This is the final assessment part of a cluster of AACSB initiatives.  You must complete it before thend of the term but after Module 4.  To do this assessment,  first read the following article: Sims Faraj & Yun (2009) and then view (if you have not already done so) the docudrama “

Pirates of Silicon Valley (Links to an external site.)

” (1999)  available online.  
Once you have completed the preparatory work,  Download the Assessment Document (MBA 683 AACSB Assessment x ). Rename the document to begin with your last name.   Follow the instructions on completing it and upload it here when you are done.  

The work here is not extensive, do not develop long essays.  These are relatively short answer responses of about 3-5 sentences with the  essays being no more 250-300 words.

Submission Instructions:

Make sure your name is in the header of the document and include page numbers.  Follow APA formatting in your references as needed, and the general APA conventions on the document (sans-serif 12pt font like Arial, Helvetica or Century Gothic, 1″ margins, etc.). 

Submit your document only as one of the following file types:  ., ,
 

Your assignment will be graded according to the grading rubric.

Very Proficient:

(10)

Thesis is clearly stated and developed; specific examples are appropriate and clearly develop thesis; conclusion is clear; ideas flow together well; good transitions; succinct but not choppy; well-organized.

AACSB Essay Question Set 1:

1.

Describe the narcissistic leader and the Machiavellian leader. Other than the names listed in question 2, give examples of narcissistic and Machiavellian leaders and their behavior discussed in class (other than those listed in question 2 of this question).

2.

Based on the film, “Pirates of Silicon Valley,” (

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v46093745wbEGkakh

) how would you describe Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs using these concepts? Support your answer.

3. Do you believe that these traits are positive or negative in these leaders? Support your answers.

AACSB question set 2:

Using the article provided in class entitled “When should a leader be directive or empowering? How to develop your own situation theory of leadership”, explain the five main leadership styles, providing the following information for each style:

•

Description of the style:

• Explanation of a least two instances when using this style may be appropriate for a leader, including a real or hypothetical business scenario for each instance.

Style #1: _______________ (write in the name of the leadership style)

Description of the style:

Provide thorough explanations of a least two instances when using this style may be appropriate for a leader. For each instance, provide a real or hypothetical business scenario.

1.
2.

Style #2: _______________ (write in the name of the leadership style)

Description of the style:
Provide thorough explanations of a least two instances when using this style may be appropriate for a leader. For each instance, provide a real or hypothetical business scenario.
1.
2.

Style #3: _______________ (write in the name of the leadership style)

Description of the style:
Provide thorough explanations of a least two instances when using this style may be appropriate for a leader. For each instance, provide a real or hypothetical business scenario.
1.
2.

Style #4: _______________ (write in the name of the leadership style)

Description of the style:
Provide thorough explanations of a least two instances when using this style may be appropriate for a leader. For each instance, provide a real or hypothetical business scenario.
1.
2.

Style #5: _______________ (write in the name of the leadership style)

Description of the style:
Provide thorough explanations of a least two instances when using this style may be appropriate for a leader. For each instance, provide a real or hypothetical business scenario.
1.
2.

When should a leader be directive or empowering?
How to develop your own situational theory of
leadership

Henry P. Sims Jr.a,*, Samer Faraj b, Seokhwa Yun c

a Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, U.S.A.
b Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1G5, Canada
c College of Business Administration, Seoul National University, Shinlim Dong, Kwanak Ku, Seoul 151-916,
Republic of Korea

Business Horizons (2009) 52, 149—158

www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

KEYWORDS
Leadership;
Situational;
Situational leadership;
Contingency theory;
Empowering

Abstract A situational theory of leadership attempts to match a particular leader-
ship style or type to specific external circumstances. The general idea is that one type
of leadership will be effective in one situation, but a different type of leadership will
be effective in another situation. Historically, situational theories of leadership have
been too abstract to apply to specific situations. Nevertheless, the concept of
situational leadership retains considerable intuitive appeal. In this article we draw
on our previous research about situational leadership during resuscitation in a trauma
center, in order to derive a general strategy of how a leader can best develop his or her
own personal theory of leadership which best works for their unique circumstances.
The core of the strategic approach involves: (1) defining goals for a specific situation,
(2) defining potential leadership types, (3) identifying situational conditions, (4)
matching a leadership style to the particular situation, and (5) determining how the
match between leadership style and situation will be made. The medical trauma
center we profile provided an interesting example of how leaders considered ele-
ments of the situation to guide their own leadership.
# 2008 Kelley School of Business, I

ndiana University. All rights reserved.

1. Follow the leader

Q: W

* C
E

sam

000
doi:

hat style of leadership is best?

A: It

depends on the situation!

We’ve all heard that same old question hundreds
of times, just as we’ve heard that same answer.

orresponding author.
-mail addresses: hsims@rhsmith.umd.edu (H.P. Sims Jr.),
er.faraj@mcgill.ca (S. Faraj), syun@snu.ac.kr (S. Yun).

7-6813/$ — see front matter # 2008 Kelley School of Business, I
10.1016/j.bushor.2008.10.002

What we really want to know is how a leader should
behave. We want good leaders to lead us, and we
want to be good leaders to others in turn.

There is an Old Norse word, laed, which means
‘‘to determine the course of a ship.’’ We can easily
see how our modern word, lead, comes from this
ancient expression. In our imagination, we may
actually picture ourselves standing at the stern,
handling the tiller, and directing the rowers as we
embark on our great adventure. This is classic leader-
ship, command, and control: giving instruction and

ndiana University. All rights reserved.

mailto:hsims@rhsmith.umd.edu

mailto:samer.faraj@mcgill.ca

mailto:syun@snu.ac.kr

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.10.002

150 H.P. Sims Jr. et al.

directions to others to achieve a common goal.
We can even visualize the modern version of a leader
as the person who determines the course of an orga-
nization.

But aren’t there other types of leadership? For
example, when we think of the charisma that Martin
Luther King, Jr. displayed in his ‘‘I Have A Dream’’
speech, we intuitively recognize that as leadership.
Moreover, in today’s contemporary organizations,
the notion of being ‘‘empowering’’ has received
wide attention. Is leadership also the capability to
empower others?

There are hundreds of definitions of leadership.
No single description can completely encompass the
concept; however, for the purposes of this article,
we define leadership rather broadly as ‘‘influencing
others.’’ The main idea is that a leader is one who
uses a variety of styles or behaviors to influence the
behavior and thoughts of others. Further, based on
our own research, we believe that specific leader-
ship behaviors can be clustered together to form a
‘‘type’’ or a ‘‘style’’ of leadership.

The notion that a particular type of leadership
might be best for a particular situation has been
around for a long time. This concept is often called a
‘‘contingency’’ theory of leadership, or is some-
times referred to as a ‘‘situational’’ view of leader-
ship. The fundamental assumption is that a specific
type of leadership is likely to be more effective in a
specific kind of situation. That is, leadership should
be contingent upon the factors within the specific
situation. Historical examples of contingency theo-
ries of leadership would include Fiedler’s Contin-
gency Theory (Fiedler, 1967), House’s Path-Goal
Theory of Leadership (House, 1971), and–—especial-
ly in the popular literature–—the Hersey and
Blanchard Situational Theory of Leadership (Hersey
& Blanchard, 1984). These theories have added to
the leadership literature; yet, practicing managers
often feel a need for more guidance when applying
these theories to their own specific situations.

Herein, we deal with this problem by deriving a
pragmatic strategy by which individuals can define
their own situational theory of leadership to fit their
particular circumstances. To accomplish this objec-
tive, we will first define five types of leadership
which are well grounded in the research and lead-
ership literature. Then, using a case approach based
on real life situations, we will demonstrate how
these types of leadership have been applied in a
situational manner to a particular environment;
that is, leadership in a medical trauma center.
Finally, we will use the specific example of the
trauma center to derive a more general approach
so that any leader can define a personal situational
theory of leadership.

2. Leadership types

Fundamentally, leadership means influence, or the
ability to influence others. This is a broad definition,
and includes a wide variety of behaviors intended to
influence others. Typically, various kinds of leader-
ship are categorized into typologies. These typolo-
gies specify different types of leadership whereby
particular leaders’ behaviors cluster together to
form a type. Over the years, a myriad of leadership
typologies have been proposed, and there is a wide
variety of theories and typologies that one might
choose as a fundamental framework. For example,
Yukl (2001) discussed 10 different ways that leader-
ship types or styles could be categorized. The use of
types or styles is valuable because it enables all of us
to develop a quick way of thinking about leadership.
Each of us usually has our own version of leadership
type that consists of a label or overall definition of
that type, and also some notion of specific behaviors
that make up that type. Almost everyone can begin
with a simple categorization system that defines a
task-oriented type of leadership versus a people-
oriented type of leadership. However, most theories
in both the academic and popular literature are
somewhat more complex than this simple approach.

Currently, the leadership literature is dominated
by the transactional-transformational paradigm.
This categorization system defines two major types
of leadership. Transactional leadership depends on
the administration of rewards by a leader to influ-
ence a follower. In contrast, transformational lead-
ership entails inspiration, and the transformation of
a follower’s motivational state. While there is some
debate in the literature, many see charismatic
leadership as a part of transformational leadership.

Recently, a theoretical and empirical analysis was
conducted by Pearce et al. (2003) which articulated
an extension of the transactional-transformational
paradigm. Based on the historical literature and
their research, they suggested five major types of
leadership: (1) Aversive, (2) Directive, (3) Transac-
tional, (4) Transformational/Charismatic, and (5)
Empowering. The major contribution of their anal-
ysis was to clearly distinguish Empowering as a
distinctive type of leadership that focuses on
influencing others by developing and empowering
follower self-leadership capabilities. The major ad-
vantage of using this typology is that it incorporates
classical views of leadership (i.e., Directive and
Transactional), the dominant contemporary view
(i.e., Transformational/Charismatic) and, finally, a
newer view (i.e., Empowering) based on modern
theories of participation and self-management. We
begin by presenting these five main leadership types:
the Aversive, the Directive, the Transactional, the

When should a leader be directive or empowering? 151

Transformational, and the Empowering. Later, we
will focus exclusively on the Directive and Empower-
ing types, because these were the main types of
leadership that we observed in our research regard-
ing the actual leadership of trauma teams, which is
our main example in this article.

When many think of leadership, the image of Jack
Welch organizing and leading his GE troops against
competitors may come to mind. This leader is not
afraid to knock some heads to get followers to com-
ply. We see a figure larger than life, who leads by
commanding others. Often,this type isa combination
of aversive and directive types, who uses a position of
authority toforce otherstocomplymainlyoutof fear.
If the job is not performed as commanded, some
significant form of punishment is delivered to the
guilty party. The most common behaviors of the
aversive leader include threats, intimidation, repri-
mand, and punishment. The directive leader is more
benign, but still top-down, expressing leadership
through direction, instructions, and command.

The transactional leader enters into an exchange
relationship with others; he or she influences through
the dispensation of rewards in exchange for compli-
ance. The behaviors most frequently utilized and
displayed by this leader center around personal
and material rewards that are given in return for
effort, performance, and loyalty. Followers take a
calculative view of their work: ‘‘I will do what the
boss wants as long as the rewards keep coming.’’

The transformational leader represents the most
popular current view of leadership. This leader is
characterized by a capacity to create a highly moti-
vating and absorbing vision of the future, and has
the capability to energize others to pursue the
vision. Apple’s Steve Jobs comes to mind as an
example of this type. In the eyes of many, this leader
is almost larger than life, and sometimes attains a
mythic reputation. This is also a top-down type of
leadership, whereby the leader is the source of
wisdom and direction. The leader’s power is based
on a facility to generate a commitment from the
follower, in response to the leader’s vision and
persona. This leader uses behaviors such as formu-
lating and communicating a vision, exhortation,
inspiration and persuasion, and challenge to the
status quo. Often, this leader is seen as charismatic.

The final view of leadership is the empowering
leader, one who leads others to lead themselves.
Manz and Sims (2001) have termed this sort of
individual as the ‘‘SuperLeader.’’ With this type of
leader, the focus is mainly on the followers. In fact,
it is the strength of the followers that enables the
leader to become ‘‘super.’’ The leader’s task is to
help the followers develop their own self-leadership
skills to contribute more fully to the organization.

Most of all, followers need information and knowl-
edge to exercise their own self-leadership.

The empowering leader encourages initiative,
self-responsibility, self-confidence, self-goal set-
ting, positive opportunity thinking, and self-prob-
lem solving. The empowering leader does not give
orders, but encourages responsibility. The philoso-
phy of empowerment is a perspective that reaches
beyond heroic leadership. In the past, the notion of
a leader implied that the spotlight was on him or
her; the alternative viewpoint places the spotlight
on the follower. These followers, in turn, experience
exceptional commitment and ownership of their
work. The essence of empowering leadership is
the challenge to lead followers to discover the
potential within themselves.

While all of these types of leadership can be
important, most leaders want to have some sense
of when a specific leadership type is likely to be more
effective than another. In typical day-to-day situa-
tions, leaders often have to make decisions about
how best to lead a group. For example, they ask
themselves, ‘‘Should I be directive or empowering?’’
This specific question was apparent in our field re-
search at a leading medical trauma center and rep-
resents the dilemma of whether a leader’s objectives
might be best achieved by giving a follower clear
directions about how a task should be done, or
whether a decision might be delegated to a follower.
Overall, the leadership literature provides relatively
little guidance regarding how this question might be
answered in a particular context. To explore this
question further, we will present ideas that were
developed in our research on leadership within the
medicaltraumacenter. This particular trauma center
isan organizationalpartofa majoruniversitymedical
center/hospital/medical school located in the mid-
Atlantic region of the United States, and is generally
considered one of the leading trauma centers in the
world. It is a relatively large, full-service, and promi-
nent facility, with both teaching and medical care
roles.

3. Leadership in the trauma center

The primary purpose of a trauma center is to
treat patients who have received some injury or
trauma, most often a physical injury caused by a
disruptive action such as a fall, car accident, or
gunshot. As a secondary purpose, the trauma center
serves as a training and educational organization
that prepares medical professionals–—especially res-
idents–—for further professional practice. Leader-
ship is a salient issue in a trauma center. Consider
the following hypothetical situation, adapted from

152 H.P. Sims Jr. et al.

our research, which is relevant for every new at-
tending surgeon that works in a trauma center:

Tomorrow morning, you start your new job as
attending surgeon at the Metropolitan Trauma
Care Center. It seems like you’ve been waiting
for this moment forever; first there was medical
school, then a surgical residency, and finally, a
fellowship. You feel fully qualified, and are ex-
cited about reporting for your first shift as an
attending surgeon. You think about all the other
attending surgeons whom you have encountered
over the years, and how different each one of
them has been. Certainly, there is no ‘‘cookie
cutter’’ leadership approach that every attend-
ing surgeon subscribes to. So you think about
yourself. Over the coming few months, you will
have a choice of how you wish to behave. Your
first patient is coming in through the door, and
the resuscitation team is looking at you with an
air of expectancy. You ask yourself, ‘‘What kind
of leader do I want to be?’’

Life in a trauma center ranges from periods of pure
boredom to intense crises. A patient comes to the
center, typically by ambulance or helicopter, and
sometimes is in danger of imminent death. Indeed,
despite the best efforts of the team, some patients
do die. The main function of the trauma team is to
stabilize the patient; that is, to make sure the
patient’s respiration and other vital life systems
are working. This treatment is called resuscitation.
Time is of the essence: trauma patients need to
receive treatment within an hour from injury, or
their body will go into shock and their chances of
survival will be seriously reduced no matter what
medical treatment is administered after that point.

The central organizational unit of the trauma
center is the trauma resuscitation team, which is
cross-functional and interdisciplinary. The team is
composed of several medical specialists, including
an attending surgeon, a fellow (a surgeon training to
be an attending surgeon), an anesthesiologist,
nurses, technicians (e.g., X-ray), surgery and trau-
ma care residents (MDs training for a specialization),
and medical students. The team is a short-cycle
intense task force.

Each patient is treated by the trauma team in a
sequence of events that is urgent and interdepen-
dent. For example, while the surgeon performs pri-
mary and secondary surveys of the patient, the
anesthesiologist examines the airway and adminis-
ters medication, the nurse inserts an intravenous line
and reports on vital signs, and technicians provide
various supporting tasks, such as X-ray. Team compo-
sition is fluid; members may come and go as needed,
as multiple patients may be arriving and require

immediate evaluation and treatment. Treatment is
action oriented and under intense time pressure, and
the team typically interacts with the patient for a
half hour to several hours.

From a leadership viewpoint, the attending sur-
geon is the key figure on the team: the team leader.
The attending is clearly in charge and directs the
decision making in regard to the patient, as well as
the task activities of team members. The goals of
the attending are (1) to ensure a successful resusci-
tation, and (2) to offer learning opportunities for
team members, especially the residents, or the MDs
specializing in surgery. These goals–—to ensure an
optimal outcome for the patient and to ensure
learning–—can sometimes be in conflict and present
a conundrum for the team leader. If one always
optimizes patient safety 100%, then the leader–—
the attending surgeon, who has the greatest skill
and expertise–—would carry out most procedures.
Yet, this would never provide an opportunity for the
resident to develop new skills and knowledge.
At some point, every resident must undertake a
procedure for the very first time. From the leader’s
viewpoint, these conflicting goals present a chal-
lenge of deciding when the resident should be em-
powered to take charge of a patient.

This issue is not unique to trauma teams. Other
urgent situations, characterized by rapid response
and high reliability, face the same dilemma: aircraft
flight teams, air controller teams, nuclear power
operator teams, legal teams, and consulting teams
are all examples. When should a leader be directive?
When should a leader empower?

In the trauma center the attending surgeon is the
formal leader, and can influence the team through
various types of leadership. Even though team mem-
bers may be highly trained in their own disciplines,
the attending is the leader who has supreme author-
ity, who organizes and coordinates the team efforts,
and who is ultimately responsible for the entire
team’s performance (Yun, Faraj, Xiao, & Sims,
2003). As colloquially stated by one resident, ‘‘It’s
all on his or her credit card.’’

During the course of our research, we observed
various types of leadership in the trauma center.
The results presented here came to light via exten-
sive ethnographic observation and interviews at the
trauma center. We initiated our study guided by
leadership theories, but without a specific theoreti-
cal orientation. The themes we offer emerged from
3 years of field work (see Yun et al., 2003 and Faraj
and Xiao, 2006 for more details).

In the trauma care setting, we rarely found trans-
actional leadership. Moreover, we did not find trans-
formational/charismatic leadership. For example,
attending surgeons seldom attempted to provide

When should a leader be directive or empowering? 153

overt inspiration and extra motivation to team mem-
bers during resuscitation, perhaps because in this
arena all of the team members were already profes-
sional, highly trained, and deeply motivated. This
is not to say that attending surgeons were not charis-
matic to some degree, but this mainly stemmed
from their position, and respect for their knowledge
and reputation, rather than overt charismatic leader
behavior.

On rare occasions, because of the stressful and
urgent environment–—and perhaps because of per-
sonality characteristics–—an attending surgeon could
be quite aversive. Aversive leadership includes yell-
ing and shouting, unpleasant verbal reprimand, ob-
noxious task direction, and can sometimes entail
vulgar language. For the most part, however, this
type of behavior was relatively rare.

Much more common was directive leadership,
whereby the leader personally determines the diag-
nosis, has his or her hands on the patient, makes
treatment decisions, and gives information and task
direction to members of the team. Typically, this
leadership is undertaken in a firm and urgent tone,
yet is respectful of the team members. This behav-
ior is classic top-down leadership, with the attend-
ing surgeon clearly taking charge and assuming the
role of centralized decision maker and task giver.
Consider the following, as stated by an observer in
the trauma center: ‘‘You see all kinds [of leader-
ship]. Some of the doctors are very hands-on. . . .
They immediately correct, if they see something
wrong. . . .So you can see things going on and you
know this doctor is going to react to that.’’

We also found a second type of leadership to be
common. This type clearly fit the empowering mod-
el we defined earlier. In this leadership mode, the
attending surgeon delegated decision making to a
resident, who then became the leader of the team
for that particular patient. This scenario is de-
scribed by the trauma center’s Chief of Surgery:

What you really want to do is to get them just
when they are getting ready to fall off the cliff
and do something bad, and say. . .maybe you
should give some thought to ‘‘X.’’ When the
residents call me and [say] ‘‘What do [you]
want me to do with this patient?’’ I say, ‘‘What
I want you to do is to be a doctor. I want you to
go stand by the patient. . .consider the possibi-
lities. . .and tell me what you think. . . .Then,
we will discuss whether that is a good idea or a
bad idea.’’

Empowerment of the resident develops over time. At
first, the attending would require the resident to
stand back and observe the treatment of patients.
Often, the attending would speak out loud, describ-

ing the situation, the decisions involved, and the
rationale for undertaking a particular procedure.
This verbal behavior is a form of direction and in-
struction.

At the next stage, the attending would ask the
resident for recommendations: ‘‘Dr. Jones, what
should we do now?’’ The attending would listen and
give feedback to the resident regarding the correct-
ness and appropriateness of the resident’s recom-
mendation, but would still perform the hands-on
procedures. In the third stage, the resident would
perform the procedures, with the attending standing
at the resident’s shoulder, monitoring each decision
and each task, providing direction and feedback only
if necessary. In the fourth stage, the resident would
have moderately full responsibility, with the attend-
ing surgeon standing back at the edge of the treat-
mentbay,butstillobservingandthen,later,providing
post hoc critique and feedback. At the final stage, the
resident would be given full responsibility, while
the attending surgeon would still be available on
the premises, but perhaps in another part of the
trauma center. This last stage could be described
as relatively full empowerment.

4. When to be directive and when to
empower: A situational approach

Overall, we focus here on directive leadership and
empowering leadership because these were the
main types exhibited by the trauma team attending
surgeons we observed. This finding led to the ques-
tion of why a leader would sometimes be directive,
and at other times, empowering. We first used
qualitative methods, and then, later, a quantitative
experimental approach to investigate this issue
(Yun et al., 2003; Yun, Faraj, & Sims, 2005).

In our research, we observed many instances of
both directive and empowering leadership on the
part of attending surgeons, and noted that the
particular situation often determined whether the
leader was directive or empowering. The first and
most important situational factor was the severity
of the patient’s injury. Was the patient’s injury
critical, or less threatening? Was the patient near
death? As stated by an attending surgeon, regarding
this matter:

It depends on how critical the patient is. If the
patient doesn’t seem to be critical, you will see
the fellow and the attending kind of roll out of
the picture and [back] off, allowing team mem-
bers to carry things on. But if it gets escalated
and [the patient] gets more critical hyperten-
sion, you will tend to see the attending and the

154 H.P. Sims Jr. et al.

Figure 1. How an attending surgeon selects a leader-
ship style

fellow at the bedside, and probably see the
attending make all the calls. So, I guess it varies
[how] critical resuscitations are. . .You try [and]
allow people to learn how to do things.

An attending anesthesiologist raised the safety ver-
sus learning tradeoff even more directly:

I try, with young healthy patients, to give [the
residents] more latitude; with people who are
sicker, I often warn them ahead of time that I’m
going to have a very quick whistle on this one. If
you don’t get it right away, I’m going to have
someone else do it, or I’m going to do it myself.
By and large, the residents understand this.

We observed a clear pattern. The closer the pa-
tient’s condition approached criticality, the more
the leader tended to be directive. The logic in this
finding is that a more severe injury required the
highest degree of expertise that was available, and,
that expertise was to be found in the attending
surgeon. Moreover, time seemed to be a factor.
Severely injured patients imposed more stringent
time constraints. In contrast, when the injury was
less severe, attending surgeons were much more
willing to delegate decision making, hands-on treat-
ment, and team leadership to the resident.

Another situational characteristic found to be an
important factor in determining the surgeon’s lead-
ership was the degree of experience and expertise
of the resident. Residents go through a time honored
cycle in terms of the calendar and their learning
curve. Typically, residents begin their one-year pro-
gram on July 1. For the first month or two, their
expertise is minimal, and typically they are not
empowered to any significant degree. But as time
goes by, the residents work hard and are exposed to
a wide variety of patients, injuries, and conditions.
They observe and receive instruction from the at-
tending surgeons, and are generally eager to under-
take decision making and procedures on their own.
By the time several months have passed, their
expertise has improved considerably, and the at-
tending surgeons become more willing to empower
the residents. When June arrives, residents are
typically fully empowered, except under unusual
circumstances. The main observation was that em-
powering leadership was critical in facilitating
learning opportunities for the residents.

The two situational factors were not equally
important in terms of their impact. While both were
significant, the attending surgeons tended to em-
phasize severity of patient injury as the more im-
portant situational factor. Even for a long-term
medical observer, such as a charge nurse, the spe-
cifics of the situation are the drivers: ‘‘It depends on

the personality of who you are working with and
what you need to get done. It just depends. . .on how
sick the patient is, what you need to get done with
the patient, how strong or weak the team is.’’

In summary, our research uncovered a contin-
gency theory of leadership that seemed to be spe-
cific to the unique environment of the trauma
center. When a patient’s injury is severe and the
resident’s experience is low, attending surgeons are
more likely to exercise directive leadership. When a
patient’s injury is less severe, and when the resi-
dent’s experience is high, attending surgeons are
more likely to exercise empowering leadership.
This logic is represented by a decision diagram that
is illustrated in Figure 1. This figure also represents
a contingency theory, or situational theory, of lead-
ership whereby the type of leadership depends on
situational characteristics that are specific to a
trauma center.

5. A general strategy for defining your
own situational theory of leadership

A typical issue in regard to situational theories of
leadership is the question of whether the theory is
sufficiently useful to be applied in pragmatic sit-
uations. As an example, one might question whether
the situational leadership theory developed as a
result of the trauma center research might apply

When should a leader be directive or empowering? 155

Figure 2. A general strategy to define your own situational theory of leadership

elsewhere. While we think the issue of tradeoffs
between follower development versus optimal task
performance is fairly common, we make no claims
that the trauma center model should apply every-
where. However, our findings are likely to apply to
similar situations whereby complex knowledge work
is organized in teams, training is a core aspect of the
process, and the inputs to the task are uncertain.
For example, legal and consulting teams are often
formed to bring together differentiated expertise.
They may work on different projects each time, in
the same way that each trauma patient is different.
Such teams have differentiated expertise whereby
the senior members (e.g., partners) are expected to
train and guide the more junior members (e.g.,
associates). We believe, therefore, that the general
strategy that we observed in the trauma center
might be applied in other situations. We present a
summary of this general strategy in Figure 2, and
next describe each step in detail.

5.1. Step 1

Step 1 suggests that any leadership strategy should
be dependent on the objectives that the leader

wishes to achieve. In the trauma center, the objec-
tives were relatively clear: the primary goal was
to save patient lives and provide quality patient
care, and the secondary goal was to provide learn-
ing opportunities to develop the capabilities and
practice of medical professionals. Other situations
may have different objectives. For example, we
suggest that the objective of a sports team is to
win, which in turn is often highly dependent on
external motivation of the players. In contrast to
the trauma center, some form of charismatic lead-
ership might be quite appropriate in a sports team
situation.

5.2. Step 2

Step 2 requires the identification of the types of
leadershipthatmightbeappropriateintheparticular
situation. Because of the urgency of care and the
potentialriskstopatient,thetraumacenterprovided
a focus on only two types of leadership, directive and
empowering. A sales team, in contrast, might benefit
from charismatic leadership. A prison situation might
require directive or even aversive leadership to con-
trol destructive behaviors of the followers (inmates).

156 H.P. Sims Jr. et al.

Clearly, a research and development situation re-
quires creativity, so an empowering leadership might
be most appropriate.

5.3. Step 3

Step 3 involves identification of the salient situa-
tional elements in the specific circumstances. In the
trauma center, the severity of patient injury and the
experience of the resident were the most important
situational elements. Other elements might be im-
portant in other situations. A virtual team sited in
multiple locations might be an important element
suggesting a high degree of individual empower-
ment, yet would still require coordination and in-
ternal teamwork leadership behaviors.

5.4. Step 4

Step 4 entails matching a specific leadership style to
the appropriate situation. Severe patient injuries
and inexperienced residents need to be matched
with directive leadership from the attending sur-
geon. A drill sergeant might also use directive be-
havior with a squad of inexperienced soldiers. Yet
that same sergeant, when leading extremely well
trained and experienced soldiers, such as Special
Forces, might assign a high degree of autonomy.
Special Forces are well known for making use of
the most qualified individual, regardless of rank.

5.5. Step 5

Step 5 involves determining how the match between
leadership and the situation might be made. In the
trauma center, matching the behavior occurred
within the individual leader; that is, inside the one
person who can change his or her own leadership
depending on the situation. In other circumstances,
the actual leader might be changed. For example, a
multi-divisional corporation might want a division
general manager who is more directive in a downsiz-
ing or cost control situation. The same corporation
might want a more empowering general manager to
lead a division that is planning an expansion through
the creative use of innovation and new product
development.

6. Advantages and disadvantages of
different leadership types

Based on the lessons learned from the trauma cen-
ter, let us now take the five types of leadership and
examine how a leader may use a situational ap-
proach to selecting a leadership style.

6.1. Aversive

Your objective is to improve the work habits of a
problem employee. You have tried different styles
of leadership in this situation, from providing clear
direction (Directive) to offering rewards for better
performance (Transactional). You have rarely used
an aversive style of leadership because the disad-
vantages of this style include low flexibility, strong
dissatisfaction, high turnover, rebellion, and low
innovation among employees (Ball, Trevino, & Sims,
1994; Pearce et al., 2003; Podsakoff, Bommer, Pod-
sakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). However, in this situa-
tion, you feel that it is important to attract the
employee’s attention quickly and to emphasize
goals that the problem employee must achieve.
You have decided to adopt an aversive approach,
and must now make the match between this lead-
ership style and your behavior. You will have a
private, somber meeting with the employee to let
him or her know, in no uncertain terms, that he or
she will be fired if there is no improvement. Most of
all, during this meeting you will be serious and
severe, just short of being gruff. You will make sure
that the employee knows that this is a last chance
opportunity, and that you will then be prepared to
fire that employee if he or she does not change.

6.2. Directive

Your catering company has just landed its biggest
contract yet: to provide a large banquet for the
attendees of a fundraising auction. You hesitated to
accept the contract at first, as the organization has
given you short notice and your best line cook is
away on vacation. However, you know that a suc-
cessful outcome will provide excellent word-of-
mouth referrals for your company.

You consider yourself, in general, to be an em-
powering leader, but in this situation you suspect
that a more directive approach may be needed.
A directive approach is called for when goals are
clear, when the leader is considerably more experi-
enced than the followers, and when short-term
goals, learning, and compliance are more important
than follower development. Similar to the aversive
style, drawbacks to directive leadership include low
flexibility and low innovation (Judge, Piccolo, &
Ilies, 2004; Pearce et al., 2003). You decide to hire
a temporary line cook for the occasion. This individ-
ual has arrived with strong skills, but is not interest-
ed in full time employment with your company.
You make the match by providing very specific
instructions to the temporary cook. You make it
clear as to what you want done, and plan to be
hands-on in the kitchen on the day of the event.

When should a leader be directive or empowering? 157

6.3. Transactional

You are the manager of a wholesale sales unit that
employs a dozen salespeople. Top management has
just handed down the target sales for this quarter.
You decide that a transactional style of leadership
may be the best way for your team to achieve its
goals. A transactional style of leadership may be
chosen when the leader has control, when turnover
is low, and when the followers desire rewards. Dis-
advantages of this style of leadership include low
innovation and emotion, as well as typically moder-
ate motivation since it is dependent on rewards
(Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1994;
Podsakoff et al., 2006). With the concurrence of the
Human Resources salary administration depart-
ment, you set up an incentive program whereby
each sales person has an opportunity to win a trip
to Bermuda if they accomplish specific benchmarks.

6.4. Transformational/Charismatic

You have been appointed manager of a product
design unit that has been riddled with internal
conflict, and which is having difficulties with exter-
nal liaison with other units in the company. You have
observed considerable ‘‘turf wars’’ in your first
month on the job, and feel that productivity is
suffering as a result. An important, immediate goal
is to improve relations among the members of your
unit, as well as relationships with the other units of
the organization. A transformational, or charismat-
ic, style of leadership is called for. This style of
leadership can be useful in situations in which high
performance is required, or when a crisis looms.
A leader will use a transformational style to gener-
ate excitement about a project and when a long-
term commitment is needed. Unfortunately, fol-
lowers may lose their motivation when the leader
is absent. Also, a charismatic leadership style may
lead to incorrect or unethical goals (Bass, Avolio,
Jung, & Berson, 2003).

You decide to call the unit together as a group
next Monday morning, and you intend to give them a
speech and a ‘‘mission.’’ In this speech, you will
emphasize teamwork: both internal teamwork and
external teamwork with the other units with which
the product design unit interacts. You will empha-
size how much more fun it is to work in an outfit that
has strong team cohesion. You will deliberately be
more ‘‘rah-rah’’ than you usually are, starting with
standing on a stool when you begin the meeting. This
is the time to go a bit over the top, to see if you can
get a response. Of course, you will need to do a lot of
follow-up to assure that teamwork is continually
emphasized.

6.5. Empowering

Your research and development division hired two
new employees last July. You have concluded that
both have good fundamental skills, and a fairly high
degree of initiative and internal motivation. You
believe that both employees have the capacity to
undertake expanded responsibilities and to work
more on their own without close direction. To
develop their creativity and flexibility, you adopt
an empowering type of leadership. With this style
of leadership, you expect high long-term perfor-
mance, high follower self-confidence, high follow-
er development, and very high innovation. Once
established, this style of leadership works well in
the absence of the leader (Manz & Sims, 1987,
2001; Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006). Empow-
ering leadership may lead to some initial confusion
or frustration. Therefore, with inexperienced fol-
lowers, you would use empowering leadership only
in non-emergent situations. As experience pro-
gresses, you may use empowering leadership in
more emergent situations. The organizational
context must also be considered, as empowering
leadership may be at odds with the larger organi-
zational culture.

With these factors in mind, you schedule a private
meeting with each employee so that you can plan a
program of expanded task responsibilities and self
development over the next 6 months. Most of all,
you tell yourself that it’s time to back off a bit and
give them significantly increased opportunities to
undertake projects on their own, so that they can
learn and gain more experience.

7. A summation

Contingency or situational theories of leadership
deal with the notion that different circumstances
call for different types of leadership. The general
notion of situational leadership certainly has intui-
tive appeal to anyone interested in leadership. Many
generic theories of leadership have been proposed
over the years; yet, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Ahearne,
and Bommer (1995) characterized the empirical
search for situational elements of leadership as
similar to finding a needle in a haystack.

Our research has taken a different approach to
situational leadership, mainly by investigating lead-
ership within a specific environment. In the trauma
center, our investigation uncovered strong evidence
that attending surgeons did indeed differentiate
their own leadership depending on the situation.
We can speculate as to whether the results of our
particular research project might apply to other

158 H.P. Sims Jr. et al.

situations. The most straightforward linkage would
be to organizational situations whereby emergency
or crisis issues are salient; for example, fire fighting,
cockpit emergency, or public safety. Yet we believe
that these issues are also present in non-emergency,
everyday organizational situations. In a software
development team, for instance, we would expect
that the degree of empowerment would depend on
how timely and critical the project’s due date is,
and the experience of the development team. Over-
all, we would expect that leaders are generally less
prone to empower others when subordinates are less
experienced and when the particular project or task
is absolutely critical to the organization. We would
also expect that leaders are more likely to move to
empowerment when they have a deliberate agenda
to develop the skills and experiences of their fol-
lowers.

We believe the most important contribution of
our research is the discovery of a general approach
to defining the specific situational elements within a
particular environment, and developing guidelines
of how leadership can be optimized within that
environment.Anymanagercan,infact,developtheir
own personal model of situational leadership that
applies to their own situation. Indeed, there is an
answer to whether you should be directive or em-
powering. Not surprisingly, ‘‘It really does depend!’’

References

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. (1999). Re-examining the
components of transformational and transactional leadership
using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441—462.

Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1994). Just and
unjust punishment: Influences on subordinate performance
and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2),
299—322.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational
effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage:
Thousand Oaks, CA.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003).
Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational
and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(2), 207—218.

Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Coordination in fast response envir-
onments. Management Science, 52(8), 1155—1169.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1984). The management of organi-
zational behavior (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321—339.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones?
The validity of consideration and initiating structure in lead-
ership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36—51.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead
themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1), 106—129.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2001). The new superleadership:
Leading others to lead themselves. San Francisco: Berrett-
Kohler.

Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P., Jr., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E.,
Smith, K. A., & Trevino, L. (2003). Transactors, transformers
and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical
typology of leadership. Journal of Management Development,
22(4), 273—307.

Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B.
(2006). Relationships between leader reward and punish-
ment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and
behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2),
113—142.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Ahearne, M., & Bommer, W. H.
(1995). Searching for a needle in a haystack: Trying to identify
the illusive moderators of leadership behaviors. Journal of
Management, 21(3), 422—470.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering
leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge shar-
ing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 49(6), 1239—1251.

Yukl, G. A. (2001). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Yun, S., Faraj, S., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2005). Should I be directive or
empowering? Contingent leadership in high risk and high
reliability situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6),
1288—1296.

Yun, S., Faraj, S., Xiao, Y.,& Sims, H. P., Jr. (2003). Team leadership
and coordination in trauma resuscitation. In M. M. Beyerlein,
D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Team-based organizing.
Amsterdam: JAI Press.

• When should a leader be directive or empowering? How to develop your own situational theory of leadership

Follow the leader
Leadership types
Leadership in the trauma center
When to be directive and when to empower: A situational approach
A general strategy for defining your own situational theory of leadership
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Advantages and disadvantages of different leadership types
Aversive
Directive
Transactional
Transformational/Charismatic
Empowering
A summation
References