𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐒𝐈𝐗𝐓𝐘 (𝐢𝐢𝐢) 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝟒. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩

The Style Theories of Leadership: A Comprehensive Analysis

Style theories, also known as behavioral theories of leadership, emerged in response to the limitations of trait theories. While trait theories focused on innate qualities and characteristics of leaders, style theories shifted attention to observable behaviors and the interpersonal styles leaders use when interacting with followers. These theories suggest that leadership effectiveness is less about who the leader is, and more about how the leader behaves.

1. Historical Context and Development

The origins of style theories can be traced back to the 1940s and 1950s, notably through research conducted at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan. These studies sought to identify which specific behaviors contributed to effective leadership rather than focusing on personality traits.

  • Ohio State Studies (Stogdill & Coons, 1957) identified two primary dimensions of leader behavior:

    • Initiating Structure: the extent to which a leader defines roles, sets goals, and organizes tasks.

    • Consideration: the degree to which a leader shows concern and respect for subordinates’ well-being.

  • University of Michigan Studies (Likert, 1961) similarly proposed two categories:

    • Task-oriented behavior

    • Relationship-oriented behavior

These early findings laid the groundwork for later, more refined theories of leadership behavior.

2. The Leadership Grid (Blake and Mouton, 1964)

One of the most influential style theories is the Managerial Grid (later called the Leadership Grid), developed by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton. This model identifies five major leadership styles based on two behavioral dimensions:

  • Concern for People (consideration, trust, empathy)

  • Concern for Production (task accomplishment, goal achievement)

The grid ranges from 1 (low concern) to 9 (high concern) on both axes:

StyleDescription
Impoverished (1,1)Low concern for both tasks and people; often leads to disorganization and dissatisfaction.
Country Club (1,9)High concern for people, low concern for productivity; creates a friendly atmosphere but lacks direction.
Task-Oriented (9,1)High concern for production, low concern for people; efficient but potentially authoritarian.
Middle-of-the-Road (5,5)Balanced approach, moderate concern for both; may lead to mediocrity.
Team Leader (9,9)High concern for both people and tasks; considered the most effective style in most situations.

Educational leadership application: The team leader style (9,9) is particularly effective in schools, where both academic performance and staff/student well-being are critical. A principal adopting this style fosters collaborative teaching and learning environments while maintaining academic rigor (Bush & Glover, 2003).

3. Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s Leadership Continuum (1958)

This model presents leadership behavior on a continuum ranging from autocratic to democratic styles:

  • Tells: Leader makes decisions and announces them.

  • Sells: Leader makes decisions and explains them to followers.

  • Consults: Leader presents ideas and invites questions.

  • Joins: Leader defines limits and asks group to make decisions.

Tannenbaum and Schmidt emphasized that no single style is ideal in all circumstances. The effectiveness of a style depends on:

  • the leader’s personality,

  • the maturity of subordinates,

  • the task at hand.

Educational leadership application: In transformational school settings, leaders often shift toward the consults or joins end of the continuum, promoting teacher leadership, professional learning communities, and participatory decision-making (Leithwood et al., 2006).

4. Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s Leadership Styles (1939)

This foundational study identified three leadership styles based on how leaders involve subordinates in decision-making:

  • Authoritarian: Leader makes decisions independently, expects obedience.

  • Democratic: Leader involves team members in decision-making.

  • Laissez-faire: Leader gives minimal direction, leaves decision-making to the group.

Their research, conducted in educational settings, found that democratic leadership led to higher satisfaction and productivity, whereas authoritarian leadership resulted in dependency and aggression.

Educational leadership application: A democratic leadership style is often associated with school improvement and teacher empowerment, allowing for shared leadership and distributed responsibilities (Harris, 2004).

Critical Perspectives

While style theories provide valuable insights, they have limitations:

  • They ignore situational variables—a style effective in one context may not work in another.

  • They do not account for followers’ characteristics, such as competence and motivation (Yukl, 2013).

  • Contingency and transformational theories later evolved to address these limitations, incorporating contextual and relational dynamics.

Relevance to Educational Leadership

In contemporary school leadership, behavioral flexibility is essential. Principals, department heads, and educational administrators must tailor their leadership style based on:

  • the school's vision and goals,

  • the staff’s professional maturity,

  • student demographics and needs,

  • policy and accountability frameworks.

For example, a task-oriented style may be necessary during exam periods, while a people-oriented approach may be more effective when addressing staff morale or professional development.

Conclusion

Style theories of leadership remain foundational in understanding leadership practice, particularly in educational settings. By focusing on leader behavior rather than inherent traits, these theories encourage reflection, adaptability, and professional development. Effective school leaders are those who balance concern for people and tasks, foster participative environments, and adapt their styles to meet the complex demands of modern education.

References

  • Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.

  • Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2003). School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence. National College for School Leadership.

  • Harris, A. (2004). Distributed Leadership and School Improvement: Leading or Misleading? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(1), 11–24.

  • Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful School Leadership: What It Is and How It Influences Pupil Learning. London: DfES.

  • Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Stogdill, R.M., & Coons, A.E. (1957). Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

  • Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to Choose a Leadership Pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36(2), 95–101.

  • Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

  • Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–301.