Map
Framework

Comparison of leadership theories

The question it answers

An HR head designing a leadership programme: which question does each stream of theory (trait, behavioural, contingency, transformational) answer, and what does each leave out?

Origin
Stogdill, 1948; DeRue et al., 2011; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969
Diagram type
Comparison table
Level of analysis
Individual
Topics
Strategy & leadershipChange management
Chess knight on a glass compass, icon for strategy and leadership

Diagram

Comparison of leadership theories

CriterionTraitBehaviouralContingencyTransformational / transactional
Central questionWhat traits do good leaders have?What do good leaders do?Which behaviour works in which situation?Does the leader inspire followers, or trade rewards for results?
StrengthMeasurable; plenty of dataTends to explain more of leadership effectiveness than traits doRecognises context: when a crisis is familiar directive fits, when it is unfamiliar participative fitsTransformational correlates 0.44 with leadership effectiveness, contingent reward 0.39
LimitDepends on context; explains less than behaviourThe same behaviour can suit one situation and fail in anotherTests of situational leadership theory give only limited supportOverlaps heavily with contingent reward (0.80), so hard to separate

Pitfalls

Pitfall

Treating the streams as successive, each replacing the last. DeRue et al. (2011) found that traits and behaviours together explain at least 31% of the variance in leadership effectiveness, behaviours explain more, and behaviours mediate the link from traits to effectiveness.

Sources

References

Listed A–Z by author surname, Harvard style. A source with a DOI links to https://doi.org/…; one without links to its page or says plainly that it has no DOI.

  1. Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.No DOIsearch.worldcat.orgSource page
  2. DeRue, D.S. et al. (2011) ‘Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity’, Personnel Psychology, 64(1), pp. 7–52.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.xSource page
  3. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (1969) Management of organizational behavior: utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.No DOISource page
  4. Hoch, J.E. et al. (2018) ‘Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis’, Journal of Management, 44(2), pp. 501–529.doi:10.1177/0149206316665461Cited in 1 article
  5. Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004) ‘Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), pp. 755–768.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755Cited in 1 article
  6. Lee, A. et al. (2020) ‘Servant leadership: a meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(1), pp. 1–44.doi:10.1111/joop.12265Cited in 1 article
  7. Post, C. et al. (2022) ‘Participative or directive leadership behaviors for decision-making in crisis management teams?’, Small Group Research, 53(5), pp. 692–724.doi:10.1177/10464964221087952Cited in 1 article
  8. Stogdill, R.M. (1948) ‘Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature’, The Journal of Psychology, 25(1), pp. 35–71.doi:10.1080/00223980.1948.9917362Source page
  9. Thompson, G. and Vecchio, R.P. (2009) ‘Situational leadership theory: a test of three versions’, The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), pp. 837–848.doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014Cited in 3 articles