Leadership
Leadership, both as a research area and as a practical skill, encompasses the ability of an individual, group, or organization to "lead", influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or entire organizations.
"Leader" redirects here. For other uses, see Leader (disambiguation).
"Leadership" is a contested term.[1] Specialist literature debates various viewpoints on the concept, sometimes contrasting Eastern and Western approaches to leadership, and also (within the West) North American versus European approaches.[2]
Some 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".[3][4]—in other words, as an influential power-relationship in which the power of one party (the "leader") promotes movement/change in others (the "followers").[5] Some have challenged the more traditional managerial views of leadership (which portray leadership as 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 institutions, both within formal[6] and informal roles.[7]
Studies of leadership have produced theories involving (for example) traits,[8] situational interaction,[9]
function, behavior,[10] power, vision[11]
and values,[12] charisma, and intelligence,[13]
among others.[4]
Theories[edit]
Early Western history[edit]
The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has continued for centuries. Philosophical writings from Plato's Republic[25] 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[26] 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: especially the writings of Thomas Carlyle and of Francis Galton. 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.
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) that 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.[27]
Rise of alternative theories[edit]
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, a series of qualitative reviews[28] 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—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[edit]
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.[29] 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:
Contexts[edit]
Organizations[edit]
An organization that is established as an instrument or as a means for achieving defined objectives has been referred to by sociologists as a formal organization. Its design specifies how goals are subdivided and this is reflected in subdivisions of the organization.[132] Divisions, departments, sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make up this work structure. 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.[133]
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.[134] 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.[135] Now humanity spends a major portion of its 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.[136][137]
Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal organization.[138] 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.[136]
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.[139] Ogbonnia 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".[140] John Hoyle argues that leaders are recognized by their capacity for caring for others, clear communication, and a commitment to persist.[141] A person who is appointed to a managerial position has the right to command and enforce obedience by virtue of the authority of their position. However, they must possess adequate personal attributes to match this authority, because authority is only potentially available to them. 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.[136] Leadership can be defined as one's ability to get others to willingly follow. Every organization needs leaders at every level.[142]
Management[edit]
The terms "management" and "leadership" have, in the organizational context, been used both as synonyms and with clearly differentiated meanings. However Bennis and Nanus were clear in their distinction in their frequently quoted phrase "Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing".[143] Debate is common about whether the use of these terms should be restricted, and reflects an awareness of the distinction made by Burns between "transactional" leadership (characterized by emphasis on procedures, contingent reward, and management by exception) and "transformational" leadership (characterized by charisma, personal relationships, and creativity).[69] The role of leader is one in which one can try to deal with trust issues and issues derived from lacking trust.[144]
Group[edit]
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.[145] 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.[146]
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.[147]
According to the National School Boards Association (U.S.A.), these group leaderships or leadership teams have these specific characteristics:
Action-oriented environments[edit]
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. Some examples 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.[165]
Leadership of small groups is 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 leaders in front-line management. These leaders must effectively operate remotely and negotiate the needs of the individual, team, and task within a changeable 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' needs to rapidly patch production environment bugs.[166]
Critical thought[edit]
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".[167]
Noam Chomsky[168]
and others[169] have subjected the concept of leadership to critical thinking and assert 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.
Concepts such as autogestion, employeeship, and common civic virtue, 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[170]
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.[171]
