GA RANDELL wrote:
> The trouble with most texts on leadership is that they are mostly
> conceptual rather than behavioural. In William James' terms they are
> learning about rather than learning how.(Can I say that a large amount of
> the discussion on this list also falls into this category!) So if you
> want to learn what it is exactly like to behave as a transformational
> leader, rather than to be one, whatever that is, try looking at some of
> the British texts on leadership such as
> Wright, P.L. Managerial Leadership.London, Routledge, 1996
> and
> Wright.P.L. and Taylor,D.S. Improving Leadership Performance:
> Interpersonal Skills for Effective Leadership,2nd ed.Prentice Hall 1994
--snip---
I agree wholeheartedly with your concern over concept versus behavior.
but those who do lead, and those who don't ---- conceive? anyway, your
point reminded me of a little paper I wrote a year or so ago, and so I
present it here. It isn't a British text, nor do I have a PhD in
leadership from the school that Rost built--but it might be pertinent just
the same.
-------------------------------
A Philosophy of Leading
"-ship, a native English suffix of nouns denoting condition, character,
office, skill, etc.: clerkship, friendship, statesmanship."
"-ment, a suffix of nouns, often concrete, denoting an action or
resulting state (abridgment; refreshment), a product (fragment), or
means (ornament)."
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language.
Gramercy Books, 1989.
As pointed out throughout Bass & Stodgill's Handbook of Leadership
and Rost's Leadership for the Twenty-first Century, virtually hundreds of
people have attempted to define leadership. There has been so much
confusion and disagreement about the word, "leadership," it's a wonder we
haven't resolved the problem by avoiding the word altogether. I found it
curious that there is more agreement over the definition of management
than there is leadership. Indeed, much of the ambiguity and confusion
experienced in defining "leadership" comes from the use of the suffix
"-ship." Just using the generic definition provided above, one could say
that leadership is the condition, character, office and/or skill relative
to being a leader. The definition lends itself to broad interpretation.
If we studied leadment and managership instead of leadership and
management, would we come up with different definitions?
That's why I prefer to look at the act of leading, rather than the
condition of being a leader. Whether or not any one person is a leader
(condition, character, etc.) may be more a matter of perception of those
who observe or follow another than it is a matter of self-perception. I
simply cannot be responsible for what others think about me. I can only
be responsible and accountable for how I behave or act within groups and
society. Therefore, I have chosen to write about my personal philosophy of
leading, rather than that of leadership. I can attempt to define that
within the terms of my personal philosophy.
Right from the beginning, I will assert that all of the
deliberations about leadership, discussed within the works cited, may be
correct--despite their apparent differences. Many are synthesized from
earlier hypotheses. Rost is likely correct in his assertions that most of
what others have labeled "leadership" is probably supervision or
management or something else. I propose that those members of the
follower-group frequently have trouble discerning whether they are being
led, managed, controlled, coerced or supervised. The person(s) in the
"controlling" position also will frequently misapply labels to what they
are doing. Life is chaotic; labels are confusing. Principles may be our
only answer to chaos, because they can order our activities in such a way
that others may know what to expect--and accept--from us.
In discussing George Washington, Richard Brookhiser emphasizes the
founding father's moral behavior. He says that much of Washington's
courtesy was formed from reading and adopting the "Rules of Civility," a
set of 110 rules composed by French Jesuits in 1595. The very first rule
was, "Every action done in company ought to be done with some sign of
respect to those that are present." Brookhiser continues, ". . . the
'Rules' are concerned with men. 'When you see a crime punished, you may
be inwardly pleased; but . . . show pity to the offending sufferer' (rule
#23). '. . . treat [artificers and persons of low degree] with affability
and courtesy, without arrogance' (rule #36). 'When a man does all he can,
though it succeed not well, blame not him that did it' (rule #44)."
These so-called "virtues of humanity--guidelines for dealing
others, based on attending to their situations and their sensibilities,"
were especially important in a new country emphasizing egalitarian virtues
above and beyond the courtesies due the superficial ranks and privileges
of the aristocratic class omnipresent in European countries (127 - 129).
As principles of behavior, these were a fundamental element in how
Washington treated his contemporaries. Among the many dogmatists of
leadership, this characteristic may be referred to as interpersonal
skills, caring, concern, love or simply civility. To Rost, these
principles may be a feature of the "non-coercive" attribute of leadership.
In my personal philosophy, the "Rules of Civility" are replaced with
others of my choosing: "Behave towards others in the manner that you
would have them behave towards you;" and, "Serve Others." There are many
good, sound principles that can direct ethical behavior. Suffice it to
say that any and all of these are a key to success in leading.
Leading comes from within, but it presumes followers; goals or
vision; and the external conditions that create the group or society's
need to look for and select a leader. It comes from within, because the
traits or attributes that appeal to others are those that are formed from
the cradle--based on all those factors of living that constitute each
person's circumstances, and which can include education and training
specific to leading. People can seek office or authority, and with it the
mantle of leadership (headship). These so-called leaders can compel,
coerce, control, and influence the actions of others, and not fit the
parameters of my definition. They are not leading--they are pushing.
Leaders genuinely chosen by their followers can assume office or authority
and compel, control, coerce, and influence others. These people can fit
within my definition, because a leader does not need to lead all the time
for people to consider them a leader.
The reasons why people follow another person are as numerous as
the people themselves. Our needs for leaders change with maturity,
changes in dependency and our external circumstances. Many followers will
insist on formal trappings of leadership, especially office, to validate a
leader's authority--this is especially true in a political sense. Large
groups tend to choose their leaders from that small group of people who
put themselves forward because of their ambitions, interests and
motivations. The criteria they use to choose them with are very similar to
the criteria used in smaller groups. Communications skills can help
create the leader's image, but what we are looking for from the
leader-nominee speaks to our cultural bias. Personal strength, honesty,
conviction and the ability to share a coherent vision of what we want to
believe ourselves capable of--these are some of the traits for which I am
looking. In addition, those values held dearest by most people must be
believed to exist in the person who is to be accepted as a leader. People
also tend to select those who are decisive, confident and personally
successful as their leaders--leading Freud and others of his ilk to assign
psycho-symbolism to the relationships between followers and their leaders.
Finally, I think that leaders should be serving something larger,
more spiritual, than just their self-interest or the material interests of
others. Whether it is the perpetuation of an ideology; the belief in a
destiny or future for one's descendants that transcends the current
reality; the fostering and strengthening of humanistic virtues--these are
they kinds of metaphysical constructs that many people are looking for,
cynical as they can become, in their leaders. This is the
transformational leader "[who] asks followers to transcend their own
self-interests for the good of the group, organization, or society; to
consider their longer-term needs to develop themselves, rather than their
needs of the moment; and to become more aware of what is really important"
(Bass, 53). Managers and supervisors cannot achieve the objectives of a
transformational leader because people cannot be compelled, bribed, paid
or coerced to transcend their own self-interests. People only reach
beyond their grasp for the visualization of what can be.
An ancient example of transformational leadership, and its'
effects, concerns the story of the Trung sisters, revered by Vietnamese
for their bravery and leadership. In A.D. 39, the Chinese executed a
powerful local Nam Viet chieftain for violently resisting Chinese
acculturation efforts. His widow, Trung Trac, set aside her personal
grief to raise troops--then boosted their morale with the following oath:
"I swear, first, to avenge the nation;
Second, to restore the Hung's former position;
Third, to have revenge for my husband;
Fourth, to carry through to the end our common task."
Both the aristocracy and peasantry swarmed to Trung Trac and her
sister Trung Nhi, pushing the Chinese out of almost all Nam Viet for two
years. The sisters ruled as joint queens during this time, only to see
the Chinese juggernaut roll through their country again. Their mutual
suicide made them martyrs to the long-lived fervor of Vietnamese
nationalism, and to this day their vision of an independent Vietnam is
commemorated throughout that country (SarDesai, 12 - 13).
In a prologuish note, I would like to offer my rough definition of
organizational leadership--indeed, it's more a synthesis of theories
presented by Rost. He quotes T. O. Jacobs as saying that "it is probable
that the ability to lead must be based on the competence to make some kind
of unique contribution to the success of the group being led. It appears,
then, that leadership is a transaction between the leader and the group."
Rost then cites E. P. Hollander, writing eight years later than Jacobs.
Hollander states that, "leadership is a process, not a person." He goes on
to say, " . . . the concept of leadership is relational. It involves
someone who exerts influence, and those who are influenced. However,
influence can flow both ways. Influence involves persuasion. It is not
the same as power which leaves little choice . . . the real 'power' of a
leader lies in his or her ability to influence followers without resorting
to threats. This is one basis for distinguishing true leadership from the
most basic level of supervision."
Rost then quotes Katz and Kahn. "We consider the essence of
organizational leadership to be the influential increment over and above
the mechanical compliance with routine directives of the organization." I
find this is an interesting definition, having just heard from Hollander
and Jacobs that 'leadership' is a transaction or process (Rost, 60 - 62).
To synthesize the three points of view just quoted: Organizational
leadership, then, is the process or relationship between the leader and
the group that influences individual behavior over and above the
mechanical compliance with a routine behavior required by the
organization. I might add that organizations should be unhappy with a
norm of routine behavior, as they strive for excellence in competing for
markets, which is a good reason, then, to look for leaders in lieu of
managers.
Bass, Bernard M. (1974). Bass & Stodgill's handbook of leadership:
theory, research and managerial applications. NY: The Free Press.
Brookhiser, Richard. (1996). Founding father: rediscovering George
Washington. NY: The Free Press.
Rost, Joseph C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
SarDesai, D. R. (1992). Vietnam: The Struggle for National Identity.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Copyright 1996 by Richard C. "Doc" Holloway, Olympia, WA 98501
-- Richard C. "Doc" Holloway Thresholds--Human Development and Networking for Learning Organizations Visit the bookstore at <http://www.thresholds.com/> <mailto:learnshops@thresholds.com>"To create a little flower is the labour of ages." William Blake
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>