Trait Theories of Leadership or Contingency Theories of

Leadership Are More Useful for Leaders?

Ignas Rasimavicius
Student ID: 100304314
Module: Principles and Practices of Leadership and Management
Module code: 6HR503

27 February 2017
University of Derby
Introduction

In todays changing world good leadership is essential for organisational success. Today
almost all big business organisations have a great leader. Amazon has Jeff Benzos,
Tesla have Elon Musk, Apple has Tim Cook. These leaders not only lead their
companies to success but also shape organisation values and approaches.

What is Leadership? (Bass, 1990) suggest that there are almost as many denitions of
leadership as there are persons who have attempted to dene the concept, but almost
all the definitions of leadership suggest that leadership is a process of influence and one
thing that all leaders have in common is followers. (Vroom and Jago, 2007) So if no one
is following, a person cannot be a leader. Virtually leadership can be seen as a process
to motivate followers to work together towards common goal. Good leaders have
integrity, high expectations, encourages others, sets a vision and inspires people.
(Bass, 1985)

There are numerous leadership theories and they have been studied for decades and
many of them tried to define what allows authentic leaders to stand out from others, but
this essay focuses on trait theories of leadership and contingency theories of leadership
and what issues involved applying them in practice also which one of them is more
useful for leaders in organisations.

Trait Theories of Leadership

The starting point of understanding which traits make people good leaders was Great
Man theory which stated that leaders are born and not made and that traits are
inherited (Carlyle, 1841). But this theory had no scientific validity and didnt take to
account that traits can be developed. Nevertheless, Carlyle was responsible for getting
many academics thinking about leadership. Thats how Great Man theory evolved to
trait theory of leadership.
Trait theory of leadership

Its very similar to Great Man theory only it enumerates specific qualities or traits that
leader should possess. The theory proposes that peoples ability to lead is dependent
on certain innate traits (Stogdill, 1974). Obviously, traits alone dont guarantee
successful leadership, it just helps leaders, and to be successful they must take certain
actions like goal or vision setting. The downside of this theory is the long list of possible
traits and can be overwhelming to attempt, but there are six main traits on which
leaders differ from non-leaders that include: drive, leadership motivation, integrity,
cognitive ability, self-confidence and business knowledge (Kirkpatrick and Locke,
1991). The leader with these six innate traits will be more likely to succeed than a leader
without them. The theory is more useful for organisations than the leaders in it because
it's only enumerated traits that successful leader should possess, but doesnt help
develop the leaders itself or their traits, as for organisations it can help identify potential
leaders by simply mapping the traits. Another limitation of trait theory is that its hard to
measure these traits and to do that, leaders must be very self-observant and thoughtful
enough to know their behaviours. Also, it doesnt take to account situational awareness
and what is beneficial in one situation can be malevolent in other (Zaccaro, 2007). Later
on (McCall and Lambardo, 1983) expanded on this theory and argued that leaders often
are made or broken based on their emotional stability. They identified four primary traits
by which leaders can be successful or not: emotional stability to be calm and
confident under stress, admitting failures, good interpersonal skills and intellectual
strength.

Skills Theory of Leadership

Traits are relatively fixed and they are not particularly useful for new leaders
development. Skills theory approach is much more suited for leaders development.
There are two main theories that developed from skills approach Katzs three-skill
theory (Katz, 1955) and Mumfords skills model (Mumford et al., 2000). Skills theories
are similar to trait theory because they focused on what leader characteristics make
them effective. Katzs three-skill model proposed that there are three skills that effective
leader should have: technical skills, human skills and conceptual skills. He argued that
these skills are different from traits. Skills are what leaders can accomplish, whereas
traits are who leaders are (Northouse, 2007, p.40) Technical skills is a knowledge
about specific work activity and its necessary for leaders to be effective in the specific
field. Good human skills help leaders to efficiently communicate and work within teams
and good conceptual skills allow leaders to efficiently work with ideas and concepts to
better decide what actions have to be taken in the specific work field. Based on this
observations Katz (1955) argued that someone in a high position in the organisation
needs less technical skills and are required more conceptual skills and the lower the
position in the organisation is the more technical skills is needed. However, human skills
are required in all the levels or positions in the organisation. This is understandable
because people in high position always needs to do less technical work since they often
must make difficult decisions and there is always a team that does technical work for
leaders. Mumfords (2000) skills model, on the other hand, is more complex and
proposed 5 skills that leader should have: individual attributes, competencies,
leadership outcomes, career experiences and environmental influences. Individual
attributes stand for general cognitive ability, motivation and personality characteristics,
competencies include knowledge of the subject, problem-solving skills and social
judgement and performance and effective problem solving are the outcomes of
leadership (Mumford et al., 2000). Skills approach strengths: It creates the structure of
the process of leadership skills, also defines leadership in terms of skills and makes it
available to everyone and most importantly in can provide a good structure for
leadership teaching programs. (Northouse, 2007, p.44-50). And like trait theory, it
doesnt explain how skills lead to effective leadership performance. Also, it includes
attributes that are very like traits; cognitive ability or subject knowledge (Northouse,
2007, p. 55). This model considers knowledge and skills that leader has and knowing
this, the leader can learn certain skills and improve his performance.
Contingency Theory of Leadership

Fred Fiedler in his contingency theory (Fiedler, 1964) highlights the importance both
situation in which leader operates and the leaders personality. It states that effective
leadership depends not only on the style of leadership but on the control over a situation
as well and outlines two main leadership styles: relationship orientated and task
orientated. To measure the leadership style Fiedler used least preferred co-worker
(LPC) scale. Those leaders who score high On LPC scale are relationship orientated
and those who score low on the scale are task orientated (Northouse, 2007, p.114).
Fiedler emphasized leaders personality as the main variable on leaders ability to lead
and outlined three main factors that determine how successful leader will be, these
include; leader-member relations (includes: trust loyalty and confidence in leader), task
structure and the position power (authority that leader has over group members)
(Northouse, 2007, p.114-115). Fiedler found that task orientated leaders tend to perform
equally effectively in favourable situations as in unfavourable and relationship orientated
leaders are most effective intermediate favourability situations. Contingency theory has
been proved to effectively determine what style of leading is more effective in specific
situations which allow for organisations to find a best-suited leader in a particular
situation. The theory also provides data on leadership styles that are useful for
organisations in defining leadership profiles for HR planning, and not like trait approach
contingency theory emphasises the demands of the situation with the importance of
leadership style (Northouse, 2007, p.117). The issue with this theory is LPC scale
subjective, meaning that characteristics are relative in certain contexts. Also, according
to Fiedler (1967), the LPC score is only valid for closely supervised groups and doesnt
apply for not that closely supervised teams. Likewise, its can be questionable whether
the theory is valid in all situations, for example when the task is not well defined and
there is no preferable choice of leadership style (Northouse, 2007, p.118-120).
Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory

As the name of the theory signals, situational leadership theory draws main views from
contingency theory. It argues that effective leadership depends on each individual
situation and there is no single leadership style that is considered the best (Hersley and
Blanchard, 1972). Hersley and Blanchard state that good leader can adapt his/her
leadership style based on the on goals or objectives that need to be achieved also
considering the maturity level of the group being led. Leadership style also classifies
into four basic behaviours: Telling, selling, participating and delegating, these leadership
styles vary according to the degree of those being led willingness to undertake the task
(McCaffery, 2004, p.64). Subordinates willingness to do work can be affected by a
leader who is raising the level of expectations, again Hersley and Blanchard (1972)
outlines four variations of subordinates willingness to do work: low competence and low
commitment, low competence and high commitment, high competence and variable
commitment and high competence and high commitment. To effectively lead leader
must identify the development needs of the group in a specific task and use leadership
appropriate leadership style that matches the situation (Goodson, McGee and
Cashman, 1989). Strengths of situational leadership theory: it is well known and often
used for leader development, it is a practical approach and can be used in different
variety of settings, it shows how leaders must act to lead effectively and its flexible for
the leader meaning there is no best leadership style for the situation (Northouse,
2007, p.110). The criticism of this approach is that its not clear how subordinates
commitment changes over time and does not provide any guidance for leaders how this
model can be used in group settings (Northouse, 2007, p. 111)

Vroom Yetton Jago Decision-making Model of Leadership

The main focus of this model is to assess how group dynamics, situation and leader
level of power determines the degree to which group is involved in decision making
considering three factors: decision quality, team commitment and time constraints.
(Vroom and Yetton, 1973; Vroom and Jago, 1988). To assess they used flowchart
decision making process with five possible decision making modes: automatic (A1
leader makes decision by himself based on present information), autocratic (A2 leader
consults with the group to get more information, but makes decision by himself),
consultative (C1 leader consults for group opinion, but makes decision by himself),
consultative (C2 consults for individual opinions and makes decision by himself) and
collaborative (G2 the group makes the decision, leader will support the group to
ensure that everyone agrees). This model is highly flexible because of different choices
leader can make to affect the decision and has a mechanical method to do it. But its
questionable whether this model can be applied for a big groups and the model can be
too mechanical and not consider changing group emotions or change in general.
(Vroom and Jago, 1988).

Conclusion

Trait theories of leadership believe that leaders have certain traits that make them a
successful leader. Great Man theory states that leaders are born and not made. Trait
theory of leadership advocate that leadership is innate and links to personal traits.
Despite its weaknesses like no situational awareness trait theories of leadership
provides us with valuable information about leadership and sets a benchmark what
traits are needed to be a successful leader.

Contingency theories argue that there is no best way to lead and the leadership style
should be adjusted based on the given situation. Contingency theories take into account
unique situations and state that context and system dynamics are integral. Contingency
theories also help to determine which leadership style is most effective in particular
context or situation.

Considering that business environment is constantly changing contingency theories can

be more useful for leaders in business organisations. They are more suited for leader
development and can assist leaders in choosing most effective leadership style based
on the situation. On the other hand, trait theories can be more useful in the
organisations where human relations and situational awareness its not important when
choosing leadership style, for example, military, where decisions are made by high-rank
officers and do not consider private soldier opinion or emotion.

References:

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. 1st ed. New
York: Free Press.
Bass, B. and Stogdill, R. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership. 1st ed. Free
Press.
Carlyle, T. (1841). On heroes, hero-worship, & the heroic in history. 1st ed. London:
James Fraser.
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 1, pp.149190.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goodson, J., McGee, G. and Cashman, J. (1989). Situational Leadership Theory: A Test
of Leadership Prescriptions. Group & Organization Management, 14(4), pp.446-461.
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1972). Management of Organizational Behavior:
Utilizing Human Resources (2nd ed.) New Jersey/Prentice Hall
Jago, A. (1988). PARTICIPATION UNDER CONDITIONS OF CONFLICT: MORE ON
THE VALIDITY OF THE VROOM-YETTON MODEL [1]. Journal of Management
Studies, 25(1), pp.73-83.
Katz, R. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. 1st ed. [Boston].
Kirkpatrick, S. and Locke, E. (1991). Leadership: do traits matter?. Executive, 5(2),
pp.48-60
McCaffery, P. (2004). The higher education manager's handbook. 1st ed. Milton Park
(Abingdon, Oxon): Psychology Press
McCall, M.W. Jr. and Lombardo, M.M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how successful
executives get derailed. Greenboro, NC: Centre for Creative Leadership
Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., Harding, F., Jacobs, T. and Fleishman, E. (2000). Leadership
skills for a changing world. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), pp.11-35.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: theory and practice. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature, New York: Free
Press
Vroom, V. and Jago, A. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American
Psychologist, 62(1), pp.17-24.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in
organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zaccaro, S. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist,
62(1), pp.6-16