The Dynamics of Leadership: A Review and Evaluation of Leading Theories

The Dynamics of Leadership: A Review and Evaluation of Leading Theories

Dr. Daniel Masaga Barante

School of Education & Business studies, Scott Christian University, Kenya

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8100200

Received: 12 October 2024; Accepted: 17 October 2024; Published: 15 November 2024

ABSTRACT

This Paper reviews the existing literature on leadership and the various theories that scholars have developed over time. It provides a systematic overview of leadership research, offering insights into the key theories and leadership styles proposed by different researchers. The review begins by examining the concept of leadership from diverse scholarly perspectives and then highlights the evolution of leadership theories from ancient times to the modern era, clarifying the various leadership styles introduced by scholars. The study observes that while leadership theories and practices have been continually refined and modified over time, earlier works have remained relevant and influential. However, the review also reveals that no single theory fully captures the complexity of leadership. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt a blended approach to understanding leadership and its practices, recognizing that various contextual factors may influence leadership effectiveness in different situations.

Keywords: Leadership, Leadership theories, Democratic leader, autocratic leader, transformational leader, spiritual leader, authentic leader, transactional leader, strategic leader, spiritual leader and ethical leader.

INTRODUCTION

Every sphere of this life, be it Family, school, religious organization, military, Business, civil society, political and governments need a leadership that is inspiring for meaningful attainment of goals. Throughout the history of mankind, great accomplishments have been achieved because of a leadership that was able to rally people behind a certain cause. The leadership capabilities of great military commanders, political leaders, businessmen and even religious leaders around the world has fascinated many people and attracted the interest of many scholars and researchers from different fields to make inquiries into the topic of leadership.

Leadership has emerged as one of the major research areas both in corporate world and academia; researchers have made tremendous progress in unearthing some of the underlining mysteries behind leadership. There is no doubt research in this area will continue to intensify in the coming decade due to changes in global dynamics brought about by changes in technology. Over the years, practitioners and researchers have conceived a belief that leadership is a process that is adaptive and with constant development in the area of research it has seldom disagreed with what was derived before. The fundamental questions that continue to linger about are whether true leaders are Made or Born? Can followers impact the success of a good leader? Can Charismatic leaders build or destroy societies and what impact will technology cause on leadership as the fulcrum of group and institutional performances (Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., & Weber, T. J., 2009).

Literature reviews on the concept of leadership suggest that it has been a topic of discussion that dates back to early human civilizations like Egyptian, Arabian and Greek civilizations. The twentieth century marked a period which many researchers and practitioners made meaningful strides in classifying different dimensions of leadership. This created a great impact among social researchers and organizations development practioners and efforts to understand structured research on leadership was mooted. The foundation of leadership theory began with leadership traits, which gives a leader the difference to the functioning of the relationship between the leader and the followers. This approach on leadership dominated research until late 1940’s. But subsequent researches have proven by showing that leadership effectiveness is not a function of leader traits only, and this made researchers shift into looking at the behavior, style, and development of the leader and its effectiveness. The type of leadership applied in different situations, functions, culture, contexts, working environment, new regulations and laws, information overload, organizational complexities and psycho-socio developments remarkably impact the leadership concept thereby, making it commensurate to the changing organizational dynamics (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta & Kramer, 2004 & Khan, et, al 2016).

Literature on leadership reveals that theories on leadership have undergone modification with the passage of time and therefore none of the theories could be irrelevant.

LEADERSHIP CONCEPT

The study of leadership is not a new thing as it can historically be traced back to early societies like ancient Egypt, the Greek philosophers like Aristotle, Plato and Socrates wrote quite much about Leadership. However, it is in the early 20^th century the importance of leadership studies emerged while a social- scientific approach did not emerge until 1930s (House & Aditya, 1997 & Ozera et. al, 2014) Many scholars have tried to come up with different definitions of leadership:

Hemphill & Coons (1957) defined leadership as, “The behavior of an individual directing the activities of a group toward a shared goal”. Katz and Kahn (1978) believe leadership is “the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with routine directives of the organization”.

Locke (1991) defined leadership as process of inducing others to take action towards a common goal’. This definition brings out leadership as a process that is based on relationship; it involves the leader and the followers, the leader induces the followers to act by doing something that causes them to act. Leadership has therefore emerged as a distinct practice from management (Although not always mutually exclusive)

Abraham Zaleznik 1977 published the now famous article which observed that the difference between leaders and managers is in their understanding of and how they respond to “chaos and order”. It is argued that mangers seek stability and control, embrace processes and naturally seek to quickly resolve problems; while leaders can tolerate chaos and lack of proper structure and can delay to resolve problems so as to understand the underlying issues fully.

Northouse (2010) conceptualized leadership as a process that has the following two characteristics:

1. Leadership is a process that involves influence; and
2. Leadership occurs in groups and involves common goals and purpose.

Based on the above attributes, leadership is therefore defined as ‘a process in which an individual influences a group of individuals to attain a common goal’ (Northouse, 2010). Further, Kelloway & Barling (2010) define leadership as a process of social influence that is enacted by individuals in formal positions of power or leadership positions within an organization, such as managers and supervisors. Although leadership is not confined to individuals in formal leadership positions, it is argued that these individuals may have a particularly wide scope of influence within an organization (Kelloway & Barling, 2010).

According to Northouse (2010) Leadership and management are distinct practices that share abit of common characteristics, for example, they are both concerned with influence and working hand in hand with people to achieve goals. However, the functions of leadership may be distinguished from those of management since leadership involves establishing direction (e.g. creating a vision, a mission and establishing strategies). On the other hand, management is concerned with planning and budgeting (e.g. setting timetables and allocating resources), organizing and staffing (e.g. establishing rules and procedures) and controlling and problem solving (e.g. developing initiatives and generating solutions) (Kotter, 1990; cited in Northouse, 2010)

Despite the difference in functions managers are often involved in helping teams and groups achieve their goals (i.e. leadership function) similarly, leaders are also involved in planning and organizing tasks in order to get the job done (i.e. management function) (Northouse, 2010).

According to Yukl (2010), leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and group efforts to achieve shared objectives”. Yukl’s definition indicates that leadership does not only include efforts to facilitate and influence the current group work, but it also ensures that the group is prepared to meet future challenges. Researchers define leadership according to their own perspectives and areas of leadership that is of more interest to them and the specific aspects of leadership they attempt to explore, this explains the reason for the varying definitions

Table 1: Leadership Definition

The concept of “influence” is the most frequently cited aspect despite numerous definitions. Burns, (1978) explains that leadership is different from power, noting that “to control things- tools, mineral resources, money, energy- is an act of power, not leadership, for things have no motives. Power wielders may treat people as things; leaders may not”.

Leadership Theories

Many theories of leadership such as Great man theory, Behavioral theory, Trait theory, contingency theory, participative theory, situational leadership theory, transformational theory, transactional theory etc have been explored and studied over the many years and currently the shift has been towards looking at strategic, positive and servant leadership.

“Great Man” Theories

This theory was advance by Scottish Philosopher Thomas Carlyle and it postulates that great leaders are simply born with innate attributes like charisma, intelligence, confidence and interpersonal skills that make them naturally- born leaders.

These theories assert that leaders are born and not made; they assume that the capacity to lead is inherent in a person and therefore leaders emerge automatically. Great leaders are often portrayed by these theories as mythic, heroic and are destined to rise to leadership when called upon. At the time (19th Century) The term “Great Man” was coined at the time; leadership was attributed to masculinity and thought of as a male quality, especially in military leadership (Ololube, 2013).

The thought behind these theories is that people cannot simply learn to be strong leaders; its either you were born a leader or not, it is more of nature as opposed to nurture approach to leadership. While opining” Great-Man Theory” Carlyle (1874) & Khan, et, al (2016) assert that leaders are born and men who are endowed with heroic potentials can become great leaders.

Carlyle (1907) ‘as a writer on the subject, promoted the notion of ‘great man theory” in his writings. In his essay on heroes, he tended to reinforce the concept of the leader as a person endowed with unique qualities that capture the imagination of the masses.

Galton (1870) was the first person to conduct an authentic study on this theoretical approach and many early theorists who attempted to explain leadership on the basis of inheritance were influenced by Galton’s study of the hereditary background of great men.

Woods (1913) undertook a study on fourteen nations over periods between five to ten centuries. The ruler’s capabilities were found to underlie the conditions of each nation. The King’s brothers (due to natural endowment, of course) also tended to be men of influence and power. As a result Woods concluded that making and shaping of the nations is dependent on man and his abilities.

Wiggam (1931) proposed in his work on the theory that the survival of the fittest and subsequent intermarriages amongst themselves reproduces an aristocratic class which is biologically different from the lower class, hence, an adequate supply of superior leaders depends on a proportionately high birth rate among the high classes.

This theory was highly favored in the 19th century because leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi Abraham Lincoln, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar reflected such tributes. This theory was also based on leaders who had often inherited their leadership role through birthright and were already successful (Amanchukwu, Stanley, & Ololube, 2015).

A modern day issue with this theory is that many people, who lack great leadership qualities, develop and grow into great leaders and as such, this theory is not commonly used to inform business practices. The observation that leadership was morally flawed with reference to leaders like Adolf Hittler, Napoleon and their ilks challenged the credibility of these theories as these great men became irrelevant with time and hence the growth of the organizations restrained (Macgregor, 2003)

Trait Theories

Trait theories are related to Great Man theories in some ways since they assume that people who are better suited to be leaders inherit certain traits and qualities that make them good leaders. They often identify specific personality and/or behavioral attributes that are said to be shared by leaders. For instance, attributes like self-confidence, extroversion, courage and charisma are all attributes that could easily be linked to what makes great leaders.

It is believed that one of the first trait theories was founded by the famous Physician named Galen in ancient Greece; Galen stated that people’s personalities were a reflection of four Hormones (fluids) that make up human bodies; Black bile—gloomy pessimistic (Melancholic) Yellow Bile – bad temper, irritability (choleric), Blood-cheerful, passionate (sanguine), Phlegm- sluggish, non-excitable (phlegmatic). Galen asserted that if one of these fluids dominated a person, then the personality associated with that particular fluid would be observed. (Gallen, 2002)

Early studies on Leadership did the analysis based on hereditary characteristics and compared characteristics of leaders to those of his followers Bass (1990). The emphasis of trait approach is on leader attributes like personality, values, motives and skills which distinguish a leader from a follower (Hughes, 2005).

The concentration of research in regard to trait theory focuses on the following factors:

i) Personality features such as emotional control, integrity, self-confidence and charisma; ii) physical attributes like height, age, weight, health, physique and appearance; iii) Ability factors like tone of voice, intelligence, fluency of speech, academic performance, insight, judgment, decision and initiative (Bass, 1990 & Bryman, 1986). This theory asserts that a person must possess these attributes for them to be fit and assume leadership.

Henry Fayol (1949) in his work of trait approach was able to identify three qualities: mental attributes like ability to comprehend and learn, mental vigor, judgment and adaptability; physical attributes like health, height and physical vigor; moral qualities like energy, initiative, firmness, acceptance of responsibility, tact, loyalty and dignity”

Frankline (1995) rates the traits of “rationality, judgment leadership, technical competence and intelligence” high as crucial attributes for a leader. He warns that less than rashness, broad integrity, and unwillingness to accept responsibility are the key list to watch for.

Kamisan and King, (2013) posit that people naturally born with attributes like intelligence, confidence, idealism and determination have the inclination of easily becoming good leaders and most followers lack these traits. Trait theory however, failed because it was hard to spot and detect common attributes of successful leaders and in the 1940s, research exposed the significance of certain attributes developing at particular times while undertaking study on the traits of military leaders and civilian (Khan, et, al 2016).

Rodman (1995) states that in today’s demanding environment successful leaders tend to share at least eight personal traits such as staying in touch with people, the ability to focus attention, selecting people, an emphasis on simple values, avoiding pseudo professionalism, managing change, avoiding ‘do-it-allies”, and facing up to failure.

The question that arise is that if certain traits are key to leadership, then how do we explain individuals who are born with or posses these attributes but are not leaders? This question goes as one of the difficulties identified in utilizing trait theories as the basis of explaining leadership.

We notice that the society is full of individuals, who possess the particular personality trait associated with leadership, yet many of these individuals never seek leadership positions and on the other hand people who lack some of these qualities often associated with effective leadership excel at leading teams and groups.

These theories according to Ralph (1982) suffer from a serious drawback that the personality theorists tended to regard leadership as a one way influence effect, while acknowledging that the leader may possess qualities differentiating him from followers. They however failed to recognize the reciprocal and interactive characteristics of the leadership situation.

Contingency (Situational) Theories

These theories of leadership advocates for the assessment of the environment before determining the type of leadership style to employ by a leader, a leader must first understand the variables in a given situation to be able to make a decision on the approach to take. According to this theory no leadership style is suitable for all situations.

Hersey and Blanchard (1969) developed this theory and categorized leadership styles into four behavior types; Directing, supporting, coaching and delegating. Accordingly the type of leadership style employed will highly depend on the readiness and performance of the group.

Contingency theories gained momentum and much prominence in the 1960s & 1970s and emphasized on understanding the situation or circumstances where leadership decisions will be meaningful and effective. The fundamental assumption of this theory being that the effectiveness of any leadership style will depend on the situation. The basic principle of this approach is that leadership style is context specific; one leadership style may be effective in one situation and become ineffective in another (Yukl, 2010).

Therefore, leadership must change with the situation since discrete factors in the situation determine leadership; alternatively, the variables in the situation must change to accommodate the leadership style that is being exercised (Fairholm, 1998, cited in Hughes, 2005).

According to Contingency approach, there are two types of leadership styles: relationship- motivated and task – motivated. These two styles relate to the concern for people and concern for production in the leadership grid model. If leaders are primarily concerned about developing close interpersonal relationships with the people, they have a predominantly relationship-motivated style; conversely, if leaders are primarily concerned about achieving goals and objectives, they have a dominant task-motivated style

Figure 1: Relationship-motivated and Task-motivated Leadership styles

Source: Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., (1993), Management of Organizational Behavior – Utilizing Human Resources, 6th Edition, Prentice-Hall International, New Jersey.

There are four stages of follower readiness (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993):

• R1: People are both unable and unwilling to take responsibility for doing something. They are neither competent nor confident.
• R2: People are unable but willing to do the necessary job tasks. They are motivated, but currently lack the appropriate skills.
• R3: People are able but unwilling to do what the leader wants.
• R4: People are both able and willing to do what is asked for them.

Task and relationship behaviors are considered as high or low and combined into four specific leadership styles (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993):

• Telling (high task – low relationship): The leader defines roles and tells people what, how, when, and where to do various tasks.
• Selling (high task – high relationship): The leader provides both directive and supportive behavior.
• Participating (low task – high relationship): the leader and follower share in decision-making; the main role of the leader is facilitating and communicating.
• Delegating (low task – low relationship): The leader provides little direction or support.

Different studies have tried to isolate some critical situational factors that determine leadership effectiveness, some of these factors include: the quality of leader-member relations, subordinate maturity, the extent of structure in the task being performed, subordinates’ role clarity, information accessibility, norms of the group, leader’s decisions acceptability by subordinates, the leader’s position power (Howell et al., 1986).

Fiedler and Chemers (1974) proposed that the situation measurement should be done using three factors: Task structure, leader-member relationship and position power; the first one, task structure, involves clarity of task, clarity of ways to complete every task and clarity of roles for each group member, and task structure is measured as high or low. Secondly, Leader-member relations are measured as good or bad. Leader-member relations include characteristics such as group atmosphere, confidence, the extent of loyalty, attraction to leaders, and the existence of friction within the group and thirdly position power is measured as strong or weak power depending on how leaders motivate or punish. Position power is strong when the leader has the legitimate authority to hire and promote an employee. It is weak if leaders do not have such authority.

According to Fiedler (1967) a desirable situation is where the leader- member relation is good, highly structured tasks and the leader has enough power to exert influence on the subordinates. New version of the theory termed this situation as a ‘high control’ situation because an easily controllable situation is favorable to the leader. On the other extreme, an ‘undesirable’ or ‘uncontrollable’ situation is where the relations with members are poor, leader’s power is weak and the task is unstructured and unpredictable.

Van Wert (2015) demonstrated how a militaristic type of leadership style might not be appropriate in a civilian-based organization, and military leaders may not be as successful utilizing the leadership skills developed within the military, i.e. those skills may not transfer to other civilian agencies.

Some studies have found that the Contingency theory despite having its strengths is too complicated to impact on most leaders:

According to Andrew (1998), matching the situation to the leader is the major problem of this approach since in most circumstances; the amount of control the leader exercises varies from time to time. For example, if a relationship motivated leader were to find the situation becoming highly favorable for exercising control, it is doubtful the same leader would be transferred to a less favorable situation or attempt to make the situation less favorable.

House’s Path–Goal Theory

The most supported and influential contingency theory to date is probably House’s Path-Goal Theory of Leadership, developed in 1971. The theory describes how the behavior of a leader influences the satisfaction and performance of subordinates (Yukl, 1989). According to the theory, the duty of the leader is to clean the road for the employees and get rid of problems on the way leading to defined goals, so the employees can function more efficiently (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). In particular, as seen in Figure 4, leaders increase follower motivation either by (House 1971):

• clarifying the follower’s path to the rewards that are available, or
• increasing the rewards that the follower values and desires.

Figure 2: Leader Roles in the Path–Goal Model

Source: self-created in reference to Daft, R.L., (2018), The Leadership Experience, 7th Edition, Cengage Learning.

A leader may perform these behaviors by adopting a certain leadership style based on the situation. The path–goal theory suggests a fourfold classification of leadership styles (House, 1971):

• Supportive Leadership: leader is friendly and approachable, attends to the wellbeing of subordinates, and treats everyone as equal.
• Directive Leadership: leader gives instructions, expectations, timelines, and performance standards.
• Participative Leadership: leader invites subordinates to give ideas, share opinions and integrates their suggestions into the decision-making process.
• Achievement-Oriented Leadership: leader challenges subordinates to perform at the highest

Some examples of how leadership behavior is tailored to the situation can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 3: Path–Goal Situations and Preferred Leader Behaviors

Source: self-created in reference to Daft, R.L., (2018), The Leadership Experience, 7th Edition, Cengage Learning.

In all four cases, the outcome of fitting the leadership behavior to the situation produces greater employee effort by either clarifying how subordinates can receive rewards or changing the rewards to fit their needs (Daft, 2018).

Behavioral Theories

Unlike the Great man theories, Behavioral theories are anchored on the belief that leaders are made, not born. This leadership theory does not focus on the internal state or on mental qualities (personal and intellectual qualities of leaders) but on the actions of leaders, it asserts that through teaching and observation, people can learn to become leaders (Amanchukwu et al., 2015).

This theory posits that, to influence followers, leaders use three sets of skills: Human, technical and conceptual. Successful leaders identify goals, interact well with employees and communicate effectively, motivate workers to attain set goals and build team spirit.

These theories presuppose that leaders are distinguished by particular behaviors. The underlying assumption is that an effective leader in any context is the one who exhibits and exemplifies behaviors that promote group productivity and psychological growth of group members (Jones & George, 2017).

In view of the limitations identified in trait theory in the 1950s, there was need to shift focus in the direction of finding out the type of leader behaviors that good leader exhibit; what is this that good leaders normally do? Unlike the trait theory therefore, behavioral theories focus on the leaders’ actions and behavior (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). The Iowa state university studies conducted in the 1930s pointed out three types of leadership styles: Democratic style, autocratic style and laissez-fare style of leadership (Bryman, 1986).

Daft (1999) states that A democratic leader encourages participation, delegates authority to other team members, utilizes subordinates’ knowledge for execution of tasks, and also relies on subordinate respect for influence While on the other hand, an autocratic leader tends to derive power from position and centralize authority to himself and use coercions and intimidation to get work done. Laissez-faire style is the avoidance or absence of leadership where people are left on their own to determine their behaviors and actions but it has been noted as the most ineffective style (Bass, 1990)

This theory has limitations however, in that; behaviors which are relevant in a given time may be irrelevant and undesirable in another time or situation. Further, Behavioral theories state that the most effective leaders are both relationship and task-oriented, combining both attributes leads to high productivity and helps in meeting deadlines and enhances meeting of employee needs and growth (Blake and Mouton, 1964; as cited by Bass and Bass, 2008). It has however been argued that, combining both attributes may not necessarily lead to high productivity depending on situational and/ or follower. For example, in routine or simple tasks leadership may not even be necessary while for tasks which are complex, leaders may be required to give direction, provide guidance and pay attention to employee support (Northouse, 2010).

Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX)

This theory that was first advanced by Graen and his companions then further refined has been considered useful in understanding and studying leadership approaches since it puts focus on the direct relationship between the leader and the follower (Danserau, Chasman and Graen, 1973, Graen, 2006).

The Leader-Member Exchange theory (LMX) theory is different from other leadership theories because of its focus on the direct relationship and interaction between the leader and the follower. This interaction or relationship which is called dyadic relationship is utilized to give explanation on leadership as a function of both leader characteristics and the particular situation or interaction with the follower; the leadership process is a dyadic relationship between leaders and followers.

LMX theory is anchored on the idea that a leader normally has a particular team of supporters given special projects that result in higher morale, enhanced job satisfaction, turnover reduction, and great performance.

According to Omilion-Hodges and Baker (2017), LMX is basically the quality of engagement between the leader and the followers. Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995) put focus on enhancing high quality leader-member exchanges coined as “leadership making”. According to the leadership making model by Graen and Uhl-Bien, high quality relationship development between leader and subordinates goes through three development stages; the first stage is the stranger phase , where the dyadic relationship relies basically on the contract and job description roles; the second stage is the acquaintance phase where the two parties, leader and subordinate engage in social exchanges relating to the job and personal information that leads to forming of respect and trust; The third stage is the final phase; mature partnerships, which emerges when mutual respect and trust are firmly formed and both parties are impacted by each other in reciprocal manners.

The basic principle of leader-member exchange approach is the development of qualitative different interactions between the leader and subordinates and the effectiveness and behavioral subordinate outcomes depend on the quality of this relationships. Therefore, Leader Member exchange theory acknowledges that leaders do not always apply equality in treating all subordinates (Glendon et al., 2006).

Early studies on LMX indicated that the extent to which a subordinate will be considered as part of ‘in group’ or ‘out group’ for the leader to work with them is determined by the degree to which the subordinate becomes supportive and goes beyond what is written in the formal job description (Liden & Graen, 1980; as cited in Bass & Bass, 2008).

The limitation of LMX approach is that it does not give description on how great quality of leader-subordinate relationships can be created and be made to evolve with time (Northouse, 2010; Yukl, 2010). For example, the LMX theory suggest that respect, sense of obligation and trust are the building blocks to great quality leader – member exchange relationship, but it is not clear how these can be enhanced and fostered or the simple process that need to be followed. It also fails to recognize issues of workplace fairness within an organization (e.g. Wages or salary increments or bonuses & opportunities for promotions) and the likelihood of these affecting the development of great quality leader-subordinate exchanges (Northouse, 2010).

TYPES LEADERSHIP STYLES

Leadership style is the behavioral approach adopted by a leader to provide motivation and direction to the followers and it highly determines the success or failure of the organization (R, M. Ojokuku., T, A. Odetayo., & A, S. Sajuyigbe.2012). According to Laurie, J (2000) leadership style is the way in which leaders behave towards group members in the quest to have organizational goals achieved.

A leader must consciously explore his personal mastery of different approaches for meaningful achievement of effectiveness among the subordinates in different situations. Relationship behavior and the task at hand is the focal point to the concept of leadership style of individual leaders and the application of their style to the situation is what determines their effectiveness (Bruno, leo. 2013).

The coming into being of behavioral theory is what prompted psychologists Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939) to identify three major leadership styles; Democratic style, autocratic style and laissez-faire leadership styles as the leadership styles which are big determinants in employee motivation and ultimate performance.

Democratic Leadership

This style of leadership embraces decentralized decision making where followers are involved in decision making process of planning and execution of work by the leader. Group effectiveness is the main concern of the leader and followers are encouraged to contribute their ideas for task accomplishment. Democratic leadership style despite sounding good in theory has been proved to be slow in attaining workable results because of enormous amount of energy needed in getting followers onboard with their ideas (Ojokuku, R. et.al 2012). Malik et, al., (2016) asserts that this leadership style excites a lot of organizational citizenship behavior among the employees.

In democratic style, employees are involved in initial goal setting and in the process of problem solving. This involvement induces member commitment to the final decision. The leader creates situations of learning by members and enables the people to determine their performance, subordinates are encouraged to set challenging goals, solve problems, opportunities for professional improvement, job growth and achievement recognition and assists subordinates to learn from mistakes.

Laissez-Faire Leadership

In this style, leaders practice passive leadership and their hands are usually off and allow group members to make decisions on their own. Leaders’ interference if any in group activities and decisions is minimal, usually avoids responsibilities and lack feedback mechanisms (Bass & Riggio, 2006 & Samad.et.al, 2015).

Leaders do not engage in meaningful business transactions and do not affect the behavior outcomes of the followers since they usually do not get involved in group decision making and progress in work and permits things to take place (Chowdhury 2014). Hartog et al., (1997) notes that the laissez-faire leader “rather than being proactive or reactive, he is inactive” the leader avoids decision making and responsibilities of supervision.

Autocratic leaders

Autocratic leaders are domineering and strong-willed and usually active and aggressive. They hardly listen to suggestions and views from group members and especially when they give different opinions. Their followers usually have a job satisfaction level which is very low because the leader asserts absolute power and control on them (Kerfoot, 2013 & Afshinpour 2014).

These leaders view group members as mere functionaries and therefore have their own ways of exercising and asserting authority (Michael, 2010 & Ojokuku, R. et.al 2012) usually the followers keep on waiting for the leader to be changed as a result of failure. Beyond coercion there is little motivation from the leader towards the shared vision and members’ feelings are not easily stimulated for helping others because of its task-oriented nature (Malik et, al., 2016).

Transactional Leadership

Research on leadership during late 1970s and early 1980s was moved in a different direction from the leadership context, leader perspectives and follower towards exchanges between the leader and the follower. Transactional leadership approach is based on the exchange of rewards on performance where a leader induces performance from followers by promising rewards (Avolio et al., 2009).

Transactional leadership focuses on the exchanges between leaders and followers: rewards, corrective actions, and reinforcement to reach desired outcomes. Leaders who are transactional oriented display corrective and constructive behaviors like corrective dimension and contingent reward by adhering to management by exception. It involves keen monitoring and putting corrective action as soon as possible (Obiwuru, et. al., 2011).

Bass (1997) and Samad.et.al, (2015) assert that transactional leadership is instrumental in making followers achieve goals using stick and carrot approach since these leaders expect particular work behaviors from followers or team members who are then compensated for showing these behaviors in both nonmonetary and monetary rewards. Part of transactional leadership is power and influence which is mostly applicable in corporate management. Transactional leadership can at times be likened to autocratic style of leadership especially when a leader exercises more power over their followers and fails to engage staff in decision making (Lyons & Schneider 2009 & Samad.et.al, 2015).

Leaders who are transactional in nature focus on supervision, group/ organizational performance, and exchanges (leader-follower). The foundation of this theory is on reward and punishment systems. It asserts that effective leadership happens when team members understand leader’s expectations and the consequences of not meeting/ meeting expectations (Lamb, 2013). Failing to meet expectations result in punishment and meeting expectations attracts rewards.

There are three components that characterize transactional leadership approach: contingent reward where a leader clarifies goals and establish rewards for meeting goals, management by exception-active where a leader monitors followers’ behaviors, anticipate problems, and take action before any destructive behaviour causes difficulties, and management by exception-passive where leaders ignore destructive behaviors until they have caused serious issues.

According to Bass (1990) transactional leaders accomplish the attainment of mutual goals and contribute to the subordinates’ performance in five steps: i) clarification of what is expected of the followers and performance objectives ii) clarification by the supervisor of what the subordinates need to do to achieve the expectations iii) explanation of how performance evaluation will be carried out iv) Provision of feedback by the supervisor on whether the objectives are being made v) Finally, allocation of rewards by the supervisor based on objective attainment (Bass, 1990). Transactional leadership encompasses either negative or positive exchange, which is dependent on follower’s performance (Bass & Avolio, 1993). Once the exchange is completed, the need for further interaction ceases unless another process of contingent reward is introduced (Antonakis & House, 2002).

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership concept was introduced by James Macgregor Burns in 1978 in his descriptive research on political leaders, but its usage has spread into organizational management and psychology with further modifications by B.M Bass and J.B Avalio (Jung & Sosik, 2002). This theory emerged in a period when radical changes and reforms were occurring in economy, politics, and many other fields. These reforms were referred to under different names such as government reinvention, corporate restructuring or turnaround (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978)

This type of a leader stimulates and inspires (transforms) his followers to attain extraordinary results and he pays attention to the developmental needs and concerns of individual worker (Robbins and Coulter, 2007).

Transformational leaders change the followers’ awareness on issues by making them give new dimensions to old problems; they excite, arouse and inspire workers to put their best foot forward for better group results. This leadership approach is about creating positive change among the followers by taking care of each other’s interests and act in the best interest of the whole group (Warrilow, 2012).

The approach of transformational leadership enhances morale, motivation and followers’ performance through a variety of mechanisms: By connecting the followers / workers’ identity and self to the project and the organization collective identity; by being a role model to the workers and inspiring them to be more interested; by challenging the followers to take responsibility and ownership of their work; and understanding the weakness and strength of their followers so that the leader may align tasks with the followers to enhance performance.

The components of transformational leadership identified by Warrilow (2012) include:

• Inspirational motivation: The extent to which the leader appeals by articulating the vision and inspires the followers by making them optimistic about future goals and creates meaning to the current tasks being undertaken.
• Intellectual stimulation: The extent to which assumptions are being challenged by the leader through stimulating and encouraging creativity among the followers- by creating a framework in which followers will see how they connect to the organization, leader, each other, and the organizational goals and be able to creatively overcome any challenges/ obstacles in the cause of pursuing the mission.
• Charisma or idealized influence: The extent to which the leader behaves and exhibits admirable values that makes him take stands and show convictions that make followers identify with the leader who acts as a role model for the followers.
• Personal and individual attention: The extent to which the leader pays attention to the individual follower’s needs and acts as a coach and mentor and accords respect to and appreciate individual contribution to the success of the team. This enhances individual’s self-worth and self-fulfillment –and in so doing motivates and inspires followers to growth and further achievement.

Transformational leadership is a leadership approach that leads to transformations and changes of organizations and individuals through changes in ethics, values, and organizational long term goals. Bass et al., (2003) assert that transformational leadership approach has been proven to be an effective form of leadership that positively predicts follower performance, while Judge and Piccolo (2004) indicated that transformational leadership approach is strongly positively correlated with follower job motivation and satisfaction. Moreover, Lee (2005) discovered that organizational commitment is positively correlated with transformational leadership.

There is however, some criticism that transformational leadership, can easily lead to increased follower dependency. A study conducted by Eisenbeib & Boerner (2013) discovered that although there is promotion of creativity by transformational leadership, at the same time it increases followers’ dependency on their leader at a point which results in reduced creativity.

Servant Leadership

It’s about 50 years ago the idea of servant leadership emerged (Greenleaf, 1970), it entails sacrifice on the part of the leader, by giving up self-interest in order to cater for others needs. Northouse (2016) asserts that leader’s focus on paying attention, helping and nurturing their followers. Robbins and Judge (2017) show that servant leadership is about centering activities around other people so as to give development opportunities, leading to inclusion, confidence and individual worthiness. Jones and George (2017) indicate that a servant leader has an internal urge to help and serve other people.

Developing the work of Greenleaf (1991), spears (2004) fronted ten features of a servant leader: empathy, listening, awareness, healing, conceptualization, persuasion, stewardship, foresight, commitment and building the community.

Rus­sell & Stone (2002) categorize servant leadership into two: accompany attributes and functional attributes: In terms of accompany attributes, servant leaders are described as good listeners and communicators, credible, encouraging of others, competent, teachers, and delegators. Functional attributes include having vision, trustworthy, being hon­est, service oriented, a role model, empowerment and showing appreciation of oth­ers’ service.

Joe J. Iarocci (2017) author of ‘Servant Leadership in the Workplace,’ identifies building a trustworthy team, developing people and achieving results as the 3 key principles of servant leadership; serve first, empowerment and persuasion as the 3 key priorities of a servant leader; and delegating, listening and connecting followers to mission as the 3 key practices of servant leadership. Yukl (2011) states that the primary priority of a leader should be to empower develop and protect team members. The servant leader also gets concerned with the affairs and welfare of the “have-nots” and recognizes them as equal (Greenleaf, 1996)

Brown (2006) clarifies that transformational leadership and value-based servant leadership styles are appropriate for academic institutions. The major difference between transformational leadership and servant leadership approaches hinges on their focus. It is argued that while transformational leaders focus on organization and organizational goals, servant leaders focus on followers.

Strategic Leadership

Carter and Greer (2013) describe strategic leadership as the ability of leaders of a given organization to create vision and be able to direct efforts and actions of the organization to the successful achievement of organizational goals. Limitation in exposure and experience to strategic leadership is the root cause of failure to achieve profitability for most organizations (Carmeli et al., 2011).

According to Pearce and Robinson (2007), strategic leadership is about change management (being able to cope with change) and more change always calls for more leadership. Hitt, Ireland, and Hoskisson (2007) state that strategic leadership is the ability to create vision and maintain flexibility on the part of the leader while ensuring empowerment to the followers so as to create the necessary strategic changes. It is management through others.

Organizational performance, sustainability and competitiveness can easily be jeopardized by a leadership that lacks strategic orientation (Bansal & Desjardine, 2014). Strategic leadership according to Guillot (2003) is the ability of a senior leader who is experienced, possesses vision and wisdom to make and execute plans and make decisions which are consequential in the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous strategic business environment.

Harrison (2003) clarifies that executive senior management carries is the one which carries the responsibility of ensuring organizational performance by executing strategies. Just like poor leadership can result in negative results, excellent leadership can also have enormous positive influence on the organization. Therefore, strategy is required to focus effort towards performance and promote coordination of organizational activities. In the absence of strategy an organization becomes a bunch of individuals, hence strategy is needed to ensure people’s collective efforts and concentration of actions towards achieving organizational plans and goals.

Beck and Wiersema (2013) posit that organizational performance basically revolve around dynamic capabilities of the management in terms of resourcing of the organization and the strategic decision-making framework employed by the leadership of the organization. Managerial capabilities are comprised of different managerial competencies that are dynamic and have a significant influence in directing the company’s strategy (Tubs & Schulz, 2006).

Gardner, et, al. (2010) & Ozera et al (2014) have called for more research in the area of strategic leadership in a recent review. In order to enhance performance, the strategic leader is required to influence others towards the successful execution of long-term organizational goals by handling ambiguity, managing change, and giving right direction to the team by aligning group works to implement change.

Authentic Leadership

Authentic leadership is one of the emerging areas in the field of leadership; the advent of the work of authentic leadership development came as a result of the work done on transformational leadership where writers such as Bass & Steidlmeier (1999) indicated that in leadership there are pseudo versus authentic transformational leaders. Authentic leader­ship is a pattern of transparent and eth­ical leader behav­ior that encourages openness in sharing information needed to make decisions while accepting fol­lowers’ inputs (Luthans & Avolio, 2003).

The concept of authentic leadership development was introduced by Luthans & Avolio (2003) into the literature with the aim of integrating the work on positive organizational behavior with life-span leadership development work by Avolio (1999). The main goal was basically to examine what constituted genuine leadership development in addition to what worked and didn’t work to develop leaders. Luthans and Avolio argued that using some of the the­oretical work in positive psychology such as Fredrickson’s (2001) could broaden-and-build the­ory, they could offer a more positive way for conceptualizing leadership develop­ment.

Authentic leadership according to Avolio (2010) means to understand and know oneself, to be positive of oneself, to be consistent with oneself and strength based orientation for one’s development and follower’s development (Avolio, 2005). This implies that authentic leaders understand their values, know what they stand for, pursue actions that are in agreement with their values, and are always seeking to develop others as they develop themselves.

As an emerging area of research, authentic leadership is rooted in organizational behaviour that is positive (positive organizational behavior), which puts focus on ‘study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capabilities that can be measured, developed and effectively managed for performance improvement’ (Luthans, 2002).

Fredrickson’s (2001) asserts that individuals with more positive psychological resources are likely to grow more effectively and build out additional resources to perform. Luthans and Avolio report that to a large extent, the prior leadership develop­ment work was based on a deficit-reduction model strategy, where one discovered what was wrong with a leader and then worked to correct deficits in terms of focusing on the leader’s development (Avolio & Luthans, 2006).

As reflected in many philosophical discussions, the concept of authentic leadership has been around for some time (Har­ter et al. 2002). George (2003) popularized authentic leadership in the general practice community when he published his book on the topic, as did Luthans & Avolio (2003) for the academic community.

There seem to be general agreement in literature on four components of authentic leadership: balanced processing, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and self-awareness. Balanced processing refers to analyzing relevant data objectively before making decisions. Relational transparency refers to presenting one’s authentic self by openly sharing information and feelings as appropriate for situations (it entails avoiding displaying emotions inappropriately). Internalized moral perspective refers to being guided by internal moral standards, which help to self-regulate one’s behavior. Self-awareness refers to demonstrated understanding of one’s strength, weaknesses, and the way one makes sense of the world (Walumbwa et al., 2008).

Ethical Leadership

“Ethics” has been historically considered from the perspective of philosophy. Prior to the extensive work by Brown, Trevino and Harrison (2005) which were the seminal studies that launched the ethical leadership construct, Research that evaluates and describes what ethical leadership is and the implications of leaders that lead ethically has been scanty.

Brown and Trevino (2006) assert that like transformational and authentic leaders, ethical leaders are “intrinsically motivated, showing a genuine concern and caring for the people” and are taken to be people of high integrity who become models for others through making ethical decisions.

The differentiating characteristic of ethical leaders from transformational and authentic leaders is that of having proactive concern for the ethical behaviour of their followers. Ethical leaders speak and give premium to the establishment of ethical standards as well as accountability measures of adhering to those standards (Brown & Trevino 2006).

Ethical leaders endeavor to resolve conflicts among the followers and build respect and mutual trust and social justice among all the stakeholders. They don’t play to foster favoritism or distrust but integrity and values are the keys for ethical leaders (Yukl 2011)

Spirituality and Leadership

Spiritual leadership according to Fry (2003) is having values, behaviors and attitudes that are necessary to intrinsically motivate oneself and others to have a sense of spiritual strength for survival through membership and calling. Many authors have pointed out the existence of a void in the workplace that a leader needs to fill for effective execution of work.

Dent et al. (2005) points out that there is no consensus among scholars on the definition of workplace spirituality since there many paradigms clouding the concept. According to Fry (2003) there is enriching of leadership literature by the concept of spiritual leadership through bringing in parts that have been missing, such as a sense of calling to serve on the part of leaders and their followers as well as creation of organizational orientation marked by genuine love where leaders and followers freely express genuine concern, care and appreciation for oneself and others

The fundamental impact of spiritual leadership is to create a sense of fusion or bring together the four basic forces of human existence (body, spirit ,mind, and heart, ) in order to motivate people for higher performance, have a sense of organizational commitment and experience personal peace, joy and serenity (Fry, 2003).

The main challenge in this area of leadership study is that of defining what entails spirituality without touching on one particular religion. The construct of spirituality according to Dent et al. (2005) include elements such as search for meaning, creativity, reflection transformation, an inner connection, energy and sacredness.

E-Leadership

E-Leadership entails leading teams virtually, which involves leading people from different countries, organizations and departments (Avolio et al. 2001). It takes leadership from face to face encounter with the followers. Zigurs (2003) posit that increased development in technology such as wireless networks, voice inputs, integrated hand-held devices, built- in video, increased bandwidth and automatic translation have had a significant impact on communication within virtual teams is done and how leadership is manifested in such teams.

To date, a lot of work on e-leadership puts focus on either leadership in virtual work groups or teams interacting in what is called “group decision support systems” Zaccaro & Bader (2003) for example, provide an overview of the differences and similarities between face-to-face teams and e-teams. They particularly put focus on the effect of leadership functions such as role clarification, com­munication building, effective task execu­tion and team development, and how different they become when linked by technology. Other researchers have put focus on the impact of multiple locations, structural factors like distance on e-leadership and virtual team effectiveness (Cascio & Shurygailo 2003).

Zigurs (2003) clarifies that traditional leadership models constructed on face to face interactions are not in a position to fully explain how virtual leadership and groups work, particularly, how a leader gives encouragement, provides feedback, motivation and rewards and therefore need to be re-evaluated where leadership is facilitated through technology.

In e-leadership, the most likely challenge is when work is distributed among the virtual teams in different time zones, when local human infrastructure and local communication fail, when group members’ software and hardware platforms are different or when the leader’s attention is more needed at the local level leading to less attention being given to the distant collaborators (A. Weisband, 2008).

DISCUSSION AND SYNTHESIS

This review has seen the concept of leadership from various theoretical perspectives. Trait theories assert that Leaders are “born” rather than “made’’ and it does put focus on the innate features and capabilities that distinguish effective leaders from non- effective leaders. Behavioral leaders place premium on what the leader does, it attempts to differentiate effective from non-effective leader behavior with specific weight on relationship- oriented and task-oriented leadership. Contingency approach on the other hand emphasizes that the effectiveness of a leader depends on the context where employment of different leadership styles will purely depend upon situations/ contexts.

Leader-member exchange theory focuses on the direct relationship and interaction between the leader and the follower. It is anchored on the idea that a leader normally has a particular team of supporters given special projects that result in higher morale, enhanced job satisfaction, turnover reduction, and great performance. Whereas Transformational leadership approach emphasizes on the ability of the leader to inspire followers through motivation and morale boosting that enhances followers’ performance through a variety of mechanisms; Transactional leaders on the other hand clarify performance and rewards subordinates for meeting performance expectations.

Servant Leadership entails sacrifice on the part of the leader, by giving up self-interest in order to cater for others needs, it focuses on paying attention, helping and nurturing the followers While strategic leadership on the other hand is the ability of leaders of a given organization to create vision and direct efforts and actions of the organization to the successful achievement of organizational goals.

Authentic leader­ship is a pattern of transparent and eth­ical leader behav­ior that encourages openness in sharing information needed to make decisions while accepting fol­lowers’ inputs, and Ethical leadership just like transformational and authentic leadership is about leaders who are intrinsically motivated, demonstrating a genuine concern and caring for the followers and are taken to be persons of integrity who make decisions that are ethical and are role models for the followers.

Spiritual leadership is about attitudes, behaviors and values that are necessary to intrinsically motivate one’s self and followers in order to instill a sense of spiritual survival through calling and membership While E-leadership on the other hand entails leading teams virtually through technology as a result of development in wireless networks, voice inputs, integrated hand-held devices, built- in video, increased bandwidth and automatic translations which have had a significant impact on communication within virtual teams and leadership.

From the reviewed theoretical literature, it is clear that there is a lack of consensus and prescription on the best leadership approach to engage at whichever situation and organization thereby leaving it to the leaders themselves to decide, for example there isn’t much highlight on the applicability of the various leadership approaches to different spheres of life say for example which leadership approach is more appropriate for the military, educational institutions, corporate sector, religious institutions, political institutions and governments.

CONCLUSION

This literature review highlights the ongoing growth of the leadership field, driven by extensive exploration from scholars around the world. The expanding body of knowledge continues to offer valuable insights for managers, helping them better understand leadership dynamics and improve its effectiveness as they strive to lead high-performing teams.

While no universally accepted definition of leadership or its styles has emerged, leadership fundamentally involves influencing followers to align their actions and behaviors with the expectations of the leader and the organization. Over time, numerous leadership theories have been proposed, yet none can be considered “perfect.” For instance, the Great Man Theory’s claim that leaders are born, not made, has been challenged by historical examples like Adolf Hitler and Napoleon, whose rise to power defied the theory’s assumptions.

Early research focused on distinguishing leaders from non-leaders through traits such as physical, intellectual, and personality characteristics, but findings showed only minor differences between leaders and followers. As the concept of leadership has evolved, a more holistic view has emerged, with newer theories emphasizing positive forms of leadership and exploring how leadership influences both short- and long-term outcomes. Increasing attention is also being paid to the role of followers in the leadership dynamic, as well as to the factors that genuinely develop leadership capabilities.

E-leadership has become increasingly important in modern organizations due to technological advancements and changing operational environments. The challenge for today’s leaders lies in developing a global mindset in a more interconnected world, with strategic leadership becoming crucial for shaping organizational performance in the future.

Ultimately, this review reveals that no single theory can fully explain leadership. Therefore, a blended approach is needed, one that considers additional factors—such as geography, culture, politics, economics, society, and technology—that may influence leadership practices and their effectiveness in different contexts.

REFERENCES

1. Amanchukwu, R., S, G., & Ololube, N. (2015). A review of leadership theories, principles and styles and their relevance to educational management. Management, 5(1), 6-14.
2. Andrew J. D (1998). Leadership, All lndia Publishers and Distributors.
3. Avolio, B. J. 1999. Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 234 pp.
4. Avolio, B. (2005). Leadership development in balance: Made Born. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Publishers.
5. Avolio, B. (2010). Pursuing authentic leadership development. Retrieved 2/19/10. www.hbs.edu/leadership/docs/avolio-paper.pdf
6. Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (1991). “The full range leadership development programs: basic and Advanced manuals”. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio & Associates.
7. Avolio, B.J., & Luthans F. (2006). The High Impact Leader: Moments Matter in Accelerating Au­thentic Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill. 273 pp.
8. Avolio, B. J., &Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions. Annual Review of Psychology 60 (2009).
9. Bansal, P., & Desjardine, M., R. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization, 12, 70-78. Doi:10.1177/1476127013520265
10. Bass, B. (1990). “From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: learning to share the vision”. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.19-31.
11. Bass, B. M & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications. Fourth edition. New York: Free Press.
12. Bass, B., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 81-217.
13. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
14. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
15. Beck, J. B., &Wiersema, M. F. (2013). Executive decision-making: Managerial capabilities to the resource portfolio and strategic outcomes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20, 408-419.doi:10.1177/15480518124714722
16. Brown, M., & Treviño, L. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 595-616.
17. Brown, M., Treviño, L., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, pp. 117–134.
18. Bryman, A. (1986). “Leadership and organizations”. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
19. Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Grint, K., Jackson, B., and Uhl-Bien, M. (2011). The SAGE handbook of leadership. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
20. Bruno, L. (2013). Longitudinal Assessment of the Impact of Leadership on Organizational-Leader Slovenia 2013.
21. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
22. Carlyle, T. (1847). Past and Present and Chartism. New York: Wiley and Putnam.
23. Carlyle, T. (1907). Heroes and Hero worship, Boston: Adams, , (original 1841 )
24. Carmeli, A., Tishler, A., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). CEO relational leadership and Strategic decision quality in top management teams: The role of team trust and learning from failure. Strategic Organization, 10, 31-54.doi:10.1177/1476127011434797
25. Carter, S. M., & Greer, C. R. (2013). Strategic leadership: Values, styles, and Organizational performance.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20, 379-393. Doi:10.1177/1548051812471724
26. Daft, R. (1999). “Leadership: Theory and practice”, Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.
27. Daft, R.L. (2018). The Leadership Experience (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
28. Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 184-200.
29. Den Hartog, D.N, & Koopman, P.L. (2001). Leadership in Organizations. Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology, 2, 166-187. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608368.n10
30. Eisenbeib, S., & Boerner, S. (2013). A double-edged sword: Transformational leadership and individual creativity. British Journal of Management, 24, 54-68.
31. Galton,F,. & Hereditary, G. (1870) New York: Appleton.
32. Franklin, A., C. (1995) .Dynamics of Leadership, Jaico Publishing House,
33. Fiedler, E ,F. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York, McGraw-Hill.
34. Fry, L.W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadersh. Q. 14:693–727
35. Galen. (2002.) “Personality and Trait theory”, http:Arait theoryhww. Leadership research.com, Year 2001-
36. George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
37. Glendon, A. I., Clarke, S. G., & McKenna, E. F. (2006). Human safety and risk management (2^nd edition). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
38. Graen, G.B. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: cross-cultural lesson in leadership from project GLOBE: a response viewed from the third culture bonding (TCB) model of cross-cultural leadership. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 20:95–101
39. Graen, G. B., Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership—develop­ment of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years—ap­plying a multilevel multidomain perspec­tive. Leadersh. Q. 6:219–47
40. Greenleaf, R .K. (1991). The Servant as Leader. In­dianapolis, IN: Robert Greenleaf Center
41. Harrison, J.S.(2003). Strategic Management of Resource and Relationships. John Wiley and Sons, New York. NY.
42. Hartog, D., Muijen, J., & Koopman, P. (1997). “Transactional versus Transformational Leadership: An Analysis of the MLQ”. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 19-34.
43. Henry, F. (1949), General and Industrial Management, London: Sir lsaac Pitman & Sons.
44. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal, 23(5), 26-34.
45. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1993). Management of Organizational Behavior – Utilizing Human Resources (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International.
46. Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. &Hoskisson, R.E. (2007).Strategic management: competitiveness and globalization, 7th edition. Ohio: Thomson/South Western.
47. House, R.J. (1971). A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905
48. Howell, J, Dorfman, P. and Kerr, S. (1986) “Moderating Variables in Leadership Research”. Academy of Management Review.
49. Hughes, T., (2005). “Identification of Leadership Style of Enrolment Management professionals in Post-Secondary Institutions in the Southern United States”, PhD dissertation, Texas Tech. University.
50. Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531–546
51. Jones, G. and George, J. (2017). Essentials of contemporary management (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
52. Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.
53. Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L., (1978). The social psychology of organizations, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, pp. 650-665.
54. Khan, Z. A., Khan, A. N. I., & Khan. I. D (2016). Journal of Resources Development and Management, an International Peer-reviewed Journal Vol.16, 2016, www.iiste.org ISSN 2422-8397.
55. Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2007), “The Leadership Challenge”, 4th edition, Jossy-Bass: San- Francisco.
56. Laurie. J. M. (2000). Management and Organisational Behaviour, Pitrnan Publishers, pp.259.
57. Lee, J. (2005). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 655-672.
58. Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core. Organizational behavior and human decision processes.
59. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: 241-258. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
60. Malik, S. Z., Saleem, M., & Naeem. R (2016). Effect of leadership styles on organizational citizenship behaviour in employees of telecom sector in pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review Volume 54, No. 2 (Winter 2016), pp. 385-406.
61. Ololube, N. (2013). Educational management, planning and supervision: Model for effective implementation. Owerri, Nigeria: SpringField Publishers.
62. Omilion-Hodges, L. &Baker, C. (2017). Communicating leader-member relationship quality: International Journal of Business Communication, 54(2), 115-145.
63. Pearce, J. & Robinson, R. (2007).Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation and Control, McGraw – Hill Irwin, 10th Edition.
64. Peter, F.D. (1989). The Practice of Management, Heinemann Professional.
65. Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of their Relative Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768
66. Robbins, S.& Judge, T. (2017). Organizational behavior (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
67. Robbins, S. P.& Coulter, M. (2007) Management (9th ed.). London: Prentice- Hall
68. Northouse, G. (2007). Leadership Theory and Practice (3rd ed.) Thousand Oak: Sage Publications.
69. Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5^th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
70. Obiwuru, T. C., Okwu, A. T., Akpa, V. O.,& Nwankwere. I. A. (2011).Effects of Leadership Style on Organizational Performance, Australian Journal of Business and Management Research Vol.1 No.7 [100-111] | October-2011.
71. Ojokuku R, M.., Odetayo T, A.., & A, S. Sajuyigbe.(2012).Impact of Leadership Style on Organizational Performance, American Journal Of Business And Management Vol. 1, No. 4, 2012.
72. Omilion-Hodges, L. & Baker, C. (2017). Communicating leader-member relationship quality: The development of leader communication exchange scales to measure relationship building and maintenance through the exchange of communication-based goods. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(2), 115-145.
73. Ozera, F., &Tinaztepeb, C.(2014). Effect of Strategic Leadership Styles On Firm Performance: A Study in Turkish SME. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 (2014).
74. Ralph ,M. S (1982), A General Survey of Research on Leadership. Free Press.
75. Rodman, L .D (1995). Dynamics of Leadership, Jaico publishing House. 1995, pp.4-7
76. Van Wert, M. (2015). Evaluating transformational leaders: The challenging case of Eric Shinseki and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Public Administration Review, (75)5, 760-769.
77. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89−126
78. Wiggam, A,.E. (1931) “The Biology of Leadership”, Business leadership, New
79. Woods, F., A. (1913) The influence of Monarchs, New York: Macmillan. York, Pitman.
80. Yukl, G. (1989), Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500207
81. Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations, 7th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
82. Yulk, G. (2011). Leadership in Organization, Seventh edition. Dorling Kindersely (India). Pears on Education.
83. Zaccaro SJ, Bader P. 2003. E-leadership and the challenges of leading E-teams: mini­mizing the bad and maximizing the good. Organ. Dyn. 31:377–87
84. Zigurs I. (2003). Leadership in virtual teams: oxymoron or opportunity? Organ. Dyn. 31:339–51