Traditional and modern theories of leadership — common mistakes

When evaluating trait theories, you must criticise their failure to consider the situation. A leader with certain traits might be successful in one context (e.g., a military commander needing to be decisive) but fail in another (e.g., a creative team leader needing to be collaborative).

No, there is no single 'best' theory. Each theory offers a different lens through which to view leadership. Trait and behavioural theories provide foundational concepts, but modern contingency theories are generally considered more complete as they acknowledge the crucial role of the situation and followers, which the traditional theories largely ignored.

This is a key aspect of Fiedler's model. He argued that a leader's style, as measured by the LPC scale, is a stable part of their personality and difficult to change. Therefore, his theory suggests that it is more effective to change the situation to fit the leader (e.g., by increasing their position power or restructuring the task) or to place the right leader in the right situation, rather than trying to train them to use a different style.

This is a crucial point. The Ohio State studies found that these two dimensions were independent, not two ends of a single continuum. This means a leader can be high on both, low on both, or high on one and low on the other. The most effective leaders are often found to be high on both initiating structure and consideration, as they can organise the task effectively while also maintaining positive relationships with their team.