Leadership is a remarkable attribute; it has been witnessed in the work of renowned politicians, policy makers, businesspeople, athletes, scholars, members of the clergy and nobelists, among many others. There have been so many women and men who have achieved great results, regardless of the nature of their strategic objectives and goals. Granted, not all have had the best intentions, and their actions may have been somewhat disappointing and even manifestly unethical; however, their success ultimately lies in their followers and achievement of effective outcomes. Their legacy is, in fact, the continuous successes as leaders despite potential contradicting points of view.
Defining Leadership
The concept of leadership, like so many others, has been widely debated by numerous scholars and practitioners searching for a worthy definition of the term. As such, it has multiple definitions that vary according to firm size and core operations, organizational context, environment, and overall business dynamics. According to Chemers (2014), leadership is a process by which an individual assists another or others in fulfilling an undertaking common to all parties interested. It is about influencing others (Yukl 2010) to attempt to realize a group’s objectives (Terry 1960); thus, managers ultimately become leaders when they have followers who collaborate with them in the pursuit of goal achievement. Leadership has been considered to be a process through which a manager or organizational leader successfully defines the path of other individuals (Smircich and Morgan 1982). In a sense, it refers to managers’ behavior and the manner in which they interact with collaborators (Belias and Koustelios 2015). Therefore, leaders’ actions directly impact collaborators’ behavior and attitude toward the firm, as well as their performance (Lok and Crawford 2004).
An effective approach to leadership has a positive effect on individual and organizational performance, cooperation, and degree of collaborator responsiveness to their leaders. According to Bass (1997), leadership has been discussed from many perspectives and with various intentions; in fact, it has been researched; examined; and considered to be behavior, personality, a means of compliance and to fulfill objectives; infusion of persuasion, power, influence; and the result of a structure, relationships, as well as a mixture of the above-mentioned. Therefore, leadership is a charged word, to say the least, which originates from a series of theories that have enriched our understanding of the concept and its virtue.
Initiating the Debate on Born Leaders
In the nineteenth century, the “Great Man Theory” dominated discussions about leadership. It was 1840 when historian Thomas Carlyle gave a series of lectures that would become the book On Heroes, Hero-worship, and the Heroic in History. He described how the accomplishments of such heroes are intrinsic, in a way that leaders are destined to succeed as leaders (Carlyle 1840); therefore, theorizing that leaders are born not made. Further, the theory suggests that groups or teams are high-performers because they have the best leader, a Great Man (Borgatta et al. 1954). Skip forward a couple of decades when sociologist Herbert Spencer described leadership as a trait influenced by environment and context. In his book The Study of Sociology (Spencer 1873), he stated that the origin of the great man is determined by the various elements and aspects that have influenced and caused the very social state in which said individual is found. Moreover, he argues that as much power and influence an individual may have to change a nation whereby its structure and actions are modified, it is equally plausible that the very nation attempting to be changed may, in fact, influence and impact the individual. The leader, then, is first made by the society she/he is trying to transform; in a sense, leaders would not become leaders if a leadership role did not need to be filled. According to Spencer, leaders are, in fact, made, thus, commencing a leadership debate of nature versus nurture. The debate is a draw; discussing leadership requires acknowledgment of the influence of both viewpoints.
Personality has also been at the center of leadership theory. It is the Trait Theory that suggests that personality traits have a direct impact on leadership (Colbert et al. 2012). Although it does not always accurately differentiate those that are leaders and those that are not (Zaccaro 2007), there are certain attributes that are considered to be particular to leaders. In fact, you may find over one million three hundred hits when you Google Personality traits of leaders. When some say that a person is a natural leader or born leader it is suggested that they have a certain personality suitable for a leadership position. Being proactive, working well under pressure, being forthright, collaborating well with others, and not being risk averse, are some trait examples. These include elements of a Type A personality, such as being persistent, highly involved in their work and hard driving (Caplan and Jones 1975). Type A Behavior Pattern, according to Friedman and Rosenman (1974), is defined as an individual’s multidimensional actions charged with emotion which drive optimal and prompt accomplishment of objectives against all odds. The description of relentless drive to efficiently accomplish goals and objectives is undoubtedly fit for what may be considered to be an effective leader; however, although it has been considered to be a performance indicator (Bartkus et al. 1989; Barling et al. 1996), it is not characteristic of all leaders, both effective and ineffective.
The effectivity of a leader is visible when she/he adequately aligns her/his policies and actions with their collaborators’ requirements (Hur 2008). It is important for collaborators to feel they are working toward their growth and development as well as that of the firm. Effective leaders also foster an amicable organizational climate where collaborators can share attitudes, beliefs, and values (Schneider 1987). They strategically communicate their expectations regarding the work of the collaborators (Belias and Koustelios 2015), to fulfill strategic goals and desired performance. And, not only are they aware of collaborators’ differences (Hersey and Blanchard 1993) but they also include them in pursuit of organizational goal fulfillment. However, as much as these traits are commonly associated with effective leadership, they are not a guarantee of success.
The debate on born leaders has extended to gender, in that many scholars and practitioners have questioned whether the best leaders are actually women or men. The 1980s brought forth conversation of the term glass ceiling . A concept that remains relevant in the discussion of qualified women and the obstacles and barriers they encountered to attain positions in higher echelons (Morrison et al. 1987). The reality is that women still remain underrepresented in leadership positions (Adler 1993; Cook and Glass 2014) worldwide. Ayman et al. (2009) held a study and found that woman leaders were associated with significantly less performance than their male counterparts, regardless of their level of transformational leadership. Furthermore, according to Ryan and Haslam (2005), women face a glass cliff effect as they tend to be appointed to leadership positions when the organization endures financial problems and/or a decreased performance; therefore, they face a more than challenging context and environment. It is no wonder some workers prefer not to collaborate with women leaders (Simon and Landis 1989) and distrust their effectiveness (Bowen et al. 2000; Sczesny 2003).
Many have studied the differences between male and female leaders. Although differences have been identified, feminine and masculine leadership styles have been said to be less contrasting than one would assume; meaning that, the differences are quite small (Eagly 2013). That said, the general notion is that a feminine leadership style is characterized by a democratic, relationship-oriented, participatory leader, who is also more of a transformational than a transactional leader (Bass and Avolio 1994); while a masculine leadership style is more associated with an autocratic and task-related style of leadership (Gardiner and Tiggemann 1999; Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001; Van Engen et al. 2001). Under such assumptions, (1) all men would be autocratic leaders, which means no empowerment, or participation in decision making, and reduced or null innovation and creativity; (2) all women would be democratic leaders, meaning empowerment, participation in decision making, and increased innovativeness and creativity; (3) since small firms’ structure is more aligned with a centralized decision making, most of these firms would be effectively managed by male leaders; and (4) because decision making in larger firms is decentralized and even collaborative, these firms would be effectively managed by female leaders.
While reaching top management and senior positions in large and multinational enterprises has proved to be difficult to say the least, finding women entrepreneurs in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) is not unusual. To be fair, it does not mean that women-owned/managed SMEs are the majority, rather they are less atypical. However, there are examples that somewhat contradict common cultural practices. In other words, it is suggested that there are certain roles still thought should be strictly performed by women and others by men. Consider the example of taquerías (taco restaurants) in Mexico; these are mostly small businesses that are par excellence owned, managed, and run by men. This, of course, includes preparing and serving meals which is customarily considered a woman’s responsibility, one of women’s roles in society. Thus, it seems clear that the optimal style of leadership is not a one-size-fits-all style; it rather depends on organizational context, environment, and, specially, the characteristics of the group and its personality.
Style of Leadership
There are many styles of leadership that have been widely discussed by scholars and practitioners for decades. Table 1.1 includes a brief description of leadership styles that have been previously researched and discussed. That said, the most commonly discussed leadership styles include task-oriented, relationship-oriented, autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire, transactional, and transformational leadership (Bass and Stogdill 1990; Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001; Nikezić et al. 2012; Ehrhart and Klein 2001; Tabernero et al. 2009). These styles tend to be associated with type and/or size of the organization, context, and environment; moreover, they often determine how collaborators perceive not only leadership, but also their tasks, work environment, and effects of performance. According to Bass and Stogdill (1990), leadership style is defined as the different approaches of leaders’ behavior related to their interact...