Reviewing Leadership Styles Overlaps and the Need for a New Full Range Theory

International Journal of Direction Reviews, 5ol. nineteen, 76–96 (2017)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12082

Reviewing Leadersend Styles:

Overlaps and the Need for a New

'Total-Range' Theory

Marc H. Anderson and Peter Y. T. Dominicus1

Department of Management, Higher of Business organisation, Iowa Country University, 2350 Gerdin Business Building, Ames, IA

50011-1350, USA 1 Centre for Enterprise & Leadership, Waikato Direction School, Academy of Waikato,

Hamilton 3240, New Zealand

Respective writer e-mail: mha@iastate.edu

A central topic in leadership research concerns the impact of leadership style – the

pattern of attitudes that leaders hold and behaviors they exhibit. Since the year 2000,

several new leadership styles have been proposed to capture important missing aspects

across the ascendant charismatic/transformational and transactional framework. The

authors review the emerging literature on these newest styles – ideological leadership,

pragmatic leadership, authentic leadership, ethical leadership, spiritual leadership,

distributed leadership, and integrativepublic leadership – besides as the recent work on

servantleadership. They also annotate on the Ohio State studies on leadership, so

discuss the ways in which these many styles overlap with transformational leadership

and each other, and issue a phone call to leadership researchers to collectively develop a new

'total-range' model of leadershipthat encompasses and distills what is unique nigh these

various styles. The authors argue that such an integrated full-range model is necessary

for research on leadership mode to progress.

Introduction

Suddaby (2010) stressed the need for construct clar-

ity in management research and the need to 'create

precise and parsimonious chiselled distinctions exist-

tween concepts' and to 'show their semantic relation-

ship to other related constructs' (Suddaby 2010, p.

347). Nowhere is this demand more than credible than in the

burgeoning literature on leadership styles.

The 'dominant conceptualization of leader-

ship in organizational beliefs' is the charis-

matic/transformational way (Judge et al. 2008,

p. 335), a style oftentimes contrasted with a trans-

actional mode. Our exam of the abstracts1

iThese abstracts came from the following journals: The

Leadership Quarterly, Academy of Direction Periodical,

University of Direction Review, Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, Journal of Management, Journalof Organizational

Behavior, Journal of Management Studies, Organizational

of articles concerning leadership over the period

2000–2014 found that a staggering 22.vii% (275

of 1212 articles) addressed transformational lead-

ership. Research since 2000 has examined a bewil-

dering number of other leadership styles, includ-

ing shared/distributed (37 mentions), authentic (34),

ethical (29), initiating structure and consideration

(24), integrative public (15), spiritual (15), prag-

matic/ideological (14) and retainer (12).

Other adjectives used by researchers to modify

the noun 'leadership' to draw styles of leader-

ship include: empowering,2 responsible, directiveastward,

Behavior and Man Determination Processes, Administration

Scientific discipline Quarterly,andOrganization Science .

2In reviewing the overlaps of the leadership styles, we have

omitted certain styles of leadership, such as empowering and

responsible leadership. Equally can be appreciated, it is difficult

to consider all the many styles in a single manuscript. Em-

powering leadership is defined as 'leader behaviors directed

at individuals or entire teams and consisting of delegating

C 2015 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Route, Oxford OX4 2DQ, U.k. and 350 Principal Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Reviewing Leadership Styles 77

self-sacrificial, Pygmalion, paternalistic, heroic,

despotic, egotistical, donating, relational, eastward-

leadership and functional. Even the listing presented

thus far is not exhaustive, equally yet other terms are

used in such a fashion that information technology is unclear whether they

are describing leadership styles or merely contexts

where leadership is required: projection leadership,

cantankerous-cultural leadership, global leadership, female person

leadership and political leadership. We confine this

review to the most frequently studied newer styles

– ideological, pragmatic, servant, authentic, upstanding,

spiritual, integrative public and shared/distributed –

and comment on the archetype consideration and initiat-

ing structure styles. We likewise briefly review the most

widely researched transformational, charismatic and

transactional leadership styles.3

Although there are reviews of several of

these leadership styles individually (e.one thousand. charis-

matic/transformational – van Knippenberg and Sitkin

(2013); authentic – Gardner et al. (2011); servant –

van Dierendonck (2011)), this reviewdiffers by exam-

ining each of these nine styles, including an examina-

tion of the dominant transformational/transactional

paradigm, which and then sets the stage for discussing

the hugely important question of whether and how

these styles differ from each other. This leads us to

say-so to employees, promoting their self-directed and au-

tonomous decision making, coaching, sharing of informa-

tion, and request for input' (Sharma and Kirkman 2015, p.

194). Arnold et al. (2000) reported correlations betwixt the

dimensions of empowering leadership (i.eastward. leading byexam-

ple, coaching, participatory decision making, informing, and

showing concern) and initiating structure and consideration

that were all high and significant (the minimum value was

0.62, and all correlations were significant at p=0.001). Nosotros

direct readers to the recent review of empoweringleadership

past Sharma and Kirkman (2015), who note overlaps that it

has with transformational leadership, though they argue that

transformational leaders may non necessarily transfer control

and powerto followers, which is central to empowering atomic number 82-

ership. Wedo non review responsible leadership in this paper

because the bulk of the literature on this fashion is constitute in one

contempo issue of the University of Direction Perspectives

(Baronial 2014), and this falls outside the journals reviewed.

We believe it is premature to assess whether this leader-

send way is only 'good' leadership that is seen beyond all

other leadership styles, or is unique and transcends the styles

we discussed. We note, however, that Waldman and Balven

(2014, pp. 231–232) mention the conceptual overlapbetween

responsible leadership and the transformational, upstanding and

servant leadership styles.

iiiWedo not examine leader–member exchange (LMX) theory,

equally this is non a style of leadership, but rather a concept that

describes the strength and the type of relationship between

leader and follower.

conclude in the Discussion section that it is time

for a new 'full-range' conceptualization of leader-

transport style that encompasses what is distinctive about

these newer styles, in lodge to bring some integra-

tion to the chaos that characterizes the existing lit-

erature on leadership styles. We begin with a brief

review of charismatic/transformational leadership

style.

Charismatic and transformational

leadership

Charismatic leadership

The first models of charismatic leadership styles ap-

peared in the late-1970s (encounter Conger 1999, for a

history). Charismatic leadership is characterized by

leaders who articulate an inspirational vision of a

desirable futurity that motivates followers to sacrifice

their self-interests and devote infrequent effort to

the causes advocated by the leader. Studies by Con-

ger and Kanungo (1994) support a five-gene model

consisting of being sensitive to constraints, threats

and opportunities in the external environment, artic-

ulating an highly-seasoned strategic vision, taking personal

risks, exhibiting unconventional beliefs, and existence

sensitive to follower needs. Firm (1977) and Firm

and Podsakoff (1994) debate that charismatic leaders

exude passion and self-confidence, engage in self-

sacrificial behavior and promote a collective identity,

role model desirable behavior,found high expecta-

tions for followersand limited confidence that follow-

ers tin can attain them. These behaviors help explain

the inspirational influence on followers that charis-

matic leaders accept. They are seen past their followers

as having extraordinary abilities and qualities. Their

personal magnetism and visionary appeals cause fol-

lowers to identify personally with their leaders, and

internalize their leaders' goals, values and beliefs, re-

sulting in followers desiring to emulate their leaders

(Firm 1977).

A crucial question is how morality factors into

charismatic leadership. Many are disturbed by the

fact that some charismatic leaders engage in united nations-

ethical behavior – what scholars accept termed the

'dark side' of charisma. Such concerns are addressed

in what has go the most influential distinc-

tion between types of charismatic leaders: socialized

vs personalized (Howell and Shamir 2005). Social-

ized charismatic leaders transcend their own self-

interests, empowering and developing their follow-

ers and articulating visions that serve the collective

C 2015 British University of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

florancetheankind.blogspot.com

Source: https://international.vlex.com/vid/reviewing-leadership-styles-overlaps-855638872

Share this post