Title
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Theories of Leadership
Subtitle
A practical and conceptual analysis of the contributions of trait, style and contingency approaches to
research to the understanding of associated processes of leadership.
Abstract
This aims of this essay are to explore the nature of the leadership process and to review the main
contributions of trait, style (behavioural) and contingency (situational) approaches to leadership
research. The essay begins with a brief discussion on the nature of the leadership process
(Buchanan & Huczynsci, 1985; McHugh & Thomson, 1995; Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998)
and offers a definition of leadership as process of social influence, which often occurs within
teams resulting in the willing commitment to and achievement of organisational goals.
The contributions of trait, style (behavioural) and contingency (situational) approaches to
leadership research are critically evaluated in order to provide an understanding of the leadership
process, its contingent variables, and to provide an entitative perspective (Meyer et al., 1985;
Hosking & Morley, 1991) on this important component of organisational behaviour.
Key Words
Leadership, Management, Followers, Subordinates, Influence, Vision, Shared Goals, Trait,
Characteristics, Great Man Theories, Style Theories, Behavioural Theories, Leadership Style,
Leadership Behaviours, Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaires, LBDQ, Initiating
Structure, Consideration, Employee Orientation, Production Orientation, Task, Relationship,
Managerial Grid, Participative, Authoritarian, Democratic, Laissez-Faire, Contingency Theory,
LPC, Least Preferred Co-worker, Task Structure, Leader Member Relations, Leader Positional
Power, Situational Leadership, Follower Maturity, Job Maturity, Task Maturity, Psychological
Maturity, Telling, Selling, Participating, Delegating, Maturity, Readiness, Normative Decision
Making Model of Leadership, Entitative, Organisation, Organisational Behaviour.
The Nature of Leadership
In recent years there has been more written about leadership than almost any other facet of
management and remains an active area of inquiry (Bass, 1990; Bennis, 1989; Yukl, 1998;
Burns 1978) states that “leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena
on earth.” (Burns, 1978, p.2).
Yukl (1998) argues that researchers in the field usually define leadership according to their own,
subjective perspectives and the aspects of the phenomena of most interest to them, and cites the
work of Stogdill (1974) who even after a comprehensive review of the leadership literature
concluded that there were almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have
attempted to define it. In reviewing some of the historical definitions of leadership Yukl (1998)
argues that leadership has been defined in terms of traits, behaviours, influence, interaction
patterns, role relationships, psychosocial constructs of personality, and occupation of an
administrative position.
1. Leadership is “the behaviour of an individual directing the activities of a group toward a shared goal” (Hemphill & Coons, 1957, p.7)
2. Leadership is “the influential increment over and above the mechanical compliance with directives of the organisation” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p.528)
3. Leadership is “the process of influencing the activities of an organised group toward goal achievement” (Rauch & Behling, 1984, p.46)
4. Leaders are “those who consistently make effective contributions to social order and who are expected and perceived to do so” (Hosking, 1988, p.153)
5. Leadership is “the process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective effort, and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose (Jacobs & Jacques, 1990, p.281)
6. Leadership is “the ability to step outside the culture…to start evolutionary change processes that are more adaptive. (Schein, 1992, p.2)
7. Leadership is “the process of making sense of what people are doing together so that people will understand and be committed” (Drath & Palus, 1994, p.4)
8. Leadership is about articulating visions, embodying values, and creating the environment within which things can be accomplished (Richards & Engle, 1986, p.206)
(Yukl, 1998, p.2-3)
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 1
(Yukl, 1998; Northhouse, 2001) among others, argue that most definitions of leadership reflect
an underlying assumption that it involves a process of intentional influence whereby one person
is able to guide and facilitate the activities, relationships, and structural and process determinants
of work, of a group or organisation in order to achieve shared goals. Northhouse (2001) cites
the work of Fleishman et al., (1991) in arguing that over the past fifty years there have been as
many as sixty-five different classification systems developed to define the dimensions of
leadership, and Bass (1990) who argued that the components of leadership can be defined in
terms of:
- the focus of group processes; from this perspective the leader is viewed as at the centre of
group activity and the process of leadership embodies the will of the group,
- a construct of personality; this perspective argues that the extent to which a leader is able
to influence followers is constrained by a combination of personal characteristics (traits)
which are argued to have innate and phenotypical components,
- an act or behaviour; which enables leaders to bring about change in a group,
- a power relationship; which exists between leaders and followers and is the prime
mechanism of influence,
- as an instrument of goal achievement; which enables followers to achieve team and
organisational objectives (goals) which they share with the leader and includes facets of
leadership which transforms followers through vision setting, role modelling and
individualised attention.
Thus, according to (Northouse, 2001) despite the many ways in which leadership has been
conceptualised, it is possible to identify several components which are central to the phenomena
of leadership.
“They are (a) leadership is a process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c)
leadership occurs within a group context, and (d) leadership involves goal
attainment. [Thus, the following broad definition of leadership is proffered]. ….
Leadership is the process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals
to achieve a common goal.” (Northouse, 2001, p.3)
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 2
The theme of leadership as a process of social influence is emphasised by McHugh & Thomson
(1995) who cite Buchanan & Huczynsci (1985) in defining leadership as:
“a social process in which one individual influences the behaviour of others
without the use or threat of violence” (Buchanan & Huczynsci, 1985, p.389)
and argue that research has focussed on personality traits, styles of leadership and more recently
on situation-contingent styles and the relations between leaders and group members.
Trait Theories of Leadership
The ‘trait’ approach to leadership research was historically the first systematic approach to the
study of leadership developed in the early 1900’s. This approach led to the development of what
were called ‘great man’ theories because they focussed on the identification of innate qualities
and psychological characteristics possessed by great social and military leaders. A central tenet
of this approach was the belief that leaders were born with these traits and only great people
possessed them. (Bass, 1990; Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998). In the period 1904-1948, trait
theory was the most influential leadership theory with over one hundred studies undertaken,
given added support with the advent of psychometric testing in the 1920’s and 1930’s.
Leadership Traits examined during this period included physical characteristics such as the
leader’s appearance, height and energy level; personal characteristics such as, self-esteem, need
for achievement and power, emotional stability, intelligence, sociability, creativity, and
educational achievements.
Stogdill’s (1948) review of trait leadership studies suggested that there was no consistent set of
traits which differentiated leaders from followers or non-leaders, and an individual who was able
to provide leadership in one situation might not be able to transfer this leadership to a different
situation. Consequently, trait researchers concentrated on isolating traits, which made leaders
more effective in given situations rather than trying to isolate a universal set of leadership traits.
(Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998).
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 3
Given the limitations identified above Stogdill’s (1948) analysis of over one hundred studies
undertaken between 1904-1948 argued that within an average group the following traits
differentiated leaders from non-leaders (followers); intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility,
initiative, persistence, self-confidence and sociability. Additionally Stogdill’s (1948) meta-
analysis indicated that;
“…an individual does not become a leader solely because he or she posses certain
traits. Rather, the trait the leader possesses must be relevant to situations in which
the leader is functioning….Findings showed that leadership was not a passive
state but resulted from a working relationship between the leader and other group
members. This research marked the beginning of a new approach to leadership
research that focussed on leadership behaviours and leadership situations."
(Northouse, 2001, p.16)
Stogdill’s (1974) survey, analysed 163 new studies and identified 10 traits which were
associated with leadership:
“The leader is characterised by a strong drive for responsibility and task
completion, vigour and persistence in pursuit of goals, venturesomeness and
originality in problem solving, drive to exercise initiative in social situations, self-
confidence and sense of personal identity, willingness to accept the consequences
of decision and action, readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, willingness to
tolerate frustration and delay, ability to influence other persons’ behaviour, and
the capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purposes at hand.”
(Stogdill, 1974, p.81)
According to (McKenna, 1994; Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998), Sogdill’s (1974) survey
provided a more balanced analysis of the roles of traits and the leadership process: whilst the first
survey argues that leadership is determined principally by situational factors, the second survey
“argued moderately that both personality and situational factors are determinants of leadership.”
(Northouse, 2001, p.17)
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 4
A survey by Mann (1959) which analysed the nature of leadership in small groups identified
leaders as possessing the following traits: intelligence, masculinity, adjustment, dominance,
extroversion and conservatism. This survey placed less emphasis on situational factors than
(Stogdill’s 1948, 1974) surveys and tentatively suggested that personality traits alone could be
used to discriminate between leaders and non-leaders, (McKenna, 1994; Northouse, 2001). A
meta-analysis of the Mann’s (1959) findings by Lord et al., (1986) identified: intelligence,
masculinity and dominance as follower attributions of leadership but argued strongly that
personality traits alone could not be used to differentiate between leaders and non-leaders. In
another contemporary review of leadership traits Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991) postulate that the
following six traits differentiate leaders from non-leaders: drive, the desire to lead, honesty and
integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability and knowledge of the business. According to
Northouse (2001) the significance of this study compared with similar research is that:
“According to these writers [Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991)], individuals can be
born with these traits, they can learn them, or both.” (Northouse, 2001, p.17-18)
In other words characteristics of leadership and thus determinants of the social influence process
(Buchanan & Huczynsci, 1985) are a combination of innate and phenotypical constructs of
personality and the wider social system.
Fig 1 Studies of leadership Traits and CharacteristicsStogdill (1948) Mann (1959) Stogdill (1974) Lord,
DeVader & Alliger (1986)
Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991)
Alertness Masculinity Persistence Masculinity MotivationInsight Adjustment Insight Intelligence IntegrityResponsibility Dominance Self-confidence Dominance ConfidenceInitiative Extroversion Responsibility Cognitive
abilityPersistence Conservatism Cooperativeness Task
KnowledgeSelf-confidence ToleranceSociability Influence
Sociability [Source: Northouse, 2001, p.18]
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 5
Trait approaches to leadership research have failed to provide any correlation between leadership
ability and specific characteristics of the leader, identified traits are often ambiguous, ill defined
and fail to take into account the situation. McHugh & Thomson (1995) argue that the most
abiding feature of leadership traits in management literature are that they provide good examples
of traits considered to be stereotypically male such as dominance, aggression and rationality,
rather than traits associated with female constructs of leadership such as, passivity, nurturance
and emotionality. Additionally, trait theories focus on the leader rather than followers or the
leadership process and in emphasising the identification of traits fail to link these to leadership
outcomes such as organisational effectiveness, productivity or follower satisfaction, (Yukl,
1998). The trait approach to leadership research is particularly weak in describing how a
leader’s traits affect the facilitation and outcome of group processes in particular organisational
settings. From an educational perspective trait theories do not provide a conceptual framework
which can be used as the basis of management and leadership development programmes.
“Even if definitive traits could be identified, teaching new traits is not an easy
process because traits are not easily changed. For example, it is not reasonable to
send managers to a training programme to raise their IQ or to train them to
become introverted or extroverted people. The point is that traits are relatively
fixed psychological structures, and this limits the value of teaching and leadership
training.” (Northouse, 2001, p.24)
In summarising the legacy of the trait line of research McHugh & Thomson (1995) return to
Stogdill’s (1974) review in arguing that most interesting evidence relates to the disconfirmative
findings on the acceptability of leaders to group members, which appear to show that groups
prefer high-status members as leaders and that the characteristics of followers determine the
acceptability of leadership characteristics.
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 6
Style/Behavioural Theories of Leadership
The failure of trait theories of leadership which viewed leadership as a quality anchored in the
personality of a particularly individual which enabled them to assume an influential role within
society, resulted in a new approach to leadership research which gave rise to a set of approaches
collectively known as style or behavioural theories of leadership. These theories viewed
leadership as a phenomenon, which did not resided solely in the personality of an individual but
could be cultivated as distinct patterns of learnt behaviour, (McKenna, 1994). Thus, representing
a shift in emphasis from viewing leadership as a trait to conceptualising leadership as an activity,
with a focus on what leaders do and how they act, and expanding the study of leadership to
include the actions of leaders towards followers in differing organisational contexts each with
associated criterion for leadership effectiveness.
Researchers utilising the style approach conceptualised leadership as composed of two general
types of behaviours; task (production) related behaviours and relationship (group) related
behaviours. Task related behaviour emphasises leader control and is often bounded in
organisational procedures and rules, whereas relationship orientated behaviour is more
responsive to the needs of followers and emphasises the role of leadership in motivating and
developing work teams. The main studies on leadership style were undertaken in the USA at
Ohio State University beginning in the late 1940’s, based on the findings of Stogdill’s (1948)
research and at the same time a group of researchers at the University of Michigan began to
explore the nature and function of leadership in small groups. These studies coupled with later
work by Blake & Mouton (1964, 1978, 1985) comprise of the bulk of research relating to style
(behavioural) theories of leadership.
Research at the Ohio State University was initiated to identify how individuals behaved when
they were leading a group or providing organisational leadership. Leadership behaviours were
analysed using a Leadership Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) that asked
subordinates (followers) in military, educational and industrial contexts to identify the frequency
of certain types of leadership behaviour. The original LBDQ developed by (Hemphill & Coons,
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 7
1957) consisted of 150 items, five years later a shortened version known as LBDQ-XII was
developed by Stogdill (1963) and became the more widely used instrument.
Data collected from the extensive use of the LBDQ-XII allowed researchers (Fleishman &
Harris, 1962; Stogdill, 1963, 1974) to categorise subordinates’ responses around two general
types of leadership behaviours; initiating structure and consideration. Initiating structure
indicates a concern with defining and organising roles, or relationships within the organisation,
establishing well defined channels of organisation and work organisation, and establishing
procedures for completing the work and communication within the work team – these behaviours
are frequently termed task or production orientated behaviours.
“A high score on this dimension characterises individuals who play an active role
in directing group activities through planning, communicating information,
scheduling, trying out new ideas and practices, and so on.” (McKenna, 1994,
p.364)
Consideration behaviours are concerned with building relationships with subordinates
(followers), and focus on meeting individual and group needs, building trust and mutual respect
and are representative of a climate of good rapport, two way communications and participative
leadership. The two categories of behaviours identified by the LBDQ-XII represented the core
of the style approach and were considered central to what leaders do: leaders provide structure
for subordinates and they nurture them in order to achieve the objectives inherent in the
structuring of work. (Northouse, 2001; McKenna, 1994, Yukl, 1998) make the important point
that these two behaviours were distinct and independent and were not considered as end points of
a single continuum, but as two distinct continua of leadership behaviour. Thus, a leader could be
high in initiating structure and low or high in task behaviour, or, a leader could be low in
initiating the structure but low or high in consideration behaviour. That is, the degree to which a
leader exhibited one behaviour was not constrained or related by the degree to which s/he
exhibited behaviours on the other continuum.
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 8
At the same time as the Ohio State studies were been undertaken researchers from the University
of Michigan (Cartwright & Zander, 1960; Katz & Khan, 1951; Likert, 1961) identified two
types of leadership behaviour which they called employee orientation and production
orientation. Employee orientation describes leadership behaviour characterised by concern for
the needs of subordinates (followers), valuing their individuality and taking a genuine interest in
developing good interpersonal relationships within work groups. These behaviours are
analogous with the leadership behaviours identified as consideration by the Ohio State
researchers. Production Orientation describes leadership behaviours, which are concerned with
the production aspects of the work and stress the importance of the technical aspects of work
organisation and view subordinates as a means to get the work done, a resource to be exploited in
completing the task. These behaviours are analogous with the leadership behaviours identified
as initiating structure by the Ohio State researchers.
The key difference between the Michigan and Ohio State studies were that the Michigan
researchers originally conceptualised employee orientation and production orientation as
opposites ends of the same continuum. Thus, suggesting that leaders could not simultaneously
be highly orientated towards production and employees. However, later research by (Khan,
1956) suggested that in fact these behaviours were capable of being conceptualised on two
independent continua and that leaders were able to simultaneously show a high regard for
employee and production needs.
The 'leadership grid' (Blake & Mouton, 1978, 1985, 1991) which was originally conceptualised
as a 'managerial behaviour grid' (Blake & Mouton, 1964) is a model of leadership behaviour
which has been extensively used in organisational and managerial development. It is designed to
develop managerial self-awareness (and presumably leadership self-awareness) in relation to
how managers can facilitate the achievement of organisational objectives through combinations
of two behaviours namely; concern for production and concern for people - these are loosely
analogous to initiating structure/production orientation and consideration/employee orientation
respectively. Concern for production and concern for people are tested as separate dimensions of
leadership style and are not shown as a point on a single continuum but rather as a point on a two
dimensional grid, (see fig 2 on page 11).
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 9
The leadership behaviour questionnaires (LBQs) used, result in a leader being able to score
between a maximum (9, 9) - 'Team Management' or a minimum of (1, 1) - 'Impoverished
Management'. In an idealised organisational/managerial (leadership) development
programme participants once they have established a datum of behaviours from the LBQs
then utilise a planned series of development activities to develop leadership behaviours
commensurate with other points on the grids. However, essentially Blake & Mouton's
(1978, 1985, 1991) model does not add any additional insight into the leadership process than
the other style (behavioural) models of leadership and does not attempt to conceptualise a
contingent relationship between leadership behaviours and the wider environment.
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 10
Fig 2 Leadership Grid [Source: Adapted from: Blake & Mouton, 1991, p.29; McKenna, 1994, p.365]
HighCONcern
For
People
10
(1,9) Country Club ManagementThoughtful attention to the needs of the
people for satisfying relationships leads to a comfortable, friendly organisational
atmosphere and work tempo
(9,9) Team ManagementWork accomplishment is from committed
people; interdependence through a 'common stake; in the organisational
purpose leads to relationships of trust and respect
9
8
7(5,5) Middle of the rode
ManagementAdequate organisational performance is possible
through balancing the necessity to get work out while
maintaining morale of people at a satisfactory level.
6
5
4
3(1,1) Impoverished Management
Exertion of minimum effort to get the required work done is appropriate to sustain organisational membership
(9,1) Task ManagementAuthority-Compliance Management: efficiency in operations results from
arranging conditions of work in such a way that human elements interfere to a
minimum degree
2
1
Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Concern for production/Results
The five basic types of managerial style (including leadership style) are described as: 1,1 Impoverished Management. Mangers with a 1,1 style fail to demonstrate a concern for people or
results. These managers are going through the motions of managing but are really not contributing anything to the organisation. Their management style is characterised by a lack of leadership.
9,1 Task/Authority-Compliance Management. This managerial style emphasises results but shows little concern for people. Managers with a 9,1 style exhibit leadership behaviours, which focus on the arrangements of work conditions and discount the importance of creativity and interpersonal processes. Since these managers tend to lead by issuing orders, individual initiative by subordinates (followers) may be view as insubordination.
1,9 Country Club Management. The 1, 9 manager is primarily concerned with people and their feelings, attitudes and needs. Leadership behaviour is characterised by a low concern for results and an attempt to create work environments with pleasant social environments with positive interpersonal relationships.
5,5 middle of the Road Management. Mangers with a 5,5 style have a moderate amount of concern for both results and people. Managers who use this leadership style try to balance employee morale with acceptable levels of work output and try to resolve conflict through accommodation and compromise.
9,9 Team Management. The 9,9 manager demonstrates high concern for people and results and views relationships between these two dimensions of leadership as complementary rather that antagonistic. Leadership is characterised by participative decision making and problem solving, the integration of follower objectives with those of the organisation by developing work teams that utilise team members’ contributions in an independent way.
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 11
An interesting expansion on the idea that leadership style consisted of two types of behaviour
namely those related to achieving the task often conceptualised as autocratic and those relating to
developing interpersonal relationships often conceptualised as democratic (Lippitt & White,
1968; Lewin, 1968) is offered by Likert (1967) who articulates four styles of leadership related
to specific management cultures that he believed were present in organisations (see fig 3 on page
13)
Yukl (1998) argues strongly that despite a large number of studies conducted by researchers
from both Ohio State and Michigan University aimed at determining how best leaders could
combine their task and relationship behaviours so as to maximise the impact of these behaviours
on followers in order to further the aims of the organisation, in a vain search for a universal style
of leadership; given the complexity, and contextually, multiply contingent nature of the
leadership process it is not surprising that such approaches yielded ambiguous and contradictory
results. Researchers were not able to establish a link between leadership behaviours and the
outcomes of the leadership process such as organisational productivity and efficiency, job
satisfaction and staff morale, and team effectiveness that were universally transferable.
Northouse (2001) argues that whilst approaches to leadership derived from the work of (Blake
& Mouton, 1967, 1978, 1985; Blake & McCanse, 1991) would argue that a high-high (9,9 -
Team Management) approach to leadership to be optimal this might not be effective in all
situations eg in crisis (or even war), in developing an immature team.
Hunt (1991) argues behavioural approaches to leadership tend to focus on micro-level
perspectives constructed from an individual manager-subordinate relationship and neglects the
role of managers in dealing with inter-organisational and environmental relationships, in which
the leadership outcomes such as networking, alliance and group formation are critical and largely
ignored by the narrow behavioural constructs proposed by the proponents of style theory. Hence,
such approaches failed to develop theories which explain how leadership behaviour contributes
to the flexibility and adaptation of the organisation to turbulent and globalised economies, which
some researchers (Schein, 1992) would argue, once social validity has been established, are
determinants of organisational culture.
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 12
Fig 3 - Comparison of Likert's (1967) cultural determinants of leadership Style with Michigan & Ohio State University studies on leadership style.
Dominant Culture Leadership Behaviours Task
Beh
aviours
(Con
cern for
prod
uction
/in
itiating stru
ctures)
Exploitive - Authoritative
The leader utilises downwards communication to threaten followers in a climate of negative reinforcement. Decision-making takes place at the apex of the organisation and excludes subordinates who are psychologically estranged from the aims of the organisation and the leadership process.
Benevolent - Authoritative
The leader uses a degree of positive reinforcement especially in relation to financial remuneration to encourage desirable behaviours amongst followers. Communication is mostly downward and upward communication tends to be restricted to what subordinates perceive that their managers want to hear. Most decision making occurs at the top of the organisation but limited delegation exists in relation to clearly defined operational tasks.
Con
tinu
um
of leadersh
ip b
ehaviou
rs
Consultative The leader uses both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in order to positively reinforce desirable subordinate behaviours, upward communication is still limited to what subordinates perceive that their managers want to hear. Subordinates (followers) have a moderate amount of influence in operational issues but policy making is conducted by senior managers only.
Participative The leader discusses both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards with followers and involves them in the setting of group objectives, and establishing work processes. The emphasis is the exchange of accurate information, with individuals being a member of more than one work team spread across established organisational structures, the leaders and followers are psychologically close and every attempt is made to integrate individual objectives (needs) with those of the organisation.
Relation
ship
Beh
aviours
(Con
cern for
peop
le/Con
sideration
)
The corollary to this argument is that style theorists in an arguably over eager effort to identify
core leadership behaviours effectively reduced organisations to closed social systems, which
provide a wholly inadequate conceptual framework for the analysis of contemporary leadership
behaviour associated with interrelated globalised markets and associated economic systems.
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 13
Additionally, style theories of leadership tend to consider leadership behaviours as mutually
exclusive rather than considering how leaders select and use patterns of behaviours to achieve
their objectives and how the social context shape these (and indeed how in turn leadership
behaviours shape the context). Kaplan (1986) argues that far more complex behavioural
taxonomies are required than those proposed by the proponents of style theory to adequately
describe and explain 'real-life' leadership actions, and that such taxonomies need to take into
account the instrumentality of first level outcomes in selecting future leadership behaviours.
McHugh & Thomson (1995) cite Stogdill's (1974) review of leadership research in arguing
that:
"In view of the complexity of leadership behaviour and the variety of situations in
which it functions, a conditional and multivariate hypothesis seems more
reasonable than a simplistic, bipolar view of leader follower relationship [which is
a central tenet of style research (see fig 3)]" (Stogdill, 1974, p.407 in McHugh
& Thomson, 1995, p.289)
Whilst style theories of leadership marked a shift in the emphasis of leadership research from the
identification of personality traits to what leaders actually do in practice. Resulting in a
conceptually simple framework for categorising leadership behaviour, which in turn could be
used as a framework for self-reflection and planned leadership, management and organisational
development activities, which provided added credence to the notion that the antecedence of
leadership behaviours had both genetic and environmental components. The lack of emphasis on
the contextual components of leadership and the contingent nature of leadership behaviour is a
significant and fundamental weakness of this strand of research.
Contingency Theories of Leadership
The failure of style (behavioural) theories of leadership to take into account situational and
contextual variables led to new multi-variable research which investigated which types of
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 14
leadership behaviour would be best suited to certain contextual and situational variables. This
led to the development of contingent theories of leadership which are often referred to as 'leader-
match' theories, because of the attempt to match leaders to appropriate situations. (Fiedler's
1964, 1967; Fielder & Garcia, 1987) are amongst the best known.
Fiedler’s (1964, 1967) Contingency Theory
Following the analysis of the leadership styles of many leaders (both good and bad), Fiedler was
able to make empirically grounded generalisations about which styles of leadership were best for
given organisational contexts. The theory attempts to predict how the preferred style of the
leader, the positional power of the leader and the structure of the job or task interrelate to
determine the effectiveness of the leader. Thus, leadership effectiveness was predicted to be
dependent on the situational favourableness, which was viewed as contingent on levels of task
structure, leader-member relations, the leader's positional power and the leaders preferred style,
(Northouse, 2001).
The leader's preferred style is determined using the Least Preferred Co-worker Questionnaire
(LPC) which measures the leader's esteem for her/his least preferred co-worker. To arrive at a
LPC scale leaders were asked to rate both their Most Preferred Co-worker (MPC) and LPC.
Leaders who described their LPC and MPC similarly were classified as having a high preference
for relationship orientated behaviour whereas those who described their LPC much more
negatively than their MPC were said to demonstrate a preference for task orientated behaviour.
The situational variable of task structure is a direct reference to the degree to which the
organisation and/or the wider operating environment clarifies the way in which tasks are to be
carried out by for example the use of procedures, protocols, rules and regulations.
"The degree of structure in the job or the task can be measured by establishing the
extent to which one can be specific about the solution to the work problem. The
leader finds it easier to force compliance in a structured job situation than in an
unstructured job situation." (McKenna, 1994, p.380)
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 15
The positional power of the leader refers to the authority vested in the leader by the organisation
as distinct from any other power base the leader may use to influence followers. Positional
power is strong if the leader has the ability to reward or punish followers, organise work, define
methods of group working and define organisational policy. Leader Member Relations is often
regarded as the most important of contextual variable and refers to the extent to which the leader
is trusted, liked and respected by followers. Taken collectively, these three variables determine
the conditions of 'favourableness' of various organisational contexts defined by unique
combinations of these variables, (see fig 4 below).
I II III IV V VI VII VIIIGood Good Good Good Good Poor Poor Poor
Situational Structured Structured Structured Structured Unstr Unstr Unstr UnstrVariables
Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak Strong Weak
Leadership effectiveness Low LPCsHigh LPCs(Relationship Orientated)
Power
Low - Middle LPCs(Task Orientated)
Leader - MemberRelations
Task structure
Leader Positional
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
I II III IV V VI VII VIII
High LPC score:
Realtionship Oreintated
Low LPC score: Task
Oreintated
Correlations between leader LPC and group Performance
Favourable to the leader Unfavourable to the leader
Fig 4 - A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness, Fiedler, 1967, p.146
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 16
Based on empirical research findings the theory predicts that in very favourable (octants 1-3) or
very unfavourable (octant 8) conditions leaders with low LPC scores (who have a preference for
task orientated behaviour) are likely to perform best. In other situations which were either
moderately favourable or moderately unfavourable (octants 4-7) then leaders with middle to high
LPC scores (who have a preference for relationship orientated behaviour) are likely to perform
best.
McHugh & Thomson (1995) argue that whilst many studies have cast doubt on Fielder's
(1967) model it does fit with the notion that democratic (relationship orientated) leaders are
preferred in most situations and that autocratic (task orientated) leaders are preferred in crisis or
novel situations where there is a strong need amongst followers for quick decision making and
for work to be organised. However, it does not adequately explain why autocratic, task
orientated leaders are preferred in situations which Fielder's (1967) model describes as
favourable. (Northouse, 2001; McKenna, 1994; Hunt, 1996; Yukl, 1998) identify the indirect
measure of preferred leadership style using the LPC score which tends to result in leaders with
either high or low LPC scores with few intermediate scores, as a major flaw in the research
methodology.
"Although it takes only a few minutes to complete the instructions on the LPC
scale are not clear; they do not fully explain how the respondent is to select his or
her LPC. Some respondents may get confused between an individual who is the
least liked co-worker and their least preferred co-worker. Because their final LPC
score is predicated on who they choose as a least preferred co-worker, the lack of
clear directions on who to choose [and utilise to project their leadership style by
reacting to observed behaviours in others] makes the measure of the LPC
problematic." (Northouse, 2001, p.81)
Such criticisms reinforce the difficulty in universally utilising the theory within real life contexts
given the complexity of the three contingent variables each of which requires its own research
instrument, especially given that many researchers argue that by considering only three
contingent variables Fiedler (1967) provides an incomplete picture of the leadership process and
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 17
its outcomes. (Yukl, 1998, p.285-6) provides an excellent summary of many of the criticisms of
contingency theory, see fig 5 below.
Fig 5 - Criticisms of Fiedler's (1967) Contingency Theory ofLeadership Effectiveness, (Adapted from Yukl, 1998, p.285-286)
Criticism Researcher/WriterLPC Score The LPC score is a "measure in search of meaning" (Schriesheim & Kerr,
1977, p.23). Its interpretation has been changed in an arbitrary fashion, and the current interpretation is speculative. LPC scores may not be stable over time, (Yukl, 1991).
Not a Theory The model is not really a theory, since it doesn't explain how a leader's LPC score affects group performance (Ashour, 1973). There are no explicit intervening variables or leader behaviour variables to provide the causal link between the leader's LPC score and group performance
Weak Empirical Support
The empirical support for the model is weak because it is based on correlational results that fail to achieve statistical significance in a majority of cases, even though correlations may be in the right direction (McMahon, 1972; Vecchio, 1983)
Arbitrary weightings assigned to situational variables
The weights used to compute situational favourability were determined in an arbitrary manner, and no explicit rationale was presented for them. The model does not explain why three different aspects of the situation should be combined and treated as a single continuum of leadership favourableness. (Shiflett, 1973)
Lack of emphasis on medium LPC leaders
The model and most of the empirical research neglects medium LPC scores, these leaders probably outnumber high and low LPC leaders. Research suggests that medium LPC leaders are more effective than either high or low LPC leader in at least 50% of situations (octants 4-7), presumably because they are able to better balance affiliation (relationship orientated behaviours) and achievement (task orientated behaviours) more successfully. (Kennedy, 1982; Shiflett, 1973)
The model treats task structure as given
The model treats task structure as given, whereas in many organisational situations, organising the work is the main concern of the leader. Research suggests that modifying the task structure has up to ten times the effect on group performance. (O'brien & Kabanoff, 1981)
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 18
Causal Variable
Leader's LPC Score
End Result Variable
Group Performance
Situational VariablesLeader-Member RelationsLeader's Positional Power
Task Structure
?
Situational Leadership – Hersey & Blanchard (1969, 1977, 1985)
Situational leadership is a contingency model of leadership first proposed by Hersey &
Blanchard (1969) and was based on Reddin’s (1967) 3-D Management Style theory. The
situational approach has been further developed by Hersey & Blanchard (1977, 1985) and by
Blanchard et al., (1985, 1993). The theory focuses on leadership in different situations and
focuses on the need of the leader to adopt different leadership styles depending on the maturity
of individual employees. Maturity includes two related components: Job Maturity; the extent to
which a subordinate’s task orientated knowledge and technical skills are contextually
appropriate, and Psychological Maturity; which is concerned with the subordinate’s level of self-
esteem, self-confidence and self-respect. According to theory, the level of subordinate maturity
determines the optimal pattern of leadership behaviour along a task orientated/relationship
orientated behavioural continuum:
as subordinate maturity increases from a minimum level to a moderate level the leader
should utilise more relationship orientated behaviour and less task orientated behaviour,
as subordinate maturity increases beyond a moderate level the leader should decrease the
amount of relationship behaviour whilst continuing to decrease the amount the task
related behaviour.
“Situational Leadership theory suggests that there is no such thing as a common
style of good leadership, no one best way to influence people all the time, but that
a leader will be effective when s/he matches her/his style to her/his own
requirements, those of her/his subordinates and the task itself in the context of the
situation or environment. The individual manager needs to work out which
approach to use, which combination of task and relationship behaviour is
appropriate, depending on the circumstances, which prevail. …A subordinate or
team working competently has the knowledge and skills to perform the task, is
willing to take responsibility for the job, and is highly committed to achievement
of the task. A developed subordinate or group can be described as 'ready, willing
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 19
and able'. The relative lack of these characteristics shows the degree of
underdevelopment or immaturity.” (Kakabadse et al., 1988, p.165)
Fig 6 Situational Leadership Theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977)(Northouse P, 2001, p.54)
Am
oun
t of
lead
er B
ehav
iou
r
Mu
chL
ittl
e
M1 M2 M3 M4Low Moderate High
Follower Maturity
Combinations of task and relationship behaviours are further sub-divided into four categories of
leadership behaviour
Telling is for low maturity followers (M1); people and/or teams who are unable and unwilling to
take responsibility and need clear, specific directions and supervision. This style is called 'telling'
because it requires telling people what, how, when and where to perform. It emphasises directive
behaviour.
Selling is for individuals and/or groups of moderate maturity (M2); People who are willing but
unable to take responsibility need directive behaviour because of their lack of ability, and supportive
behaviour to reinforce the team's willingness and enthusiasm
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 20
Key
Tas
k B
ehav
iou
r
Rel
atio
nsh
ip
Beh
avio
ur
Participating is for moderate to high maturity individuals and teams (M3). The follower has the
ability but lacks self-confidence or enthusiasm, so the leader needs to maintain two-way
communications to support the follower's ability. The style is called 'participating' because the
leader and follower share in decision making, but the leader is the facilitator. Participating involves
high relationship behaviour and low task behaviour.
Delegating is for high maturity individuals and teams (M4). The people have both ability and
motivation and little direction or support is needed. Followers are permitted to decide how, when
and where to perform. They are psychologically mature and therefore do not need above-average
amounts of two-way dialogue. (See fig 7 on page 22)
Situational leadership theory has been used extensively in the development of managers and has
stood the test of time and the marketplace! It provides a practical, intuitive and sensible
approach to optimising leadership behaviour based on easily identifiable (observable) contingent
variables; which can be applied in a variety of contexts. Thus, providing a conceptual
framework with a high prescriptive value, which emphasises the importance of leader flexibility
and sensitivity to organisational and subordinate needs. (Northouse, 2001; Yukl, 1998)
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 21
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 22
Despite its extensive use as a framework for management development the theory attracts the
following criticisms:
There are only a limited number of research studies to test the underlying assumptions of
the theory, which raises concerns about the theoretical basis of the approach.
(Yukl, 1998; Northouse, 2001) argue that the ambiguous conceptualisation concerning
the development levels of subordinates; in their 1977 model Hersey & Blanchard identify
four levels of maturity (M1 – unwilling and unable, M2 – willing and unable, M3 –
Unwilling and able and M4 – willing and able). In their 1985 model these levels of
maturity have been replaced by a series of development levels (D1 – high commitment
and low competence, D2 – low commitment and some competence, D3 – variable
commitment and high competence and D4 – High commitment and high competence).
“The author’s of situational leadership do not explain the theoretical basis for
these changes in the composition of each of the development levels. Further they
do not provide an explanation for how competence and commitment are weighted
across different development levels.” (Northouse, 2001, p.60)
“Maturity is composed of diverse levels (ie task complexity, subordinate
confidence, motivation and ability), and questionable assumptions are made about
how to weight and combine them, (Barrow, 1977)”. (Yukl, 1998, p.272)
The theory is narrow in scope because it only uses one situational variable namely the
maturity of the subordinate and the model fails to identify any interim variables which
would delineate a causal relationship between the leader’s behaviour and subordinate
performance such as subordinate motivation, role clarity, task structure etc.
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 23
Normative Decision Making Model of Leadership – Vroom & Yetton
(1973)
Vroom & Yetton (1973) developed a decision making model of leadership which is contingent
on two variables; decision quality and decision acceptance. Vroom argues that possible decision
making processes, which a leader might use in dealing with an issue affecting a group of
subordinates, are summarised in fig 8.
Fig 8 Vroom & Yetton (1973) Possible Decision Making Processes
AI You solve the problem or make the decision yourself, using information available to you at that time.
AII You obtain the necessary information from your subordinate(s), and then decide on the solution to the problem yourself. You may or may not tell your subordinates what the problem is when getting the information from them. The role played by your subordinates in making the decision is clearly one of providing necessary information to you, rather than generating or evaluating native solutions.
CI You share the problem with the relevant subordinates individually, getting their ideas and suggestions without bringing them together as a group. Then you make the decision that may or may not reflect on your subordinates’ influence
CII You share a problem with your subordinates as a group, collectively obtaining their ideas and suggestions. Then you make the decision that may or may not reflect your subordinate’s influence.
GII You share a problem with your subordinates as a group. Together you generate and evaluate alternatives and attempt to reach agreement (consensus) on a solution. Your role is much like that of a chairperson. You do not try to influence the group to adopt ‘your’ solution and you are willing to accept and implement any solution that has the support of the entire group.
Processes AI and AII are designated autocratic processes, CI and CII consultative processes,
and GII is a group process. (GI applies to single subordinate issues.) Having identified these
processes Vroom and Yetton's research programme then proceeded to answer two basic
questions:
What decision-making processes should managers use to deal effectively with the
problems they encounter in their jobs?
What decision-making processes do managers use in dealing with their problems and
what factors affect their choice of processes and degree of subordinate participation?
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 24
In attempting to answer the first question Vroom & Yetton (1973) developed a detailed
normative model of decision making based on the rational principles consistent with existing
evidence on the consequences of management decision-making on organisational effectiveness
and identified three classes of consequences (situations), which influence decision effectiveness:
The quality or rationality of the decision - clearly a process that jeopardised this would
be ineffective.
The acceptance or commitment on the part of the subordinates to execute the decision
effectively - if this commitment is necessary then processes, which do not generate it
even though they give a high quality decision, would be ineffective
The amount of time required to make the decision - a decision process which took less
time, if it were equally effective, would normally be preferable to one which took longer.
The normative Decision Model (fig 9) provides a predictive, logical (rational) model of decision-
making contingent on the above variables. The normative model requires that all managers, if
they are to be rational and effective, have to be able to be able utilise a range of leadership
behaviours, ranging from autocratic to consultative to participative.
“This is a pleasing rational model of decision making and Vroom has found that
it works well in helping managers to describe and plan their own decision making
processes. There is, however some doubt that what they actually do conforms to
what they say they do and, in practice, leadership is more than taking decisions
with a group or for a group. Even Vroom’s more complicated model is not
complicated enough, it seems.” (Handy, 1993, p.106)
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 25
Fig 9 - Vroom V H, 1973 – Decision Tree Model of Leadership – [Source: Vroom, 1974 in Pugh (Ed), 1990, p.317)
1 - A12 - A1
3 - GII
5 - A16 - GII
7 - CII
4 - A1
8 - CI
9 - AII
10 - AII11 - CII
12 - GII
14 - CII13 - CII
rational thananother?
Is there a qualityrequirement suchthat one solution
is likely to be more
Do I have sufficientinformation to make a quality
decision?effective
implementation?
Is the ProblemStructured?
Is Acceptance ofthe decision by the decision by
yourself, is itreasonably certain
subordinatescritical to
that it would beaccepted by your
subordinates?
Do subordinatesshare the
organisationalgoals to be
obtained in solvingthe problem?
If you were to make Is conflict amongsubordinates
likely in preferredsolutions?
E F GA B C D
YesYes
NoYes
YesYesNoYes
YesYes
NoYes
YesYesNoYes
NoYes
YesYesNoYes
NoYes
YesYes
YesYes
NoYes
YesYes
YesYes
NoYes
NoYes
YesYes
YesYesNoYes
YesYesNoYes
NoYes
YesYes
NoYes
YesYes
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 26
Summary
Historical approaches to leadership research discussed in this essay whilst providing important
insights into the processes of leadership as distinct from management, they are based on research
paradigms which are entrenched in an entitative concept of organisation which Hosking &
Morely (1991) argue dominate the disciplines of organisational behaviour and human resource
management. Such an approach focuses on the characteristics of individuals and groups within
organisations, and the person and the organisation are viewed as separate and distinct entities.
They cite Meyer (1985) who in relation to entitative streams of research states that:
“[We] have proceeded on the assumption that organisations were well defined
units with identifiable, more or less permanent boundaries. We have assumed that
since we know what organisations were, entities called organisations were
appropriate for research” (Meyer, 1985, p.57)
Central to entitative perspectives is that the concept of organisation is seen to require explanation
as a whole, thus emphasising the separateness and independence of individuals, organisations
and contexts. Thus, individual behaviour is theorised independently of context and the extent to
which context shapes behaviour and behaviour shapes context is ignored. (Hosking & Morley,
1991; Thomson & McHugh, 1995). This short chapter draws heavily on the work of Hosking
& Morley (1991) to presents an alternative, social constructivist view of organisations,
organising and thus leadership, which emphasises a contextually interdependent relationship
between organisational entities and their environment.
Meyer (1985) as cited by (Hosking & Morley, 1991; Thomson & McHugh, 1995) argues that
entitative approaches to the study of organisational behaviour, human resource management and
thus leadership are characterised by five defining features.
Membership and Organisational Boundaries: the organisation unlike informal grouping
defines by nature of its boundaries and structures who is and who is not a member. Thus,
such specifications for organisational membership differentiate one organisation from
another, and separate an organisation from its environment.
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 27
Organisational Identity: the organisation has an identity of its own which is recognised
by all of its members and none-members alike.
Organisational Purpose: the organisational entity has a clearly defined purpose(s) which
is more or less understood by all of its members – this is what some researchers refer to
as the existence of shared goals and/or values.
Organisational Structure: the organisational entity has a structure that is clearly defined
and related to the stated and understood organisational purpose(s). The structure is
assumed to be a relatively stable feature of the organisation that defines accountability for
organisational outcomes and serves to organise and control work primarily through the
use of authoritarian power.
Organisational-Environmental Independence: the organisation and the environment are
viewed as separate and independent entities.
Thus the underlying assumption pervading trait, style and contingency approaches to leadership
research is the “understanding of organisations as well defined entities [which] has pervaded
research, whether research has addresses closed-system, open system or evolutionary theory.”
(Meyer, 1985, p.57). Given the discontinuous change which characterises contemporary
operating environments, advances in technology which blurs the organisational – environmental
boundaries, and the adoption of organisational forms which promote an open systems
relationship with the market, then clearly there is a need to adopt approaches to leadership
research which recognises both detailed and dynamic complexity (Senge, 1990), and a
realisation that organisations exist in a symbiotic relationship with their environments.
References
Adair J, 1984, The Skills of Leadership, Aldershot: Gower Publications
Ashour A S, 1973, The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: An evaluation, Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 9, p.339-355 in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice HallBarrow J C, 1977, The variables of leadership: A Review and conceptual framework, Academy of Management Review, 2, p.231-251 in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 28
Bass B M, 1990, Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research: New York: Free Press
Bennis W G, 1989, On Becoming a leader, London: Hutchinson Business Books Ltd
Blake R R & McCanse A A, 1991, Leadership dilemmas – Grid solutions, Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing
Blake R R & Mouton J S, 1964, The managerial grid, Houston TX: Gulf Publishing
Blake R R & Mouton J S, 1978, The new managerial grid, Houston TX: Gulf Publishing
Blake R R & Mouton J S, 1985, The new managerial grid III, Houston TX: Gulf Publishing
Blake R R & Mouton J S, 1991, The leadership grid III, Houston TX: Gulf Publishing
Blanchard K, Zigarmi D & Nelson R, 1993, Situational Leadership after 25 years: A retrospective, The Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), p.22-36
Blanchard K, Zigarmi P, Zigarmi D, 1985, Leadership and the one minute manager: increasing effectiveness through situational leadership, New York, William Morrow Publishing
Buchanan D & Huczynski A, 1985, Organisational Behaviour: An Introductory Text, London: Prentice-Hall
Burns J M, 1978, Leadership, New York: Harper Row
Cartwright & Zander, 1960, Group Dynamics research and theory, Evanston, IL: Row- PetersonFiedler F E & Garcia J E, 1987, New approaches to leadership: cognitive resources and organisational performance, New York: John Wiley
Drath & Palus, 1994, Making Common Sense: Leadership as meaning making in a community of practice, Greensboro, NC: Centre for Leadership, p.4
Fiedler F E, 1964, A contingency model of leadership effectiveness, in Berkpwitz (Ed), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 1, p.149-190, New York: Academic Press in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall
Fiedler F E, 1967, A theory of leadership effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill
Fleishman E A & Harris E F, 1962, Patterns of leadership behaviour related to employee grievance and turnover, Personnel Psychology, 15, p.43-56
Handy C, 1993, Understanding Organisations, Harmondsworth: Penguin Business
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 29
Harrison R, 1987, Harnessing personal energy: How companies can inspire employees, Organisational Dynamics, Autumn, p.4-21 in Yukl G, 1999, An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Summer 99, 10(2), p.285
Hemphill J K & Coons A E, 1957, Development of the leader behaviour description questionnaire in Stogdill R and Coons A E (Eds), Leader behaviour: its description and measurement, Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of business research, Ohio State University
Hersey P & Blanchard K H, 1969, Management of organisational behaviour: Utilising human resources, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall in Northouse P, 2001, Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd Ed), London: Sage Publications
Hersey P & Blanchard K H, 1977, Management of organisational behaviour: Utilising human resources, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall in Northouse P, 2001, Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd Ed), London: Sage Publications
Hersey P & Blanchard K H, 1985, SL II: A situational approach to managing people, Escondido, CA: Blanchard Training and Development Inc
Hersey P & Blanchard K H, 1993, Situational leadership after 25 years: A retrospective, the Journal of Leadership studies, 1(1), p.22-36
Hosking D M, 1988, Organising, Leadership and Skilful Process, Journal of management studies, 25, p.153
Hosking D M & Morely I E, 1991 A Social Psychology of Organising People, Processes and Contexts, London: Prentice Hall
House R J & Mitchell T R, 1974, Path-Goal theory of leadership, Contemporary Business, 3 (Fall), p.81-98 in McKenna E, 1994, Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Student’s Handbook, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Hunt J G, 1996, Leadership: A New synthesis, London: Sage Publications
Jacobs & Jacques, 1990, Military executive leadership in Clark K E and Clark M B (Eds), Measures of Leadership, West Orange, NJ: Leadership library of America
Kakabadse A, Ludlow R & Vinnicombe S, 1988, Working In Organisations, Harmondsworth: Penguin Business
Kaplan R E, 1986, The wrap and woof of the general manager’s job in Schneider B & Schoorman (Eds), Facilitating work effectiveness, Lexington: MA: Lexington Books
Katz D & Khan R L, 1951, Human organisation and worker motivation, New York: John Wiley
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 30
Kennedy J K (Jr), 1982, Middle LPC leaders and the contingency model of leadership effectiveness, Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 30, p.1-14 in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall
Khan R L, 1956, The prediction of productivity, Journal of social issues, 12, p.41-49
Kirkpatrick S A, & Lock E A, 1991, Leadership: Do traits matter?, The Executive, 5, p.48-60 in Northouse P G, 2001, Leadership, Theory and Practice, Chp2, London: Sage Publications
Likert R, 1961, New patterns of Management, New York, McGraw-Hill
Likert R, 1967, The Human Organisation: its management and value, New York, McGraw-Hill
Likert R, 1994, Profile of Organisational Characteristics, Ann Arbor, MI: Rensis Likert Associates, in Dunham-Taylor J, 2000, Nurse Executive Leadership Found in Participative Organisations, 30(5), p.241-250
Lord R G, Devader C L and Alliger G M, 1986, A meta analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An Application of validity generalisation procedures, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, p. 402-410
Mann R D, 1959, A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small groups, Psychological bulletin 56, 241-270
McHugh D & Thompson P, 1995, Work Organisations: A Critical Introduction, London: Macmillan Business
McKenna E, 1994, Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Student’s Handbook, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
McKenna E, 2000 (3rd Ed), Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Student’s Handbook, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
McMahon J T, 1972, The contingency theory: Logic and method revisited, Personnel Psychology, 25, 697-711 in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall
Meyer M, Stevenson W & Webster S, 1985, Limits to Bureaucratic Growth, New York: Walter de Gruyer
Mullins L, 1999, Management and Organisational Behaviour, London: Pitmans Publishing
Northhouse P G, 1997, Leadership - Theory and Practice, London: Sage Publications
Northouse P G, 2001, Leadership Theory and Practice (2nd Ed), London: Sage Publications
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 31
O’Brien G E & Kabanoff B, 1981, The effects of leadership style and group structure upon small group productivity: A test of a discrepancy theory of leadership effectiveness, Australian Journal of Psychology, 33(2), p.157-158 in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall
Podsakoff P M, MacKenzie S B, Ahearne M & Bommer W H, 1995, Searching for a needle in a haystack: Trying to identify the illusive moderators of leadership behaviours, Journal of Management, 21, p.423-470
Porter E H & Lawler E E, 1968, Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey in McKenna E, 1994, Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour: A Student’s Handbook, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Porter L W & Bigley G A, 1997, Motivation and transformational leadership: Some organisational context issues in Yukl G, 1999, An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories, Leadership Quarterly, Summer 99, 10(2), p.285
Rauch C F & Behling O, 1984, Functionalism: Basis for an alternative approach to the study of leadership in Hunt J G, Hosking D M, Schriesheim & Stewart R (Eds), Leaders and Managers: International perspectives on managerial behaviour, New York: Pergamon Press, p.46
Richards & Engle, 1986, After the vision: Suggests to corporate visionaries and vision champions in Adams J D (Ed), Transforming Leadership, Alexandria, VA: Miles River Press, p.206
Schein E H, 1992, Organisational Culture and Leadership (2 Ed), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Schriesheim C A & Kerr S, 1977, Theories and measures of leadership a critical approach in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall
Segne P, 1990, The fifth discipline the art and Practice of the learning organisation, Century Business, London, UK
Shiflett S C, 1973, The contingency model of leadership effectiveness; some implications of its statistical and methodological properties, Behavioural Science, 18(6), p.419-440 in Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall
Stogdill R M, 1948, Personal factors associated with leadership: A Survey of theory and research, New York: Free Press
Stogdill R M, 1963, Manual for the leader behaviour questionnaire, Ohio state University, Bureau of Business research
Stogdill R M, 1974, Handbook of leadership: a survey of literature, New York: Free Press
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 32
Vecchio R P, 1983, Assessing the validity of Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A closer look at Strube and Garcia, Psychological Bulletin, 93, p.404-408, Yukl G, 1998, Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall
Vroom V H & Yetton P H, 1973, Leadership and decision-making, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press
Yukl G, 1998 (4th Ed), Leaders in Organisations, NJ: Prentice Hall
A Critical Review of Trait, Style & Contingency Approaches to Leadership ResearchPage 33