𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐓𝐘 𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓 𝐄𝐥 𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫 (𝐢𝐢) 𝟐𝟕 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐬𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝟐𝟎. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞

The Traditional Leadership Style

Introduction

Traditional leadership style refers to a long-established approach to leadership that is typically characterized by hierarchy, authority, and top-down decision-making. This style has been prominent in military, religious, and early industrial organizations and continues to influence some educational and administrative contexts. Though widely practiced, it has also been criticized for its limitations in fostering innovation, collaboration, and adaptability in contemporary educational environments.

Defining Traditional Leadership

According to Northouse (2021), traditional leadership emphasizes formal authority, centralized control, and obedience to rules and hierarchy. It often assumes that leaders are born rather than made, aligning closely with Trait Theory, which posits that certain individuals possess innate qualities that make them effective leaders (Stogdill, 1948).

Traditional leadership typically reflects autocratic or transactional styles:

  • Autocratic leadership involves the leader making decisions independently with little input from subordinates.

  • Transactional leadership, as discussed by Bass (1985), focuses on supervision, performance, and reward-punishment systems.

These styles rely on structure, routine, and predictability—making them suitable in stable, rule-bound environments such as early 20th-century schools or bureaucratic organizations.

Core Characteristics of Traditional Leadership

  1. Hierarchical Structure
    Leadership flows from the top down, and subordinates are expected to follow without questioning authority (Weber, 1947).

  2. Emphasis on Authority and Control
    The leader holds positional power and typically does not delegate decision-making (French & Raven, 1959).

  3. Focus on Rules and Procedures
    Systems and structures dominate, often with a rigid adherence to established protocols (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

  4. Limited Stakeholder Engagement
    There is minimal involvement of staff, students, or parents in leadership decisions, which can lead to a disconnect between leadership and the community (Bush, 2011).

  5. Predictability and Order
    This leadership style works well in environments where conformity and control are essential for safety or performance (Hoyle & Wallace, 2005).

Application in Educational Settings

In the context of educational leadership, traditional styles were predominant in early models of school administration. The “managerial” or “bureaucratic” model of school leadership, for instance, mirrors traditional leadership in its focus on structure, formal roles, and efficiency (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999).

Example:

In schools of the 1950s and 1960s, principals were typically viewed as administrators rather than instructional leaders. Their primary concern was with compliance, order, and operational control rather than collaborative decision-making or pedagogical innovation (Sergiovanni, 2001).

Criticisms of Traditional Leadership

Although traditional leadership ensures consistency and efficiency, it has been increasingly critiqued, especially in the context of 21st-century education, for several reasons:

  • Suppresses Innovation: Strict adherence to rules and procedures can stifle creativity and flexibility (Fullan, 2001).

  • Disempowers Staff: Teachers and other stakeholders may feel alienated or disengaged due to lack of voice (Day & Leithwood, 2007).

  • Fails to Address Complex Challenges: Educational challenges such as diversity, inclusion, and rapidly changing technologies require adaptive leadership, not just control (Heifetz, 1994).

Moreover, contemporary leadership theories—such as transformational (Burns, 1978), distributed (Spillane, 2006), and servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977)—have challenged the relevance of traditional models in today’s dynamic educational environments.

Conclusion

The traditional leadership style, with its roots in hierarchical and autocratic frameworks, has played a foundational role in shaping leadership practices across many domains, including education. However, while it offers strengths in consistency, order, and authority, it often falls short in addressing the complexities and collaborative demands of modern educational institutions.

Educational leaders today are increasingly encouraged to move beyond traditional approaches and adopt more inclusive, participatory, and adaptive leadership styles that better serve the needs of diverse learning communities.

References

  • Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

  • Bush, T. (2011). Theories of Educational Leadership and Management (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

  • Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

  • Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (Eds.). (2007). Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change. Springer.

  • French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan Press.

  • Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. Jossey-Bass.

  • Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. Paulist Press.

  • Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Harvard University Press.

  • Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2013). Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

  • Hoyle, E., & Wallace, M. (2005). Educational Leadership: Ambiguity, Professionals and Managerialism. SAGE.

  • Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Open University Press.

  • Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and Practice (9th ed.). SAGE Publications.

  • Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

  • Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed Leadership. Jossey-Bass.

  • Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. The Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35–71.

  • Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. (T. Parsons, Ed.). Free Press.