Sergio Caredda
Leadership is probably the single most used world in management theory. And this list of 140+ models represents the complexity of the topic.
After having analysed the four foundational pillars of the Organisation Evolution Framework, it’s time to investigate its fifth element: Leadership. I have been careful to provide, within the model, a purely opportunistic definition of leadership that “fits” the model, and the reason will be clear towards the end of this long article. Leadership is one of the topics most discussed (and probably most abused) in management literature. A number of points of view are constantly added from multiple disciplines: psychology, behavioural science, sociology, history etc.
Also defining the terms is difficult. For example, we keep being reminded that Leadership has nothing to do with hierarchy (Kruse, 2013), yet just access any consulting website, and the term “Leadership” in an organisational context will refer in most cases to the decision-makers or executives of a firm. We keep reading that Leadership is not Management (Kotter, 2013), yet managers keep being evaluated on their leadership skills. We hear that Leadership is not linked to attributes, yet most Leaders we can think of are charismatic, and definitely with robust personality features. The term Leader is even used today in file and rank job titles, (Customer Service Leader, Customer Success Lead, are just some example). All this shows the existence of many different points of view on this concept. Also just reviewing the NGRAM for the word Leadership, it is apparent how relevant the topic is in recent years.
I came to the conclusion that, probably, the term itself has been so abused, that we need to find a new and more precise vocabulary for the many meanings that we attribute to Leadership.
However, as with my previous articles on Organisation Models, Business Models, Strategy Frameworks and Operating Models, I want to try to give an account of the complexity of this territory. Which is why I have developed this list of the different Leadership models, which now exceeds more than 150 models. However, the quest is not finished. As I started the revision of this article, I could find at least five new graphics on a simple google image search. This also means that your contribution will be fundamental. Please feel free to suggest new models (or give feedback to any of these) directly in the comment section of this post.
- Aug 22, 2020: Minor spell-check edits.
- Aug 24, 2020: 110 Models in total. Reference List updated.
- Aug 31, 2020. 120 Models in total. Few typos corrected.
- Apr 18, 2022. 130 Models in total. Several typos were corrected, as well as a few bibliographic notes and links.
- Jun 23, 2024. Moved to a full Database of Leadership Models with Notion. Reviewed full structure of article. Reworked Classification of models.
- Aug 23 2024. 150 Models in total. Added a few models and reviewed a few pages.
- Aug 25 2024. Alignment to new version of Organisation Evolution Framework.
Here below the last 5 models added.
Note: credits for the original version of this post go largely to Tom Haak and the HR Trends Institute, who created a list of Nearly 100 Leadership Models (Haak, 2020).
The Models Topology
As you all know, my partly German mind needs structure to understand information. For this reason, I have structured a classification into six groupings. I recognise this division is very personal and subjective, but it helped me navigate through the massive amount of information, and hopefully guide you as well in the search for meaning through all these models
Theoretical Models. These are models derived from scholarly research, and that tends to propose an archetype of what a Leader is (or should be).Competency-Based Models. These are models built on a selection of underlying competencies and skills.Values-Based Models. In this case, the models are built on a selection of underlying values and behaviors.Effectiveness-based Models. These are frameworks that include multiple attributes (skills, competencies, practices, etc.) that allow deliveringmore effective leadership, often specific to a situation or context.Purpose-based Models. In this case, these models suggest an orientation towards a specific purpose.Applicative Models. These are models specific to an organisation, that tend to apply theoretical principles.
- Traits and Competency Based Models. These are models that are based on the question what traits and competencies make a good leader? As such they tend to focus on the “inputs” of Leadership, and range from models that focus on traits that are difficult to develop, to models that instead focus on skills that can be improved.
- Behavioural Based Models. These are models that are based on the question what does a good leader do? As such they focus on the “outputs” od Leadership, and range from models that underpin different leadership styles, to models that advocate for specifica ethical models of Leadership.
- Situational Models. These are models that are based on the question how does the situation influence good leadership? As such they tend to focus on different outputs depending on the situation. We have model that range from specific connection of traits or behaviours to specific situations, to models that underpin a specific leadership style to manage specific situational tensions.
- Power and Influence Models. These are models that are based on the question how does power influence good leadership? As such they tend to focus on the relationship between the leader and the followers (or the network of relationships).
- Organizational Models are instead models that are specific to a company or an organization. Typically these models are a mix of competency-based and behavior-based models, and often are linked to the culture of the specific organization, for this reason I added them to a specific category.
In many cases, the classification of a model under one of the clusters or the other is a difficult choice, as many of the models tend to be overlapping. Occasionally I have put a comment to explain my choice. However, I do not pretend this to be a scientifically valid system. Also, please note that within each cluster the criteria are purely alphabetical at the moment. Where the same label is used by two or more models, I have added the author or the institution that built the model in the title.
Again, feel free to challenge any of this through a comment.
A. Traits and Competency Based Models
This category includes all models that are based either on a list of Personality traits that a Leader should have, or on a list of skills and competencies the Leader should acquire during his personal and professional life. I have decided to group both types (traits and competencies) together as often there is a “mix” of elements across these models.
In general the focus is on the input here, and on the concentration that leadership is the result of a number of elements.
All these models try to answer to the question what traits and competencies make a good leader?
Leadership USA
Mark W. McCloskey
Bandelli Associates
Richard Boyatzis
Boyden
Government of Canada
McKinsey
CFO Leadership Council
Max Weber
US Council of Inspectors Generals
Nick Obolensky
RunwayDigital
FIUTS
Thomas Carlyle
Harris Whitesell
Linkage
Craig Nathason
John Mattone
Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson
Mikael Jensen
New Zealand Ministry of Education
Deloitte
Sattar Bawany
Edward Deci, Richard Ryan
Servant Leadership Insititute
Robert Katz et al.
Soul of Business
Corey Seemiller
John Zenger and Joseph Folkman
Julian Stodd
persolog
Ralph Stogdill et al.
Leadership Mastery
World Economic Forum
B. Behavioural Based Models
These models are based on behaviors that leaders express (or, often, should express). This category is therefore focused on the output, i.e. the behavior of leaders broadly independently from personality traits or specific skills (although many models also have a developmental lense). Some models have a focused “ethical” approach, as they tend also to define what “good leadership” is in terms of outcome, often with ethical or value-based or purpose based approaches.
All these models try to answer to the question what does a good leader do?
Kendall Stewart
William James Reddin
Stijn Viaene
Phil Higson and Anthony Sturgess
John Adair
Prowarness
SolutionsIQ
Bill George
James Kelly
CapGemini
BCG
University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership
Doug Conant
John Wasem
Deloitte
James Kouzes and Barry Posner
Jaroslav Dokoupil
Gaurav Gargate
Daniel Goleman
Shawn Herbig and Mary Ellen Wiederwohl
Institute for Healthcare Improvement
Trev de Vroome
Ron Cacioppe
Kurt Lewin
Jeffrey Liker
Linkage
Jordan R. Jensen
Tony Gambill
Louis Fry
Defining Leadership
Sustainability Leadership Institute
Fiona Beddoes-Jones and Stephen Swailes
Think & Grow Business
Asian Institute of Management
David Fivecoat
Rasmus Hougaard and Jacqueline Carter
John Knight
James Taylor et al.
Vital Voices
C. Situation-Based Models
This category groups the models that highlight the influence of the situation in the expression of Leadership. They do often contain both elements linked to traits and skills as well as behaviours, but they tend to broadly state that Leadership is influenced by the situation in which it is expressed. I grouped into this category also specific models that apply to specific transformation scenarios.
In general these models tend to answer to the question how does the situation influence good leadership?
Albert Ellis
/w=1920,quality=90,fit=scale-down)
Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky
Edina Doci et. al.
Robert Quinn, Kim Cameron
Marion & Uhl-Bien
ALTC
Ray Wheeler
Kitty Gogins
Lisa Kay Solomon
Fred Fiedler
Lee Bolman, Terrence Deal
Bruce Avolio, Bernard Bass
John Ott, Rose Pinard
Tanmay Vora
Robert Blake, Jane Mouton
Leipzig Graduate School of Management
Dave Ulrich, Jack Zenger, and Norm Smallwood
Richard Barrett
Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard
Bill and Cindy Adams
Lukas Michel
D. Power and Influence Based Models.
This category is focused on models where the pivotal aspect is the relationship between leader and follower. Authority, Power, Influence all become relevant aspects of these models, often linked to traditional hierarchical views, but not only. There are multiple models that also start exploring small teams and networks.
These models tend to answer to the question how does power influence good leadership?
Tom Hurley, Juanita Brown
Karla Brandau and Douglas Ross
Jim Collins
James Dulebohn et al.
Robert K. Greenleaf
Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt
David Robinson
Victor Vroom and Philip Yetton
E. Organizational Models
This category groups Models that belong to specific organization and are normally applied to their members and employees. The underlying basis of these models can be often traced in all the 4 categories above, but from experience there is a tendency, in organization, to “mix” output (in terms of expected behaviors, often linking the models to corporate values) and inputs (skills and personality traits) that the organization identifies as supportive of good leadership.
These models tend to answer to the question how does this organization define good leadership?
AIESEC
Alfasigma
Amazon
American Nurse Association
Apple
AT&T
Dräger
Singapore’s Healthcare Leadership College
Hyde School
L’Arche Canada
Sanger Leadership Center
NHS Leadership Academy
Purdue University
_competencies_and_descriptions/w=1920,quality=90,fit=scale-down)
SingHealth Academy
Trinity Western University
University of Florida
University of Minnesota
US Coast Guard
YMCA
Summing Up
If you got here you already deserve a reward. But I hope you enjoyed the variety and complexity of these models, both in terms of content and visuals. As mentioned in the introduction, it is useless to try to find a general definition of leadership that applies to every context and every organisation.
The one element that, however, I want to stress out, is that to be (or become) a leader, there is an element of intentionality that is required. You can only be a leader if you want to be a leader. Then, every context and situation might require different skills, behaviours, competencies, attitudes and styles. These can help you be more effective as a leader. But won’t change the assumption of intentionality, which is the idea that I tried to explore in my concept of intentional organisation. This same element drives also a second conclusion: if being a leader is a personal choice, none can impede you to be a leader. Which means that leadership can be diffused in an organisation and is not linked to rank in a hierarchical structure.
In the next posts, I will address Culture and Purpose. It is not really possible to understand Leadership without the intersection with those two elements. So I expect frequent edits of this article as well.
Leadership within the Organisation Evolution Framework
In this case I have not tried to define Leadership as an overall concept (although I have written extensively and mapped many different models), but have tried to focus my attention to Leadership as the approach that holds the organisational building blocks together.
By using this definition very specific to the model, I wanted to underline the impact that Leadership has in the continuous design and innovation process of an organisation. Leadership sits at the center of the already mentioned continuums of intentionality - emergence and consistency - congruence.
It is not a coincidence that organisations that have high congruence between all the components of their design, are still managed by their founding entrepreneur. A clear leadership here, independently from its style, often is the best recipe to ensure intentionality in design across all relevant components. On the contrary, absence of leadership can be very often traced down to inconsistency in components, and ultimately in the failure of the organisation to reach its goals.
Listing Intentional Design as the critical element to observe to trace down Leadership may seem counterintuitive. But the reality is that this is the element that really matters and sits at the core of the consistency of the organisation framework. Understanding how much an organisation is intentionally designing all of its components, how much it listens to external environment changes and internal impacts, and translates these in reviews of the various components.
This does not necessarily translate in a hierarchical view of leadership, but for sure the observation needs to focus on agency within the organisation linked to change, adaptation, innovation and continuous improvement.
- Change Management approaches
- Transformation Governance
- Innovation Governance
- Formalised Leadership Model
This is why the artefacts I suggest we trace are all linked to how change is managed within an organisation, as this is the part that dynamically impacts and tests the organisation. Many companies have Transformation PMOs, today, but how do these interact with the definition of the different building blocks of the organisation? Are these only technical roles, or is there really a “leadership” impact? How is Innovation managed within the organisation? Especially disruptive one? What are the Change Management practices that exist and are put in place?
This article is part of a series where I examine the different components of Organization Design, analyse models and theories and propose a specific approach of Intentional Design.
Key Content Articles
- The Organization Evolution Framework
- Business Models: The Theory and the Practice
- Strategy. Frameworks: The Theory and the Practice
- Operating Models: The Theory and the Practice
- Organization Models: a Reasoned List between Old and New
- Leadership Models: The Theory and The Practice
- Purpose: The Theory and the Practice
- Corporate Culture: The Theory and the Practice
- Organization Ecosystem: The Theory and the Practice
- Building the Intentional Organization
- What is Organization Design?
- Consistency and Intentional Design: Building the Organization of the Future
Again, feel free to give feedback, and suggest any model that I might be missing in this article, using the comment section below. Thank you!
Comments and Feedbacks
References
More posts like this
