To what extent is leadership dependant on the personality of the individual manager? What are the implications of your answer for managerial practices?
To what extent is leadership dependant on the personality of the individual manager? What are the implications of your answer for managerial practices?
A great deal has been written about leadership throughout the course of the twentieth century. Some would have us believe, that the study of leadership is a modern obsession (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001), however, the subject is not a new one. Machiavelli's The Prince (1513) and The Art of War by Sun Tzu, written in the 6th century BC, demonstrate that mankind's interest in leadership, has existed for as long as there have been organisations and individuals required to lead them.
The debate surrounding the issue of whether leaders are born or made has been at the heart of writing on the subject throughout its history. Essentially, the question is: Is leadership a skill that can be acquired through education and experience, or an innate ability that can simply be identified and encouraged to develop? The implications for managerial practices, should leadership be proven to be innate, could be monumental, as leadership is fundamental to organisational management.
The writing and theories concerning the subject cover all points of the spectrum, between those that purport leadership to be entirely dependant upon personality, to those that believe leadership is about implementation of learned techniques and totally independent of personality. The initial theories were positioned at the opposing extremes, although they have evolved to acknowledge that leadership is a combination, of both personality and technique.
Leadership as an innate ability
The first school of thought to emerge in the early 1900's was that of Trait Spotting, which argues leadership is wholly innate. The basis for Trait Spotting is Great Man Theory, the concept that throughout history great leaders have arisen to guide organisations to success, or, away from disaster. It suggests that when selecting future leaders, organisations should look for certain character traits associated with leadership ability. There are a number of alternative lists of essential traits, compiled through observation of successful leaders. They detail any common psychological, and on occasion physical, factor considered relevant.
Stogdill (1948; 1974, cited by Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001) lists twelve factors common to the numerous studies he examined, included were; a strong drive for responsibility, self-confidence, willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, and an ability to influence the behaviour of others.
Many other lists of traits exist, and in essence this represents one of the critical flaws of the concept. Each study identifies a similar but differing set of essential characteristics, leading to the question: If there are a set of traits that are fundamental and common to all great leaders, then why can no-one agree upon what they are?
Despite this, trait theory continues to be used, and has recently been reinvented as Emotional Intelligence (Goleman, 1996). Goleman (1998) offers five components of Emotional Intelligence for use in the workplace, which he considers essential to good leadership. The components are; self-awareness; self-regulation; motivation; empathy; and social skill.
The main difference in terms of focus, between this set of traits and earlier lists such as Stogdill's, is that Goleman believes modern leaders require superior interpersonal skills than suggested by his predecessors. Changes in society, particularly over the final quarter of the twentieth century, have resulted in higher levels of education and awareness amongst the workforce. Increasingly, businesses are dependent upon knowledge workers, who are aware of their value within organisations, and subsequently refuse to be motivated by force. Goleman argues that alternative methods of motivation must be adopted taking into account what William H Peace (2001) terms "soft management", in order to compensate for the reduction in traditional sources of managerial power.
The main development in terms of concept, represented by Emotional Intelligence compared to earlier trait theories, is that Goleman accepts that it can be learned. He says:
For ages, people have debated if leaders are born or made. So too goes the debate about emotional intelligence. Are people born with certain levels of empathy, for example, or do they acquire empathy as a result of life's experiences? The answer is both.
(Goleman, 1998 p.97)
Despite this development, another of the main criticisms of trait theory remains applicable. As with all theories of its kind, Goleman justifies Emotional Intelligence primarily through anecdotal evidence. Although his interpretation of events and the factors surrounding them may be accurate in the examples he quotes, most readers may be able to point to occasions when events transpired in a contradictory manner. It is these exceptions to the rule, which represent the second critical flaw in the concept of trait spotting.
So why does the quest to find the recipe for the perfect leader, continue to be popular? Possibly because, during the era of their observation, a set of traits may represent an accurate depiction of the prevailing leadership style. However, as leadership styles adapt to reflect the changing nature of society the list of traits fails to keep pace. Each member of an organisation is also a member of society, therefore, any changes affecting society, will in turn, impact upon organisations. As society changes, so to will the characteristics that people require of their leaders; thereby meaning, that any list of traits will remain accurate for a limited period of time. This lifespan may vary in length, certain traits may remain popular for longer and others may return to popularity after a period of irrelevance. As such, trait theories provide merely snapshots of the observable traits, of successful leadership, in a particular situation, for a particular period of time.
Essentially the constantly changing nature of society requires that effective leadership should be dynamic, thereby precluding the existence of an enduring description of successful leadership traits.
Handy sums up the concept of trait theory quite aptly with his Leader's Prayer in which he says:
Give me the mysterious something which will enable me at all times satisfactorily to explain policies, rules, regulations and procedures to my workers...
(Handy, 1993 p.98)
Leadership through technique
At the opposite end of the spectrum from trait theory are the practitioners of style counselling. This is the practice, ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Essentially the constantly changing nature of society requires that effective leadership should be dynamic, thereby precluding the existence of an enduring description of successful leadership traits.
Handy sums up the concept of trait theory quite aptly with his Leader's Prayer in which he says:
Give me the mysterious something which will enable me at all times satisfactorily to explain policies, rules, regulations and procedures to my workers...
(Handy, 1993 p.98)
Leadership through technique
At the opposite end of the spectrum from trait theory are the practitioners of style counselling. This is the practice, which Fiedler describes as:
The identification of specific types of leader behaviour which would determine the effectiveness of a group.
(Fiedler, 1978, cited by Pugh, 1990 p. 417)
In much the same way as trait theory attempts to identify the essential characteristics of a great leader, style counselling aims to ascertain the perfect style of leadership. It is argued, that leadership is not dependent upon the personality of the individual, but their knowledge and experience. This is demonstrated by the techniques they employ as a means of leading their subordinates.
All style theories, including Likert (1961, cited by Pugh and Hickson, 1989), McGregor (1960, cited by Pugh, 1990), and the Ohio (Fleishman, 1953a; 1953b; Fleishman and Harris, 1962; Stogdill, 1948; 1950; Stogdill and Coons, 1951, cited by Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001) and Michigan (Katz et al., 1950, cited by Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001) studies, suggest that leaders will obtain differing levels of success, dependent upon the style they employ. Each style identified, is positioned between the two extremes of autocratic and democratic leadership, and represents a different balance of power between leader and led (Handy, 1993).
In a similar fashion to trait theory, style theory has been criticised for its rigidity. The common belief that there exists a "one best way" to lead, and the suggestion that this was through transferral of power from leader to led, has been widely discredited. Whilst, it represents a laudable ideal, it does not apply in all situations and therefore does not relate to the real world. Despite this, style theory has provided a valuable basis from which other writers have developed their own theories of leadership.
Contingency theories represent an extension of style theory, taking into consideration a wider range of factors and their effect upon which style of leadership may prove most effective. It is suggested that an experienced or well trained leader should examine a number of relevant factors whenever they take an organisational decision. Analysis of these factors will provide the leaders with a guide as to which style they should use to implement their decision.
A number of theories have been proposed including those of Fiedler (1978, cited by Pugh, 1990) and Vroom (1974, cited by Pugh, 1990). Each theory proposes a different method of analysing the relative importance of each factor, however, the factors themselves are somewhat consistent. Focus is placed upon either, the nature of the organisational environment including the task itself, the leader's personality, or the characteristics of subordinates.
The transactional leadership model of Burns (1978, cited by Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001) states that all interactions between a leader and their followers can be seen as a transaction. Essentially, it implies that leadership is bought from followers in exchange for various types of reward.
Burns also identified an alternative to the transactional model, transformational leadership. Transformational leaders encourage and inspire, the technique relies upon the use of personality and charisma to build strong relationships, in order to increase motivation and thereby ensure maximum effort and commitment from followers. Quoted in Peters and Waterman, Burns describes the principle of the style:
Leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation...
(Burns, 1978, cited by Peters and Waterman, 1982 p. 83)
The newer styles of leadership represent a broadening of the scope of traditional style theory from the initial standpoint, that leadership has no connection with personality, to one that acknowledges both technique and personality. This corresponds with the moves by Goleman (1998) and others to shift trait theory in the opposite direction.
Despite the improvements the new theories still perform inconsistently when applied to the real world. Transformational leadership for example, relies upon the ability of the leader to instil common goals amongst their followers, in line with those of the organisation. However, no matter how enthusiastic or charismatic the leader, it may simply prove impossible to achieve this.
Although the new theories do not provide the answers themselves, they may have uncovered an important new aspect to the leadership debate. Their increased focus upon the role of the follower, has led some to realise, that in addition to the roles played by the personality and technique of the leader, the corresponding attributes of their followers may prove as, if not more, important, in determining their leadership's success.
Leadership through followers
Many have offered their definition of a leader or leadership, Handy suggests:
Someone who is able to develop and communicate a vision which gives meaning to the work of others.
(Handy, 1993 p. 117)
Whereas Kotter (2001) says leaders are simply individuals who guide organisations through periods of change.
As yet a succinct definition of leadership has not been generally agreed. Perhaps it is unsurprising then that there is little agreement about other aspects of the subject. In fact all that is widely agreed upon is that to be a leader an individual must possess one thing, followers. Initially, this appears to be a statement of the obvious, well it is, but this seemingly insignificant piece of information may hold the key.
If all that can be agreed is that a leader has followers, then maybe this is the essential aspect of leadership as a whole. Instead of trying to examine what it is to lead, would it not be of greater significance to know what it is to follow?
Leadership is fundamentally concerned with people, a leader does not lead situations or structures or even organisations. A leader leads people.
If we look at a real life, day to day situation where a task needs to be completed within a tight deadline. The options open to the leader are limited, they have little or no control over either the task, or its deadline for completion. Within the deadline, the equipment available and level of technology are fixed, as are the individuals under the leader's command. The only control the leader can exert over the outcome of the situation is through those that they lead. Followers are in effect a leader's tools of the trade. As with any craftsman, a leader must know how to utilise their tools in the most effective manner. Each follower must be examined and observed in order to understand what motivates them and how they work most effectively. To do this, the leader must utilise a combination of their personality, knowledge and experience. Only once they know their followers, can a leader decide which leadership technique to apply and any technique may prove effective in any given situation. Its effectiveness is not based upon the skills or attributes of the leader, but rather the willingness of the followers to be led in that way. For a leadership technique to be truly successful, followers must actively want to be led in that manner. The skill of the leader is to identify which technique will be most effective when applied to their followers and adapt their style accordingly.
Management or Leadership?
The study of followership may also offer an answer to another question concerning leadership: What is the difference between a leader and a manager (Kotter, 2001)? The answer may be that followers place a higher level of trust in a leader, than subordinates in a manager. To a leader, followership is given willingly, whereas a manager has to obtain it through other means. Leaders are trusted to make the right decisions, whilst a manager may have to argue their case to receive the support of subordinates. As a result, the actions, of those considered leaders, are often questioned to a lesser extent, than of those seen as managers.
Subordinates will comply with the directives of a superior for a number of reasons, primarily concerning power. Numerous different sources of a manager or leader's power have been identified (Kanter, 1979, cited by Pugh, 1990) (Benfari et al., 1986, cited by Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001), however it may not matter from where power is derived, only that it is seen as justified by subordinates. Followers will invariably believe that the power wielded by their leader is legitimate and fully deserved. Subordinates' opinions may alter as a manager's reputation develops and through good management subordinates may become followers and a manager become a leader. Successful completion of this process will primarily depend upon the manager's skill in identifying the characteristics of their potential followers and implementing the most effective management technique with each individual.
The speed of the process may depend to a large extent upon the compatibility of the manager's personality with those of their subordinates. Managers with high levels of charisma may find it easier to convert individuals to followers than those with little. The combination of personality and technique will vary between individuals, but those lacking in one or other, will have difficulty maintaining their leadership in the long run.
If leadership has been won by strength of personality alone, then should a lack of ability be exposed, future decisions may be opposed or obstructed, as followers will question their judgement and also their leadership. Conversely, leadership based solely upon technique will suffer if the leader's personality causes friction within the organisation. In this instance decisions may be opposed for political reasons and inefficiency may arise due to low morale. An example of the first case would be the DeLorean Motor Company and John Z DeLorean or Italy under Benito Mussolini, whilst the leadership of the Conservative party under Ian Duncan-Smith or the Labour party by Michael Foot provide good examples of the second.
An important aspect of leadership through followership is the requirement of leaders to focus on followers individually. In any organisation this may prove problematic, increasingly so as the size of an organisation expands, there is however, a remedy.
One of the most important tasks faced by the modern leader is to encourage leadership throughout their organisation (Nirenberg, 2001) (Locander et al., 2002). As a leader can only have direct contact with a limited number of individuals, a good leader should encourage their followers, to become a leader to their own subordinates. This radiation of leadership throughout an organisation will retain the essential focus upon the individual.
The promotion of leadership throughout an organisation will also provide a solution to the problem of finding successors who are both experienced in leadership and know the organisation. A number of successful companies may experience difficulty in the area of succession due to their current dependency upon a strong charismatic leader, for example Bill Gates at Microsoft or Richard Branson of Virgin.
The most extreme case of a leader encouraging leadership throughout their organisation may be that of Ricardo Semler, majority owner of Semco in Brazil. He says that giving up control, in exchange for freedom, creativity, and inspired adaptation is his preference, and quotes Lewis Carroll as having taught him most about leadership when he wrote:
If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.
(Harvard Business Review, December 2001 p.36)
His beliefs can be seen at the core of his company and its revolutionary organisational structure and culture. Semco's structure is extremely fluid with little formal hierarchy. Employees are encouraged to, in effect, lead themselves. They are free to implement their own projects and are encouraged to comment upon any aspect of the business on which they have an opinion. Semco is run as an entrepreneurial democracy (Killian and Perez, 1998), with a free flow of information, including the company's accounts and individuals' salaries. So, if followers become disillusioned with their leaders they can vote them out.
The example of Semco shows the importance of followership to leadership in the open. However, in organisations run along traditional lines the same principles apply. If workers withdraw their labour or cause disruption to the organisation due to perceived bad management, they are in fact casting their vote to remove the organisation's leadership. This reality is merely obscured by the structure of the organisation.
If nothing else, this massive hidden power possessed by followers should encourage those who would be leaders, to pay close attention to the issue of followership.
Conclusion
As has been shown above, leadership is dependant upon more than personality alone. Leaders like anyone are the sum of their personality, knowledge and experience. The combination of personality and technique will depend upon the individual. Some will be primarily noted for their personality, others for their technique.
It is important to remember the role of the follower as, whilst leadership ability may be dependant upon personality and technique, the ability to lead is in the hands of those that follow (Brown, 2003). Leaders should therefore be able to adapt, both their technique and themselves to the expectations of their followers.
Furthermore, neither personality, nor knowledge and experience, can be considered discreet variables. Personality is rarely left unaffected by experience gained or knowledge obtained. Less obvious, but equally true, is the concept that all we experience and all that we learn is filtered by our personality. How often do two individuals' memories of a shared experience differ significantly? This is due to their personality, inclining them to place differing emphasis upon each piece of information to which they are exposed.
In summary, all that can be said with certainty is that leadership generally, is neither completely dependent nor independent of personality. However, the extent of the influence of personality upon leadership, in the case of the individual, is, dependent upon the manager.
The implications of this answer do not directly affect upon any managerial practice only the method by which they are chosen. To this extent is it imperative that the view of followers be taken into account, as it is they who hold the key to any leader's success.
Comment
Attention should also be paid to the direction in which a leader is taking those who follow. History has shown that some of the most successful leaders have led their organisations into disastrous situations.
Adolf Hitler's leadership ability enabled him to lead the German people into committing acts of the most insane cruelty and ultimately to the bitterest of defeats.
Paling into insignificance by comparison, the recent situations at companies like Enron, WorldCom and Marconi have demonstrated that the dangers of unquestioned leadership remain just as relevant today as they were in Machiavelli or Sun Tzu's day. Perhaps this is another job for followership.
References
Brown, A. (2003). "The new followership: A challenge for leaders." The Futurist 37(2): 68.
Chaleff, I. (1996). "Effective followership." Executive Excellence 13(4): 16.
The Economist. (2003). "Survey: Tough at the top." The Economist 369(8347): 4.
The Economist. (2003). "Survey: Running the show." The Economist 369(8347): 16.
The Economist. (2003). "Survey: Creating leaders." The Economist 369(8347): 7.
The Economist. (2003). "Survey: The trouble with women." The Economist 369(8347): 8.
The Economist. (2003). "Survey: How to run a company well." The Economist 369(8347): 25.
The Economist. (2003). "Survey: Think before you meet." The Economist 369(8347): 17.
The Economist. (2003). "Survey: Who is in charge?" The Economist 369(8347): 21.
The Economist. (2003). "Survey: Coming and going." The Economist 369(8347): 12.
Frew, D. R. (1977). "Leadership and followership." Personnel Journal (pre-1986) 56(000002): 90.
Goffee, R. and G. Jones (2001). "Followership: It's personal, too." Harvard Business Review 79(11): 148.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence - Why it can matter more than IQ. London, Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
Goleman, D. (1998). "What makes a leader?" Harvard Business Review 76(6): 92.
Handy, C. (1993). Understanding Organisations. London, Penguin Group.
Harvard Business Review. (2001). "Personal histories." Harvard Business Review 79(11): 27 December 2001.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization Theory - Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Huczynski, A. and D. Buchanan (2001). Organizational Behaviour - An introductory text. Harlow, Pearson Education Limited. Chapter 21.
Killian, K. and F. Perez (1998). "Ricardo Semler and Semco S.A." The American Graduate School of Management.
Kotter, J. (2001). "What leaders really do." Harvard Business Review 79(11): 85.
Kouzes, J. M. and B. Z. Posner (1992). "Ethical Leaders: An Essay About Being in Love." Journal of Business Ethics 11(5,6): 479.
Locander, W. B., F. Hamilton, et al. (2002). "Developing a Leadership-Rich Culture: The Missing Link to Creating a Market-Focused Organization." Journal of Market - Focused Management 5(2): 149.
Lundin, S. C. and L. C. Lancaster (1990). "Beyond Leadership...The Importance Of Followership." The Futurist 24(3): 18.
Machiavelli, N. (2003). The Prince. London, Penguin.
Mintzberg, H. (1990). "The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact." Harvard Business Review 68(2): 163.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). "Rounding out the manager's job." Sloan Management Review 36(1): 11.
Mintzberg, H. (1998). "Covert leadership: Notes on managing professionals." Harvard Business Review 76(6): 140.
Mintzberg, H. (2001). "The yin and the yang of managing." Organizational Dynamics 29(4 SU -): 306-312.
Nielsen, R. P. (1990). "Dialogic Leadership as Ethics Action (Praxis) Method." Journal of Business Ethics 9(10): 765.
Nirenberg, J. (2001). "What leadership crisis?" Across the Board 38(5): 20.
Pawar, B. S. (2003). "Central conceptual issues in transformational leadership research." Leadership and Organization Development Journal 24(7): 397-406.
Peace, W. (2001). "The hard work of being a soft manager." Harvard Business Review 79(11): 99.
Peters, T. J. and R. H. Waterman (1982). In Search of Excellence - Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies. New York, Harper Collins.
Pugh, D. S., Ed. (1990). Organization Theory - Selected Readings. London, Penguin.
Pugh, D. S. and D. J. Hickson (1989). Writers on organizations. London, Penguin.
Sarros, J. C. and J. C. Santora (2001). "The transformational-transactional leadership model in practise." Leadership and Organization Development Journal 22(8): 383-394.
Sun-Tzu (1988). The Art of War. Boston, Shambhala Publications Inc.
Wallington, P. (2003). "After You! ; Why leaders should hone followership skills." CIO 16(15): 1.
Westley, F. and H. Mintzberg (1989). "Visionary Leadership and Strategic Management." Strategic Management Journal 10: 17.
Iain Dixon Organisations & Management MBA 2003