Leadership
Leadership
Leadership is
both a research area, and a practical skill encompassing the ability of an
individual, group or organization to
"lead", influence or guide other individuals, teams, or entire organizations. Often viewed as a contested term, specialist
literature debates various viewpoints, contrasting Eastern and Western approaches
to leadership, and also (within the West) North American versus European
approaches.
U.S. academic environments
define leadership as "a process of social influence in which a person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common and
ethical task". Others have
challenged the more traditional managerial view of leadership which believes
that it is something possessed or owned by one individual due to their role or
authority, and instead advocate the complex nature of leadership which is found
at all levels of the institution, both within formal roles.
Studies of leadership have
produced theories involving traits, situational
interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values, charisma, and intelligence,
among others.
Historical
views
In the field of political leadership, the Chinese doctrine of the Mandate of Heaven postulated the need for rulers to govern justly and the right of subordinates to overthrow emperors who appeared to lack divine sanction.
Pro-aristocracy thinkers have postulated that leadership
depends on one's "blue blood" or genes. Monarchy takes
an extreme view of the same idea, and may prop up its assertions against the
claims of mere aristocrats by invoking divine sanction (see the divine
right of kings). On the other hand, more
democratically inclined theorists have pointed to examples of meritocratic leaders, such as the Napoleonic marshals profiting from careers open to talent.
In the autocratic/paternalistic strain
of thought, traditionalists recall the role of leadership of the Roman pater
familias. Feminist thinking,
on the other hand, may object to such models as patriarchal and posit against them "emotionally attuned,
responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance,
which is sometimes associated with matriarchies".
"Comparable to the Roman
tradition, the views of Confucianism on 'right
living' relate very much to the ideal of the (male) scholar-leader and his
benevolent rule, buttressed by a tradition of filial piety."
Leadership
is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and
discipline ... Reliance on intelligence alone results in rebelliousness.
Exercise of humaneness alone results in weakness. Fixation on trust results in
folly. Dependence on the strength of courage results in violence. Excessive
discipline and sternness in command result in cruelty. When one has all five
virtues together, each appropriate to its function, then one can be a leader. —
Jia Lin, in commentary on Sun Tzu, Art of War.
Machiavelli's The Prince,
written in the early-16th century, provided a manual for rulers
("princes" or "tyrants" in Machiavelli's terminology) to
gain and keep power.
Prior to the 19th century, the
concept of leadership had less relevance than today — society expected and
obtained traditional deference and obedience to lords, kings, master-craftsmen
and slave-masters. (Note that the Oxford English Dictionary traces
the word "leadership" in English only as far back as 1821.)
Historically, industrialization, opposition to the ancien regime and
the phasing out of chattel slavery meant
that some newly-developing organizations (nation-state republics,
commercial corporations) evolved a need
for a new paradigm with which to characterize elected politicians and
job-granting employers - thus the development and theorizing of the idea of
"leadership". The functional relationship between leaders and
followers may remain,but acceptable (perhaps euphemistic) terminology has
changed.
From the 19th century too, the
elaboration of anarchist thought called the whole concept of leadership into
question. One response to this denial of élitism came with Leninism - Lenin (1870-1924)
demanded an élite group of disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, bringing into existence
the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Other historical views of
leadership have addressed the seeming contrasts between secular and religious
leadership. The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have recurred and had
their detractors over several centuries. Christian thinking on leadership has
often emphasized stewardship of divinely-provided resources—human and
material—and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan. Compare servant leadership.
For a more general view on
leadership in politics, compare the concept of the statesperson.
Theories
Early western history
The search for the characteristics
or traits of leaders has continued for centuries. Philosophical writings
from Plato's Republic to Plutarch's Lives have explored the question "What qualities
distinguish an individual as a leader?" Underlying this search was the
early recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption that
leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess.
This idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the
"trait theory of leadership".
A number of works in the 19th
century – when the traditional authority of monarchs, lords and bishops had
begun to wane – explored the trait theory at length: note especially the
writings of Thomas
Carlyle and of Francis Galton, whose works have prompted decades of research. In Heroes
and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and
physical characteristics of men who rose to power. Galton's Hereditary
Genius (1869) examined leadership qualities in the families of
powerful men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off
when his focus moved from first-degree to second-degree relatives, Galton
concluded that leadership was inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not
developed. Both of these notable works lent great initial support for the
notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of a leader.
Cecil Rhodes (1853–1902)
believed that public-spirited leadership could be nurtured by identifying young
people with "moral force of character and instincts to lead", and educating
them in contexts (such as the collegiate environment of the University
of Oxford) which further developed such
characteristics. International networks of such leaders could help to promote
international understanding and help "render war impossible". This
vision of leadership underlay the creation of the Rhodes
Scholarships, which have helped to shape notions of
leadership since their creation in 1903.
Rise of alternative theories
In the late 1940s and early
1950s, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird,
1940; Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959) prompted researchers to take a
drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In
reviewing the extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits
were common across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that
people who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other
situations. Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring
individual trait, as situational approaches (see alternative leadership
theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in certain
situations, but not others. The focus then shifted away from traits of leaders
to an investigation of the leader behaviors that were effective. This approach
dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades.
Reemergence of trait theory
New methods and measurements
were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately
reestablish trait
theory as a viable approach to the study of
leadership. For example, improvements in researchers' use of the round robin
research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and
do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally,
during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and
summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait
theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research
rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new
methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:
·
Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of
situations and tasks.
·
Significant relationships exist between leadership emergence and
such individual traits as:
·
Intelligence
·
Adjustment
·
Extraversion
·
Conscientiousness
·
Openness
to experience
·
General self-efficacy
While
the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence
has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated
conceptual frameworks.
Specifically,
Zaccaro (2007) noted that trait theories still:
·
Focus on a small set of individual attributes such as the "Big Five" personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive
abilities, motives, values, social skills,
expertise, and problem-solving skills.
·
Fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple
attributes.
·
Do not distinguish between the leadership attributes that are
generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to,
situational influences.
· Do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective leadership.
Attribute pattern approach
Considering
the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers have
begun to adopt a different perspective of leader individual differences—the
leader attribute pattern approach. In contrast to the traditional
approach, the leader attribute pattern approach is based on theorists'
arguments that the influence of individual characteristics on outcomes is best
understood by considering the person as an integrated totality rather than a
summation of individual variables. In other words, the leader attribute
pattern approach argues that integrated constellations or combinations of
individual differences may explain substantial variance in both leader
emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes,
or by additive combinations of multiple attributes.
Behavioral and style theories
Kurt Lewin,
Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the
influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the
performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work
climate. In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type
of group decision making, praise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project
management) according to three styles: authoritarian, democratic,
and laissez-faire.
In 1945, Ohio State University
conducted a study which investigated observable behaviors portrayed by
effective leaders. They would then identify if these particular behaviors are
reflective of leadership effectiveness. They were able to narrow their findings
to two identifiable distinctions The first dimension was identified as
"initiating structure", which described how a leader clearly and
accurately communicates with the followers, defines goals, and determines how
tasks are performed. These are considered "task oriented" behaviors.
The second dimension is "consideration", which indicates the leader's
ability to build an interpersonal relationship with their followers, to
establish a form of mutual trust. These are considered "social
oriented" behaviors.
The Michigan State Studies,
which were conducted in the 1950s, made further investigations and findings
that positively correlated behaviors and leadership effectiveness. Although
they had similar findings as the Ohio State studies, they also contributed an
additional behavior identified in leaders: participative behavior (also called
"servant leadership"), or allowing the followers to participate in
group decision making and encouraged subordinate input. This entails avoiding
controlling types of leadership and allows more personal interactions between
leaders and their subordinates.
The managerial grid model is
also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in
1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders'
concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.
Positive reinforcement
B. F. Skinner is
the father of behavior modification and developed the concept
of positive reinforcement. Positive
reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is presented in response to a behavior,
increasing the likelihood of that behavior in the future. The following is
an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a business setting.
Assume praise is a positive
reinforcer for a particular employee. This employee does not show up to work on
time every day. The manager decides to praise the employee for showing up on
time every day the employee actually shows up to work on time. As a result, the
employee comes to work on time more often because the employee likes to be
praised. In this example, praise (the stimulus) is a positive reinforcer for
this employee because the employee arrives at work on time (the behavior) more
frequently after being praised for showing up to work on time. Positive
reinforcement coined by Skinner enables a behavior to be repeated in a positive
manner, and on the other hand a negative reinforcer is repeated in a way that
is not as plausible as the positive.
The use of positive
reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leaders to motivate
and attain desired behaviors from subordinates. Organizations such as
Frito-Lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used
reinforcement to increase productivity. Empirical research covering the
last 20 years suggests that reinforcement theory has
a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally, many reinforcement
techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive, providing higher
performance for lower costs.
Situational and contingency theories
Situational theory also
appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of
intervention of great men as Carlyle suggested. Herbert
Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce the person and not the other
way around. This theory assumes that different situations call for
different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single
optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory,
"what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part
dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions."
Some theorists started to
synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building upon the research of
Lewin et al., academics began to normalize the descriptive models of leadership
climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations
each style works better in. The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is
approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the "hearts and minds"
of followers in day-to-day management; the democratic leadership style is more
adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally, the
laissez-faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it
provides, but as the leaders do not "take charge", they can be
perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational
problems. Thus, theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to
the situation, which is sometimes classified as contingency theory. Three contingency leadership theories appear more
prominently in recent years: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decision
model, and the path-goal theory.
The Fiedler contingency
model bases the leader's effectiveness on
what Fred Fiedler called situational
contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and
situational favorability (later called situational control). The
theory defined two types of leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by
developing good relationships with the group (relationship-oriented), and those
who have as their prime concern carrying out the task itself
(task-oriented). According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both
task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their
leadership orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member
relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the
situation is considered a "favorable situation". Fiedler found that
task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable
situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in situations
with intermediate favorability.
Victor Vroom, in
collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973) and later with Arthur Jago
(1988), developed a taxonomy for
describing leadership situations, which was used in a normative decision
model where leadership styles were connected
to situational variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which
situation. This approach was novel because it supported the idea that the
same manager could rely on different group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each
situation. This model was later referred to as situational contingency theory.
The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971)
and was based on the expectancy theory of Victor
Vroom. According to House, the essence of the
theory is "the meta proposition that leaders, to be effective, engage in
behaviors that complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that
compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction
and individual and work unit performance". The theory identifies four
leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive, participative,
and supportive, that are contingent to the environment factors and
follower characteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler contingency
model, the path-goal model states that the four
leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four
depending on what the situation demands. The path-goal model can be classified
both as a contingency theory, as it
depends on the circumstances, and as a transactional leadership
theory, as the theory emphasizes the reciprocity
behavior between the leader and the followers.
Functional theory
A variety of leadership behaviors
are expected to facilitate these functions. In initial work identifying leader
behavior, Fleishman (1953) observed that subordinates perceived their
supervisors' behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to as consideration and
initiating structure. Consideration includes
behavior involved in fostering effective relationships. Examples of such
behavior would include showing concern for a subordinate or acting in a
supportive manner towards others. Initiating structure involves the actions of
the leader focused specifically on task accomplishment. This could include role
clarification, setting performance standards, and holding subordinates
accountable to those standards.
Integrated psychological theory
The Integrated Psychological
Theory of leadership is an attempt to integrate the strengths of the older
theories (i.e. traits, behavioral/styles, situational and functional) while
addressing their limitations, introducing a new element – the need for leaders
to develop their leadership presence, attitude toward others and behavioral
flexibility by practicing psychological mastery. It also offers a foundation
for leaders wanting to apply the philosophies of servant leadership and authentic leadership.
Integrated psychological theory
began to attract attention after the publication of James Scouller's Three Levels of
Leadership model (2011). Scouller argued
that the older theories offer only limited assistance in developing a person's
ability to lead effectively. He pointed out, for example, that:
·
Traits theories, which tend to reinforce the idea that leaders
are born not made, might help us select leaders, but they are less useful for
developing leaders.
·
An ideal style (e.g. Blake & Mouton's team style) would not
suit all circumstances.
·
Most of the situational/contingency and functional theories
assume that leaders can change their behavior to meet differing circumstances
or widen their behavioral range at will, when in practice many find it hard to
do so because of unconscious beliefs, fears or ingrained habits. Thus, he
argued, leaders need to work on their inner psychology.
·
None of the old theories successfully address the challenge of
developing "leadership
presence"; that certain "something"
in leaders that commands attention, inspires people, wins their trust and makes
followers want to work with them.
Scouller proposed the Three
Levels of Leadership model, which was later categorized as an "Integrated
Psychological" theory on the Businessballs education website. In
essence, his model aims to summarize what leaders have to do, not only to bring
leadership to their group or organization, but also to develop themselves
technically and psychologically as leaders.
The three levels in his model
are public, private and personal leadership:
·
The first two – public and private leadership – are
"outer" or behavioral levels. These are the behaviors that address
what Scouller called "the four dimensions of leadership". These
dimensions are: (1) a shared, motivating group purpose; (2) action, progress
and results; (3) collective unity or team spirit; (4) individual selection and
motivation. Public
leadership focuses on the 34 behaviors
involved in influencing two or more people simultaneously. Private
leadership covers the 14 behaviors needed to
influence individuals one to one.
·
The third – personal leadership –
is an "inner" level and concerns a person's growth toward greater
leadership presence, knowhow and skill. Working on one's personal leadership
has three aspects: (1) Technical knowhow and skill (2) Developing the right
attitude toward other people – which is the basis of servant leadership (3)
Psychological self-mastery – the foundation for authentic leadership.
Scouller argued that
self-mastery is the key to growing one's leadership presence, building trusting
relationships with followers and dissolving one's limiting beliefs and habits,
thereby enabling behavioral flexibility as circumstances change, while staying
connected to one's core values (that is, while remaining authentic). To support
leaders' development, he introduced a new model of the human psyche and
outlined the principles and techniques of self-mastery, which include the
practice of mindfulness
meditation.
Transactional and transformational theories
Bernard Bass and
colleagues developed the idea of two different types of leadership,
transactional that involves exchange of labor for rewards and transformational
which is based on concern for employees, intellectual stimulation, and
providing a group vision.
The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given power to perform
certain tasks and reward or punish for the team's performance. It gives the
opportunity to the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his
lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power
is given to the leader to evaluate, correct, and train subordinates when
productivity is not up to the desired level, and reward effectiveness when
expected outcome is reached.
Leader–member exchange theory
This LMX theory addresses a
specific aspect of the leadership process is the leader–member exchange (LMX)
theory, which evolved from an earlier theory called the vertical dyad
linkage (VDL) model. Both of these models focus on the interaction between
leaders and individual followers. Similar to the transactional approach, this
interaction is viewed as a fair exchange whereby the leader provides certain
benefits such as task guidance, advice, support, and/or significant rewards and
the followers reciprocate by giving the leader respect, cooperation, commitment
to the task and good performance. However, LMX recognizes that leaders and
individual followers will vary in the type of exchange that develops between
them. LMX theorizes that the type of exchanges between the leader and
specific followers can lead to the creation of in-groups and out-groups.
In-group members are said to have high-quality exchanges with
the leader, while out-group members have low-quality exchanges with
the leader.
In-group members
In-group members
are perceived by the leader as being more experienced, competent, and willing
to assume responsibility than other followers. The leader begins to rely on
these individuals to help with especially challenging tasks. If the follower
responds well, the leader rewards him/her with extra coaching, favorable job
assignments, and developmental experiences. If the follower shows high
commitment and effort followed by additional rewards, both parties develop
mutual trust, influence, and support of one another. Research shows the
in-group members usually receive higher performance evaluations from the
leader, higher satisfaction, and faster promotions than out-group
members. In-group members are also likely to build stronger bonds with
their leaders by sharing the same social backgrounds and interests.
Out-group members
Out-group members
often receive less time and more distant exchanges than their in-group
counterparts. With out-group members, leaders expect no more than
adequate job performance, good
attendance, reasonable respect, and adherence to the job description in
exchange for a fair wage and
standard benefits. The leader spends less time with out-group members, they
have fewer developmental experiences, and the leader tends to emphasize his/her
formal authority to obtain compliance to leader requests. Research shows that
out-group members are less satisfied with their job and organization, receive
lower performance evaluations from the leader, see their leader as less fair,
and are more likely to file grievances or leave the organization.
Emotions
Leadership can be perceived as
a particularly emotion-laden process, with emotions entwined with the social
influence process. In an organization, the leader's mood has some effects
on his/her group. These effects can be described in three levels:
1.
The mood of individual group members. Group members with leaders
in a positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with
leaders in a negative mood. The leaders transmit their moods to other group
members through the mechanism of emotional contagion. Mood
contagion may be one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence followers.
2.
The affective tone of the group. Group affective tone represents the consistent or homogeneous affective
reactions within a group. Group affective tone is an aggregate of the moods of
the individual members of the group and refers to mood at the group level of
analysis. Groups with leaders in a positive mood have a more positive affective
tone than do groups with leaders in a negative mood.
3.
Group processes like coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. Public
expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people
experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their
goals, intentions, and attitudes through their expressions of moods. For
example, expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem
progress toward goals to be good. The group members respond to those signals
cognitively and behaviorally in ways that are reflected in the group processes.
In research about client
service, it was found that expressions of positive mood by the leader improve the performance of the group, although in
other sectors there were other findings.
Beyond the leader's mood,
her/his behavior is a source for employee positive and negative emotions at work. The leader creates situations and events
that lead to emotional response. Certain leader behaviors displayed during
interactions with their employees are the sources of these affective events.
Leaders shape workplace affective events. Examples – feedback giving,
allocating tasks, resource distribution. Since employee behavior and
productivity are directly affected by their emotional states, it is imperative
to consider employee emotional responses to organizational
leaders. Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage
moods and emotions in the self and others, contributes to effective leadership
within organizations.
Neo-emergent theory
The neo-emergent leadership
theory (from the Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme) sees leadership as an
impression formed through the communication of information by the leader or by other stakeholders, not
through the true actions of the leader himself. In other words, the
reproduction of information or stories form
the basis of the perception of leadership by the majority. It is well known by
historians that the naval hero Lord Nelson often
wrote his own versions of battles he was involved in, so that when he arrived
home in England, he would receive a true hero's welcome. In modern
society, the press, blogs and other sources report their own views of leaders,
which may be based on reality, but may also be based on a political command, a
payment, or an inherent interest of the author, media, or leader. Therefore,
one can argue that the perception of all leaders is created and in fact does
not reflect their true leadership qualities at all. Hence the historical
function of belief in (for example) royal blood as a proxy for belief in or analysis of effective
governing skills.
Constructivist analysis
Some constructivists question whether leadership exists, or suggest that
(for example) leadership "is a myth equivalent to a belief in UFOs".
Leadership
emergence
Many personality characteristics
were found to be reliably associated with leadership emergence. The list
includes, but is not limited to (following list organized in alphabetical
order): assertiveness, authenticity, Big Five personality factors, birth order,
character strengths, dominance, emotional intelligence, gender identity,
intelligence, narcissism, self-efficacy for leadership, self-monitoring and
social motivation. Leadership emergence is the idea that people born with
specific characteristics become leaders, and those without these
characteristics do not become leaders. People like Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham
Lincoln, and Nelson Mandela all share traits that an average person does not.
This includes people who choose to participate in leadership roles, as opposed
to those who do not. Research indicates that up to 30% of leader emergence has
a genetic basis. There is no current research indicating that there is a
“leadership gene”, instead we inherit certain traits that might influence our
decision to seek leadership. Both anecdotal, and empirical evidence support a
stable relationship between specific traits and leadership behavior. Using
a large international sample researchers found that there are three factors
that motivate leaders; affective identity (enjoyment of leading), non-calculative
(leading earns reinforcement), and social-normative (sense of obligation).
Assertiveness
The relationship between
assertiveness and leadership emergence is curvilinear; individuals who are
either low in assertiveness or very high in assertiveness are less likely to be
identified as leaders.
Authenticity
Individuals who are more aware
of their personality qualities, including their values and beliefs, and are
less biased when processing self-relevant information, are more likely to be
accepted as leaders.
Big Five personality factors
Those who emerge as leaders
tend to be more (order in strength of relationship with leadership emergence):
extroverted, conscientious, emotionally stable, and open to experience,
although these tendencies are stronger in laboratory studies of leaderless
groups. Agreeableness, the last factor of the Big Five personality traits,
does not seem to play any meaningful role in leadership emergence.
Birth order
Those born first in their
families and only children are hypothesized to be more driven to seek
leadership and control in social settings. Middle-born children tend to accept
follower roles in groups, and later-borns are thought to be rebellious and
creative.
Character strengths
Those seeking leadership
positions in a military organization had elevated scores on a number of
indicators of strength of character, including honesty, hope, bravery,
industry, and teamwork.
Dominance
Individuals with dominant
personalities – they describe themselves as high in the desire to control their
environment and influence other people, and are likely to express their
opinions in a forceful way – are more likely to act as leaders in small-group
situations.
Emotional intelligence
Individuals with high emotional
intelligence have increased ability to understand and relate to people. They
have skills in communicating and decoding emotions and they deal with others
wisely and effectively. Such people communicate their ideas in more robust
ways, are better able to read the politics of a situation, are less likely to
lose control of their emotions, are less likely to be inappropriately angry or
critical, and in consequence are more likely to emerge as leaders.
Intelligence
Individuals with higher
intelligence exhibit superior judgement, higher verbal skills (both written and
oral), quicker learning and acquisition of knowledge, and are more likely to
emerge as leaders. Correlation between IQ and leadership emergence was
found to be between .25 and .30. However, groups generally prefer leaders
that do not exceed intelligence prowess of average member by a wide margin, as
they fear that high intelligence may be translated to differences in
communication, trust, interests and values
Self-efficacy for leadership
Confidence in one's ability to lead
is associated with increases in willingness to accept a leadership role and
success in that role.
Self-monitoring
High self-monitors are more
likely to emerge as the leader of a group than are low self-monitors, since
they are more concerned with status-enhancement and are more likely to adapt
their actions to fit the demands of the situation
Social motivation
Individuals who are both
success-oriented and affiliation-oriented, as assessed by projective measures,
are more active in group problem-solving settings and are more likely to be
elected to positions of leadership in such groups
Narcissism, hubris and other negative traits
A number of negative traits of
leadership have also been studied. Individuals who take on leadership roles in
turbulent situations, such as groups facing a threat or ones in which status is
determined by intense competition among rivals within the group, tend to be
narcissistic: arrogant, self-absorbed, hostile, and very self-confident.
Absentee leader
Existing research has shown
that absentee leaders - those who rise into power, but not necessarily because
of their skills, and are marginally engaging with their role - are actually
worse than destructive leader, because it takes longer to pinpoint their
mistakes.
Leadership
styles
A leadership style is a
leader's style of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating
people. It is the result of the philosophy, personality, and experience of the
leader. Rhetoric specialists have also developed models for understanding
leadership (Robert
Hariman, Political Style, Philippe-Joseph
Salazar, L'Hyperpolitique. Technologies
politiques De La Domination).
Different situations call for
different leadership styles. In an emergency when there is little time to
converge on an agreement and where a designated authority has significantly
more experience or expertise than the rest of the team, an autocratic
leadership style may be most effective; however, in a highly motivated and
aligned team with a homogeneous level of expertise, a more democratic or laissez-faire style may be more effective. The style adopted
should be the one that most effectively achieves the objectives of the group
while balancing the interests of its individual members A field in which
leadership style has gained strong attention is that of military science,
recently expressing a holistic and integrated view of leadership, including how
a leader's physical presence determines how others perceive that leader. The
factors of physical presence are military bearing, physical fitness,
confidence, and resilience. The leader's intellectual capacity helps to
conceptualize solutions and acquire knowledge to do the job. A leader's
conceptual abilities apply agility, judgment, innovation, interpersonal tact,
and domain knowledge. Domain knowledge
for leaders encompasses tactical and technical knowledge as well as cultural
and geopolitical awareness.
Autocratic or authoritarian
Under the autocratic leadership style, all decision-making powers are
centralized in the leader, as with dictators.
Autocratic leaders do not ask
or entertain any suggestions or initiatives from subordinates. The autocratic
management has been successful as it provides strong motivation to the manager.
It permits quick decision-making, as only one person decides for the whole
group and keeps each decision to him/herself until he/she feels it needs to be
shared with the rest of the group.
Participative or democratic
The democratic leadership style
consists of the leader sharing the decision-making abilities with group members
by promoting the interests of the group members and by practicing social
equality. This has also been called shared leadership.
Laissez-faire or free-rein leadership
In laissez-faire or free-rein
leadership, decision-making is passed on to the subordinates. This style of
leadership is known as "laissez faire" which means no interference in
the affairs of others. (The phrase laissez-faire is French and literally means
"let them do"). Subordinates are given the complete right and power
to make decisions to establish goals and work out the problems or hurdles.
The followers are given a high
degree of independence and freedom to formulate their own objectives and ways
to achieve them.
Task-oriented and relationship-oriented
Task-oriented leadership is a
style in which the leader is focused on the tasks that need to be performed in
order to meet a certain production goal. Task-oriented leaders are generally
more concerned with producing a step-by-step solution for given problem or
goal, strictly making sure these deadlines are met, results and reaching target
outcomes.
Relationship-oriented
leadership is a contrasting style in which the leader is more focused on the
relationships amongst the group and is generally more concerned with the overall
well-being and satisfaction of group members. Relationship-oriented
leaders emphasize communication within the group, show trust and confidence in
group members, and show appreciation for work done.
Task-oriented leaders are
typically less concerned with the idea of catering to group members, and more
concerned with acquiring a certain solution to meet a production goal. For this
reason, they typically are able to make sure that deadlines are met, yet their
group members' well-being may suffer. These leaders have absolute focus on the
goal and the tasks cut out for each member. Relationship-oriented leaders are
focused on developing the team and the relationships in it. The positives to
having this kind of environment are that team members are more motivated and
have support. However, the emphasis on relations as opposed to getting a job
done might make productivity suffer
Paternalism
Paternalism leadership styles
often reflect a father-figure mindset. The structure of team is organized
hierarchically where the leader is viewed above the followers. The leader also
provides both professional and personal direction in the lives of the
members. There is often a limitation on the choices that the members can
choose from due to the heavy direction given by the leader.
The term paternalism is from
the Latin pater meaning "father". The leader is most often a male.
This leadership style is often found in Russia, Africa, and Pacific Asian
Societies.
Servant leadership
With the transformation into a
knowledge society, the concept of servant leadership has
become more popular, notably through modern technology management styles such
as Agile. In this style, the leadership
is externalized from the leader who serves as a guardian of the methodology and
a "servant" or service provider to the team they lead. The cohesion
and common direction of the team is dictated by a common culture, common goals
and sometimes a specific methodology. This style is different from the
laissez-faire in that the leader constantly works towards reaching the common
goals as a team, but without giving explicit directions on tasks.
Leadership
differences affected by gender
Another factor that covaries
with leadership style is whether the person is male or female. When men and
women come together in groups, they tend to adopt different leadership styles.
Men generally assume an agentic leadership style.
They are task-oriented, active, decision focused, independent and goal
oriented. Women, on the other hand, are generally more communal when they assume
a leadership position; they strive to be helpful towards others, warm in
relation to others, understanding, and mindful of others' feelings. In general,
when women are asked to describe themselves to others in newly formed groups,
they emphasize their open, fair, responsible, and pleasant communal qualities.
They give advice, offer assurances, and manage conflicts in an attempt to
maintain positive relationships among group members. Women connect more
positively to group members by smiling, maintaining eye contact and respond
tactfully to others' comments. Men, conversely, describe themselves as
influential, powerful and proficient at the task that needs to be done. They
tend to place more focus on initiating structure within the group, setting
standards and objectives, identifying roles, defining responsibilities and
standard operating procedures, proposing solutions to problems, monitoring
compliance with procedures, and finally, emphasizing the need for productivity
and efficiency in the work that needs to be done. As leaders, men are primarily
task-oriented, but women tend to be both task- and relationship-oriented.
However, it is important to note that these sex differences are only
tendencies, and do not manifest themselves within men and women across all
groups and situations. Meta-analyses
show that people associate masculinity and agency more strongly with leadership
than femininity and communion. Such stereotypes may
have an effect on leadership evaluations of men and women.
Barriers for non-western female leaders
Many reasons can contribute to
the barriers that specifically affect women's entrance into leadership. These
barriers also change according to different cultures. Despite the increasing
number of female leaders in the world, only a small fraction come from
non-westernized cultures. It is important to note that although the barriers
listed below may be more severe in non-western culture, it does not imply that
westernized cultures do not have these barriers as well. This aims to compare
the differences between the two.
Research and Literature
Although there have been many
studies done on leadership for women in the past decade, very little research
has been done for women in paternalistic cultures. The literature and research done for women to emerge into a society
that prefers males is lacking. This ultimately hinders women from knowing how
to reach their individual leadership goals, and fails to educate the male
counterparts in this disparity.
Maternity Leave
Studies have shown the
importance of longer paid maternity leave and the
positive effects it has on a female employee's mental health and return to
work. In Sweden, it was shown that the increased flexibility in timing for
mothers to return to work decreased the odds of poor mental health reports. In
non-western cultures that mostly follow paternalism, lack of knowledge on the
benefits of maternity leave impacts the support given to the women during an
important time in their life.
Society and Laws
Certain countries that follow
paternalism, such as India, still allow for women to be treated unjustly.
Issues such as child marriage and minor punishments for perpetrators in crimes
against women shape society's view on how women should be treated. This can
prevent women from feeling comfortable speaking out in personal and
professional settings.
Glass Ceilings and Glass Cliffs
Women who work in a very
paternalistic culture or industry (e.g. the oil or engineering industry), often
deal with limitations in their career that prevent them from moving up any
further. This association is often due to the mentality that only males carry
leadership characteristics. The term glass cliff refers
to undesired projects that are often given to women because they have an
increase in risk of failure. These undesired projects are given to female
employees where they are more likely to fail and leave the organization.
Performance
In the past, some researchers
have argued that the actual influence of leaders on organizational outcomes is
overrated and romanticized as a result of biased attributions about
leaders (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987). Despite these assertions, however, it is
largely recognized and accepted by practitioners and researchers that
leadership is important, and research supports the notion that leaders do
contribute to key organizational outcomes To facilitate successful performance
it is important to understand and accurately measure leadership performance.
Job performance generally
refers to behavior that is expected to contribute to organizational success
(Campbell, 1990). Campbell identified a number of specific types of performance
dimensions; leadership was one of the dimensions that he identified. There is
no consistent, overall definition of leadership performance (Yukl, 2006). Many
distinct conceptualizations are often lumped together under the umbrella of
leadership performance, including outcomes such as leader effectiveness, leader advancement, and leader emergence (Kaiser et
al., 2008). For instance, "leadership performance" may refer to the
career success of the individual leader, performance of the group or
organization, or even leader emergence. Each of these measures can be
considered conceptually distinct. While these aspects may be related, they are
different outcomes and their inclusion should depend on the applied or research
focus.
"Another
way to conceptualize leader performance is to focus on the outcomes of the
leader’s followers, group, team, unit, or organization. In evaluating this type
of leader performance, two general strategies are typically used. The first
relies on subjective perceptions of the leader’s performance from subordinates,
superiors, or occasionally peers or other parties. The other type of
effectiveness measures are more objective indicators of follower or unit
performance, such as measures of productivity, goal attainment, sales figures,
or unit financial performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 47)."
A toxic leader is someone who has responsibility over a group of
people or an organization, and who abuses the leader–follower relationship by
leaving the group or organization in a worse-off condition than when he/she
joined it.
Measuring leadership
Measuring leadership has proven
difficult and complex - even impossible. Attempts to assess leadership
performance via group performance bring in multifarious different factors.
Different perceptions of leadership itself may lead to differing measuring
methods. Nevertheless, leadership theoreticians have proven perversely
reluctant to abandon the vague subjective qualitative popular concept of
"leaders".
Traits
Most theories in the 20th century argued that great leaders were born, not made. Current studies have indicated that leadership is much more complex and cannot be boiled down to a few key traits of an individual. Years of observation and study have indicated that one such trait or a set of traits does not make an extraordinary leader. What scholars have been able to arrive at is that leadership traits of an individual do not change from situation to situation; such traits include intelligence, assertiveness, or physical attractiveness. However, each key trait may be applied to situations differently, depending on the circumstances. The following summarizes the main leadership traits found in research by Jon P. Howell, business professor at New Mexico State University and author of the book Snapshots of Great Leadership.
Determination and drive include
traits such as initiative, energy, assertiveness, perseverance and sometimes
dominance. People with these traits often tend to wholeheartedly pursue their
goals, work long hours, are ambitious, and often are very competitive with
others. Cognitive capacity includes intelligence, analytical and verbal
ability, behavioral flexibility, and good judgment. Individuals with these
traits are able to formulate solutions to difficult problems, work well under
stress or deadlines, adapt to changing situations, and create well-thought-out
plans for the future. Howell provides examples of Steve Jobs and Abraham
Lincoln as encompassing the traits of determination and drive as well as
possessing cognitive capacity, demonstrated by their ability to adapt to their
continuously changing environments.
Self-confidence encompasses the
traits of high self-esteem, assertiveness, emotional stability, and
self-assurance. Individuals who are self-confident do not doubt themselves or
their abilities and decisions; they also have the ability to project this
self-confidence onto others, building their trust and commitment. Integrity is
demonstrated in individuals who are truthful, trustworthy, principled,
consistent, dependable, loyal, and not deceptive. Leaders with integrity often
share these values with their followers, as this trait is mainly an ethics
issue. It is often said that these leaders keep their word and are honest and
open with their cohorts. Sociability describes individuals who are friendly,
extroverted, tactful, flexible, and interpersonally competent. Such a trait
enables leaders to be accepted well by the public, use diplomatic measures to
solve issues, as well as hold the ability to adapt their social persona to the
situation at hand. According to Howell, Mother Teresa is an exceptional example
who embodies integrity, assertiveness, and social abilities in her diplomatic dealings with the leaders of the
world.
Few great leaders encompass all
of the traits listed above, but many have the ability to apply a number of them
to succeed as front-runners of their organization or situation.
Ontological-phenomenological
model
One of the more recent
definitions of leadership comes from Werner Erhard, Michael
C. Jensen, Steve Zaffron, and Kari Granger who
describe leadership as "an exercise in language that results in the
realization of a future that wasn't going to happen anyway, which future
fulfills (or contributes to fulfilling) the concerns of the relevant parties...".
This definition ensures that leadership is talking about the future and
includes the fundamental concerns of the relevant parties. This differs from
relating to the relevant parties as "followers" and calling up an
image of a single leader with others following. Rather, a future that fulfills
on the fundamental concerns of the relevant parties indicates the future that
wasn't going to happen is not the "idea of the leader", but rather is
what emerges from digging deep to find the underlying concerns of those who are
impacted by the leadership.
Contexts
Organizations
An organization that is
established as an instrument or means for achieving defined objectives has been referred to by sociologists as a formal
organization. Its design specifies how goals are subdivided and reflected
in subdivisions of the organization. Divisions, departments, sections,
positions, jobs, and tasks make up this work structure. Thus, the formal organization is expected to
behave impersonally in regard to relationships with clients or with its
members. According to Weber's model, entry and subsequent advancement is by
merit or seniority. Employees receive a salary and enjoy a degree of tenure
that safeguards them from the arbitrary influence of superiors or of powerful
clients. The higher one's position in the hierarchy, the greater one's presumed
expertise in adjudicating problems that may arise in the course of the work
carried out at lower levels of the organization. This bureaucratic structure
forms the basis for the appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative
subdivisions in the organization and endows them with the authority attached to
their position.
In contrast to the appointed
head or chief of an administrative unit, a leader emerges within the context of
the informal organization that underlies the formal
structure. The informal organization expresses the personal objectives and goals of
the individual membership. Their
objectives and goals may or may not coincide with those of the formal
organization. The informal organization represents an extension of the social
structures that generally characterize human life — the spontaneous emergence
of groups and organizations as ends in themselves.
In prehistoric times, humanity
was preoccupied with personal security, maintenance, protection, and
survival. Now humanity spends a major portion of waking hours working for
organizations. The need to identify with a community that provides security,
protection, maintenance, and a feeling of belonging has continued unchanged
from prehistoric times. This need is met by the informal organization and its
emergent, or unofficial, leaders.
Leaders emerge from within the
structure of the informal organization. Their
personal qualities, the demands of the situation, or a combination of these and
other factors attract followers who accept their leadership within one or
several overlay structures. Instead of the authority of position held by an
appointed head or chief, the emergent leader wields influence or power.
Influence is the ability of a person to gain co-operation from others by means
of persuasion or control over rewards. Power is a stronger form of influence
because it reflects a person's ability to enforce action through the control of
a means of punishment.
A leader is a person who
influences a group of people towards a specific result. In this scenario,
leadership is not dependent on title or formal authority. Ogbonnia (2007)
defines an effective leader "as an individual with the capacity to
consistently succeed in a given condition and be viewed as meeting the
expectations of an organization or society". Leaders
are recognized by their capacity for caring for others, clear
communication, and a commitment to persist. An individual who is appointed
to a managerial position has the right to command and enforce obedience by
virtue of the authority of their position. However, she or he must possess
adequate personal attributes to match this authority, because authority is only
potentially available to him/her. In the absence of sufficient personal
competence, a manager may be confronted by an emergent leader who can challenge
her/his role in the organization and reduce it to that of a figurehead.
However, only authority of position has the backing of formal sanctions. It
follows that whoever wields personal influence and power can legitimize this
only by gaining a formal position in a hierarchy, with commensurate
authority. Leadership can be defined as one's ability to get others
to willingly follow. Every organization needs leaders at every level.
Management
Over the years the terms "management" and "leadership" have, in the
organizational context, been used both as synonyms and with clearly
differentiated meanings. Debate is fairly common about whether the use of these
terms should be restricted, and generallyreflects an awareness of the
distinction made by Burns (1978) between "transactional" leadership
(characterized by emphasis on procedures, contingent reward, management by
exception) and "transformational" leadership (characterized by
charisma, personal relationships, creativity).
Group
In contrast to individual
leadership, some organizations have adopted group leadership. In this
so-called shared
leadership, more than one person provides direction
to the group as a whole. It is furthermore characterized by shared
responsibility, cooperation and mutual influence among team members. Some
organizations have taken this approach in hopes of increasing creativity, reducing
costs, or downsizing. Others may see the traditional leadership of a boss as costing too much in team performance. In some
situations, the team members best able to handle any given phase of the project
become the temporary leaders. Additionally, as each team member has the
opportunity to experience the elevated level of empowerment, it energizes staff
and feeds the cycle of success.
Leaders who demonstrate
persistence, tenacity, determination, and synergistic communication skills will
bring out the same qualities in their groups. Good leaders use their own
inner mentors to energize their team and organizations and lead a
team to achieve success.
According to the National School
Boards Association (USA):
These Group Leaderships or
Leadership Teams have specific characteristics:
Characteristics of a Team
·
There must be an awareness of unity on the part of all its
members.
·
There must be interpersonal relationship. Members must have a
chance to contribute, and learn from and work with others.
·
The members must have the ability to act together toward a
common goal.
Ten characteristics of
well-functioning teams:
·
Purpose: Members proudly share a sense of why the team exists
and are invested in accomplishing its mission and goals.
·
Priorities: Members know what needs to be done next, by whom,
and by when to achieve team goals.
·
Roles: Members know their roles in getting tasks done and when
to allow a more skillful member to do a certain task.
·
Decisions: Authority and decision-making lines are clearly
understood.
·
Conflict: Conflict is dealt with openly and is considered
important to decision-making and personal growth.
·
Personal traits: members feel their unique personalities are
appreciated and well utilized.
·
Norms: Group norms for working together are set and seen as standards
for every one in the groups.
·
Effectiveness: Members find team meetings efficient and
productive and look forward to this time together.
·
Success: Members know clearly when the team has met with success
and share in this equally and proudly.
·
Training: Opportunities for feedback and updating skills are
provided and taken advantage of by team members.
Self-leadership
Self-leadership is
a process that occurs within an individual, rather than an external act. It is
an expression of who we are as people. Self-leadership is having a developed
sense of who you are, what you can achieve, what are your goals coupled with
the ability to affect your emotions, behaviors and communication. At the center
of leadership is the person who is motivated to make the difference.
Self-leadership is a way toward more effectively leading other people.
Biology and evolution of leadership
Mark van Vugt and Anjana
Ahuja in Naturally Selected: The
Evolutionary Science of Leadership (2011) present cases of leadership
in non-human animals, from ants and bees to baboons and chimpanzees. They
suggest that leadership has a long evolutionary history and that the same
mechanisms underpinning leadership in humans appear in other social species,
too. They also suggest that the evolutionary origins of leadership differ
from those of dominance. In a study, Mark van Vugt and his team looked at the
relation between basal testosterone and leadership versus dominance. They found
that testosterone correlates with dominance but not with leadership. This was
replicated in a sample of managers in which there was no relation between
hierarchical position and testosterone level. Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson, in Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins
of Human Violence (1996), present evidence
that only humans and chimpanzees, among
all the animals living on Earth, share a similar tendency for a cluster of
behaviors: violence, territoriality,
and competition for uniting behind the one chief male of the land. This
position is contentious. Many animals apart from apes are territorial,
compete, exhibit violence, and have a social structure controlled by a dominant
male (lions, wolves, etc.), suggesting Wrangham and Peterson's evidence is not
empirical. However, we must examine other species as well, including elephants
(which are matriarchal and follow an alpha female), meerkats (which are
likewise matriarchal), sheep (which "follow" in some sense castrated
bellwethers), and many others.
By comparison, bonobos, the second-closest species-relatives of humans,
do not unite behind the chief male of the land. Bonobos show
deference to an alpha or top-ranking female that, with the support of her
coalition of other females, can prove as strong as the strongest male. Thus, if
leadership amounts to getting the greatest number of followers, then among the
bonobos, a female almost always exerts the strongest and most effective
leadership. (Incidentally, not all scientists agree on the allegedly peaceful
nature of the bonobo or with its reputation as a "hippie chimp".)
Myths
Leadership, although largely
talked about, has been described as one of the least understood concepts across
all cultures and civilizations. Over the years, many researchers have stressed
the prevalence of this misunderstanding, stating that the existence of several
flawed assumptions, or myths, concerning leadership often interferes with
individuals' conception of what leadership is all about (Gardner, 1965; Bennis,
1975).
Leadership is innate
According to some, leadership
is determined by distinctive dispositional characteristics present at birth (e.g., extraversion; intelligence;
ingenuity). However, according to Forsyth (2009) there is evidence to show that
leadership also develops through hard work and careful observation. Thus,
effective leadership can result from nature (i.e.,
innate talents) as well as nurture (i.e.,
acquired skills).
Leadership is possessing power over others
Although leadership is
certainly a form of power, it is not demarcated by power over people
– rather, it is a power with people that exists as a
reciprocal relationship between a leader and his/her followers (Forsyth,
2009). Despite popular belief, the use of manipulation, coercion, and
domination to influence others is not a requirement for leadership. In
actuality, individuals who seek group consent and strive to act in the best
interests of others can also become effective leaders (e.g., class president;
court judge).
Leaders are positively influential
The validity of the assertion that groups flourish when guided
by effective leaders can be illustrated using several examples. For instance,
according to Baumeister et al. (1988), the bystander effect (failure to respond or offer assistance) that tends
to develop within groups faced with an emergency is significantly reduced in
groups guided by a leader. Moreover, it has been documented that group
performance, creativity, and efficiency all tend to climb in businesses with designated
managers or CEOs. However, the difference leaders make is not always
positive in nature. Leaders sometimes focus on fulfilling their own agendas at
the expense of others, including his/her own followers (e.g., Pol
Pot; Josef Stalin). Leaders who focus on personal gain by employing
stringent and manipulative leadership styles often make a difference, but
usually do so through negative means.
Leaders entirely control group outcomes
In Western cultures it is generally assumed that group leaders
make all the difference when it comes to group influence and
overall goal-attainment. Although common, this romanticized view of leadership
(i.e., the tendency to overestimate the degree of control leaders have over
their groups and their groups' outcomes) ignores the existence of many other
factors that influence group dynamics. For example, group cohesion, communication patterns among members, individual personality traits, group
context, the nature or orientation of the work, as well as behavioral
norms and established standards influence
group functionality in varying capacities. For this reason, it is unwarranted
to assume that all leaders are in complete control of their groups'
achievements.
All groups have a designated leader
Despite preconceived notions,
not all groups need have a designated leader. Groups that are primarily
composed of women, are limited in size, are free from stressful
decision-making, or only exist for a short period of time (e.g., student
work groups; pub quiz/trivia teams) often undergo a diffusion of
responsibility, where leadership tasks and roles
are shared amongst members (Schmid Mast, 2002; Berdahl & Anderson, 2007;
Guastello, 2007).
Group members resist leaders
Although research has indicated
that group members' dependence on group leaders can lead to reduced
self-reliance and overall group strength, most people actually prefer to
be led than to be without a leader (Berkowitz, 1953) This "need for a
leader" becomes especially strong in troubled groups that are experiencing
some sort of conflict. Group members tend to be more contented and productive
when they have a leader to guide them. Although individuals filling leadership
roles can be a direct source of resentment for followers, most people
appreciate the contributions that leaders make to their groups and consequently
welcome the guidance of a leader (Stewart & Manz, 1995).
Action-oriented
environments
One approach to team leadership
examines action-oriented environments, where effective functional leadership is
required to achieve critical or reactive tasks by small teams deployed into the
field. In other words, there is leadership of small groups often created to
respond to a situation or critical incident.
In most cases, these teams are
tasked to operate in remote and changeable environments with limited support or
backup (action environments). Leadership of people in these environments
requires a different set of skills to that of front line management. These
leaders must effectively operate remotely and negotiate the needs of the
individual, team, and task within a changeable environment. This has been
termed action oriented leadership. Some examples of demonstrations of action
oriented leadership include extinguishing a rural fire, locating a missing
person, leading a team on an outdoor expedition, or rescuing a person from a
potentially hazardous environment.
Other examples include modern
technology deployments of small/medium-sized IT teams into client plant sites.
Leadership of these teams requires hands on experience and a lead-by-example
attitude to empower team members to make well thought out and concise decisions
independent of executive management and/or home base decision makers. Early
adoption of Scrum and Kanban branch development methodologies helped to
alleviate the dependency that field teams had on trunk based development. This
method of just-in-time action oriented development and deployment allowed
remote plant sites to deploy up-to-date software patches frequently and without
dependency on core team deployment schedules satisfying the clients need to
rapidly patch production environment bugs as needed.
Critical
thought
Carlyle's 1840
"Great Man theory", which
emphasized the role of leading individuals, met opposition (from Herbert
Spencer, Leo Tolstoy, and others) in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Karl Popper noted
in 1945 that leaders can mislead and
make mistakes - he warns against deferring to "great men".
Noam Chomsky and
others have subjected the concept of leadership to critical
thinking and have provided an analysis that
asserts that people abrogate their responsibility to think and will actions for
themselves. While the conventional view of leadership may satisfy people who
"want to be told what to do", these critics say that one should
question subjection to a will or intellect other than one's own if the leader
is not a subject-matter expert (SME).
Concepts such as autogestion, employeeship,
and common civic virtue, etc.,
challenge the fundamentally anti-democratic nature
of the leadership principle by
stressing individual responsibility and/or
group authority in the workplace and elsewhere and by focusing on the skills
and attitudes that a person needs in general rather than separating out
"leadership" as the basis of a special class of individuals.
Similarly, various historical
calamities (such as World
War II) can be attributed to a misplaced
reliance on the principle of leadership as
exhibited in dictatorship.
The idea of leaderism paints leadership and its excesses in a negative
light.
Comments
Post a Comment