Leadership is one of the most discussed topics in management. Everyone has a couple of points to illustrate and a type to support. Here is a comparison between a few leadership models.

1. Leadership Models: Comparison 1
Leadership Models: Comparison Study
Dr. Salim A. Al Flaiti, alflaiti@gmail.com.
Introduction
The business world is changing so rapidly, and requires leaders of
organizations to be distinguished in leadership in order to sustain organizational
excellence in their field (Sarros and Santora, 2001). Despite that need, research to
understanding effective leadership has only been seriously investigated in an
academic manner over the past 25 years (Judge and Bono, 2000).
This paper compares and contrasts four leadership models: Managerial grid,
situational leadership, Theory X and Y, and Full-Range Leadership. In the
comparison this author attempts to offer assertions on how each of the four models
affects follower commitment, company sustainability, resilience, and creativity. Based
on the review of literature this author additionally asserts which leadership style is the
most desired to aide organizations to excel.
Exploring Leadership Models
Managerial Grid Model
This leadership model was developed by management theorists Robert Blake
and Jane Mouton. The model is envisaged on a graphical representation of five
different leadership styles reflecting different coordinates on an x and y-axes. The y-
axes accounts for concern for people, while the x-axis accounts for concern for
production. In their theory, Blake and Mouton (1982) identify five leadership styles
which represent a correlation between a leader’s concern for people and that for
production. The five leadership styles envisioned by Blake and Mouton (1982) are
discussed below.
Impoverished leadership. This style represents leaders who have little
concern for people as well as little concern for production. Leaders following this style
have a primary goal of retaining their positions.
Produce or perish leadership. This style has high concern for production and
minute concern for people. Blake and Mouton (1982) further suggest that leaders
employ this style when their target is to reach organizational goals at any expense,
including that of the followers. This style almost has a degree of Machiavellianism to
it, because it is characterized by disinterest and mistrust in human relations (Bedell,
Hunter, Angie, et al. 2006).
Country club leadership. This third style is practiced by leaders who
encourage and place paramount attention on people with little concern for
production. The style implicates that attention to people will eventually lead to high
production.
Mid-of-the-road leadership. Leaders following this style pay some degree of
attention to people and some level of attention to products. Mid-of-the-road leaders
often try, but seldom succed to balance between their attention to people as well as
for products (Blake and Mouton, 1982).
Team style leadership. This is the fifth and most valued style on the
managerial grid leadership model. Leaders adhering to this style pay high attention to
the needs of the employees and high attention to the production needs. The

2. Leadership Models: Comparison 2
employees led by team style leaders increase their productivity because they grow a
sense of belonging and responsibility towards the organization.
Situational Leadership Model
This leadership model was developed by leadership entrepreneurs Paul
Hersey and Ken Blanchard (1996). This model is conceptualized on the idea that
leaders should apply different leadership styles to different situations. It is based on
understanding the behavioral theory of leadership, and realizing that organizational
effectiveness is shaped by situations rather than controlled by leaders (Vroom, and
Jago, 2007). The model suggests that leaders adopt one of four leadership styles
depending on followers’ development levels. The model requires leaders’ flexibility
and self confidence to apply different leadership styles to situations without losing
track of their natural leadership style. The four leadership styles and follower
development levels are discussed next. Note that Hersey and Blanchard categorize
styles based on the degree of leaders’ delegation of power and control to the
followers.
Directing/telling leaderships. This style usually illustrates a one-way
communication, where the leaders give little room for follower input. This style is
used with followers with low competence/high commitment development level, i.e.
followers lack skills and experience but are eager to learn and improve.
Coaching/selling leadership. Unlike the previous style, coaching leadership
encourages a two-way communication between leader and follower. Here, followers
are given a chance to give input and suggestions, but the decision making power is
still a leader-only right. This leadership style is employed with followers who belong
to the some competence/high commitment development level. The style is used with
followers who have skills required to complete given tasks, but are new to the
situation, and hence can not participate effectively in the decision-making process.
Supporting/participating leadership. This style shows leaders who give some
degree of control to the followers, especially in day-to-day activities. This style is
used to lead employees with high competence/variable commitment development
level, where employees require supervision to stay task oriented.
Delegating leadership. This fourth leadership style as suggested by Hersey
and Blanchard gives more control to the followers so they choose when to involve the
leader in decision-making. Leading by this style means the leaders have followers
who are considered experts in their filed and require little to no supervision.
Theory X and Y
Theory X. McGregor (1960) categorized leaders into two groups he called:
Theory X and Theory Y. Leaders described by theory X believe in the importance of
applying force in order to reap high level results from employees. McGregor referred
to theory X leaders as autocratic leaders. These leaders create a hostile working
environment, often leading to low organizational retention rate and low follower
commitment (McGregor, as cited in University of Phoneix, 2008, Week Four Lecture).
Furthermore, these leaders use close supervision to monitor employee performance.
They do not empower employees to participate in the decision-making process, nor
do they delegate power and responsibility to skilled employees (Kopelman, Prottas, &
Davis, 2008).
Theory Y. McGregor suggests that theory Y leaders believe that high level
results will be reaped from employees if the appropriate circumstances are available.
He referred to theory Y leaders as democratic or participative leaders. Additionally,

3. Leadership Models: Comparison 3
theory Y leaders believe in the employee capabilities to administer self control,
enhance the decision-making process, and improve the overall organizational
effectiveness (Kopelman, Prottas, & Davis, 2008).
Full-Range Leadership Model
This model of leadership can best be described by the work of James
MacGregor Burns in 1978, and the subsequent research on its two major
explanations by Bernard Bass. This paper will look at the full range leadership model
from transactional and transformational leadership styles perspectives. Prior to
delving into the characteristics of both styles, note that Burns (as cited by Kent et al.,
2001) states that transactional leadership is least favored when compared to
transformational leadership because the former is manipulative.
Transactional Leadership. Transactional leadership has four identifying
dimensions (Judge and Bono, 2001). These are further labeled as the contingent
reward, management by exception – active, management by exception – passive,
and laissez-fair management. Judge and Bono 2001 further describe the contingent
reward dimension of transactional leadership as the managers’ implementation of a
quid pro quo methodology and suggest it’s the most evident feature of the style.
The second and third dimensions of transactional leadership are based on
management by exception. While both management styles depend on reinforcing
rules to avoid errors, Judge and Bono (2001) differentiate the two by stating that in
management by exception - passive, leaders only monitors followers when problems
are severe. Management by exception–active leaders monitor follower actions with
intentions that are geared by lack of trust in follower abilities. Furthermore, Judge and
Bono (2001) identify the fourth dimension of transactional leadership as the leader’s
lack of management and avoidance of leadership responsibilities.
Transformational Leadership. Burns (as cited by Judge and Bono, 2001)
indentifies transformational leaders as individuals who lead followers and gain their
trust by sharing a common vision that supersedes leader and follower personal
interests. Judge and Bono further clarify that this leadership style is based on four
integral dimensions: Idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration.
To further explain the characteristics of transformational leaders, Piccolo and
Colquitt (2006) describe Inspirational motivation as the leader’s ability to sell the
vision to the followers. They further identify intellectual stimulation as the leader’s
ability to accept new challenges and seek follower ideas. Thirdly, they identify
individualized consideration as the leader’s ability to pay attention to the followers
needs and attend to their concerns. Finally, they tie these characteristics to the
leader’s charismatic personality, which they refer to as the idealized influence.
Leadership Models discussed
Leadership Styles Linked
This author asserts that the four leadership models discussed in this paper
ultimately point to two main factors that impact leadership effectiveness. The first is
people and the second is production. In either scenario, effective leadership can be
achieved when leaders adopt a caring approach towards followers, while sustaining
control (Sarros and Santora, 2001).

4. Leadership Models: Comparison 4
People orientation. Sarros and Santora, (2001) suggest that individualized
consideration, transformational dimension, is the leader’s ability to encourage and
coach followers to sustain effective organizational behaviors. From the literature
review, this author links transformational leadership to the situational leadership
model. Hence, this author asserts that transformational leadership’s individualized
attention can be described from a situational model perspective by relating it to the
choosing/participating or delegating leadership styles. This author further asserts that
transformational leadership can be placed on the managerial grid model as the
leadership style that pays high attention to people and production: Team style leader,
or explained as an example of theory Y leaders from a theory X and Y perspective.
This author refers to leaders described by the previous models as people oriented
transformational leaders.
Production orientation. This author places transactional leadership on the
managerial grid model as the leadership style that displays little attention to people
and high attention to products: Produce or perish leader. Furthermore, transactional
leader behaviors may be described from a situational model perspective as the
leader’s inability to appreciate and trust employees, and therefore, display resistance
in relinquishing power to competent followers: Directing and Telling leader, or theory
X leaders from a theory X and Y perspective. This author refers to the previous
leaders as product oriented transactional leaders.
Explaining Organizational Effectiveness
The leadership models discussed offer different explanations of leadership
approaches and share several commonalities. Sarros and Santora (2001) suggest
that choosing a leadership style is basically the event of leaders and followers
identifying organizational goals and choosing a method of achieving them.
Although, little research has been conducted to study resilience and
production rates in relation to leadership styles (Harland, Harrison, Jones, et al,
2004), Bass as cited in (Harland, et al. 2004) suggests that leadership styles affect
how people respond to stress and setbacks at the workplace, and transformational
leadership is the most appropriate style to use to reduce the latter. Moreover,
transformational leaders create committed followers who are inspired to achieve and
produce more than the minimum organizational goals required (Spreitzer, Perttula, &
Xin, 2005).
Finally, transformational leaders improve creativity and allow for
organizational sustainability by increasing the motivational and morale of the
followers (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006), and offer the best style for employee
development due to its attention to individualized consideration (Van Eeden, Cilliers,
Van Deventer, 2008; Bedell, et al. 2006).
Conclusion
Leadership can be viewed as the ability to organize, invigorate and unite
followers to achieve a specific vision (Kent, et al., 2001). To understand the methods
in which the latter can be achieved researchers have identified numerous leadership
models. These leadership models are built on one another and are reprocessed to
better accommodate needs in the ever-changing business world (Johnson, 2005).
Four of these leadership approaches were discussed in this paper:
Managerial grid, situational, Theory X and Y, and Full-Range Leadership models. In
discussing the characteristics of each model and relating it to those of others, it has

5. Leadership Models: Comparison 5
become more evident that effective leaders must be able to interchange leadership
styles in order to achieve organizational success (Sarros and Santora, 2001).
Moreover, in evaluating the leadership models discussed and their relation to
people and products, transformational leadership is identified as the most popular
leading style due to its impact on altering follower and leader ways of thinking to
improve organizational effectiveness (Piccolo, and Colquitt, 2006).

6. Leadership Models: Comparison 6
References
Bedell, k., Hunter, S., Angie, A., Vert, A. (2006). A Historiometric Examination of
Machiavellianism and a New Taxonomy of Leadership. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies; 12, 4; ABI/INFORM Global p. 50
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1982). A Comparative Analysis of Situationalism and 9,9
Management by Principle. Organizational Dynamics, 10(4), 20-43. Retrieved
December 2, 2008, from Business Source Complete database.
Harland, L, Harrison, W, Jones, J.R, Reiter-Palmon, R. (2004). Leadership Behaviors
and Subordinate Resilience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 11(2), 2-14. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from ABI/INFORM
Global database. (Document ID: 789855131).
Johnson, S. (2005). Characteristics of Effective Health Care Managers. Health Care
Manager, 24(2), 124-128. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from Business
Source Complete database
Judge, T., & Bono, J. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751-765. Retrieved
November 27, 2008, doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751
Kopelman, R.E., Prottas, D.J., & Davis, A.L. (2008). Douglas McGregor's Theory X
and Y: Toward a construct-valid measure. Journal of Managerial Issues,
20(2), 255-271.
Piccolo, R., & Colquitt, J. (2006). Transformational leadership and Job Behaviors:
The mediating Role of Core Job Characteristics.. Academy of Management
Journal, 49(2), 327-340. Retrieved November 27, 2008, from Business
Source Complete database.
Sarros J, Santora J. (2001). The transformational-transactional leadership model in
practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(7/8), 383-393.
Retrieved November 27, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.
(Document ID: 265999281).
Spreitzer, G., Perttula, K., & Xin, K. (2005). Traditionality matters: an examination of
the effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and
Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(3), 205-227. Retrieved
November 27, 2008, doi:10.1002/job.315
Thomas W Kent, John C Crotts, Abdul Azziz. (2001). Four factors of
transformational leadership behavior. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 22(5/6), 221-229. Retrieved November 27, 2008, from
ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 265939071).
Van Eeden, R., Cilliers, F., & van Deventer, V. (2008). Leadership styles and
associated personality traits: Support for the conceptualisation of
transactional and transformational leadership. South African Journal of
Psychology, 38(2), 253-267. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from Academic
Search Complete database.
Vroom, V., & Jago, A., (2007). The Role of the Situation in Leadership. American
Psycologist, 62(1), 17-24. Retrieved December 02, 2009, from Academic
Complete Database.