Explore how leadership thinking evolved from Great Man theory to behavioral and contingency approaches. Discover empirical research on what actually makes leaders effective.
What if the leadership approach that made sense 100 years ago—and still influences how we think about leaders today—is fundamentally incomplete?
Leadership theory has evolved dramatically over the past century as organizational researchers challenged increasingly sophisticated questions about what makes leaders effective. The journey from trait theory (emphasizing innate characteristics) to behavioral theory (focusing on learnable actions) to contingency theory (recognizing situational demands) reveals a fundamental shift in how we understand leadership: from a fixed property of certain individuals to a complex interaction between person, behavior, and context. Empirical research spanning thousands of studies and hundreds of thousands of participants reveals that while traits matter, they interact with behaviors, situations, and organizational contexts in ways that no single theory fully captures.
Leadership study began with a deceptively simple premise. In the mid-1800s, historian Thomas Carlyle proposed the Great Man Theory, arguing that history unfolds through the actions of exceptional individuals who possess natural leadership qualities. Leaders were born, not made. This theory aligned with observations that prominent leaders often came from cultured, educated, wealthy families—suggesting inherent advantages.
By the early 1900s, researchers formalized this intuition into trait theory, which hypothesized that specific psychological characteristics—traits—distinguish effective leaders from ineffective ones. If we could identify these traits, we could theoretically select or train leaders more effectively.
For decades, researchers studied what traits correlated with leadership emergence and effectiveness: intelligence, dominance, honesty, integrity, creativity, ambition, energy, self-confidence, and charisma.
A landmark 2011 meta-analysis by Hoffman et al., examining 187 studies with 146,851 participants, synthesized decades of trait research and produced surprising nuance:
Trait-Like Predictors of Leader Effectiveness (Overall Effect: ρ = .27):
The strongest trait predictors included:
Charisma: ρ = .57 (the strongest single trait correlate)
Dominance: ρ = .35
Creativity: ρ = .31
Energy: ρ = .29
Honesty/Integrity: ρ = .29
Achievement Motivation: ρ = .28
Self-Confidence: ρ = .24
Empirical Interpretation: These correlations, while statistically significant and consistent across contexts (80% credibility intervals excluded zero), are modest in practical terms. Charisma's ρ = .57 explains approximately 32% of variance in leader effectiveness—meaning 68% is explained by other factors. This suggests traits matter, but traits alone are far from destiny.
Important Finding: The meta-analysis found that organizational context, measurement method, and leader hierarchical level all moderated these relationships—contradicting pure trait theory, which predicts traits should operate consistently across contexts.
Trait theory's fundamental weakness became apparent over time: it explains leadership as a fixed personal characteristic while ignoring the situation. Would a natural leader excel equally as a military commander, a social worker, and a venture capitalist? Traits don't account for task demands, follower characteristics, organizational cultures, or the specific behaviors required for different roles.
By the 1940s, researchers began asking a different question: What do effective leaders actually do?
A paradigm shift occurred when organizational researchers realized they'd been asking the wrong question. Rather than seeking fixed traits, they began studying observable behaviors—the actions, decisions, and communication patterns that distinguish effective from ineffective leaders.
If traits are what you are, behaviors are what you do. And behaviors, crucially, can be learned and developed.
The most influential behavioral research came from Ohio State University, where researchers observed hundreds of leaders and identified patterns in their behavior. After extensive analysis, they discovered that effective leadership behaviors clustered into two primary dimensions:
1. Initiating Structure: Defining roles, establishing procedures, setting performance standards, organizing work, and providing clear direction. Task-oriented, focused on achieving objectives.
2. Consideration: Showing concern for followers' wellbeing, supporting their development, listening to their ideas, and treating them with respect. People-oriented, focused on relationships and morale.
The Ohio State studies concluded that effective leaders scored high on both dimensions simultaneously—not high on one at the expense of the other. This was revolutionary because it suggested that:
Leadership can be learned (you can develop both structure and consideration)
Effective leaders balance task and people concerns
No single behavioral style works universally
Parallel research at the University of Michigan under Rensis Likert independently confirmed these findings. The Michigan studies identified similar dimensions:
Employee orientation: Focus on developing people, relationships, and participation
Production orientation: Focus on task completion and efficiency
Their conclusion: Employee-oriented leadership coupled with general (versus close) supervision produced superior results in productivity and satisfaction.
The 2011 meta-analysis examined state-like individual differences (learnable skills and knowledge), finding:
State-Like Predictors of Leader Effectiveness (Overall Effect: ρ = .26):
Decision-Making Skills: ρ = .52
Management/Administrative Skills: ρ = .40
Problem-Solving Skills: ρ = .39
Interpersonal Skills: ρ = .30
Oral Communication: ρ = .25
Written Communication: ρ = .24
Empirical Interpretation: Decision-making (ρ = .52) explained approximately 27% of variance—similar to the strongest trait (charisma). Critically, state-like and trait-like effects were equivalent in magnitude (ρ = .26 vs. ρ = .27), suggesting behaviors matter as much as innate characteristics.
This finding challenged the implicit hierarchy of traits-over-behaviors. Instead, it suggests an integrated model: innate traits may predispose toward certain behaviors, but developing behavioral skills is equally important for effectiveness.
Behavioral theory advanced leadership understanding significantly—it made leadership teachable and emphasized the importance of flexibility between task and relationship focus. However, it assumed that balancing structure and consideration worked equally well in all situations. Would a military commander in combat benefit equally from high consideration? Would a research scientist need the same initiating structure as a manufacturing supervisor?
Researchers began recognizing that context matters profoundly.
Contingency theories rejected the premise that one leadership style is universally optimal. Instead, they proposed that leadership effectiveness depends on matching the leader's style to situational demands.
The fundamental question shifted: Not "What makes an effective leader?" but rather "When and where is each leadership approach effective?"
Fred Fiedler, an Austrian-American psychologist, developed the most comprehensive early contingency theory. His model proposed that leader effectiveness depends on the match between leader style and situational favorableness.
Leader Style (measured via the Least Preferred Coworker scale):
Task-Oriented Leaders: Focus on task completion, efficiency, and goal achievement. Value organization, structure, and results.
Relationship-Oriented Leaders: Focus on relationships, team cohesion, and follower wellbeing. Value understanding and supporting team members.
Situational Favorableness (determined by three factors):
Leader-Member Relations: The degree of trust and confidence followers have in the leader
Task Structure: How clear, well-defined, and routine the work is
Leader Position Power: How much formal authority the leader possesses
Through analyzing leader performance across different situations, Fiedler discovered:
Task-oriented leaders perform best in highly favorable or highly unfavorable situations. In favorable situations (good relations, clear tasks, strong power), the team simply needs direction. In unfavorable situations (poor relations, unclear tasks, weak power), the structured approach helps impose order.
Relationship-oriented leaders perform best in moderately favorable situations. When relationships are somewhat strained and tasks somewhat unclear, interpersonal skills help build connections and clarify direction.
This pattern emerged across multiple situations, suggesting that matching leader style to situational favorableness predicts effectiveness.
Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed an alternative contingency model emphasizing follower maturity (competence and commitment) rather than situational favorableness.
Their model suggests:
Directing: High task focus, low relationship focus (for immature, inexperienced followers)
Coaching: High task and high relationship focus (for developing followers)
Supporting: Low task focus, high relationship focus (for competent but uncommitted followers)
Delegating: Low task and low relationship focus (for mature, experienced, committed followers)
The key insight: Adapt your leadership approach as followers develop, moving progressively from directing to delegating.
The 2011 meta-analysis examined how leader level (a contextual/contingency factor) moderated trait effectiveness:
Leader Level as Moderator:
First-line supervisors (lowest level): Individual differences (traits + skills) showed stronger relationships with effectiveness (ρ = .33)
Mid-level managers: Moderate correlations (ρ = .26)
Upper-level managers: Weaker correlations (ρ = .22)
Interpretation: At lower levels, leader characteristics directly determine outcomes—followers take direction from the leader. At higher levels, external factors (market conditions, board decisions, industry dynamics) increasingly determine outcomes independent of the leader's traits or behaviors. This demonstrates the contingency principle: context moderates relationships between leader characteristics and effectiveness.
Organization Type as Moderator:
Business organizations showed slightly higher overall effects (ρ = .28)
Government/Military showed similar effects (ρ = .27)
However, specific traits and behaviors showed different patterns:
Dominance and Intelligence: Stronger predictors in business contexts
Charisma, Creativity, Interpersonal Skills: Stronger predictors in government contexts
This demonstrates that different organizational contexts reward different leader characteristics—a core contingency principle.
Leadership theory's historical evolution tells a crucial story: newer theories don't replace older ones; they integrate and refine them.
Trait theory asked the right question (what makes leaders effective?) but provided an incomplete answer (traits alone). Behavioral theory answered a different question (what do effective leaders do?) and provided crucial insights (leadership is learnable). Contingency theory provided the missing context (effectiveness depends on matching leader to situation).
Modern leadership frameworks integrate all three:
Integrated Model:
Traits predispose toward certain behaviors and set outer boundaries on what's possible
Behaviors are the actual manifestations of leadership that directly affect follower outcomes
Contingencies determine which combinations of traits and behaviors are effective in specific contexts
The meta-analysis's most important finding was this: Traits and behaviors showed equivalent predictive power (ρ = .27 vs. ρ = .26). This isn't because traits and behaviors are interchangeable—it's because both matter and they interact.
A leader might have high intelligence (trait) but poor communication skills (behavioral deficit), limiting effectiveness. Another leader might lack raw intelligence but excel at asking good questions and listening—leveraging behavioral strengths.
The question "Are leaders born or made?" is revealed as false dichotomy. Leaders are both born and made. Some people have natural predispositions toward leadership through traits like dominance, intelligence, and energy. But developing behavioral capabilities—communication, problem-solving, relationship-building—is equally critical for effectiveness.
And which traits and behaviors matter most depends profoundly on the situation, organization, and followers involved.
Leadership thinking has evolved from viewing leadership as an essential, fixed characteristic of certain individuals to understanding it as a complex interaction between person, behavior, and context.
Trait theory identified important individual characteristics but wrongly assumed they operated independent of context. Behavioral theory revealed that how leaders act matters profoundly but wrongly assumed one behavioral profile fits all situations. Contingency theory recognized that context shapes effectiveness but sometimes underemphasized the importance of individual characteristics and specific behaviors.
Modern leadership development integrates all three insights: select for certain traits (though none are absolutely essential), develop critical behavioral capabilities, and help leaders recognize and adapt to situational demands.
The evidence is clear: effective leadership is simultaneously innate and developed, behavioral and contextual, universal and situational. Those willing to understand their natural predispositions, develop key capabilities, and adapt flexibly to different contexts excel across the widest range of situations.
Organization Learning Labs offers comprehensive leadership assessments designed to evaluate your natural traits, identify key behavioral strengths and development opportunities, and provide coaching to help you adapt effectively across diverse contexts and challenges.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). Free Press.
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149-190.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Prentice Hall.
Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., Maldagen-Youngjohn, R., & Lyons, B. D. (2011). Great man or great myth? A quantitative review of the relationship between individual differences and leader effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(2), 347-381.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. McGraw-Hill.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Comments