Chapter V: Leadership Styles

“Oh Lord, Please Fix Our Leaders, This time!” (Subordinates Prayer)

Organizations reflect the attitude of those that lead them!

The following leadership models are an explanation and comparison of Situational Model, Trait Theory; Leader-Member Exchange Theory; and Transformational Style (TLS). First, each model in comparison with the other and second, the discussion of TLS is examined through the lens of a police executive and is relative to the policing community. However, not restricted to the policing profession. Now, Mr. President, take notice of the following! The section involves a brief analogy, contrasting each as well as characteristics of similar models, the TLS style as it impacts policing and realizes the transformational style/model as a superior model albeit interdependent of other styles.

Before we move on any further it is important to assert the literary direction of this text. First, the majority of script will surround four easy criteria to remember that will make leadership easily understood and manageable, and they are drink; swear; steal; and lie. Second, these are incorporated in the authentic transformational style (ATS). Each of these points will be provided suitable discussion in subsequent chapters. However, it is important to at least provide the foundation for the selection of the authentic transformational style over countless others. The concise answer is that all other styles are encompassed within the ATS.

Trait Theory

Leadership based on individual attributes is known as the “trait theory of leadership.” The trait theory finds it correlates with the “Great Man Theory” evolving from studies of political, military, and great social leaders of the time (Northouse, 2010). The “Great Man Theory” a predecessor to Trait Theory relied on two main assumptions: Leaders are born with attributes lending one to leadership, and great men may call upon these attributes at any time required to lead (Villanova University). This style was highly touted in the 19th Century.

This style did not take into consideration what kind of leadership is required or desired for a given situation, but rather concentrates specifically on the leader alone. The Trait Theory emphasizes a specific profile and asserts the organization will run more efficiently if the leader possesses the profile (Ortmeier & Meese, 2010).

There exists a multitude of research supporting this style pointing to the important role of various personality traits in the leadership process and provides for the leader his/her strengths and weaknesses (Northouse, 2010). A major criticism of the Trait Theory is that it fails to take situations into account and is not useful for training and developing leaders (Stogdill, 1948). Despite the criticisms it does provide information about the leader, and although the list of traits desired is infinite, the research does not point to specific traits in a limited fashion. The traits can be applied to all individuals in any organizations.

The trait approach of leadership asserts an individual possesses certain traits establishing him/her a better leader. The emphasis is on the leader, and organizations can test leaders before they are hired to determine which of the leadership traits they possess. In addition, leaders can also test themselves to determine if they have traits that are expected of leaders. Therefore, by this profile leadership is not about development or training per se, rather it is about finding leaders that already possess the desired profile such as intelligent, self-confident, determined, social and ethical in addition to emotionally intelligent and extroverted.

Not unlike the style approach it fails to find a universal style of leadership that could be effective in most situations, and failing to identify the definite personal characteristics of leaders the style approach is unable to identify a universal set of behaviors associated with effective leadership (Northouse, 2010). It is my experience that police agencies in constant flux through political intervention or constant change of the police leader due to change in municipal mayor or manager will more often than not rely on trait exploration of leaders, generally due to the lack of expertise. An exception to this opinion is the employment of professional Human Resource personnel or elicit a Management firm to consult, and advertise, interview and recommend to the municipal management the person for the tasks at hand.

In agencies that subscribe to the trait approach, leadership development and training is likely not to be the focus since they believe in some ways that leaders are born. Trait theory was particularly popular during the reign of the industrial revolution or military model of policing established for police by Sir Robert Peel. Peel is known as the Father of Modern Policing and in 1829 was successful in gaining Parliament support for the “London Metropolitan Police Act” (Fagin, 2007). Police were to be formed along military lines with established boundaries of patrol and supervision soon to become the bureaucratic or hierarchical pyramids modern policing have come to rely on   as a management process with getting the message (solely that of the leader downward with little to no need to receive feedback (Fagin, 2007; Gardner, 1990; and Roberg, Novak & Cordner, 2009).

Leader-Member Exchange

The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory is replete with workable substitutes to the traditional leadership approaches focused on trait and behaviors (Northouse, 2010). Computation of over 25 years of research involving LMX findings remain enthusiastic, although there remains ambiguity about the nature of the concept, measuring the concept while in action, and its relationships with other organizational variables (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) classified the evolution of LMX theory into four stages: “Work socialization and vertical dyad linkage where the focus was on the discovery of differential dyads (i.e., in-groups and out-groups); LMX where the focus was on the relationship quality and its outcomes. A prescriptive approach to dyadic partnership building (A dyad, from Greek dýo, “two”) in sociology is a noun used to describe a group of two people. A dyad is the smallest possible social group or something that consists of two elements or parts (Google Dictionary) and LMX as a systems-level perspective (i.e., moving beyond the dyad to group and network levels).”

Albeit, the final two stages are relatively new and the majority of the empirical data relates to the first two stages, the latter stages may offer a deeper understanding of LMX in   more complex organizations. However, the LMX theory describes leadership, and it prescribes leadership. Descriptively, it suggests that it is important to recognize the existence of in-groups and out-groups within a group or organization (Northouse, 2010). Prescriptively, leaders should create a relationship with all subordinates offering each the opportunity to take on new roles and responsibilities and nurture the high-quality exchange between subordinate and leader. The LMX tends to restrict the leaders’ focus on differences between in-groups and out-groups (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

Regardless, if considered descriptive or prescriptive, Leader-Member Exchange focuses leader attention on the special relationships created between leader and follower. Although, it makes sense to define workers or work groups as productive, minimal contributors, or unwarranted existence (specifically in highly unionized settings), and rewards are distributed accordingly. This may establish the perception of unequal or unfair treatment. Leader-Member Exchange theory; however, validates the experience of organizational members’ relationship to each other and the leader. It may also provide additional information as to why some will contribute more than others and receive more than others accordingly (Northouse, 2010). The LMX is closely associated with the Transactional Leader.

The Leader-Member Exchange approach emphasizes the importance of communications between the leader-member, and in fact is bound by extremely high communicative measures making this approach effective.  It is the one leadership theory that has as its central concept the reality of the dyadic relationship that exists in organizations and specifically policing (Scandura, Graen & et al Novak, 1986).

Finally, paramount to this discussion is the looming alert for leaders, warning of bias decision making when determining who is invited into groups (Northouse, 2010). Specific to this point is the fact that diversity is the key to changing the cultural differences in policing today. The due process courts of the 1960s have prevailed in policing and are the singular success story for establishing more equality in police hiring via quotas. Diversity is credited with the dissolution of cultural barriers at a more rapid pace, reductions of brutality complaints, and further erosion of the blue wall of silence (Sklansky, 2006). The principles outlined in the Leader-Member Exchange approach remind leaders of fairness and equality.

Situational Model 

This simply means that the greater the follower is to grasp the task and complete it without issue, the greater the relationship may become between the leader/follower. Each situation will dictate levels of task and trust. Additionally, Hersey’s task behavior suggests that the one-way communication provides specificity (leader to follower) by explaining what each follower is to do, when, where, and how talks are to be accomplished (Schermerhorn, 2001).

Hersey and Blanchard (1999) shares four techniques to build the communication relationship with followers. First, technique is telling/directing: this is a high task focus and low relationship focus. Leaders use this technique when the follower is a new employee, or timid. Otherwise, the situation may be the follower is not motivated or may have limited abilities. These two examples may intertwine with each other meaning the follower may lack confidence or in denial about their abilities. Hersey and Blanchard (1999) believe in either case the leader must focus on direction then building the relationship so that the follower does not become confused and the focus is clear.

This technique compares to transactional model because of the lack of relationship between follower and leader. A transactional leader directs and sustains a “do this” position with employees. Furthermore, technique one, may be useful when working with interns because the relationship is short term and students’ lack of experience needs direction.

The second technique is selling/coaching: this requires high task and high relationship. This means the follower is prepared and able to perform work, and Hersey considers some employees to be over confident. In this case, this means the leader should not tell the employee or direct employee; however, the leader should coach and give advice helping the follower gain new skills. This technique compares to transformational model because the leader listens and advises thus building a relationship with employees.

The third technique is participating/supporting: this is a low task focus and high relationship focus. Sometimes leaders have to deal with employees who are resistant and in this case the leader need not worry about setting direction or worry about tasks; instead focus on building the relationship and figuring out why there is so much resistance. The leader already knows about the follower’s performance ability, but needs to find what the employee needs for praise and commitment.

The fourth and final technique is delegating/observing and this means low task focus and low relationship focus. When the follower has abilities and good work performance the leader does not need to focus on the relationship or give direction during tasks. Basically, the leader leaves the employees alone keeping the distance. Situational techniques focus on an employee’s motivation and enhancing performance. Leaders maintain professionalism through relationship behavior. This is the extent to which a leader engages in two way communications by providing socio-emotional support, and readiness is the ability of the follower to take responsibility for directing their own behavior in relation to a specific task to be performed (Schermerhorn, 2001).

Hersey and Blanchard (1999) also suggests a good leader develops the competence and commitment of their staff so that they are self-motivated. Hersey’s model may best be used in individual and/or a group setting and one such environment is the schools and or learning institutions environment (In The leader Within: Learning Enough About Yourself to Lead Others, Zigarmi et al., 2005). Grow (1991) noticed students have varying abilities to respond to teaching that requires them to be self-directing. His works of a self-directing model borrows principles from the situational leadership as an example; teaching is considered situational. The style of teaching should be matched to the students’ readiness, and this is in combination of ability and motivation, ranges from not able and not willing or motivated to do the specific task at hand, to able to willing in the task at hand. Readiness is situational and it may even be task specific. So, a good teacher will mix students readiness and help move the student toward being more self – managing.

Grow (1999) suggests a situational leadership model moves people to self-manage and move people from supervisor dependent to independent producers. There are several competencies and skills related to good leadership as is the practitioner. Although, leadership is sometimes miscalculated due to the many alternative styles and traits that are deliberated for effective outcomes. Situational and transformational models are more often associated with effectiveness of motivating and to influence followers. Leaders who use the situational and transformational model usually identify with traits such as charisma, courage, and intelligence (Grow, 1991). An ineffectual aspect of situational leadership style relates to the leaders ability to perform the tasks at hand. Problematic is that not all managers, supervisors and especially leaders are not adaptable to change. The key is to develop leadership towards flexibility, and at the same time acknowledging their own boundaries (Hersey, 1985).

Cragg and Spurgeon (2007) question which leadership should a person pursue. They suggest the leaders need to consider what the organization framework consists of and then determine what type of model to utilize. Personal capabilities must be considered personal versus organizational while considering future goals of the organization. The challenge of initiating change in organizations cannot be accomplished without a strong leader presence.

Change theories can help with the means of accomplishing change; however, some theories focus on limitations of accomplishing change. Andersen (2000) focuses on the strength of change coming from the leaders themselves rather than the internal and external restrictions. His research embraced the concept that the model used relates to change-centered leadership style: intuition as a dominant decision making style and power motivated behavior. Theoretically, these factors if used correctly may enhance the actions of leaders and clinch change.

Northouse (2010) explains there are distinct strengths in situational leadership. First, it has stood the test of time in the marketplace because it is a staple in training organizational leaders. Second, strength is its practicality. Northouse states, “Situational leadership is easy to understand, intuitively sensible, and easily applied in a variety of settings” (p. 94). Thus, he finds situational style a clear approach, adaptable to many settings and easily understood by followers. Third, strength is a prospective value. Leaders can use the guideline to enhance employee performance (Northouse, 2010, p. 94). For instance, if an employee is lacking confidence leaders use a more directive approach, demonstrate the member strengths that in turn leads to the last strength of flexibility.

An organizational head must understand the needs of the membership, where they are situated, and where they need to grow and move forward from. The Situational leader that is capable of determining an employee need and then change the leadership style for the purpose of producing better outcomes will become a better leader. Anything sounding like déjà vu all over again, mom, dad, Yogi Berra?

A drawback pointing out limitations with the situational model is the lack of published research that raises questions on the validity of the theory, as alluded to by Northouse (2010).

Transactional leaders (TRL) gain compliance of followers through both punishment and reward while situational leaders also abide by the theory that there is no one single style that fits all situations, the situational leader is significantly restricted by the task at hand and the group maturity level.

The origins of TRL began with Max Weber (1947) and expanded by Bass (1985) who described transactional leadership at the opposite end of the spectrum from transformational leadership. Transactional leaders motivate followers through rewards and punishment. This is a more abundant leadership style used in modern organizations (Northouse, 2010, Keeley 1995). TRL relationships between leader and follower does not promote or enhance the follower’s personal development.

Transactional leaders have formal system(s) in place for rewards and punishment, and leaders utilize motivation for self-interest only because rewards take the place of inspiring behavior (Schaubroeck, Simon, & Cha, 2007). Transactional model implies leaders have an unspoken agreement “do as I say and you will get a raise” or on the other hand “meet this quota or you will get fired.” Direction is given by the leader and the follower is expected to perform work without direct supervision (Schaubroeck, Simon, & Cha, 2007). Leaders functioning under this model accept this organizational framework because it does not require working with change (Northouse, 2010).

The TRL style is a passive type of leadership, a laissez-faire style. Transformational Leadership Report (2007) states, “Laissez-faire leaders avoid attempting to influence their subordinates and shirk supervisory duties. They bury themselves in paperwork and avoid situations that preclude any possibility of confrontation. They leave too much responsibility with subordinates, set no clear goals, and do not help their group to make decision. They tend to let things drift, since their main aim is stay on good terms with everyone” (p. 23). Northouse’s (2010) example of a laissez-faire leader is the small corporation leader who does not have meetings with his managers, does not work on a vision for the company, and does not talk to employees. This passive type of leadership harms organizations and laissez-faire leaders seem to only intervene when there are problems or issues (Northouse, 2010).

Interestingly, research accomplished by Jones and Rudd (2007) studied leadership styles of academic program leaders. For this research, Jones and Rudd compared academic leader’s leadership styles to transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire leadership models. The purpose of the study was to determine if academic program leaders in colleges of agriculture at land-grant institutions use transactional, transformational, and/or laissez-faire leadership styles in performing their duties. An added objective of the study was to determine if there is a difference in leadership styles of academic program leaders according to gender.

These academic program leaders were assessed using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Bass and Avolio to determine their leadership style as well as fundamentals of transactional and transformational leadership. Findings imply that academic program leaders have a more transformational leadership style. Furthermore, males in this research use transformational leadership behaviors as well as transactional leadership behaviors more often than their female counterparts. Jones and Rudd (2007) suggest this is a positive sign for universities because the findings of this study imply academic program leaders, both male and female, are using transformational leadership styles more often than transactional or laissez- faire leadership behaviors. This is a positive indication of academic program leaders because the literature states transformational leadership behaviors are more successful at obtaining goals.

The rationale for transactional leader style is situated within achieving short-term goals that need direct precise actions, and this is quite effective in guiding proficiency decisions aimed at cutting costs and improving productivity (Rowold & Schlotz, 2009). This may be related closer to the task master type leader or first line supervisor impacting a leader/member stress allocated via the job.

Kanungo (2001) discusses the presence of ethical leadership in relationship to transactional leadership, specifically how it has not been explored in depth. Transformational leaders who are authentic have to meet the high moral ethical standards as opposed to pseudo- transformational leaders. Is the TRL capable of consistently meeting high moral ethical standards? Kanungo (2001) states “Authentic transformational leaders who exert long term transformational moral influence over followers are seen to be providing ethical leadership; one is not sure whether transactional leaders can also provide such sustained moral influence in organizations” (p. 258).

Transactional leaders who thrive on self-interest can still employ positive traits for instance, transactional leaders can tell the truth, keep promises, distributing equally, and giving employees valid incentives and sanctions (Bass, 1987). Kanungo (2001) argues even with those traits in place transactional leaders still fall behind in moral ethical principles. Kanungo (2001) submits that the TRL in order to serve self-interest use control strategies through the exchange of something valued by the member to induce compliance behavior among their followers. Using control strategies to manage followers deviates from the purpose of autonomy and self – development.

However, Keeley (1995) concludes in his work, that transformational leadership is not as clear cut as it relates to ethics. He maintains that the TRL is not void of moral aptitude. Keeley (1995) suggests with transformational leadership only works on the majority of people who represent the strongest out of the group. Transactional leadership, on the other hand, does not require an overall consensus of mission but merely an agreement on rules, polices, and responsibilities (Northouse, 2010). Keeley (1995) provides that transactional leadership morally works because it provides all employees the same equal interests. He contends that the transformational leadership does not work on the weaker employee but only on the self- interested strong.

The former argument is in contrast with the transformational leader that uses empowerment techniques to prompt positive behavior, show confidence in a follower’s ability, and establish routes for verbal encouragement. Leaders must pay attention to their own motives, how they influence employees, and interpreting social situations regarding outcomes (Antelo, Henderson, and St. Clair, 2010).

Another theory that conflicts with the transactional model is the leader exchange theory. The LMX is a developed or a negotiated role with a basic thesis that followers accomplish their work through interpersonal roles and this is necessary and useful to study roles within organizations and process how the roles are established (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). The theory relates leaders to having invested themselves in their followers, and this role assimilation can be positive and negative (Northouse, 2010). Only leaders can induce role expectations, and the relationship between leader and follower or the interpersonal exchange will determine what type of role the follower will have in the organization.

Dienesch and Liden (1986) state, “leader-member exchange model is based on the concept that role-development will inherently result in differentiated role definitions and, therefore, in varied leader-member exchanges” (p. 621). Dienesch and Liden (1986) further relate leaders will rely on formal authority, rules, and policies to evoke performance. They hypothesize the follower’s role is divided into two basic categories the in –group distinguished by high trust, interaction, support, and formal/informal rewards versus out-group distinguished by low trust, interaction, support, and formal/informal rewards. They maintain in their research that leaders differentiate all followers from enrollment in these two types of groups (Dienesch and Liden, 1986).

The leader member exchange focus on performance of leaders on followers and the role. In a longitudinal study of 60 leaders-follower dyads, data was collected with four structured interviews. Perceptions of exchange quality were measured both from the leader and follower point of view. In-group leader member exchanges were characterized by greater leader attention, leader support, amount of time and energy invested in the job by followers, follower’s attitude toward the job, and fewer job problems. Dienesch and Liden (1986) suggest there needs to be more research done on social aspects of leadership to follower’s outcomes especially task assignment and performance.

Kotter (2001) discusses the difference between leadership and management as complementary systems of action. Management came about from one of the most significant events of the twentieth century, large cooperations. Good managers assist in keeping organizations less chaotic. In contrast to leadership which is about coping with change (since the function of leadership is to produce change) setting the direction is fundamental in leadership. Setting direction produces a vision for employees to follow.

The vision is critical in order to establish consistency, sense of urgency, and the environment for change. A vision must not only serve those of vested interest in the organization or the people served, but also establish a competitive strategy that maintains the required interest to foster success (Kotter, 2007). Bad visions tend to ignore the legitimate needs and rights of important constituencies favoring, say, employees over customers or stockholders. Cooperations are sometimes run over by managers and lack a good vision and in turn cooperations sometimes have good vision and do not have strong managers.

Having a leader with vision and strong managers are key to success in cooperations. Transactional leadership does not include vision in its model. This model works well in an organization where the vision has been set and the organization is static and unchanging. Northouse (2010) describes the unchanging environment works in the best interest of the employee because the employee is working for the approval of the leader. This is the case when employees receive evaluations. Leader’s perceptions are influenced by the amount of criticism more so than by good work that was done by the employee. This may be more descriptive of the management role rather than the leaders as Northouse (2010) describes this behavior as management by exception and it takes two forms: passive and active.

Managers who operate under the principle of contingent reward will focus on employee behavior and disapprove of employees work performance, or will focus on rule violations. Those that advance Management by Exception (MBE), the practice of concentrating on areas not meeting outcomes and giving less attention to areas operating as expected. MBE is an accepted business practice, however has leaked into the public sector. Leaders who are active leaders of management by exception are most likely efficient transactional leaders. This is in contrast to passive management by exception–leaders who ignore employees work performance until it is time for employee’s evaluations then compromise employee raises (Northouse, 2010). This is in contrast to leadership models that work on developing the relationship between the follower and leader. In brief, this practice ignores the opportunity to grow members.

Thus, a transformational leadership style embraces while enhancing motivation, morale, creates the environment for success, and grows the ability of those she/he is chosen to lead. The TLS is more likely to connect with the individual member either personally or professional, or both. Albeit in a larger more extended organization the leader may not have personal contact with all of the membership, but she/he make the member feel like they have. However, even the most unremitting leaders must understand that the situation which they find themselves is ever evolving and that which is true in that moment in time is evolving and change is continuous.

Before going forward the reader may require contemplation of the following questions: Can a TLS leader use the TRL style as needed and remain a Transformational Leader? Can or must a leader be a good manager as well? What do you think–mothers, fathers, teachers, coaches, public officials, or agency heads? How many readers are privately saying, I would never manipulate someone. Be careful, you can go to Hell for lying as well as stealing.