Leadership is a rare skill.
2.1. Leadership is a rare skill.
2.1.1 Analysis of the concept
A definition of what leadership is will help in analysing this concept, Daft (2002:5) states "Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purpose." Effective leadership is all about creating this shared purpose and vision. The shift from the old paradigm to the new paradigm (appendix 1) reflects the shift from rational management to the leadership approach.
So the main question is, is leadership a rare skill? There are so many leaders and leadership roles in the today's society, so the fact leadership is a rare skill seems an odd concept, but are they leaders, or managers? The two are often confused.
Management is the "attainment of organisational goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organising, staffing, directing and controlling organisational resources." (Daft 2002:15) The problem is that there are too many people managing and too few leading, as shown by the Management-Leadership mix (Appendix 2) where there exist too many people with a combination of strong management skills and weak leadership skills. This ties in with the saying "over managed and under led." (Bennis and Nanus1986:21) The key challenge however is said to, obtain the correct combination of leadership and management, and use them both to balance each other. According to Daft (2002:15) managers already possess the abilities and qualities needed to be effective leaders, so if they can adapt their skills, then leaders would be plentiful. Many leaders are stuck in the practises of the old paradigm or industrial era that valued control and stability, and not moving into the new paradigm and reality of the 21st century which requires empowerment and the achievement of collaboration. Bennis and Nanus (1986: 12) sum this up when they state "Historically leaders have controlled rather than organised, administered repression rather than expression, and held their followers in arrestment rather than in evolution" Managers need to learn the skills and practises of leaders, which include creating a vision and a shared culture, focusing on the people, rather than objects and their planning, budgeting and organising, so that leadership isn't such a rare skill, and organisations aren't "under-led". However, this is achievable, everybody has leadership potential within them and opportunities exist everywhere. Some people possess skills which will make them better leaders and it is probably truer to say that "Great leadership is a rare skill." We can come across leaders in many situations, but to come across great leaders is a rare occurrence, great leaders in society include people such as Winston Churchill, who inspired and motivated people to go to war, and fight for England. He created a vision of victory and a "Greater" Britain.
Leaders need to take into account the information-age of today, which involves the developing of "soft" leadership skills which back up the "hard" skills of management.(www.complete-management.com accessed 20/10/03) Organisations need to be managed and led, whilst most leaders haven't undergone the process of bringing the necessary qualities which they already possess into practise, it is "important to remember leadership can be learnt." (Daft 2002;29)
2.1.2 Summary of truthfulness and how useful this myth is
I don't believe this statement is true at all. It may be true to say that great leaders are rare, but everyone has leadership potential. There are so many different leadership roles and people may be leaders in one organization and have quite ordinary roles in another. The truth is, leadership opportunities are plentiful and within reach of most people.
2.2 Leaders are born, not made
2.2.1 Analysis of the concept
This statement refers to the early universalistic approach which believed that people were born with innate characteristic which made them a leader. Contradictory to this Bennis & Nanus (1997) state "whatever natural endowments we bring to the role of leadership, they can be enhanced; nurture is far more important than nature in determining who becomes a successful leader.¨ (Bennis & Nanus, 1997:207) Both of these ideas are going to be discussed.
Researchers at the start of the 20th century focused on traits that leaders possessed. It was thought that some people were born with traits which made them a leader. Before the 2nd World War a lot of research was carried out, which sought to identify these characteristics. This is known as the Great Man Approach, since being born with these characteristics made you a "great man".
Can there be set characteristics which make you a leader? If we take for example 2 effective leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Richard Branson they lead in very different ways and possess very different traits. Thatcher was very outspoken and dominant, with "warrior" characteristics, where as Branson is much more manipulative and subdued. This isn't to say they don't possess any of the same characteristics, may be they are both very self confident people. It is the characteristics which they share which could be linked to effective leadership, but not necessarily what make them a leader. The ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Can there be set characteristics which make you a leader? If we take for example 2 effective leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Richard Branson they lead in very different ways and possess very different traits. Thatcher was very outspoken and dominant, with "warrior" characteristics, where as Branson is much more manipulative and subdued. This isn't to say they don't possess any of the same characteristics, may be they are both very self confident people. It is the characteristics which they share which could be linked to effective leadership, but not necessarily what make them a leader. The main point is that they possess very different characteristics, but are both extremely effective leaders. Hence there is only a weak link found between personal traits (i.e. traits you are born with) and leader success. Stodgill (1948) and Bass (1959) researched this area and began by identifying the traits of people who had achieved "greatness" and tried to identify traits which they all possessed, and distinguished them from others. They identified 5 main characteristics which consisted with effective leadership. These aren't characteristics which make someone a leader, but lead to effective leadership;-
- intelligence - dominance - self confidence -level of energy and activity
- task relevant knowledge
However, even they stated traits vary depending on organisational situation - which sparked off the contingency approach. They stressed the importance of the trait relative to the organisational situation (Daft, 2002: 43-44).
I wouldn't say all leaders are born, many are born with the particular traits making them successful, but some aren't. Background and the environment plays a large role in shaping our characteristics. Looking at a leader such as Martin Luther King, who was subject to such prejudice and unfairness, he wouldn't have been the person he was if it hadn't been for the environment he was in and his upbringing. He may still have had the traits to be a great leader, but may never have had a chance to be one.
This isn't to say that characteristics we are born with don't contribute to effective leadership. Yet I feel leaders can be made. Who is to know whether leaders such as Martin Luther King learnt his leadership skills or he was born with them. I believe skills can be learnt "Major competencies can be learnt. We are all educatable - if the basic instinct to learn is there."(Bennis & Nanus, 1997:207)
This the main idea to Adair's thought that "leadership is a skill which can be learned like any other.¨ (Crainer, 1998: 222) Daft talks about how emotional intelligence is linked to leadership, and since emotional intelligence can be nurtured and developed, surely so can leadership.
The behaviour style theory looked at leader's behaviour and started during the 2nd world war, helping to develop better military leaders. It was a result of the trait theory not explaining leadership effectiveness which brought about this approach. It suggested that anyone who adopted the appropriate behaviour can be a good leader in any situation. Hence leaders can be made. However, the behaviour a leader adopts doesn't necessarily determine his success, what works in one instance may not work in another. In truth there is more than just traits and behaviour which determines success, the environment as well as the type of followers also plays a large role.
Contingency Theories took this approach, that leadership effectiveness is contingent upon the leader (his traits, behaviour and styles) the followers (their needs, training and maturity) and the organisational situation (the task, structure, systems and environment). Not just upon traits possessed by an individual.
I believe this is definitely true, and I think it is possible to learn to lead as Adair suggests, I don't think it is necessarily an easy process, and not everyone possess traits which will allow them to learn to become an effective leader, but for most I think it is achievable.
I believe that some personality traits that you are born with do contribute to making a good leader, hence some leaders may have been "born" leaders. Yet traits do not guarantee effective leadership, just greater likelihood. Some people are inborn with traits, but some are affected by our background and environment. It is often our background what "makes us" who we are. Some people are also born with the characteristics which make an effective leader, but unless they are in the right environment will never be one. After looking at all the models, the contingent seems most appropriate, all aspects, the leader, the situation and followers determine effective leadership. It is not just traits and behaviours, hence leaders aren't always born leaders.
2.2.2 Summary of truthfulness and how useful this myth is
I believe some leaders are born with necessary characteristics to help make an effective leader, but this isn't always the case leaders can be made through education and experience. The idea that we are born leaders rarely applies , and is only useful to a small extent (Crainer, 1998: 228) Bennis and Nanus (1986:17) conclude "leaders are not born," but this is still an area that is debated frequently.
2.3. Leaders are Charismatic
2.3.1 Analysis of the concept
Before going any further, a definition of what charisma actually is, is definitely required. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as the "power to inspire or attract others." Which is a gift, I believe many great leaders do possess.
Being a charismatic leader means one has the "ability to inspire and motivate people to do more than they would normally do, despite obstacles and personal sacrifice." (Daft 2002:141) Charismatic leaders can create a vision for the future that is significantly better, and they gain the trust and respect of followers. Taking for example Martin Luther King again, he is famous for saying " I Have a Dream" he inspired and motivated for a better tomorrow. He took risks which appealed to people's emotional side. All of which enhanced his charisma.
For the statement " Leaders are Charismatic" to be true, all leaders must be, which seems like a very broad statement to make about all leaders.
So are all leaders charismatic? To be a charismatic leader, is surely subjective? What one person perceives to be a charismatic person, may not be another's. I know plenty of leaders, who have led and not been charismatic. Take for instance John Major, I don't think he was a particularly charismatic leader, I certainly don't think he had power to inspire and motivate, yet he led this country. Some leaders may be followed, not because they are charismatic, "and because they inspire great allegiance but because they are respected for their hard work" Besser, Terry (2003) "The miracles of leadership and other myths" accessed via http://www.extension .iastate.edu.communities.news.comcon31.html (15 Oct 2003). Which I believe is definitely true. A hard working leader is definitely rewarded with respect and a position of authority, as is a charismatic leader.
Max Weber ( 1864-1920) was one of the first to come up with the concept of a charismatic leader, yet even he recognised that not every individual can take the role of the charismatic leader, only exceptional individuals can.
You can't learn to be charismatic, it is a gift, and I feel it is the result of effective leadership. If you are a great leader you gain respect and people become in awe of you, which in turn increases bonds within. A charismatic leader isn't necessarily a morally good leader they can be evil, take for example Adolf Hitler he had charisma. He influenced many to see him as an honourable leader worthy of identification and imitation, he tried to create an atmosphere of change and a vision of a "better world" using unconventional means.
One can still be non charismatic and be a leader, they are just a different type of leader. A non charismatic leader, being one which tries to maintain the status quo, rather than create a vision of change. They are ones with weak motivational skills rather than strong. They have the same shared vision, but they have not got idealised vision making them "heroic" like and they don't appeal to followers "heart and mind."
I think to be an effective great leader you need to be charismatic. Yet maybe it's the other way round and to be charismatic you need to be an effective leader first.(Bennis and Nanus 1997:208) Some leaders are, some aren't, so the statement "Leaders are charismatic" is definitely too broad. Charisma is definitely subjective and based upon individual's perception. There also is no one definition of charisma which is right or wrong. Charisma is definitely one of those "X factors" but it isn't necessary to have to make you a leader.
2.3.2 Summary of truthfulness and how useful this myth is
The statement leaders are charismatic is only true if the leader possess charisma, and not all leaders do! If a leader is charismatic it is a great characteristic if it is used correctly. Charisma doesn't guarantee success, it just helps.
2.4. Leadership Only Exists At the Top of the Organisation
It is a common assumption that leaders only exist at the upper levels of the organisation, it is because more often than not this is where the directors/bosses are. Often this is where people see all the "power" within an organisation stemming from. However, this cannot be the case, there are many different leadership roles within an organisation, and therefore it can be said that the larger the organisation the more leadership roles there are.
Kottler (1988) emphasised that leadership is needed not only at the top, but at virtually all levels of the organisation, including "even lower level managerial, professional, and technical employees" Farey Peter (1993) "Mapping the leader/manager" accessed via http://www.hr.ubc.ca/otd/servicesoffered/360/Farey %20leadership%20perf.pdf (20/10/03).
Zaccaro and Klimoski (2001;4) prove that leadership does exist at all different levels of the hierarchy by stating "executive leadership differs from lower-level leadership." Naturally these roles will differ throughout the levels though. Often within lower levels internal matters such as accomplishing tasks whereas upper levels deal with external issues such as visionary activities.
A leader is not defined so much by position but rather by the ability to develop a clear vision and motivate others to help bring that vision into reality, so it could be said that many people within an organisation could be a leader without the formal title.
Mullins (1996:247) discusses the idea that leadership has formal position and informal presence, it states; "Leadership does not necessarily take place within the hierarchical structure of the organisation.¨ Therefore although it can be argued that formal leadership takes place at the top of an organisation, informal leadership must also occur throughout the organisation at all levels and outside the organisation in a social context.
Basically there are many different levels and leadership roles, and leaders can exist throughout an organisation, appendix 4 shows a basic hierarchal structure, which has 3 levels of leaders, the managing director, the general managers and the supervisors, though it could be argued that as long as a general worker provided vision and motivation, they are 'leading' others. The degree to which each level leads is different but they are all leading.
2.4.1 Summary of truthfulness and how useful this myth is
Leadership does not only occur at the top of the organisations hierarchy, it can occur at all levels and even outside an organisations structure. The larger the organisation the more leadership roles.
It is useful to look at this myth in depth since it can help those who aspire to be great leaders and wanting to practice leadership, due to the fact it breaks down what was a barrier.
2.5. The leader controls, directs, prods and manipulates
2.5.1 Analysis of the concept
If the word leader is examined it can creates quite a false picture, leader suggests someone who "leads" and has the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals. This seems related to the myth that the "leader controls, directs, prods, and manipulates." However, as this statement is analysed closer, one can see that this perhaps isn't quite true. According to Abramson(1996), gone are "Command, Control, Compartmentalize and Cope. In their place is a new paradigm captured in four new leadership C's: Communicate, Collaborate, Coach and Catalyse." These 4 C's are a must-have for today's leaders to be effective. The leader does not have to control or manipulate their followers, they just need to coach or guide the group toward a particular set of goals. This behaviour actually leads the followers to solutions as opposed to the leader giving all the answers. "Leadership is not so much the exercise of power itself as the empowerment of others," and the idea that "the leader controls, directs, prods, manipulates... is perhaps the most damaging myth of all." (Bennis and Nanus 1997: 209) Again the paragraph I mentioned in the first myth by Bennis and Nanus (1986:12 ) "Historically leaders have controlled rather than organised, administered repression rather than expression, and held their followers in arrestment rather than in evolution" comes into play, since he summarizes the move from the old to the new paradigm, of "leadership" rather than "management."
Autocratic leadership has been known to use power and control of employees. Democratic leadership has been linked with the use of reward and expert power, along with the empowerment of employees. The move from keeping power to sharing of power can be observed, time has seen the use of democratic leadership rise in popularity. This reflects the shift from the old and traditional paradigm to the new and modern paradigm, paradigm meaning a shared mind-set, thinking and perception to understanding this world (Daft, 2002:8-9). Control of employees was paramount with the old paradigm, and the shift to the new emphasises the need of empowerment.
The statement "leaders control, direct, prod and manipulate" was once true, but with the shift from the old paradigm to the new, there is no longer the need to control. This is what management do, perhaps this statement accurately describes a manager does, rather than a leader. Since the way a manager manages and a leader leads should be different. A manager acts as boss and directs and controls. A leader should act more as a coach. Helping others grow and creating a shared vision. They should also create a shared culture and values (Daft 2002:16) Leaders should empower rather than use power. A leader shouldn't control people, but empower them a degree of influence is implicit, but " Leading others isn't about exercising power, but leading others by pulling rather than pushing" (www.moyak.com, accessed 15/10/03).
Vision is vital with leadership, having a clear vision can give an organisation differential advantage. But controlling and directing cuts off vision. So therefore it is not good practise. Controlling and directing with an ulterior motive is known as manipulation, which has been done by a lot of cult leaders, usually for self serving purposes. There is no need to control and manipulate, it destroys commitment according to Bennis and Nanus.
Managers need to learn to become leaders, with the shift from the old paradigm to the new. There is no longer the need for this old-style management of "control, direct, manipulate and prod" Though this isn't to say guidance isn't needed.
2.5.2 Summary of truthfulness and how useful this myth is
Leading isn't about controlling, directing, prodding and manipulating anymore, although it used to be a true statement, but the shift from the old paradigm to new and the change in times means it is no longer necessary and doesn't work. It is only a useful myth in the sense that people can learn from it, they must learn to balance their managerial and leadership skills to become effective leaders.
3. Bibliography
BENNIS, W. & NANUS, B. (1986) Leaders, Harper and Row
BENNIS, W. & NANUS, B (1997) Leaders Strategies for Taking Charge. HarperCollins Publishers
CRAINER, S (1998) Key management ideas, thinkers that changed the management world, Financial Times Professional Limited
DAFT, R. L (2000) Management. 5th Edition. The Dryden Press
KLIMONSKI, R. & ZACCARO, J. S (2001) The Nature of Organisational Leadership. Jossey-Bass
KREITNER, R., KINICKI, A., BUELENS, M (2002) Organisational Behaviour, 2nd European Edition, McGraw-Hill
MULLINS, L.J (1996) Management and Organisational Behaviour. 4th Edition, Pitman Publishing
Journals
HIGGS, M. (2003) "How we can make sense of leadership in the 21st century" Leadership and organisational development journal, Volume 24, Number 5, pp. 273-284; Available from: http://www.dandini.emeraldinsight.com/ (Accessed 10/10/03)
Internet sources
MASON K. M., Thoughts on Leadership: How Important is Decision Making? Available from: http://www.moyak.com/researcher/resume/papeers/var6mkm
BENNIS, W. Tackling a Leadership Crisis. Available from: http://www.soul-power.com/magazine/bennis-leadership.asp (Accessed,20/10/03)
