Introduction

While academics, practitioners, and experts agree that there is no single list of traits that define a Leader, they also recognize that all successful Leaders seem to have something in common. There seems to be a consensus that five core traits are important for Leadership. Those core traits—Integrity; broad professional and leadership Competence; physical and moral Courage, including the moral courage to be selfless and Caring; Vision, and Inspiring communication qualities—provide the potential for Leadership. They are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for becoming a Leader.

More is required

As the Marine Corps says,

Possession of these traits does not guarantee success…Although these traits are a good guide for determining the desired personality to be developed as a leader, the mission, the personalities of the subordinates and the situation will have a direct effect on what traits the leader must apply.

As the Marines so clearly understand, it is not only having a personality that includes the core traits required of a Leader that determines whether the Leader will be successful.  Rather, it is a combination of:

-“traits”: By this the Marines mean the fourteen “ Traits” which they consider “fundamental” for “Leading Marines”.  They include the three core traits—Integrity, Competence and Courage” —required to gain the trust of followers plus others which can be considered traits or personal qualities. To see the list again, go here____

.

-“the mission”: .  In civilian leadership writings this is often referred to as the “task”: When using the military term “mission” in the context of Leadership, the Marines are not referring to what the organization is doing today, perhaps it is in garrison or training, or performing some routine mission under the command of the junior officers and NCOs. Or in the Inttelligence Community perhaps the organization is carrying out normal routine tasks under the direction and control of the managers.  What the Marines are referring to is the forthcoming important and, perhaps, new and different mission that the Leader and the organization must undertake together. For senior organizational Leaders it is often the mission or the major task that the Leader has been given by seniors upon taking over the organization or a change or expansion to the organization’s current mission forced upon it external events.  It is usually a long term and major one, requiring providing the inspiration and setting the goals for fundamental changes in the organization or in the purpose, scope and type of its current activities.  For more junior Leaders exercising direct Leadership, their mission or task can be a more specific and shorter-term one, involving providing the inspiration and setting the goals for a change in military operations or tactics or in office work schedules and practices in order to successfully conduct the currently assigned mission.

-the “personalities of the subordinates”: In leadership writings this is expressed as “follower readiness” or the “developmental level” of the followers. These terms, respectively, describe the followers’ “willingness and ability” or their “commitment and competence” to undertake a major task or make the increased effort required by the short-term task.
-and the “situation”: The situation faced by the Leader is created by the interaction of the task with the followers’ readiness or developmental level to undertake the task.

Thus, according to the Marines, a successful Leader must not only develop and possess a “personality” that includes the core traits, other traits and personal qualities but must be able to “apply” those traits and qualities using a set of competencies and skills in a way that matches the situation created by the readiness or developmental level of the followers to undertake the task.

Distinguishing Between Types of Leaders and Styles of Leadership

There seems to be no standard academic way of distinguishing between “types” of Leaders and “styles” of Leadership. But, in this course, the terms have specific meanings and there is an important distinction between them. 

-A “type” of Leader is determined and identified by the “personality” displayed by the Leader in terms of the core trait that is emphasized and by the combination of other core traits and personal qualities that are displayed and used to gain the trust of the people and Lead them to commit to undertaking the major task facing the organization.

-A “style” of Leadership is defined and identified by the competencies and skills that the Leader “applies” to guide, facilitate and support the people of the organization in their efforts to accomplish the task.

In the government, the military, the Intelligence Community, or in mid-level organizations, when you are assigned to an organizational leadership position you will rarely get to choose the major task confronting the organization and you as a Leader. Thus, to be successful, it will be up to you to be able to emphasize, display and use the appropriate core traits and other traits or personal qualities to gain the trust of the people and Lead them to commit to doing what is necessary to undertake the major task facing the organization. The core trait that you emphasize and the combination of other core traits and personal qualities that you display and use to do that will define the “type” of Leader you have chosen to be.

Likewise, in the government, the military, the Intelligence Community, especially in mid-level organizations, you do not often get the opportunity to choose and Lead people who are fully ready or developed for any task; either to undertake the longer-term, major task that faces the organization or to make the efforts required by any shorter term, more specific task that may be assigned. Thus, to be successful, you must not only be the “type” of Leader required to gain the trust of the people and Lead them to commit to undertaking the task but you must also be able to use other qualities, competencies, and skills which are appropriate to guide, facilitate and support the people in actually making the efforts required to accomplish the task. The other qualities, competencies and skills that you use define the “style” of Leadership that you have adopted.

Each combination of task and follower readiness or developmental level creates a unique situation. Thus, if you want to guarantee a successful career as a Leader you must have the flexibility to be any “type” of Leader and use any “style” of Leadership.

In short, one’s personality—i.e., the core traits and other personal qualities that a person possesses and develops—determines the “type” of Leader that the person can be.  The other factors—the task to be accomplished and the readiness or developmental level of the followers to accomplish that task—will determine the “style” by which the Leader must apply those traits and other qualities, competencies and skills to Lead the people to accomplish the task.

Types of Leaders

There are three generally accepted types of Leaders—Charismatic, Transactional, Transformational. 

These types of Leaders reflect the evolution of leadership theory. Traditionally, observers of Leadership adhered to the “great man” theory in which Leaders were identified as the great heroes of history.  Those who aspired to be successful Leaders were advised to emulate the charismatic traits of those historic Leaders in order to inspire others to follow them in taking on the task facing the organization. For example, recall in the previous topic Topic; “The Leader’s Character” “The Importance of Character”) how Eisenhower, Nimitz and Marshall consulted Freeman in an effort to emulate the Leadership of Washington and Lee.  But, as noted in another previous topic (Topic “Leadership Traits”,  “But First, Are Traits Important?”), it was ultimately concluded that personality traits were not enough to make one a Leader. Thus, by the 1960s and into the 1970s, at least in the U.S., behavioral and social scientists began to emphasize behavioral theories and advocate that managers who aspired to be successful Leaders should develop a relationship with their followers that met the needs of the followers for openness, sensitivity and participation and, thereby in response, sustaining and building the followers’ motivation to continue to take on the tasks facing the organization. But, by the 1970s, it had become clear that, while personal traits were not enough to make one a Leader, neither did the use of those Leader-people relationship behaviors always make one a successful Leader.  Clearly, the wide variety of challenges facing Leaders required several different personality “types” of Leaders.   

For a more detailed review of the evolution of Leadership thinking refer to the textbook readings for this topic, ____. Or try Wikipedia, and search “leadership”.                                                          

In 1978, the process of recognizing, studying, differentiating and naming different types of Leaders as one basis for understanding and teaching Leadership was carried  forward significantly with the publication of the book Leadership by Professor James MacGregor Burns. Burns was a historian, professor of government, author of a biography of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and, thus, had studied Leadership and Leaders.   In his book he bemoaned the “mediocrity and irresponsibility” of the Leaders of the 1970s and called for the development of a “school of leadership” with “standards for assessing past, present and potential leaders”. He said that:

Without such standards and knowledge we cannot make vital distinctions between types of leaders and distinguish leaders from rulers, from power wielders and from despots.

Burns, then, described the “heroic” Leaders of the past and then, named and described another “two fundamentally different forms” of Leadership.  In addition to the “heroic” or Charismatic Leader, Burns named and described the type of Leader being advocated and becoming common during the 1960-1970s as a Transactional Leader and, obviously reflecting on Roosevelt, advocated a third type, the Transforming Leader.

According to Burns:

-[Charismatic Leadership is  a] ....relationship between followers and persons they believe in because of reputation aside from tested capacities, experience or stands on issues. Followers place great confidence in heroic leaders and in their ability to overcome crises and obstacles.  

-...transactional leadership...occurs when one person takes the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things. The exchange could be economical  or political or psychological in nature...

-...transforming leadership...occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality....their purposes become fused...as mutual support for a common purpose.

Since Burns’ creation of that foundation of types of Leaders and their types of Leadership, others have researched and observed Leaders, further defining the traits and personal qualities of each type.        

The Charismatic Leader:

After reviewing the research on leadership “theories” and “approaches”,  Montgomery Van Wart sums up the descriptions of Charismatic Leaders when he says that “…the emphasis in charismatic leadership is essentially on personality-based leadership.”  He points out that:

Charismatic Leadership is also based on the leader’s passion, confidence, and exceptional ability to persuade and sway people.  But these same abilities may also predispose the leader toward a variety of dysfunctional behaviors over time… 

Joseph Nye says that:

In common usage, charisma is the special power of a person to inspire fascination and loyalty….

Charismatic leaders are often described as self-confident , with strong convictions, high energy, enthusiasm that they communicate to others, and the ability to manipulate symbols of power and success to create emotional attraction for followers….

Charismatic leaders rely on personal and inspirational power resources more than official position or authority…..

He also says:

Charismatic leaders are adept at communication, vision, confidence, being an exemplar, and managing the impressions they create.

With regard to  Nye’s inclusion of “vision” as a trait of Charismatic Leaders: recall that Nye’s focus on Leadership was directed toward Leaders in the broader context of high-level national, political, social, military and professional affairs.  (See Topic “Introduction to Leadership”, Sub-topic “Power and Leadership”, sixth endnote.)  Indeed, if one thinks about the famous Charismatic Leaders of the past, as part of their attempts to inspire their followers, they often have proclaimed a lofty or idealized vision as their goal for the nation, organization or the followers themselves.  A good example is President Kennedy’s, response to the perceived crisis posed by Sputnik: “Put a Man on the Moon in Ten Years.”

But, Charismatic Leaders proclaiming an idealized vision are not necessarily limited to the highest levels.  Naveen Jain, who was an early Microsoft executive, has been quoted as saying that:

A high-tech executive must have the charisma of a cult leader....Especially, in the beginning, when you're starting a company, you have nothing to offer other than yourself, your vision and passion.    

Additionally, in his original discussion of charisma, Burns quoted Max Weber, the founder of modern sociology, who said that charisma was one of three “ideal” types of authority (the others were “legal” and “traditional”).  He also cited the views of others on the inspiring characteristics of Charismatic Leaders but concluded that, “At best, charismatic leadership is a confusing and undemocratic form of leadership.”  Note, also Van Wart’s suggestion that Charismatic Leaders may be predisposed to “dysfunctional behaviors”.  These references highlight the frequent instances in which Charismatic Leaders, who were initially inspiring and successful, eventually have been discovered to have an ugly side to their leadership or personal life. Anthony Smith says that “There’s always been a sense that charisma can be dangerous….There’s a dark side to charisma worth being wary about.”  That “dark side” often appears because a person having natural personal charisma and one acting and being perceived as a Charismatic Leader is not always the same thing.

Some people have real personal charisma, that certain something —i.e., as the Greek word “charisma” means, “A gift from the Gods”—that attracts people to them.    John C. “Doc” Bahanson says, they have “an enthusiastic, positive, joyful approach to life” and a “profound understanding of and genuine regard for others” and a “sincere desire to touch people in a very personal and meaningful way” that inspires others to instinctively relate to them”.  But, even if one is not naturally endowed with charisma, Kurt Mortensen suggests that charisma can be acquired by developing self-confidence and assertiveness balanced by a sense of humor and happiness within oneself which shows in enthusiasm and personality. Contrary to Burns, and similar to Weber, he believes that charisma is the highest form of Leadership.

On the other hand, too often, many people have created themselves as Charismatic Leaders without having any real personal charisma. For example, some politicians and military officers have become Charismatic Leaders by creating a unique image and exaggerated reputation using a variety of behaviors, some natural, some exaggerated and some developed, to inspire people to follow.  As the apparent charisma of these Leaders inspires more and more followers; many of whom admire or fawn over them, praise every thing they do and excuse, forgive and shift the blame for any mistakes; they begin to think that they can do no wrong.  Soon, to satisfy their personal or professional desires, they begin to push the boundaries of appropriate behavior, ethics or the law.  Others, such as political demagogues and religious cult figures have had what Van Wart highlights as “extreme charisma.”  These people, can be defined by “…a magnetic appeal fueled by eloquence, emotional expressiveness, unusual self-confidence and belief in their own insights or sources of divinity.”  This usually results in personal dominance that can lead people astray.  Then, there are those people who simply have a narcissistic personality or are egocentric based on their achieved rank, position, academic credentials or career ambitions. These are the “toxic leaders” who, according to a recent study at the Army War College, are “...seen by the majority of subordinates as arrogant, self-serving, inflexible and petty." as well as “self-aggrandizing, abusive, and interpersonally malicious...”  As Van Wart notes,  this kind of Charismatic Leader has “…a contempt for superiors who do not agree with them, a tendency to turn non-supporters into a hostile out group, a propensity to turn supporters in sycophants, dismissal of contravening information and over reliance on the leader.”

The Transactional Leader: 

Returning to the topic of the forms of Leadership and types of Leaders in a subsequent book, in 2004 Burns said, referring to his earlier work; “Transactional leadership seemed fairly easy to define…The transactional leader functioned as a broker….”

Van Wart points out that for Transactional Leaders:

The basis of self-interests and immediate needs of the followers are the focus, ranging from pay to clear instructions to adequate resources and working conditions.  Follower motivation…is largely a rational-calculative process.

Nye says simply that: “Transactional leaders motivate followers by appealing to their self-interest.” 

Robert K. Greenleaf in his book Servant Leadership, written in 1977 almost coincident with Burns first book and also concerned with the “urgent problems of the day”, defined the “Servant-Leader”.  According to Greenleaf, to be a Servant-Leader is “first to make sure that other people's highest priority needs are being served.” A Servant Leader seems to be the ideal form of a Transactional Leader.  Business entrepreneur,  Max DePree, who practiced this form of Leadership successfully in the real world, says that for Servant (or Transactional) Leadership,  “Integrity in all things precedes all else.”

But, Transactional Leaders can sometimes lose sight of the purpose of the organization, fail to insure its vitality, and set goals for future achievement.  This is what happened in the 1970s with the strategic and military failures of the Vietnam War, the activities of Intelligence Community as revealed by the Congressional hearings held by Representative Otis Pike and Senator Frank Church and    the disgraceful activities that brought the end of the administration of Richard M. Nixon.  Despite the opportunity and best of intentions, the administration of President James E. Carter was not able to overcome what the President saw a “crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.”

Transformational Leader:  It was in response those instances of, in Burns’ words, “mediocre and irresponsible” Leadership that had caused and could not overcome the sense of national “malaise” which seemed to permeate the nation, that he wrote his first book advocating “transforming leadership”.  His call was for a type of national Leader who would engage with the American people in a way so that both the Leader and the Led would act with a higher level of “motivation and morality” in “mutual support for a common purpose”.

But, the 1970s were not only a time of failures at the higher levels of national political, governmental and military Leadership but a period of failures at the level of organization Leadership as well. American businesses such as Chrysler and others were failing to remain competitive with Japanese companies in a growing global economy.  Thus, by 1985, Bernard Bass had undertaken the “Transformation of Transforming Leadership” to make it more relevant for adoption at the organizational level by developing and naming Transformational Leadership.

The differences between Burns and Bass stem, in part, from the context in which they study leadership.  Burns is dealing with leadership within social movements and politics, revolutionary movements where politics and social movements overlap….Bass is dealing with leadership within formal organizations; organizational leadership where authority , management and leadership blend.

The test of transformational leadership, for Bass, comes from management goals. “Performance beyond expectations”.

 Since Bass, transformational leadership is more often used in leadership literature than transforming leadership…. Bass’s emphasis was more on the change of state of being or character of a leader rather than the process in which a leader participates….

In Bass’s terms, transformational leaders transform followers.  The direction of influence is one way, unlike Burns’s treatment in which followers could transform leaders by the interaction of leaders and followers.  For Bass, transformational leaders may expand a follower’s portfolio of needs; transform a follower’s self-interest; and may elevate a follower’s need to a higher…level.  In addition, leaders may increase the confidence of followers; elevate followers’ expectations of success; and elevate the value of the leader’s intended outcomes for the follower.  These actions plus a change in organization culture create increased motivation in followers to attain the leader’s designated outcome and eventually perform beyond their own as well as the leader’s initial expectations.

Transformational Leadership, according to Bass, “...entails the creation of an environment that enables followers to recognize and realize an organizational goal that exceeds past accomplishments.”

In developing the concept, during the period 1986-1990, N. M. Tichy and M. A. Devanna pointed out that “…transformational leadership is about change, innovation and entrepreneurship”.  Transformational Leaders are “…individuals out to create new approaches and imagine new areas to explore….”  But, they also importantly point out that Transformational Leaders should also“…relate to people in more intuitive and empathetic ways….”

At the same time, 1987, James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner were advocating that the Transformational Leader  “challenge the process”  and Lead by “inspiring a shared vision.”  While inspiring a shared vision was still the Leader’s responsibility, it did restore some of Burns’ idea that Leaders and followers should engage with each other to raise one another to higher levels of motivation and establish mutual support for a common purpose.  Kouzes and Posner also recommended Leaders should emphasize “enabling others to act”, “modeling the way”, and “encouraging the heart”, all of which required a focus on followers expectations and needs.   

By 1990, John Kotter was writing that “what leaders really do” is focus to on “leading change” by creating a “vision”.  By 1991, Charles C. Manz and Henry P. Sims described the “most popular view today” as the “visionary leader” who can “create highly motivating and absorbing visions”.

But, despite that academic emphasis that Transformational Leader should maintain a concern  for the people of the organization while creating and implementing a vision, because of their primary focus on introducing some form of change into the organization, practical Transformational Leaders are not always Caring about the interests and needs of the people. For example in the 1980s, Al Dunlap, who set out to transform the Sunbeam Corporation, became known as “chainsaw Al” and Jack Welch who, in his early days of transforming General Electric, became known as “Dynamite Jack”.  On the other hand, Sir Howard Springer has been trying to transform Sony for a decade and has made little progress because of Japanese custom and laws that require Caring for employees. 

Finally, it must be noted that Burns idea of the need for Transforming Leadership at the national political and social level has not disappeared. Joseph S. Nye who (as indicated above)  is interested in Leadership at the higher national, political and social levels accepts Bass’s concept of Transformational Leadership as involving a one way influence by Transformational Leaders transforming followers, but he also maintains some of Burns’ Transforming Leadership emphasis on higher ideals and moral values.

Transformational Leaders lead, empower and elevate their followers, they use conflict and crises to raise their followers’ consciousness and transform them.

Transformational Leaders mobilize power for change by appealing to their followers higher ideals and moral values….Transformational Leaders induce followers to transcend their self-interest for the higher purposes of the group.

Brief Summary of Types of Leaders

What it Means for You

Of course, no real world Leader is a perfect example of any one of these theoretically categorized types. It is just a matter of emphasis. All Leaders try to Lead based on their past reputation, personal characteristics and inspiring communication. All Leaders want to offer their followers something in return for their efforts. All Leaders see a need to create the basis for an organizational vision and set goals for change and improvement. But, real-world leadership requirements often drive a Leader to become a certain type of Leader.

While it should be interesting for you as aspiring Leaders to know that there are three general types of Leaders which have been observed, identified and described; it is more important that you understand how those types fit the requirements for Leadership in the real-world and what that will mean for you.

In the future, as you are seen to have the five core leadership traits and to be developing some additional leadership qualities and skills through practice and experience, you will be recognized as having leadership potential and will be given the opportunity to Lead by being assigned to an organizational  leadership position. Or, you may just see a requirement for Leadership and take it upon yourself to turn that into an opportunity to Lead. Once you, or any other Leader at any level, have the opportunity to Lead, you will soon find yourself required to Lead an organization that will likely be, to some degree, in one of three general states. It may:

-face a real or perceived threat or crisis to itself or to the larger entity that it supports, or
-have recently met and survived that threat or crisis but now be weakened by bureaucratic turmoil, because of low morale or organizational instability
-have eventually been restored to morale and organizational stability, but then have stagnated and not be performing as well as it should.

Organizations tend to go through these three states in a cyclical fashion. You, most likely, will not get to choose what state the organization is in when you take your leadership position. You will be required to deal with an organization in any state.

Each of those states brings with it a major task to be accomplished by the Leader. That major task may be Leading the people of the organization to:

-rapidly respond to the threat or crisis and perform at an extraordinarily high level   and/or for an extended period, or
- restore their own morale and the stability of the organization, or
-shake off the stagnation and accept the changes needed to improve their performance and that of the organization.

Each of these major tasks requires that, ideally, to successfully Lead the organization you must be the right type of Leader, which means emphasizing one core trait while displaying a number of others.

Leading in a Crisis; Charismatic Leaders:  To successfully gain and keep followers and Lead them to rapidly respond to a threat or crisis and perform at an extraordinarily high level requires a Charismatic Leader who will be accepted immediately and unquestioningly as being a Leader because of past reputation and a persona that attracts and is Inspiring to people on an inter-personal level.  People follow Charismatic Leaders simply because they believe in them as Leaders.  Ann Ruth Willner says “It is not what the leader is, but what people see the leader as, that counts in generating the charismatic relationship.”

-Thus, to Lead in a crisis you should be a Charismatic Leader and will need to emphasize the Inspiring aspects of your personality and reputation and cultivate behaviors such as self-confidence to create a distinctive persona to which the people of the organization will relate on a personal level. In addition, to be successful in Leading during a crisis, you will need to reinforce that inspiration by having the Courage to enthusiastically, optimistically, even idealistically, promote a lofty Vision for success that inspires and challenges people to excel. Despite Burns belief that “At best, charismatic leadership is a confusing and undemocratic form of leadership.” and  Bahanson’s statement “Charisma: only some have it, everyone wants it”.  Kurt Mortensen, believes that even if one is not naturally endowed with charisma, it can be acquired by developing self-confidence and assertiveness balanced by a sense of humor and happiness within oneself which shows in enthusiasm and personality.  Contrary to Burns, and similar to Weber, he believes that charisma is the highest form of Leadership.            

--But, despite your necessarily determined pursuit of success against the threat and the strong and urgent actions required to respond to the crisis, when trying to be Charismatic Leader you should not become impetuous and push the boundaries of common sense, regulations or laws with an attitude of  “Lets just do it and worry about the niceties later.”  Also, if by emphasizing your own persona to inspire, you draw personal admiration or organizational acclaim, you should avoid believing that you are really unique and do not necessarily have to abide by the rules of behavior that govern others and, thereby, lose your Integrity.  While trying to be a Charismatic Leader, you should also consider “humility as a leadership attribute.” 

-In short, to while emphasizing the core trait required of a Charismatic Leader—Inspiring via persona, reputation and communication— and displaying some others— such as Courage, leadership Competence and an inspiring Vision—you will need to insure that you don’t lose your Integrity.

Leading a Weakened Organization; Transactional Leaders: To successfully gain and deep followers and  Lead them to restore their own morale and the stability of the organization requires a Transactional Leader who has the Courage to Care about the personal and professional needs of the people of the organization and work to meet them.

-Thus, to be a Transactional Leader, you will need to emphasize your moral Courage to seek out, listen to and understand the concerns of the people in what, for them, are trying circumstances.  In addition, you will have to be seen as working to meet them and demonstrate your Integrity by keeping the commitments you make to the people.

--But, despite your correct focus on the needs of the people, you must make sure that you don’t  have trouble saying “no” and become so over-accommodating that you over-extend yourself, over-commit and, especially, overlook enforcing the details, schedules, and routines and actions required to make things happen.  If that happens and you fail to follow through on your excessive commitments to the people it will be seen as a failure of your Integrity and you will lose the trust of the people.  If you fail to assure the accomplishment of the work of the organization, your Competence will be questioned and they will lose the trust and confidence of your seniors. 

-In short, while emphasizing the core traits required of a Transactional Leader—the Courage to be Caring and Integrity—you must make sure that you also display the core trait of leadership Competence and other qualities needed to guide the organization to success.

Leading a Stagnated Organization; Transformational Leaders: To successfully gain and keep followers and Lead them to shake off stagnation and accept the changes need to improve their performance and that of the organization requires a Transformational Leader who can set an ambitious but realistically achievable Vision and enunciate it in Inspiring ways to get the people of the organization to share it.

-Thus, to be a Transformational Leader you will need to develop and emphasize a realistic Vision and goals and use your Inspiring communication qualities to create the environment get people to share that vision. It is this requirement for being Inspiring in addition to having Vision, that causes Nye to “focus on the currently dominant theoretical approach, called the  ‘neo-charismatic transformational leadership paradigm’”  In addition, to be successful you must also demonstrate your Integrity by demonstrating continued commitment to the Vision and your leadership Competence by guiding the organization to achieve it. 

--But, despite the urgent need to introduce change, you must not fall into the trap of Leading the organization to change by emphasizing using your position and over-emphasizing your own personal ideas and ambition rather than soliciting and taking the inputs of the people concerning their self-interest and accommodating their needs.  Likewise, you should not get so committed to the actions required to achieve the Vision, goals and change that, in taking those actions you ignore regulations, take improper bureaucratic short cuts or do not consider the impact on the people of the organization.

-In short, while emphasizing the core traits required of a Transformational Leader—Vision and Inspiring communications— you must also display your leadership Competence, maintain your Integrity and Care for the interests and needs of the people of the organization.

Is that guidance appropriate and useful?  Think about it?

Each of you have probably either been in an organization or observed an organization in which the major task that was required was to raise morale and the person in the leadership position tried to inspire or “jawbone” the organization into better morale by being a Charismatic Leader, rather than dealing with the concerns of the people as a Transactional Leader would or should. Did it work, did morale improve or cynicism set in?

Or, you may have been in an organization which needed to change and the person in the leadership position tried to entice the people of the organization to accept the change in return for improved benefits, working conditions or other rewards acting as a Transactional Leader, rather than providing a Vision and working with the people to make that Vision their own as a Transformational Leader would. Did it work, were the people really committed to change or only so long as the benefits continued?

On the other hand, hopefully, you have seen the correct approach work

A Hypothesis

It seems to be a reasonable hypothesis that this interaction of:

-the state in which organizations are often found,
-the major tasks to be by accomplished by the Leader when the organizations are in those states,
-the types of Leader called upon to Lead in accomplishing those tasks,
-and the core traits that those Leaders must emphasize and other traits and qualities they must  demonstrate to be successful,

is constantly occurring in the real world.  Of course threats and crises do not arise with regularity, so the demand for Charismatic Leaders does not always occur with regularity.  But, the cycle of stagnated organizations needing to change and the demand for Transformational Leaders followed by a need for a restoration of stability and morale by Transactional Leaders seems to occur with a fair degree of regularity.  As Van Wart highlights, “Bass conceives leadership as a single continuum.  It progresses from non-leadership to transactional leadership to transformational leadership.” (emphasis in original). Those who want to think about that hypothesis more deeply and study some examples which seem to generally support it can click on the following pages.

•  For Review: Summary of the Cyclical Nature of Leadership 
• Example: The Directors of Central Intelligence: 1966-2006

What More It Means for You

Hopefully, you are committed to a career of Leadership.  If so, today and in the future, you will be called upon to Lead organizations staffed by professionals working in a highly dynamic and fast changing external and internal environment. Leadership can be more complex.  As Van Wart says:

…leaders may focus primarily on maintenance [Transactional] activities or change [Transformational] activities, or they may balance both in the short term.  It is rare that an organizational leader can entirely neglect either transactional or transformational activities in contemporary organizations and still be highly effective over the long term.

As indicated above, over the long term of your career as you are required to move from Leading one organization to Leading another, you will be faced with organizations in different states requiring you to be a different type of Leader.  Thus, Van War is right: “It is rare that an organizational leader can entirely neglect transactional or transformational activities” or Leadership and “still be highly effective over the long term.”

But, it is likely that you may also have to “balance both in the short term.”  For example, when you become a certain type of Leader in order to deal with the major task facing your organization due to the state that it is in, sometime during your period of Leadership you likely are also going to be called upon to deal simultaneously with a short-term, minor but critical task.  For example, you may have been assigned to Lead an organization in turmoil and have recognized that the major task is to Lead the people to restore their own morale and organizational stability and have, therefore, made the effort to become a Transactional Leader focusing on responding to the personal and professional needs of the people while simply assuring they meet the requirements of the mission and get the job done.  But, during that long-term process of helping the people to restored morale and stability, there is always the possibility that a short term crisis may occur, such as the need for some people in the organization to respond to an urgent but un-resourced task.  Or, because of changes taking place outside your organization, some people may be called upon to implement a difficult change in the way they go about their work.  Thus, while remaining a Transactional Leader for the whole organization; when Leading the people who must respond to the crisis you may have to be a Charismatic Leader inspiring them to pick up the pace of their efforts for a short time; or in Leading the people to meet the outside-induced requirement for change,  you many have to be a Transformational Leader creating a shared vision of how to accomplish it with the least disruption of organizational morale and stability.

 Secondly, since the 1990s, thorough 9/11 until today; the military and the Intelligence Community have been faced with a continual change in the threat environment to which they must respond just as the pace of internal organizational and technological change has picked up, and until just recently, it has been harder to recruit, hire and retain outstanding people.  Thus, Leaders have been required to cope with change and at the same time place more emphasis on providing opportunities for people to meet their self-interest and fulfill their aspirations. It soon became clear that Leaders would have to balance both Transformational Leadership and Transactional Leadership at the same time in the short term.  

In 1994, when the Army was going through the post-cold war changes of downsizing and force reorientation yet remaining an all volunteer force in a time of civilian economic prosperity, the Chief of Staff,  made the case quite strongly that the Army Leaders needed Transformational Leaders, “...men and women of their time who can be agents for change...”  Yet he also emphasized that they must also be Transactional Leaders “...the leader has to get out and see and listen” and remember that “disagreement is not disrespect.” “It's about people.  And it’s about leadership.”  An article by several of his subordinates emphasized that;

…transactional and transformational leadership are not mutually exclusive, nor is transformational leadership a panacea for all of a leader's problems....Hence it is possible for a leader to exhibit a complementary mix of both transactional and transformational leadership.... 

At the same time, Lynn Joy McFarland, Larry E. Senn and John R. Childress were interviewing Leaders as a basis for a book. their interviews with top Leaders highlighted a number of themes:

[There is]...a growing need for leaders to take a holistic approach, embrace a wide variety of qualities, skills and capabilities....
[Including the Transactional Leader's]...sensitive and humanistic dimension to leadership....
[And the Transformational Leader's]...mastery over change....

 Since that time the need for a well-balanced Leader has only become recognized more strongly. Sal Marino, an ex-CEO and a writer on Leadership, said in 1998:

What bugs me is: Why? At a time when vision, innovation,[Transformational traits] humanity, and passion [Transactional traits] are so desperately needed, why do so many companies give leadership positions to people who possess so few of the requisite qualities--and distrust anyone who does?

More recently Jim Collins has found that the most successful are what he calls “Level 5” Leaders, those who have a “paradoxical combination of personal humility plus professional will.....They attend to people first and strategy second” and rely on “inspired standards rather than personal inspiration to Lead.”

Today, in the wake of 9/11, the Intelligence Community has been under pressure to transform itself by cultural, and organizational changes to become a more cooperative and collaborative entity.  To accomplish this will require Transformational Leaders in the senior leadership positions throughout the Community who can develop and articulate a shared vision of a future more cohesive Intelligence Community.  But, the Community has also been battered by criticisms of its performance and the integrity of its actions, factors which can damage morale.  Thus, the Community needs both senior and junior Transactional Leaders willing to address the concerns and needs of the people.  

Gilbert W. Fairholm, writing on what he calls “Spiritual Leadership” provides a sound model for the capabilities required of a Leader in the 21^st Century.  “The model has three spiritual leadership tasks: task competence, vision-setting, and servanthood.” While some may consider the term “spiritual leadership” too soft a term for the practical world you live in, it is worth noting that Louis W. Fry, Steve Vitucci and Marie Cedillo, when reporting on their research in testing “Spiritual Leadership Theory” in an Army Longbow Apache helicopter attack squadron say that they found that it “offers promise as a springboard for a new paradigm of leadership theory....”

Finally, beyond the increasing requirements to be both a Transactional Leader and Transformational Leader of your own organization, as you become more senior in the more integrated Intelligence Community of the future, you may also have to assume Leadership of different Community constituencies to assure the successful accomplishment of your organization’s mission.  And, you may have to be a different type of Leader to each constituency.  For example, while you may have to inspire your immediate organizational followers to rise to the occasion and respond to a crisis situation as a Charismatic Leader, you may also have to deal with other intelligence organizations for support and negotiate mutually agreeable arrangements for coordination of your coordinated efforts in meeting the crisis.  Thus, you may have to be a Transactional Leader.  And, if such a crisis is long-lasting, especially challenging and stressing to the established Community procedures and organizations, you may need to be a Transformational Leader to promote a shared vision of how the overall Community response to the crisis could be improved. 

For  an example of a Leader being several different types to different followers at the same time, go here____

So what will be the state of the organization, the challenge and the major task you will face when you rise to a leadership position? Will you be faced with responding to a crisis? Will you need to restore morale and bring stability? Will you need to introduce change? When the opportunity to Lead presents itself to you, what type of Leader will you have to be: Charismatic, Transactional, or Transformational?  When you are Leading the organization to undertake the major task facing it, will some short term problem arise also requiring your Leadership? Will you have to be Leader who can be several types simultaneously?

Who knows? The future is uncertain. Thus, if you want to succeed in any organizational leadership position in the Intelligence Community during the next decade, you should:

Prepare Yourself to Be Any Type of Leader

You will want to develop all of the core traits and possess and display a number of other personal qualities so that you can be any type of Leader, and perhaps several types at the same time, as required. How can you do that?

Styles of Leadership

But, even if you get yourself ready to be the right “type” of Leader, because you possess strengths in all the core traits and know which core trait you must emphasize and the set of other core traits and qualities that are needed to Lead the people of the organization to accomplish the major task; will you apply them appropriately for the readiness and developmental level of the people for accomplishing the task?  Will you establish the appropriate relationship with the people of the organization in order to motivate and guide them to undertake the major task or accomplish any mission supporting a specific task? Will you have the right leadership “style”?  As Montgomery Van Wart points out: “Leadership style has to do with the type of relationship that the leader maintains with the followers (especially the nature of communication and decisional involvement)….”

As pointed out by Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard;  at one time

...it was believed that task and [Leader-follower] relationships were either/or styles of leader behavior….

For example in the late 1950s, Douglas MacGregor, a social psychologist, postulated the central idea that there were two fundamentally different styles of management.  Theory X is fundamentally authoritarian, assuming that individuals only work reluctantly. Theory Y is liberating and assumes that people will do almost anything if they are committed to the overall goals of their organization.

Later, thinkers suggested there were other alternatives, which Hersey and Blanchard pointed out:

 …could be depicted as a single dimension along a continuum, moving from very authoritarian leader behavior at one end to very democratic leader behavior at the other.

Desmond D. Martin and Richard L. Shell in the course text list these “older and more traditional” leadership styles as:

            ·          Autocratic “perceives himself or herself as the source of power and makes all the decisions” and sometimes “uses rewards to keep people following”.

            ·         Bureaucratic “utilizes formal rules and regulations as the power base”. 

            ·         Laissez Faire “does not function as an effective personal force” or exercise authority.

            ·         Democratic believes that “power is derived from the subordinate group”.

While these do not sound particularly Leader-like, Martin and Shell they say that “newer classifications are really modifications or extensions of these four basic styles”.

Others postulated that the best style was a balance of emphasis on task and people.  Subsequently, in order to highlight the variety of task-people styles possible, the various styles were represented as quadrants within a box or as points on a grid.  Some concluded that the best style might be the upper right quadrant of the box “High (task) Structure” and “High (people) Consideration” or the extreme upper right of the grid “9-9” showing a “High Concern for Production” and a “High concern for People” or development of a “Team” effort. 

Indeed, theoretically, they might be the best. But, as we all understand, in the real world,  not all Leaders are able to give total and equal attention to both task and people.  And sometimes the nature or urgency of the task does not always allow the Leader to give equal attention to both task and people. 

Thus, Hersey and Blanchard pointed out that 

...recent evidence from empirical studies clearly shows that there is no single all-purpose leadership style which is universally successful.

and concluded that;

In summary, empirical studies show that there is no normative (best) style of leadership; that successful leaders are those who can adapt their leader behavior to meet the needs of the followers and the particular situation.

That is why other researchers and writers have described and recommended a number of other styles of Leadership styles. To see some, go here._____

Situational Leadership

After working on a “Life Cycle Theory of Leadership” in the late 1960's through the 1970s,  by early 1980s Hersey and Blanchard had developed a “Situational Leadership” model to help young military Leaders determine which style might work best in certain situations.  Note that when developed, "Situational Leadership" was a registered trademark. Today “situational leadership” has become a well-known and widely used term especially in military leadership training. As described, the idea is that Leaders, having a task to complete, must remain sensitive to the followers’ ability to take on the task at hand and must adjust their leadership behavior, approach or style to that situation accordingly.

 In the Situational Leadership diagram, as originally created by Hersey and Blanchard, are four levels describing the ability of follower to take on a task, ranging from “low to high”.  In different versions of the diagram those levels have been variously described as follower “maturity” or  follower “readiness” along with descriptive words.  But all are essentially the same.  Then there are four xxxx of levels of Leader “behavior”, ranging from low involvement to high involvement.  When these 8 variables are considered, and displayed on a quadrant, four styles of Leadership emerge—“Telling”, “Selling”, “Participating”, “Delegating”. 

Kenneth H. Blanchard later refined the Situational Leadership Model. He used the same format but described the followers in terms their “developmental level” —i.e., “competence” and “commitment” to take on the task, which seems more appropriate for the use of intelligence professionals. He illustrated that the development level of followers was not fixed; and he changed the names of some of the Leader styles. The concept is still the same; Leaders should tailor their leadership behavior, approach or style to the situation as defined by the readiness or developmental level of the followers to take on the task.

To see a summarized Situational Leadership Model for Intelligence Professionals, go here_____

To make this process work, Blanchard emphasizes that the Leader needs the flexibility to be able to use a variety of styles and the ability to diagnose when to use each style.

Hersey points out that:

...a leader’s diagnostic abilities cannot be overemphasized...
Effective leaders know how to tailor their styles to specific situations when attempting to influence the behavior of others.

For example:

In the most successful companies, the CEO has scrutinized the business situation, determined what the organization [the people] needs from its leader, and chosen the leadership approach [style] that meets those requirements.

Sometimes the approach fits the CEO’s personality; sometimes it does not.  Indeed our research shows that very good leaders repress certain personality traits, or develop ones they weren’t born with, in order to run their organizations effectively.         

Unfortunately, it often occurs that

Under pressure, most executives fall back on the management style or approach that worked in the past crisis they faced.  But old approaches rarely work in new and demanding situations.

The key is that a Leader must be flexible and be able to adopt any style required by the situation.  

You recognize that, of course. As a military Leader, no matter what the major or every day task, would you adopt the same leadership style to influence your subordinate officers, NCOs or raw recruits? Or, as a civilian leader, would you adopt the same leadership style with your senior managers, your line supervisors and your newly arrived employees? Of course not, for any given task you might:

-Delegate to the more senior officers and NCOs, or civilian managers.
-Participate to Support some of the experienced JOs and NCOs, or line supervisors.
-Sell or Coach some of the more junior officers, newer NCOs and supervisors.
-Tell or Direct the recruits and new employees.   

A Different Perspective and Terminology on Styles, But Similar Conclusions

Joseph Nye only briefly discusses “types” of Leaders.  But, when he does, he takes a trait/quality–based approach just as is done in this course.  (See his brief descriptions of Charismatic Leaders and Transactional Leaders, above.)  He also takes a Leader-follower/task-relationship to styles of Leadership, as this course does, but, he defines that relationship using the terminology of power rather than the communication/decisional terminology of Hersey/Blanchard .  In doing so he characterizes several “types of leadership styles” that any Leader can use and says “We can distinguish leaders’ styles by how they use hard and soft power resources”.  He says:

I use the terms “transactional style” to characterize what leaders do with their hard power resources [i.e., coercion and reward] and “inspirational style” to characterize leadership that rests on soft power relationships [i.e., legitimate, expert, referent].

He also believes that the Leader should be flexible and combine “…hard and soft power into an effective strategy” which he calls  “smart power.”  Thus, he believes that the use of these “types of leadership styles” can be situational.  He says:

If a group is well integrated… and has only minor differences over issues, limited objectives, a transactional style may suffice.

This suggests that if the group undertaking the task is well integrated as being all “enthusiastic beginners” with “low competence” and with “some commitment” to take on the issue, the Leader could use a transactional style based on the hard power of coercion by saying “do as I say” and the hard power of reward such as “if you do you’ll all get good evals.” This hard power type of leadership style is equivalent to what others might call a traditional “autocratic” style or to the Hersey/Blanchard situational “directing” style. 

Or, he says:

If a group is well integrated in its identity but widely divided over how to deal with its problems, a leader with a more inspirational soft power style  may be more effective.

This suggests that if the group undertaking the task is well integrated as being all “disillusioned learners” or all “reluctant professionals” with “low” or “varied commitment” respectively, then the Leader could use Nye’s “inspirational” “type of leadership style” based on the soft legitimate powers of rank and expertise to say “this is how I would do it” and to gain agreement.  This might be what others might call a traditional “democratic” style or what Hersey and Blanchard would call a “coaching” style with the “disillusioned learners” or a “supporting” style with the “reluctant professionals”.

 Nye also points out that;

A consultative style [Participating/Supporting in Hersey/Blanchard terms] is more costly in terms of time, but it provides more information, creates buy-in and empowers followers.

 Or,

If a group is fragmented over both identity and issues…a combination of hard transactional and soft inspirational styles may be necessary for effectiveness.

This suggests that since he says, “The ability to combine hard and soft power into an effective strategy is smart power.”;  the last style might be called a smart style and the type of Leader who used it might be a Smart Leader.  This suggests that if the group undertaking the task is fragmented among “reluctant professionals” and some “peak performers” then the Leader might get them all together to develop a smart style in which the responsibility for providing the “support” needed by the “reluctant professionals” is “delegated” to the “peak performers”.   

Essentially, despite a taking a different perspective and using different terminology, Nye points out that “Smart power—i.e., using a mix of hard power and soft power resources—requires the ability to “understand the evolution of the environment.” [situation] and to  “Adjust style to context and followers’ needs.”  Exactly what is called for by situational leadership.

Being a Type of Leader and Using Styles of Leadership

While a Leader demonstrates a type of Leadership at the macro-level across a wide span of control in order to inspire a whole organization to undertake a major task, a Leader applies a style of Leadership at the micro-level across a narrow span of control in order to guide, facilitate and support a specific group of people to accomplish any detailed mission related task or specific job to be done within the organization.

At the macro level, for example, a Leader may be faced with the need to introduce change and, therefore, have to be a Transformational Leader emphasizing Vision and Inspiring Communications to get the organization to share the Vision.

-If that Leader has to Lead people who do not want to respond to the need for change because they do not want to change and, therefore do not know quite how to go about it—i.e., they have low commitment and only some competence—then the Leader might have to deliver the Vision  initially in a Coaching style or, in Hersey’s term, Selling it, before moving to the more appropriate Supporting style  and, in Hersey’s term,  Participating with them to bring about a shared Vision.
-But, if that same Leader, is fortunate enough to have followers who are itching to respond to change and know how to do it—i.e., they are competent and committed—and only need to be offered the opportunity to participate in the development of a shared Vision and then be unleashed, that Leader could adopt an easy going, initially, Supporting style and quickly move on to a Delegating style.

The same might apply to a Leader who, taking over an organization that needed to be restored to stability or improved morale after crisis or failure and, therefore, needs to become a Transactional Leader. Depending on the developmental level people of the organization, especially the subordinate Leaders at the department and division level, the Leader might have to adopt different styles.

-If those key followers had been constrained and unhappy with the previous dictatorial, micro-managing boss and were already competent Leaders and committed to loosening up to improve the morale of the people and reduce the turmoil in the organization, then the new Leader might adopt an easy going Supporting and Delegating style of Leadership with them.

-But, it the key followers were the entrenched bureaucrats who were the ones creating the morale problems in the organization and would not commit to any changes to their power and ways of doing business, then the Leader might have to adopt a tough Directing style before moving to a Coaching style of Leadership with them.

Any type of Leader may need to use any style. No matter which core traits and other qualities must be emphasized and applied to deal with the task, they can be emphasized in a Directing, Coaching, Supporting or Delegating way. The important thing to remember is that no matter what type of Leader the task requires you to be, you must adapt your leadership style to the situation—i.e., the interaction of the task and the development of the people of the organization.

Summary and Conclusions 

The future is uncertain, but it is certain to pose a variety of challenges in terms of the state of the organization you may be called upon to Lead.

-Thus, you must be prepared to be the appropriate “type” of Leader that any state of an organization and its associated major task requires.

--Therefore, you must develop and sustain and improve all of the five core traits so that you can be the “type” of Leader required.

And, you may find that the people of the organization may or may not be ready and willing or committed and competent to take on the tasks required.

-Thus, you must be prepared to deliver your Leadership in a “style” that is most appropriate to the people and their ability to respond to the task at hand—the situation

--So you are going to have to develop a number of other competencies and skills required to use any leadership “style”.

Do you have them?  How do you know?