Week 2 - Leadership Theories & Models – Classical Approaches (Trait, Behavioural, Contingency)

Acknowledgement of Country

• RMIT University recognises that it operates on the unceded lands of the Woi wurrung and Boon wurrung peoples of the eastern Kulin Nation.
• Pays respect to Ancestors and Elders, past and present, as well as Traditional Custodians of lands and waters across Australia.

Module Learning Outcomes (MLOs)

• MLO 1 – Critical Analysis & Application
  • Critically analyse and apply leadership theories/models to varied organisational situations.
  • Research and relate to current leadership challenges in contemporary workplaces.
• MLO 2 – Global Competence & Ethics
  • Apply global leadership competencies by focusing on people, leveraging business knowledge and developing cultural & emotional intelligence (EI).
  • Emphasise ethical and socially responsible leadership practice.
• MLO 3 – Strategic Evaluation & Communication
  • Evaluate complex strategies, processes and issues.
  • Communicate and apply key leadership principles to meet diverse stakeholder needs.

Classical Approaches to Leadership (Topic Scope)

• Focuses on “classical” strands of leadership research.
• Examines personal characteristics (traits) and observable behaviours (behavioural) that underpin leadership effectiveness.
• Explores how situational variables determine which traits/behaviours work best (contingency approach).

Evolution of the Three Classical Approaches

Trait Approach – “Great-Man” Theory

• Pioneering stream of leadership research (late $19^{\text{th}}$ C. → $\text{late 1940s}$).
• Assumption: Effective leaders are born with inherent qualities differentiating them from non-leaders.
• Initiated the systematic search for universal traits – intelligence, courage, self-confidence, etc.

Landmark Trait Lists (Chronological)

• Stogdill (1948): Intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility, initiative, persistence, self-confidence, sociability.
• Mann (1959): Masculinity, adjustment, dominance, conservatism.
• Stogdill (1974): Achievement, persistence, insight, initiative, tolerance, influence, sociability.
• Lord et al. (1986): Intelligence, masculinity, dominance.
• Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991): Drive, motivation, integrity, cognitive ability, task knowledge, self-confidence.
• Zaccaro, Kemp & Bader (2017): Extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness, agreeableness, social intelligence, self-monitoring, EI, problem solving.

Five-Factor Personality Model ("Big 5") & Leadership

• $\textbf{Extraversion}$ – sociability/energy; consistently strongest correlate of leader emergence.
• $\textbf{Conscientiousness}$ – dependability, discipline.
• $\textbf{Openness}$ – curiosity, intellect, creativity.
• $\textbf{Neuroticism}$ – tendency toward anxiety; negative relationship with leader effectiveness.
• $\textbf{Agreeableness}$ – cooperativeness, empathy; modest but positive link.

Emotional Intelligence (EI)

• Intersection of affective (emotion) & cognitive (thought) domains.
• Four core abilities (Salovey & Mayer) – perceiving, using, understanding, managing emotions.
• RMIT “Trusted” 5-Dimensional EI Model
  1. Self-Awareness – recognise one’s emotions.
  2. Self-Regulation – control impulses/behaviour; stay calm.
  3. Motivation – passion beyond extrinsic rewards.
  4. Empathy – sense unspoken feelings of others.
  5. Social Skill – build relationships & support networks.
• EI is trainable, not fixed.

Trait Approach – Strengths vs. Criticisms

• Strengths
  • Intuitively appealing (“leaders look different”).
  • Extensive empirical base spanning a century.
  • Offers benchmarks for leadership selection & development.
• Criticisms
  • No conclusive or exhaustive trait list.
  • Ignores situational influence on trait utility.
  • Highly subjective importance weighting.
  • Weak linkage between traits and specific leadership outcomes.
  • Limited direct guidance for training (traits may be innate).

Behavioural Approach

• Shifted focus from traits to observable actions – what leaders do can be measured & taught.

Two Core Behavioural Categories

1. Task-Oriented (Initiating Structure) – clarifying roles, setting goals, defining standards, monitoring.
2. Relations-Oriented (Consideration) – building trust, showing concern, supporting, recognising.

Blake & Mouton’s Leadership Grid

• Axes: Concern for Production (task) vs. Concern for People (relations) – scored $0\rightarrow9$ each.
• Produces 5 archetypal styles:
  • $\mathbf{9{,}1}$ Authority-Compliance – high task/low people.
  • $\mathbf{1{,}9}$ Country Club – high people/low task.
  • $\mathbf{5{,}5}$ Middle-of-the-Road – moderate on both.
  • $\mathbf{1{,}1}$ Impoverished – low on both; laissez-faire.
  • $\mathbf{9{,}9}$ Team – high on both; ideal synergy.
• Emphasises that effective leadership balances task achievement and human wellbeing.

Integrated Model of Leadership Behaviour (IMoLB) – Behrendt et al. 2017

• Extends Yukl’s taxonomy, integrating task & relation behaviours with change/innovation and external networking/mobilising.
• Suggests task behaviours support envisioning change & driving learning; relation behaviours support external adaptability via networks.
• Still early-stage: no broad empirical testing yet.

Behavioural Approach – Strengths vs. Criticisms

• Strengths
  • Marked paradigm shift – behaviours are observable, learnable.
  • Repeated validation; underscores dual importance of task & relationship.
  • Practical self-diagnostic tools for leaders (e.g., Grid questionnaires).
• Criticisms
  • Mixed evidence linking styles to performance outcomes.
  • Followers may interpret identical behaviour differently.
  • Lacks a universally optimum style; prescriptive power limited.

Contingency & Situational Approaches

• Core premise: “No one best way.” Effectiveness depends on matching leadership style to situational variables (task, team maturity, environment).

Hersey–Blanchard Situational Leadership® (SLII®)

• Defines leadership along two behavioural dimensions:

1. Directive Behaviours (Task Guidance) – setting goals, clarifying roles, monitoring.
2. Supportive Behaviours (Relational Support) – listening, praising, involving, coaching.

• Competence = skill mastery; Commitment = motivation/confidence.
• Four categories:
  • D1 / R1: Low competence, high commitment (enthusiastic beginner).
  • D2 / R2: Some competence, low commitment (disillusioned learner).
  • D3 / R3: Moderate–high competence, variable commitment (capable but cautious performer).
  • D4 / R4: High competence, high commitment (self-reliant achiever).
• Matching Principle:
  • $S1 \leftrightarrow D1$
  • $S2 \leftrightarrow D2$
  • $S3 \leftrightarrow D3$
  • $S4 \leftrightarrow D4$
    (i.e., more directive when followers are less competent, more delegative when they are competent & committed.)

SLII – Strengths vs. Criticisms

• Strengths
  • Highly popular in corporate training (including Fortune 500).
  • Simple, actionable; emphasises leader flexibility & follower development.
  • Promotes individualised, coaching-oriented mindset.
• Criticisms
  • Limited peer-reviewed evidence; weak empirical support for style–outcome match.
  • Constructs of competence & commitment sometimes ambiguous; commitment fluctuates.
  • Neglects demographic/cultural moderators; unclear for heterogeneous groups.
  • Questionnaires often steer respondents toward predefined solutions (method bias).

Consolidated Take-Aways

• Leadership scholarship evolved from “Who leaders are” → “What leaders do” → “Which leader behaviours fit which situations.”
• Traits such as confidence, intelligence, EI and integrity set foundational potential but do not guarantee effectiveness.
• Behaviours (task & relationship) are observable and trainable; success often hinges on balancing both.
• Contextual fit is critical: the same behaviour may succeed or fail depending on follower readiness, task complexity, or cultural expectations.
• Modern practice blends all three: assess personal strengths, cultivate adaptive behaviours, diagnose situational needs.

Key References (as cited in lecture)

• Zaccaro (2007) – Trait-based perspectives.
• Bartone et al. (2009) – Big 5 & hardiness.
• Judge et al. (2002) – Meta-analysis on personality & leadership.
• Blanchard (1985); Blanchard, Zigarmi & Nelson (1993) – Situational Leadership®.
• Yukl (2012) – Synthesis on effective leader behaviour.
• Multiple HBR articles on EI & leadership tensions (Ovans 2015; Goleman 2020; Jordan et al. 2020; etc.).