The current writing analyzes three articles that share a common subject: leadership, but while two of them focus on the relation between the traits and behaviors as relevant predictors to leadership, the other describes the situational leadership theory and extends the notions available in this research area. This paper will examine the following articles: “Situational Leadership: A Review of the Research” (Johansen, 1990) , “Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity” (Derue, Nahrgan, Wellman & Humphrey, 2011) and “Personality and Transformational and Transactional Leadership Meta-Analysis” (Bono & Judge, 2004).
Thesis Statement: These three articles will be investigated on the basis of the purpose of their study, the research question, the literature review, sample population, limitations and conclusions and based on these analysis criteria, the articles will be compared among them. Therefore, further dissertation research should focus on how situational leadership theory can interact with other leadership theories for engaging employee commitment and business performances.
Johansen’s (1990) study proposes to review the Situational Leadership Theory (SLT) and to investigate whether this theory can be included in human resource development efforts. Therefore, from this purpose a clear focus on SLT is underlined, defining implicitly the research area: the usability of this theory in HR development plans. In the second examined study, the authors Derue et al. (2011) propose to develop an integrative theory about how leader trait and behaviors influence leadership effectiveness and in the last article, the authors, Bono and Judge (2004) propose to enlarge the available information about personality and leadership by analyzing the connection between personality and the eight dimensions of transformational and transactional leadership.
Johansen’s (1990) states that the study is important because there is limited existent information for conceptualizing whether the SLT can be applied to management development programs, hence by developing this research the author states that his research will evaluate this aspect. Dureue et al. state that their study is significant for defining whether trait and behavior paradigms are independent effects on leadership. For Bono and Judge (2011) the significance of the study relies in determining if transformational leadership can be trained and which individuals can benefit from such training. Therefore, for each study there is a different significance and while Johansen argues for the applicability of SLT in managerial development programs, the other two studies are focused on the significance of the trait and behavior variables that define leadership and if these can be further trained.
In terms of research questions, there must be observed that neither of the examined articles sets a clear research question. If any, they all have implied research questions, which can be derived from the context. As such, the implied research question for Johansen’s (1990) study can be considered to be: Is SLT sufficiently valid and performing for defining the leadership – subordinate relationship following the organization’s values? This question was retrieved based on the purpose presented and on the significance of the paper mentioned by the author. The same criteria for defining the research question was available in the second study, belonging to Derue et al. (2011), for which there were identified two implied research questions: (1) What distinct the leaders from non-leaders? (2) Are trait and behavior paradigm independent in defining leadership? And the third study implies the following research question: What is the relationship between personality and leadership? This research question was also retrieved based on the mentioned purposes and on the significance of the study as Bono and Judge (2004) perceived it.
Comparing these research questions, it is visible that the latest two research follow similar notions and directions that they intend to study: the distinction between leader and non – leader, which is sustained by a quest of investigating whether the trait paradigm and behavioral paradigm are independent in leading to the emergence of leadership, questions followed by Derue et al. (2011), which are seconded by Bono and Judge (2004), as they seek to investigate the relationship between personality (implicitly comprising trait and behavior) and leadership. Johansen’s research question, on the other hand, is not related to the research questions of these two articles, as it follows a totally different direction, focusing on the validity of a leadership style – situational leadership, questioning, hence, this leadership style’s efficiency, as compared with the other two articles that aim to identify the sources of leadership effectiveness.
Sample population section receives also limited exposure in all three investigated articles. The common point at this point is that all the studies use un-classical sample for conducting the research. They are all based on examining previous research, which constitute their samples. Again, at this point also a distinction is made between the sample employed in Johansen’s (1990) study and the other two examined study. Johansen simply relates the information about the samples used in previous studies and the results obtained following those research, while in the other two articles there are more specific information about the use of the sample for the development of the study. As such, Derue et al. (2011) used primary studies, based on which their research conducted a meta-analyses: there were 59 studies out of which 13 existing meta analyses and the other 46 represent primary studies included in the final analysis of the examined research. In Bono and Judge (2004) article, the employed sample was formed of 41 articles and dissertations, out of which 18 contained appropriate correlations for the examined study, but also
7 more studies from authors who published research on transformational leadership, contacted by the researchers, plus another study from the Center of Global Leadership studies in Birmingham University.
The results section was presented in the conclusion chapter in Johansen’s (1990) article and it indicated that the SLT is insufficient for setting a coherent leader-subordinate relationship and this theory sometimes opposes the organizational vision and objectives, but a role in training was identified, which is compatible with human resource development. Derue et al. (2011) research turned these results: in terms of trait predictor of leadership effectiveness Conscientiousness is the most consistent, while regarding the behavioral paradigm the transformational leadership was the most consistent predictor for this criteria. Leaders’ behavior express a task competence and performance related outcomes, while leaders’ interpersonal attributes express the relational – oriented behaviors, which predict leaders’ change – oriented behaviors, associated with leadership effectiveness, unlike the passive leader behaviors that are predictors of negative leadership effectiveness. Bono and Judge (2004) came to these results: The Big Five (methodology design) found 12% of variability in charisma, 5% in intellectual stimulation and 6% in individualized consideration; masculinity was the most important personality predictor of leadership perceptions; transformational leadership can be learned through life experiences; personological basis of transformational-transactional leadership – weaker than the basis of leadership effectiveness and emergence; charisma – the strongest personality – leader behavior rating. Therefore, the results answered the implied research question for all the analyzed studies and while for the first examined study the result was a matter of yes or no, for the other two, the results investigated the “what”, and the question was answered, in presenting personality predictors of leadership (in Bono and Judge, 2004) and the leadership traits and behaviors that are the most consistent variables of effective leadership (in Derue et al., 2011).
Regarding the conclusion of the articles, as stated above, Johansen’s article comprised the results, but it also reflects on the relationship between SLT and the maturity phase in both the employee and the leader, underlying its insufficiency in being applied in more advanced/mature stages and this, as the article concludes, may result in decreased organizational performances. Besides stating the results of the study, the conclusion also summarizes the article.
Durue et al. (2011, p. 43) include a subsection defined “Concluding Remarks”, which is inserted in the “Discussion” section. The subsection summarizes the article and the findings, as well as it recommends future research to be underpinned for developing “an integrative understanding of leadership in organizations” (Durue et al., 2011, p. 43).
Bono and Judge (2004) article also does not include a clear Conclusion section, but a Discussion section, which analyzes the results of the study, summarizes the article and presents its strengths and limitations. Again, similarities, this time regarding the structure between the latest two articles, as they follow an unconventional structure, as compared to the first article that includes a clear conclusion, following the classical research model.
The first two studies clearly presented their limitations: Johansen (1990) found that his research represents an inconsistent empirical research, as it involves data and observations received from previous research, not from actual observation prevailed from a conducted study; the study limits the use of SLT in management development program; Derue et al. (2011) observed these limitations: the research is based in a hierarchical view of leadership, while recent studies indicate that leadership is a collective process; the study approaches the leadership as a singular effect, while recent research examine hoe the effects of leadership traits and behaviors differ in terms of followers, organizations or jobs; not exploring the boundary conditions that might apply to the integrated trait-behavioral model. Finally, from Bono and Judge’s (2004) article there can be identified as limitations the generally weak results that indicate that the Big Five model might be a modest tool for discovering personality antecedents of ratings of transformational-transactional leadership behaviors.
References
Bono, J., E. & Judge, T., A. (2011) “Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 89. No. 5, pp. 901 – 910.
Derue, D., S., Nahrgang, J., D., Wellman, N. & Humphrey, S., H. (2004) “Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analysis test of their relative validity” Personnel Psychology, vol 63, pp. 7 – 52.
Johansen, B., C. (1990) “Situational leadership: a review of the research” Human Resource Development Quarterly. Vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 73-85.
