Every conceptual construct devoted to the study of leadership has endeavored to identify the factors that influence effective leadership. Researchers state that at the current time, the field of leadership theories “is very broad and fragmented” (Lee, Chen, & Su, 2019, p. 88). This is not surprising, given the more than century-old history of this research area. Traditionally, philosophical and political theories of leadership have emerged due to the paramount role of this quality in the state government that largely determined the order of people’s living.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, psychologists and sociologists have also started to put forward their theories and approaches towards understanding the phenomenon of leadership. Even though leadership was initially perceived in connection with government structures and effective warfare, over time, the research of leaders in organizations came to the fore. This paper presents an overview of three traditional leadership theories, specifically trait, behavioral, and situational ones, analyzes their philosophical assumptions and principles, limitations, and strengths. It also describes their contribution to leadership psychology and organizational psychology and discusses the relevance of the behavioral theory of leadership in the clinical psychologist profession.
Leadership Theories Overview
Some authors propose to divide the evolution of leadership theories into several stages. For instance, Lord, Day, Zaccaro, Avolio, and Eagly (2017) distinguish the early years of the leadership theory conceptualization development (1916-1948), first wave (1948-1961), the second wave (1969-1989), and third wave (1999-2007). Schedlitzki and Edwards (2017) define the leadership research timeframe as follows: traditional
leadership theories (1900s-late 1990s), current issues in leadership (1990s onwards), and critical leadership studies, which started taking shape in the mid-2000s. In the meantime, Turner and Baker (2018) give the following sequence of leadership theories appearance: trait-based theories, behavior theories, situational and contingency leadership theories, leader-follower models, newer leadership theories, collective models, and global leadership theories.
Within all these approaches, trait, behavioral, and situational theories of leadership are considered the classic and traditional approaches. They were developed sequentially, following one another, and each subsequent one entered into a polemic with the previous.
The trait-based approach is also occasionally referred to as the great man theory. It originates from Carlyle’s writings, which “argued that some men were born with inherent gifts that set them apart from others positioning them as intrinsic leaders” (Dugan, 2017, p. 97). This theory was also supported by Galton, who argued that there was a natural inequality between people due to differences in natural talents and abilities (Dugan, 2017).
In early studies devoted to psychodiagnostic, leadership was regarded as an individual trait inherent in a person from birth. Tests and questionnaires assessing leadership emerged simultaneously with the famous IQ measurement methods and were prompted by the necessity to evaluate the qualities of the militaries due to World War I (Lord et al., 2017). The researchers, based on the assumption that leadership is an innate quality, attempted to identify the leaders among other people. The approach to leadership as an inborn quality was only characteristic of the dawn of relevant research. Over time, this approach has been severely criticized and has given way to more flexible models of leadership genesis and development.
The behavioral approach took shape by the 1950s and was aimed at identifying the types of behavior that are associated with successful leadership. In the course of the studies, numerous questionnaires aimed at identifying leadership behaviors, such as the “Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire,” have been developed (Lord et al., 2017, p. 92). This approach suggested that leadership could be regarded as a certain behavioral skill. According to this principle, a person could become a leader through learning and training.
Behavioral theories were aimed at identifying a single effective way of managing and implied multiple attempts at practical implementation. According to Turner and Baker (2018), “these theories made a distinction between task- and people-oriented behaviors, as in the managerial grid dimensions of production and concern for people” (p. 481). The first category was focused on respecting employees’ needs and taking care of personnel development.
The second category was oriented to fulfilling production tasks at any cost, while sometimes ignoring the needs and interests of subordinates. This typology provided the basis for the classification of leadership styles (Dugan, 2017). For instance, an affiliative leader pays attention to employees’ needs and training, establishes a system of corporate rewards, and maintains high corporate morale. By contrast, an authoritative leader manages a company with results-oriented policy rules and sets up a classic subordinate management system. However, the attempt to derive the most effective management style was not successful. Many authors began to argue that behavioral theories do not take into account many other factors that influence effective leadership.
The situational approach argues that there are many other factors unrelated to the personality of the leader that affect his or her performance. Most situational models are based on the principle that the choice of an adequate leadership style is determined by analyzing the nature of the management situation and determining its key factors. According to Dugan (2017), “to accomplish goals, leaders must adapt their behaviors to meet followers’ needs under varying contextual conditions” (p. 130).
The situational approach is essential in practical terms as it points to the lack of a single universal style of leadership and shifts the research focus away from the personality of the leader. Theories of this approach select the main factor describing the interactions between the leader and the followers and suggest the best leadership behaviors for different situations. According to this concept, it is the organizational situation that is the key dependent variable that a leader should focus on when developing his or her management strategy.
Philosophical Assumptions and Principles
It should be emphasized that the consistent change in the conceptualization of leadership was indicative of trends that have taken place in the social sciences, and especially in psychology. It should be noted that there were considerable time intervals between their appearance. These three approaches not only describe the genesis and development of leadership in a person but also imply a certain understanding of the human personality.
It stands to mention that some researchers distinguish psychological and sociological approaches to leadership theories. Schedlitzki and Edwards (2017) state that psychologically driven theories constitute the main paradigm of leadership research and are mainly focused on the qualities and characteristics that make a particular person a leader. All traditional approaches, including trait, behavioral, and situational ones, fall into this category. Sociologically driven theories consider leadership to be a social product that exists only in discursive space. They have evolved and gained popularity over the past decades.
Each approach is constructed on the theoretical basis of comprehension of the human personality. According to Dugan (2017), “assumptions about the nature of leadership provide critical footings on which theory is built, undergirding and supporting ideas” (p. 28). The author identifies the following philosophical research paradigms, which are the basis for leadership theories: positivism, constructivism, critical theory, and postmodernism (Dugan, 2017).
Positivism is peculiar to classical science and asserts the existence of objective truths that can be discovered by the empirical method. At the same time, constructivism claims that reality depends on subjective perception and is found only in the interaction of individuals. The critical theory analyzes a multitude of constructed realities and power relations between them in order to reveal social injustice and to implement a value-based approach. Postmodernism completely denies the existence of objective truths and puts them in question, while the surrounding reality is considered chaotic, sophisticated and fragmented.
The trait-based approach is most consistent with the positivist framework and is primarily based on the philosophical assumption of determination of human personality by nature. Accordingly, the practical principle of these theories was that leadership cannot be developed and is entirely determined by natural coincidence. The behavioral approach is based on the assumption that leadership is not an inborn quality of specific individuals, but rather a consequence of certain effective behaviors.
The assessment of these behaviors in relation to the leadership is more in line with the constructivist framework, as it is strongly influenced by subjective perceptions. If the author views a particular style as effective, he/she associates it with effective leadership. If the author considered a specific style of behavior as effective, he or she associated it with successful leadership. The situational approach perfectly corresponds to the theoretical framework of postmodernism, as it focuses on the multitude of contextual factors external to the leader.
Accordingly, the basic principle of this approach is to shift attention from the leader to the environment. This logic assumed that the leader should be able to adequately assess the situation and flexibly vary his or her behavior depending on the organizational situation and the characteristics of the followers.
It should be emphasized that each of these approaches implies a certain perspective on human nature. The trait approach regards the individual as entirely determined by physiology, genetics, and other natural factors. Thus, human freedom is restricted by forces and preconditions that are beyond the individual’s control. The behavioral approach considers a human being as a result of personal development, which enhances his or her ability to change. The situational approach shifts the focus from the human personality to external factors, arguing that environmental transformations may be more significant than individual changes. Thus, different philosophical assumptions and principles lead to different deductions and conclusions.
Limitations and Strengths
The strengths of the trait approach are closely related to the advantages and unambiguousness of positivist science. If a trait would be objectively existing, congenital, and inherent in certain people as opposed to others, that could greatly facilitate their research. Surveys and experiments could assist in identifying leadership skills among people and their subsequent career guiding. However, representatives of this approach have not been able to demonstrate its validity convincingly.
Due to many inconsistencies, this approach was subjected to numerous and severe criticism. By the 1940s, researchers started to argue that there were very few leadership studies conducted in civilian non-military settings (Lord et al., 2017). The view was expressed that no convincing evidence had been found that there is a trait or set of qualities that distinguish one leader from the group. Moreover, social scientists emphasized that leadership behaviors are characterized by situational specificity and dependence on the group. Over time, neo-trait approaches emerged, and they claimed that traits were only a precondition for leadership development (Turner & Baker, 2018).
At present, no one doubts that leadership is determined not only by nature but also by social and individual factors. According to Dugan (2017), one of the main strengths of this approach has been to contribute to “disproving that leaders were simply born” (p. 99). It should also be noted that in fragmented research, the term “leader” could be understood as having different qualities and characteristics, which prevented theories of this approach from reaching uniform conclusions.
In general, behavioral theories of leadership justified the rationale for viewing leadership not as a unified and inborn trait, but as a set of acquired skills and behaviors. It should be emphasized that they had increased attention to effective learning. According to the trends of this approach, the challenge for the organization was not only to recognize an effective leader in the staff recruitment process but also to develop skills for successfully managing people. The principle of the ability to acquire leadership skills extended the practical application of leadership theories, for example, including the possibility of describing and implementing effective and ineffective leadership styles.
Nevertheless, this approach did not take into account many other factors related to the environment and the members of the group. Moreover, questionnaires were the primary research method under this approach. Several authors pointed to the “limitations of questionnaire measures of leader behavior, which often reflect not only the behavior of leaders but also the cognitive schema of raters” (Lord et al., 2017, p. 93).
Besides, various theories, analyzing leaders’ behaviors, were attempting to develop the most effective model. The key limitation of the behavioral approach and all its variations was the assumption that there is a single effective leadership style. Consideration of various situational factors would irreversibly lead to the rejection of this hypothesis.
Taking these factors into account was the most prominent merit of the situational approach. Situational theories, based on the inability to construct a single effective leadership methodology, offered many useful insights. They confirmed that the leader’s effectiveness depends mostly on the personal qualities of the subordinates, the methods of decision making, and the ability to influence the situation.
Nevertheless, similar to many postmodernist concepts, situational theories were characterized by multiple discrepancies and uncertainties, as it is impossible to consider all contextual factors. In addition, researchers note that “empirical evidence does not substantiate and, in some cases, refutes assumptions” (Dugan, 2017, p. 135). Finally, the situational approach has the least regard for the development of the personal qualities of a leader. Thus, these theories lack structure, evidence, uniformity, and orientation to the leader’s personality.
Contribution to Leadership Psychology and Organizational Psychology
Changes in scientific trends in psychology accompanied the development of leadership theories. The process of making the assumption was replaced by a refutation of specific hypotheses and thus enriched scientific ideas about the nature of leadership. Moreover, since the middle of the 20th century, leadership theories began to be actively implemented in companies’ activities, which significantly expanded the tools of organizational psychology.
The trait-based approach has developed in the earliest stages of leadership psychology. At that time, the natural sciences of the human being, and especially biology and physiology, played a decisive role in shaping the philosophical worldview. Trait theories claimed that leadership abilities are inherited “including capacities, motives, or patterns of behavior” (Turner & Baker, 2018, p. 481). This assumption is consistent with the theory of net selection and, to some extent, perceives leadership as a favorable adaptive evolutionary trait. The denial of this hypothesis was crucial for the creation of new theoretical concepts and determined a greater weight of psychology in the field of human sciences. In this sense, trait theories were of great historical significance to leadership psychology.
The contribution of the behavioral approach to leadership psychology is based on the fact that the leader’s qualities began to be considered in the context of learning and training. Consequently, researchers have begun to consider managers and executives as changing individuals and to study the mechanisms of these changes with the possibility of influencing them. Besides, behavioral theories started to contribute to the development of practical application of organizational psychology.
According to Schedlitzki and Edwards (2017), the psychological approach to leadership, including behavioral theories, has informed “organizational recruitment and career processes through formula for successful leadership” (p. 32). Within the framework of the behavioral approach, various leadership styles have been described, and leader behavior questionnaires have been developed. For instance, Fleishman identified “the primary leader behavior dimensions of Initiating Structure (e.g., clarifying roles, specifying rules and procedures) and Consideration (e.g., being friendly and supportive to followers)” (Lord et al., 2017, p. 92). Thus, leadership theories have gained a more flexible theoretical basis and a wider field of practical application.
Situational theories had a greater influence on organizational psychology than leadership psychology, as they emphasized the importance of contextual factors relative to the leader’s personality. The authors of the original situational theory of leadership were Hersey and Blanchard (Dugan, 2017, p. 131).
They claimed that “three learnable skills are involved in enacting situational leadership, including setting clear goals, diagnosing followers’ relative development related to assigned goals, and matching leader styles to followers’ developmental levels” (Dugan, 2017, p. 131). Accordingly, organizational psychology has dramatically improved the theoretical understanding of organizational processes that depend not only on the leader and has also revealed the significance of considering the skills and needs of workers.
A considerable number of revealed factors that had to be investigated, analyzed, and evaluated gave rise to a range of new theories of leadership. A meta-analysis of leadership theories in the period of 2013-2017 revealed a significant number of approaches. They include “transformational leadership, LMX theory, implicit leadership theories, ethical leadership, multilevel theory and methods in organizations, and leadership affect and emotions, with some discussions on the development of leadership” (Lee et al., 2019, p. 100). Thus, traditional approaches to leadership theories by exploring and refuting original assumptions have led to the emergence of many new theoretical models.
Behavioral Theory of Leadership in the Clinical Psychologist Profession
The profession of clinical a psychologist primarily involves the study of mental phenomena in terms of their relationship to diseases, as well as the provision of psychotherapeutic counseling. Behavioral leadership theories have the highest utility potential in relation to the activities of a clinical psychologist. They focus on the personality of the leader and reveal the qualities associated with leadership. This approach is most suitable for psychological counseling, both personal and group. The behavioral approach has developed the necessary tools to assess leadership skills, styles, and behaviors that have been mentioned above.
Moreover, researchers and authors have designed several practical methods for developing leadership skills that may be useful to clinical psychologists. Researchers note that they include “interpersonal measures of emergent leadership such as the leaderless group discussion” and “multimethod approaches adopted in assessment centers that are still used today to assess leadership potential and ability” (Lord et al., 2017, p. 92).
These instruments can be useful in working with a large number of psychotherapeutic cases. A large number of clients turn to a psychologist to deal with difficulties in learning new skills. If they need to improve their leadership abilities, these psychodiagnostic and theoretical tools, as well as methods and techniques, will be extremely useful.
Furthermore, a description of leadership styles and instructions for their use can help me structure my work with clients in case they need mentoring. For instance, the traits of an affiliative leader will help to establish psychotherapeutic contact and gain a person’s favor. At the same time, the qualities of a coaching leader are necessary to instruct the client in new patterns of behavior and ways of thinking. Thus, research and practical tools developed within a behavioral approach can be useful to a clinical psychologist in a variety of situations.
Conclusion
It should be noted that trait, behavioral, and situational approaches to leadership theories considered the nature of leadership qualities differently and implied a distinct perspective on human nature. The trait approach took shape at the very beginning of the twentieth century, tended to be positivistic, and was subsequently refuted. Behavioral theories attempted to define the most effective leadership style, developed the concept of leadership styles, and numerous practical tools for measuring and developing leadership that are still applied in organizational psychology. The situational approach shifted the focus of research from the leader’s personality to contextual factors and assumed that the effectiveness of leadership qualities depends on them.
References
Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Lee, Y. D., Chen, P. C., & Su, C. L. (2019). The evolution of the leadership theories and the analysis of new research trends. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 12(3), 88-104.
Lord, R. G., Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., Avolio, B. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2017). Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 434-451.
Schedlitzki, D., & Edwards, G. (2017). Studying leadership: Traditional and critical approaches. Washington, DC: Sage.
Turner, J. R., & Baker, R. (2018). A review of leadership theories: Identifying a lack of growth in the HRD leadership domain. European Journal of Training and Development, 42(7/8), 470-498.