Behavioral theory seeks to explain human behavior by analyzing the antecedents and consequences

present in the individual's environment and the learned associations he or she has acquired through
previous experience. This entry describes the various traditions within the behavioral perspective
(classical conditioning, operant conditioning, cognitively mediated behavioral theory, and functional
contextualism) and the clinical applications that are derived from them. Common criticisms are
discussed in light of the ongoing evolution of behavioral theory and the fit of its tenets with the field of
social work.

6.4.1 Trait Theories

Trait theories of leadership identify the specific personality traits that distinguish leaders from non-
leaders. They are based on the premise that leaders are 'born, not made' (i.e., that leadership is largely
innate, rather than being developed through learning). Early research (Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948)
focused on the relationship between personality and leadership, but reported little supporting evidence.
Nevertheless, research interest in this area continues, with Judge and Bono (2004) reporting that 12% of
all leadership research published between 1990 and 2004 included the keywords 'personality' and
'leadership'.

In order to review the evidence of a substantive relationship between personality and leadership, a
meta-analysis was conducted by Lord, De Vader and Alliger (1986). This included the studies originally
reviewed by Mann (1959) and subsequently published studies. Lord et al. (1986) demonstrated that
there were significant meta-analytic correlations between leadership perceptions and intelligence,
masculinity and dominance. It is important to note that these characteristics were associated with
leadership perceptions, rather than leader behaviours or performance, and so do not reflect personal
characteristics that may be related to leader effectiveness. A later meta-analysis, conducted by Judge,
Bono, Iles and Gerhardtl (2002), found that the Big Five personality dimensions (i.e., agreeableness,
conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness) were significant predictors of both
leadership emergence (explaining 28% of the variance) and leader effectiveness (explaining 15% of the
variance).

One of the major criticisms of trait theory is its simplistic approach; that it fails to take account of other
factors that will influence the development of a successful leader (e.g., situational and environmental
factors). Recent research, based on identical and fraternal twins, was able to estimate the heritability of
leadership emergence at 30% (Avery, Zhang, Avolio, Kruegar, 2007). This means that the remaining 70%
is accounted for by situational factors (e.g., exposure to leader role models) during one's career.
Nevertheless, many organisations use personality assessment as part of their selection procedures for
managerial or leadership roles.
6.4.3 Contingency Theories

One of the main criticisms of both trait and style approaches to leadership, is that they fail to take into
account situational and organisational factors. Contingency theories consider both individual and
situational factors together in determining leader effectiveness. For example, Fiedler's (1967) Least
Preferred Co-worker (LPC) theory predicts that leadership effectiveness will depend not only on
leadership style, but also on a number of contextual factors: the relationship between the leader and
the subordinate; the degree of power held by the leader; and, the structure of the task. Although this
theory has been criticised (Graen, Orris & Alvares, 1971), there is evidence to support some aspects of
the theory (Schriesheim, Tepper & Tetrault, 1994). Other theories have focused upon the nature of the
subordinates. For example, Hersey and Blanchard's (1988) Work Maturity Model proposes that
leadership style should differ based on the subordinates' task maturity (i.e., their exisiting knowledge
and skills) and their psychological maturity (i.e., their ability and confidence). Where maturity is high,
the leader can engage a more participative style than if maturity is low (where a more directive style is
needed). Such a theory emphasises the needs of the leader over those of the subordinates; for example,
subordinates may prefer a more participative style, even when the theory predicts that a directive style
would be the most effective.

Many of the theories reviewed in the previous sections have explanatory power - that is, they help us to
understand what makes a leader effective. Whilst there is empirical evidence that supports the
theoretical proposals of these models, they can be difficult for occupational psychologists to apply in
practice (e.g. when attempting to change leadership behaviour). Contingency models have been largely
superseded by 'new leadership theories', in particular the concept of transformational leadership (see
section 6.5.2). However, although contingency modelsfeature little in contemporary research literature,
they may still be used by practitioners in training programmes.

Transformational leadership

Often considered among the most desirable employees, people who show transformational leadership
typically inspire staff through effective communication and by creating an environment of intellectual
stimulation.

However, these individuals are often blue-sky thinkers and may require more detail-oriented managers
to successfully implement their strategic visions. For more information on transformational leadership
traits, please click here.
Transactional leadership

Transactional leadership is focused on group organisation, establishing a clear chain of command and
implementing a carrot-and-stick approach to management activities.

It is considered transactional because leaders offer an exchange; they reward good performances, while
punishing bad practice. While this can be an effective way of completing short-term tasks, employees
are unlikely to reach their full creative potential in such conditions.

Servant leadership

People who practice servant leadership prefer power-sharing models of authority, prioritising the needs
of their team and encouraging collective decision-making.

Research by Catalyst has claimed this style, described as altruistic leadership by the company, can
improve diversity and boost morale. However, detractors suggest servant leaders lack authority and
suffer a conflict of interest by putting their employees ahead of business objectives.

Autocratic leadership

A more extreme version of transactional leadership, autocratic leaders have significant control over staff
and rarely consider worker suggestions or share power.

Ruling with an iron fist is rarely appreciated by staff, which can lead to high turnover and absenteeism.
There can also be a lack of creativity due to strategic direction coming from a single individual.

This leadership style is best suited to environments where jobs are fairly routine or require limited skills.
It is also common in military organisations.
Laissez-faire leadership

More commonly used to describe economic environments, laissez-faire literally means “let them do” in
French. This is typically translated to “let it be”. As such, laissez-faire leaders are characterised by their
hands-off approach, allowing employees to get on with tasks as they see fit.

This can be effective in creative jobs or workplaces where employees are very experienced. However, it
is important that leaders monitor performance and effectively communicate expectations to prevent
work standards slipping.

Democratic leadership

Also known as participative leadership, this style – as the name suggests – means leaders often ask for
input from team members before making a final decision.

Workers usually report higher levels of job satisfaction in these environments and the company can
benefit from better creativity. On the downside, the democratic process is normally slower and may not
function well in workplaces where quick decision-making is crucial.

Bureaucratic leadership

Bureaucratic leadership models are most often implemented in highly regulated or administrative
environments, where adherence to the rules and a defined hierarchy are important.

These leaders ensure people follow the rules and carry out tasks by the book. Naturally, this works well
in certain roles – such as health and safety – but can stifle innovation and creativity in more agile, fast-
paced companies.

Charismatic leadership
There is a certain amount of overlap between charismatic and transformational leadership. Both styles
rely heavily on the positive charm and personality of the leader in question.

However, charismatic leadership is usually considered less favourable, largely because the success of
projects and initiatives is closely linked to the presence of the leader. While transformational leaders
build confidence in a team that remains when they move on, the removal of a charismatic leader
typically leaves a power vacuum.

Situational leadership

Developed by management experts Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in 1969, situational leadership is a
theory that the best leaders utilise a range of different styles depending on the environment.

Factors such as worker seniority, the business process being performed and the complexity of relevant
tasks all play an important role in what leadership style to adopt for any given situation. For example,
situational leaders may adopt a democratic leadership style when discussing commercial direction with
senior executives, but switch to a bureaucratic strategy when relaying new factory protocols to workers.

However, many people have a natural leadership style, which can make switching between roles
challenging. It can also be difficult to gauge what style is most suitable for certain circumstances, holding
up decision-making processes.

Just as every employee brings their own skills and talents to a company, every executive brings their
own leadership style to the table. No matter how they run team, each leader usually exhibits at least
one of these types of leadership power.

1. Legitimate power

Legitimate power is traditional power – it is the type of power a manager, executive, or other leading
official in a company has due to the status of their position.
2. Information power

One gains information power when they know something other people want to know. This information
could be anything from gossip to intricate knowledge about a person or company.

3. Expert power

People who have more knowledge or experience than other members of their team exhibit expert
power. For example, an executive with 20 years of experience in their field has expert power over a
recent college graduate who is just starting their career.

4. Reward power

A leader who has the ability to reward an employee or team member (with money, praise, etc.) has
reward power.

5. Coercive power

Coercive power is the opposite of reward power; a leader who can punish an employee or team
member has coercive power. Because the threat of punishment can persuade an employee to act a
certain way, this type of leadership power is called “coercive power.”

6. Referent power

Referent power is all about “who you know.” A leader with lots of referent power may have many
connections or a large social network they can use to their advantage. Someone with referent power
may also be close to an executive with legitimate power.

7. Charismatic power

Similarly, a leader with charismatic power has the ability to influence others. While they may or may not
have an established network of contacts, they usually have a natural ability to persuade or inspire
others.

8. Moral power
A leader who has moral power over his or her employees has been placed on a pedestal, so to speak,
due to their beliefs and actions. A leader’s good qualities can lead to them having moral power over an
employee, because the employee may be inspired to replicate the leader’s actions.