4.2 Leadership and management
- Syllabus
- 9990–2028–2029
- Topic
- 4.2
- Level
- A2
Learning objectives
4.2.1Leadership theories• 4.2.1 Traditional and modern theories of leadership- universalist theories including great person, charismatic, and transformational leaders.- behavioural theories including Ohio University and Michigan University behavioural explanations.- Heifetz's six principles in meeting adaptive challenges; responsibilities of an adaptive leader.- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, individual and situational explanations, nature versus nurture, reductionism versus holism, generalisations.4.2.2Leadership style• 4.2.2 Leadership style- Muczyk and Reimann's four styles of leader behaviour.- Scouller's levels of leadership including public, private and personal levels- Leadership style and gender (exemplified by the following key study).- Key study on leadership style and gender: Cuadrado et al. (2008)- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, individual and situational explanations, reductionism versus holism, idiographic versus nomothetic, generalisations.4.2.3Leaders and followers• 4.2.3 Leaders and followers- Kouzes and Posner's Leadership Practices Inventory including five practices.- Kelley's (1988) followership including definition of followership, two dimensions and five followership styles.- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, cultural differences, idiographic versus nomothetic, self-reports, psychometrics.
Leadership theories shift from special people to behaviour and adaptation
| Account | Source of leadership | Core claim and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Great person | Inborn qualities such as confidence, courage, intelligence and persuasiveness | Leaders are born; reductionist because learning and situation are underplayed |
| Charismatic | Vision, charm, communication and inspiration | Followers are persuaded toward a vision; charisma may be learned and is not proof that the vision is ethical/effective |
| Transformational | Inspiring a shared vision and major change | Motivates followers beyond routine exchange; change still depends on context, skills and follower response |
| Behavioural | Observable leader action | Leadership can be described/trained, but no behaviour is automatically best in every task/culture |
| Programme | Behaviour dimensions | Relationship |
|---|---|---|
| Ohio State | Initiating structure: define roles, communication and methods; consideration: trust, respect, warmth and follower welfare | Two separate dimensions, so a leader may score high or low on both |
| Michigan | Production/job-centred: task, output and method; employee-centred: relationships, participation and needs | Treated as contrasting orientations on a continuum |
| Heifetz adaptive principle | Leader's responsibility during change |
|---|---|
| Get on the balcony | Move between system overview and day-to-day action to see patterns |
| Identify the adaptive challenge | Separate what must change from a problem with a known technical fix |
| Regulate distress | Keep pressure tolerable enough for learning—not panic or avoidance |
| Maintain disciplined attention | Keep difficult issues and contrasting viewpoints in focus |
| Give the work back to people | Use workers' expertise and make them participate in solving the challenge |
| Protect voices from below | Make dissent and lower-status information safe enough to be heard |
If new factory hours produce fatigue and errors, an adaptive leader first checks the whole production pattern, identifies whether timetable adaptation—not merely worker carelessness—is the challenge, regulates uncertainty, hears conflicting experiences, and lets workers help design safer adjustments. The leader creates conditions for collective learning rather than supplying every answer.
Universalist theories favour individual/nature explanations; behavioural and adaptive accounts make nurture and situation more visible. These are theoretical models, not proof of one universal best style, and their application must be checked across tasks, cultures, power relations and outcomes.
Leadership style combines decision participation, direction and level
| Muczyk–Reimann style | Participation in decisions | Direction during implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Directive autocrat | Low: leader decides | High: close instructions, supervision and progress checks |
| Permissive autocrat | Low: leader decides | Low: workers have implementation freedom |
| Directive democrat | High: workers contribute to decisions | High: leader closely directs execution |
| Permissive democrat | High: workers contribute | Low: workers have autonomy in execution |
| Scouller level | Leadership job | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Public | Influence two or more people and align group purpose, task and maintenance | Set team direction, build cooperation and track collective results |
| Private | Work one-to-one with a person's distinct skill, confidence and motivation | Set an individual goal, appraise, coach, recognise talent or repair a relationship |
| Personal | Develop the leader's inner presence, self-awareness, beliefs, emotions, skill and self-mastery | Reflect on feedback and change behaviour across public/private situations |
| Cuadrado et al. (2008) | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Aim/design | Test whether women are rated less favourably when managing in a male-stereotypical style; 2 style (male/female-stereotypical) × 2 leader sex experiment |
| Sample/allocation | 136 Spanish distance-university psychology students (53% women; mean ages 27/29), randomly allocated 34 per condition |
| Task/measures | Read one of four matched hospital emergency-service supervisor narratives; anonymous 7-point ratings of 14 traits, four leadership-capacity items and five effectiveness items |
| Operational styles | Male-stereotypical: autocratic/task-oriented; female-stereotypical: democratic/relationship-oriented/individualised consideration |
| Result | Regardless of leader sex, female-stereotypical style was rated more favourably, competent and effective; gender-incongruent style itself was not penalised |
The four controlled narratives isolate style stereotype and leader sex, strengthening causal comparison. They do not show that women are worse leaders or that one style works best everywhere: participants rated a fictional, gender-neutral hospital scenario, not real behaviour or performance. Student/self-report data and Spanish context constrain generalisation.
Leadership depends on measured practices and active followership
| LPI exemplary practice | Behavioural meaning |
|---|---|
| Model the way | Clarify values and act consistently with them |
| Inspire a shared vision | Enlist others in an appealing common future |
| Challenge the process | Search, experiment, learn and take bounded risks |
| Enable others to act | Build trust, cooperation, competence and discretion |
| Encourage the heart | Recognise contributions and celebrate collective achievement |
Kouzes and Posner's Leadership Practices Inventory measures 30 behaviours—six per practice—on a 1 (almost never) to 10 (almost always) frequency scale. Leaders self-rate and observers such as managers or co-workers can rate them; each practice totals 6–60. Self/observer and benchmark comparisons can identify development gaps, while observer open questions add individual depth.
| Kelley style | Independent critical thinking | Active engagement | Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sheep / passive follower | Low | Low | Waits for direction; little initiative/responsibility |
| Yes-person / conformist | Low | High | Energetic and committed but uncritical/dependent on leader |
| Alienated follower | High | Low | Thinks independently but acts passively/cynically |
| Survivor / pragmatist | Moderate | Moderate | Watches prevailing risk/support and adapts cautiously |
| Effective / star follower | High | High | Self-manages, thinks independently and contributes energetically/courageously |
Followership is the contribution people make while working with, supporting and sometimes constructively challenging a leader. Kelley therefore rejects the assumption that effectiveness means passive obedience: the strongest pattern combines critical thought with active organisational contribution.
Standardised LPI items support repeatable numeric comparison over practices, observers and time, but self/observer ratings can differ through interpretation, limited opportunity to observe, social desirability or workplace politics. A score reports perceived frequency, not objective leadership success. Kelley labels are also nomothetic simplifications: role, leader, culture and situation may shift behaviour, and the model does not establish whether styles are innate, learned or fixed.