Introduction
Studies on leadership are ongoing, as evidenced by the vast amount of new literature. Leadership is a crucial subject, as it significantly impacts the performance and functioning of organizations. Salihu (2019) conceptualizes leadership as the ability to inspire, address problems, and motivate others to realize their potential while working towards the organization’s set goals. The importance of leadership in modern organizations cannot be overlooked due to its influence on performance.
According to Raju (2018), leadership has little to do with speed but rather with direction. In this case, it can be argued that understanding the main concepts, theories, models, and other elements of leadership remains critical for practitioners. Multiple pathways and discourses in leadership research can be adopted, focusing on models and theories. The main topics of this report are contingency mode, competencies, styles, and power. Additionally, many concepts have been present for several decades, which justified current scholarly efforts to update the data.
This paper will explore four key concepts in leadership: the contingency model, competencies, leadership styles, and leadership power. First, the paper presents summaries of the selected articles, focusing on content, methods, quality, and weaknesses. Second, the concepts are evaluated. Third, the four models will be compared and contrasted, and future research will be considered. A summary of the entire paper will appear in the conclusion section.
Topic Summaries
The first concept is leadership competencies, a key requirement for modern organizations. An integrative literature review is the method Fotso (2021) adopted, which does not require a sample population. The journal’s quality is achieved through peer reviews of the articles.
The most important aspect of the article is that it outlines the main competencies that leaders require to be effective. The lack of primary research may be a weakness, as it relies solely on past literature without incorporating new information or updates. However, the paper makes significant contributions to the literature that can be used as a foundation for the proposed research.
The main ideas discussed in the article include the competencies 21st-century leaders will need to become effective. Additionally, the most important point made is that modern leaders ought to be able to combine digitalization, customer experience, a strong concern for people, the general good, and financialization. These ideas can form a critical part of the proposed research, where the scholar can understand what modern leaders must do.
Fotso (2021) focuses on the 21st century, meaning the article is based on updated literature and data. However, the updates originate from past research efforts, which creates a gap that future research must address by using primary data to support the current theoretical formulations of this article. Leadership competencies remain at the epicenter of leadership research, making this article a valuable contribution to the proposed research. Most importantly, the ideas can help formulate new research questions in the literature that serve as the basis for theoretical or conceptual models in the proposed research.
Frontline managers can be considered leaders who are directly in contact with employees or followers. The concept of leadership competencies has been applied to this population by Shum (2018). The methods used include surveys in both the pilot and primary studies. The samples were collected from a collection of frontline and senior managers.
The most important issue discussed in the paper is the set of leadership competencies that enable managers to be more effective in their roles. Therefore, the paper makes a critical contribution to the proposed studies, particularly by introducing new primary data. No conceivable weaknesses are apparent, as the journal’s quality stems from peer reviews. However, Shum (2018) notes that a significant portion of the sample population consists of managers in the casino and gaming industry. Therefore, bias is a possibility that could have a significant effect on the generalizability of the research.
Of the two articles exploring leadership competencies, this article appears better suited for the proposed research. The rationale is that using primary data provides the most up-to-date information compared to a systematic review of the literature that relies on past studies. The ideas discussed by Shum et al. (2018) can be used to decide the nature and approach to the proposed thesis. For example, the methodologies used can be adopted by the scholar to replicate the findings or applied elsewhere to test their generalizability. The latter option is significant since one of the limitations of the study by Shum et al. (2018) was that most participants were from casinos and gaming enterprises.
Therefore, this can be considered a significant research gap until future studies explore the same concepts within other industries. The service sector, including the finance industries and telecommunications, is among the largest sectors in many economies. Management in these sectors should be prioritized since most still employ people, while most manufacturing plants operate essentially using robots and other automated systems.
The second concept is the leadership style, one of the most studied subjects in leadership literature. However, the current focus is on the generational differences within the workforce and the need to adapt styles to meet the needs of all generations. Generations X and Y can be considered the most populous in modern organizations. Research by Kraus (2017) compares the preferences of generations X and Y to emotional leadership styles between the two generations. The most crucial issue is that both generations have different value systems, which necessitate leaders to consider their styles when interacting with each other.
The method used is a survey comprising a sample population of 121 employees, even though only 108 completed the survey. The peer-reviewed journal can be considered to be of high quality. Additionally, the fact that primary research was conducted means new data can be used to make critical updates to the concept of leadership style and form a foundation for future research.
The main ideas in Kraus’s article include the differences and similarities between the two generations, as well as whether they share the same level of preference for emotional leadership. Kraus (2017) finds that the two generations are becoming increasingly similar, especially in terms of work values. Differences emerge when such aspects as visionary leadership are considered, where Generation Y is seen to have greater preferences.
These ideas can be critical in formulating research questions for the proposed study. The main argument is that the literature leaves some critical gaps where further studies should seek to either expound on the arguments or replicate the findings. For example, a case study approach, in which in-depth analyses of the two generations in the context of emotional leadership can offer a clearer picture of how the two generations compare. Additionally, other types, forms, or leadership styles can be explored within the same context of generational differences, as this is also a critical gap that needs to be addressed.
Leadership styles can also influence the task performance of modern employees. Such a position has been established by Choi et al. (2020), who also found that leaders can regulate their behaviors in response to the characteristics of their followers. The methods employed included a cross-sectional study, during which data were collected using questionnaires.
As a scientific study, establishing a correlation between leader consideration and employee task performance is the most critical issue. The sample comprises employees from 25 private companies, forming 47 groups with a total of 143 members (Choi et al., 2020). The findings of this research can support a proposed study, particularly when the focus is on how demographic characteristics of followers influence leadership style.
The article’s main ideas include leaders’ self-expansion to improve themselves and employees’ task performance facilitated by citizenship and creative behavior. The key finding is that Performance improves when leaders establish or initiate proper structures for employees to perform. These ideas are crucial for the proposed research, as they offer a novel approach to the existing literature on leadership styles.
The use of primary research enables the development of new theories and provides an opportunity for future studies to replicate either the methodologies or the findings. Such scholarly efforts can be considered to be confirmatory research. New research questions can be developed based on the gaps and limitations of the study by Choi et al. (2019). Most importantly, the basic assumption in leadership research, which is also held by Choi et al. (2019), is that leader behaviors influence employee performance. Therefore, the specific mechanisms of this relationship cannot be fully understood from a single primary research study; consequently, future scholars must provide more details on the same.
The contingency leadership model is a critical concept focusing on how situations influence leadership effectiveness. An article by Oc (2018) examines the impact of contextual factors on leadership outcomes. The method employed is a systematic review, where multiple studies are selected and analyzed to summarize the general trends in contextual leadership.
The quality of the journal is irrefutable, considering that it is peer-reviewed. The importance of this article lies in its critical contribution to the literature on the contingency model, where the key finding is that leadership occurs in specific contexts. The main weakness is the failure to mention the key concept of contingency leadership, despite the overall theme of the article making significant inferences.
The ideas discussed in this article can help inform the research questions of the proposed thesis. The rationale is that the contingency model posits that situations determine the emergence of leaders. Therefore, the contextual factors discussed by Oc (2018) can be used to formulate questions regarding the external environment or contexts and their role in the type of leader. The main gap addressed in the article is the lack of a systematic approach to contextual leadership, as well as disagreements regarding what constitutes the context for leadership. Updates on the topic are essential for scholars wishing to support their theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
Additionally, the literature reviews and studies’ backgrounds require up-to-date information. Most importantly, recent scholarly efforts can help identify new gaps or reveal concepts in theories that require further analysis. In this case, the article presents an opportunity for future studies to examine the current state of the theory and identify areas that require further discussion.
The contingency leadership model also determines whether the follower reactions are negative or positive. The article by Carnevale et al. (2021) explores leader greed, aiming to contribute to the incomplete understanding that greed invariably leads to adverse reactions from followers. The method employed is a systematic literature review, which means that a sample population is not required.
Additionally, the journal is peer-reviewed, ensuring the quality of the article. The importance of this article emanates from its contribution to the literature on contingency leadership. The key issue was to demonstrate that there are instances where greed leads to positive outcomes. The lack of primary research is the main weakness of the article.
The ideas discussed in the article are considered critical in the research on the contingency model. The issue of leadership greed appears to be relatively novel, which means that the proposed study can find new ideas to incorporate in formulating research questions or developing the theoretical and conceptual model. However, the basic argument is that leadership greed is one contextual factor that plays a critical role in the emergence of leadership.
Where the proposed study focuses on the contingency model, greed can be used as a case example to explore the gaps identified by Carnevale et al. (2021) in their study. Additionally, the article does not offer primary research, which means that the proposed study can fill this gap and confirm the arguments and theoretical foundations developed in the article. However, the bottom line is that the article remains critical for a scholar whose study focuses on the contingency leadership model.
The last concept is how leader power can be enhanced or influenced. An article by Pfeffer and Fong (2005) addresses self-enhancement and its effect on power. The most important aspect of the paper is that it explores evidence suggesting that the feeling of power among leaders leads to self-enhancement.
The method used is a systematic review of the literature. There is no sample population, as the research is secondary; however, peer reviewers ensure the journal’s quality. The main weakness of the paper stems from the fact that most of the empirical studies explored are between one and three decades old, meaning that most of the data are not recent. However, the research topic remains unique and offers future opportunities to derive core ideas, produce current data, and update the literature.
The main idea is that self-enhancement can be derived from most of the psychological processes associated with power and social influence, including in-group favoritism, commitment escalation, disinhibiting effects of power, and hierarchical structures. Given this position, the proposed research can explore the idea of self-enhancement further by verifying the position taken by Pfeffer and Fong (2005).
The lack of primary data also presents a significant research gap, as scholars’ arguments can be regarded as theoretical assumptions or generalizations inferred from past studies. Primary data appears to be the most appropriate means of proving the theoretical foundations, updating the current literature, and charting the course for future research. The proposed research can develop more interesting research questions regarding the role of self-enhancement in leadership power and help develop a solid theoretical and conceptual model using current data.
Leadership and power are two components that create an essential tension between them. An article by Maner and Mead (2010) suggests that while leadership power is crucial in guiding groups, it can also serve self-interests. The methods used in the primary research included experimentation, where a sample of 74 undergraduate students was administered a set of activities and completed assigned tasks.
The most important aspect of this paper is that it establishes situations where the tension between power and leadership is experienced. The findings can critically contribute to the literature and the proposed research. There is no conceivable weakness, as the article employs all the necessary scientific tools throughout the research process.
The main point made by the article is that leaders mostly behave in manners consistent with the group’s goals. However, there are also instances where self-interest gets in the way of effective leaders, as explained by Maner and Mead (2010). These ideas can be crucial to the proposed research, particularly in considering the need to define what constitutes self-interest.
Examples of what can be considered a wrongful exercise of power have been presented by Maner and Mead (2010), including excluding a more proficient member or withholding crucial information from the group. The article has not adequately discussed the rationalizations for these behaviors, which presents an interesting research gap for future research. Therefore, primary data could be critical in confirming this position and helping develop a solid theoretical and conceptual model that has been tested and proven.
Additionally, updates on the tension between power and leadership would be desirable, as most of the arguments are based on past research, some of which is nearly a decade old. Considering that newer generations are entering the workforce, traditional approaches, beliefs, functions, and leadership roles may change. The power-leader relationship may also change, necessitating further exploration and giving rise to a new stream of research.
Concept Evaluation
The four concepts discussed in the summaries above are critical to the broader subject of leadership. They reveal how leadership occurs and the core elements that influence leader performance. Additionally, it is essential to acknowledge that these concepts are among the most trending research topics in leadership. This concept evaluation considers how each applies and contributes to the leadership literature.
The contingency model in leadership is founded on the premise that leadership does not take place in a vacuum. On the contrary, there has to be a context in which leadership is practiced. Examples of contexts include goals/purpose, culture, climate, state/condition, time, structure, people/composition, and processes (Oc, 2018). Contingency suggests that situations are crucial in determining how a leader performs.
This supports Carnevale et al.‘s (2021) investigation into the impact of a leader’s greed on followers’ responses. Theoretically, leaders who accumulate resources for themselves at the expense of their followers will evoke adverse reactions. In such cases, the expectation is that the leader’s performance and effectiveness may be inhibited by either follower opposition or an unwillingness to accept the leader. The bottom line is that the contingency model is a critical concept that should be integrated into leadership research.
Leadership competencies can be viewed as growing in importance for modern organizations. Even though it has been studied for decades, modern companies are experiencing critical and ongoing changes, causing massive corporate complexities (Fotso, 2021). Therefore, leaders will not always be effective if they maintain their traditional competencies since they may not work in the current environments.
The 21st century requires new competencies for managers or others in leadership positions. According to Shum et al. (2018), the need for these competencies could affect critical decisions like recruitment as businesses seek out individuals who can handle the modern business environment. Continued research on leadership competencies is necessary, as new literature should outline what it takes for new managers to function as effective leaders.
The literature on leadership styles has existed for several decades. However, the changes in the work environment mean that further inquiry is needed to outline what modern leaders need to do to be effective. Among the dynamics in the labor force is the emergence of new generations, with the millennials labeled by Boyle et al. (2018) as the most significant demographic shift in modern times. However, this does not mean that millennials occupy most corporate leadership positions. If such were the case, it would mean that this generation has fully taken over the workforce, and no critical consideration for leadership styles would be necessary.
Current concerns are that leaders may need to adapt their styles to accommodate generational differences (Kraus, 2017). Sometimes, up to three generations may be present in the same organization. The differences may be irreconcilable, meaning leaders would be forced to adapt. Therefore, it can be argued that further research on new and emerging styles for modern leaders is necessary.
Lastly, the leadership function can be described as a mix of influence and power. The assumption is that leaders are influential individuals who can use their power to influence followers. However, some key issues arise when discussing leadership power, especially regarding how leaders gain and use power.
According to Pfeffer and Fong (2005), leaders can engage in self-enhancement to accumulate perceived power. The importance of power in leadership cannot be questioned since traditional approaches to the subject place power at the heart of leadership (Sturm et al., 2021). However, the fact that power can fuel the self-interests of the leaders means there is a need to explore the extent to which power can be used constructively (Maner & Mead, 2010). Overall, power and leadership should be studied alongside each other, with attention to the use of power and its effect on leader effectiveness.
This evaluation reveals that leadership is a rather broad subject, and each underlying concept offers a different perspective. For example, exploring leadership competencies reveals that leaders are primarily responsible for their effectiveness. Additionally, the changing corporate environment means that new leaders may require an entirely new set of leadership skills to be effective.
The same applies to concepts such as leadership styles, which consider the new generations of workers. Most importantly, these two concepts have helped label leadership as a constantly evolving concept since what has been practiced traditionally might not work for modern workplaces. If the assumption can be held that leadership evolves, the factors causing the evolution and the pathways taken need to be explored. The implication is that there is a need to constantly update the leadership literature to help modern practitioners understand what works best for the current era and with the existing generations.
The breadth of the concept of leadership has also been manifested through the choice of topics and sub-concepts explored by scholars. For example, many studies on the concept of power may explore the role of leader power. However, Pfeffer and Fong (2005) further assess that self-enhancement is the basic idea behind all power and social influence issues. In this case, the possibilities of research topics become endless, and the opportunities to present new information are expanded. Similarly, emotional leadership has been selected by Kraus (2017) as the focus of their exploration of generational differences in preferences for leadership styles.
In this case, scholars can feel the need to explore all other leadership styles in the same light of generational differences. Such a focus cannot be overlooked, considering the assumption that leadership evolves and newer generations have different preferences and practices in the context of leadership. Overall, the four concepts remain critical to developing current and future studies on leadership.
Comparison
The four concepts are significantly different since they all address distinct aspects of leadership. However, the fundamental similarity is that they affect leader performance and effectiveness. For example, the contingency model focuses on the contextual factors determining how a leader behaves and performs.
Similarly, competencies are leaders’ core characteristics and capabilities that make them effective. Leadership styles and power also have the same implications in determining leaders’ actions and followers’ reactions. Therefore, all four concepts can be used in literature and research to define what constitutes effective leadership.
Regarding differences, some concepts pay more attention to the external environment, including the situation and followers, while others focus on the individual in the leadership role. The contingency model has been used alongside contextual factors, insinuating that the external environment dictates leadership actions. The main argument is that different situations will create different leaders. Similarly, leader power may combine both the external environment and the individual behaviors of the leaders.
The argument is that leaders exercise power, and followers may determine how they respond. In other words, followers who oppose a leader due to their misuse of power may seek to end the leader’s reign and, most likely, push for a better leader. The leaders are responsible for their use of power and the reactions they receive from their followers.
The other two concepts, competencies and styles, focus exclusively on the individual leaders. In terms of competencies, those leaders who possess the relevant capabilities can be expected to be more effective. In the articles summarized above, much of the focus has been on the 21st century and how the new era requires updated competencies (Fotso, 2021; Shum et al., 2018). Leadership style is similar to competencies since there is a focus on the 21st century and the modern generations that necessitate adjustments. Most importantly, the leader is placed at the center of the discussion, where the individual efforts dictate the leader’s effectiveness.
However, it is also essential to contrast competencies and styles as they are inherently different. Competencies allude to the core characteristics and capabilities a leader possesses and the skills deployed in the function. Styles refer to the methods and approaches a leader selects to perform the leadership role. The main idea is that the leader gets to determine his or he effectiveness.
All four concepts have similar implications for future research and help support the assumption that leadership is evolving. For instance, the contingency model is founded on the premise that the best leadership style aligns with the current situation. Organizational environments are not constant, so leaders’ situations will evolve alongside the business environment.
Therefore, new styles, competencies, and practices involving leadership will be needed to fill the emerging gaps. Additionally, the idea of generational differences helps support the assumption of evolution, with the basic idea being that new generations come with new requirements and preferences in leadership. Even the concept of power and its relationship with leadership is subject to the same assumption, considering emerging leaders will have varied needs for and uses of power.
However, it is essential to acknowledge that each concept contributes differently to the assumption. For example, the contingency model does not necessarily mean the evolution is linear, as situations may change back and forth. In contrast, similar situations to those in the past may necessitate the same styles used in the previous instance. As for competencies and styles, it can be assumed that the evolution is linear, as a current generation can’t be entirely similar to a past one. As the world changes, newer generations become increasingly different from the previous ones, which explains why a linear path in evolving styles and competencies is possible.
In the concept evaluation section, it has been argued that leadership is a rather broad subject. In this case, all the concepts paint a similar picture, and each can be approached in myriad ways. Additionally, the sub-concepts and sub-contexts in each concept are equally broad. Therefore, a similar implication for future research is manifested because all concepts arouse interest in further exploration, especially with the need to replicate the findings or confirm the theoretical arguments presented in the articles. Additionally, all the concepts exhibit a similar need to use current primary data to help update the research.
Where systematic reviews can generate a unified view of a concept or topic, past studies become the most preferred approach. However, the assumption that leadership is dynamic means that the unified views from past literature must be confirmed and approved through a recent primary data analysis.
Future Research
Leadership competencies are the model selected for consideration for future research. The rationale is that regardless of a leader’s situations and styles, the core competencies will eventually determine how one functions in this role. The consideration is not necessarily on the gaps found in the literature, but new emerging trends may necessitate further research.
One such observation is that the composition of the modern workplace is dramatically changing with newer generations joining. The generational demographic differences mean leaders must adjust and adopt new practices. The competencies may change completely since the leaders handle different types of followers.
For instance, some have a greater sense of autonomy, while others follow the traditional leader-follower interactions. The leader has to accommodate all followers for them to remain relevant. The main question that emerges is, if modern leaders need to update their competencies, then which new ones need to be added? Additionally, exploring what leaders need to gain new competencies may be necessary, raising a new research stream for future scholars.
Another important point regarding future research is the need to use primary data. As explained earlier, many of the articles explored have used systematic reviews or similar methodologies, whereas past studies have been used as a source of information. This presents a considerable need to update the literature using current data, and primary research can be considered the best way to achieve this objective.
While studying the competencies, several recommendations can be made, including focusing on different industries and sectors in collecting samples to make it possible to generalize the findings. Different industries may have varied approaches to various leadership concepts, but common attributes are present and should be used as the basis for generalizations. The primary research should also address some gaps, including incorporating new-generation leaders. Millennials in leadership can present an intriguing research prospect compared to studying leaders’ development of new competencies to help handle the new generations. Future research should consider the leadership qualities exhibited by millennials in leadership positions.
Conclusion
Four leadership concepts have been explored and evaluated: competencies, contingency, styles, and power. The current literature has emphasized the importance and role of these concepts in leadership effectiveness. The main point outlined in the evaluation is that despite the decades of research, emerging trends in the organizational climate necessitate further inquiry into their applicability to the broader subject of leadership.
A comparison of the concepts indicates that some focus on external situations while others focus on the leader. Regardless of what is central to the discussions, leaders appear to be primarily responsible for their effectiveness. The model selected for future research is competencies, where the demographic changes in the 21st-century workforce require leaders to keep updating their capabilities.
References
Boyle, C., Gonyeau, M., Flowers, S., Hritcko,.., Taheri, R., & Prabhu, S. (2018). Adapting leadership styles to reflect generational differences in the academy. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 82(6), 641-643. Web.
Carnevale, J., Carson, J., & Huang, L. (2021). Greedy for thee or greedy for me? A contingency model of positive and negative reactions to leader greed. Journal of Business Research, 132, 897-905. Web.
Choi, D., Cheong, M., & Lee, J. (2020). Leadership influences? It depends on followers! The relationship between Ohio State leader behaviors, employee self-regulatory focus, and task performance. Personnel Review, 49(2), 491-515. Web.
Fotso, N. (2021). Leadership competencies for the 21st century: A review from the Western world literature. European Journal of Training and Development, 45(6/7), 566-587. Web.
Kraus, M. (2017). Comparing Generation X and Generation Y on their preferred emotional leadership style. Journal of Applied Leadership and Management, 5, 62-75.
Maner, J., & Mead, N. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 482-497. Web.
Oc, B. (2018). Contextual leadership: A systematic review of how contextual factors shape leadership and its outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 218-235. Web.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. (2005). Building organization theory from first principles: The self-enhancement motive and understanding power influence. Organizational Science, 16(4), 372-388. Web.
Raju, V. (2018). Theory of lim law: Leadership style. Eurasian Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 13(6), 125-136.
Salihu, M. (2019). A conceptual analysis of the leadership theories and proposed leadership framework in higher education. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 5(4), 1-6. Web.
Shum, C., Gatling, A., & Shoemaker, S. (2018). A model of hospitality leadership competency for frontline and director-level managers: Which competencies matter more?International Journal of Hospitality Management, 74, 57-66. Web.
Sturm, R., Herz, H., & Antonakis, J. (2021). The science of leader power. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(1), 1-7. Web.