Article Review

Leadership: Perspective in Theory and Research by Arthur G. Jago (1982)

Significant challenges for social scientists interested in leadership is to understanding

the development, dynamics and effectiveness of leadership processes. In this article, Jago
(1982) studied theoretical perspectives in leadership and organized them in a four-fold focus.
First, the focus on a universally appropriate set of leadership traits. Second, the focus is on a
universally appropriate behavioural style. Third, the focus is on situationally contingent
leadership traits. Fourth, the focus is on situationally contingent behavioural styles This study’s
focus is on leadership traits and behaviours, while acknowledging that part of a manager’s
tenure may be the result of situational contingent, namely club culture fit.

According to Jago, although since 1906 research has been conducted on leadership but
there is no a single definition is developed to understand the different between leader and non-
leader and the gap between effective and ineffective leaders. Jago, in seeking to combine the
ideas of ‘process’ and ‘property’ in his conception of leadership offers a useful definition:
Leadership is both a process and a property. The process of leadership is the use of non-
coercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of the members of an organized group
toward the accomplishment of group objectives. As a property, leadership is the set of qualities
or characteristics attributed to those who are perceived to successfully employ such influence.

To understand the concept of leadership, Jago sort, classify and categorize the
theoretical approach in a four-fold typology of leadership perspective which divided to two
main elements: (i) Universal Vs Contingent Theories and (ii) Traits and Behaviours and four
types. The four-fold typology developed in his article is designed to provide a useful platform
for organizing the dominant trends in previous leadership research. The rows and columns of
the matrix (Table 1) represent the underlying assumptions made and orientations taken by
different leadership scholars. The intersection of rows and columns produce cells in the matrix
representing the different theoretical perspectives possible when these assumptions and
orientations are combined. Classification of specific theories of leadership in the different cells
provides the opportunity to compare approaches on the basis of their common sets of
assumptions (shared rows or columns) and the opportunity to contrast these same approaches
on the basis of any unique sets of assumptions (unshared rows or columns). Furthermore, the

1
typology has been used to identify historical trends in leadership research and to indicate how
certain perspectives represent effects of others.

Type I, Jago tried to indicate the natural quality and character that possessed by leader
which differentiated them from followers. Most of research done since 1940 on measurement
and quantification of leadership traits and the relationship between such traits and criteria of
leader effectiveness. The prominent universal traits the identified through the research
categorized to four elements consist of (i) physical and constitutional factors (i.e. appearance,
grooming, energy), (ii) skill and ability (i.e. intelligence, knowledge, verbal fluency,
judgement), (iii) personality characteristics (i.e. emotional balance, integrity, responsibility,
insightfulness) and (iv) social characteristic (i.e. interpersonal skills, sociability,
cooperativeness). It is assumed that the more qualities or character owns by an individual the
more he or she likely to be an effective leader. Jago presumed that if leadership is administered
by these traits then it is easy and straightforward to select and appoint a leader, maybe by
having a leadership test to asses a person and associate with the relevant traits. However, jago
argue that the relationship revealed in Type I is practically weak although statistically
significant. For example, intelligence possess by a leader cannot guarantee an effective
leadership and vice versa and maybe to certain extent the traits relate to leadership but most of
the research found it more to predictive and not practical.

Based on some studies on leadership, I agree with Jago that theories based solely on traits,
styles, or situations have failed to explain variations in executive behaviour, performance, and
effectiveness. It is futher support by the studies which explained leader in one situation cannot
be an effective leader in other situation so it shows the traits does not influence the effectiveness
of leadership. Based on previous research also suggested, there are no universal traits that
predict leadership in all situations. Traits predict behaviour more in weak situations than in
strong situations. These limitations have lead researchers to look in other directions. A major
movement away from traits began as early as the 1940s. The traits do a better job at predicting
the appearance of leadership than in actually distinguishing between effective and ineffective
leaders. Jago also reviewed two other theory which relate to Type I namely Attribution theory
of leadership by Calder and theory of charismatic leadership by House. The foundation of
attribution theory is people try to label an individual as possessing or as not possessing
leadership qualities and they attempt to understand the psychological processes that lead to
certain perceptions and attributions of a leaders. On the other hand, charismatic is describing a

2
strong character that has what might be called "charismatic effects" which represent evidence
of charisma as opposed to other leadership qualities of traits. However both theories are more
general treatment of the attribution of leadership and its it is consider implicit theories that
places much less emphasis on defining and specifying the fundamental properties and traits.

Type II: In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, Jago said theorists began
to research leadership as a set of behaviours, evaluating the behaviour of 'successful' leaders,
determining a behaviour classification and identifying broad leadership styles. This approach
focus on behavioural interaction between leader and follower and jago reviewed this
perspective focused into two issue; (i) the dimension of leader behaviour and (ii) the relative
effectiveness of different leader behaviour. To understand about followers perception of their
leader’s actual behaviour, Jago took sample research from both military, education and
industrial settings. He analysed the feedback based on two different factor, the first is labelled
as consideration (C), which describes the level of two-way communication, consultation,
mutual trust, respect, and warmth a leader shows and practice toward his followers. Second
factor labelled as initiating structure (IS) defines the level to which the leaders organizes the
relationship among the group members, outlines the channel of communication and establish
the strategy to complete a task or to achieve the goal.

In the studies, leader’s reliance on C and IS were measured and associated with criteria
such as (i) subordinate satisfaction, (ii) subordinate performance, (iii) subordinate, peer, or
superior evaluations of leader performance. Based on the analysis on those studies, Jago found
that most effective leader was one who exhibited both high consideration (C) and high initiating
structure (IS). The successful leader was one who developed good rapport and two-way
communication with subordinates and who at the same time took an active role in planning and
directing group activities. The results futher initiate to identify those factors that can be
beneficial in training the leaders. In addition to that, based on the conceptualizing behaviour
patterns, Jago suggests that effective leadership is an acquired skill and can be taught or trained.
In support Jago’s statement, researches also indicate that attitude and behaviour can be changed
through training, talks, discussion, however majority studies couldn’t proof the outcome of
training that lead to effectiveness of the individual or organization. Some of the studies stated
the effectiveness of C and IS is depend on (i) follower needs and dependencies, (ii) follower
ability, (iii) the level of task structure, (iv) the level of basic satisfaction associated with the

3
task, (v) task pressure, (vi) job level, (vii) follower expectations, and (viii) leader upward
influence. Based on consideration and initiating structure dimensions’ analysis, Jago conclude
that the behavioural theory failed to provide or identify a universally appropriate leadership
style.

Jago also stated, there are some other research done related to C and IS but they are focused
on autocracy-democracy dimension. The autocratic leadership style was described by high
centralized decision making and concentrated in power. Democratic leadership style was
explained by highly participative decision making and power equalization. It was presumed in
democratic leadership the power-sharing and participative decision making can create an
environment where constructive conflict is encouraged, thereby ensuring significant
perspectives on a problem or decision are not overlooked. By being actively involved in the
process, followers are likely to understand the decision and their roles in implementing its
provisions. Second, potential resistance to the decision is greatly reduced. However, based on
the researches done on democratic leadership, the studies suggest there is no significant
differences between democratic and autocratic leadership. Again, the empirical evidence
explicitly shows that there is less basis to came up with a universal appropriate behaviour that
distinguish between effective and ineffective leaders.

Jago also discuss on the leader’s behaviour cause and effect and the two main outcomes is
follower satisfaction and performance. Conventionally it is presumed that leader’s behaviour
cause follower satisfaction and performance, but some studied show the opposite, the leaders
become more democratic, supportive when the followers exercise initiative, offer ideas, more
competent and high performer. Some of the studies tried to relate social environment including
work groups, functional department, hierarchical levels and entire organization develop a
unique climate or cultures that favouring certain leadership practices and the leaders entering
such setting have to accept the leadership style and just fit-in into such environment to further
reinforce the culture.

In Type III, Jago review the perspective focus on Fiedler’s Contingency Model. The
contingency approach was a departure from previous leadership analysis into traits and styles
because it explicitly assumed that there is no "one best way" or style that produces effective
outcomes. Instead this perspective conclude that leadership depends on situation. In this
perspective analysis, jago is concerned with specifying the effectiveness of leader traits under

4
certain situation. According to him, Fiedler Contingency Model was created in the mid-1960s
by Fred Fiedler, a scientist who studied the personality and characteristics of leaders. The
model states that there is no one best style of leadership. Instead, a leader's effectiveness is
based on the situation. This is the result of two factors – "leadership style" and "situational
favourableness". Identifying leadership style is the first step in using the model. Fiedler
believed that leadership style is fixed, and it can be measured using a scale he developed called
Least-Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale to determine between relationship-oriented and task-
oriented leadership. Fiedler defines situation favourableness in terms of three critical
dimensions namely (i) Leader-Member Relations (good vs. poor leader member relations, (ii)
Task Structure (structured vs. unstructured tasks) and (iii) Position Power (strong vs. weak
position power). Fiedler presumed that, task-oriented leaders usually view their LPCs more
negatively, resulting in a lower score. Fiedler called these low LPC-leaders. He said that low
LPCs are very effective at completing tasks. They're quick to organize a group to get tasks and
projects done. Relationship-building is a low priority. On contrary, relationship-oriented
leaders usually view their LPCs more positively, giving them a higher score. These are high-
LPC leaders. High LPCs focus more on personal connections, and they're good at avoiding and
managing conflict. They're better able to make complex decisions.

However, based on Fiedler research, Jago found that the task-oriented leaders tend to
perform best in very favourable or in very unfavourable situations and that relationship-
oriented leaders tend to perform best in moderately favourable situations. The results is
opposite and not explained as what Fiedler presumed. In order make an optimal placement,
Fiedler and his associate came up with Leader Match education program to train the individual
to overcome the mismatch between a leader’s LPC score and the favourableness of the situation
to fit the leader’s LPC. Jago found, the usefulness of the training is not explicitly proven, but
some studies on leader match program stated there is an increase in the performance of trained
person compare to those not trained. In spite of that, There are a few weaknesses that Jago
explained when discussed the theory. The scholars argued that the theory fails to explain fully
why people with certain leadership styles are more or less effective in situations. They also
question the LPC scale is subjective and its validity when it comes to the understanding of
directions. Another argument they bring up is that the theory never explains what organizations
should do when there is a problem with the matching of leaders and situations. Even according
to Fiedler, the LPC score is valid only for groups that are closely supervised and does not apply
to "open ones" such as teams. There is also an issue with the Least-Preferred Co-Worker Scale

5
– if you fall near the middle of the scoring range, then it could be unclear which style of leader
you are. Nevertheless, Jago conclude the contingency model challenged the assumption that
there exists a one-best-way to lead and that the model provided a valuable first step toward
conceptualizing leadership in terms of its situational dependencies.

In Type IV perspective, Jago focus on contingency theory of behavioural leadership. This

perspective try to resolve inconsistencies and contradiction arise from Type II analysis. Type
IV was analysed based on 3 concept namely (i) Path-Goal theory, (ii) Operant conditioning
prescriptive and (iii) Vroom/Yetton decision making model.

Path-goal theory, originally developed by Evans (1970) and later modified by House (1971)
was designed to identify a leader’s most practiced style as a motivation to get subordinates to
achieve the goals. The path-goal theory strengthens the idea that motivation plays an important
part in how a leader and a subordinate interact and the overall success of the subordinate. The
path-goal theory presents two basic propositions. Firstly, “One of the strategic functions of the
leader is to enhance the psychological states of subordinates that result in motivation to perform
or in satisfaction with the job”. In other words, leaders need to be conscious of the necessary
steps to clarify goals, paths, and enhance satisfaction through extrinsic rewards, which will in
turn increase subordinates’ intrinsic motivation. Secondly, House asserted that particular
situational leader behaviour will accomplish the motivational function. Operant conditioning is
a type of learning where behaviour is controlled by consequences. Key concepts in operant
conditioning are positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment and
negative punishment.
This theory is a contingency theory of behavioural leadership because the above
propositions suggest that the effectiveness of various leadership behaviours depends on
characteristics of subordinates (i.e., need states, ability, tolerance for uncertainty, self-esteem)
and characteristics of the environment within which they function (e.g., task structure, role
ambiguity, formal reward systems). Although path-goal theory presumed some possible
prediction but empirical research has concentrated on only two specific hypotheses:
(i) Leader initiating structure will contribute to the satisfaction of followers engaged
in unstructured tasks and contribute to the dissatisfaction of followers engaged in
clear structured tasks.
(ii) (ii) Leader consideration will have its most positive effect on the satisfaction of
followers engaged in clear (i.e., structured) tasks.

6
 Based on research, most of studies does not support the hypotheses due to difficulties of
measuring the relevant variables contained in the theory. However, Jago claimed, this theory
made some contribution towards leadership literature and the theory need futher detail
empirical study by scholars. Jago also suggest if the studies support the theory then it will have
some implications similar to Type II which end up in leadership training. In this context leaders
would not only be trained to expressed initiating structure and consideration but would also be
taught the specific environment or situation under which each is likely to contribute to follower
motivation and satisfaction. In short, leaders would be taught how to adapt their behaviour to
the demands of the situation.

Jago relate the Path-Goal theory with the the second element is operant conditioning
prescriptive. This element emphasize on learning theory found by Skinner. Operant
conditioning is a type of learning where behaviour is controlled by consequences. Key
concepts in operant conditioning are positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive
punishment and negative punishment. Jago analysed the effect of rewards and punishment in
strengthening particular behaviour pattern of followers. The theory presumed that making
positive rewards condition on high levels of performance is indeed associated with higher
overall levels of follower performance and higher levels of subordinate satisfaction. However,
making punitive rewards on low levels of performance has been shown in some studies to be
related to lower overall levels of performance and satisfaction but in some studies, it gave
higher overall levels of performance and satisfaction. So the empirical on punitive in
inconclusive. Nevertheless, studies results showed that the positive rewards (i.e. pay, praise,
encouragement, increase responsibility) on performance actually motivate and provide the
needs for the followers. Both path-goal and operant conditioning approaches are almost similar
in suggesting that the leader will have a motivating impact upon followers to the extent that the
leader makes rewards contingent on successful accomplishment of the task and on the
achievement of group goals and objectives.

The third element that Jago compared under Type IV perpective is Vroom/Yettom
decision making process model. Vroom and Yetton (1973) introduced a new contingency
model of leader behaviour. The model purported to specify the nature of the decision process
that should be employed by the leader, based on a diagnosis of situational demands. It was
developed as a model of how leaders should make decisions if they are to be effective. The
model presumed could be used as a tool to help in the selection of appropriate decision making

7
process for different situation which increased decision and organizational effectiveness. Thu
Vroom-Yetton contingency model deals with individual and groups problems and favouring
either an autocratic or democratic decision making style, they attempt to specify the specific
situational contingencies likely to govern the effectiveness of several decision-making
strategies. The model is deductive in nature, the leader must first diagnose the status of that
problem or decision on seven problem attributes corresponding to situational variables believed
to influence the effectiveness of the five processes. Yes-no responses to questions pertaining
to the seven problem attributes determine the problem type, which in turn specifies one or more
decision processes as feasible to that problem or decision. Two empirical studies had support
Vroom-Yetton model and its prescription. However, it did not provide a completely
independent measure of decision effectiveness. Jago propose, if the if the model is valid then
training could help the leaders to be more effective in decision-making by using the model in
guiding to choose the appropriate levels of follower’s participation.
Nevertheless, Jago found some setbacks which the model be lacking of providing
information about actual leader behavior in real situations, the evidence does suggest that a
leader's willingness to employ participative decision making techniques is governed more by
the unique characteristics of a decision making situation encountered than by some invariant
autocracy-democracy "style." Leaders are more willing to use participation in situations which
require a high quality, technically adequate, solution than in situations which seem rather
insignificant or have no technical component. Leaders exhibit greater participation on those
problems in which they lack relevant information or expertise, particularly if the problem is
unstructured as opposed to structured. Leaders exhibit more participation on problems that
require subordinate acceptance and commitment than on problems that do not, especially if
they lack the power to gain that acceptance from an autocratic decision. Leaders are more
participative when followers share organizational goals than when they do not and when
potential conflict among followers over preferred solutions is low rather than high.

Based on the research analysis on four-fold typology perpective, Jago conclude that no
leadership theory can rightfully claim comprehensive description of the entire field of
leadership phenomena. Because at least some empirical support is available for each
perspective, leadership appears to be a far more complex set of cause-and-effect relationships
than suggested by any one of the comparatively simple theoretical models offered. It must also
be remembered that the evidence accumulated within the limits of each of the four perspectives
while somewhat supportive of propositions and hypotheses, is also to some degree either

8
incomplete, inconclusive, contradictory or controversial. Jago opined more substantial research
should be done to refine the leadership approaches and concept. In spite of that, Jago also
declared that he does not include some other new perspective on leadership in this research
which difficult to classify under the four-fold typology perspective and it may require a new
method.

To understand some of the isolated contribution to leadership research, Jago came up

with five conceptual distinctions which in some-way expansion of the dimension of four-fold
typology: (i) Leadership vs Supervision proposed the future research must more careful in
defining the domain of leadership with other explanatory constructs. To explicitly understand
on leadership, it suggests a distinction between leadership processes and supervisory processes.
(ii) Dyadic vs Group Process explained future research should distinguish between leader
behavior displayed only in a one-to-one relationship with individual followers and leader
behavior displayed in a one-to-many relation-ship with a group. Graen's research clearly
indicates that there are important differences in the interpersonal dynamics of dyadic vs. group
processes yet these differences have only begun to be identified. (iii) Appointed vs Emergent
Leadership propose systematic research concerning possible determinants of emergent
leadership (informal leadership) whereby majority of previous research investigate and
examined leadership within the context of a managerial role in a formal organizational setting.
(iv) Objective vs Subjective, in order to overcome the lack of validity and reliability on the
leadership theories, the studies must use of more objective measures of leader behavior,
including direct and independent observation, is certainly required if the existence of such
distortions is to be fully documented and prior evidence properly interpreted. (v) Toward New
Methodologies, propose new methods and measures are required if leadership is to develop and
mature as a sub-discipline within behavioural science. Efforts that depart from the universal
concepts of "consideration," "initiating structure," "participation," and "LPC" are necessary if
research is to be broadened in some of the suggested directions. What is required, of course, is
both programmatic refinements to existing theory and research and creative expansions into
unexplored area. The former will provide depth while the latter will provide breadth to a
literature having substantial social and scholarly significance.

9
Critical thought

The article discussed substantial research on leadership phenomena. He did a very god
job by analysing the leadership concept based on the four typology which make readers to
understand better about the dimension and perpective of leadership. It helps us to understand
the various concept of leadership in one summary. Jago also explained the pros and cons of
each theory towards leadership perspective. It give us clear insight of the theories which enable
us to explore more on the leadership phenomena.

Nevertheless, In order to understand better, I think Jago may explicitly spell out or distinguish
what mean by effective and ineffective leaders, maybe the criteria or what is the
measure/standard. I suggest Jago may include theories like servant leadership (by Greenleaf,
1977) and transformational leadership and transactional leadership which began 1978 (by
James McGregor Burns) in the discussion so that it could give more understanding about the
theories. Jago also never explain why he choose Fiedler contingency model to analysis Type II
perspective where else there are other situation theory like Hersey-Blanchard (1960)
Situational Leadership Theory. Furthermore, Jago never mention how he did this research,
what methodology he used, what is the number of article referred so forth in order to support
the validity of the his statement and conclusion.

Author’s Background

Arthur G. Jago is currently a Professor in Department of Management Robert J. Trulaske, Sr.

College of Business Cornell, University of Missouri, Columbia. He started his career in 1976
as a assistant professor in University of Houston. He did his Bachelor of Science in Mechanical
Engineering (BSME) in 1972 at Northwestern University. He got his M.Phil and Ph.D from
Yale University in 1975 and 1977. His teaching and research interests include leadership and
managerial decision-making. His publications have appeared in twenty-four different journals
and edited volumes. Additionally, he has authored (with V. Vroom) The New Leadership:
Managing Participation in Organizations, originally published by Prentice-Hall and
subsequently translated into German, Spanish, and Korean.

10