The Great Man Theory (1840s)

The Great Man theory evolved around the mid 19th century. Even though no one was able to
identify with any scientific certainty, which human characteristic or combination of, were
responsible for identifying great leaders. Everyone recognized that just as the name suggests;
only a man could have the characteristic (s) of a great leader.
The Great Man theory assumes that the traits of leadership are intrinsic. That simply means
that great leaders are born...
On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History they are not made. This theory sees great
leaders as those who are destined by birth to become a leader. Furthermore, the belief was
that great leaders will rise when confronted with the appropriate situation. The theory was
popularized by Thomas Carlyle, a writer and teacher. Just like him, the Great Man theory was
inspired by the study of influential heroes. In his book "On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the
Heroic in History", he compared a wide array of heroes.
In 1860, Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher disputed the great man theory by affirming
that these heroes are simply the product of their times and their actions the results of social
conditions.
Pro's

 Starting point for the understanding of which human traits make great leaders
Con's

 Leadership is a restricted community

 No scientific validity
Trait Theory (1930's - 1940's)
The trait leadership theory believes that people are either born or are made with certain
qualities that will make them excel in leadership roles. That is, certain qualities such as
intelligence, sense of responsibility, creativity and other values puts anyone in the shoes of a
good leader. In fact, Gordon Allport, an American psychologist,"...identified almost 18,000
English personality-relevant terms" (Matthews, Deary & Whiteman, 2003, p. 3).
The trait theory of leadership focused on analyzing mental, physical and social characteristic
in order to gain more understanding of what is the characteristic or the combination of
characteristics that are common among leaders.
There were many shortfalls with the trait leadership theory. However, from a psychology of
personalities approach, Gordon Allport's studies are among the first ones and have brought,
for the study of leadership, the behavioural approach.

 In the 1930s the field of Psychometrics was in its early years.

 Personality traits measurement weren't reliable across studies.
 Study samples were of low level managers
 Explanations weren't offered as to the relation between each characteristic and its
impact on leadership.
 The context of the leader wasn't considered.
Many studies have analyzed the traits among existing leaders in the hope of uncovering those
responsible for ones leadership abilities! In vain, the only characteristics that were identified
among these individuals were those that were slightly taller and slightly more intelligent!
Pro's

 That leadership depends upon having certain traits allows behavior modification to
become more tenable in producing good leaders, if one takes to heart the writings of
B.F. Skinner. Though the theory says that the traits are innate, this is controversial and
allows testing as to whether or not the traits can be developed.
 Knowing what general traits make a successful leader aids in identifying potential
leaders.
 The specific traits that are listed permits them to be available for quantification or
correlation with validation techniques, such as brain scans.
Con's

 One question of what has been really added to the "Great Man Theory", other than
an enumeration of traits. It is controversial whether or not these traits are innate.
 "Traits" in the trait theory refer to innate characteristics and it is questionable, at best,
to consider them only as a partial outgrowth of personality.
 There is no situational awareness. The terms may mean different things in different
contexts. What is malevolent in one situation may be beneficial in another.
Behavioural Theories (1940's - 1950's)
In reaction to the trait leadership theory, the behavioural theories are offering a new
perspective, one that focuses on the behaviours of the leaders as opposed to their mental,
physical or social characteristics. Thus, with the evolutions in psychometrics, notably the
factor analysis, researchers were able to measure the cause an effects relationship of specific
human behaviours from leaders. From this point forward anyone with the right conditioning
could have access to the once before elite club of naturally gifted leaders. In other words,
leaders are made not born.
The behavioural theories first divided leaders in two categories. Those that were concerned
with the tasks and those concerned with the people. Throughout the literature these are
referred to as different names, but the essence are identical.

Associated Theories

The Managerial Grid Model / Leadership Grid

At conception, the managerial grid model was composed of five different leadership
styles. These styles were a relation between a manager's concern for people, concern
for production and his motivation. The motivation dimension really provides the
underlying motive of the leader behind a successful leadership style. Thus the
managerial grid model categorizes leaders into one of 81 possible categories. Later,
two additional leadership styles were added as well as the element of resilience.
Pro's
 Measures your performance
 Highly used in today's organizations
 Allows for self analysis of leadership style
Con's
 Minimal empirical data to support its effectiveness
 Doesn't take internal or external variables into consideration
 Doesn't take the work environment into consideration
 Flawed Self-assessment

Role Theory
Role theory refers to the explanation of what happens when people are acting out
social processes and the consequences of their doing so. Each person is an actor
representing a typical individual in a real life scenario performing within a specific
context and a set of functions with which are associated norms, expectations,
responsibilities, rights, and psychological states. A role is a place in a model and the
participant acts out a situation in the same manner that a person in real life would
respond in that same situation. A modern rendition of the term is "avatar", used in
gaming theory and modeled realities, such as "Second Life". The person in role
modeling usually inserts their own personality through a representative in accordance
with the way she or he interprets appropriate responses.
Pro's
 Role playing is a simulation of behavior as opposed to a being a mere
description that might omit certain essential details.
 Acting out enables one to formulate specific behavior and test it in an audience
to see how people respond.
 A social situation may be acted out in numerous ways and a composite can be
constructed from this collection of scenarios.
 As with all modeling theory, one does not have to wait for a specific real-life
situation to occur but simply may produce it.
 Role playing is quantifiable and reproducible and therefore can be
documented for sharing and for future reference.
Con's
 Acting out is restrained in time, space, and specific situation and may not
accurately portray real life.
 Actions of a role player representing an actual situation have not been
validated.
 The acting may not represent the actions of a typical person in the same
situation. Everyone has their own peculiar parameters which may include a
difference in socioeconomic classes, psychological dispositions, and so forth
which may result in a different ending to the scenario.
 There is no universal way of defining a role. There are always different
perspectives, not the least of which is ideology and shape role descriptions.
 Role playing may not be complete and some vital aspect of a situation may be
omitted.
Contingency Theories (1960's)
The Contingency Leadership theory argues that there is no single way of leading and that
every leadership style should be based on certain situations, which signifies that there are
certain people who perform at the maximum level in certain places; but at minimal
performance when taken out of their element.
To a certain extent contingency leadership theories are an extension of the trait theory, in the
sense that human traits are related to the situation in which the leaders exercise their
leadership. It is generally accepted within the contingency theories that leader are more likely
to express their leadership when they feel that their followers will be responsive.
Pro's

 Theories based on contingencies take account of unique circumstances, albeit in a

general way.
 The theory is a common-sense view of the world to those realizing that context and
system dynamics are integral aspects of a leader-led situation.
 Contingency theories motivate thinking about a particular aspect of a leader-led
situation that need more intense focus.
Con's

 A contingency theory may be expressed in too general a way to have specific

applicative value.
 Identifying the aspects of a situation can be highly subjective and may not capture the
reality of a leader-led situation
 Any verification and validation of a modeled system is inherently difficult.

Associated Theories

Fiedler's contingency theory

Fiedler's contingency theory is one of the contingency theories that states that
effective leadership depends not only on the style of leading but on the control over
a situation. There needs to be good leader-member relations, task with clear goals and
procedures, and the ability for the leader to mete out rewards and punishments.
Lacking these three in the right combination and context will result in leadership
failure. Fiedler created the least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale, where a leader is
asked what traits can be ascribed to the co-worker that the leader likes the least.
Pro's
 The theory is extremely well researched, given the stated parameters.
 For a "thumb-in-the-wind" approach to identifying leaders, Fiedler's
contingency theory can assist enormously:
 Leaders with good personal relations are matched to a poorly structured task
environment.
  For leaders who are impersonal, they are placed in well task structured
environment.
 Because this is a contingency theory, it is inherently more flexible than a "one
takes all" theory.
Con's
 LPC scale is subjective, and characteristics are relative in contexts.
 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.
 It is questionable whether Fiedler's contingency theory is valid in all situations,
such as when neither the task is well defined and no choice of leaders is to be
had, except ones with bad personalities.

Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory

Situational Leadership Theory is really the short form for "Hersey-Blanchard
Situational Leadership Theory" and draws major views from contingency thinking. As
the name implies, leadership depends upon each individual situation, and no single
leadership style can be considered the best. For Hershey and Blanchard, tasks are
different and each type of task requires a different leadership style. A good leader will
be able to adapt her or his leadership to the goals or objectives to be accomplished.
Goal setting, capacity to assume responsibility, education, and experience are main
factors that make a leader successful. Not only is the leadership style important for a
successful leader-led situation but the ability or maturity of those being led is a critical
factor, as well. Leadership techniques fall out of the leader pairing her or his leadership
style to the maturity level of the group.
Pro's
 The simplicity of the theory makes it easy to apply.
 The theory has simple scales that a leader can use to give a "thumb in the wind"
assessment of what leadership style to use.
 Maturity and competence of the group are often overlooked factors in good
leadership and it helps to focus on these.
Con's
 The theory may not be applicable to managers as administrators or those with
limited power but in structurally in a leadership position.
 There are situations in which the theory may be less applicable such as those
involving time constraints and task complexity.
 Testing of the theory doesn't seem to bear out the predictions

Path-goal theory
The path-goal theory, path-goal theory of leader effectiveness, or path-goal model can
be considered as a variant on Transactional Leadership Theory, where the leader
clearly is directing activity and the only factor that varies is the manner in which this
is done. There are some aspects of Contingency Theory, as well, where various means
 of application vary with the situation. The leader sees a path that needs to be tread,
one leading to the accomplishment of a goal and she or he attempts to clear it and get
the group members to tread on it. The leader may cajole, command, reward or punish,
get suggestions from the group, or sugar coat the tasks, if necessary, but it is clear that
democracy is not the hallmark of this method.
Pro's
 In a situation where something needs to be done in a short time - such as
emergencies and complicated situations in which there is a time constraint,
this method may be preferable.
 The formulator of the theory, Robert House acknowledges that "all theories
....are ultimately incorrect..." and that "A theory which cannot be mortally in
danger cannot be alive." [1] Hence, there is room for flexibility.
 The revised theory adds more with respect to group participation, making it
more amenable to use in groups who are knowledgeable and intelligent.
 The Path-Goal Theory has a common sense ring to it and the ideas are easy to
convey. The analogy to a path needing to be cleared and workers driven along
it is an easy visualization.
Con's
 This theory assumes that the group members do not know what is good for
them. It is inherently undemocratic.
 If the leader has flaws the whole method stands a good chance of failure.
 Leaders are not always rational, and a course of action might be based on
delusion, thus jeopardizing group members.
 The leader-led-task system could collapse, if there is too much dependence on
the leader and where either something happens to the leader or he simply
cannot carry out his leadership functions.

Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model of leadership

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision-making Model of Leadership focuses upon decision
making as how successful leadership emerges and progresses. The parameters
shaping a decision are quality, commitment of group or organization members, and
time restrictions. There are a number of leadership styles ranging from authoritarian
to highly participatory. In 1988, Vroom and Jago created a mathematical expert
system as a decision-making device in their work Leadership and Decision Making. This
addition of Jago renamed the original theory to the theory, with its variants being
Vroom-Yetton, Vroom-Jago, and Vroom-Yetton-Jago.
Pro's
 The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision-making Model of Leadership is highly flexible
with respect to the choices a leader can make in effecting decisions. The range
is from highly dictatorial to democratic.
 The method has a mechanical procedure to arrive at a decision making
process.
  The idea of a procedure like this can be seen as "objective", that the results
were not arrived at by a non-specific method.
Con's
 It is questionable whether this model can be used in large groups.
 The decision procedure may be too mechanical and note take into account
subtleties in decision making, such as changing emotions and, for that matter
change, in general.
 The questions may not be precise enough and sufficiently contextual, as in "Is
the quality of the decision important?" "Important to whom or what and in
what time frame" are the questions.

Cognitive Resource Theory

The Cognitive Resource Theory main claim is that various sources of stress are blocking
the use of rationality in leadership. The more cognitively acute and experienced a
leader is, the more she or he is able to overcome the effects of stress. Command,
though, is the factor that overcomes the effects of stress. As for experience is the main
factor enabling leadership under stress. Intelligence is more effective in less stressful
situations. However, the leader's ability to think is more effective when her or his style
is more orderly, premeditated and authoritarian. If the leader is similar to the average
of a group, effective leadership will come from consensus-oriented approaches. In
terms of objectives, the less complicated the tasks a group needs to do, the less of a
need there is for an intelligent and experienced leader.
Pro's
 Cognitive Resource Theory is a constant reminder of the hubris of intelligence.
Stress is common in leadership situations, and this theory emphasizes how it
limits even an intelligent person's ability to lead.
 The theory helps predict whether a certain type of person will be able to lead
in a stressful situation.
 A specific model exists with the theory that allows testing in multiple
environments and with making predictions.
 The theory helps the placement of persons in leadership positions by
suggesting that people be tested for intelligence and the ability to manage
stress in addition to assessing leadership qualities.
Con's
 Intelligence is not defined. There are many types and degrees of intelligence
and the Cognitive Resource Theory doesn't account for them.
 The nature of tasking itself is not addressed. There are many types of
objectives a group may need to achieve and each may involve a different level
of stress and hence, require a different leadership method.
 Many types of stress exist; one cannot simply say "stress". For example, there
is psychological and physical stress and each has its inhibiting effects that the
theory does not account for.
  Stress often is measured subjectively, this in the face of the many measurable
effects in the cognitive, psychological and physical domains. Without a
quantitative evaluation instrument, it is difficult to create research
instruments to evaluate the theory.

Strategic Contingencies Theory

With Strategic Contingencies Theory, a leader depends on his problem solving skills
and a projective personality that is center stage. The leader his so because she or he
is in demand and others cannot solve the problems the leader faces. This gives the
leader bargainingpower. In that the leader cannot be replaced easily, he or she is not
easily displaced, especially by popular will. Social processes depend upon the leader.
Strike out the leader and the system is in danger of collapsing. The ability of one to
maintain leadership in a system through problem solving relies on the
interconnectedness of system units (department, divisions, etc.), social interaction,
communications speed and system infrastructure integrity.
Pro's
 Strategic Contingencies Theory focuses on tasks that need to be done in the
form of problems to be solved, thus de-emphasizing personality. If a person
does not have charisma but is able to solve problem, then s/he can be an
effective leader.
 That problem solving assumes a central role in a leader's ability conforms to a
common sense view of the world; there is little need to provide elaborate
explanation as to why it can work.
 The theory helps to objectify leadership techniques, as opposed to relying on
personalities.
 In situation where persons are rational agents, such as in scientific and formal
academic settings, the Strategic Contingencies Theory would have more force
and effect. That is, it identifies what is common to the group -- the orientation
towards problem solving -- and addresses it directly.
 The theory is simple and uses only the variables affecting power in contingency
control by an organizational subunit. As Hickson admits, in "A Strategic
Contingencies' Theory of Intraorganizational Power" (Webpage link no longer
valid) "Other possible explanations of power are not considered." [Hickson, p.
12] Further research would be needed to test whether such a need exists to
include them. Hickson admits that other variables may affect power but are
assumed to affect it "...in other ways than by control of contingencies." [Ibid.]
Con's
 Power is not defined within any context. In a generic sense, power is the ability
to make others do your will, but there are many exhibitions and manners of it:
psychological, mesmeric, physical, intellectual, charisma, etc.
 As a problem besetting all theories, the context of the situation needs to be
discussed as well as the dynamics of the system. What is the structure of the
system or group to be led?
 A uniform testing instrument does not exist to assess the predictability of the
model.
 Cognitive Resource Theory contravenes Strategic Contingencies Theory. The
issue is what effect stress has on a leader's ability to lead using intelligence and
rationality.
 There is lacking set of parameters governing the introduction of variables in
power used by organizational units.
Transactional leadership Theories (1970's)
Transactional theories, also known as exchange theories of leadership, are characterized by a
transaction made between the leader and the followers. In fact, the theory values a positive
and mutually beneficial relationship.
For the transactional theories to be effective and as a result have motivational value, the
leader must find a means to align to adequately reward (or punish) his follower, for
performing leader-assigned task. In other words, transactional leaders are most efficient
when they develop a mutual reinforcing environment, for which the individual and the
organizational goals are in sync.
The transactional theorists state that humans in general are seeking to maximize pleasurable
experiences and to diminish un-pleasurable experiences. Thus, we are more likely to associate
ourselves with individuals that add to our strengths.
Pro's

 Transactional leadership theories are simplistic and easy to administer.

 The central idea is relatively straightforward to convey to subordinates: obey or else.
 There is minimal need in the short run to train leaders; tell people to obey or else.
 It is much more effortless to parcel out rewards and punishments, inasmuch as the
criterion for doing so is how well a person obeys.
 Complexity endemic to hierarchies is minimized, as in the simplicity of rules and
defining human relationships.
 The transactional leadership theories takes advantage of well-known and tested ideas
(Pavlov and Skinner for example) of human responses, especially in times of need.
 Transactional leadership theories are not hindered with the complexity of differences
in intelligence, emotions, or task complexity.
 When the ideas being imposed on a group are beneficial, the technique may be
advantageous.
 When time is of the essence, the transactional method can be very expeditious.
Con's

 The theory assumes everyone is rational; it disregards emotions and social values.
 It presumes people are always motivated by rewards and punishments. It ignores
altruism or will to power.
 It may be used to exploit people.
 When the demand for workers exceeds the supply, the leader does not have as much
control, being that the subordinate has the ability to simply walk away from the
situation when s/he is well off.
 It has not been demonstrated to be the most effective leadership method in lesser
stressful situations.
 It is an undignified form of leadership and an insult to human capabilities.
 Transactional leadership theories does not cultivate people; it does not bring out the
best in people, but subjugates them.
  The theories encourages destructive competition and in the long-run can impair an
organization, especially from the inside.
 An organization can become dependent upon one or a few leaders; if the leadership
disappears, it will be more difficult to replace it.
Associated Theories

Leader-member Exchange (LMX)

How a leader maintains leadership through working with her or his supporters, those
entrusted with responsibility and advisers defines the Leader-member Exchange
theory as a method for exerting and maintaining leadership.
Pro's
 LMX is intuitive. It is what can be expected from a leader-group structure.
 The theory points to what people could do to strengthen or weaken the
leadership dynamics.
 The theory explains the dynamic of age-old problems of cronyism, the
mechanics of loyalty to a leader and corruption and provides a structure for
not only modeling specific situations but solutions to problems.
Con's
 The LMX theory does not account for leadership personalities very well.
 LMX is so intuitive that it appears to be obvious. One asks, "What really is new
and what is left out?" It leaves the reader with a sense of emptiness.
 How values affect the group dynamics is left out.
Transformational Leadership Theories (1970s)
The Transformational Leadership theory states that this process is by which a person interacts
with others and is able to create a solid relationship that results in a high percentage of trust,
that will later result in an increase of motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic, in both leaders
and followers.
The essence of transformational theories is that leaders transform their followers through
their inspirational nature and charismatic personalities. Rules and regulations are flexible,
guided by group norms. These attributes provide a sense of belonging for the followers as
they can easily identify with the leader and its purpose.
Pro's

 Transformational leadership theories emphasizes the task and organizational integrity

and this helps focus one's attention to more appropriately defining a task.
 The transformational theories emphasizes cooperation, ethics and community in
addition to the higher human values.
 Long-range goals are emphasized which leads to increasing the survivability of a
system.
 It has been showed in studies, such as in gaming theory, that cooperation, as opposed
to competition, is more successful in achieving goals.
 Transformational leadership theories are adaptive and can be tailored to support the
fulfillment of the most pressing of needs in people.
 There is greater stability of a leader's position, as there is greater support by those
who are being led.
 Transformational leadership theories can bring harmony to a situation that could
otherwise be exacerbated by a quarrelsome organization.
 If one has an educated population, transformational leadership theories are more
likely to work.
Con's

 Even if everyone is motivated to do a task it does not assure a successful completion

of that task. Over-enthusiasm for the leader may cloud the group's judgment as to
whether the objectives of an organization are realistic.
 There can be over-dependence upon the leader.
 Members of the organization may resent that their ability to act as individuals has
been restricted.
 People have different personalities, and some may be more ambitious than others
may, with the latter feeling as if they are being pushed beyond their capacities.
 Some individuals may work better as individuals as opposed to collaborating in a team
environment.
 There may be cases when it is difficult to assess whether there is cooperation or mere
conformity. People may want simply to "go along to get along".
  There is the danger of the presence of personality cults, where a leader is so revered
that s/he is only the personality that drives activity.
 The enormity of a task and a fractious or highly competitive environment may
compromise the ability of a leader, applying the concepts of transformational
leadership theories, to gain consensus.

Associated Theories

Burns Transformational Leadership Theory

Burns Transformational leadership Theory, in other words, Burns focuses upon
motivations and values in assessing how a leader approaches power. This aspect of
having that basic ethical system sets leaders apart from those merely aspiring to
power. The first, where ethics is first, are people-centric and that latter are ego centric.
Gandhi and Castro would be the ones leading through morality and be
transformational, while Hitler and Stalin would represent the ego and be
transactional. A transforming leadership is superseded by a transcendent leadership,
where the whole leadership process completely changes the character of an individual
from being a mere leader to one with a noble ethos, and that leader, accordingly
brings the led up into the same atmosphere. One may liken this process to that in
Plato's Republic with the philosopher queen/king , Gandhi, Buddha, or Christ. The
people are led from the world of shadows and illusion to out in the sunlight where
truth presents itself in its own light. Hence, we have an evolution from the most
primitive, transactional, or bargaining, leadership, to transformational leadership, and
finally to transcendent leadership. The leader guides people with the existing values,
goals, capabilities and other resources the followers have through these stages of
development. In the transcended individual, values are not simply the underpinning
of motives, but the values are internalized and are a part of the person.
Pro's
 Burns Transformational Leadership Theory appeals to the "high road" in
developing social values and individual purpose. It is one of, if not the only one
with a coherent philosophy underpinning the nature of leadership.
 The Theory set apart from the rest of the leadership theories and asks the most
fundamental question of what the ultimate goal of leadership is and why one
should be a leader.
 Not only is Burns Transformational Leadership Theory transcendent in overall
scope, but it may be what is necessary if the human species is counting on
saving itself from the numerous potential disasters it faces, such as
overpopulation, global warming, and systemic economic collapse.
Con's
 Burns Transformational Leadership Theory is idealistic and may not be
applicable to populations not wanting or able to go beyond just living as they
do and maintaining their own status quo. In this case, Burns Transformational
 Leadership Theory must be coupled with a motivational theory, as well as
preparing them emotionally and intellectually.
 Burns Transformational Leadership Theory may not work in emergency
situations or situations in which tasks are enormously complex and beyond the
skill level of the average group member.
 A major issue with Burns Transformational Leadership Theory, is how a
transformational leader is to deal with other leaders not so enlightened.

Bass Transformational Leadership Theory

As the word "transformation" suggests, Bass Transformational Leadership Theory is
one of a set of various Transformational Leadership Theories. More information of a
general nature about these can be found in the article Transformational Theories.
Burns originally said that leaders can transform the life of followers by altering their
perceptions, aspirations, expectations, values, and so forth. Qualities within the leader
her or himself are behind the changes. The leader demonstrates, communicates, and
does whatever it takes to get the audience see a vision and exhort them to do things.
Bass main contribution in 1985 to Burns' original theory was describing psychological
mechanisms and setting forth ways of measuring the efficacy of the Bass
Transformational Leadership Theory.
Pro's
 A leader can make a positive difference in a person's life and Bass
Transformational Leadership Theory may be a solution in various cases.
 The "Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire" (MLQ) presents itself as more of a
precise or measured way of assessing leadership factors and how an audience
is transformed.
Con's
 In any test, such as the "Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire" (MLQ), there is
a problem of "test effect", where you cannot get valid results with subsequent
testing. A different test version may help in some cases, but this type of test
would be difficult to overcome. Also, if one knows the scoring method, it is
rather easy to see in what factor categories the questions fall, and one taking
the test could "test out" according to a predetermined classification.
 How "transformational" is transformational? When does that transformation
occur and to what degree? How is it assessed? How does one know if there has
been a transformation and, if so, how long lasting is it? Is it just an ephemeral
feeling?

Kouzes and Posner's Leadership Participation Inventory

A survey was developed and published by James Kouzes and Barry Posner in their
book, The Leadership Challenge (Jossey Bass Publishers, 2002), that asked persons
what characteristics of a leader they admire and would cause them to follow. From
this came the Leadership Participation Inventory. In somewhat of a jocular sense, it
follows the Boy Scout's list of traits befitting a model scout and is a list, major
components of which many person could present without much thought. Kouzes and
Posner discuss five characteristics they deem essential for successful leadership. Role
model, inspiration, facing adversity, getting others to act, and generating enthusiasm
to act.
Pro's
 The inventory is intuitively obvious.
 Specific factors are listed in a checklist form that organizers can use to assess
a group's affinity. to a leader. While they are subjective, they are better than
nothing and can help in a focus on organizational problems.
 The inventory can be used to build programs to develop leaders.
 The model can be adapted, where not all factors are necessary to develop a
leader.
Con's
 There is no quantification of terms and each trait is so subjective that there is
not universal agreement on which each means. The context-free aspect of the
inventory items creates problems in one's ability to use them as assessment
instruments.
 Because of the subjectivity of the terms, it is difficult to test the Leadership
Participation Inventory model uniformly in diverse situations.
 There are different names for the model, thus, this presents a challenge in
assessing its uniform perception. At least two names exist: "Leadership
Participation Inventory" and "Leadership Practices Inventory"
 Does the theory account for the difference between leadership and
management? Management focuses more on instrumentalism and leadership
is a relationship.