The Oxford English Dictionary does not provide a definition for the term 'leadership'. The dictionary does provide a definition of 'leader' but even this is restricted to functions such as leading an orchestra or membership of a government. Yukl (1998:2) defines leadership as '... a social process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person over other people to guide, structure and facilitate activities in pursuit of goal achievement.' Harry S Truman, when President of the Unites States is accredited as saying that leadership is '...the ability to get other people to do what they don't want to do, and like it.'
Jesus Christ summed up the role of leadership (John 13: 13 & 15) when he addressed his disciples, 'You call me Master and Lord, and you say well; for so I am ... for I have given you an example that you should do as I have done to you.' Jesus was demonstrating to his disciples that leadership was based upon being prepared to do something that you then might ask your followers to do. The Preacher on the Mount told his audience, 'You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.' (Matthew 5: 14). It is expected therefore of effective leaders that they should be at the forefront of paths that they expect their team to follow.
From my own experience there are countless definitions of leadership, some of them over 2,000 years old as above. However, John Adair, leadership guru and the world’s first Professor of Leadership Studies at the University of Surrey in 1978, brings the concept of leaders and followers right up to date. Interviewed earlier this year by Sarah Powell for the Guru Interview series as part of the Management First website, Adair sets the scene for current management thinking, ‘I think there is a need to be able to work with people as equals. The concept of leadership often implies that leaders create followers. I don’t think that is true. I see leaders as creating partners and it is the ability to work with partners … that is now required of a leader.’
Is leadership then the same or a similar concept to management, does a leader manage? How does leadership development relate to management development? Are they not the same thing - just different words? Not quite! The two concepts of leadership and management overlap, but there are some real differences between them. In the 1980s there was increasing emphasis on leaders rather than managers. Watson (1983) proposed a strategy known as the 7 S’s – strategy, structure, systems, style, staff, skills and shared goals. Watson suggested that managers tend to rely on strategy, structure and systems, whilst leaders relied on the ‘softer’ S’s of style, staff, skills and shared goals.
Kotter (1982) made a greater distinction. He viewed management as predominantly activity-based whilst leadership means dealing with people rather than things. In Kotter’s concept, management involved issues such as planning, budgeting, organising, staffing, controlling and problem solving. Leadership on the other hand concerned communication, creating a vision, energising, motivating and inspiring.
The influential writer on leadership issues, Don Clark, writing on his website, Big Dog’s Leadership Page – Concept of Leadership, defines leadership as ‘… a complex process by which a person influences others to accomplish a mission, task, or objective. Although your position as a manager, supervisor, leader, etc. gives you the authority to accomplish certain tasks and objectives in the organization, this does not make you a leader...it simply makes you the boss.’ Echoing this theme, Dr Kerrie Unsworth produced a report for the Institute of Work Psychology in Spring 2000 entitled ‘What Makes a Good Leader in which she compared the roles of the Boss and the Leader, key differences shown below:
The Boss drives his men The Leader coaches them
The Boss depends on authority The Leader on goodwill
The Boss inspires fear The Leader inspires enthusiasm
The Boss says 'I' The Leader says 'We'
The Boss says 'Go' The Leader says 'Let's Go'
Continuing the theme, according to Pascale (1991:65) managers think incrementally, whilst leaders think radically, 'Managers do things right, while leaders do the right thing.’ . This means that managers do things by the book and follow company policy, while leaders follow their own intuition, which may in turn be of more benefit to the company. Fenton (1990:113) believes therefore that a leader is more emotional than a manager. 'Men are governed by their emotions rather than their intelligence'. He regards this quotation as an illustration of why teams choose to follow leaders rather than managers.
Mullins (1999:255) took a counter view by suggesting that ‘Despite the differences, there is a close relationship between leadership and management in work organisations and it is not easy to separate them as distinct activities.’ He went on to link the two, ‘… a common view is that the job of the manager requires the ability of leadership and that leadership is a sub-set of management, although leadership is a special attribute which can be distinguished from other elements of management.’
Where do the theories of leadership come from, what is the evolution of these theories and what is the current thinking on leadership that impacts on the research that I am doing?
Kerrie Unsworth (1990) in her report, 'What Makes a Good Leader' suggests that there are four key leadership theories over the past eighty years that have been significant, traits, behavioural, contingency and transformational. Although there is evidence that bare a greater number than these four, her thoughts are supported both by Doyle and Smith (1999) and Professor Rhona Flin of the University of Aberdeen through her work with Level 2 Organisational Psychology. However, it is important according to Van Maurik (2001:3) to recognise that '... none of the generations is mutually exclusive or totally time-bound.' He evidences this by stating that, '...it is quite possible for elements of one generation to crop up much later in the writings of someone who would not normally think of himself as being of that school.'
The leadership writer and guru Warren Bennis (1998:3) identifies leaders as people who are able to express themselves fully, '... they also know what they want, why they want it, and how to communicate what they want to others in order to gain their co-operation and support. They know how to achieve their goals.' But how does someone become exceptional like this example?
Instead of starting with these exceptional individuals that Bennis identified many of the early leadership theorists turned to setting out the general qualities or traits they believed should be present. Surveys of early trait research by Stogdill (1948) and Mann (1959) reported that many studies identified personality characteristics that appear to differentiate leaders from followers. However, as Wright (1996:34) pointed out, '... others found no differences between leaders and followers with respect to these characteristics or, even found that people who possessed them were less likely to become leaders.' Mullins' (1999:241) final thoughts on the traits theory was that, '... research only showed that leaders were taller than the people they led.'
Following the work on traits of leadership, researchers turned to what leaders did, how they behaved, in particular to their followers. They moved on from leaders to leadership and this became the dominant way of approaching leadership in the 1950s and early 1960s. Different patterns of behaviour were grouped together and labelled as styles. Two of the most extensive research studies on behavioural categories were the Ohio State Leadership Studies undertaken by the Bureau of Business Research at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan Studies under the leadership of Rensis Likert. Behaviours unlike traits could be observed but according to Ratzburg (2001:1) ‘…the initial phase of the research seemed as frustrating as the trait approach as the number of behaviours identified was staggering. However, over time, it appeared that the key behaviours could be grouped together or categorised. Interestingly, both studies arrived at similar conclusions. Both concluded that leadership behaviours could be classified into two groups.’
Ohio State Studies identified two critical dimensions of leader behaviour, consideration (respect and trust) and initiating structure (organising what members should be doing). Michigan Studies identified two styles, employee-centred and task-centred. Likert categorised these two styles of leadership as falling as opposites of each other and according to Ratzburg (2001:1) ‘… employee-centred leader behaviour tends to be more effective.’
Wright (1996:47) observed that a flaw in the behavioural approach to leadership was ‘… one shared with those who looked for traits. The researchers did not look properly at the context or setting in which the style was used.’
Mullins (1999:272) outlined the principle of this further style, situational, as concentrating ‘… on the importance of the situation in the study of leadership. The person who becomes the leader of the work group is thought to be the person who knows best what to do and is seen by the group as the most suitable leader in the particular situation.’ According to Hoy and Miskel (1987:273) studies attempted to identify ‘… distinctive characteristics of the setting to which the leader’s success could be attributed.’
The theory of situational leadership was developed further, commented Doyle and Smith (1999:6), ‘… believing that the style needed would change with the situation. Another way of putting this is that the particular contexts would demand particular forms of leadership. This placed a premium on people who were able to develop an ability to work in different ways, and could change their style to suit the situation.’ Out of this developed a contingency approach, which proposed that effective leadership was dependant upon a mix of factors. Fiedler’ Contingency Theory (1967) outlined group performance as being dependant on leadership and style, characterised by three factors – leader-member relations, task structure and position and power.
Burns (1978:20) introduced the concept of transformational leadership, describing it as not a set of specific behaviours but rather a process by which ‘… leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation.’ He attested that transformational leaders are individuals that appeal to higher ideals and moral values such as justice and equality and can be found at various levels of an organisation. Bass (1985) adapted Burns’ definition and asserted that that these leaders motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of the ultimate effects on the followers and are not necessarily concerned by moral values.
Despite support for transformational leadership Wright (1996:221) concludes that ‘… it is impossible to say how effective transformational leadership is with any degree of certainty.’ Nevertheless, Taffinder (1995:138) draws on the importance of transformational leadership, ‘… in conclusion transformational leadership is both desirable and necessary in business today, and will increasingly become more important Organisations must be capable of fast, radical change and those that aspire to be the best must be able to lead change rather than just follow it …’. Conflict between support and criticism for the differing leadership theories as above has been constant during my research.
Given that over 70% of AEGON UK Service’s staff is female and that over 50% of supervisors at all levels likewise, does the issue of gender exist? Are there any differences between the sexes that I need to be aware of when considering my research?
Mullins (1999:336) kicks off the debate over leadership styles, ‘Changes in the way organisations are structured and managed may be good news for a more feminine style of leadership. If the effectiveness of organisations requires a style which is facilitative and participatory, this should augur well for women …’.
Alimo-Metcalfe (1995:107) promotes the view that women ‘… prefer to use a transformational style, prefer to share information and have a more inclusive approach …’. Burke and Collins (2001) agree and suggest that females are more likely than males to indicate that they use an interactive style of management, transformational leadership, as a result of research on a group of female and male accountants. The findings suggested that female accountants reported higher perceived effectiveness on coaching and developing and communicating. Also suggested was that female accountants receive more developmental opportunities than do their male colleagues.
Warren Bennis in the Guru Interview for Management First also adds support for the role of gender difference, ‘to my mind, women also have more social skills … I’m talking about women being more supportive, more empathic and more understanding. So yes, I predict that women will thrive in this new environment … and long may it continue.’
He is not the only one to have taken this view. David Mercer, of the Open University’s Future Observatory, claims that the findings of its research with the Strategic Planning Society in around 2,000 organisations indicates that women will start to take over from men as leaders within the next 30 years. The reason, he says, is that they are better qualified for work in the information society.
“We believe we can detect a trend: women are already catching up. The leaders in the area of personal empowerment are clearly women,” Mercer says. “The knowledge society builds on work they have traditionally been doing – it does not require the use of pickaxes. In particular, women come out of education at every level better qualified than their male counterparts.”
On the other hand, Andrew Kakabadse, Professor of International Management Development, holds that ‘There is a myth about gender and leadership capabilities. This holds that women are … more open and mature in the way they handle sensitive issues; and more conscious of their impact on others and hence better people managers than men. But the myth is false.’ In the Guru Interview for Management First Kakabadse goes further when he confirms that ‘I have to tell you that I have found no such difference at any level of management. As far as I am concerned, the gender difference, like the national culture difference is a nonsense,’
Clearly, my research has indicated that there is a tremendous difference in opinion regarding not only leadership theories but also the effect of gender on leadership. However, it would not be appropriate to close this section without reference to a theory of leadership that has gained positive feedback recently, Emotional Intelligence (EI). In the November 1998 edition of the Harvard Business Review (95-102) an article by Daniel Goleman entitled ‘What Makes a Leader’ spoke of the importance of EI in leadership success. He cited several studies that demonstrated that EI is often the distinguishing factor between great leaders and average leaders. According to Goleman’s theory Emotional Intelligence consists of five components, self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy and social skills. According to Goleman, ‘…research and practice demonstrate that emotional intelligence can be learned.”
According to Professor Nicholson of the London Business School when speaking of Britain, ‘… there is never a shortage of people who will fill leading positions but there is a genuine shortage of leadership talent.’ (Bristol Business School Teaching and Research Review 1999). So how can AEGON UK Services meet the needs for developing future leaders?
As a result of my research I have conducted a series of focus group meetings with representatives of different groups within the business with the purpose of generating a revised series of behavioural competencies for leadership. Appendix 1 details the proposed competency with identified indicators or measures foe each of the four levels, from Team Member at level one to Senior Manager at level four. The indicators at each of the four levels take into account the various leadership theories as identified above and reflect the input from the different staff groupings.
Given the existing culture of the organisation and the resources available I propose that the following learning vehicles are used to meet the needs identified by the revised leadership indicators:
- Leadership Workshop designed for new Team Leaders or Managers with the content and objectives agreed at outset to match the indicators at Levels 2, 3, or 4
- Production of Computer-Based Training material to reflect a similar group of learning needs, to provide an alternative learning resource to meet the different learning styles identified by Honey and Mumford
- Design and delivery of a Leadership module as part of a proposed Management Development Open Learning programme in conjunction with our education partner Preston College. The College have agreed in principle to provide an Open College A Unit qualification accredited by the University of Lancaster for use by junior supervisors; more senior managers will have the option of completing a B Unit qualification
- A series of lunchtime seminars on leadership by guest speakers from within the Group as a whole will be held
- The development of managers own Coaching Skills will be reviewed as the organisation has traditionally not placed a great deal of emphasis on local learning, relying too heavily on central training resources
I intend to maintain my focus groups of 48 staff at different levels to monitor the effectiveness of the whole leadership programme, their regular feedback throughout will add value to the whole process. Furthermore, the indicators for Leadership (see Appendix 1) have been designed in such a way as to allow for the provision of evidence against each indicator. In this way we will be able to assess the strengths of the leadership group against the indicators now and twelve months hence.
The evaluation process will be strengthened further by seeking the insight of learners attending courses and by the results attained by managers and supervisors who pursue the Open Learning route to an independent, accredited qualification.
3. Summary
Kotter (1990) holds that research has shown that people who exhibit leadership qualities later in life have all got one thing in common – they were all given the opportunity to lead very early on in their careers. The effect of this is that organisations should provide the kind of environment where leadership is encouraged at all levels as early as possible. In real terms, certainly within AEGON UK Services, this is not always practical and there still exists a role for the training and development of potential or existing leaders.
Griffiths and Williams (1999:19) highlighted a survey of 1,000 respondents from staff to directors in most industries and occupations which asked them to rank 35 leadership behaviours they had encountered. ‘Most important were treating mistakes as learning opportunities, promoting other people’s self-esteem, practising what he or she preached and demonstrating personal integrity. Least important were inspiring fear, making sure things were done their way and telling people what to do.’
The British Council in its 1998 report, Leadership Development in the UK, endorsed the sentiments held above, ‘Leadership only really exists among free and equal people. It is about winning the willing compliance of people to do what needs to be done in order to achieve a common purpose. If force of any kind has to be used to get people to do the will of someone else then that ceases to be leadership’.
It is encouraging to learn that the above views add weight to my proposed Leadership Competency and its indicators which will develop in the business leaders of AEGON UK Services role models for future generations of aspiring leaders.
Appendix 1 Leadership
Definition: Leadership is the ability to provide clarity and to motivate and develop others to achieve a common goal.
Bibliography:
Alimo-Metcalfe B (1995:107), Leadership and Assessment, Women in Management, edited Vinnicombe S & Colwill N L, London: Prentice Hall
Bass B M (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation, New York: Free Press
Bennis W (1998), On Becoming a Leader, London: Arrow
British Council (1998), Leadership Development in the UK, London: University of Exeter
Burns J M (1978), Leadership, New York: Harper & Row
Burke S & Collins K M (2001), Gender Differences in Leadership Styles and Management Skills, Women in Management Review, Vol 16, No 5, (P244-257)
Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership, Managers and Leaders: Raising our Game, CEML: London
Covey S R (1989), The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, London: Simon & Schuster
Doyle M E & Smith M K (1999), Born and Bred? Leadership, Heart and Informal Education, London: YMCA George Williams College/Rank Foundation
Daily Telegraph, 24/11/91, Tom Lloyd
Fenton J (1990), 101 Ways to Boost Your Business Performance, Mandarin Business,
Fieldler F E & Garcia J E (1987), New Approaches to Effective Leadership,
New York: John Wiley
Goleman D (1998), What Makes a Leader, Harvard Business Review, November 1998 (P95-102)
Griffiths K & Williams R (1999), Learning for Change, Handbook of Training and Development, edited Landale A, 3rd Edtn, Hampshire: Gower
Hersey P (1984), The Situational Leader, New York: Warner
Hoy W K & Miskel C G (1987), Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice, 3rd Edtn, London: Random House
< > Nottingham Business School ‘Strategy’
<> University of Wolverhampton (1999), ‘Introduction to Strategic Management (BE3000)’
< >Management First, Warren Bennis Guru Interview (1999)
, Ratzburg W H (2001), A Behavioural Approach to Leadership
Kotter J (1982), The General Managers, New York: Free Press
Kotter J (1990), What Leaders Really Do, Harvard Business Review, May 1990, (P103)
Mann R D (1959), A Review of the Relationship Between Personality and Performance, Psychological Bulletin, No 66 (P241-270)
Mullins L J (1999), Management and Organisational Behaviour, (5th Edtn), Financial Times Management: London
Pascale R T (1991), Managing on the Edge, London: Penguin
Russian P (2001), Investors In People, What Next?, Report on Consultation with Employers and Practitioners, Investors In People UK
Senge P M (1990), The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, London: Random House
Stogdill R M (1948), Personal Factors Associated with Leadership. A survey of the Literature, Journal of Psychology, No 25 (P35 - 71)
Taffinder P (1995), The New Leaders: Achieving Corporate Transformation Through Dynamic Leadership, London: Kogan Page
Unsworth K (2000), What Makes a Good Leader, Institute of Work Psychology: Sheffield University
Van Maurik J (2001), Writers on Leadership, London: Penguin
Watson C M (1983), Leadership, Management and the Seven Keys, Business Horizons, March 1983, (P8-13)
Weightman J (2001), Managing People,London: CIPD
Wright P (1996), Managerial Leadership, London: Routledge
Yukl G (1998), Leadership in Organisations (4th Edtn), London: Prentice-Hall: