Interest in leadership is seemingly ever increasing. Early attempts at leadership theories naturally focused on what qualities distinguished between leaders and followers, while subsequent theories looked at other variables such as situational factors and skill levels. Many different leadership theories have emerged, what follows is a few of those theories…

The crux of the Great Man theory is that the best Leaders are “naturally born” and not necessarily trained/developed. The thought is that great leaders will arise when there is the greatest need for leadership.

Early research on leadership was based on the study of people who were already notable and reputable leaders. These individuals were often from the aristocracy and upper classes, as few people from the lower classes had been given the opportunity to lead. This contributed to the notion that leadership had something to do with breeding.

The Great Man Theory was easy to digest, by referring to people such as Eisenhower and Churchill, as an “agnostic humanist” I do not intend opening this particular debate to include those further back along the timeline, such as Jesus, Moses, Mohammed and the Buddah.

Similar in some ways to “Great Man” theories, trait theories assume that people inherit certain qualities and traits that make them better suited to leadership. Trait theories often identify particular personality or behavioural characteristics shared by leaders. If particular traits are key features of leadership, then how do we explain people who possess those qualities but are not leaders? This question is one of the difficulties in using trait theories to explain leadership.

Contingency theories of leadership focus on particular variables related to the environment that might determine which particular style of leadership is best suited for the situation.

Situational theories propose that leaders choose the best course of action based upon situational variables.

Behavioural theories of leadership are based upon the belief that great leaders are made, not born. Rooted in behaviourism, this leadership theory focuses on the actions of leaders not on mental qualities or internal states.

Participative leadership theories suggest that the ideal leadership style is one that takes the input of others into account.

Management theories, also known as transactional, focus on the role of supervision, organization and group performance. These theories base leadership on a system of rewards and punishments.

Relationship theories, also known as transformational theories, focus upon the connections formed between leaders and followers. Transformational leaders motivate and inspire people by helping group members see the importance and higher good of the task.

Of all these leadership theories we can only aspire to be the best leader that we can be with the personal qualities we were born with and the development opportunities we exploit. Perhaps what all leaders should aspire to do is to expand the flexibility of their own leadership style, accurately assess and match the best leadership style for each situation, Integrate direct and indirect forms of leadership, delegate clearly and effectively to team members, effectively facilitate group interactions, create synergy, and build consensus, and strike a balance between personnel development and getting things done (delivery v development).

Emotional Intelligence (EQ) – is a fairly recent behavioural model, becoming of interest to many of us with Daniel Goleman’s Book called ‘Emotional Intelligence’. 1990’s?  I have used the term on numerous occasions but I wonder whether I have sufficiently shared my thoughts on the subject (probably not). EQ theory was originally developed by a small number of big brains such as Howard Gardner. Peter Salovey and John Mayer. Emotional Intelligence is increasingly relevant to organisational development and developing people, because the EQ principles provide a new way to understand and assess people’s behaviours, management styles, attitudes, interpersonal skills, and potential.

My next comments may instantly alienate some military people without the ability or willingness to think differently, but please give me a minute to explain … we simply cannot consider EQ without accepting the obvious links with spirituality: bringing compassion and humanity to work. The development and nurturing of our people is fundamental to our continued success!

There are wider areas of Emotional Intelligence that dictate and enable how successful we are. Success requires more than IQ which has traditionally been the measure of intelligence, ignoring essential behavioural and character elements. We all know people and perhaps work with people who are academically adept and yet are socially and inter-personally falling short, perhaps without their knowledge of the shortfall. And we know that despite possessing a high IQ rating or a high level qualification, success does not automatically follow.

Discuss…?