Implicit Leadership Theories
Implicit Leadership Theories
Since the beginning of leadership literature, many researchers and studies tried to explain effective leadership from different perspectives. Early studies focused on the identification of traits that distinguished leaders from followers. Despite many studies have been carried out in the field, there was no universal list of traits presented containing characteristics that would guarantee success of leaders (Lussier & Achua, 2004). This failure led to the shift of attention towards behavioral leadership theories. Researchers tried to identify differences in the behavior of effective and ineffective leaders. Although several widely-used behavioral models have been built up, such as Mintzberg’s leadership theory, there was no ultimate agreement among researchers of the field, because studies generated mixed results (Lussier & Achua, 2004; Kenney et al., 1994). As a result, scholar’s interest turned towards contingency leadership theories, which aim to explain the required leadership style, given certain leader traits and/or behaviors, followers and situation (Lussier & Achua, 2004).
More recently, Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) have been used to demonstrate the relationship between the perception about leaders and leader performance (Kenney et al., 1994). According to ILT “individuals have implicit beliefs, convictions, and assumptions concerning attributes and behaviors that distinguish leaders from followers, effective leaders from ineffective, and leaders from evil leaders” (House & Javidan, 2004, p.16). These beliefs, also referred to as prototypes (Foti & Lord, 1987; Phillips, 1984; Lord et al., 1984; Kenney et al., 1994), mental models (Dorfman et al., 2004), schemas (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Foti & Lord, 1987), cognitive categories (Foti & Lord, 1987; Lord et al., 1984), and stereotypes (Dorfman et al., 2004), are assumed to affect the acceptance of leaders and the subordinates’ reactions to leader behavior (Dorfman et al.,
Since the beginning of leadership literature, many researchers and studies tried to explain effective leadership from different perspectives. Early studies focused on the identification of traits that distinguished leaders from followers. Despite many studies have been carried out in the field, there was no universal list of traits presented containing characteristics that would guarantee success of leaders (Lussier & Achua, 2004). This failure led to the shift of attention towards behavioral leadership theories. Researchers tried to identify differences in the behavior of effective and ineffective leaders. Although several widely-used behavioral models have been built up, such as Mintzberg’s leadership theory, there was no ultimate agreement among researchers of the field, because studies generated mixed results (Lussier & Achua, 2004; Kenney et al., 1994). As a result, scholar’s interest turned towards contingency leadership theories, which aim to explain the required leadership style, given certain leader traits and/or behaviors, followers and situation (Lussier & Achua, 2004).
More recently, Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) have been used to demonstrate the relationship between the perception about leaders and leader performance (Kenney et al., 1994). According to ILT “individuals have implicit beliefs, convictions, and assumptions concerning attributes and behaviors that distinguish leaders from followers, effective leaders from ineffective, and leaders from evil leaders” (House & Javidan, 2004, p.16). These beliefs, also referred to as prototypes (Foti & Lord, 1987; Phillips, 1984; Lord et al., 1984; Kenney et al., 1994), mental models (Dorfman et al., 2004), schemas (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Foti & Lord, 1987), cognitive categories (Foti & Lord, 1987; Lord et al., 1984), and stereotypes (Dorfman et al., 2004), are assumed to affect the acceptance of leaders and the subordinates’ reactions to leader behavior (Dorfman et al.,