Essence of Leadership


Leadership plays an essential role in any organisation because it affects the performance of members and/or employees and the organisation’s functioning. The field of leadership research has developed various theories to search for the most effective form of leadership that organisations should adopt. As such, this paper analyses key theories of leadership and puts them into organisational and human life contexts. To do so, the behaviours of two leaders were analysed, and key lessons learned from the analysis were revealed in this paper.


In the era of Donald Trump and Viktor Orban, bad leadership can be witnessed almost more than effective leadership. Leadership is defined as the ability of an individual or organisation to lead other individuals, teams or the entire organisation. However, many individuals lack essential leadership skills even though leadership is fundamental for organisations to maximise their efficiency and goals.  Good leaders set a clear vision by influencing employees to understand and accept the organisation’s future state. To distinguish between good and bad leaders, extensive research has been conducted. The research focuses on leadership in organisational contexts as well as in human life. The fields of leadership practice and leadership research are two areas that need to be kept distinctly. It has been widely known that leadership has become so complex and dynamic that many theories fail to incorporate every aspect of leadership. This essay is divided into three parts. The first part will point out key leadership theories incorporated in the second and third part of this essay. The second part will be dedicated to analysing two leaders I have encountered in my academic and professional career. Lastly, the section will outline the lessons I have learned from this assignment. It will explore the different areas of leadership and give insights into how it impacted my development as a leader.

3. PART 1

Leadership is a concept that is complex and multifaceted. Numerous scholars have defined and conceptualised the term leadership. However, the journey of leadership research is far from closed. This section will discuss and review key theories of leadership, which have evolved during research conducted in the past.


The first four threads of leadership discussed in this section will overview the history of leadership thinking.

As the name indicates, the traits theory analyses the characters and qualities of great leaders. The trait approach focuses exclusively on the leader and not on the followers or situation. It essentially incorporates the belief that leaders are born, not made (Stogdill, 1974).

Dowd (1936) stated that certain traits give people a specific position in society, including leadership. That is, if a leader possesses these traits, an organisation will be effective. This links to the “Great man theory of leadership”, where the study is based on bibliographies. Here, too, it is believed that common characteristics can be analysed by examining the leaders and their traits (Jennings, 1960). Researchers had focused on finding particular leadership traits and especially finding generalities between big personalities.

Authors such as Stogdill (1974) identified height, weight, physique, energy, health, appearance, and speech fluency. In later research, the main focus was on physical characteristics, such as social background, intelligence, personality, task-related characteristics and social characteristics. Conversely, Stogdill (1974) also suggested a major review of no consistent traits that differentiate leaders from non-leaders. Various authors critiqued that some traits can help an individual in a situation where leadership needs to be applied but does not predestines them to be great (Fairholm, 2015).

Various authors drew attention to several weaknesses of this theory. Enormous studies tried to establish a list of common traits for effective leaders. This itself is a weakness since no consistent information was established. Another criticism established in the situational theory is that the trait approach failed to take situations into account.

For Stogdill (1974), situational effects played a key part in the behaviour of leaders. Therefore, he believed that the situation influences leadership substantially, and only the context in which leadership occurs permits accurate research. The trait approach also fails to account for how leadership traits affect group members’ work. The research emphasized the link between specific traits and leader emergence. Other outcomes, such as productivity or employee satisfaction, were not taken into account.

A notable example is the founder of Apple Inc., Steve Jobs. He possessed a trait considered inevitable in the trait approach to be an effective leader – creativity. His quote, “Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower”, is mentioned in various leadership articles. Furthermore, he is considered to be one of the strongest leaders of the past century. Nevertheless, as mentioned in the report of Kimberly Marie Celse (2014), entitled ‘A Critique of the Leadership Style of Steve Jobs’, Steve Jobs lacked leadership traits, such as self-awareness and self-regulation, which contributed to an unhealthy work environment at Apple Inc.


Correlated with the traits approach, the skills approach also focuses on the leader. For this theory, the focus shifted from personality characteristics to skills and abilities that can be attained. The skills approach is an altered form of the traits approach since it considers the personality and demonstrates the importance of knowledge and ability in effective leadership.

Katz (1955) believes that effective leadership is based on three personal skills: technical, human, and conceptual. Technical skills refer to knowledge about a specific type of work or activity. Human skill is knowledge, as well as the ability to work with people. Lastly, conceptual skills are the ability to work with ideas and concepts; it is centred on the ability to work with ideas in particular. In essence, the skills approach stands for leadership that can be developed through education and experience. Compared to the ‘great person’ approach, this approach is not based on believing that effective leadership can only be executed by few ‘chosen’ people (Northouse, 1997).

It is certainly worthy to say that one weakness of this approach is that the skills that are highlighted within this theory are not presented in relation to each other. Therefore, it is inconsistent in explaining how the skills will lead to effective leadership performance. Another criticism can be steered towards the scholar Mumford, who was the main researcher in this field. The skills approach is claimed to differ from the trait approach; however, individual attributes also play a key part within this model.


Within this approach, the behaviour of the leader became increasingly important. The main focus is on what leaders do and how they behave. This theory was the first one that had put leadership into a different context. In it, the actions of leaders are considered to be of more importance than individual traits.

To analyse this approach further, we will draw on the study conducted by Ohio State. A questionnaire about leaders’ behaviour patterns was established, and subordinates were asked to fill out this form. According to Stogdill (1974), the results were that two general types of leader behaviours were evident: initiating structure and consideration. Behaviours initiating structure include defining role responsibilities, giving structure to the work context, organising work and scheduling work activities. Relationship behaviours, such as building trust, respect between leaders and followers, are a good illustration of consideration behaviour.

In this study, the two behaviours are presented as distinct and independent. Leaders can be high in consideration behaviour and low in setting structure, and vice versa. Nonetheless, some studies have tried to find out the most effective form of leadership. Being high on both has proved to be the most effective form of leadership. The optimal mix of task and relationship behaviours is yet to be found. In general, it can be said that the style approach functions more as a framework than a refined theory. It guides the leader and makes the leader more conscious about the different levels of their behaviour.

As in any other theory, there is a need to identify the weaknesses. As critiqued in the style approach, this theory fails to address the connection between the numerous levels of the theory. It is not clear how task and relationship behaviours address morale, job satisfaction and productivity. The scholar Yukl (1994) has described the theory as contradictory and inconclusive. Additionally, no definite conclusion was found regarding the universality of a constant effective form of leadership. Good leadership is much more complex than one particular combination of behaviour patterns (Northouse, 1999).


The situational approach was developed when researchers concluded that theories were not adequate to address the complexity of leadership. Its focus lies on leadership in circumstances. The basic premise is that every setting demands a different kind of leadership. In this theory, effective leadership is the ability to adapt leadership to different situations. The leader will need to assess the employees’ skills and motivation within the workplace and then decide on the directive or supportive leadership style. This is exemplified in work undertaken by Hemphill (1954), who studied leadership in terms of the situations in which group roles and tasks are dependent upon the varying interactions between structure and the office of the positional authority.

The contingency theory developed by Fielder (1967) is another illustration of the situational approach. It suggests that there is no one best way to lead your team. The situation will instead determine the best way to lead your team. For Fiedler (1967), it is important to consider two factors: leadership style and situational favourableness. Several other researchers have used his approach for further study (Cheng, 1982).

The major weakness within this theory is the lack of research studies. Only a few studies have been conducted, which leaves the question of the assumptions set forth by this approach are justified enough. Moreover, it questions the theoretical basis of the approach (Northouse, 1999).


This theory is about how leaders motivate their employees to accomplish set goals. By focusing on the motivation of employees, performance, effectiveness, and satisfaction can be enhanced. The theory first emerged in scholars such as Evans (1970) and House (1971).

When compared to the situational approach, the focus is not on the leadership style in specific situations but the relationship between the leader’s style and the characteristics of the employees. The leader must have the ability to choose the most suitable leadership style for each subordinate. This can be implemented by choosing behaviours that complement or supplement what is missing in the workplace. By providing information or rewards in the work environment, the subordinates’ goal attainment can be improved. In short, the basic idea behind the path-goal theory is to define a goal, clarify the path, remove the obstacles, and provide support. This leads to higher productivity, and the set goal will be reached earlier.

The path-goal theory has numerous strengths; however, there are also a few identified weaknesses. First of all, it is not easy to fully use the theory to improve the leadership process in a given organisational context. That is due to its complexity. The theory includes many different aspects of leadership; therefore, it is challenging to apply it to various organisations. On top of that, it has not been fully validated by an adequate number of scholars. As stated by Northouse (1997), “Some research supports the prediction that leader directiveness is positively related to worker satisfaction when tasks are ambiguous, but other research has failed to confirm this relationship (p.134).


The transformational approach refers to leadership that changes and transforms people. It emphasises intrinsic motivation and the follower’s development. Emotions, values or long-term goals are considered important. After assessing followers’ motives, satisfying their needs and treating them correctly will increase satisfaction and productivity. The leader usually has a vision that is felt by his followers as well.

The transformational approach is often seen as a synonymous term with charismatic leadership. For House (1976), charismatic leaders act in unique ways with specific charismatic effects on their followers. They have particular personality characteristics, such as strong moral values or the desire to influence. In terms of behaviours, they usually show competence, articulate goals or express confidence. Followers, therefore, trust in the leader’s ideology and they are often able to find similarities between their belief and the leaders.

Other notable scholars in the transformational approach are Bass (1985) and Burns (1978). Bass (1985) suggested that followers do more than expected due to their leader’s ability to raise the followers’ levels of consciousness about the importance and value of the goals.

Transformational leadership includes creating a vision, building trust between employees, giving nurturance, being a change agent, and most importantly, motivating employees and all followers. This type of leadership has strengths but also several weaknesses. As evident in other theories and approaches, transformational leadership lacks conceptual clarity. It includes many characteristics and activities, which can lead to ambiguity within the theory. It has also been criticised that transformational leadership mainly looks at personality traits instead of behaviour that people can develop. This would mean that it is more difficult to train people in this approach since people are unlikely to change their personality traits. This can be linked to the traits approach, which centred on the belief that ‘leaders are born, not made’. However, many scholars rejected the statement.


Democratic leadership is concerned with decentralised decision-making and subordinates being involved in the organisation’s processes. The definition is inconsistent and inadequate in the leadership literature; however, some scholars have distinguished it from autocratic and laissez-faire leadership.

White and Lippitt (1960) suggested that within democratic leadership group discussion, the leader encourages group decision and group participation. Furthermore, a democratic leader shares decision-making openly with his followers (Al Khajeh, 2018). Even though it is believed to have a high potential for weak execution and poor decision-making, various academics disprove and suggest that democratic leadership leads to high follower’s satisfaction, productivity and commitment (Hackman and Johnson, 1996).

Democratic leadership also focuses on a leadership that is friendly, helpful and encourages participation. An example of the positive impact on organisational performance is the study by Elenkov (2002), in which it was shown that in democratic leadership, praises and criticism are given objectively. This has positive effects on the performance as well as employees’ satisfaction.

On the other hand, democratic leadership is criticised because it can cause poor decision-making and has the potential for weak execution. Another example of the unhelpful side of democratic leadership is stated by Al Khajeh (2018): “Another big problem associated with democratic leadership is the assumption that everyone involved has an equal stake in the decision-making with a shared level of expertise. (p.4)”


Autocratic leadership may be described as the opposite of democratic leadership styles. Here, the goal of the leader is what needs to be achieved. Followers are rarely involved in any decision-making. An autocratic or authoritarian leader does not motivate his followers, as it is believed that getting the job done will motivate them. There are similarities between autocratic and directive leaderships, but followers are willing to get instructions to do the job efficiently (Northouse, 1997).

Autocratic leadership includes a leader who usually controls the subordinates and has clear expectations on how and when the job will need to be done. Innovation and creativity have no place in this style of leadership. Also, this style does not involve the follower in the decision-making process and therefore has little room to develop creativity. Communication in autocratic leadership is non-existent, and followers must stick to their certain tasks unless instructed otherwise. In brief, highly centralised control exists, and only the leader has a word. Nevertheless, autocratic leadership can come in different scales. Some autocratic leaders listen to their subordinates, and after thorough analysis, they make a decision. In this manner, followers are somehow involved in processes (Hasemann, 2004).

Usually, autocratic leadership exists in prisons or the military as people have to follow the rules strictly. Followers often fear the leader, and fear leads to inefficiency. Furthermore, autocratic leadership uses a bottom-down approach. Hence, when orders are passed down, mistakes are more likely to happen. Ultimately, low-level employees are blamed, and this results in conflict. Efforts toward a job are lowered, and high staff turnover takes place. Autocratic leadership creates a vicious cycle; however, it is important to note that it can also be efficient in some work settings (Zylfijaj, Rexhepi and Grubi, 2014).

Leadership research is constantly evolving. Over the past thirty years of analysis and comparison of different leadership styles, many of the approaches and theories that have emerged in the last decade deserve more attention.

4. PART 2

This section will examine two leaders to put the key theories analysed in the first part of this essay. The leaders will be linked to various theories and approaches. Besides, two situations will be analysed respectively where the leadership style would become evident within the working setting.

The first leader that will be described is a leader I have encountered in my professional career. I have worked with this leader closely for more than a year, and I will be referring to this leader as leader A.

During my time at organisation A, it has often been evident what leadership style was practised. Leader A combined characteristics from several leadership styles. It is important to note that the leader’s style strengthened the followers’ group in some ways and negatively impacted the organisation’s performance. As the organisation was not a tangible profit-making firm, it had a clear social mission. With every employee who started a career at this organisation, leader A would sit down and share his vision. In his belief, it was not enough to learn about the organisation along the way. To implement the social mission, it was essential to making sure that the followers have the same values and beliefs as the organisation. Once a week, leader A would gather his team and keep all subordinates updated on the progress within the organisation. This way, he involved the team emotionally and kept them on track with where the organisation stood with their goals. In fact, it was observable that the leadership style used motivated employees substantially. Every team meeting reminded the employees of the organisation’s moral and ethical conduct, and therefore followers were able to identify with the leader.

These actions are highly connected to transformational leadership. As described by Northouse (1997), four factors were included in transformational leadership, namely, idealised influence or charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration. All of these four factors include different behaviour patterns. Leader A unambiguously applied one factor, which is the idealised influence. Likewise, followers were able to see a role model in leader A. Consequently, employees not only deeply respected the leader, but they also connected with the values and beliefs shared within the organisation. This led to higher employee satisfaction, higher motivation and high efficiency. Leader A would often praise employees for their good work. What distinguished leader A from other leaders is that leader A always commented on the good work, and the possible outcome would be set into relation. Employees had the feeling of being an active part of the change instead of just observing the progress.

Still, within the style of leader A were weaknesses that could undoubtedly be explored. Intellectual stimulation was significantly neglected, which at times resulted in inefficiency. Leader A had a clear vision that was felt by all the subordinates. They respected him, and leader A was able to transform their beliefs and values into the organisations. However, leader A failed to make the organisation a place of innovation and creativity. Leader A tended to stick to the same organisational processes and refused to shift the focus to innovation. More cost-effective practices could certainly have been implemented, and additionally, it would have stimulated the employees intellectually. Support of followers that were keen on trying new approaches was not evident.

To illustrate leader A’s leadership style, two situations were analysed. One situation showed the positive side of the leader’s leadership style, and the second situation described serves as an example of the downsides.

As mentioned above, transformational leadership was evident in many of leader A’s behaviour patterns. One of the factors included in transformational leadership is individualised consideration. Basically, this means the leader provides a supportive climate in which the individual needs of followers are respected. In countless workplaces, personal challenges are disregarded because it is believed that personal matters do not belong in any work setting. However, in transformational leadership, the leader may use delegation to help followers go through personal challenges. In that respect, leader A was highly supportive and empathetic. In one instance, an employee had obvious personal struggles. The employee’s energy was low and inattentive; thus, the workload was completed inefficiently. Instead of criticising the employee, leader A approached the employee to learn more about the employee. After they had a conversation, leader A decided to give the employee two days off to re-energise himself. This had various effects on the employee’s performance after he returned to the office. The employee was not just grateful, but he had an incentive to work even harder.

Leader A emphasised to the employee that he needs to re-energise to fulfil the organisation’s social mission. That way, the leader was able to remind the individual of the purpose of the organisation. In addition, the leader creates a positive atmosphere with a tendency for open communication. As stated by Ghasabeh and Provitera (2017) in ‘Transformational Leadership: Building an Effective Culture to Manage Organisational Knowledge’, ”The first element (of transformational leadership) refers to the idea that authentic leaders develop a positive work climate in which followers more effectively contribute to a firm’s performance and competitive advantage (p.3).” Leader A successfully implemented that through such actions.

As mentioned above, leader A disregarded innovation and creativity within the organisation. This is a factor within transformational leadership that is described as intellectual stimulation. In organisation A, the leader had a tendency to stick to traditional procedures and highly avoided any drastic changes. It is generally believed that transformational leaders are more innovative and creative than others. However, this organisation can be used as a case study for a combination of various leadership traits.

Leader A combined transformational leadership traits with authoritative leadership traits, which discouraged some employees. One situation illustrates this point clearly. An employee approached leader A with software that would have helped the organisation with payment facilities. It would not only have made it efficient and faster, but it would have also saved the organisation investments. Leader A declined the idea that he sees failure in this initiative and believes the old software is more reliable. After some time, another employee approached leader A with the concern that the old software might be outcompeted by the new one soon. To avoid higher prices, the employee suggested purchasing the software as soon as possible. Leader A’s response was bothering. He responded without considering that he can decide, and he is not accepting any further suggestions.

When employees are necessitated to comply with the leader’s requests, theorists will describe such behaviours as authoritative (Jiang et al. 2017). Employees usually show negative emotions towards the leader, though employees only felt some discouragement in this instance. Due to the combination of positive and negative leadership traits, subordinates would tolerate such behaviour. This can also be linked to the social exchange theory, which states that all human behaviours are based on the reciprocal benefits in the social relationship. This means that subordinates are inclined to reciprocate a negative attitude when facing authoritarian leadership and vice versa. The key problem with this explanation is to what extent authoritarian leadership must cause such attitudes. As seen in this example, it can indeed cause a negative job attitude. Still, it does not affect efficiency or the subordinates’ motivation if other leadership traits are observed (Jiang et al. 2017).

The second leader that will be identified for this paper is called leader B. Group projects at universities, school or other institutions are often a good way to identify an individual’s leadership characteristics and behaviours.

Leader B was a group project coordinator during my academic career. Leadership theorists would identify a path-goal approach in this leadership, but this essay will also point out other leadership traits with positive or negative impacts.

Vroom’s expectancy theory (1964) is closely associated with the path-goal model. In short, this theory states that individuals will behave a certain way based on the expectation that a given outcome will follow the act. Whereas the path-goal theory is a process where leaders select specific behaviours best suited to their needs and the work setting to guide them through their path the best possible way. Leadership is described as supportive, directive, participative and achievement-oriented.

Leader B has demonstrated typical leadership traits by clearly adopting the leadership style with each participant in the project. The critique of the path-goal theory is clearly evident in this example. The theory was criticised because it could be seen as more of a follower motivational leadership approach than a true leader-follower development. Moreover, the theory is only directed towards subordinates and lacks focus on the leader. Still, the criticism was not evident in this example of leader B. 

The group consisted of ten students, and the subject tutor elected the leader. Based on the tutor’s judgement, eight leaders were chosen. The key problem in this process was that the tutor had used the traits approach to elect the leader. The tutor believed that certain students possessed the correct qualities and mannerisms to be adequate group project co-ordinator. There was the assumption that students with an outstanding academic record must be effective leaders as well. Conversely, as far as the traits approach is concerned, it is known that this theory lacks empirical evidence. It was obvious in this case as well, as it turned out that not all leaders were effective. This can be illustrated briefly by the following situation.

The chosen eight leaders were all students with an excellent academic record. Hence, it was believed that they were driven and highly ambitious. Indeed, they were, but it was easy to observe that a few leaders lacked good communication skills. However, then, those leaders had to be replaced in the weeks that followed due to inefficiency. We can safely say that this supports the various criticisms of the traits theory.

Moving on now to consider the path-goal theory within the leader’s example. Since university students are usually well connected and acquainted with each other, it was easier for our leader to use the correct behavioural style on each subordinate. In a way, Leader B was challenged because our group consisted of fairly eight different characters. Every persona could be found in the group, from an extroverted and dynamic individual to an introverted individual. However, leader B managed to adapt his leadership style with each individual successfully.

In the first phase of the group project, processes ran smoothly. Leader B had a directive approach and informed each follower on what is expected and how the task should be performed. As the instructions from the tutor were not clear, his directive leadership gave the group members a better idea of what exactly was required from them. Other types of path-goal behaviour are supportive, participative and achievement-focused. In terms of the supportive leadership style, the leader also showed concern for the group members.

As mentioned above, since every ‘follower’ knew each other, the team dynamics were excellent. One particular situation showed leader B’s capability to adapt to every follower to bring out the best in each participant. Leader B used two completely different approaches. For the subordinates who lacked motivation and ambition, leader B laid out the benefits they would gain from following his instructions. In that way, the leader supported and motivated the subordinates differently than the group members who were willing to go beyond and above. Those who were willing to put much energy into the work gave clear instructions initially and then transformed his leadership more into laissez-faire.

Laissez-faire leadership gives more authority to the subordinates and are therefore allowed to work as they choose. Various works of literature have stated that this leadership style is the least effective one. Still, this example proves that it highly depends on the circumstances of where the leadership takes place.

In summary, leader B was successful in implementing the group project and motivating every follower. Leaders should be flexible so that they can change their behaviour or style, depending upon the situation. The evidence presented so far does not support the criticism that the path-goal theory fails to incorporate the complexity of leadership.

5. PART 3

This section of the essay will be dedicated to self-reflection. It will evaluate the academic development gained from this assignment and, more importantly, the lessons that I have learned about the development as a leader.

First of all, it was obvious that there is extensive research on leadership. However, it is interesting to see the evolution of it. It started with the trait theory and then went on to the behaviour theory, situational theory, and then developed the values-based transformational theory. This knowledge is essential to understand the theories better as the first three theories developed leaned towards a reductionist methodology.

Researchers have aggregated data about leaders and situations. Just as it was done in the second part of this assignment, it reviewed leadership in terms of what the leaders are, what he has done, and in which situation the leader was effective or ineffective. Combining the knowledge of research and the analysis of the two leaders was also essential in understanding the criticism that theories have received. For instance, the traits theory was criticised by many scholars for its inconsistency. “Leaders are born and made” was the main assumption of the traits theory, but it has become clear that this was a common misperception of leadership. As mentioned in part two, such approaches have failed to address the complexity of leadership. It was evident in the case of the tutor choosing group leaders to assume that a few particular traits make them successful in implementing the projects. This helped me to develop a deeper understanding of such theories.

The development of the values-based transformation began to move the discussion towards a more holistic approach to understand leadership. It focused on the relationship between the leader and the follower and the sharing, common purposes, values, ideals, goals and the meaning of organisational and personal pursuits. When reading and researching theories that fell under this category, I have understood the real meaning of leadership. As also stated by various sources, it is necessary to look at the situation’s circumstances for the leader and followers. The knowledge I have gained from research and the analysis will make my decision-making more considerate.

In addition, this assignment has helped me to find the most suitable type of leadership for me as a leader. In the past, I have encountered a situation where I had to apply leadership; however, with the knowledge that I have gained from this assignment, I could self-reflect on the mistakes I have made in the past. For instance, I, as a leader, leaned more towards a directive leadership style. This was useful with some subordinates, but with others, in a way, it held them back. There was no space for creative expansion, and therefore, to some extent, it lacked efficiency. This finding will be of high importance for my development as a leader in future. Also, I came to the decision that I want to put more emphasis on the democratic leadership style. It is important to involve everyone in the decision-making for efficiency purposes, but it also gives subordinates the feeling of being important to the organisation. Based on my own experiences, employees will be incentivised to put more effort into a project if they have the feeling that their opinion is valued. This was also reported in a research paper by academics of the University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, Ghana. They have conducted interviews and questionnaires with the staff and analysed the data. The study found that increased involvement in the employees’ decision-making impacts the workers’ commitment and performance positively (Akuoko, Dwumah and Ansong, 2012).

This assignment incentivised me to take further steps to develop as a leader. Essentially, I will pay more emphasis on observation. Leadership can be seen in day-to-day life. Therefore, a lot can be learned from observing our surroundings.


To conclude, the concept of leadership is too vast to narrow it down to one concept that proves to be the most effective. Moreover, based on the research, I have found out that every theory has its own strengths and weaknesses. Several points, along with related explanations, have been established throughout this paper. In part two, it was evident that leaders rarely use only one type of leadership. Leaders incorporate various aspects of different types of leadership. The first leader analysed, leader A, has used leadership that research claims to be effective. However, the leader failed to incorporate one factor of transformational leadership, making his form of leadership less effective. The second leader analyses that leader B has used a form described as effective, as the leader successfully implemented his group’s goal. Nonetheless, whilst analysing leader B, shreds of evidence were brought forward that further weakened the traits theory. Leaders were chosen based on their personal characteristics but failed to be effective leaders. Consequently, every situation needs its own analysis and observation. In brief, this also means that people should be more attentive to how people lead each other. Leadership occurs daily; thus, we should make use of this abundant resource and benefit from it.

Leave a Reply