Academic Leadership: The Online Journal

Volume 7 Article 10
Issue 3 Summer 2009

7-1-2009

Four Leadership Theories Addressing Contemporary Leadership

Issues as the Theories Relate to the Scholarship, Practice, and
Leadership Model
Heidi Gregory-Mina

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/alj

Part of the Educational Leadership Commons, Higher Education Commons, and the Teacher
Education and Professional Development Commons

Recommended Citation
Gregory-Mina, Heidi (2009) "Four Leadership Theories Addressing Contemporary Leadership Issues as
the Theories Relate to the Scholarship, Practice, and Leadership Model," Academic Leadership: The Online
Journal: Vol. 7 : Iss. 3 , Article 10.
Available at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/alj/vol7/iss3/10

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Peer-Reviewed Journals at FHSU Scholars Repository.
It has been accepted for inclusion in Academic Leadership: The Online Journal by an authorized editor of FHSU
Scholars Repository.
 academicleadership.org http://w w w .academicleadership.org/349/four_leadership_theories
_addressing_contemporary_leadership_issues_as_the_theories_r
elate_to_the_scholarship_practice_and_leadership_model/

Academic Leadership Journal

Introduction

The concept of leadership has been around for centuries beginning with Plato’s belief that leaders are
created based on his or her class position, whereas, current leaders are created based on his or her
relationships with other individuals. In August 1994, 54 researchers from 38 countries gathered for the
first GLOBE research conference, and during this conference the researchers came to a consensus on
the universal definition of leadership (House, Javidan, & Dorfman, 2001): the ability of an individual to
influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the
organizations of which they are members. A leader’s upbringing, life experiences, and daily
interactions define his or her leadership style. The difference between a good leader and a great
leader is his or her ability to adapt to change (Collins, 2001). Good leaders tend to follow his or her
leadership plans even when the leadership plan is not working, but a great leader will adjust his or her
leadership plans accordingly. Organizations are currently concerned with a lack of leadership talent
(McShane & Glinow, 2005).

Purpose

A social network has to be present for any leadership theory to work, because “relationships serve as
conduits for information flow and influence processes” (Bono, 2005, p. 5). For a leader to build a social
network the leader needs to gain trust, which is accomplished by having a solid value system, which
aligns to his or her leadership style. A leader also needs to be socio-centric rather than self-centric so
they can lead ethically because failure to lead ethically will have a greater chance of resulting in a
leader’s demise.

Leaders have more issues to contend with today than 30 years ago, which is partly due to accelerated
innovation and informatics. Leaders value systems are constantly tested within our society “through the
exercise of power” (Knights & O’Leary, 2006, p. 132). Power struggles have caused “competitive
pursuit of individual’s success transcending any moral obligation” leading leaders to amoral decisions
(Knights & O’Leary, 2006, p. 132). A direct correlation exists between innovation and knowledge
managers and effective leaders will possess skills in both areas. Accelerated change in innovation and
informatics causes leaders to readapt leadership styles continuously to manage the changing
environment. Leaders need to understand his or her leadership style and how their leadership style
impacts the scholarship, practice, and leadership model because leaders need to see emerging
opportunities before becoming manifest in the marketplace (Crawford, 2005, p. 5).

Leadership has evolved over the centuries and our concepts of effective leadership have changed
(McShane & Glinow, 2005). “Given the increased globalization of industrial organizations and
increased interdependencies among nations, the need for better understanding of cultural influences on
leadership and organizational practices has never been greater “(House, Javidan, & Dorfman, 2001, p.
489). Previous control and command leadership styles are no longer effective in expanding global
organizations, but further discussion is needed to determine effective leadership styles for the future
(McShane & Glinow, 2005). The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast transformational,
transactional, charismatic, and contingent leadership theories and to determine similarities and
differences between these theories in able to determine their future effectiveness. Additionally this
paper looks at four leadership styles in term of how each address the following contemporary
leadership issues: knowledge management, informatics / innovations and rapid change, and ethics.

Literature Review

According to McShane and Glinow (2005) due to the complexity of leadership it is broken into five
different perspectives: competency, behavioral, contingency, transformational, and implicit.
Transactional, transformational, charismatic and contingent leadership styles were chosen based on
these five perspectives. Fiedler’s contingency model was the primary sub focus of contingent
leadership, because it is the earliest contingency theory of leadership. Transactional leadership was
chosen because the behavioral and contingent perspectives adopt the transactional style.
Transformational leadership was chosen because organizations need both transactional and
transformational leadership styles to be efficient. “Transactional leadership improves organizational
efficiency, whereas, transformational leadership steers companies onto a better course of action”
(McShane & Glinow, 2005, p. 57). Lastly, charismatic leadership was chosen because of the close
correlation charismatic leadership has with transformational leadership. Some researchers believe
charismatic leadership is a characteristic or extension of transformational leadership, whereas, other
researchers do see the two leadership styles as distinct. “Charisma is a personal trait that provides
referent power over followers, whereas transformational leadership is a set of behaviors…used to lead
the change process…it is…possible to be a transformational leader without being charismatic”
(McShane & Glinow, 2005, pp. 58-9). For the purpose of this paper the two leadership styles are being
used as two distinct styles but with the recognition of some overlapping characteristics.

Leadership holds organizations together while moving organizations forward through the creation of a
social structure of shared values (Hood, 2003, p. 3). The four major leadership theories being
addressed are: (1) Transformational Leadership Theory, (2) Transactional Leadership Theory, (3)
Charismatic Leadership Theory, and (4) Fiedler’s Contingency Theory. Transactional Leadership
encourages analytical problem solving, which encourages followers to become knowledge seekers
(Jogulu & Wood, 2006, p. 243). Transformational Leadership empowers others to become
freethinking, independent individuals capable of exercising leadership (Kinkead, n.d., p. 6). Judge
(2004) believes transformational leadership adds to transactional leadership through the augmentation
effect making better leaders (p. 756). Without transactional leadership, transformational leadership
would not be possible because transformational leadership is an extension of transactional leadership
(Judge, 2004, p. 756). Madzar (2001) believes transformational and transactional leadership are two
distinct leadership theories, but a single leader can possess traits from both theories (p. 223).

Fiedler and House (1968) describe charismatic leadership as “articulating a vision and mission, and
creating and maintaining a positive image in the mind of followers” (p. 78). According to Bedell, Hunter,
Angie, and Vert (2006), a link exists between transformational and charismatic leadership because
both leadership theories emerge from a single pathway (p. 2). Aaltio-Marjosola and Takala (2000)
believe followers who accept charismatic leadership are displaying signs of weakness and
subordination. Followers accept charismatic leaders because they are in distress and believe the
leader is extraordinarily qualified (p. 147). According to Aaltio-Marjosola and Takala (2000)
charismatic leaders are formed through television, radio, and newspapers, which is a concern due to
the inaccuracies portrayed by the news media (p. 149). Al Gore highlights these inaccuracies in his film
entitled An Inconvenient Truth by comparing the accuracy of peer–reviewed journals with mass media.
He found a zero percent variation among scientists’ conclusions in peer-reviewed journals but a 65%
variation among conclusions in mass media (Gore, 2006).

Contingency leadership is heavily dependent on the situation, and situations play an important role with
regard to the tasks and leaders (University of Phoenix, 2007). Factors heavily influencing contingent
leadership are outside the organization rather than internal variables (McFadden, Eakin, Beck-Frazier,
& McGlone, 2005, p. 3). Leader’s effectiveness is directly linked to motivational disposition.
“Motivational disposition is defined as the degree to which the leader is either task or relationship
oriented” (Miller, Butler, & Cosentino, 2004, p. 362). Fiedler’s Contingency Leadership Theory uses the
least preferred coworker scale (LPC) to understand a leader’s behavior by asking the leader to rate his
or her “least preferred coworker: on a set of bipolar adjective scale” (McFadden, Eakin, Beck-Frazier,
& McGlone, 2005, p. 3). Leaders providing negative assessments are designated task-oriented and
those providing positive assessments are designated relations-oriented. Task-oriented individuals
lead effectively under any situation, whereas relations-oriented individuals only lead effectively under
favorable situations (Miller, Butler, & Consentino, 2004, p. 363).

Framework

The framework for this paper is the scholarship, practice, and

leadership model, which is an appropriate framework for
studying leadership theories in relationship to contemporary
leadership issues, because of the complex individual and group
dynamics leader’s face today. “Leaders today must shape
organizational culture, communicate value systems, model
ethical behavior, engage and inspire followers, and manage
diversity” (University of Phoenix, 2007, para. 2). The
contemporary leadership issues addressed in this paper were
chosen based on these organizational goals. For a leader to
achieve these organizational goals they need to integrate
scholarship and practice, which can be accomplished by
obtaining a theoretical understanding of core leadership principles and applying this understanding
through practice. When a leader has been successful in integrating the three aspects of the model they
will be able to lead organizations through difficult and challenging times. The three aspects of the model
bridge the academic world with the professional world by merging theoretical knowledge with
application-based knowledge to create leaders with both scholar and practitioner knowledge (Winter &
Griffiths, 2000).

Discussion

Scholarship – Knowledge Management

A leader is responsible for knowledge management,

knowledge dissemination, and encouraging followers to seek
new knowledge. Crawford (2005) suggests leaders need to
focus on establishing a culture, which respects knowledge,
provides proper training to management, and develops a
knowledge infrastructure and support system (p. 5).
Transformational leaders build a learning infrastructure through
three critical areas: committed service, charisma, and
intellectual stimulation (Kinkead, n.d., p. 3). Some researchers
see charisma as a seperate leadership theory, but according
to Bono (2005) charismatic leadership is an element of transformational leadership (p. 4). However,
Kark and Dijk (2007) see charismatic leadership as a separate leadership theory and believe
charismatic leaders build a learning infrastructure through four behaviors: “(1) communicating high
performance expectations, (2) exhibiting confidence in followers’ ability to reach goals, (3) taking
calculated risks that oppose the status quo, and (4) articulating a value based vision of the future” (p.
501). Transactional leaders build a learning infrastructure through contingent reward. Transactional
leaders using contingent reward, “reward followers for attaining designated performance levels,” which
encourage followers to be knowledge workers (Hood, 2003, p. 14). However, according to Kanungo
(2001) transactional leaders use control strategies and by using control strategies transactional
leaders prohibit followers any opportunity for autonomy, self-determination, and self-development (p. 6).
Followers are gaining knowledge to serve the interests of all parties, rather than for individual self-
improvement and advancement. Contingency leadership theory builds a knowledge support system
through second-guessing. Contingency leaders change leadership style to “suit circumstances instead
of having systems that absorb outside pressures” (Davis, 2007, p. 30).

The development of knowledge skills is “essential to two core business processes: problem solving
and strategic planning” (Zabel, 2004, p.19). The concept of knowledge management has been around
for centuries but only recently defined due to rapid innovation changes. The OECD defines knowledge
management as “the need for continuous learning of both codified information and the competencies to
use this information” (O’Sullivan, 2002, p. 8). The Labor’s Knowledge Nation Report expands on this by
stating that knowledge management “is the ability to use knowledge to transform society, the economy,
and the environment (O’Sullivan, 2002, p. 8). Knowledge management is a true paradigm shift for most
organizations. According to Crawford (2005) knowledge management is about making tacit knowledge
more accessible (p. 5). “Tacit knowledge is unarticulated knowledge in a person’s head that is often
difficult to describe and transfer” (p. 4). Leaders are responsible for “connecting people to people to
enable them to share what expertise and knowledge they have at the moment” (p. 14).

Dissemination of knowledge is critical for inspiring visionary thinking and developing future leaders.
Hollis (2007) believes this is accomplished with the “leader-as teacher model” (p. 85). The leader “will
need to understand the way the learner learns, the way they value knowledge, and the stages they go
through in knowledge comprehension and management” (University of Phoenix, 2007, para. 1).
Additionally, leaders need to understand how knowledge is valued so they will know “how the learners
will respond to various learning opportunities” (University of Phoenix, 2007, para. 5).

Practice – Innovations and Rapid Change

Technology has brought new innovations, which are helping to grow

globalization on both an economic and social level. Innovation is a
characteristic of knowledge managers and according to Crawford
(2005) transformational leaders are significantly more innovative than
transactional leaders (p. 13). However, with theseadvancements
obsolescence in the workplace has increased creating a need for
continuous flexibility and leader adaptability. Organizations
experiencing advancements are continuously moving and a
charismatic leader will be able to handle the change efficiently
(Aalitio-Marjosola & Takala, 2000, p. 147). In contrast, Contingency
leadership is not efficient in atmospheres of accelerated change because leaders do not change his or
her style of leadership but rather place themselves into positions matching his or her leadership style
(McFadden, Eakin, Beck-Frazier, & McGlone, 2005, p. 3). Changing leaders during times of
accelerated change causes turmoil within an organization, because adaptability will be slowed
increasing the risk of losing market share.

Leaders need to recognize the impact technological change has on followers and their ability to
manage proactively. “Informatics/Innovations effect the process of leadership by speeding up the
inputs, requiring faster and more personal transformation of the products, all in a business climate that
builds competition through ‘response time’ to customer demands” (Crawford, 2005, p.1). Leaders
need to adapt to rapid changes because “a change in one necessitates a change in the other” (p. 10).
The process of change has three basic stages: “unfreezing, changing, and re-freezing. This view draws
heavily on Kurt Lewin’s adoption of the systems concept of homeostasis or dynamic stability” (Nickols,
2004, para. 12). Contingency leaders cannot transcend Nickols stages quickly because contingent
leadership style leaves little room for “dynamism, proactivity, innovation, or enterprise” (Davis, 2007, p.
30). Contingency leaders see the world in a “linear and predictable fashion” catching them off guard
when rapid change happens (p. 30). Leaders need to transcend short-term goals and envision future
changes rapidly to remain competitive.

Leadership – Ethics

Organizations today put pressure on leaders to produce short-term gains with little consideration to
long-term implications. These pressures are due to risks relating to health and the environment, which
organizations are rarely uninvolved in making business ethics an area of greater interest (Knights &
O’Leary, 2006, p. 125). Leaders can “conduct a full cost-benefit analysis” (Popejoy & Delaney, 2004, p.
12) to determine if the long-term gains justify short-term fixes. Once a leader determines how the
organization should proceed he or she needs to determine if the decision is ethical. A leader can
determine this by aligning his or her choices with core values, and leaders should find “dichotomy
between the values they recognize as important and those they actually demonstrate” (Popejoy &
Delaney, 2004, p. 12). Determining if the decision is ethical is important because decisions filter
throughout the organization affecting the organizational culture. In addition, congruity between what the
leader states and does is critical to maintaining trustworthiness. “A level of trust in an organization
leads to commitment and committed employees meet strategic goals” (p. 12). When an organization
experiences higher levels of motivation transformational leadership has occurred (Krishnan, 2001, p.
1).

In addition, “good ethics is good business because it build brands, draws customers, and saves money
in the long run” (Verschoor, 2006, p. 3). A delicate mixture of transformational and transactional
leadership is necessary to maintain the ethical dimensions of leadership (Kinkead, n.d., p. 5).
However, transactional leaders give followers something they want in order to obtain goals, which
cause followers to perform actions they may find unethical (Judge, 2004, p. 755). In contrast the
leadership actions of transformational leaders are unrelated to the leaders’ unethical practices: “a
person could be seen as being highly transformational despite” unethical behaviors (Banerji &
Krishnan, 2000, p. 7). According to Banerji and Krishnan (2000) charismatic leaders may not have
ethical dispositions (pg 6). However, Banerji and Krishnan(2000) state the level of unethical decisions
by a leader is outside the scope of a charismatic leader (p. 6). “Charismatic leadership is not
significantly correlated to any of the dimensions of ethics (p. 6). Kark and Dijk (2007) define
charismatic leadership as “transforming the values and priorities of followers and motivating them to
perform beyond their expectations” (p. 501). Howell and Shamir (2005) believe charismatic leadership
promotes a heroic stereotype were the leader is seen as omnipotent (p. 96). Followers who idolize
leaders tend to be persuaded beyond their belief system regardless of the ethical nature.

Corporate scandals are on the rise over the last century due to unethical leadership practices. Failure
to lead ethically “derives from the pre-occupations with the self that drives individuals to seek wealth,
fame, and success regardless of moral considerations” (Knights & O’Leary, 2006, p. 126).
Transformational leaders are concerned with the “we” while transactional leaders are concerned with
the “self.” The transactional leader “puts high value on” complete autonomy and organizational goals
are viewed as pragmatic (Kanungo, 2001, p. 262). In contrast, transformational leaders put more value
on “meeting social obligations” and view them as being idealistic (p. 262). The interests and motives of
transactional leaders are “self-centric” which means transactional leaders have a greater tendency to
lead unethically (p. 262). Whereas, Transformational leaders are “socio-centric” which means
transformational leaders have a greater tendency to lead ethically (p. 262).

Conclusion and Future Direction

This paper used the scholarship, practice, and leadership model to determine the future effectiveness
of transformational, transactional, contingent, and charismatic leadership styles through knowledge
management, informatics / innovations and rapid change, and ethics. Organizations today are
concerned with a lack of leadership talent, which is why there is a need for creating a bridge between
theoretical and application-based knowledge. Due to increased globalization and innovation the
command and control leadership style of the future will no longer suffice, but rather a hybrid of
leadership styles blending the best characteristics will be necessary. In addition leaders need to be
coaches to help followers learn and gain autonomy. Learning how followers learn will be necessary for
a successful leader when disseminating information. Leaders will need to learn continuously, refine,
and lead: a continuous 360-degree cycle.

Future research, analyzing other leadership styles is necessary to see how their effectiveness relates in
relation to these four leadership styles. Also, interviewing and surveying employees in corporate
organizations can help to identify needed characteristics of today’s leaders. Once these characteristics
are identified then they can be tested through case studies to see if the desired characteristics are
effective in today’s global world. Lastly, testing to see if generational differences are a driving force
behind desired leadership styles is another possible venue.

**This article was modified from a presentation at the Society for Advancement of Management
International Business Conference in Arlington, VA, April, 2008.
International Business Conference in Arlington, VA, April, 2008.

References

Aaltio-Marjosola, I., & Takala, T. (2000). Charismatic Leadership, manipulation and the complexity of
organizational life. Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today, 12(4), 146-158.

Banerji, P., & Krishnan, V. (2000). Ethical preferences of transformational leaders: an empirical
investigation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(8).

Bedell, K., Hunter, S., Angie, A., & Vert, A. (2006). A historiometric examination of Machiavellianism
and a new taxonomy of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(4), 50-73.

Bono, J., & Anderson, M. (2005). The Advice and Influence Networks of Transformational Leaders.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6). 1306-1314.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. New York:
Harper Press.

Crawford, C. (2005). Effects of transformational leadership and organizational position on knowledge

management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(6), 6-17.

Davis, P. (2007). Too Busy Managing to Lead? Pubic Management, 89(1), 28-32.

de Jong, J., & Hartog, D. (2007). How leaders’ influence employees’ innovative behaviour. European
Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41-64.

Gore, A. (Producer). (2006). An Inconvenient Truth. [DVD]. Paramount.

Hollis, R. (2007). Leader-as-Teacher: A Model for Executive Development Success. Organization

Development Journal, 25(2), 85-90.

Hood, J. (2003). The relationship of leadership style and CEO values to ethical practices in
organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4).

Howell, J., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process:
relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96-112.

Jogulu, U., & Wood, G. (2006). The role of leadership theory in raising the profile of women in
management. Equal Opportunities International, 25(4), 236-250.

Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test
of their Relative Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 755-768.

Kanungo, R. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 257-265.

Kark, R., & van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to Lead, Motivation to Follow: The role of the self-regulatory
focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-528.
Kinkead, J. (n.d.). Transformational Leadership: A Practice Needed for First-Year Success. Dalton
State College. 1-14.

Knights, D. & O’Leary, M. (2006). Leadership, Ethics and Responsibility to the Other. Journal of
Business Ethics, 67, 125-137.

Krishnan, V. (2001). Value systems of transformational leaders. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 22(3).

Madzar, S. (2001). Subordinates’ information inquiry: Exploring the effect of perceived leadership style
and individual differences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 221-232.

McFadden, C., Eakin, R., Beck-Frazier, S., & McGlone, J. (2005). Major approaches to the study of
leadership. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(2), 71-76.

McShane, S. L., & Glinow, M. V. (2005). Organizational behavior: Emerging realities for the workplace
revolution (3rd ed.). New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Miller, R., Butler, J., & Cosentino, C. (2004). Followership effectiveness: an extension of Fiedler’s
contingency model. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 362-368.

Nickols, F. (2004). Change Management 101: A Primer. Distance Consulting, Retrieved on 7/3/07
from http://home.att.net/~nickols/change.htm.

O’Sullivan, C. (2002). Is Information literacy relevant in the real world? Reference Services Review,
30(1), 7-14.

Popejoy, B., & Delany, T. (2004). A Question of Leadership. Leadership in Action, 24(2), 12-13.

University of Phoenix. (2007). LDR/711 lecture: Week two, Knowledge Dissemination, University of
Phoenix. Retrieved on 7/9/07 from the University of Phoenix LDR/711 Classroom Forum website.

University of Phoenix. (2007). LDR/711 lecture: Week two, Leadership Taxonomy, University of
Phoenix. Retrieved on 7/9/07 from the University of Phoenix LDR/711 Classroom Forum website.

University of Phoenix. (2007). LDR/711 lecture: Week one, Scholarship, Practice and Leadership.
University of Phoenix. Retrieved on 6/30/07 from the University of Phoenix LDR/711 Classroom Forum
website.

Verschoor, C. (2006). Strong ethics is a critical quality of leadership. Strategic Finance, 19-21.

Winter, R., & Griffiths, M. (2000). The academic qualities of practice: What are the criteria for a
practice-based PhD? Studies in Higher Education, 25, 1-13.

Yun, S., Cox, J., & Sims, H. (2006). The forgotten follower: a contingency model of leadership and
follower self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 374-388.

Zabel, D. (2004). A Reaction to “Information Literacy and Higher Education”. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 30(1), 17-21.
VN:R_U [1.9.11_1134]