This document discusses leadership styles and their relationship to psychological well-being. It focuses on authentic and ethical leadership styles specifically. The objective is to study these two styles and their correlation with leader well-being using a leadership and well-being scale. It aims to understand how different leadership styles may impact a leader's psychological health and which effects are positive or negative. Understanding these relationships can help leaders select styles that improve their well-being and performance.

1. LEADERSHIP
AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL
WELL­BEING

2. Abstract
This project focuses on two different types of leadership styles namely,Ethical and
Authentic leadership. The study primarily focuses on authentic and ethical leadership
styles and their relationship with the psychological well­being of leaders. The objective
of this project is to study and understand these two types of leadership styles and their
correlation with the psychological well­being of the leader,with the help of Leadership
And Well­Being Scale.
Leadership is a very important topic for research in today's work settings. It's very
important to study different types of leadership styles and to find out how and in what
ways each leadership style affects the psychological well­being of the leader. Authentic
and Ethical leadership­styles are also two very effective leadership styles and are being
studied very extensively by industrial and organizational psychologists. The main
objective of this study is to find the correlation between authentic/ethical leadership and
psychological well being of the leaders.

3. Being a successful leader is not an easy job and it requires a lot of knowledge and
expertise. From recruitment and training to decision making and problem solving ,a
leader has many responsibilities. The pressure of all these responsibilities may also
affect the personal life of the leader and may exert some effect on his physical as well as
psychological health. Each distinct type of leadership­style has some effect on the leader.
In this study,we try to find out if authentic/ethical leadership styles have some effect on
the leader's psychological well­being and if it's there,of what sort it is.
The main objective of this project is to understand and explain the relationship between
authentic/ethical leadership styles and the psychological well­being of the leader.
This project will help the managers and leaders understand the importance of
authentic/ethical leadership styles in different situations and also it will help them
understand the correlation between these leadership styles and their own psychological
well ­being. This project will help the leaders select the appropriate leadership style in
order to improve their psychological well­being. This,in turn,will increase their efficacy
and performance as group leaders.
About the organization
National Thermal Power Corporation(NTPC) is India's largest power company. It was set

4. up in 1975 to accelerate power development in India. It is emerging as an ‘Integrated
Power Major’, with a significant presence in the entire value chain of power generation
business.
NTPC ranked 341st in the ‘2010, Forbes Global 2000’ ranking of the World’s biggest
companies.
Human resources at NTPC
People before PLF (Plant Load Factor) is the guiding philosophy behind the entire gamut
of HR policies at NTPC. The human resources department at NTPC is strongly
committed to the development and growth of all the employees as individuals and not
just as employees. It currently employs approximately 26,000 people at NTPC.
Competence building, Commitment building, Culture building and Systems building are
the four building blocks on which it's HR systems are based.
NTPC has a well established talent management system in place, to ensure that it
delivers on it's promise of meaningful growth and relevant challenges for it's employees.
The talent management system comprises PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT,
CAREER PATHS and LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT.

5. Introduction
The concept of leadership
Leadership can be defined as a process by which one individual influences others
toward the attainment of group or organizational goals. Three points about the definition
of leadership should be emphasized. First, leadership is a social influence process.
Leadership cannot exist without a leader and one or more followers. Second, leadership
elicits voluntary action on the part of followers. The voluntary nature of compliance
separates leadership from other types of influence based on formal authority. Finally,
leadership results in followers' behavior that is purposeful and goal­directed in some sort
of organized setting. Many, although not all, studies of leadership focus on the nature of
leadership in the workplace.
Leadership is probably the most frequently studied topic in the organizational sciences.
Thousands of leadership studies have been published and thousands of pages on
leadership have been written in academic books and journals, business­oriented

6. publications, and general­interest publications. Despite this, the precise nature of
leadership and its relationship to key criterion variables such as subordinate satisfaction,
commitment, and performance is still uncertain, to the point where Fred Luthans, in his
book Organizational Behavior (2005), said that "it [leadership] does remain pretty much
of a 'black box' or unexplainable concept."
Leadership should be distinguished from management. Management involves planning,
organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling, and a manager is someone who performs
these functions. A manager has formal authority by virtue of his or her position or
office. Leadership, by contrast, primarily deals with influence. A manager may or may
not be an effective leader. A leader's ability to influence others may be based on a
variety of factors other than his or her formal authority or position.
In the sections that follow, the development of leadership studies and theories over time
is briefly traced. Table 1 provides a summary of the major theoretical approaches.
Historical Leadership Theories
Leadership Time of
Major Tenets
Theory Introduction
Trait Theories 1930s Individual characteristics of leaders are different than
those of non leaders.

7. Behavioral 1940s and The behaviors of effective leaders are different than the
Theories 1950s behaviors of ineffective leaders. Two major classes of
leader behavior are task­oriented behavior and
relationship­oriented behavior.
Contingency 1960s and Factors unique to each situation determine whether
Theories 1970s specific leader characteristics and behaviors will be
effective.
Historical Leadership Theories
Leadership Time of
Major Tenets
Theory Introduction
Leader­Member 1970s Leaders from high­quality relationships with some
Exchange subordinates but not others. The quality of leader­
subordinates relationship affects numerous workplace
outcomes.
Charismatic 1970s and Effective leaders inspire subordinates to commit
Leadership 1980s themselves to goals by communicating a vision,
displaying charismatic behavior, and setting a powerful
personal example.
Substitutes foe 1970s Characteristics of the organization, task, and
Leadership subordinates may substitute for or negate the effects of
leadership behaviors.

8. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
Three main theoretical frameworks have dominated leadership research at different
points in time. These included the trait approach (1930s and 1940s), the behavioral
approach (1940s and 1950s), and the contingency or situational approach (1960s and
1970s).
Leadership has been described as “a process of social influence in which one person can
enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task".
Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective
and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. This
definition is similar to Northouse's (2007, p3) definition — Leadership is a process
whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.
Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership knowledge and skills. This is
called Process Leadership (Jago, 1982). However, we know that we have traits that can
influence our actions. This is called Trait Leadership (Jago, 1982), in that it was once
common to believe that leaders were born rather than made. These two leadership types

9. are shown in the chart below (Northouse, 2007, p5):
While leadership is learned, the skills and knowledge processed by the leader can be
influenced by his or hers attributes or traits, such as beliefs, values, ethics, and character.
Knowledge and skills contribute directly to the process of leadership, while the other
attributes give the leader certain characteristics that make him or her unique.
Skills, knowledge, and attributes make the Leader, which is one of the:

10. Four Factors of Leadership
Leader
You must have an honest understanding of who you are, what you know, and what you
can do. Also, note that it is the followers, not the leader or someone else who determines
if the leader is successful. If they do not trust or lack confidence in their leader, then they
will be uninspired. To be successful you have to convince your followers, not yourself or
your superiors, that you are worthy of being followed.
Followers
Different people require different styles of leadership. For example, a new hire requires
more supervision than an experienced employee. A person who lacks motivation
requires a different approach than one with a high degree of motivation. You must know
your people! The fundamental starting point is having a good understanding of human
nature, such as needs, emotions, and motivation. You must come to know your
employees' be, know, and do attributes.

11. Communication
You lead through two­way communication. Much of it is nonverbal. For instance, when
you “set the example,” that communicates to your people that you would not ask them to
perform anything that you would not be willing to do. What and how you communicate
either builds or harms the relationship between you and your employees.
Situation
All situations are different. What you do in one situation will not always work in another.
You must use your judgment to decide the best course of action and the leadership style
needed for each situation. For example, you may need to confront an employee for
inappropriate behavior, but if the confrontation is too late or too early, too harsh or too
weak, then the results may prove ineffective.
Also note that the situation normally has a greater effect on a leader's action than his or
her traits. This is because while traits may have an impressive stability over a period of
time, they have little consistency across situations (Mischel, 1968). This is why a number
of leadership scholars think the Process Theory of Leadership is a more accurate than
the Trait Theory of Leadership.
Various forces will affect these four factors. Examples of forces are your relationship
with your seniors, the skill of your followers, the informal leaders within your
organization, and how your organization is organized.

12. Bass' Theory of Leadership
Bass' theory of leadership states that there are three basic ways to explain how people
become leaders (Stogdill, 1989; Bass, 1990). The first two explain the leadership
development for a small number of people. These theories are:
• Some personality traits may lead people naturally into leadership roles. This is the
Trait Theory.
• A crisis or important event may cause a person to rise to the occasion, which
brings out extraordinary leadership qualities in an ordinary person. This is the
Great Events Theory.
• People can choose to become leaders. People can learn leadership skills. This is
the Transformational or Process Leadership Theory. It is the most widely accepted
theory today and the premise on which this guide is based.
Total Leadership
What makes a person want to follow a leader? People want to be guided by those they
respect and who have a clear sense of direction. To gain respect, they must be ethical. A

13. sense of direction is achieved by conveying a strong vision of the future.
When a person is deciding if she respects you as a leader, she does not think about your
attributes, rather, she observes what you do so that she can know who you really are. She
uses this observation to tell if you are an honorable and trusted leader or a self­serving
person who misuses authority to look good and get promoted. Self­serving leaders are
not as effective because their employees only obey them, not follow them. They succeed
in many areas because they present a good image to their seniors at the expense of their
workers.
Be Know Do
The basis of good leadership is honorable character and selfless service to your
organization. In your employees' eyes, your leadership is everything you do that effects
the organization's objectives and their well­being. Respected leaders concentrate on
(U.S. Army, 1983):
• what they are [be] (such as beliefs and character)
• what they know (such as job, tasks, and human nature)
• what they do (such as implementing, motivating, and providing direction).
What makes a person want to follow a leader? People want to be guided by those they
respect and who have a clear sense of direction. To gain respect, they must be ethical. A
sense of direction is achieved by conveying a strong vision of the future.

14. The Two Most Important Keys to Effective Leadership
According to a study by the Hay Group, a global management consultancy, there are 75
key components of employee satisfaction (Lamb, McKee, 2004). They found that:
• Trust and confidence in top leadership was the single most reliable predictor of
employee satisfaction in an organization.
• Effective communication by leadership in three critical areas was the key to
winning organizational trust and confidence:
1. Helping employees understand the company's overall business strategy.
2. Helping employees understand how they contribute to achieving key
business objectives.
3. Sharing information with employees on both how the company is doing and
how an employee's own division is doing — relative to strategic business
objectives.
Principles of Leadership
To help you be, know, and do, follow these eleven principles of leadership (U.S. Army,

15. 1983). The later chapters in this Leadership guide expand on these principles and
provide tools for implementing them:
1. Know yourself and seek self­improvement ­ In order to know yourself, you have
to understand your be, know, and do, attributes. Seeking self­improvement means
continually strengthening your attributes. This can be accomplished through self­
study, formal classes, reflection, and interacting with others.
2. Be technically proficient ­ As a leader, you must know your job and have a solid
familiarity with your employees' tasks.
3. Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions ­ Search for ways to
guide your organization to new heights. And when things go wrong, they always
do sooner or later — do not blame others. Analyze the situation, take corrective
action, and move on to the next challenge.
4. Make sound and timely decisions ­ Use good problem solving, decision making,
and planning tools.
5. Set the example ­ Be a good role model for your employees. They must not only
hear what they are expected to do, but also see. We must become the change we
want to see ­ Mahatma Gandhi
6. Know your people and look out for their well­being ­ Know human nature and
the importance of sincerely caring for your workers.
7. Keep your workers informed ­ Know how to communicate with not only them,

16. but also seniors and other key people.
8. Develop a sense of responsibility in your workers ­ Help to develop good
character traits that will help them carry out their professional responsibilities.
9. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished ­
Communication is the key to this responsibility.
10.Train as a team ­ Although many so called leaders call their organization,
department, section, etc. a team; they are not really teams...they are just a group of
people doing their jobs.
11.Use the full capabilities of your organization ­ By developing a team spirit, you
will be able to employ your organization, department, section, etc. to its fullest
capabilities.
Attributes of Leadership
If you are a leader who can be trusted, then those around you will grow to respect you.
To be such a leader, there is a Leadership Framework to guide you:
BE KNOW DO
BE a professional. Examples: Be loyal to the organization, perform selfless service, take
personal responsibility.

17. BE a professional who possess good character traits. Examples: Honesty, competence,
candor, commitment, integrity, courage, straightforwardness, imagination.
KNOW the four factors of leadership — follower, leader, communication, situation.
KNOW yourself. Examples: strengths and weakness of your character, knowledge, and
skills.
KNOW human nature. Examples: Human needs, emotions, and how people respond to
stress.
KNOW your job. Examples: be proficient and be able to train others in their tasks.
KNOW your organization. Examples: where to go for help, its climate and culture, who
the unofficial leaders are.
DO provide direction. Examples: goal setting, problem solving, decision making,
planning.
DO implement. Examples: communicating, coordinating, supervising, evaluating.
DO motivate. Examples: develop morale and esprit de corps in the organization, train,
coach, counsel.
Environment
Every organization has a particular work environment, which dictates to a considerable

18. degree how its leaders respond to problems and opportunities. This is brought about by
its heritage of past leaders and its present leaders.
Goals, Values, and Concepts
Leaders exert influence on the environment via three types of actions:
1. The goals and performance standards they establish.
2. The values they establish for the organization.
3. The business and people concepts they establish.
Successful organizations have leaders who set high standards and goals across the entire
spectrum, such as strategies, market leadership, plans, meetings and presentations,
productivity, quality, and reliability.
Values reflect the concern the organization has for its employees, customers, investors,
vendors, and surrounding community. These values define the manner in how business
will be conducted.
Concepts define what products or services the organization will offer and the methods
and processes for conducting business.
These goals, values, and concepts make up the organization's personality or how the
organization is observed by both outsiders and insiders. This personality defines the
roles, relationships, rewards, and rites that take place.

19. Roles and Relationships
Roles are the positions that are defined by a set of expectations about behavior of any job
incumbent. Each role has a set of tasks and responsibilities that may or may not be
spelled out. Roles have a powerful effect on behavior for several reasons, to include
money being paid for the performance of the role, there is prestige attached to a role, and
a sense of accomplishment or challenge.
Relationships are determined by a role's tasks. While some tasks are performed alone,
most are carried out in relationship with others. The tasks will determine who the role­
holder is required to interact with, how often, and towards what end. Also, normally the
greater the interaction, the greater the liking. This in turn leads to more frequent
interaction. In human behavior, its hard to like someone whom we have no contact with,
and we tend to seek out those we like. People tend to do what they are rewarded for, and
friendship is a powerful reward. Many tasks and behaviors that are associated with a role
are brought about by these relationships. That is, new task and behaviors are expected of
the present role­holder because a strong relationship was developed in the past, either by
that role­holder or a prior role­holder.
Culture and Climate
There are two distinct forces that dictate how to act within an organization: culture and

20. climate.
Each organization has its own distinctive culture. It is a combination of the founders,
past leadership, current leadership, crises, events, history, and size (Newstrom, Davis,
1993). This results in rites: the routines, rituals, and the “way we do things.” These rites
impact individual behavior on what it takes to be in good standing (the norm) and directs
the appropriate behavior for each circumstance.
The climate is the feel of the organization, the individual and shared perceptions and
attitudes of the organization's members (Ivancevich, Konopaske, Matteson, 2007). While
the culture is the deeply rooted nature of the organization that is a result of long­held
formal and informal systems, rules, traditions, and customs; climate is a short­term
phenomenon created by the current leadership. Climate represents the beliefs about the
“feel of the organization” by its members. This individual perception of the “feel of the
organization” comes from what the people believe about the activities that occur in the
organization. These activities influence both individual and team motivation and
satisfaction, such as:
• How well does the leader clarify the priorities and goals of the organization? What
is expected of us?
• What is the system of recognition, rewards, and punishments in the organization?
• How competent are the leaders?

21. • Are leaders free to make decisions?
• What will happen if I make a mistake?
Organizational climate is directly related to the leadership and management style of the
leader, based on the values, attributes, skills, and actions, as well as the priorities of the
leader. Compare this to “ethical climate” — the feel of the organization about the
activities that have ethical content or those aspects of the work environment that
constitute ethical behavior. The ethical climate is the feel about whether we do things
right; or the feel of whether we behave the way we ought to behave. The behavior
(character) of the leader is the most important factor that impacts the climate.
On the other hand, culture is a long­term, complex phenomenon. Culture represents the
shared expectations and self­image of the organization. The mature values that create
tradition or the “way we do things here.” Things are done differently in every
organization. The collective vision and common folklore that define the institution are a
reflection of culture. Individual leaders, cannot easily create or change culture because
culture is a part of the organization. Culture influences the characteristics of the climate
by its effect on the actions and thought processes of the leader. But, everything you do as
a leader will affect the climate of the organization.
For information on culture, see Long­Term Short­Term Orientation

22. The Process of Great Leadership
The road to great leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) that is common to successful
leaders:
• Challenge the process ­ First, find a process that you believe needs to be
improved the most.
• Inspire a shared vision ­ Next, share your vision in words that can be understood
by your followers.
• Enable others to act ­ Give them the tools and methods to solve the problem.
• Model the way ­ When the process gets tough, get your hands dirty. A boss tells
others what to do, a leader shows that it can be done.
• Encourage the heart ­ Share the glory with your followers' hearts, while keeping
the pains within your own.
Theories of leadership
Leadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal". The leader may
or may not have any formal authority. Students of leadership have produced theories
involving traits,[2] situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values,

23. [3] charisma, and intelligence, among others. Somebody whom people follow:
somebody who guides or directs others.
Early western history
The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries.
History's greatest philosophical writings from Plato's Republic to Plutarch's Lives have
explored the question "What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?" Underlying
this search was the early recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption
that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This idea
that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the "trait theory of
leadership".
The trait theory was explored at length in a number of works in the 19th century. Most
notable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works have
prompted decades of research.[4] In Heroes and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle identified
the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In Galton's
Hereditary Genius (1869), he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful
men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when moving
from first degree to second degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership was
inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both of these notable works
lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of the

24. leader.
Rise of alternative theories
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies
(e.g., Bird, 1940;[5] Stogdill, 1948;[6] Mann, 1959[7]) prompted researchers to take a
drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant
literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a number
of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one situation
may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. Subsequently, leadership was no
longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as situational approaches (see
alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in certain
situations, but not others. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and
research for the next few decades.
Reemergence of trait theory
TRAIT APPROACH
The scientific study of leadership began with a focus on the traits of effective leaders.

25. The basic premise behind trait theory was that effective leaders are born, not made, thus
the name sometimes applied to early versions of this idea, the "great man" theory. Many
leadership studies based on this theoretical framework were conducted in the 1930s,
1940s, and 1950s.
Leader trait research examined the physical, mental, and social characteristics of
individuals. In general, these studies simply looked for significant associations between
individual traits and measures of leadership effectiveness. Physical traits such as height,
mental traits such as intelligence, and social traits such as personality attributes were all
subjects of empirical research.
The initial conclusion from studies of leader traits was that there were no universal traits
that consistently separated effective leaders from other individuals. In an important
review of the leadership literature published in 1948, Ralph Stogdill concluded that the
existing research had not demonstrated the utility of the trait approach.
Several problems with early trait research might explain the perceived lack of significant
findings. First, measurement theory at the time was not highly sophisticated. Little was
known about the psychometric properties of the measures used to operationalize traits.
As a result, different studies were likely to use different measures to assess the same
construct, which made it very difficult to replicate findings. In addition, many of the trait
studies relied on samples of teenagers or lower­level managers.

26. Early trait research was largely non theoretical, offering no explanations for the proposed
relationship between individual characteristics and leadership.
Finally, early trait research did not consider the impact of situational variables that might
moderate the relationship between leader traits and measures of leader effectiveness. As
a result of the lack of consistent findings linking individual traits to leadership
effectiveness, empirical studies of leader traits were largely abandoned in the 1950s.
New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that
would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of
leadership. For example, improvements in researchers' use of the round robin research
design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as
leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally, during the 1980s statistical
advances allowed researchers to conduct meta­analyses, in which they could
quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This
advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership
research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new
methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:
• Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.
• Significant relationships exist between leadership and such individual traits as:
• intelligence

27. • adjustment
• extraversion
• conscientiousness
• openness to experience
• general self­efficacy
While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence
has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual
frameworks.
Specifically, Zaccaro (2007) noted that trait theories still:
1. focus on a small set of individual attributes such as Big Five personality traits, to
the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and
problem­solving skills;
2. fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes;
3. do not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally not malleable
over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences;
4. do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity
necessary for effective leadership.

28. Attribute pattern approach
Considering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers have
begun to adopt a different perspective of leader individual differences—the leader
attribute pattern approach. In contrast to the traditional approach, the leader attribute
pattern approach is based on theorists' arguments that the influence of individual
characteristics on outcomes is best understood by considering the person as an integrated
totality rather than a summation of individual variables.
In other words, the leader attribute pattern approach argues that integrated constellations
or combinations of individual differences may explain substantial variance in both leader
emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes, or by
additive combinations of multiple attributes.
Behavioral and style theories
LEADER BEHAVIOR APPROACH
Partially as a result of the disenchantment with the trait approach to leadership that
occurred by the beginning of the 1950s, the focus of leadership research shifted away
from leader traits to leader behaviors. The premise of this stream of research was that the
behaviors exhibited by leaders are more important than their physical, mental, or
emotional traits. The two most famous behavioral leadership studies took place at Ohio

29. State University and the University of Michigan in the late 1940s and 1950s. These
studies sparked hundreds of other leadership studies and are still widely cited.
The Ohio State studies utilized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ),
administering it to samples of individuals in the military, manufacturing companies,
college administrators, and student leaders. Answers to the questionnaire were factor­
analyzed to determine if common leader behaviors emerged across samples. The
conclusion was that there were two distinct aspects of leadership that describe how
leaders carry out their role.
Two factors, termed consideration and initiating structure, consistently appeared.
Initiating structure, sometimes called task­oriented behavior, involves planning,
organizing, and coordinating the work of subordinates. Consideration involves showing
concern for subordinates, being supportive, recognizing subordinates' accomplishments,
and providing for subordinates' welfare.
The Michigan leadership studies took place at about the same time as those at Ohio
State. Under the general direction of Rensis Likert, the focus of the Michigan studies was
to determine the principles and methods of leadership that led to productivity and job
satisfaction. The studies resulted in two general leadership behaviors or orientations: an
employee orientation and a production orientation. Leaders with an employee orientation
showed genuine concern for interpersonal relations. Those with a production orientation
focused on the task or technical aspects of the job.

30. The conclusion of the Michigan studies was that an employee orientation and general
instead of close supervision yielded better results. Likert eventually developed four
"systems" of management based on these studies; he advocated System 4 (the
participative­group system, which was the most participatory set of leader behaviors) as
resulting in the most positive outcomes.
One concept based largely on the behavioral approach to leadership effectiveness was
the Managerial (or Leadership) Grid, developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. The
grid combines "concern for production" with "concern for people" and presents five
alternative behavioral styles of leadership. An individual who emphasized neither
production was practicing "impoverished management" according to the grid. If a person
emphasized concern for people and placed little emphasis on production, he was terms a
"country­club" manager.
Conversely, a person who emphasized a concern for production but paid little attention
to the concerns of subordinates was a "task" manager. A person who tried to balance
concern for production and concern for people was termed a "middle­of­the­road"
manager.
Finally, an individual who was able to simultaneously exhibit a high concern for
production and a high concern for people was practicing "team management." According
to the prescriptions of the grid, team management was the best leadership approach. The
Managerial Grid became a major consulting tool and was the basis for a considerable

31. amount of leadership training in the corporate world.
The assumption of the leader behavior approach was that there were certain behaviors
that would be universally effective for leaders. Unfortunately, empirical research has not
demonstrated consistent relationships between task­oriented or person­oriented leader
behaviors and leader effectiveness. Like trait research, leader behavior research did not
consider situational influences that might moderate the relationship between leader
behaviors and leader effectiveness.
Managerial grid model
response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research
leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of successful leaders,
determining a behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles. David
McClelland, for example, posited that leadership takes a strong personality with a well­
developed positive ego. To lead, self­confidence and high self­esteem are useful, perhaps
even essential.

32. Illustration 1: A graphical representation of the managerial grid model
A graphical representation of the managerial grid model
Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the
influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the
performance of groups of eleven­year­old boys under different types of work climate. In
each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making,
praise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project
management) according to three styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez­faire.
The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was

33. developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five different
leadership styles, based on the leaders' concern for people and their concern for goal
achievement.
Positive reinforcement
B.F. Skinner is the father of behavior modification and developed the concept of positive
reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is presented in
response to a behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behavior in the future.The
following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a business setting.
Assume praise is a positive reinforcer for a particular employee. This employee does not
show up to work on time every day. The manager of this employee decides to praise the
employee for showing up on time every day the employee actually shows up to work on
time. As a result, the employee comes to work on time more often because the employee
likes to be praised. In this example, praise (the stimulus) is a positive reinforcer for this
employee because the employee arrives at work on time (the behavior) more frequently
after being praised for showing up to work on time.
The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leaders

34. to motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates. Organizations such as Frito­
Lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement
to increase productivity. Empirical research covering the last 20 years suggests that
reinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally, many
reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive, providing higher
performance for lower costs.
CONTINGENCY (SITUATIONAL) APPROACH
Contingency or situational theories of leadership propose that the organizational or work
group context affects the extent to which given leader traits and behaviors will be
effective. Contingency theories gained prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s. Four of
the more well­known contingency theories are Fiedler's contingency theory, path­goal
theory, the Vroom­Yetton­Jago decision­making model of leadership, and the situational
leadership theory. Each of these approaches to leadership is briefly described in the
paragraphs that follow.
Introduced in 1967, Fiedler's contingency theory was the first to specify how situational
factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. The
theory suggests that the "favorability" of the situation determines the effectiveness of
task­ and person­oriented leader behavior.

35. Favorability is determined by (1) the respect and trust that followers have for the leader;
(2) the extent to which subordinates' responsibilities can be structured and performance
measured; and (3) the control the leader has over subordinates' rewards. The situation is
most favorable when followers respect and trust the leader, the task is highly structured,
and the leader has control over rewards and punishments.
Fiedler's research indicated that task­oriented leaders were more effective when the
situation was either highly favorable or highly unfavorable, but that person­oriented
leaders were more effective in the moderately favorable or unfavorable situations. The
theory did not necessarily propose that leaders could adapt their leadership styles to
different situations, but that leaders with different leadership styles would be more
effective when placed in situations that matched their preferred style.
Fiedler's contingency theory has been criticized on both conceptual and methodological
grounds. However, empirical research has supported many of the specific propositions of
the theory, and it remains an important contribution to the understanding of leadership
effectiveness.
Path­goal theory was first presented in a 1971Administrative Science Quarterly article by
Robert House. Path­goal theory proposes that subordinates' characteristics and
characteristics of the work environment determine which leader behaviors will be more
effective. Key characteristics of subordinates identified by the theory are locus of
control, work experience, ability, and the need for affiliation. Important environmental

36. characteristics named by the theory are the nature of the task, the formal authority
system, and the nature of the work group. The theory includes four different leader
behaviors, which include directive leadership, supportive leadership, participative
leadership, and achievement­oriented leadership.
According to the theory, leader behavior should reduce barriers to subordinates' goal
attainment, strengthen subordinates' expectancies that improved performance will lead to
valued rewards, and provide coaching to make the path to payoffs easier for
subordinates. Path­goal theory suggests that the leader behavior that will accomplish
these tasks depends upon the subordinate and environmental contingency factors.
Path­goal theory has been criticized because it does not consider interactions among the
contingency factors and also because of the complexity of its underlying theoretical
model, expectancy theory. Empirical research has provided some support for the theory's
propositions, primarily as they relate to directive and supportive leader behaviors.
The Vroom­Yetton­Jago decision­making model was introduced by Victor Vroom and
Phillip Yetton in 1973 and revised by Vroom and Jago in 1988. The theory focuses
primarily on the degree of subordinate participation that is appropriate in different
situations. Thus, it emphasizes the decision­making style of the leader.
There are five types of leader decision­making styles, which are labeled AI, AII, CI, CII,
and G. These styles range from strongly autocratic (AI), to strongly democratic (G).

37. According to the theory, the appropriate style is determined by answers to up to eight
diagnostic questions, which relate to such contingency factors as the importance of
decision quality, the structure of the problem, whether subordinates have enough
information to make a quality decision, and the importance of subordinate commitment
to the decision.
The Vroom­Yetton­Jago model has been criticized for its complexity, for its assumption
that the decision makers' goals are consistent with organizational goals, and for ignoring
the skills needed to arrive at group decisions to difficult problems. Empirical research
has supported some of the prescriptions of the theory.
The situational leadership theory was initially introduced in 1969 and revised in 1977 by
Hersey and Blanchard. The theory suggests that the key contingency factor affecting
leaders' choice of leadership style is the task­related maturity of the subordinates.
Subordinate maturity is defined in terms of the ability of subordinates to accept
responsibility for their own task­related behavior. The theory classifies leader behaviors
into the two broad classes of task­oriented and relationship­oriented behaviors. The
major proposition of situational leadership theory is that the effectiveness of task and
relationship­oriented leadership depends upon the maturity of a leader's subordinates.
Situational leadership theory has been criticized on both theoretical and methodological
grounds. However, it remains one of the better­known contingency theories of leadership
and offers important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and

38. leadership style.
Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social
scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as
Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce
the person and not the other way around. This theory assumes that different situations
call for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal
psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, "what an individual
actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of
the situation in which he functions."
Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building upon
the research of Lewin et al., academics began to normalize the descriptive models of
leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations
each style works better in.
The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails
to win the "hearts and minds" of followers in day­to­day management; the democratic
leadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally,
the laissez­faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it provides, but
as the leaders do not "take charge", they can be perceived as a failure in protracted or
thorny organizational problems.

39. Thus, theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation, which is
sometimes classified as contingency theory. Four contingency leadership theories appear
more prominently in recent years: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom­Yetton decision
model, the path­goal theory, and the Hersey­Blanchard situational theory.
The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader's effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler
called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and
situational favorability (later called situational control). The theory defined two types of
leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good relationships with the
group (relationship­oriented), and those who have as their prime concern carrying out
the task itself (task­oriented).[31] According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader.
Both task­oriented and relationship­oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership
orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader­member relation, a highly
structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable
situation". Fiedler found that task­oriented leaders are more effective in extremely
favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship­oriented leaders perform best in
situations with intermediate favorability.
Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973)and later with Arthur Jago
(1988), developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations, which was used in a
normative decision model where leadership styles were connected to situational
variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation. This approach

40. was novel because it supported the idea that the same manager could rely on different
group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This
model was later referred to as situational contingency theory.
The path­goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971) and was
based on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom. According to House, the essence of the
theory is "the meta proposition that leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that
complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for
deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit
performance".
The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement­oriented, directive,
participative, and supportive, that are contingent to the environment factors and follower
characteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the path­goal model states
that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four
depending on what the situation demands.
The path­goal model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the
circumstances, and as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes the
reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers.
The situational leadership model proposed by Hersey and Blanchard suggests four
leadership­styles and four levels of follower­development. For effectiveness, the model

41. posits that the leadership­style must match the appropriate level of follower­
development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the
characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well.
Functional theory
Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) is a
particularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute
to organizational or unit effectiveness. This theory argues that the leader's main job is to
see that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care of; thus, a leader can be said
to have done their job well when they have contributed to group effectiveness and
cohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton,
1986).
While functional leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership
(Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also been effectively applied to broader
organizational leadership as well (Zaccaro, 2001). In summarizing literature on
functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001), Hackman and
Walton (1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert, Knight,
and Xiao (2006) observed five broad functions a leader performs when promoting
organization's effectiveness. These functions include environmental monitoring,
organizing subordinate activities, teaching and coaching subordinates, motivating others,

42. and intervening actively in the group's work.
A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to facilitate these functions. In initial
work identifying leader behavior, Fleishman (1953) observed that subordinates perceived
their supervisors' behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to as consideration
and initiating structure. Consideration includes behavior involved in fostering effective
relationships. Examples of such behavior would include showing concern for a
subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards others. Initiating structure involves
the actions of the leader focused specifically on task accomplishment. This could include
role clarification, setting performance standards, and holding subordinates accountable
to those standards.
Transactional and transformational theories
Eric Berne first analyzed the relations between a group and its leadership in terms of
transactional analysis.
The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given power to perform certain tasks and
reward or punish for the team's performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to
lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined

43. goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct, and
train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level, and reward
effectiveness when expected outcome is reached. Idiosyncrasy Credits, first posited by
Edward Hollander (1971) is one example of a concept closely related to transactional
leadership.
Emotions and leadership
Leadership can be perceived as a particularly emotion­laden process, with emotions
entwined with the social influence process. In an organization, the leader's mood has
some effects on his/her group. These effects can be described in three levels:
1. The mood of individual group members. Group members with leaders in a
positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with
leaders in a negative mood. The leaders transmit their moods to other group
members through the mechanism of emotional contagion. Mood contagion may be
one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence
followers.
2. The affective tone of the group. Group affective tone represents the consistent or
homogeneous affective reactions within a group. Group affective tone is an

44. aggregate of the moods of the individual members of the group and refers to mood
at the group level of analysis. Groups with leaders in a positive mood have a more
positive affective tone than do groups with leaders in a negative mood.
3. Group processes like coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. Public
expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people
experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their
goals, intentions, and attitudes through their expressions of moods. For example,
expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem progress toward
goals to be good. The group members respond to those signals cognitively and
behaviorally in ways that are reflected in the group processes.
In research about client service, it was found that expressions of positive mood by the
leader improve the performance of the group, although in other sectors there were other
findings.
Beyond the leader's mood, her/his behavior is a source for employee positive and
negative emotions at work. The leader creates situations and events that lead to
emotional response. Certain leader behaviors displayed during interactions with their
employees are the sources of these affective events. Leaders shape workplace affective

45. events. Examples – feedback giving, allocating tasks, resource distribution. Since
employee behavior and productivity are directly affected by their emotional states, it is
imperative to consider employee emotional responses to organizational leaders.
Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage moods and emotions in the
self and others, contributes to effective leadership within organizations.
Neo­emergent theory
The Neo­emergent leadership theory (from the Oxford school of leadership) espouses
that leadership is created through the emergence of information by the leader or other
stakeholders, not through the true actions of the leader himself. In other words, the
reproduction of information or stories form the basis of the perception of leadership by
the majority. It is well known that the great naval hero Lord Nelson often wrote his own
versions of battles he was involved in, so that when he arrived home in England he
would receive a true hero's welcome.
In modern society, the press, blogs and other sources report their own views of a leader,
which may be based on reality, but may also be based on a political command, a
payment, or an inherent interest of the author, media, or leader. Therefore, it can be

46. contended that the perception of all leaders is created and in fact does not reflect their
true leadership qualities at all.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Although trait, behavioral, and contingency approaches have each contributed to the
understanding of leadership, none of the approaches have provided a completely
satisfactory explanation of leadership and leadership effectiveness. Since the 1970s,
several alternative theoretical frameworks for the study of leadership have been
advanced. Among the more important of these are leader­member exchange theory,
transformational leadership theory, the substitutes for leadership approach, and the
philosophy of servant leadership.
LEADER­MEMBER EXCHANGE THEORY
Leader­member exchange (LMX) theory was initially called the vertical dyad linkage
theory. The theory was introduced by George Graen and various colleagues in the 1970s
and has been revised and refined in the years since. LMX theory emphasizes the dyadic
(i.e., one­on­one) relationships between leaders and individual subordinates, instead of
the traits or behaviors of leaders or situational characteristics.
The theory's focus is determining the type of leader­subordinate relationships that

47. promote effective outcomes and the factors that determine whether leaders and
subordinates will be able to develop high­quality relationships.
According to LMX theory, leaders do not treat all subordinates in the same manner, but
establish close relationships with some (the in­group) while remaining aloof from others
(the out­group). Those in the in­group enjoy relationships with the leader that is marked
by trust and mutual respect. They tend to be involved in important activities and
decisions. Conversely, those in the out­group are excluded from important activities and
decisions.
LMX theory suggests that high­quality relationships between a leader­subordinate dyad
will lead to positive outcomes such as better performance, lower turnover, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Empirical research supports many of the
proposed relationships.
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORIES
Beginning in the 1970s, a number of leadership theories emerged that focused on the
importance of a leader's charisma to leadership effectiveness. Included within this class
of theories are House's theory of charismatic leadership, Bass's transformational
leadership theory, and Conger and Kanungo's charismatic leadership theory.
These theories have much in common. They all focus on attempting to explain how

48. leaders can accomplish extraordinary things against the odds, such as turning around a
failing company, founding a successful company, or achieving great military success
against incredible odds. The theories also emphasize the importance of leaders' inspiring
subordinates' admiration, dedication, and unquestioned loyalty through articulating a
clear and compelling vision.
Tranformational leadership theory differentiates between the transactional and the
transformational leader. Transactional leadership focuses on role and task requirements
and utilizes rewards contingent on performance. By contrast, transformational leadership
focuses on developing mutual trust, fostering the leadership abilities of others, and
setting goals that go beyond the short­term needs of the work group.
Bass's transformational leadership theory identifies four aspects of effective leadership,
which include charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and consideration. A leader
who exhibits these qualities will inspire subordinates to be high achievers and put the
long­term interest of the organization ahead of their own short­term interest, according
to the theory. Empirical research has supported many of the theory's propositions.
SUBSTITUTES FOR LEADERSHIP THEORY
Kerr and Jermier introduced the substitutes for leadership theory in 1978. The theory's
focus is concerned with providing an explanation for the lack of stronger empirical

49. support for a relationship between leader traits or leader behaviors and subordinates'
satisfaction and performance. The substitutes for leadership theory suggests that
characteristics of the organization, the task, and subordinates may substitute for or
negate the effects of leadership, thus weakening observed relationships between leader
behaviors and important organizational outcomes.
Substitutes for leadership make leader behaviors such as task­oriented or relationship­
oriented unnecessary. Characteristics of the organization that may substitute for
leadership include formalization, group cohesiveness, inflexible rules, and
organizational rewards not under the control of the leader. Characteristics of the task that
may substitute for leadership include routine and repetitive tasks or tasks that are
satisfying. Characteristics of subordinates that may substitute for leadership include
ability, experience, training, and job­related knowledge.
The substitutes for leadership theory has generated a considerable amount of interest
because it offers an intuitively appealing explanation for why leader behavior impacts
subordinates in some situations but not in others. However, some of its theoretical
propositions have not been adequately tested. The theory continues to generate empirical
research.

50. SERVANT LEADERSHIP
This approach to leadership reflects a philosophy that leaders should be servants first. It
suggests that leaders must place the needs of subordinates, customers, and the
community ahead of their own interests in order to be effective. Characteristics of
servant leaders include empathy, stewardship, and commitment to the personal,
professional, and spiritual growth of their subordinates. Servant leadership has not been
subjected to extensive empirical testing but has generated considerable interest among
both leadership scholars and practitioners.
Leadership continues to be one of the most written about topics in the social sciences.
Although much has been learned about leadership since the 1930s, many avenues of
research still remain to be explored as we enter the twenty­first century.
Leadership Styles
Leadership style refers to a leader's behavior. It is the result of the philosophy,
personality, and experience of the leader. Rhetoric specialists have also developed
models for understanding leadership (Robert Hariman, Political Style,Philippe­Joseph
Salazar, L'Hyperpolitique. Technologies politiques De La Domination).
Different situations call for different leadership styles. In an emergency when there is

51. little time to converge on an agreement and where a designated authority has
significantly more experience or expertise than the rest of the team, an autocratic
leadership style may be most effective; however, in a highly motivated and aligned team
with a homogeneous level of expertise, a more democratic or laissez­faire style may be
more effective.
The style adopted should be the one that most effectively achieves the objectives of the
group while balancing the interests of its individual members.
Autocratic or authoritarian style
Under the autocratic leadership style, all decision­making powers are centralized in the
leader, as with dictators.
Leaders do not entertain any suggestions or initiatives from subordinates. The autocratic
management has been successful as it provides strong motivation to the manager. It
permits quick decision­making, as only one person decides for the whole group and
keeps each decision to him/herself until he/she feels it needs to be shared with the rest of
the group.
In an autocratic leadership style, the person in charge has total authority and control over
decision making. By virtue of their position and job responsibilities, they not only

52. control the efforts of the team, but monitor them for completion –often under close
scrutiny
This style is reminiscent of the earliest tribes and empires. Obviously, our historical
movement toward democracy brings a negative connotation to autocracy, but in some
situations, it is the most appropriate type of leadership. That, of course, doesn’t mean a
blank check to ignore the wellbeing of his subordinate.
When is it used?
The autocratic leadership style is best used in situations where control is necessary, often
where there is little margin for error. When conditions are dangerous, rigid rules can
keep people out of harm’s way. Many times, the subordinate staff is inexperienced or
unfamiliar with the type of work and heavy oversight is necessary.
Rigid organizations often use this style. It has been known to be very paternalistic, and
in highly­professional, independent minded teams, it can lead to resentment and strained
morale.
Good fits for Autocratic Leadership:
• Military
• Manufacturing
• Construction

53. How to be effective with this position
It’s easy to see the immediate goal of this type of leadership: use your expertise to get
the job done. Make sure that everyone is exactly where they need to be and doing their
job, while the important tasks are handled quickly and correctly.
In many ways this is the oldest leadership style, dating back to the early empires. It’s
very intuitive to tell people what needs to be done by when.
It is difficult balancing the use of authority with the morale of the team. Too much direct
scrutiny will make your subordinates miserable, and being too heavy handed will
squelch all group input. Being an effective autocratic leader means being very
intentional about when and how demands are made of the team.
Here are some things to keep in mind to be an effective when acting as an autocratic
leader:
• Respect your Subordinates: It’s easy to end up as rigid as the rules you are
trying to enforce. It’s important that you stay fair and acknowledge that everyone
brings something to the table, even if they don’t call the shots. Making
subordinates realize they are respected keeps moral up and resentment low; every
functional team is built on a foundation of mutual respect.

54. • Explain the rules: Your people know they have to follow procedure, but it helps
them do a better job if they know why.
• Be consistent: If your role in the team is to enforce the company line, you have to
make sure you do so consistently and fairly. It’s easy to respect someone objective,
but hard to trust someone who applies policy differently in similar circumstances.
• Educate before you enforce: Having everyone understand your expectations up
front will mean less surprises down the road. Being above board from the outset
prevents a lot of miscommunications and misunderstandings.
• Listen, even if you don’t change: We all want to feel like our opinions are
appreciated, even if they aren’t going to lead to immediate change and being a
leader means that your team will want to bring their opinions to you. It’s important
to be clear that they are heard, no matter the outcome.
Participative or democratic style
The democratic leadership style consists of the leader sharing the decision­making
abilities with group members by promoting the interests of the group members and by
practicing social equality.
A Participative Leader, rather than taking autocratic decisions, seeks to involve other

55. people in the process, possibly including subordinates, peers, superiors and other
stakeholders. Often, however, as it is within the managers' whim to give or deny control
to his or her subordinates, most participative activity is within the immediate team.
The question of how much influence others are given thus may vary on the manager's
preferences and beliefs, and a whole spectrum of participation is possible, as in the table
below.
< Not participative Highly participative >
Leader
Team
proposes Joint Full
proposes
Autocratic decision, decision with delegation of
decision,
decision by listens to team as decision to
leader has
leader feedback, equals team
final decision
then decides
There are many varieties on this spectrum, including stages where the leader sells the
idea to the team. Another variant is for the leader to describe the 'what' of objectives or
goals and let the team or individuals decide the 'how' of the process by which the 'how'

56. will be achieved (this is often called 'Management by Objectives').
The level of participation may also depend on the type of decision being made.
Decisions on how to implement goals may be highly participative, whilst decisions
during subordinate performance evaluations are more likely to be taken by the manager.
There are many potential benefits of participative leadership, as indicated in the
assumptions, above.
This approach is also known as consultation, empowerment, joint decision­making,
democratic leadership, Management By Objective (MBO) and power­sharing.
Participative Leadership can be a sham when managers ask for opinions and then ignore
them. This is likely to lead to cynicism and feelings of betrayal.
Laissez­faire or free rein style
A person may be in a leadership position without providing leadership, leaving the group
to fend for itself. Subordinates are given a free hand in deciding their own policies and
methods.
The Laissez Faire Leadership Style was first described by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in
1938, along with the autocratic leadership and the democratic leadership styles. The

57. laissez faire style is sometimes described as a "hands off" leadership style because the
leader provides little or no direction to the followers.
The characteristics of the laissez faire style include:
• Allows followers to have complete freedom to make decisions concerning the
completion of their work or ask questions of the leader
• The leader provides the followers with the materials they need to accomplish their
goals and answers the follower's questions
In this type of leadership style,the leader totally trusts their employees/team to perform
the job themselves. He just concentrates on the intellectual/rational aspect of his work
and does not focus on the management aspect of his work.
The team/employees are welcomed to share their views and provide suggestions which
are best for organizational interests. This leadership style works only when the
employees are skilled, loyal, experienced and intellectual.
Narcissistic leadership
Various academics such as Kets de Vries, Maccoby, and Thomas have identified
narcissistic leadership as an important and common leadership style.

58. Narcissistic leadership is a common form of leadership. The narcissism may be healthy
or destructive although there is a continuum between the two. To critics, "narcissistic
leadership (preferably destructive) is driven by unyielding arrogance, self­absorption,
and a personal egotistic need for power and admiration."
here are four basic types of leader with narcissists most commonly in type 3 although
they may be in type 1:
1. authoritarian with task orientated decision making
2. democratic with task orientated decision making
3. authoritarian with emotional decision making
4. democratic with emotional decision making
Toxic leadership
A toxic leader is someone who has responsibility over a group of people or an
organization, and who abuses the leader­follower relationship by leaving the group or
organization in a worse­off condition than when he/she first found them.
The phrase was coined by Marcia Whicker in 1996 and is linked with a number of
dysfunctional leadership styles.Other names include the little Hitler, manager from hell

59. and boss from hell.
Basic traits of toxic leadership
The basic traits of a toxic leader are generally considered to be either/or
insular,intemperate, glib, operationally rigid, callous, inept, discriminatory, corrupt or
aggressive by scholars such as Barbara Kellerman.
These may occur as either:
• Oppositional behaviour. • Poor self­control and or restraint.
• Plays corporate power politics. • Physical and/or psychological
• An overcompetitive attitude to other bullying.
employees. • Procedural inflexibility.
• Perfectionistic attitudes. • Discriminatory attitudes (sexism,
• Abuse of the disciplinary system etc.).
(such as to remove a workplace rival). • Causes workplace division instead of
• A condescending/glib attitude. harmony.
• Use "divide and rule" tactics on their
employees.

60. AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP
Authenticity is a great word with great meanings. An authentic person is someone who
is true to himself or herself, someone who is honest and open, and someone who
believes in his or her abilities. As such an authentic person does not hide anything from
others and lives with integrity.
Authentic leadership is about guiding others with sincerity. It is about setting directions
with integrity. It is about taking the lead while being open to others. It is about standing
up for others with sincerity and taking full responsibility by being true to the self and
others.
Before the year 2000, leadership was not a popular word in the management world let
alone authentic leadership. It was all about management and how to manage and control
people. It was thought that leaders were born and not made. Leadership was limited to
political leaders who would take risks and fight for their people. It was not practiced by
executives in companies.

61. With the beginning of the 21st century, however, books on leadership started to show up
more and more. Management books, on the other hand, started to decline. It was thought
that management was no longer enough. Leaders needed to be developed. Companies
gradually believed that without leadership they could not thrive in their business.
Recently, authentic leadership is being preached. For leaders to be successful in leading
people and companies, they need to be vulnerable, honest, and trustworthy. They should
not try to imitate others. They need to be themselves and stick to their core values at all
times. That is the key to real success.
In his book, the True North, Bill George says, “the authentic leader brings people
together around a shared purpose and empowers them to step up and lead authentically
in order to create value for all stakeholders”. This is indeed a great definition of
authentic leadership.
Authentic leadership is about being true to the self, acting with passion and integrity,
having respect and love for others, and not following the crowd but inspiring the crowd
to move toward achieving a great vision with hope and faith.
According to Bob Terry “Authenticity is knowing, and acting on, what is true and real
inside yourself, your team and your organization AND knowing and acting on what is
true and real in the world. It is not enough to walk one’s talk if one is headed off, or
leading one’s organization, community or nation,of a cliff.”

62. Terry believes that the central organizing principle of leadership is authenticity. And he
shows how authenticity and action joined together form a sure foundation for effective
leadership.
Authenticity is the "State of being committed to the truth."
"An authentic leader is a person who chooses to live a life of integrity. They are not only
honest in relationship with others but most importantly they are honest and true
to themselves. Does this mean they don't make mistakes? Of course they do..we are all
human! And yet they have the courage to take responsibility for their ways, learn and
grow. Why? because they care!...They care about you, they care about me and they care
about our world. " (Kim Elkovich MD A Higher Self.
The benefits of Authentic Leadership include:
• An individual continually grows and learns how to creatively adjust to the
conditions that are facing them.
• Decision making involves "and" instead of "or".
• People become more honest with themselves and those they are in contact
developing higher levels of trust.

63. • An individual connects with and aligns decisions to their personal conscience.
This means higher levels of ethics and personal integrity.
• Leaders appreciate and utilize ‘difference versus sameness’. This fosters
innovation and an ability to resolve conflict.
• New ways of thinking develop. This provides an opportunity to view the world
differently and solve issues of great complexity .
A Higher Self guides and mentors leaders to:
• Assist them to identify certain practices and ways of thinking, feeling and
behaving that are no longer benefiting them.
• Support leaders to take risks and make the changes necessary in order to grow
themselves and their relationship with the world.
Overtime, this change process develops within the leader a capacity (confidence,
resourcefulness) and inner resilience that allows them to face future challenges
without mentoring. They become self sufficient. Not only is this cost effective but
most importantly liberating!
Following is some theoretical and philosophical insight into Authenticity:
The profession of psychology and those spiritual have been exploring, theorising and
researching authenticity for decades. The central premise is that human beings are born

64. into the world as unique. Their uniqueness can be scientifically attributed to the random
aggregation of DNA code derived from both parents, or from a spiritual perspective (eg
a unique spirit enters the world in human form to fulfill a life purpose; contributing
to their spiritual growth).
Regardless of the point of view, the truth is that in order to survive in the world a child is
reliant on others. Children learn through sensing and experience about attachment
further what to do in order to have their needs met. By interacting with and mirroring
their parents (or primary caregiver), extended family, school, community and society
they learn how to think, feel, act and form relationships with others. They develop values
and beliefs that support them in their immediate world. They learn Unfortunately, this
conditioning takes them away from who they really are ­ the authentic self.
Adding to the basic premise of psychological /spiritual existence and personal growth, is
that adult life circumstances can challenge who we are and the way we live.
Individuals can discover that the way they were taught to exist in the world is in fact
creating problems for them. Their learnt behaviour, thinking, values and beliefs are not
sufficient enough to solve the problem, or no longer serve them (relationship problems,
feeling stressed are common signs). This creates tension with individuals often feeling

65. frustrated or stuck. This tension builds until the person is required to question themselves
and their predicament. They begin to think of new possibilities and eventually, if able to
take a leap of faith, choose to do something different and/or change themselves.
This process of change provides the opportunity for continued growth with many
possibilities. However when this process is not embraced we see personal turmoil,
relationship breakdowns, workplace bullying, poor decision making and sometimes
mental illness in the form of panic attacks, anxiety and depression.
Self­awareness and personal choice being the keys that allow an individual to shed layers
of conditioning that no longer benefit them. This in effect brings a person closer to who
they really are. They become more authentic. A number of psychological modalities
refer to this as the Onion Skin Model, ie peeling the onion. Some researches refer to this
process as the evolution of human consciousness.
Finally, we are not designed to run faster and faster behaving the same old way and
making the same old mistakes, until we collapse. Instead we are designed to evolve.
ETHICAL LEADERSHIP
Researchers in the field of applied psychology define ethical leadership
as the demonstration of appropriate conduct through personal actions and

66. relationships and the promotion of such conduct to subordinates through
two­way communication, reinforcement, and decision making. This definition highlights
three key components of ethical leadership. A discussion of each follows.
First, leaders become credible and authentic as ethical role models by engaging in
ongoing behaviors that subordinates deem unselfish and ethically appropriate. These
behaviors include being honest, showing consideration for others, and treating people
fairly and with respect. As noted by M.E. Brown and colleagues, ethical leadership
entails engaging in transparent, fair, and caring actions.1 By so doing, leaders become an
example of how to behave and a model for others to identify with and imitate. This is an
ongoing process; subordinates are continuously evaluating their leaders, so a leader who
is ethical at one point in time and not at another sends mixed messages that damage his
authenticity.
Second, ethical leadership entails directing attention to ethical issues and standards.
Ethical leadership requires emphasizing the importance and significance of ethics.
Communicating about ethics on a consistent basis is a key component to ethical
leadership; leaders who behave ethically but never talk to their subordinate about ethics
will fall short in ethical leadership.

67. Third, ethical leadership entails creating ethical command climates that set the
conditions for positive outcomes and ethically appropriate behavior and provide negative
outcomes for inappropriate behaviour.
Ethical leadership is a two­way process. Ethical leaders must direct attention to ethical
issues, enforce ethical standards, and allow subordinates to bring up ethical issues with
them. Rewards and punishments should take place in an environment of open two­way
communication. Subordinates must inform their leaders about ethical issues they may
face (that the leader is unaware of), and ethical leaders must clearly inform followers of
ethical standards.
The 4­V Model of Ethical Leadership
The 4­V Model of Ethical Leadership is a framework that aligns the internal (beliefs and
values) with the external (behaviors and actions) for the purpose of advancing the
common good. The model was created by Center founder Dr. Bill Grace based on his
formal leadership research and personal passions around faith and ethics.
At the Center for Ethical Leadership we have found that people who want to become
leaders who make a difference need to embrace an inner journey of integrity and make
an outer commitment to the common good. Our leadership development approach begins

68. with this inner journey. Individuals discover and claim their core values, develop a vision
for how the world could be different, find their personal voice for expressing their vision.
They then move to an outer commitment of living and behaving in ways that serve the
community and advance the common good. They ask, “leadership for what purpose?”
The ultimate purpose of leadership is to shape a future that is visionary, inclusive, and
enables all members of society to fulfill their needs, dreams and potentials.

70. • Values. Ethical leadership begins with an understanding of and commitment to
our individual core values. By first discovering the values at the core of our
identities, we begin the process of integrating our unique values with our choice­
making on all levels of our personal and civic lives.
• Vision. Vision is the ability to frame our actions – particularly in service to others
– within a real picture of what ought to be.
• Voice. Claiming our voice is the process of articulating our vision to others in an
authentic and convincing way that animates and motivates them to action.
• Virtue. Understanding that we become what we practice, we foster virtue by
practicing virtuous behavior – striving to do what is right and good. In this way,
we develop the character of virtue. In particular, virtue stands for the common
good. Ethical leaders ask, “How are my values, vision and voice in keeping with
the common good?”
Dr. Grace identified three additional elements that are key to the development of ethical