Theory and
Structure
Norman L. Buckley BSc (Psych) Hons C.Psychol
Rebekah J. Williams BA Hons (Psych.) MSC (Beh. Med), MSC (Org Psych), C.Psychol.
© N. L. Buckley 1989 - 2012
All rights reserved, including translation. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, recording or duplication, in any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing
from N. L. Buckley, and may not be photocopied or otherwise reproduced.
Contents
Introduction to Leadership .......................................................... 3
Theories of Leadership ............................................................... 4
Trait Theories ............................................................................................. 5
Style Theories ............................................................................................ 6
Contingency Theories ................................................................................ 7
Are leaders born or made? ....................................................................... 11
Leadership Derailers – how can it all go wrong? ....................................... 12
Summary .................................................................................................. 13
The Facet5 Leadership Model ................................................... 15
The Transformational domain ................................................................... 16
V1 - Creating a Vision ................................................................................................. 16
V2 - Intellectual Stimulation ........................................................................................ 17
V3 - Individual consideration ....................................................................................... 17
The Transactional domain ........................................................................ 18
T1 - Goal Setting ......................................................................................................... 18
T2 - Performance Monitoring ...................................................................................... 18
T3 - Providing Feedback ............................................................................................. 19
T4 - Developing Careers ............................................................................................. 19
Implementing the Facet5 Leadership model ............................................. 20
References ............................................................................................... 21
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 2 of 22
INTRODUCTION TO LEADERSHIP
This manual contains:

the theoretical background to leadership in the Facet5 system

a summary of the research findings linking Facet5 and leadership theory

a detailed description of the Strategic Leadership Review (SLR)
The SLR is available to people who are already accredited in Facet5. It is assumed that users of these
Leadership tools are already fully familiar with the Facet5 model of personality.
What is the Strategic Leadership Review (SLR)
The SLR is a process that combines Facet5 and reviews from other people. The SLR adds a full range 360
degree (or multi-rater) review that focuses on Transformational and Transactional Leadership skills. The SLR
provides a detailed review of each "Target" person from up to five "Viewpoints"(including a Self report).
The SLR is unique. Using a powerful prediction engine, we take the data provided by reviewers and compare it to
a large and growing database of managers for whom we have clear information about their effectiveness as
leaders. By comparing a target to this database, the SLR identifies those areas that are likely to be seen as
major strengths. It will also help to identify those areas where development might be possible.
How can I use the SLR?
The SLR is empirically linked to Facet5. Using the two in parallel allows us produce:

a prediction of leadership style

a review of rated performance on the same dimensions

a summary of predicted vs. actual performance

specific development advice
By combining the empirical prediction with such a focussed evaluation, the SLR will identify:

Developed skills which, although not natural for you, nevertheless are working well

Natural skills which you are applying well in the workplace

Areas that do not come easily for you and where others agree you need development.

Latent skills which you do not seem to be making the best of
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 3 of 22
THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP
Leadership as a topic has intrigued academics and practitioners of organisational psychology alike for decades.
Assumptions about the nature of leadership have led to dozens of theories and hundreds of studies in pursuit of a
definitive solution to what constitutes effective leadership. Indeed, some have referred to the search as an
endless quest for the Holy Grail in organisational theory! In brief, prominent theorists have speculated that the
secret lies in the style of the leader, or in the characteristics of his or her personality, or in the nature of the task
and the situation. Most reviews of the field conclude that the truth probably lies somewhere between the three that is, it depends on a certain set of conditions and interactions among variables. Given the complexity of the
phenomena it is not surprising that we do not yet have a single overarching theory of leadership. However, we do
have a large body of knowledge that can be applied to useful effect.
It is not our intention to review the theories in great detail here but to highlight some of the main themes that have
emerged and have inspired the creation of the SLR approach. For those of you wishing to explore the field in
more depth some suggestions for further study are provided at the end of this section of the manual.
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 4 of 22
Trait Theories
Early theories assumed that the individual is more important than the situation, and tried to find the distinguishing
traits of successful leaders. Most studies pre-date the 1960s although there have been some notable recent ones
1
2
3
(Cox and Cooper (1988) , Peters and Waterman (1982) , Church and Waclawski (1989) ). They make interesting
reading but only a small number of traits identified were found to be common throughout. Most studies identify
the following:

Intelligence: above average but not genius level. Good at solving complex and abstract problems. There
is an argument that extremely clever people may not see things as the rest of us do.

Initiative: independence and inventiveness, the capacity to perceive a need for action and the urge to do
it

Self–assurance: leaders are self-confident, rate themselves highly, have high aspiration levels, and
expect a high ultimate level in society

The helicopter factor – the ability to rise above the detail of a situation and perceive it in its relation to the
overall environment. This element was used extensively in the competency sets of organisations such
as Shell Oil.

Enthusiasm, sociability, integrity, courage, imagination, innovation, decisiveness, determination and
energy

Organised pragmatists

Type A personalities are more successful as leaders in small businesses. Such people are
characterised as driven, hard-working, busy, and impatient. They also show time urgency (or “hurry
sickness”), an easily-aroused irritability or anger … or free-floating hostility.
So it was difficult to find attributes that applied generally. It did seem that Leadership performance depends on
ability early on and personality later. This is similar to what has been suggested for general organisational
success. Competency in the job is important at the beginning after which it becomes a “given” and “culture fit”
becomes more important.
The trait approach lost popularity on several grounds. Having all traits was seen as an impossible ideal and there
were too many exceptions: people who did not possess these traits but were still successful as leaders. The
characteristics of an individual are bound to impact on the ability to lead and motivate others, but critics
particularly objected to the implication that leadership is something that you are born with rather than something
that can be learnt or developed. In line with other areas of management theory people preferred the premise that
anyone can be an effective leader provided he or she behaves in the way appropriate to the situation. And the
vast majority of research in this field has concentrated on a more interactive approach where effective leadership
is seen as a result of both personal and situational factors.
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 5 of 22
Style Theories
Style Theories work on the assumption that people will work harder and more effectively for managers who
employ certain styles of leadership than they will for managers who don’t. Generally speaking, although the
terminology tends to vary, most studies have sought to compare the effectiveness of an authoritarian style with
that of a more democratic style of leadership. The theories share a common belief that people will tend to
perform better under a democratic leader than under an authoritarian one. The major difference between the
styles essentially lies in the focus of power. In the extreme authoritarian style, power resides in the leader, who
alone exercises authority for decision-making, arbitration, control, reward and punishment. By contrast, in the
extreme democratic style all these powers and responsibilities are shared with other people.
Style theories proved very popular as they had clear links to other areas of managerial theory. In particular it
4
5
supported the motivational theories first put forward by McGregor (1960) and Maslow (1954) in that participation
and consultation would tend to satisfy the self-actualisation and esteem needs of individuals as well as a person’s
need for autonomy, stimulation and variety at work. All of which would encourage people to make more of an
effort and to work harder.
6
One of the most widely known Style-related approaches is the Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid (1964) which
measures individuals on two dimensions: Concern for People and Concern for Production. The authors would
certainly insist that the Managerial Grid process is much more than a theory of leadership and indeed they have
developed a six phase process of Organisation Development founded upon it. However, it does describe
measures of individuals around two major personality type dimensions that also tie in closely with the democratic
and authoritarian styles respectively.
Another of the more influential sets of studies that fall into the Style camp are those carried out by Fleischman
7
and his colleagues at Ohio State University (1957) . They developed the Leadership Behaviour Description
Questionnaire (LBDQ) which measured two factors; Consideration and Structure. This gave a two dimensional
approach to leadership where people could be classified according to the degree to which they emphasised
Consideration and Structure when making leadership decisions. Their definition of what constitutes the
Consideration and Structure styles match well with the democratic and authoritarian styles referred to earlier, and
they found that leaders who score high on Consideration are generally rated as more satisfactory by their
subordinates.
There is certainly some evidence that supportive and democratic styles of leadership:

are related to subordinate satisfaction

are related to lower turnover and grievance rates

result in less inter-group conflict

are often the preferred style of subordinates
However, other findings from the research have been inconsistent or even contradictory. For example
experimental studies where the style of leadership has been deliberately manipulated have failed to reproduce
evidence of improved performance. Out of six studies, four report no difference in productivity between the
styles, one reports the structuring style to be more effective and one reports the supportive style to be more
effective. It has also been shown that some people prefer to be directed and structured, particularly when the
work is repetitive or routine.
These and other contradictory findings led researchers to question the utility of the trait and style approaches and
the focus of research shifted to what has now become known as the situational or contingency models of
leadership.
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 6 of 22
Contingency Theories
Contingency theories take account of some of the other possible variables involved in any leadership situation,
and in particular focus on the task and/or the work group and the position of the leader within that work group.
They include:
Feidler - Contingency Theory of Leadership Effectiveness
8
One of the earliest advocates of this approach was Feidler (1967) . He focused on three aspects of a given
situation that he argued should act as determinants for leaders when choosing the most effective style.

The degree of structure in the task.

The amount of power given to the leader.

The quality of the interpersonal relationships between the leader and members of the team.
Having studied a number or organisations he also highlighted the importance of understanding whether the
situation was favourable to the leader. Feidler defined these as being situations where:

the leader was liked and trusted by the group

the task to be done was clearly laid down and well defined

the power of the leader in respect to the group was high, i.e. he could reward and punish and had the
backing of the organisation
He concluded that a structuring style was most effective when the situation was either very favourable to the
leader or very unfavourable to the leader. When a situation was only moderately favourable then a supportive
style was the one that worked best. For Feidler the most important component of a situation was the leadergroup relationship. When the task is clearly defined and the leader is strong and commands respect he is
expected to get on with the job and to be fairly directive. When the task is new or ambiguous and he is in a weak
position with his group, then his best strategy is to be directive or structuring. Involving the group could be seen
as a weakness or an abdication of leadership responsibility. However, when a strong, well-respected leader is
faced with a task that is ambiguous then he is best advised to use a supportive style to encourage the group to
contribute as much as they can.
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 7 of 22
Vroom and Yetton - Normative or Decision Tree model
Other contingency models have taken the approach further by applying it to specific aspects of a leader’s role.
9
Vroom and Yetton (1973) for example, developed a model that linked a leader’s actions to the decision-making
responsibility within a team. In their Normative or Decision Tree Model the two elements affected are the extent
to which a manager uses authority and the extent to which the individuals within the team have freedom to act.
Low
They defined seven distinct positions along this continuum as shown below.
The Vroom-Yetton Model
When use of authority is
permits group to decide with limits
defines limits, asks group to decide
presents problem, gets suggestions, then decides
presents a tentative decision subject to change
presents ideas and invites questions
makes decision and 'sells' it
makes decision and announces it
When freedom for subordinates is
High
Hersey and Blanchard - Situational Leadership
The Situational Leadership Model is an additional well known variant on the Vroom and Yetton theme. Hersey
10
and Blanchard (1962)
suggested that leaders should treat people differently according to the situation. They
identified four different leadership styles based on the amount of Supportive and Directive Behaviour:
Supportive Behaviour
A lot
S3 – Supporting
S2 – Coaching
For people with High Competence and
For people with Some Competence and
Variable Commitment
Some Commitment
S4 – Delegating
S1 – Directing
For people with High Competence and High
For people with Low Competence and High
Commitment
Commitment
Little
A
Lot
Directive Behaviour
They also added another dimension which they called the "Maturity Level" of the subordinates which is broadly a
combination of their competence and their motivation.
In this model leadership is seen as a sequential process starting with Directing where the task is spelled out very
explicitly. Then a leader moves on to a more Coaching style as the individual becomes more independent. The
final stages are Supporting where little direct control is required and, finally, Delegating when the subordinate can
be left alone with confidence.
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 8 of 22
Despite its popularity there has been very little empirical research targeted on the Hersey and Blanchard Model,
but a study in 1990 by Blank, Green and Weitzel has suggested that while there is support for the four leadership
styles, the is little support for the concept of "Maturity Level".
11
Once the contingency approach really took hold researchers began to consider more than just the style, and task
aspects of a situation. The picture began to look even more complicated as theorists began to recognise that
leadership does not happen in a vacuum and that organisational culture and the environment must play a role in
determining how best to lead. In addition, during the 1970s and 80s researchers began to focus on the recipients
12
of leadership and began to recognise the dyadic nature of the process. For example Graen (1986) and
colleagues developed their Vertical-Dyad Linkage Theory that specifically states that leadership will be effective
when leaders form individual relationships with each subordinate. Although this may sound quite logical it should
be remembered that this concepts cuts right across the earlier implicit assumption that leaders should focus on
other factors and treat all subordinates alike. Likewise, Path Goal Theory put forward by House et al (1974)
13
suggests that leadership is effective if managers and subordinates create an implicit contract wherein the leader
identifies what the subordinate is looking for and facilitates achieving it.
Handy - Best Fit Leadership
Research has given considerable support to these and other contingency models and a most useful account of
14
how they might all be linked is provided by Handy (1985) . In his ‘Best Fit’ approach he explains that in any
situation that confronts a leader there are four sets of influencing factors that he or she must take into
consideration:

The leader – his preferred style of operating and his/her personal characteristics

The subordinates – their preferred style of leadership in the light of the circumstances

The task – the job, its objectives and its technology

These three factors will in turn all depend to some extent on the organisational setting of the leader, his
group and the importance of the task.
Handy argues that there is no such thing as the ‘right’ style of leadership, but that the leadership will be most
effective when the requirements of the leader, the subordinate and the task fit together and are appropriate to the
organisational setting.
Adair - Action Centred Leadership
A similar concept was adopted by Adair (1983)
15
who devised a model of leadership training based on three
overlapping circles of needs:
Task
Needs
Group
needs
Individual
needs
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 9 of 22
He emphasised the need for leaders to distinguish the individual from the group and argued that there will
seldom, if ever, be a perfect match between the needs of the individual, the group and the task. For Adair the
leader’s job is to be aware of the tension and to manage it. To do this he needs a functional approach, which has
eight elements:
Defining the task
Evaluating
Planning
Motivating
Briefing
Organising
Controlling
Setting an example
The work of Handy and Adair is representative of a significant shift in leadership theory. Attention was once
again given to the role of the individual leader, but instead of focussing on personal characteristics research
began to take a more practical approach in that it started to focus on the actual (and potentially trainable)
behaviours of effective leaders.
However, the one of the most enduring contributions to this area of leadership theory is the work of Bernard Bass
16
17
18
and colleagues (Bass (1981) , (1985) , (1990) ). They were the first to develop what is now known as the
Transformational – Transactional Leadership paradigm, which has become the most widely used leadership
model in the field.
Bernard Bass - Transformational and Transactional Leadership
Bass saw the study of leadership to have been dominated by suggestions that leaders must engage in a
transaction with their subordinates. This transaction involved an exchange based on initiating and clarifying what
is required of subordinates and the consideration the subordinates will receive if they fulfil the requirements.
Some call it a “contingency” model in that the reward the subordinate receives is contingent upon them fulfilling
agreed obligations. The following elements reflect effective transactional leadership.

Goal or objective setting

Monitoring performance

Providing feedback

Developing skills and careers
When combined with a clear idea of how subordinates would be rewarded they serve to provide people with a
sense of direction and the motivation to reach agreed-upon goals. However, Bass saw these transactions as
more akin to management skills than true leadership. While agreeing that these are vital elements in ensuring
that the task gets done his own studies led him to conclude:
“The model of leadership that is limited to such transactional exchanges also limits how much effort will be forthcoming
from the subordinates, how satisfied they will be with the arrangements, and how effectively they will contribute to
reaching the organisation’s goals. To proceed beyond such limits in subordinates’ efforts, satisfaction, and effectiveness
calls for a new model of leadership - transformational leadership. The transformational leader articulates a realistic
vision of the future that can be shared, stimulates subordinates intellectually, and pays attention to the individual
19
differences between them. (Bass, 1985)
Bass also acknowledged another style of leadership, originally labelled Laissez-Faire by Lewin and his
20
colleagues , which, as the term suggests, points to a style where the leader effectively lets go of the reins.
Some might question whether this is leadership at all (it seems more like abrogation) and Lewin’s own findings
were that it was not very effective so we will not discuss it here.
21
22
23
Bass and others (Bennis and Nanus(1985) , Deluga and Souza(1991) , Van Seters and Field, (1990) )
continued to refine the model, the 7 elements of which have been defined in the SLR.
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 10 of 22
Are leaders born or made?
This leadership research has been of immense value in helping us to understand what leadership is. And this is
just a very superficial trawl through this enormous body of knowledge. But what is conspicuous by its absence is
any real suggestion that some people are more effective leaders by nature. Can leadership be linked to a
person’s personality? A theory might make it very clear that certain behaviours are more likely to be rated as
examples of effective leadership but what is rarely mentioned is that some people might be able to behave in this
way more easily, consistently and convincingly than others. Which brings us back to the old question: “are
leaders born or made”?
24
Luckily there has also been a lot of very pragmatic research into this area. Judge et al
summarised over 200
leadership studies and concluded there were some core personality elements that did seem to correlate
consistently with leadership. They used a traditional Big5 personality structure (which can be linked to Facet5)
and drew the following conclusions:
Factor
Neuroticism
Correlation
Implies that leaders are
-0.24
More confident and self assured
Openness to Experience
0.24
More curious and keen to learn
Conscientiousness
0.28
Goal focussed and self directed
Extraversion
0.31
More outgoing and sociable
Agreeableness
0.08
No real link
Other research both by Judge and his colleagues
25
and by many others have supported the idea that Leaders
tend to be brighter. Judge et al found an average correlation of 0.27 (corrected for attenuation) between ratings
on Leadership and scores for intelligence. Others, notably Schmidt and Hunter
26
27
and Lord et al
did similar
studies and in fact produced stronger results with correlations around 0.5. This clearly suggests that there are
some aspects of leadership that will be easier for some people than others. Therefore the answer is:
Leaders are born and made. Some start with an advantage. Some learn the skills having been given a solid base to start
from. And some take this foundation and, because they are in the right place at the right time becomes outstanding and
change the world.
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 11 of 22
Leadership Derailers – how can it all go wrong?
However, there is a recent entry the Leadership field. Hogan and his colleagues have supported the view that
some people make better leaders than others and that this may be partly due to their core personality. However
he puts a slightly different spin on it. His concern is not so much with the so called “Virtues” of Leadership as
outlined for example by Peterson and Seligman
28
such as Integrity, Decisiveness, Competence, and Vision but
with the disruptive elements of leadership. He refers to these as elements of “Managerial Incompetence”. Hogan
suggests that it is possible to classify problem leaders in terms of a number of personality attributes. He adapted
the model used in the DSM-IV - the system used for classification of psychiatric disorders. This was not to say
that failed leaders had psychiatric disorders (although some certainly may have) but that there were flaws in their
character that could be broadly related to these things. Specifically Hogan lists the following:
Dimension
DSM-IV label
Excitable
Borderline
Cautious
Avoidant
Sceptical
Paranoid
Reserved
Schizoid
Leisurely
PassiveAggressive
Bold
Narcissism
Mischievous
Antisocial/
Psychopathic
Colourful
Histrionic
Imaginative
Schizotypal
Diligent
ObsessiveCompulsive
Dutiful
Dependent
29
Definition
Moody, intense, easily
annoyed by people and
projects,
Reluctant to take risks due to
fear of being criticized.
Short-term Strengths
Long-term Weaknesses
Energy and enthusiasm
Outbursts and emotional
volatility
Makes few mistakes
Indecisiveness and riskaverse
Cynical, mistrusting,
argumentative and combative.
Insightful about
organizational politics
Mistrustful; vindictive and
litigious
Aloof and uncommunicative;
insensitive to others' feelings.
Overtly cooperative, privately
procrastinating, yet stubborn,
and resentful
Excessive self-confidence;
grandiosity and entitlement;
unable to learn from mistakes
Excessive risk taking and limit
testing; bright, manipulative,
deceitful, cunning, and
exploitative.
Expressive, animated, and
dramatic; wanting to be
noticed and the centre of
attention.
Creative but sometimes odd
or eccentric ways.
Meticulous, precise,
perfectionist, inflexible,
intolerant of ambiguity.
Conforming and eager to
please bosses.
Tough and resolute under
pressure
Uncommunicative and
insensitive to morale issues
Charming with good social
skills
Passive aggressive
meanness
Courage, confidence, and
charisma
Unable to admit mistakes;
sense of entitlement
Willing to take risks;
charming
Lying; defying rules and
authority; exploiting others
Entertaining, flirtatious, and
engaging
Impulsive, attention-seeking,
management by crisis
Visionary out-of-the-box
thinking
Fanciful, over the top vision;
erratic decision making.
Hard working, high
standards; self-sacrificing
Over controlling, rigid,
micromanaging,
Team player; considerate;
keeps boss informed
Indecisive; overly concerned
about pleasing superiors.
Hogan refers to these elements as the “Dark side” of personality: - the things that can go wrong. As is obvious,
too much of any of these could cause issues in a leader. Other researchers have different lists. The Centre for
Creative Leadership listed the following:
Failure to adapt to a new boss
Inability to adapt to new job,
culture, or market changes
Demanding
Lack of follow through
Insensitive
Dependence on a single skill
or failure to acquire new skills
Manipulative
Authoritarian
Self isolating
Aloof
Too ambitious
Critical
Failing to staff effectively
Can’t manage subordinates
Poor performance
Poor leadership skills
Impulsiveness, Low tolerance for Ambiguity, Arrogance, Micromanaging, Self-promoting, Volatility, Risk Aversion,
Defensiveness, lack of perception, Approval Dependence and Eccentricity are all linked to personality in some
way but the key point to all of them is that there are things that, if a leader does not address them in his/her
behaviour, can lead to failure.
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 12 of 22
Summary
There is little doubt that the Contingency and Transformational/Transactional approaches in particular have
added much to our understanding of leadership. In their 1988 review of the Leadership field, Feidler and House
30
identified 9 broad generalisations about leadership that still hold true today:
1.
Leaders vary according to the balance between their use of interpersonal relations and structure.
2.
There is no one ideal leadership personality, i.e. leadership is not a unitary dimension.
3.
Leader-follower relations are important - they affect performance, satisfaction, self esteem and wellbeing.
4.
Different situations require different leadership styles.
5.
The motivations attributed to the followers by the leaders play a large part in determining how leaders
behave.
6.
Intellect and ability contribute only under certain conditions.
7.
Charismatic leadership exists and is not a mystery - it can be understood.
8.
There are many theories of leadership that are effective.
9.
It is possible to train leaders using a variety of techniques including behaviour modelling, leader match
training, motivation training and goal setting.
Leadership is clearly a complex equation and what the research has not done is to give managers a very practical
model to use in the workplace. How realistic is it, for example, to believe that your average manager will have the
luxury of applying Vroom’s decision making tree analysis to each and every one of his or her decisions, or could
calculate Handy’s ‘Best Fit’ approach for any given situation with relative ease. Adair and numerous
management development consultancies have made valuable efforts to address this gap by developing training
programmes that help managers to improve their transactional skills. And, as we have demonstrated, Bass’s
model lends itself well to a behavioural interpretation that could be incorporated into a training or development
programme to help managers evaluate and develop both their transformational and transactional leadership skills.
Indeed, it has been our experience that managers have little difficulty in relating to Bass’s model and have been
relatively successful in improving their leadership ratings.
However, it is also our experience that few of the approaches give insight or any practical guidance on some of
the most consistently occurring themes in leadership theory. Namely:

how to gain insight into your own style of leadership

how best to identify the individual needs and preferences of the people you are responsible for leading

and how best to adjust your style accordingly
And it is precisely these issues that the SLR has been designed to address. Leadership should be situational and
individually tailored. The type of task and the environment in which it is being carried out in cannot be ignored.
But by combining a well founded structure with a sound methodology that recognises the dyadic nature of
leadership, managers should be significantly better equipped to recognise their own strengths and weaknesses
and to more effectively lead the individuals they are dealing with whatever the context and circumstances.
Leadership theorists differentiate between the ability to manage people in order to meet existing targets and the
ability to lift people to new heights of achievement. Effective Leadership that can create and communicate an
inspiring vision of the future, a future where people are enthused, committed and feel valued. This is
transformational or ‘Visionary’ leadership. It is based on strong personal relationships not knowledge, position or
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 13 of 22
experience. Transformational leaders are inspiring and often charismatic. However, inspiring and motivating
people are not enough. To deliver a vision requires effective goal setting, monitoring and review of performance
and skill development. This is transactional leadership.
Management theorists have long argued that effective leadership is only possible with a good understanding of
people as well as the working environment. People are the crux of the organisation. Management is not about
managing ‘the business’, but managing ‘the people who do the business’, and a ‘person centred’ rather than a
‘production centred’ management style produces better and more effective business results in the long term.
Management today is about valuing people and creating the environment where flexibility, creativity and diversity
is managed in a way that allows people to take the business beyond where it is at the moment. And it is certainly
difficult to envisage being able to adopt the variety of behaviours appropriate to Senge’s ‘Fifth Discipline’ and the
Bass’s leadership model unless one is able to ‘read’, understand and respond to the differing needs of individuals
and situations.
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 14 of 22
THE FACET5 LEADERSHIP MODEL
So we now know that the research into Leadership is wide ranging and has occupied people for half a century or
more. The consensus seems to be that there isn’t one type of leader and in fact there isn’t really one type of
leadership. Different situations probably require different approaches. It is complex but we shouldn’t be surprised
at that. Leadership is not uni-dimensional and the Transformational/Transactional split makes a lot of sense.
Since they are such different elements it also makes sense that some people will be better at some aspects than
others. People can play to their strengths. As a result it is unlikely that many people will have equal strengths in
all areas. Most people will have gaps and can improve.
To evaluate a person’s performance as a Transformational or Transactional manager requires accurate and
comprehensive feedback. The SLR multi-rater questionnaire has been specifically designed to evaluate both
Transformational and Transactional leadership skills. The Facet5 Leadership model is as follows:
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 15 of 22
The Transformational domain
Transformational Leaders have a clear idea of where they want to go, are passionate about their ideas and are
motivating to others. Innovative and challenging, they create and communicate a vision, provide intellectual
stimulation and treat people as individuals. Transformational leadership is required to inspire people to go above
and beyond expectations. Transformational Leaders have a clear idea of where they want to go, are passionate
and motivating to others. They are innovative and challenging. They create and communicate a vision, are
intellectually stimulating and treat people as individuals. Since Transformational Leadership is sometimes called
Visionary Leadership we have labelled these three domains V1 to V3 to differentiate them from Transactional
Leadership which are labelled T1 to T4. The elements are:
V1 - Creating a Vision
A vision is defined as “a possible and desirable future state”. By definition it does not currently exist nor has it
ever existed. An individual may hold a very clear personal vision but for this to become a motivating force for
others, it needs to be shared.
Visionary managers are described as motivating, inspiring and convincing. A
vision cannot be established by edict. To ensure that colleagues “buy in” to their vision they must persuade,
excite and influence. People with high scores are able to communicate a sense of purpose to others, make
people feel they understand where the organisation is going, enthuse and motivate people about what can be
achieved, convey a focus, appear to be passionate and committed to the work, and look to the future with
enthusiasm and conviction.
Behaviours linked to Creating a Vision
Seems to have a very clear vision of where are going
Communicates ideas very clearly
Ensures everybody knows what we are trying to do
Becomes passionate about ideas
Projects ideas with confidence
Talks with enthusiasm and conviction
Is motivating to listen to
Enjoys telling people what the future looks like
Is always very clear in meaning
Is always looking for new ways of doing things
Gets excited by the opportunities we have
Is very quick at seeing how new trends affect us
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 16 of 22
V2 - Intellectual Stimulation
People are more motivated when they feel they are using their skills at work and achieving something as a result
of their individual contribution. Most work is of an intellectual rather than physical nature and therefore people
enjoy activities that allow them to use their knowledge and skills to the full. The ability to show the benefits of
new ways and to encourage others to rethink their ideas results in a more motivated and positive work
environment.
Such people are able to provide a positive and challenging environment for others. They make people think and
re-examine their ideas and look for alternatives. They quickly see new applications and ways forward, are
innovative and imaginative, are seen as experts and authorities in their fields, and are aware of trends and
developments in their fields
Behaviours linked to Intellectual Stimulation
Quick to challenge ideas
Makes people really think hard about what they are
doing
Stretches people intellectually
Is quick to explore alternatives
Is enthusiastic about new ideas
Encourages risk taking
Often relies on intuition
Constantly challenges the status quo
Makes people defend their ideas
Is very analytic and probing
Quickly grasps the implications of what is suggested
Is very quick to see logical errors and difficulties
V3 - Individual consideration
An important part of Transformational leadership is the creation of an environment in which people feel valued
and encouraged to contribute, where people can explore their own talents and utilise their individual strengths.
People who enable others to do this are seen as positive and fair-minded. They ensure justice for all without
being judgmental. They are attuned to the feelings and natures of their colleagues and show respect for
individuals.
Such people can establish a positive environment for each person in the team, get people to contribute in the way
they work best, allow for individual differences, do not pre-judge people or impose their own prejudices. They are
accessible and responsive to others needs. They accept people for what they are.
Behaviours linked to Individual consideration
Always careful not to override other people
Is happy for people to challenge ideas put forward
Treats people as individuals
Is quick to make new people feel accepted
Is sensitive to people's feelings
Keeps the door open - is accessible
Establishes rapport easily
Always seems to be able to put people at ease
Makes sure people feel involved
Ensures everybody pulls their weight
Makes people feel valued for what they are
Tolerant of individualists
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 17 of 22
The Transactional domain
Transactional leadership is about delivering the agreed results. Transactional Leaders have an ability to organise
and manage people and resources to achieve the agreed corporate goals. They concentrate on setting goals,
monitoring performance, giving feedback and developing people. There are four elements of Transactional
Leadership.
T1 - Goal Setting
Goals are the operationalisation of a corporate vision. They are the engine of activity that provides a practical
focus for efforts. Goals need to be specific to ensure clear direction. They must be measurable so people know
if they are being met. They must be achievable since an unrealistic goal is de-motivating. They must be
relevant so they convey a realistic sense of purpose and they need a time limit to crystallise them and provide an
agreed end point.
People with high scores are able to: · clearly identify and agree the goals which must be achieved, specify to
others exactly what has to be done, show how results will be measured so people will know whether they are on
target, make sure that goals which are set are stretching but achievable, help to create goals which are realistic
and relevant to the work of each individual and ensure that people know what the time constraints are
Behaviours linked to Goal Setting
Sets very clear objectives for people
People know how they will be measured
Sets objectives which are stretching but achievable
Explains the relevance of different activities
Makes the expected time frame very clear
Ensures people understand what is required
Helps people see how they can achieve their targets
Demonstrates the effects of work clearly
Is demanding but doesn't ask for the impossible
Makes it very clear when things need to be done by
Involves people in setting their own objectives
Shows how individual and corporate goals link
T2 - Performance Monitoring
There is little point in setting clear goals if no effort is made to determine whether they are on track. Performance
review can be very structured with centralised administration or more fluid relying more on the individual than the
system. However it is done it helps a person to understand whether the goals have been achieved. The process
for monitoring, the frequency of review and the individual responsibility for this review needs to be made clear.
Behaviours linked to Performance Monitoring
Reviews performance at appropriate intervals
Is quick to identify variations from the plan
Is aware of the current state of each task
Has a clear understanding of our daily activities
Insists on regular reports on performance
Reads regular reports and takes action as required.
Is always among the first to know what's happening
Has good grasp of the detail of what people are doing
Keeps good records of progress
Ensures people know how performance is evaluated
Ensures people know who is will assess results
Makes sure the relevant information is on hand
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 18 of 22
T3 - Providing Feedback
Performance appraisal is a normal part of corporate life now. Feedback is designed to answer two questions:

What are we expecting?

How are we doing?
And for feedback to be effective it must be understood, believed and accepted.
Behaviours linked to Providing Feedback
Always fair in comments about performance
Discusses results with the people involved
Gives constructive advice on improving performance
Is always positive and constructive in criticism
Makes people see performance reviews positively
Is as willing to listen as talk
Never seems to prejudge issues of performance
Gives people the opportunity to say how they feel
Always tries to understand before commenting
Quickly lets people know if there's a problem
Is always able to illustrate ideas with clear examples
Makes points clearly and unambiguously
T4 - Developing Careers
The key to developing others is to demonstrate a genuine interest and concern for them. It involves a level of
selflessness and a willingness to put other people first.
In order to achieve this you need first to understand
yourself and, following that, understand the personal needs, interests and desires of other people. To be
effective you need to also understand the political and organisational sensitivities that exist. People with high
scores are able to:
•
show they understand the needs of others and that they are trying to see things from another’s point of
view
•
show that they are always looking out for ways to help others to reach the goals they set themselves.
This confirms that career development, although primarily a personal responsibility is also shared.
•
show that they are willing to take time to work with others and show how they can improve.
•
The best managers do this in a non-judgmental or paternalistic way and put themselves out if it will help
others get what they are looking for. This requires a level of selflessness and altruism in the manager.
Behaviours linked to Developing Careers
Takes time to find out what people want in their job
Offers to help people develop their careers
Is happy to open doors for people
Gets people to think about what they want to do
Is a good advocate on colleagues behalf
Finds opportunities for people to try something new
Listens carefully to what people want
Spends time helping people to improve their skills
Makes resources available so people can improve
Helps people to see what they need to do to develop
Takes interest in developing the careers of others
Is happy to see other people develop and advance
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 19 of 22
Implementing the Facet5 Leadership model
One element that is common to most leadership reviews is that self assessment is insufficient by itself. The most
common process for evaluating leadership reviews is to ask others what they think of the person as a “leader”.
The SLR uses such a process. Usually referred to as a multi-rater or360 review it takes information from a range
of sources and collates it into an integrated report.
Each different perspective is called a “Viewpoint” and the SLR will support up to 5 separate viewpoints. Typically
they would include the views of managers, peers and colleagues and direct reports. Obviously the person’s own
view would be taken into consideration. You might even ask outsiders such as clients.
Each of the behaviours described under the SLR domain headings is presented as an item in a web based
questionnaire. There are 12 for each domain giving 84 in total. They are presented as a frequency scale where
reviewers can indicate how frequently the manager shows this particular behaviour. The scales are “linear
additive” which means that if all reviewers agree that the person frequently demonstrates the skills in that domain
then that would result in a high score. If the reviews were either inconsistent or more moderate then that would
result in a moderate score. If the reviewers agreed that the person rarely showed the leadership behaviours then
there would be a low score.
In addition each reviewer has the opportunity to provide free text commentary on where they see the leader’s
strengths or development opportunities.
However not all of a leader’s core characteristics are obvious to outsiders. Or they may be obvious to some but
not others. And some elements such as motivation and attitude may be hard to identify from the outside. For that
reason the SLR also draws information from Facet5. Facet5’s behavioural insights can show things that are not
seen by other people. It is this interaction between core personality and perceived behaviour that makes the SLR
unique.
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 20 of 22
References
1
Cox, C., and Cooper, C. L., High Flyers – an anatomy of managerial success, Blackwell Limited, Oxford, 1988
2
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H., In Search of Excellence, Harper and Row, 1982
3
Church, A. H. and Waclawski, J., ‘The Relationship Between Individual Personality Orientation and Executive
Leadership Behaviour’, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology 1988, 71, pp 99-125
4
McGregor, Douglas, “The Human Side of the Enterprise”, McGraw-Hill, 1960
5
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–96.
6
Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1964) The Managerial Grid: The Key to Leadership Excellence. Houston: Gulf
Publishing Co.
7
Fleischmann, E., A, ‘Leader Behaviour D escription for Industry’, in. Stogdill, R.M., and Coons, A.E. (eds.),
Leader Behaviour,: Its description and measurement, Columbus, Ohio State University, Bureau of Business
Research, Research monograph, 1957, 88, pp 103-119
8
Feidler, F.E., and House, R.J, ‘Leadership Theory and Research: A Report of Progress’ in Cooper, C.L. and
Robertson, I. (eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, John Wiley and Sons
Lt, 1988
9
Vroom, V.H., and Yetton, P., Leadership and Decision Making, University of Pittsburg, 1973
10 Hersey, P., and Blanchard, K. ‘Life Cycle Theory of Leadership’, Training and Development Journal, 1962, 2,
pp6-34
11 Warren Blank, Stephen G. Green, John R. Weitzel (1990) “A Test of the Situational Leadership Theory”,
Personnel Psychology 43 (3), 579–597.
12 Graen, G and Cashman, J.F., ‘A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental
approach’, Leadership Frontiers, Hunt and Larson, Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press
13 House, R.J ‘Path-goal theory of leader effectiveness’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, pp 321-388
14 Handy, C.B. (1985) Understanding Organizations, 3rd Edn, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books
15 Adair, J., Effective Leadership, Gower, 1983
16 Bass, B. M., Stoghill’s Handbook of leadership (2nd ed.), New York Free Press, 1981
17 Bass, B. M., Leadership and performance beyond expectations, New York Free Press, 1985
18 Bass, B. M., Bass and Stoghill’s Handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications’(3rd
ed.), New York Free Press, 1990
19 Op cit
20 Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R. (1939) ‘Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally created “social
climates”’, Journal of Social Psychology 10: 271-99.
21 Bennis, W. G. and Nanus, B., Leaders: The strategies for taking charge, New York Harper and Row, 1985
22 Deluga, R. J. and Souza, J., ‘The effects of transformational and transactional leadership styles on the
influencing behaviour of subordinate police officers’, Journal of Occupational Psychology,1991, 64, pp49-55
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 21 of 22
23 Van Seters, D. A. and Field, R. H. G., ‘The evolution of leadership theory’, Journal of Organisational Change
Management, 1990, 3, pp29-45
24 Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. by: T. A. Judge, J. E. Bono, R. Ilies, M. W.
Gerhardt “The Journal of applied psychology”, Vol. 87, No. 4. (August 2002), pp. 765-780.
25 Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of
theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 542–552.
26 Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2000). Select on intelligence. In E. A.Locke (Ed.), Handbook of Principles of
organizational behavior (pp.3–14). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
27 Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between Personality traits
and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 402–410.
28 Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and Classification.
Oxford University Press & American Psychological Association.
29 Taken from “What We Know About Leadership”, Robert Hogan, Hogan Assessment Systems, Robert B.
Kaiser, Kaplan DeVries Inc., June 2004
30 Fiedler, F.E., House, R.J. (1988), "Leadership Theory and Research: A Report of Progress", in Cooper, C.L.,
Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp.73-92.
Copyright © Redfield Consulting Pty Ltd 2009
Page 22 of 22