An attempt at a consentience regarding formal leadership.

Given the importance of leadership in organizations, an attempt to integrate the many disparate concepts and constructs related to this topic is long overdue. With that goal in mind, an integrative framework was created that focuses on three distinct levels of abstraction--big leadership, mid-range leadership, and small leadership. Within this tripartite taxonomy, an attempt was made to reconcile some vexing issues that have been frustrating academics and practitioners alike.

Big leadership is viewed as transformational in nature, requiring a charismatic visionary being in the right place at the right time. Both mid-range and small leadership, however, are transactional in nature, but small leadership is so to a fault.

Our approach to mid-range leadership theory attempts to identify the important dimensions of transactional leadership, differentiate the normative from the situational ones, and specify the conditions under which the situational leadership factors apply.

In our framework, small leadership consists of the myriad of quotidian interactions between the leader and subordinates that are easy to overlook but have an important cumulative effect on the social compact between leader and subordinates that is so essential to gaining subordinate compliance.

Lastly, whenever appropriate, contingencies are specified at all three levels, and substitutes for leadership identified. While not a mega-theory, our leadership framework is integrative and, thus, useful to managers who lead organizations, teams, and individuals.

**********

If the copious leadership literature reveals a consistent theme, it is the lack of effort toward integration. While generalized definitions and disparate theories abound, it is difficult to find a useful operational definition and an integrative framework of leadership. Furthermore, even though most leadership authorities acknowledge a distinction between managership and leadership, a consensus is lacking regarding their relationship to one another. Some authorities, such as Gardner (1987), subsume managership under leadership; while others, led by Mintzberg (1973), consider leadership to be just one of the many managerial roles. This state of affairs is quite inexplicable in light of the importance of the topic.

Some Vexing Issues