1969 - The Social Nature of Leadership

7/23/2019 1969 - The Social Nature of Leadership

1/6

Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

The Social Nature of LeadershipAuthor(s): Robert K. MertonSource: The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 12 (Dec., 1969), pp. 2614-2618Published by: Lippincott Williams & WilkinsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3421106 .Accessed: 27/05/2013 17:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to The American Journal of Nursing.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lwwhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3421106?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3421106?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lww


2/6

h e

ocial ature

o

eadership

What makes a leader? What does hedo? A noted sociologist answerssuch questions in this considerationof the concept of leadership as asocial transaction and social role.

ROBERT K. MERTON

From the obscure time of ancientByzantium to our own day, thepractice and theory of leadershiphave engaged man's interest. Tread-ing his way in the Lyceum, Aris-

totle was persuaded that some menwere endowed by nature with thecapacity for leadership, and thereare still people who hold with himthat "from the hour of their birth,some are marked out for subjection,others for rule"(1). Almost wo mil-lennia later, Machiavelli, in hishandbook for princes, encompassedcourage, conviction, pride, andstrength among the qualities of

DR. MERTON, Giddings Professor of Sociologyat Columbia University, received his A.B. fromTemple University and his Ph.D. from Har-vard. He holds honorary degrees from manyuniversities, among them, Emory, Western Re-serve, Chicago, Yale, Wales, and Leiden (theNetherlands). A specialist in the study of theprofessions, he has been consulting sociologistto the ANA since 1955. His most recent bookis On Theoretical Sociology; other books in-clude On the Shoulders of Giants, Social Theoryand Social Structure and, as co-editor, Soci-ology Today and The Student-Physician.

leaders. And as we approach ourown time, it still seems to manythat the question most worth askingabout leadership s this: What per-sonal traits distinguish eaders fromthe rest of us? Answers o this ques-tion take us to a bottomless pit ofvirtue. According to the mystique,leaders distinctively possess suchtraits as intelligence, emotional ma-turity, perseverance, tact, faith,dominance, courage, insight, and soon and on.

More recently, social science has

greatly restricted the search for thepersonality raits distinctive to lead-ers. The reasons for this shift arevaried. It was found that the samepeople proved to be leaders in onetype of group and not in others.Correlatively, eaders in the samegroups were of quite different kindsat different times. Few traits werefound to be uniformly linked withleadership. R. D. Mann, for exam-ple, examined 125 studies of leader-ship which had generated 750 find-

ings about the personality traits ofleaders(2). He could discover nonewhich yielded a significant relationwith leadership n as many as halfof these studies. And to make mat-ters worse, of the scores of traitstentatively identified in one studyor another, many were diametrical-ly opposed; in some groups, effec-

2614 DECEMBER 1969

tive leaders were aggressive, n oth-ers, mild and restrained; n some,decisive, in others, diplomatic. Wehave come to recognize that the ap-parently sensible question about dis-tinctive traits of leaders was large-ly misdirected, that answers to itcould yield little understanding ofthe nature of leadership.

What we now know about lead-ership derives from quite anotherperspective. This one holds thatleadership does not, indeed cannot,result merely from the individual

traits of leaders; t must also involveattributes of the transactions be-tween those who lead and thosewho follow. Otherwise put, we startfrom the assumption hat the lead-er is only one component in thatcomplex phenomenon we call lead-ership. Like other discoveries abouthuman behavior, it may seem oddthat this one was so long coming.For once announced, it appearsself-evident. After all, RobinsonCrusoe might have been brave,

bright, innovative, courageous,adaptive, and so on, though it isplain that until his man Fridaycame along he could not possiblyhave exercised leadership. Andsince leadership involves directiveinfluence upon others, since it in-volves collective action, we will dobetter to seek its workings in the

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NURSING

This content downloaded from 79.1 75.121.210 on Mon, 27 May 2 013 17:37:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/6

system of roles and interactions be-tween people rather than simply inthe characteristics of individuals.

Leadership is, then, some sort ofsocial transaction. Its outward andvisible signs are as evident as theyare familiar. Leaders exert an un-usual degree of influence upon theirfellows. They more often initiateideas for the group and these ideasare apt to make good sense to theirassociates. When leaders are not en-gaged in initiating group action,they are responding to others whoturn to them for counsel. As theseothers find that the performance oftheir own roles is facilitated bywhat leaders say and do, they tendto express deference to them. Alto-gether, in the useful words of Stog-

dill, leadership is the process of "in-fluencing the activities of an organ-ized group toward goal-setting andgoal-achievement" 3).

LEADERSHIP ERSUSAUTHORITYSo it is that this transactional

perspective puts in question the an-cient notion that leadership is onlyan expression of the individual qual-ities of leadership. This perspectivedoes more. It requires us to recog-nize that leadership, as a mode ofsocial influence, is not the same asauthority, which is an attribute ofa social position. The organization-al executive, the judge, the fore-man, the head nurse have author-ity by virtue of the positions theyhold. They may or may not alsoexert leadership. Authority involvesthe legitimated rights of a positionthat require others to obey; leader-ship is an interpersonal relation inwhich others comply because theywant to, not because

theyhave to.

This distinction between authorityand leadership is more than an ac-ademic exercise. It is fundamentalto our understanding he major factthat leadership can be found atevery level of an organization. Theleaders, the influentials, sometimeshold formal offices of authority;sometimes, they do not. At times,they are unofficially acknowledgedVOLUME 69, NUMBER 12

leaders, recognized as such in thebehavior of their associates thoughnot in the organization blueprint.

Once we keep in mind the basicdistinction between authority andleadership, all manner of problemscome into focus. We can begin tounderstand how it is that some peo-ple who occupy positions of author-ity are effective in their jobs whileothers in such positions do poorly.The first type combine authorityand leadership; the second haveauthority without leadership. In thefirst case, the organization thrives,in the second, it deteriorates. Soon-er or later, something gives. Thepeople in positions of authority aredisplaced or the organization be-comes less and less effective.

One way of coaxing sociologicaltruths about leadership out of theirdark hiding places, then, is to cen-ter on cases in which people occupyvarying positions of authority andto consider what is necessary forthem to exercise that authority ef-fectively. This is only another wayof saying that we want to deal pri-marily with the question of whatmakes for the joint exercise of au-thority and leadership.

It was the distinctive genius ofChester Barnard o recognize, some30 years ago, that authority, at itsmost effective, achieves willing ra-ther than forced compliance. In therelation between leader and follow-er, there is a "zone of acceptabil-ity": that range of behavior "withinwhich the subordinate is ready toaccept the decisions made for himby his superior."'

Effective leadership operates prin-cipally within that zone of ac-

ceptability.And

to do this, as Bar-nard pointed out, four primitiveconditions must be satisfied. Ev-ident as they are, these conditions1THE concept was called the "zone of indiffer-ence" by Chester Barnard, The Functions ofthe Executive, Cambridge, Mass., HarvardUniversity Press, 1938, pp. 168-169. It wasthen extended and called the "area of accep-tance" by Herbert A. Simon, AdministrativeBehavior, New York, Macmillan Co., 1947, p.133 (whose language is quoted here). Theterm "zone of acceptability" is intended tocapture the intent of both Barnard and Simon.

are nevertheless often neglected inpractice. First, the recipient ofthe communication-suggestion, ad-vice or order, as the case may be-must be able to understand it. Ex-perience shows that much seemingnoncompliance with a directive isin fact

onlya case of its not

havingbeen understood. Second, the per-son must be able to comply withthe directive; he must have the re-sources to do what he is beingasked to do. Many an apparent ail-ure in leadership occurs becausethis condition is unmet. Leadershave not seen to it that people areequipped with both the inner andouter resources, with the skills andknowledge and time and energyand tools needed to do what is

being called for. Third, to complywith what is being asked of them,people must believe that the actionis in some degree consistent withtheir personal interests and values.They may be ready to act againstthese interests for a time but askedto do so continually, they will de-velop profoundly original ways ofevading orders or suggestions.Fourth and finally, they must per-ceive the directive as consistentwith the purposes and values of theorganization.

Effective leaders intuitively orexplicitly provide for meeting thesefour primitive requirements; neffec-tive leaders neglect one or more ofthem and are puzzled by deteri-orating organizational performance.Analysis shows that the leader whois losing his grip has been violatingone or more of these requirements:his communications calling for ac-tion are unclear to recipients, they

are directed to people not equippedto do what they are being asked todo, they violate the personal inter-ests or values of recipients or theyare at odds with group purposes,values, and norms.

These observations bring outonce again the central idea thatleadership is less an attribute of in-dividuals than of a social exchange,a transaction between leader and

DECEMBER 1969 2615



4/6

LEADERSHIP

led. And again, though some lead-ers sense this intuitively, the rest ofus must learn it more laboriously.Leaders assist their associates inachieving personal and social goals.

In exchange, they receive the basiccoin of effective leadership: trustand respect. You need not be lovedto be an effective leader, but youmust be respected.

Identifiable social processes pro-duce the respect that makes for ef-fective leadership. First, respect ex-pressed by the leader breeds re-spect for the leader. As he exhibitsrespect for members of the groupand for their shared values andnorms he finds t reciprocated.

Second, he demonstrates compe-tence in performing his own roles,whatever these may be. No one isbetter situated than subordinates odistinguish between a superior's au-thentic competence and its mereappearance.

Third, the leader is in continuingtouch with what is going on withinthe group. For this, it helps to belocated at strategic nodes in the net-work of communication. Located

there, he provides for two-waycommunication. He not only letsthe other fellow get an occasionalword in edgewise, he lets him geta good number of words in straight-away. And the leader listens: bothto what is said and to what is notsaid but implied. He allows for bothnegative and positive feedback.Negative feedback, as a cue to thepossibility that he has moved farbeyond the zone of acceptability:positive feedback as a cue for sup-port of his initiating actions.

Fourth, though the leader in po-sitions of authority has access tothe power that coerces, he seldommakes use of it. Once he has gainedthe respect of associates, t is they,not the leader, who tend to ensurecompliance among their peers.Leaders deplete their authority byfrequent exercise of power. For

2616 DECEMBER 1969

such action shrinks the zone of ac-ceptability. Group experiments havefound that the more often groupleaders used the coercive powergranted them, the more apt werethey to be displaced. These experi-ments confirm what has long beenthought; leadership is sustained by

noblesse oblige, the obligation forgenerosity of behavior among thoseenjoying rank and power. Force isan ultimate resource that maintainsitself by being seldom employed.

Having noted this in a generalway, we must note also that stylesof leadership vary. The repertoireof styles is large and few leadersacquire the versatility to shift fromone to another style as changingcircumstances require. There is theauthoritarian style in which theleader is firm, insistent, self-assured,dominating. With or without intent,he creates fear and then meets theregressive needs of his followersthat that fear has created. He keepshimself at the center of attentionand manages to keep communica-tion between others in the group toa minimum. Ready to use coercion,the authoritarian may be effectivein times of crisis when the socialsystem is in a state of disorder. But

extreme and enforced dependenceon the leader means that the sys-tem is especially iable to instability.

The democratic style of leader-ship, in contrast, is responsive. Itprovides for extended participationof others, with policies emergingout of interaction between leaderand led. The democratic eader ini-tiates more than the rank and filebut the authoritarian does so to afar greater degree. Other familiarstyles of leadership can here onlyfind mention: the bureaucraticleader, for example, who holds fastto the rule book at all costs, andthe paternalistic leader, who con-verts direction of even the most im-personal task into inflexible but tohim benevolent control. The stylesof leadership emerging in particularcases are, to an unknown degree,an expansion of the personality

structure and earlier socialization ofthe leader. Leaders lead as theyhave been led. But to perhaps agreater extent, styles of leadershipare a function of the situation andthe character of the organization;it is through the incessant processof self-selection and organizational

selection that particular personalitytypes find themselves cast in lead-ership roles.

WHAT DO LEADERS DO?

But whatever the styles of leader-ship, what are its functions? Allapart from the flamboyant rhetoricin which we ordinarily alk of lead-ers, what in fact do they do? Somany and diverse are these func-tions that we sometimes wonderthat leaders, like self-conscious cen-tipedes, can navigate at all. Thesaving grace seems to be that socialsystems, once established, haveenough stability to limp along eventhough some of those many func-tions are served ineptly. Here, then,in swift review, are some of thechief functions of leadership.* Leaders facilitate the adaptivecapacity of social systems. They ini-tiate change that is responsive toboth the internal and external en-

vironments f the system.* Leaders are distinctively alertto the unanticipated consequencesof previous collective action. Theycapitalize upon the consequencesthat advance the group purposeand counteract those consequencesthat were both unforeseen and un-wanted.* Leaders are future oriented aswell as present oriented. Theysearch out currently hidden but im-pending problems. These anticipa-tory adaptations assist the group toprepare for impending problems, tocurtail their impact when they doemerge and, in the ideal case, keepthem from developing at all.* Whether assigned this task ornot, leaders represent the group toits environment. Central to the in-ternal organization of the group,they are also at its boundary where




5/6


6/6

LEADERSHIP

know better. Like every other nstru-mentality, social or technological,leadership lends itself indifferentlyto good or evil. After all, Stalin andHitler were for a time effective

leaders. What, then, are some ofthe principal dangers of leadershipwithin small social systems as wellas large?

To begin with, there is whatRobert Michels excessively de-scribed as "the iron law of oligar-chy"(6). He examined the par-adoxical case of leaders initiallycommitted to democratic valueswho abandoned these values astheir attention turned increasinglyto maintaining he organization andespecially their own place within it.The danger is plain: leaders longestablished are often the last to per-ceive their own transition towardoligarchy, toward a form of controlin which power is confined to thesame few persons. And leaders longestablished are apt to confuse thelegitimacy of their rule with them-selves. It was not only Louis XIVwho announced "L'6tat, c'est moi "As the more recent story goes, De

Gaulle periodically ntoned to him-self: "Quand je veux savoir ce quepense la France, je m'interroge"(7).(When I want to know whatFrance thinks, I ask myself.)

Leaders are apt to have otherblind spots. They are often unable,as Cartwright has noted, to recog-nize that the very possession ofpower is enough to pose threats tothose subject to that power(8). Butsubordinates know that even themost benevolent of leaders can

make things hard for them. As a re-sult, they are more sensitive to thebehavior of their superiors han su-periors often are to the behavior oftheir subordinates. These differen-tials in sensitivity explain why lead-ers so often find even their best in-tentions being interpreted as malev-olent. As possessors of power, lead-ers are perennially subject to being

2618 DECEMBER 1969

experienced as sources of danger.Related to both the "law" of ol-

igarchy and differentials in sensi-tivity to behavior between leadersand led is the observed tendencyfor communication within groups tobecome less open as the same lead-ership continues. Just as with bio-

logical systems, though for differentreasons, long-lived social systems ofleadership are subject to hardeningof the arteries of communication.There is a fundamental reason forthis. Experiments have found thatpeople tend to see and hear whatis congenial to them and to insulatethemselves from uncongenial opin-ions and ideas. Confronted withpleasant objects, the size of pupildilates significantly: confrontedwith unpleasant objects, it con-tracts. All this suggests that long-enduring leaders who would alsobe effective ones will make a spe-cial effort to keep lines of commu-nication open and particularly withthose who do not see things as theythemselves do.

Another pathology of leadershipis found in the excess multiplica-tion of rules in social systems. Rulescan accumulate o the point of par-alyzing needed innovation. It has

been found that the number andspecificity of rules increase as anadaptation o conflict between lead-ers and rank and file. What isequally in point, the reverse processhas also been observed: the rapidgrowth of regulations, which oftenwork at cross-purposes, goes alongwith a greater potential for conflict.These observations provide a socialdiagnostic. If you find yourself inan organization hat is multiplyingrules at a rapid rate, you are beinggiven a sociological warning signal.There is more conflict in that sys-tem than may at first meet the eye.

Another ailment of organization-al leadership was long since diag-nosed by Chester Barard as "thedilemma of time-lag" 9). By thisphrase, he referred to the problemof discrepancy between organiza-tional requirements for immediate

adaptive action and the slow pro-cess of obtaining democratic ap-proval for it. This is an authenticdilemma. Democratically organizedgroups can cope with this dilemmaonly by having their members cometo recognize in advance that, re-mote as they are from the firing

line of daily decision, there will beoccasions in which decisive actionmust be taken before it can be fullyexplored and validated by themembership. This comes hard fordemocratic organizations which of-ten prefer to pay the price of mal-adaptation n order to avoid havingtheir leadership converted nto Cae-sarism or Bonapartism.

That leadership is of variouskinds, that it works its ways var-iously under various conditions, hatit has its distinctive requirementsand its processes, that it has, too,its pathologies-all this means thatleadership s not simply a mystique.Slowly our understanding of lead-ership grows and sometime, per-haps, it will emerge from the so-ciological twilight into the full lightof day.

REFERENCES1. Aristotle. Politics Book I, Chap. 5.2. MANN, B. D. A review of the relationships

between personality andperformance

insmall groups. Psychol.Bull. 56:241-270, July1959.

3. STOGDILL, . NM. Leadership, membershipand organization. Psychol.Bull. 47:1-14, Jan.1950.

4. BOULDING, ENNETH. Conflict and Defense.New York, Harper and Row, 1961, p. 192.

5. FIEDLER, F. E. A contingency model ofleadership effectiveness. IN Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, ed. byLeonard Berkowitz. New York, AcademicPress, 1964, pp. 149-190.

6. MICHELS, ROBERT. Political Parties; a Socio-

logical Study of the Oligarchical Tendenciesof Modern Democracy, translated by EdenPaul and Cedar Paul. New York, DoverPublications, 1959.

7. MONANE, j. H. Sociology of Human Sys-

tems. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts,1967, p. 55.8. CARTWRIGHT, DORWIN. Influence, leader-

ship, control. IN Handbook of Organiza-tions, ed. by James G. March. Chicago, Ill.,Rand McNally and Co., 1965, p. 36.

9. BARNARD, CHESTER. The Functions of theExecutive. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Uni-versity Press, 1938, p. 8.

This article is based on a speech given at theFourteenth Quadrennial Congress of the Inter-national Council of Nurses in May, 1969 inMontreal, Canada, and is printed with the per-mission of the ICN.



Documents

1969 - The Social Nature of Leadership