The basis for empirical studies of leadership as a concept is represented by conventional theories that arose in the 19th and 20th centuries. The first leadership theories dealt with the study of leadership from the aspects of traits, skills, and competencies, and the most famous are the Theory of the Great Man (1840) and the Theory of Leader Traits (1930–1940). The later development of theories related to the behaviour of leaders, as well as to the study of relationship between the leader and his followers, leadership styles, the observation of leadership in the context of changes and organisational processes.
Theories related to the study of leadership behaviour were known as the Iowa, Ohio and Michigan studies. Researchers from the University of Iowa, Kurt Lewin and his colleagues, identified three basic leadership styles in an experimentally created environment: autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire style. They published this research in 1939 in the article entitled “Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally created social climates” [
25]. A few years later, research conducted at the universities of Ohio and Michigan indicated that leaders basically exhibit two types of behaviour: behaviour that is focused on performing tasks and achieving goals, and leadership behaviour that is focused on building good interpersonal relationships. To determine a leader’s orientation, Ohio State University researchers constructed the Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). This form of questionnaire contained over 150 questions about leadership behaviour. A few years later, Ralph Stogdill published a shortened version of the LBDQ-XII questionnaire, which is used in many studies [
26] (p. 48). Considering that none of the early studies on leadership behaviour could identify one universal style that would be applicable in all situations, this led to a new shift in the study of leadership and new theories, such as contingency theories. The most famous contingent theories are Fiedler’s theory [
27], Participative leadership, Situational leadership [
28,
29], and Path–goal theory [
30,
31]. The appearance of modern leadership theories, which differ from classical ones in the fact that leadership as a process does not rely only on a set of leader’s character traits but considers the effectiveness of leadership as a relationship between leader and follower, was conditioned by the modern way of doing business and the increasingly dynamic changes that came from the external environment. This is how the Theory of Transformational Leadership was developed [
32,
33], as well as the Theory of Charismatic Leadership [
34].
2.1. Behavioural Models of Leaders and Managers
The behaviour of leaders and managers depends on numerous factors, among which the most significant are the personal characteristics of the leader. Based on personal characteristics, one can also predict the behaviour, that is, the leadership style that the leader or manager prefers. The leadership style represents the way in which the leader makes decisions, solves problems, chooses work methods, motivates, and communicates with employees, manages processes and values. Leaders can be recognisable by a certain style. They can apply one or combine several styles. In addition to the characteristics of the leader’s personality, the choice of style is also influenced by the characteristics of the job, the task, the situation, the environment, and the characteristics of the employees. A correctly chosen style is almost always a predictor of a leader’s success, motivation, and inspiration of employees, as well as goal achievement. The results of many studies indicate that leaders can influence the performance of teams, work groups or organisations by their behaviour [
35] (p. 466). Given that the choice of a leader’s style depends on many factors, there is no leadership style that is universal and that gives the best results, but the effectiveness of the style depends on the situation.
Fernandez et al., 2010 developed a concept of integrated leadership that is applicable in the public sector, which includes five major models or orientations of leader behaviour such as: task-oriented leadership that corresponds to an authoritarian style; leadership oriented to interpersonal relations, which refers to the participative behaviour of the leader; change-oriented leadership that corresponds to the transformational style; diversity-oriented leadership and integrity-oriented leadership, which implies the leader’s orientation to fulfilling legal regulations, standards, fairness to employees and all interested parties’ common interests [
13]. Bearing in mind the multitude of behavioural models depending on the characteristics of the leader and the requirements of the environment, for the purposes of this analysis we single out the supportive, participatory, directive, charismatic and transformational behaviour of leaders, i.e., managers [
36], which corresponds to the concept of integrated leadership in the public sector developed by Fernandez et al. (2010).
House (1971) considers that the supportive behaviour of leaders is one of the key characteristics of effective leaders [
37]. Furthermore, Meierhans et al., 2008 state that supportive leader behaviour results in employee commitment to the organisation, leading to increased individual and group performance [
38]. Supportive behaviour implies that the leader provides support and assistance to employees in the implementation of tasks and achieving goals, as well as feedback on the results, which increases the level of satisfaction among employees [
39,
40].
Participatory leadership behaviour implies the inclusion of employees in the process of decision-making and defining goals. The leader consults with employees and uses their suggestions in making decisions [
41]. The positive effects of the participative behaviour of leaders are multiple. Participation in decision-making and defining goals raises the level of motivation and self-confidence of employees, which inevitably contributes to their satisfaction [
42]. In addition, participation enables the acceptance, better understanding and implementation of decisions and organisational goals, which is important for the process of acceptance and implementation of changes. Joint participation in decision-making affects employee performance [
43,
44] and contributes to establishing good interpersonal relationships [
45]. However, this model of behaviour is not applicable for large, oversized groups [
46].
Bass indicates that directive leadership results in less acceptance of managerial decisions compared to participative leadership. For directive behaviour, it is characteristic that the leader makes decisions independently, without the participation of employees, takes responsibility for them, makes it clear to employees what is expected, and gives instructions to employees regarding the implementation of a task [
47]. Directive behaviour traditionally dominates the work of the public sector. This style is characteristic of large systems in which structure and bureaucratic culture are emphasised. In directive style, employee behaviour is strictly controlled through punishments, rewards, guidelines, defined rules, standards, procedures [
48]. This style is difficult to adapt to changes.
In the Theory of Charismatic Leadership, Robert House (1976) states that charismatic leaders behave in a unique way that has specific effects on followers [
34]. The author indicates that charismatic leaders possess characteristics such as dominance, having a strong desire to influence others, self-confidence, and a sense of moral values of an individual. The leader’s charismatic behaviour stems from his personality and charisma. Charismatic leadership behaviour implies a clear vision, highlighting values that are in line with the vision and establishing strong connections with followers [
49]. An important element is the way leaders communicate with employees and explain the vision and the need for change. They model the behaviours of employees by indicating how the vision can be realised [
16]. The influence of charismatic leadership on followers increases with the growth of the leader’s status and expertise. Some authors consider that the receptivity of charismatic leadership is limited in organisations with a bureaucratic structure, such as organisations that belong to the public sector [
16]. It is important to point out that charismatic leaders have high moral and ethical standards of behaviour because: they articulate ideological goals that include moral values; set high goals and support followers in meeting them; and encourage follower motivation that is oriented toward meeting the goals. The effects of charismatic leadership are reflected in expressed trust, respect and loyalty that result in the willingness to fully follow the ideas of the leader, that is, the vision that the leader promotes [
26] (p. 121).
Transformational leaders inspire and motivate followers through charisma, intellectual simulation, and individual appreciation to embrace change and follow through on vision realisation. The result of the process is a new value, a different social environment, and culture, that is, a better state of the organisation. Transformational leaders are “pro-social” leaders who inspire employees to achieve exceptional results [
50]. Bernard Bass (1990) states that transformational leadership motivates followers to do more than what is expected of them by raising the level of followers’ awareness of the importance and value of idealised goals, i.e., followers’ awareness moves towards higher-order needs [
48]. In this way, followers are encouraged to overcome their own interests for the sake of the interests of the team or organisation. Furthermore, in the mid-eighties of the last century, Bernard Bass expanded the theory of transformational leadership, which was based on the works of James MacGregor Burns (1978) and Robert House (1976), by paying more attention to the needs of followers than to the needs of leaders, suggesting that transformational leadership could apply to situations where the results are not positive. The explanation is focused on the fact that the leader should see the necessity of changing the organisation before it falls into a crisis. Awareness of the need for change is the starting point of initiating the change itself. The second step is preparing employees to accept the change, as well as paying attention to the needs of followers, which emphasises the importance of followers in the leadership process [
51]. Consequently, this approach gained popularity in the late 1990s [
33]. By applying a transformational style, followers’ motivation levels are raised, and they are enabled to reach their full potential. Transformational leaders encourage creative thinking and inventiveness in employees, set high expectations for followers, and inspire them to take on the challenge. They provide all the support to the followers in the realisation of the goals and vision. By using three factors—inspirational motivation, idealised influence, and intellectual stimulation—transformational leaders essentially direct, inspire, and empower their employees.
The behavioural models of leaders and managers that traditionally dominate the work of public organisations are based on “command and control” [
52,
53]. The directive or commanding style, as well as the transactional style, which have a lot of similarities, are characteristic of large systems where structure is emphasised [
36]. Namely, in both styles, the behaviour of employees is strictly controlled through punishments, rewards, guidelines, defined rules, standards, and procedures [
48]. Unlike the directive style, the transactional style can be applicable to employees who are motivated exclusively by material rewards, because it is based on a pure transaction, that is, an exchange of values between leaders and employees [
51]. Furthermore, this style is applicable to jobs that are routinely performed according to pre-set rules and procedures, as is the case in bureaucratic systems. However, both styles are difficult to adapt to changes. Since the public sector faces certain challenges when implementing reforms, leadership styles based on hierarchy and rank are not the best approach [
54]. Consequently, behavioural styles should change in accordance with the challenges and demands of certain situations, that is, they should follow an evolutionary course [
36].
2.2. Behavioural Models of Leaders and Managers in Different Cultural Groups
The researchers of the GLOBE project studied the similarities and differences be-tween cultural groups in terms of culture and leadership within 10 regional groups: the Anglo-American area, Latin Europe, Nordic Europe, Germanic Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Confucian Asia. The overall goal of the GLOBE project was to determine how people from different cultural groups view leadership. In addition, the researchers wanted to determine the ways in which cultural characteristics are associated with culturally accepted leadership behaviour. The results indicated that leadership varies depending on the cultural characteristics of different cultural groups, i.e., clusters [
26] (p. 218).
Backhaus and Vogel (2022) conducted a meta-analysis of leadership in the public sector based on 151 studies published in Public Administration journals since 2000, shown in
Table 1. In addition to conceptual diversity, the results of this study indicated a relationship between leadership and outcomes. For example, the leadership of the public sector in the Anglo-American area indicates more favourable outcomes (such as motivation, job satisfaction, organisational commitment, work/job engagement, proactive/innovative behaviour, participation, performance, etc.) compared to the leadership of the Germanic, Scandinavian, East Asian and the Eastern European area, where there is a high degree of formalisation that can neutralize the effects of leadership. The reason for this outcome lies in the fact that transformational, supportive, or empowering leadership is dominant in public sector organisations in the Anglo-American area [
5]. As for the Scandinavian area, which is characterized by lower power distances and collectivism, participative leadership and team-oriented leadership are more prevalent [
55].
Bearing in mind the above, the question that arises relates to the behavioural model of leaders and managers that should be applied when implementing public sector reforms in accordance with the cultural group of Eastern Europe, to which the Republic of Serbia belongs. The cultural cluster of Eastern Europe is specific for its high degree of collectivism, as opposed to its low degree of orientation towards the future and avoidance of uncertainty [
26] (p. 215).