Belasen and Frank (2007) in their paper "Competing values leadership: quadrant roles and personality traits", sought to establish a system of number and order of leadership roles and tag the associated personality traits which determine leadership roles to them. Thus it's an effort at establishing a system of metrics to define an otherwise indeterminate and disparate amount of values. Their use of LISREL to determine the extent of fit between competing values framework (CVF) and quadrants is essentially one loaded with a priori tenets of recalcitrant logic.
Next Haakonsson, Burton, Obel and Lauridsen (2008) in their paper "How failure to align organizational climate and leadership style affects performance", hypothesize that "misalignments between climate and leadership style are problematic for organizational performance". The study is based on regression analysis of data collected through a questionnaire. Though the authors acknowledge an element of prejudice and bias on the part of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), there is still a considerable divergence among variables because the study is primarily a posteriori in its outcomes. Despite the existence of various influences on organizational culture and leadership style, a common tendency to produce a confluence of ideological stances on the part of the two cannot be altogether absent either.
Finally Lakshman in his paper "Attributional theory of leadership: a model of functional attributions and behaviors", applies cognitive complexity theory and attributional complexity theory to the study of positive and functional contingency model of leadership style with primary focus on the strategic behaviors of the manager/leader. According to the author in so far as subordinates are self-efficacious and motivated by a particular leadership style there is no divergence from the trend-setting behavioral construct. This assumption needs to be qualified against the backdrop of existing literature on the subject to be accepted as of any significance.
It's feasible at the outset to delineate the differences in theoretical behavioral constructs of the three leadership styles to bring out the a priori and a posteriori arguments presented in favor and against the primacy and immediacy of each paradigm as found in the causal correlations and regressions. Secondly the degree of convergence and divergence between the three could be examined with reference to inherent variables of them along with the construction of a systematic contingency model of leadership behavioral constructs. The latter need not necessarily bear testimony to the original constructs for divergence in detail is as tolerable as the totem pole of leadership hierarchy fits into a predetermined pattern. Finally divergence criteria and their origin would be traced to support the existing diversity of leadership literature and choices thereof.
Belasen and Frank place much emphasis on the relationship between leadership role and personality traits. Here a more meaningful exposition of theoretical underpinnings of personality traits in strategic management can be traced back to Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) who identified six such personality traits -drive, leadership motivation, honesty and/or integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability and knowledge about the business (Kirkpatrick