There are several key theories relating to the nature and exercise of leadership. Here are some of the most influential ones:

1. Trait Theory: Leadership is based on the personality traits and characteristics of the leader, such as intelligence, courage, and charisma.

2. Behavioral Theory: Leadership is based on the behaviors and actions of the leader, such as task-oriented or people-oriented behaviors.

3. Contingency Theory: Leadership effectiveness depends on the situation and the leader's ability to adapt to different contexts and circumstances.

4. Transformational Leadership Theory: Leadership involves inspiring and motivating others to achieve a shared vision and goals.

5. Transactional Leadership Theory: Leadership involves exchanging rewards and punishments to achieve desired outcomes.

6. Servant Leadership Theory: Leadership prioritizes the needs of others and focuses on serving and empowering team members.

7. Situational Leadership Theory: Leadership involves adapting to different situations and using different leadership styles to match the maturity and readiness of the team.

8. Path-Goal Theory: Leadership involves clarifying the path to goal achievement and providing support and resources to achieve those goals.

9. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory: Leadership involves building relationships and exchanging resources with team members.

10. Emotional Intelligence Theory: Leadership involves self-awareness, self-regulation, and social skills to effectively manage and motivate others.

Any handbook in the field can provide you with a list and an overview of the ins and outs of each theory and an idea of its value. Next, consult any you fancy by going to the original publication (mentioned in the literature list).

It will take you some time, but I guarantee you it will give you an interesting experience.

Succes,

Laurens

Onipe Adabenege Yahaya Yours is a great response. To this I would add the Mental Toughness concept. All the theories listed are behavioural - "how we act as leaders" . But there is a fundamentally more important aspect - our mental responses - "how we approach things mentally".

Research shows that our mental responses influence to a great extent our behaviours.

The 4Cs mental toughness concept identifies 8 factors which influence your level and pattern of mental toughness - this translates into preferred leadership style and explains how we can adopt a non-preferred style in different situations.

Prof Onipe, Thank you for breaking that down. Adding it up the concept of Mental toughness provides a more complete approach as the concept of leadership remains emerging.

May I add another word?

Doug is right: most, perhaps all, prominent leadership theories are behavioural. They centre on effective/ineffective leadership styles in various situations and requirements. It appears, therefore, useful to add other factors like the personality of the leader.

I would like to point to still another factor: background culture.

Great differences exist between societal cultures in various parts of the world (see e.g. the work on cultures by Geert Hofstede (2001, Cultures consequences, comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations, London: Sage)). For instance: in some cultures, it is commonly expected that the boss acts like ‘the boss’ and subordinates have to follow his/her demands; in other societies the general expectation may be that the leader consults his/her team before deciding. Subsequently, leadership behaviour and style will be different for success in the two cases.

I am thinking of a theory comprising various levels:

(1) culture: influences from the societal level (societal culture; 1a), influences from the culture of the organisation (organisational culture 1b; this may be different from the dominant societal culture, as a particular organisation may perhaps put stress on consultation while the general culture is strict top-down); influences springing from the group of persons being led (1c; the culture of the specific department).

Next to the cultural influences, there are:

(2) the personal characteristics of the leader as well as the subordinates.

And, perhaps, we may add a third level:

(3) factors typical of the task to be performed (leadership at a university may require different leadership behaviour than being supervisor in a shoe-factory).

Especially, I would like to stress the importance of bringing in the factor of societal differences.

Long ago, I was involved in a study of work motivation comparing Bulgaria, Hungary and the Netherlands. We needed quite different models for each country. Our general conclusion was that ‘general models’ purporting to work everywhere were not adequate. For each country a ‘specific model’ was needed.

Something like this may also be required for fully understanding leadership.

May be, it is a tall order to set up a model comprising all these factors. However, even much smaller research into aspects of leadership may help our understanding of this important subject.

Laurens