2. The Changing Nature of Leadership

2. The Changing Nature of Leadership

3Copyright ©2013 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Complexities of Leadership

Leadership means different things to different people.

The meaning varies from country to country. However, there are universally desired leadership

attributes (GLOBE research). The context in which leadership is practiced

is a central question to understanding it.


Leadership Myths

Leaders are born, not made. Leadership is hierarchical, and you need to

hold a formal position (have status and power) to be considered a leader.

You have to have charisma to be an effective leader.


Leadership Myths

There is one standard way of leading. It is impossible to be a manager and a leader

at the same time. You only need to have common sense to be

an effective leader.


Definitions of Leadership

Early 1900s definition portrays the leader as controller of events and infers control over people.

Contemporary definitions focus on the relationship processes between people working toward a common goal.

Authors’ definition: A relational and ethical process of people together attempting to accomplish positive change.


Metaphorical Definitions of Leadership

Symphony Consider roles of conductor and musicians.

Jazz ensemble Consider roles of the musicians working together.

Performance art Consider the balance of both process and

outcomes.

Generations of Leadership Theories


Great Man Approach (Mid-1800s to early 1900s)

Assumptions Leadership development is based on Darwinistic

principles. Leaders are born, not made. Leaders have natural abilities of power and influence.

Critique Scientific research has not proved that leadership is

based on hereditary factors. Leadership was believed to exist only in a few

individuals.


Trait Approach (1904 to 1947)

Assumptions A leader has superior or endowed qualities. Certain individuals possess a natural ability to lead. Leaders have traits that differentiate them from followers.

Critique The situation is not considered in this approach. Many traits are too obscure or abstract to measure and

observe. Studies have not adequately linked traits with leadership

effectiveness. Most trait studies omit leadership behaviors and followers’

motivation as mediating variables.


Behavioral Approach(1950s to early 1980s)

Assumptions There is one best way to lead. Leaders who express high concern for both

people and production or consideration and structure will be effective.

Critique Situational variables and group processes are

ignored; studies failed to identify the situations in which specific types of leadership behaviors are relevant.


Situational/Contingency Approach (1950s to 1960s)

Assumptions Leaders act differently, depending on the situation. The situation determines who will emerge as a

leader. Different leadership behaviors are required for

different situations.

Critique Most contingency theories are ambiguous, making it

difficult to formulate specific, testable propositions. Theories lack accurate measures.


Influence/Charismatic Approach (1980s to 1990s)

Influence on followers is based on the leader’s charismatic personality rather than on traditional power and authority.

The context of the situation and the needs of the followers are particularly relevant considerations in determining what makes a leader charismatic.

Deference to a leader based on charm can lead to blind followership and misuses of power.


Reciprocal Leadership Theories (1980s to the present)

Several reciprocal theories are explored here. All of these theories: Focus on the reciprocal nature of leader-

follower interactions Emphasize collective goals rather than the

leader’s goal Elevate the importance of the role of

followers in the leadership process


Reciprocal Leadership Theories: Servant Leadership

The leader’s role is to serve the followers. What do they need in order to accomplish their

goal? (training, encouragement, coaching, etc.) The leader is motivated by a desire to make a

positive difference for others.

Critique Is not a measurable model, so not supported

by research. Followers have a more traditional, passive role.


Reciprocal Leadership Theories: Transforming Leadership

“…a process where leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation.” ―James MacGregor Burns


Reciprocal Leadership Theories: Transforming Leadership

Major Assumptions Leaders motivate by appealing to “higher ideals and moral

values such as liberty, justice, equality, peace, and humanitarianism” rather than a transactional exchange of rewards or punishments

The group’s process matters as much as results. Through the experience, both leaders and followers are

transformed to higher ethical aspirations and conduct.

Major Criticism It is a vague theory, making it difficult to measure. Hard to

prove the degree that leaders and followers are transformed It is more leader-centric than most reciprocal theories.


Reciprocal Leadership Theories: Complexity Theory

“Leadership is not the influence of an individual but is embedded in a complex interplay of numerous interacting forces.”

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting Leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298–318.


Reciprocal Leadership Theories: Complexity Theory

Major Assumptions The source of change is attributed to the

interactive dynamics of all the people and ideas influencing the process.

People at all levels of the organization interact and adapt to rapidly shifting realities as they work toward their goal.


Reciprocal Leadership: Adaptive Leadership

Rather than getting followers to do the leader’s wishes, leadership occurs when interacting individuals generate adaptive outcomes that are needed to accomplish their goal. Group members no longer rely on formal

leaders to provide direction or authorization. Requires group members with emotional

intelligence and a strong sense of common values and goals.


Reciprocal Leadership Theories: Shared Leadership

“A dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of the group or organizational goals or both….Leadership is broadly distributed among a set of individuals instead of centralized in hands of a single individual who acts in the role of a superior.”

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Reciprocal Leadership Theories: Shared Leadership

Leadership is owned by the whole system as opposed to the formal leader.

Leadership is distributed among interdependent group members.

Leadership is embedded in social interactions, it occurs through relationships, with followers influencing and initiating leadership.

Leadership requires mutual learning, heightened understanding by learning from each other’s perspectives.


Followership

Effective followers Manage themselves well. Are committed to the organization and to a

purpose, principle, or person outside themselves.

Build their competence and focus their efforts for maximum impact.

Are courageous, honest, and credible.Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6),142–148.


Emerging Leadership Theory

Industrial Paradigm Structural-functionalist Management-oriented Leader-centric (little attention

to the role of others in the group)

Goal-achievement dominated Self-interested and

individualistic in outlook Male-oriented Utilitarian and materialistic in

ethical perspective Linear and scientific in

language and methodology

Post-Industrial Paradigm More attention to relationships

than organizational structure Attention given to the

interdependent roles of everyone in the group

Emphasis on good process as well as good results

Emphasis on good outcomes for everyone, not just the leader

Nonlinear approach. No step-by-step easy answers, but requires ability to adapt and respond


A Rapidly Changing World: Chaos Theory

The world: Is inherently unpredictable While at another level it displays a “hidden

pattern” Is made of connected wholes, rather than

distinct parts Cannot be controlled, but can be influenced


Chaos Theory: Competing Expectations and Realities

The way things “ought” to be Perfection is expected

the first time. Goals are predictable

with complete certainty. Control is expected. Efficiency is the standard

of competence. Predictability is

assumed.

The way things actually are Informed experimentation

is necessary. Additional and new goals

will always appear. Absolute control is rare

and cannot be maintained over the long term.

Redundancy and detours fuel creativity and innovation.

Probabilities are the norm. Allen, K. E., & Cherrey, C. (2000). Systemic leadership: Enriching themeaning of our work. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, p. 20.


Authentic Leadership

Authentic leaders know who they are, what they value, and act transparently.

Leadership relationships have Transparency, openness, and trust Are working toward worthy objectives Emphasis on personal development of followers

Documents

2. The Changing Nature of Leadership