from 1965 to
1995. Each of the selected companies had ordinary results for 15 years and then they went through a
transition. From that point they out performed the market by at least 3 to 1 and sustained that
performance for at least 15 years. Each of these was compared with companies in the same industry
and about the same size. They identified the critical importance of what Collins calls level-5
leadership in transforming companies from merely good to truly great organizations (see: Figure
2.1). Collins describes his findings in his famous book, Good to Great.

Level 5 Executive
Builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal
humility and professional will

Effective Leader
Catalyzes commitment to and vigorous pursuit of a clear and

Level-5 leaders are those who build enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal
humility and professional will. Such leaders are timid and ferocious, shy and fearless and modest with
a fierce, unwavering commitment to high standards. They are resolute and humble and they do their
work conscientiously, responsibly, and successfully. They care about the people they work with, they
care about the company, and about the community; they shun limelight and publicity, and live normal
and quiet lives. They rely on instilling inspired standards and not inspiring charisma to motivate. They
build a culture of discipline in the organization. It is not a tyrannical disciplinarian one but one that
enables freedom and responsibility among the subordinates. Level-5 leaders channel their ego needs
away from themselves and toward building a great company or organization. They often will sacrifice
their own gain for the gain of the company. When things do not go well level-5 leaders take
responsibility for the failures and never blame other people, external factors, or bad luck. On the other
hand, when they do go well they attribute success of their companies to external factors, their team or

Collinss level-5 leadership model is puzzling and intriguing (Kodish, 2006). However, it is not a
complete theory and does not provide strong basis for its further empirical validation through
research. Although his model does provide a long list of apparently paradoxical traits, Collins does
not explain how Level-5 leaders are able to reconcile these paradoxical traits but still retain their
integrity and authenticity within their organizations. Though concept of level-5 leadership is very
much practical, easy to understand and explain, it has not found much support in the academic

2.10.4. Shared Leadership Theory

Shared leadership is a loose model or framework showing the relationship of various distributed and
vertical styles rather than a fully developed and understood theory (Van Wart, 2005). Shared approach
to leadership emphasizes lateral, peer influence rather than the downward influence of an appointed
leader upon subordinates (Pearce and Conger, 2003). Proponents of shared leadership define it as a
dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead


one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both. This influence process often
involves peer, or lateral, influence and at other times involves upward or downward hierarchical
influence (Pearce and Conger, 2003, p.1). Pearce et al. (2008) note that shared leadership theory is
an explicit attempt at integrating these two important perspectives: integrating the view of leadership
as a role performed by an individual with the view of leadership as a social process.

The style offered by shared leadership is a collective style based on both vertical and distributed
forms of leadership occurring alongside. Since various members of organization have varied roles in
organization, shared leadership presents a multilevel model. A vital component of shared leadership is
empowered team which works on the ideology of self-organization and distributed leadership such as
accountability and role assignments. The factors which moderate the success of shared leadership are:
capacity of subordinates, capability of leaders to develop and to delegate, and general willingness of
organization to embrace the idea of shared leadership. Researchers have noted a number of benefits
that shared leadership offers. For example, a study of Pearce and Sims (2002) suggests that shared
leadership between peers accounts for more variance in team self-ratings, manager ratings, and
customer ratings of change management team effectiveness than the leadership of formally designated
team leaders.

2.10.5. Cross-cultural Perspective on Leadership

After the publication of Hofstedes work (1980, 1991), considerable research has been done in the
fields of cross-cultural leadership (see: House et al., 1997; Den Hartog et al., 1999; House et al.,
2003;). These studies provide substantial support on culture-specific nature of leadership (Dickson et
al., 2003; Gelade et al., 2006). Many argue that the prototypical traits of a leader may be different
across cultures. Gerstner and Day (1994) assert that the differences in perceptions of leadership
prototype may sometimes reflect conventional wisdom, but not necessarily hold true. In their study of
two different cultures, Gerstner and Day (1994) found reliable differences among the perceptions of
leadership attributes in different countries. Similar assertions are noted by Chong and Thomas (1997)
who ascertained that leader and follower ethnicity interacted to affect follower satisfaction. Their


study showed that leadership prototypes were also different in groups from different cultures.
Therefore, to be seen as a leader in Chinese culture may be entirely different from the West, African,
or even other Asian societies. Den Hartog et al. (1999) elaborate that, a culture where authoritarian
style is prototypical for a leader may perceive the leaders sensitivity as a sign of weakness. On the
other hand, the same sensitivity may be seen as an important attribute in a culture that endorses the
nurturing style.

Major cross-cultural projects on leadership have focused on implicit leadership theories across various
cultures (see: Den Hartog et al., 1999); relationship of autocratic and democratic leadership with
economy, geoclimate, and bioclimate (Van de Vliert, 2006); culture against psychological factors and
organizational outcomes (Gelade et al., 2006); the attitude of self-managing work teams (SMWTs) in
relation to their cultural values and team effectiveness (Kirkman and Shapiro, 2001); and correlation
of prevailing values and sources of guidance in organizations (Smith et al., 2002). These examples
show that cultural differences do matter significantly in cross-cultural leadership. Interest in crosscultural leadership is on increase. Most leadership theories now put emphasis on the importance of
culture while describing effective leadership dispositions or strategies. However, with increasingly
global world, researchers now underscore the importance of cultural capital (London and Chen, 2007)
or cultural intelligence (Earley and Ang, 2003; Early, 2006). Therefore, it is pertinent to consider
these variables in any future theory building of leadership.



2.11.1. Toxic Leadership: The Negative Side of Leadership

Recent literature has made attempts to understand the negative personal attributes of the leader
contributing to leadership ineffectiveness. At the lowest level, ineffective leadership can be regarded
as passive or laissez-faire leadership where the leader takes a very passive approach towards
leading and does not show interest in fulfilling his or her responsibilities and duties (Lewin et al.,
1939; Bass, 1990; Avolio and Bass, 1995). Laissez-faire leadership, in view of Einarsen et al.
(2007), is in a clear violation of organizational interests as results in poor efficiency and possible


undermining the motivation, well-being and job satisfaction of subordinates. At a further level,
researchers argue that the leader may become obsessed by the power and personal authority and
therefore may resort to narcissism, self-serving and self-centered behaviors, wrong use of power,
manipulation, intimidation, coercion, and one-way communication (see: Toor and Ofori, 2006a;
Howell and Avolio, 1992; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Conger, 1989; Yukl, 1999; O'Connor et al.,
1995). This dimension of the leadership can be truly regarded as the dark side of the charisma
(Hogan et al., 1990; Howell and Avolio, 1992; Padilla et al., 2007; Conger, 1989) or derailed
leadership (Bentz, 1987); which is mostly as result of absence of positive characteristics and presence
of negative characteristics (Lombardo et al., 1988).

However, at an advanced level, ineffective leadership may also be due to many negative personal
attributes of leaders actually changing the whole perception of leadership. Researchers call such
attributes as negative attributes or impediments to effective leadership (see: Den Hartog et al., 1999);
and the resulting leadership is known as toxic leadership (see Frost, 2004; Padilla et al., 2007;
Conger, 1989), abusive leadership (Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Tepper, 2000; Harvey et al., 2007) or even
destructive leadership (Schaubroeck et al., 2007; Kellerman, 2004; Mumford et al., 2007).
Consequences of laissez-fair leadership, negative leadership, toxic or destructive leadership can affect
the followers, organizations, external stakeholders, and even the leaders themselves (House and
Howell, 1992; O'Connor et al., 1995; Conger, 1990; Zaccaro et al., 2004; Kellerman, 2004).

Therefore, followers may suffer from poor psychological health, lack of interest, low job
performance, poor organizational citizenship, and low self-confidence; organizations may suffer from
high turn-over rates, low productivity; and leaders may suffer from lack of personal influence,
derailment, demotion, and personal psychological suffrage (see: Ashforth, 1994; Padilla et al., 2007;
Ashforth, 1997; Lombardo, 1988; Bentz, 1987). Judge et al., (2002) also showed that individuals with
trait negative affectivity (NA) had a lesser chance to emerge as leaders. Even if they were able to
reach the leadership positions, they were rated as less effective leaders. Zaccaro et al. (2004) also
noted that destructive personal attributes contribute to harmful and negative leadership influences. In


relation with negative side of leadership, conceptualizations such as toxic triangle (Padilla et al.,
2007) offer many useful insights into how negative leaders, susceptible followers and favorable
environmental factors can underpin the destructive leadership. In view of Mumford et al. (1993),
interaction of leaders characteristics and situational factors promote discretionary actions on the part
of the leader that harms the well-being of organizational members and long-term organizational
performance. To avoid the harms of negative leadership, organizations must take appropriate actions
to control such behavior of the leader.

2.11.2. Ethical Leadership

Scholars of leadership have almost always made mentions to attributes and characteristics that pertain
to good leadership or ethical conduct of the leaders. Character, honesty, integrity, altruism,
trustworthiness, collective motivation, encouragement, and justice have often been mentioned to be
universally endorsed positive attributes of leadership (see: Den Hatrog et al., 1999; Palanski and
Yammarino, 2007). These attributes are importance for a leader to be perceived as ethical leader.
However, research has shown that there is more to ethical leadership than just the attributes
mentioned above (Trevio et al., 2000). Ethical leadership, in a true sense, promotes the ethical
conduct by practicing and as well as consciously managing the ethics and holding everyone within the
organization accountable for it (Trevio and Brown, 2004). In interviews with executives and ethics
managers, Trevio et al. (2000) found that reputation of being ethical is also salient for an ethical
leader (Trevio et al., 2000). Through their research, Trevio et al. (2000) found that ethical
leadership has two dimensions: moral persons and moral managers. Brown et al., (2005) explain that
moral persons are those who model normatively appropriate conduct such that they appear honest,
trustworthy and credible to others. Moral persons are perceived as fair and just decision-makers,
ethically principled, and caring, and altruistic (Trevio et al., 2000). Moral person has to do with
how others perceive the leaders character, traits, attributes, and personal characteristics (Brown and
Trevio, 2006).


On the other hand, moral manager dimension of ethical leadership means that the leader openly and
explicitly talk about ethics and also empower their employees to be just and seek justice (see: Brown
et al., 2005). Moral manager aspect characterizes the proactive efforts by which he influences the
followers actions and beliefs about ethics. Moral managers talk strongly about ethics in their
messages to their followers and use reinforcement mechanism (reward and discipline) and make them
accountable for their actions and decisions. Moral managers clearly demonstrate to their followers the
importance of ethics in daily work and make this message very clear so that everyone practices ethical
conduct at every cost (see: Trevio and Brown, 2006; also see: Trevio et al., 2000, 2003). Based on
these conceptualizations, Brown et al. (2005) took the task to define and empirically test the construct
of ethical leadership. They define ethical leadership as The demonstration of normatively appropriate
conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct
to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making (pp. 120; also,
see: Brown and Trevio, 2002). The first part of this definition (demonstration of normatively
appropriate conduct) refers to moral person whereas the second part (the promotion of such conduct
to followers) refers to the moral manager aspect of ethical leadership.
In their conceptualization of ethical leadership, Trevio and colleagues present a matrix comprising
unethical leadership (weak moral person, weak moral manager), hypocritical leadership (weak moral
person, strong moral manager), ethical leadership (strong moral person, strong moral manager), and
ethically silent or neutral leadership (weak/strong moral person, weak moral manager). Ethically
neutral/silent leaders, Trevio and Brown (2004) note, may be ethical persons but they fail to provide
leadership in crucial areas where ethics are vital. Such leaders typically focus on the bottom-line gains
without explicitly setting ethical standards for followers. Absence of clear guidance or message about
ethics from the leader means that he/she is not concerned about ethical conduct of followers. Ethically
neutral/silent leaders are self-centered, focused on short-term gains, are either unaware or less
concerned about improving the state of affairs on ethics (see: Trevio et al., 2000).

Among the empirical works on ethical, one of the most prominent field study is done by Trevio et al.
(2000, 2003) in which they interviewed twenty chief ethics officers and twenty executives. This work


led to a formal development and validation of ethical leadership construct. As a result, Brown and
Trevio (2002) introduced their Ethical Leadership Scale (ELS) and produced its construct and
predictive validity through further empirical studies (see: Brown et al., 2005). Investigations carried
out by Brown et al. (2005) showed that ethical leadership is associated with consideration behavior,
honesty, trust in the leader, interactional fairness, and socialized charismatic leadership. These
investigations also showed that ethical leadership predicts outcomes such as perceived effectiveness
of leaders, employees satisfaction with job, their willingness for extra effort in work and to report
problems to management.

In a rather recent study, Walumbwa et al. (2008) ascertained that ethical leadership is positively
associated with all four dimensions of authentic leadership (self-awareness, relational transparency,
internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing), organizational citizenship behavior,
organizational commitment, and satisfaction with supervisor. In another empirical study on ethical
leadership, De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) showed that it negatively associated with despotic
leadership but positively and significantly related to both top management team effectiveness and
subordinates optimism about their future. They also found that leaders scoring high on social
responsibility were rated higher on ethical leadership but lower on despotic leadership. Although
discussion on ethics goes back to ancient philosophers, there is little empirical work on ethical
leadership and most of it has been done in the Unite States. More studies examining the ethical
leadership are needed to test its robustness and external validity across the cultures.

2.11.3. Spiritual Leadership

The concept of spirituality in modern leadership theories is not very old and until recently, most
leadership theories have not attended to the role of religion or spirituality in political or workplace
institutions (Hicks, 2002). Fry (2003) proposed a causal theory of spiritual leadership that
incorporates vision, hope/faith, and altruistic love, theories of workplace spirituality, and spiritual
survival. He further argues that spiritual leadership theory is not only inclusive of other major extant
motivation based theories of leadership, but that it is also more conceptually distinct, parsimonious,


and less conceptually confounded. And, by incorporating calling and membership as two key follower
needs for spiritual survival, spiritual leadership theory is inclusive of the religious- and ethics and
values based approaches to leadership (Fry, 2003).

This work on spirituality is followed by various studies which emphasize on workplace spirituality
and its positive outcomes in form of organizational performance and employee well-being (see for
example: Dent et al., 2005; Reave, 2005; Parameshwar, 2005; Kriger and Seng, 2005; Fry et al.,
2005). Some other works on spirituality in work place include Mitroff and Denton (1999) and
Ashmos and Duchon (2000). These works primarily emphasize on the significance of workplace
spirituality and its impact on work outcomes. The central idea that each of these works advocates is
that spirituality in workplace is a positive phenomenon that leads to positive organizational culture
and transcendent values in the organizational members.

In Hicks (2002) opinion, work on spirituality in leadership studies is a reflection of the social
sciences attempt to model modern as well as rational spheres of public life as free from the duties and
trappings of religion. It is notable that most of these works mention a common set of spiritual
characteristics which include vision (broad appeal to key stakeholders, defines the destination and
journey, reflects high ideals, encourages hope/faith, establishes a standard of excellence), altruistic
love (forgiveness, kindness, integrity, empathy/compassion, honesty, patience, courage, trust/loyalty,
humility), and hope/faith (endurance, perseverance, do what it takes, stretch goals, expectation of
reward/victory). Though many of these dimensions have been derived from various theologies,
religion has been kept separate from workplace studies. There remains a debate on whether
spirituality and religiosity represent one construct or they are two different constructs that cannot be
combined together (Toor, 2008).

The challenge for spiritual leadership theory is how to measure spirituality. Researchers have noted
that spirituality is a complex construct and hard to measure (see: Fry, 2003; Fry et al., 2005; Dent et
al., 2005). Although some measurements have been proposed and tested by some researchers (see:


MacDonald, 2000; Ashmos and Duchon, 2000;), doubts about validity of these measures remain.
Nevertheless, spiritual leadership theory continues to gain more attention in the recent years and is
expected to grow further in the future course.

2.11.4. Aesthetic Leadership

Another notable development in leadership research is a recent emphasis on aesthetics of leadership
(see: Hansen et. al., 2007; Ladkin, 2008). In a recent conceptualization of aesthetic leadership, Hansen
et al. (2007) refer to leadership as sensory knowledge and felt meaning of objects and experiences.
They note that aesthetics involves meanings we construct based on feelings about what we
experience via our senses, as opposed to the meanings we can deduce in the absence of experience,
such as mathematics or other realist ways of knowing (p 545). Hansen et al. (2007) also believe that
aesthetic leadership is at the conjunction of both management of meaning and follower-centric
models of leadership. It is concerned with the experiential, but considers reality to be a subjective
experience, a human-made interpretation based on our awareness, perception, and the subjective
materials we use to make those interpretations.
Aesthetic leadership also takes into account a rather more holistic perspective by including skills and
competencies of people interacting in complex contexts instead of just relying on cognitive faculties
of leaders. It puts emphasis on direct experience and is constructed - made, shared, transformed and
transferred - in relationship between people through interactions. In this sense, it can also be argued
that aesthetic leaders, being managers of meanings and developers of followers, reconcile with social
realities around them in order to achieve social order and continuation of leadership. In his discussion
about aesthetics of leadership, Ladkin (2008) poses the following questions for further inquiry in the
1. Do leaders who are experienced as leading beautifully evoke distinctive responses from
their followers? Could leading beautifully be seen to be more effective, for instance, than
leading in a way characterized as ugly by one's followers?


2. How much does the experience of beautiful leadership rely on the sensibilities of followers
to discern it as beautywould non-musicians, for instance, have been as aware of McFerrin's
level of mastery?
3. What circumstances does leading beautifully most fitare there situations in which ugly
leadership, for instance, might be more effective?
4. If a leader aspires to leading beautifully, what must he or she pay attention to? Is leading
beautifully something that can be developed or does every leader need to find and express his
or her own aesthetic in order to be authentically perceived?

These are noteworthy questions and trigger significant interest of leadership scholars about how
leadership could be explore from aesthetic perspective. Briefly, aesthetic leadership is an area with
considerable potential. In the light of questions posed by Ladkin (2008), there is much to be achieved
in the field of aesthetic leadership.

2.11.5. Political Leadership

Proposed by Ammeter et al. (2002), political leadership theory is an interesting development in
leadership research. Theory of political leadership reminds a forgotten domain in which leadership
research should have been directed in the past. Ammeter et al. (2002) describe politics in
organizational leadership as constructive management of shared meanings. Recognizing the negative
connotation attached to organizational politics, Ammeter et al. (2002) perceives political leadership as
an essential phenomenon in a positive sense. They argue that leaders must adopt political behaviors
that align with the established political norms, because their behaviors must match the situational
assessments of their followers. Ammeter et al. (2002) also explain two kinds of political behaviors;
proactive and reactive. Proactive behaviors are those which leaders exhibit in response to a perceived
opportunity for the organization whereas reactive behaviors are exhibited in response to a threat to the
organization. By exhibiting such behaviors, leaders are able to reconcile between competing demands
of stakeholders and develop coalitions and alliances which are rather supportive to the leadership


Butcher and Clarke (2006) support the notion of political leadership in democratic systems. They note
that democracy intends to realize the desires of individuals for meaningful control of their lives by
treating them equally. This is natural to result in competing interests of people and diversity of
opinions. However, political leadership is instrumental to reconcile the drive for cohesion and the
productive exploitation of differences. They also reconcile between the exercise of bureaucratic
politics and civic virtue in which they balance their personal interests with those of wider concern.
They coalesce and distribute power in micro-political process or organizations. Therefore, they
embrace political behaviors such as debate, lobbying and coalition building, and information
management. Such micro-political behavior in organizations is far from being dysfunctional. On the
other hand, it is beneficial for achievement of managerial goals in the organizations (Butcher and
Clarke, 2006).

Political leadership theory has historical routes in discourse of leadership. Plato, Aristotle,
Machiavelli, Confucius, Sun Tzu, and many others have discussed leadership in political perspective,
directly or indirectly. A rejuvenated interest in the field is reassuring. More work on the theory and its
integration with other theories can provide a comprehensive understanding of how leaders use
political tactics to be more effective and influential within their organizations.

2.11.6. Authentic Leadership

Authentic leadership is an emerging and stimulating research area. Authenticity has been discussed
in philosophical and psychological terms (see: Harter, 2002; Erickson, 1995). However, in relation to
leadership, authenticity was popularized by Bill George, a professor at Harvard Business School
and former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Medtronic a leading organization in medical
technology. Prof. Georges best selling books, Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to
Creating Lasting Value and True North: Discover Your Authentic Leadership focus on role of
authenticity in leadership and leadership development. Inspired by the ideas of Prof. George,


researchers in leadership have realized that leadership is not merely a style, charisma, motivation,
inspiration, or strategy. It should be looked at as character, positive behavior, and authenticity.

Authentic leaders are described to possess the highest level of integrity, deep sense of purpose,
courage to move forward, genuine passion and skillfulness for leadership (George, 2003; George et
al., 2007). They are ready to embrace the challenges of constantly changing world by growing
themselves as authentic leaders and their followers as authentic followers. Extracted from the positive
psychology, ethical leadership and positive organizational behavior, authentic leadership construct
presses on authenticity of character, awareness of the self, regulation of self, faithfulness of
individuality, genuineness in beliefs, truthfulness of convictions, practicality of ideas, veracity of
vision, sincerity in actions, and openness to feedback (see: Avolio and Luthans, 2006; George and
Sims, 2007; Toor and Ofori, 2008a; Walumbwa et al., 2008). These characteristics may paint some of
the features of transformational, charismatic, servant, spiritual, and ethical leaderships, however,
proponents of authentic leadership contend that authentic leadership is distinct from other leaderships
in many respects (see: Avolio and Gardner, 2005) and it lies at the roots of all forms of positive

Authentic leadership has received a considerable interest from scholars around the world. However,
the newness of the construct leads to different developmental perspectives which have been proposed
for authentic leadership development (see for example: Luthans and Avolio, 2003; Gardner et al.,
2005; Avolio and Luthans, 2004; Ilies et al., 2005; May et al., 2005; Shamir and Eilam, 2005; and
Michie and Gooty, 2005). In addition, Cooper et al. (2005) underline several challenges which the
area may face in subsequent stages of research and emphasize on taking further steps in defining,
measuring, and rigorously researching the authentic leadership construct before stepping into
designing the interventions to develop authentic leaders. Authentic leadership being the focus of this
research, Chapter 4 of this thesis is completely dedicated to explaining authentic leadership theory, its
roots, developments, and research trends.




Yukl (1994) claims that, after thousands of studies on the subject, a general theory of leadership that
can explain all aspects of the process adequately has not been developed. Most leadership studies
have also focused on a single level of analysis, ignoring the influence of intra-psychic, group, or
organizational factors. There seems an excessive focus on the leader rather than leadership (Parry,
1998), especially in North American research that remains largely objectivist in nature (Bryman,
2004; Parry, 1998; Bass and Avolio, 1990). Ciulla (1995) proposes that What is leadership is not
the ultimate question that researchers and scholars should be asking. Instead, he argues that What is
good leadership or What is ethical leadership should be the questions addressed in theories and
debates on leaders (see: Ciulla, 2004). Ciulla (1995) refers to both ethics and competence as part of
good leadership. Kodish (2006), while discussing Aristotles philosophy about leadership also
argues that Leadership is more than a skill, more than the knowledge of theories, and more than
analytical faculties. It is the ability to act purposively and ethically as the situation requires on the
basis of the knowledge of universals, experience, perception, and intuition. It is about understanding
the world in a richer and broader sense, neither with cold objectivity nor solipsistic subjectivity (p.

Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) take this discussion further and argue that leaders can be authentic and
pseudo transformational. In their view, pseudo transformational leaders are self-centered,
unreliable, power-hungry, and manipulative. On the other hand, authentic transformational leaders
have a moral character, a strong concern for self and others, and ethical values that are deeply
embedded in the vision. Ladkin (2008) believes that leading beautifully has three major dimensions:
mastery in understanding the self and the context, coherence congruence between various forms of
self and with ones purpose and message, and purpose - attending to ones goal. Ladkin (2008) argues
that leading beautifully brings into play the ethical dimension of a leaders endeavor and questions
whether ones purpose serves the best interests of the human condition (p. 33). On similar lines,
Kanungo (2001) note that ethical leaders engage in act and behaviors that benefit others and at they
same time, they refrain from behaviors that can cause any harm to others.


There is no paucity of leadership theories, frameworks, concepts, and models. However, majority of
recent theories on leadership originate from the United States. Evidence to support this assertion is
that a vast majority of empirical research on the subject is North American in character (House and
Aditya, 1997). This means that it is either originates from North America (Avolio et al., 2003) or has
been substantially contributed by the authors residing in the United States (Lowe and Gardner, 2000).
Bryman (2004) also observes that over 60% or qualitative studies on leadership have been carried out
in the United States. Although there are several cross-cultural studies available on leadership (see:
House et al., 1997; Den Hartog et al., 1999; House et al., 2003), and much more work is being done
on leadership outside the United States, there is still a paucity of qualitative grounded models that
come from other parts of the world, such as Asia, Africa, or Europe.

Also, despite the fact that there are many powerful and widely researched theories of leadership, there
is no completely agreed-upon theory of leadership has been developed (Yukl, 1994). Yet more
theories and conceptualizations keep arriving no and then. This demonstrates the interest in as well as
complexity behind the phenomenon of leadership. However, recent corporate scandals have not only
stirred up a discussion on ethics of leadership, there have been whole new debates about positive
organizational scholarship (Cameron et al., 2003), positive organizational behavior (Luthans, 2002,
2003), positive psychological capital (Luthans et al., 2007), authentic leadership (Luthans and Avolio,
2003; Gardner et al., 2005, spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003; Fry et al., 2005), and servant leadership
(Liden et al., 2007). All these organizational concepts stress on ethics, positive attributes, capacities,
and virtues for betterment of human functioning within organizational settings. Many of these
concepts are inspired by the movement of positive psychology (Seligman, 1999; Seligman, and
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) which primarily focuses on building positive qualities in humans. Research
in these fields is still emerging and needs more work to be accomplished in the coming years.

Theories such as ethical leadership, authentic leadership, servant leadership, transformational

leadership, and spiritual leadership, all are positive forms of leadership and underscore positive


attributes in leaders as well as in followers to help build sustainable organizations. However, a

pertinent point is to explain how these forms of leadership are different from or similar to each other.
Scholars have attempted to draw parallels as well as lines of distinctions across various positive forms
of leadership (see: Luthans and Avolio, 2003; Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Brown and Trevio, 2006;
Walumbwa et al., 2008). Also, to measure all forms of positive leadership noted above, researchers
have carried out qualitative as well as quantitative works to establish scales of measurement. For
example, Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass and Avolio, 2004) is a widely
accepted measure for transformational leadership.

To measure ethical leadership, Brown et al. (2005) have also developed and validated their Ethical
Leadership Scale (ELS). De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) have used already existing measures (subscales on morality and fairness, role clarification, and power sharing) in multicultural leadership
questionnaire (MCLQ) to examine ethical leadership in their research. Recent efforts of Liden et al.
(2007) in developing a measure for servant leadership and that of Walumbwa et al. (2008) in
developing a measure for authentic leadership are commendable and illustrate a widespread interest in
developing scales for measuring positive forms of leadership. However, as noted above, these
empirical research projects are being undertaken by the researchers belonging to various schools of
thoughts in the United States.

What is perceived as positive may not be so in Arab, African, Chinese, or Indian cultures. Therefore,
leadership needs to be explored qualitatively in various cultures and grounded frameworks should be
developed which can guide the development of culture-specific measurement tools for leadership.
Such efforts can then lead to a meta-measurement of leadership. However, for this purpose, extensive
research projects need to be undertaken elsewhere and qualitative models should be developed to
unearth the factors that affect the leadership process.

There is also increasing acceptance in the research community that leadership is a social phenomenon
(Parry, 1998; Bryman, 2004; Parry, 2002; Hackman and Wageman, 2007) that is socially constructed


(Osborn et al., 2002; Chan, 2005) and that achievements, failures, crises, changes, always reshape the
experiences of the leader and the led (Conger, 1998). Osborn et al. (2002) suggest that contextual
macro views need greater recognition than they receive currently. They suggest four contexts
stability, crisis, dynamic equilibrium, and edge of chaosto explain the context of leadership in
organizations. They consider leadership as a series of attempts, over time, to alter human actions and
organizational systems. This is a departure from conception of leadership in terms of qualities,
behaviors, and attributes of the leader, as advocated in many classical theories. Recent works also
argue that leadership is social process comprising the leader, followers, and situations. Inclusion of
historical, distal, and proximal contexts (Avolio, 2007) in understanding leadership development and
influence is a significant move towards developing more complete and contextually robust theories
(Osborn et al., 2002) of leadership. However, empirical work in this area is also limited though more
studies are considering context as a related dimension in their research designs.

Another relevant issue that has attracted much less than required attention in the extant literature on
leadership is leadership development. The legendry question of born versus made continues to
appear in literary debates and academic discourse on leadership. There have been several assertions
that leadership is a choice (Mirvis and Ayas, 2003) and much of leadership is a social construction in
nature and is deeply influenced by the people and events in life of leaders (Bryman, 2004; Chan,
2005; Parry, 2004; McCall, 2004), Avolio (2007) argues that leaders cannot be thought of apart from
the historic context in which they arise, the setting in which they function and the system they lead
(see: Avolio, 2007).

Leadership can be better understood by researching when, where, and how it is activated and how it
makes a difference in team performance and process effectiveness (Graen et al., 2006). These views
strengthen the argument that leaders are not born; they are made in the social settings through
complex experiential/social learning (Bandura, 1977) within and outside the organizations (see:
McCall et al., 1988; Day, 2000; Conger, 2004). Yet, empirical evidence on leadership development is
still in paucity. Existing studies mostly focus on student samples and emergent leaders (see:


Zacharatos et al., 2000; Brown and Gardner, 2006; Toor and Ofori, 2008) or on transformational and
charismatic leadership (see: Avolio and Gibbons, 1988; Bass et al. 1996 Bono and Judge, 2004).
Given the rising interest in positive forms of leadership, and particularly in authentic leadership, it
would be pertinent to examine how authentic leaders develop and what antecedents play significant
role in making of such leaders.



In preceding pages, brief introduction to various well-known theories in leadership research has been
presented. These theories discuss various viewpoints on leadership which different scholars have
articulated from the perspective of philosophy, politics, psychology, and sociology. A number of
theories focus on traits of leaders, some others talk about their behaviors, some discuss the situation in
which leaders and followers function, some other concentrate on relations between leaders and
followers. There are theories which endeavor to discuss the decision making, implicit mental models
of leadership, cognitive dimensions, and effect of culture on different types of leadership. In
leadership research that is summarized above, very few theories touch on how leadership really
develops and what makes an individual an organizational or public leader.

Although some scholars do talk about leadership development (see: Avolio and Gibbons, 1988;
Bennis, 1989; Mumford et al., 1993; Shamir et al., 2005), they do integrate leadership development
with leadership influence. Further, such works also do not explain in sufficient depth how leaders
develop and sustain their leadership over time. Another relevant question would be how effective
leaders achieve sustained success in all facets of life and how they are able to reconcile the
multiplicity of their roles in varied conditions and dynamic circumstances. No doubt, some
researchers have discussed this topic in their discussions but not as much as it deserves. More insights
on these issues are likely to enhance our understanding of leaders and leadership.