In order to understand what a leader is, and some of the different aspects of the leadership role, it is necessary to, from an academic perspective, gain a greater understanding of the different leadership theory paradigms (Lussier & Achua, 2013). “A leadership theory paradigm is an explanation of some aspect of leadership; theories have practical value because they are used to better understand, predict, and control successful leadership” (Lussier & Achua, 2013, p. 19). The primary leadership theory paradigms in the history of leadership studies are trait theory, behavioral leadership theories, contingency leadership, and integrative leadership (Lussier & Achua, 2013). While it is well and good to know what those leadership theory paradigms are, simply knowing their names is not enough. As such, the following serves as a presentation of the definitions of each.

Leadership trait theory refers to the idea that there are certain characteristics or traits that an individual is born with that make him or her an effective leader, further arguing that a person will not be an effective leader without those traits being present (Lussier & Achua, 2013). Recent years have brought about changes to leadership trait theory, stating that an individual with certain traits is more likely to be an effective leader with those traits than without, but no longer indicates that a person without those traits will not be an effective leader (Dinh, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden, & Hu, 2014).

Behavioral leadership theories indicate that the behaviors of the leader are what make him or her a poor or effective leader (Lussier & Achua, 2013). In this context, behavior refers to the practices that the leader engaged in while on the job, as opposed to behaviors that he or she may engage in that do not have an effect on the job or which occur outside of the job setting (Lussier & Achua, 2013). Different subcategories of this paradigm concentrate on the nature of managerial work and the type of behaviors that are best suited to particular leadership positions, based on job requirements and even industry in which the individual works (Lussier & Achua, 2013; Piccolo & Buengeler, 2013).

Contingency leadership refers to the idea that the effectiveness of the individual in the leadership position is dependent on the application of given behaviors by the leader as needed based on the situation faced within the context of the job or the situation that the company is facing (Miner, 2015). Thus, if the company is experiencing a crisis situation, the leader may adopt different behaviors or styles of leadership than when the company is experiencing a period of high growth. The leader in this paradigm is fluid based on the needs of the company, the job, and based on the situation that he or she faces within the given context.

The final leadership paradigm to be discussed is integrative leadership. Within this paradigm is the “attempt to combine the trait, behavioral, and contingency theories to explain successful, influencing leader-follower relationships” (Lussier & Achua, 2013, p. 20). This particular paradigm works to combine different aspects of all the prior paradigms in order to create a more seamless approach to understanding why an individual may behave a certain way and be identified as a leader when another individual is not. This is the most recent of the paradigms, allowing for a synthesis of all previous information compiled on what it means to be in a position of leadership (Lussier & Achua, 2013).

In working to understand each of the different paradigms of leadership, it becomes possible to gain greater insight into what it means to be a leader. The identification of this information works to ensure that the analyst or the researcher has the background information on the historical development of the topic to make an informed decision regarding the events or facts with which he or she is presented.