Essay
By Prof. Mike Ozekhome, SAN
Introduction
THE topic of leadership has been of interest for many hundreds of years, from the early Greek philosophers such as Plato and Socrates to the plethora of management and leadership gurus, whose books fill airport bookshops.
Seldom, however, has the need for effective leadership been voiced more strongly than now. It is argued that in this changing, global environment, leadership holds the answer not only to the success of individuals and organisations, but also to sectors, regions and nations.
A nation or an organisation without leadership is like a general without troops or a ship without water to sail on.
This is to underscore the importance of leadership. Whether a nation is great or not or whether an organisation succeeds or not depend more on its leadership rather than other variables. To this end, we shall take a look at the definition of leadership, what it means, how it operates and its undisputable imperatives.
DEFINITION OF THE LEADERSHIP
Despite recognition of the importance of leadership, however, there remains a certain mystery as to what leadership actually is or how to define it. In a review of leadership research, Stogdill concluded that there are “almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept” and that was 42 years ago! At the heart of the problem of defining leadership lie two fundamental difficulties. Firstly, like notions such as ‘love’, ‘freedom’ and ‘happiness’, leadership is a complex construct open to subjective interpretation. Everyone has their own intuitive understanding of what leadership is, based on a mixture of experience and learning, which is difficult to capture in a succinct definition.
Secondly, the way in which leadership is defined and understood is strongly influenced by one’s theoretical stance. There are those who view leadership as the consequence of a set of traits or characteristics possessed by ‘leaders’, whilst others view leadership as a social process that emerges from group relationships. Such divergent views will always result in a difference of opinion about the nature of leadership. “Leadership appears to be, like power, an ‘essentially contested concept’”
Grint identifies four problems that make consensus on a common definition of leadership highly unlikely. Firstly, there is the ‘process’ problem – a lack of agreement on whether leadership is derived from the personal qualities (i.e. traits) of the leader, or whether a leader induces followership through what he does (i.e. a social process). Secondly, there is the ‘position’ problem– is the leader in charge (i.e. with formally allocated authority) or in front (i.e. with informal influence)? A third problem is one of ‘philosophy’ – does the leader exert an intentional, causal influence on the behaviour of followers or are their apparent actions determined by context and situation or even attributed retrospectively? A fourth difficulty is one of ‘purity’ – is leadership embodied in individuals or groups and is it a purely human phenomenon? In addition to these relatively theoretical contentions Grint also distinguishes between attitudes towards coercion.
Some definitions of leadership restrict it to purely non-coercive influence towards shared (and socially acceptable) objectives. Within such frameworks the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein would not be seen as leaders, but rather as tyrants working solely for their own benefit and depending on threat, violence and intimidation rather than the more subtle processes of interpersonal influence more frequently associated with ‘true’ leadership. Such distinctions, however, are always problematic as the actions of nearly all leaders could be perceived more or less beneficially by certain individuals and groups.
The psychodynamic approach, made famous by researchers at the Tavistock Institute, adds further areas for consideration: what are the psychological factors that encourage people to become leaders or followers, and what is it about groups, organisations and societies that gives rise the perception of ‘leadership’? This approach emphasises the importance of understanding self and others and, through this, understanding the transactional nature of the relationship between leader and followers. Thus, for example, it could be concluded that the leader fulfils a role of sense making, offering security and purpose to his/her followers and it is for this reason that they choose to remain followers.
In a 2004 review of leadership theory, Northouse identified four common themes in the way leadership now tends to be conceived: (1) leadership is a process; (2) leadership involves influence; (3) leadership occurs in a group context; and (4) leadership involves goal attainment. He thus defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal”. This is a good definition, but it still locates the individual as the source of leadership.
A more collective concept of leadership arises out of a review by Yukl who pointed out that “Most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption that it involves a social influence process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person [or group] over other people [or groups] to structure the activities and relationships in a group or organisation”. Even this definition, however, obscures as much as it reveals. Just what exactly is the nature of this ‘social influence’; how can it ‘structure’ activities and relationships; and when applied in a group setting who is the ‘leader’?
In short, leadership is a complex phenomenon that touches on many other important organisational, social and personal processes. It depends on a process of influence, whereby people are inspired to work towards group goals, not through coercion, but through personal motivation. Which definition you accept should be a matter of choice, informed by your own predispositions, organisational situation and beliefs, but with an awareness of the underlying assumptions and implications of your particular approach. As Bennis and Nanus stated, “…leadership is like the Abominable Snowman, whose footprints are everywhere but who is nowhere to be seen.”
TYPES OF LEADERSHIP
- Transformational Leadership
- Transactional Leadership
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Transformational leadership is defined as a leadership approach that causes change in individuals and social systems. In its ideal form, it creates valuable and positive change in the followers with the end goal of developing followers into leaders. Enacted in its authentic form, transformational leadership enhances the motivation, morale and performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms. These include connecting the follower’s sense of identity and self to the mission and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followers that inspires them; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can align followers with tasks that optimize their performance.
A transformational leader therefore, is a person who stimulates and inspires (transform) followers to achieve extraordinary outcome. He/she pay attention to the concern and developmental needs of individual followers; they change followers’ awareness of issues by helping them to look at old problems in a new way ; and they are able to arouse, excite and inspire followers to put out extra effort to achieve group goals.
Transformational leadership theory is all about leadership that creates positive change in the followers whereby they take care of each other’s interests and act in the interests of the group as a whole.
The concept of transformational leadership was introduced by James Macgregor Burns in 1978 in his descriptive research on political leaders, but its usage has spread into organisational psychology and management with further modifications by B.M Bass and J.B Avalio.
Transformational leadership enhances the motivation, morale, and performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms. These include connecting the follower’s sense of identity and self to the project and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followers that inspires them and makes them interested; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can align followers with tasks that enhance their performance. Warrilow identified four components of transformational leadership style:
1) Charisma or idealised influence: the degree to which the leader behaves in admirable ways and displays convictions and takes stands that cause followers to identify with the leader who has a clear set of values and acts as a role model for the followers.
(2) Inspirational motivation: the degree to which the leader articulates a vision that is appeals to and inspires the followers with optimism about future goals, and offers meaning for the current tasks in hand.
(3) Intellectual stimulation: the degree to which the leader challenges assumptions, stimulates and encourages creativity in the followers – by providing a framework for followers to see how they connect [to the leader, the organisation, each other, and the goal] they can creatively overcome any obstacles in the way of the mission.
(4) Personal and individual attention: the degree to which the leader attends to each individual follower’s needs and acts as a mentor or coach and gives respect to and appreciation of the individual’s contribution to the team. This fulfils and enhances each individual team members’ need for self-fulfilment, and self-worth -and in so doing inspires followers to further achievement and growth.
WEAKNESSES OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Yukl, identified seven major weaknesses of Transformational leadership. First is the ambiguity underlying its influences and processes. The theory fails to explain the interacting variables between transformational leadership and positive work outcomes. The theory would be stronger if the essential influence processes were identified more clearly and used to explain how each type of behaviour affects each type of mediating variable and outcome.
Secondly is the overemphasis of the theory on leadership processes at the dyadic level. The major interest is to explain a leader’s direct influence over individual followers, not leader influence on group or organisational processes. Examples of relevant group-level processes include: (1) how well the work is organised to utilise personnel and resources; (2) how well inter-related group activities are coordinated; (3)the amount of member agreement about objectives and priorities; (4) mutual trust and cooperation among members; (5) the extent of member identification with the group; (6) member confidence in the capacity of the group to attain its objectives; (7) the procurement and efficient use of resources; and (8) external coordination with other parts of the organization and outsiders. How leaders influence these group processes is not explained very well by the transformational leadership theories. Organisational processes also receive insufficient attention in most theories of transformational leadership. Leadership is viewed as a key determinant of organisational effectiveness, but the causal effects of leader behaviour on the organisational processes that ultimately determine effectiveness are seldom described in any detail in most studies on transformational leadership. Transformational leadership theories would benefit from a more detailed description of leader influence on group and organisational processes.
Thirdly, the theoretical rationale for differentiating among the behaviours is not clearly explained. The partially overlapping content and the high inter-correlation found among the transformational behaviours raise doubts about their construct validity. For example, intellectual stimulation is operationally defined as causing a subordinate to question traditional beliefs, to look at problems in a different way, and to find innovative solutions for problems. The content is diverse and ambiguous. There is not a clear description of what the leader actually says or does to influence the cognitive processes or behaviour of subordinates. (To be continued).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“Leadership is the capacity to translate a vision into reality.” (Warren Bennis).
A.I
Tags: Prof. Mike Ozekhome
