Introduction
Leadership is a broad subject that has been approached from multiple angles by researchers and organizational management. According to Mango (2018), leadership is governed by more than 66 theories, often leaving leaders and scholars needing to establish more inclusive ones. Therefore, models and concepts in leadership are expanding due to the broadening of scholarly efforts.
New theories emerge and are extensively tested before they can be accepted as valid. Additionally, modern academicians are undergoing a significant reevaluation of traditional theories, models, and concepts as they seek to investigate their validity and applicability to contemporary corporations. For example, Seidel et al. (2019) argue that sustainability and lean production are two of the predominant themes in modern organizations that can significantly impact leadership success. As such, some scholars seek to explore how the general theories apply to these trends and how leaders can adapt their practices to become more effective.
This paper focuses on three leadership theories: transformational leadership, shared leadership, and leader-member exchange (LMX). The paper’s first section presents topic summaries, where the theories are defined, and the researcher’s articles are examined in terms of their key concepts, gaps, quality, and contributions to the proposed research. The second section evaluates the three theories, focusing on their applicability to modern corporate contexts. A comparison of the three theories will also be provided, followed by a consideration of future research implications.
Topic Summaries
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is one of the most extensively studied concepts in the field of leadership. This sentiment is expressed in the article by Wang et al. (2011), which centers on the idea of how transformational leadership influences performance. The research methods include a meta-analytic review of past literature spanning 25 years. The study utilizes 117 independent samples, comprising over 113 primary studies, all of which concluded that transformational leadership has a positive impact on individual performance across both criteria and levels. The main gap that the article addresses is the unclear relationship between transformational leadership and follower performance across performance criteria and organizational levels.
The levels explored include team and individual, while the performance criteria were task and contextual performance. Additionally, several hypotheses revolving around these levels and criteria have been proven. For example, transformational leadership improves individual, team, and organizational performance.
Similarly, transformational leadership influences the variances in follower and context performance beyond the impacts of transactional leadership. The main strength is the large sample of articles, which helps generalize. However, the primary weakness is that the sample spans 25 years as of 2011, which means it cannot be readily applied to modern research (Wang et al., 2011). Lastly, the quality of the article emanates from the use of scientific methods, including meta-analytic techniques.
The second article on transformational leadership appears to diverge from the ideas presented in the first. Andersen (2015) presents the main idea that the enthusiasm and magnitude of interest in this theory are disproportionate, especially considering its weaknesses. The shortcomings of transformational leadership have been outlined, including conceptual weaknesses, unwarranted claims that it is more effective than transactional, and the conflation of political and managerial leadership. The method used is a systematic literature review with no pre-determined primary and secondary papers sample. Therefore, the scholar has systematically approached the subject, using the relevant literature to back each subtopic.
It can be argued that the gap addressed by the paper lies in the limited research on the weaknesses of transformational leadership and why it is not the most effective theory. However, a few weaknesses emerge, including the fact that it has only focused on the negative aspects of the theory. This is despite many of the materials reviewed consistently indicating that all experiments and studies have shown transformational leadership to have a positive impact on individual performance. The quality of the article can be demonstrated through the scientific approach and the use of credible sources in the analysis.
Leader-Member Exchange
The nature of the relationship between the leader and the follower can influence leader effectiveness and follower performance. This is the basic idea of the leader-member exchange (LMX) as described by Martin et al. (2017), who express that LMX theory is based on leaders developing different relationships with followers. The research gap that the article seeks to address is how the differentiation of relationships affects the work outcome of the follower. The article’s method is a literature review, where the sample studies have not been predefined. Each concept has been described using relevant scholarly work.
The article appears to have no apparent weaknesses, as it adopts a critical approach to analyzing the LMX theory. Therefore, it utilizes scientific and scholarly papers as the primary sources of evidence for the arguments presented. The lack of primary data may suggest that the current trends are not well-defined and that the article has not made significant new contributions to the body of literature. The argument is that the gap has been filled with previous studies, insinuating that relevant research and data have been made available. The article is scientific and can be used to prove its quality.
The work outcomes of the individual members are often the primary subject of an investigation by many scholars on the LMX theory. An article by Jordan and Troth (2010) examines the mediating effects of the LMX theory on the relationship between a follower’s emotional intelligence and job satisfaction and turnover intentions. The research gap established by the article is that emotional intelligence has been investigated in the context of other theories, including transformational leadership and self-managing teams. However, the same vigor has not been applied to the LMX theory. The main idea is that the LMX theory is critical in enhancing the positive relationship between emotional intelligence and both turnover intentions and job satisfaction outcomes.
The research method employed a longitudinal study design, collecting survey data from a sample population of 579 workers at a private pathology company. The survey targeted 1973 workers, but only 579 of the surveys were usable for the study. As a primary study, valid scientific methods were used, which can be used to highlight the quality of the article. Compared to the previous article, Jordan and Troth (2010) utilize primary data, allowing for the incorporation of modern trends and practices to update the current literature. There are no conceivable weaknesses in the paper, except for the reported limitations of self-reported data used as measures of emotional intelligence.
Shared Leadership
Organizational leadership is responsible for the success and performance at the individual and corporate levels. The article by D’Innocenzo et al. (2014) examines the impact of various forms of shared leadership on team performance. The main idea addressed in the article is that shared leadership is a critical facilitator of team performance. However, the researchers are keen to clarify that shared leadership may not be effective in all situations and at all times, which means that the most appropriate contexts for shared leadership must be identified and studied.
The research gap addressed in the article is that the extent to which shared leadership influences team performance remains unclear, despite the growing advocacy for this approach over the past two decades. Additionally, a growing gap needs to be filled regarding the fundamental question of what shared leadership entails. This is the result of evolving research in the field of leadership.
The method used in the article is a meta-analysis of literature that supports the claim that shared leadership is efficacious in improving team performance. A sample of 50 effect sizes, comprising both published and unpublished studies, was used, with a total sample size of 3,198 articles (D’Innocenzo et al., 2014). As a scholarly work, the article adopts a scientific approach to the subject, ensuring its quality.
There are no significant weaknesses with the article apart from the fact that most of the materials used span several decades. Such materials can be considered outdated, given that research in leadership continues to evolve. However, it can be argued that the focus is to outline this evolution regarding how shared leadership has been defined over several years.
The relationship between leadership and change management has been studied for several decades. An article by Binci and Cerruti (2014) explores whether shared and vertical leadership work together in the context of change management.
The main idea is that both vertical and shared leadership tend to interact during change management processes. Additionally, the interaction is often reciprocal, making the two complementary in terms of the power source. The research gap highlighted in the article is the scarcity of literature on shared leadership as a complementary power source to vertical leadership, despite its growing importance.
The qualitative content analysis was conducted on a sample of nine top and middle-level managers. Semi-structured interviews have been used as the primary data collection method, while corporate documents have also been explored as a secondary source of information. The article has adopted scientific methods and approaches to the research, which hints at its quality.
Additionally, the potential weaknesses have been outlined in the research limitations. For example, the generalization suffers due to the smaller sample size, a gap that future studies have been recommended to address. Additionally, the scholars express that gaps have been left for future work, including extending the scope beyond the leader-change management team relations.
Concept Evaluation
After exploring the three concepts summarized above, the issues of concern, directions for future research, and contributions to the emerging proposal can be highlighted. In transformational leadership, the issues of concern include the theory’s applicability to the current corporate environment. This is after Andersen (2015) critiques the theory, arguing that the enthusiasm is unwarranted. Therefore, what is next for future research is answered by acknowledging the need for updates on the available literature. In other words, contextual factors can be explored since transformational leadership will not work in all situations.
Additionally, the literature by Wang et al. (2011) is several decades old and does not address this concern or outline the conditions best suited for transformational leadership. Transformational leadership’s main contribution to the emerging proposal is that the gaps identified will help develop a research problem and a background on which the proposal will be based. Additionally, the two articles on transformational leadership have highlighted the limitations they experienced, which should inform the direction and scope of the proposed research.
The articles on LMX theory have also revealed some concerns regarding the current literature’s position on the theory. For example, scholars agree that different leader-member relationships are built. However, the variances caused by this differentiation remain unclear, which should be the next course or direction for future research. Modern companies often operate differently from traditional ones, which means that the traditional conceptualizations of the LMX theory should be reconsidered and adjusted to fit contemporary contexts.
Even though neither of the articles expresses such a concern, Martin et al. (2017) state that the LMX theory has a promising role in understanding leadership and workplace outcomes. Future studies should investigate this role, including other contexts such as employee behavior and attitudes, as stated by Jordan and Troth (2010). These elements contribute to the proposed research by offering a possible direction and scope.
Lastly, the articles on shared leadership raise several issues of concern, most focused on what the past research has ignored or failed to give deserved weight. For instance, there is a need to explore the degree to which shared leadership affects the performance of individuals (D’Innocenzo et al., 2014). For modern leaders, there is a need for training, which extends to the followers, regarding how shared leadership can be applied to achieve the desired level of effectiveness from both parties (Binci & Cerruti, 2014). These concerns mean that the future direction for research is to generate all necessary updates regarding shared leadership practices. The key contribution to the emerging proposal is the opportunity to introduce new leadership concepts and broaden the scope of shared leadership practices.
Comparison
The three leadership theories, transformational, shared, and LMX, have a set of differences and similarities. The main similarity is that all of them are built on the premise that the relationship a leader forges with the follower determines individual and team performance. For example, transformational leadership has been described by Andersen (2015) as engaging with each other in a way that both the leader and the follower can uplift each other to higher levels of morality and motivation. Similarly, both LMX and shared leadership place significant responsibility on both the leaders and followers, where each of these parties can help the other. Therefore, they all seem to agree that leaders must build the necessary relationships to help improve the team and individual performance.
In terms of differences, each of the theories differs in terms of the nature of the relationship. For transformational leaders, the focus is on the leader and how they interact with workers. It is more about the leader’s charisma and how the employees respond to it.
On the contrary, the LMX theory is based on the premise that a leader builds different relationships with different followers. Therefore, there are possibilities of variances in how each follower responds to the leader, depending on how the leader builds the relationship. Additionally, these variances can be expected to result in different levels of performance from various followers, resulting from different responses to leadership relations.
The difference extends to shared leadership, where the focus is on the distribution of leadership across the team. In this case, the tasks are shared among the members, and there is hardly any hierarchy of power within the group. In such a case, the relations are built and sustained by all members instead of the reciprocal relationship between the leader and the individual or team in the LMX and transformational leadership theories. With these differences, it can be argued that the level of success for each model differs depending on the context of the application and the preferences made by the individual followers. Therefore, there is an argument that all three models present a similar scenario where members are only responsive if they embrace the leadership model and the leader’s efforts.
Future Direction
Of all three leadership models, shared leadership needs more emphasis for the future. According to Binci and Cerruti (2014), shared leadership is growing in importance, which means that more companies could adopt it. As a result, Binci and Cerruti (2014) express the need to train leaders and followers on shared leadership’s applicability and success factors. It can be argued that modern corporations operate in different environments than traditional companies.
Therefore, there is a possibility that more democratic companies will emerge where employee engagement is a basic practice, which could mean that shared leadership becomes the most suitable theory in these situations. The rationale behind selecting this model for future research is that it offers an opportunity to examine how shared leadership aligns with modern organizations, where the younger generations are becoming a greater part of the workforce. Success factors and the basic functionality of the model have become interesting topics for future research.
Conclusion
Most leadership theories have been extensively studied for decades and have evolved to introduce new dimensions. Transformational leadership, LMX theory, and shared leadership are as critical as all other theories and models of leadership. Their contribution to the available research has been significant, especially with the growing scholarly interests and broadening scopes.
However, there always seem to be gaps left by previous studies, especially since some traditional literature needs to be updated to apply to modern organizations. In many cases, the directions for future research are necessitated by emerging issues in both leadership practices and corporate behavior and composition. In this case, shared leadership has been selected for future research due to its fundamental characteristics, including a democratic team and organizational management approach. It is essential to acknowledge that all three explored theories critically contribute to defining the scope of emerging proposals.
References
Andersen, J. (2015). Barking up the wrong tree: On the fallacies of the transformational leadership theory. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(6), 766-777. Web.
Binci, D., & Cerruti, C. (2014). Do vertical and shared leadership need each other in change management? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(5), 558-578. Web.
D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J., & Kukenberger, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership-team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964-1991. Web.
Jordan, P., & Troth, A. (2010). Emotional intelligence and leader member exchange: The relationship with employee turnover intentions and job satisfaction. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(3), 260-280. Web.
Mango, E. (2018). Rethinking leadership theories. Open Journal of Leadership, 7, 57-88. Web.
Martin, R., Thomas, G., Legood, A., & Russo, S. (2017). Leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: Conceptual clarification and critical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 151-168. Web.
Seidel, A., Saurin, T., Tortorella, G., & Marodin, G. (2019). How can general leadership theories help to expand the knowledge of lean leadership? Production Planning & Control, 30(16), 1322-1336. Web.
Wang, G., Oh, I., Courtright, S., & Colbert, A. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytical review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223-270. Web.