The Two Types of Leaders

Taking leadership dichotomies at face value.

There’s an old joke, “There are two types of people: those who divide people into two types and those who don’t.” (OK, I guess it’s only funny if you are a psychologist). But it is interesting that when it comes to thinking about people, in general, but thinking about our leaders/bosses, in particular, we tend to divide them into two types: “good” or “bad,” “effective” or “ineffective.”

There is a cognitive “heuristic” (a heuristic is a sort of mental shortcut) that compels us to categorize things into dichotomies. The history of research on leadership is full of these dichotomies. Leaders were classified into two types, based on their decision-making styles, so there were theories that focused on “autocratic” vs. “democratic” leaders. Those who hold onto the decision-making power and those who share it.

Or, Theory X and Theory Y leaders. Theory X leaders think of followers as basically unmotivated and rather unsophisticated which means the leader needs to motivate and direct followers’ activities. The Theory Y leader believes that followers are self-motivated and self-directed and so takes a more hands-off style.

Or, task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders that we just talked bout. Those who focus on getting the task done, and those who focus on the social process and team aspects of leading.

These dichotomies represent fairly old concepts of leaders. Newer approaches try to view leadership as more complex — an interaction between different types of leaders, different types of followers, and the situational factors that interact with leadership (and followership).

Yet, people may still be compelled to think in dichotomies. In our own research on ethical leadership, we’re finding that people tend to categorize leaders as “ethical” or “unethical,” “good” or “bad,” with little in between. Believe me, it’s more complicated than that.

For Development: Be careful not to overgeneralize and fall prey to dichotomous thinking. Realize that leadership is complex. Recognize when you are making sweeping generalizations and don’t fall for cognitive heuristics when deep analysis is called for.