Raising the Anchor on LeaderShip Development.

Raising the Anchor on LeaderShip Development.

As we look at the life of Adolf Hitler, it is unbelievable how much one man can impact a generation.  The power he gained, that so many people were willing to follow him, gave him his place in history’s pages.  In many of the same history books, we read about Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and will one day read about Barack Obama.  The one thing each of these men has in common is leadership. Leadership does not necessarily mean a position.  There are many people that have held the title of President or other important positions in history, but we only read about a select few. Leadership is therefore distinct from "supervision" or what might be termed "headship (Jago)." It is through their leadership that they gained willing followers. Leadership is a real and vastly consequential phenomenon, perhaps the single most important issue in the human sciences.  It is one of the most important issues in applied psychology. Volumes appear on the topic every year, and a recent review lists over 7,000 books, articles, or presentations. Gaining a clearer understanding of leadership and its continuous evolution will help us be more prepared to understand the successes and failings in our society, most importantly, the necessity for leadership development. The impact that an individual or organization can have on society, both negatively and positively, can affect millions of people through their leadership however refined it may be.  Every person has an influence, whether great or small.  Parents need to lead their children, a teacher needs to lead her classes, clergy need to lead their congregation, and presidents need to lead their country.  In further understanding influence through leadership and its effects on society, we will see that leadership development is important enough that we do not casually seek it out, but we must strive for such development with a sense of urgency.

The primary focus in leadership concerns how to get people to willingly follow a great strategy or vision. Failure to do so often results in teams losing, armies defeated, economies dwindling, and nations failing. Although this post will not describe each leadership trait in its full capacity, it is important to gain a better understanding of what leadership behaviors consist of, what types of leaders there are, what qualities are necessary for effective leadership, and the different approaches to leadership.  Broadly speaking, the leaders in any complex modern social group, such as an army, a church, or a large industrial organization, are of three types:

(i) The man who maintains his authority mainly by virtue of the established social prestige attached to his position;

 (ii) The man who maintains his authority mainly by virtue of his personal capacity to impress and dominate his followers; and

 (iii) The man who maintains his authority mainly by Virtue of his personal capacity to express and persuade his followers.

The first is the institutional type, the second the dominant type, and the third the persuasive type.

Social psychologists assume that leaders are group members who: exert more influence than others; tend to be seen as more trustworthy, prestigious, valued, credible and fair; and who play the most important role in the group in terms of directing it towards its goals, holding the group together socially and emotionally, and inspiring and motivating members to work towards and live up to a collective vision anchored in a common identity. The key point, however, is that we seek to understand the causal processes which produce great outcomes. It may or may not be the case, for example, that a particular kind of leader or leadership style is more effective than another, but irrespective of whether leaders are effective or not, why do group members follow some people and not others? What are the processes which lead members to find a person or authority persuasive, credible, legitimate, likely to prove right, etc.?

Organizational success depends in part on effective leadership. For more than four decades, studies in diverse disciplines have established the significant influence that trust in leaders has on the behavior of followers and on team performance (Gomibuchi). Trust, although a vital key to effective leadership is not the only characteristic necessary for effective leadership. Effective leaders engage in both professional leadership behaviors (e.g. setting a mission, creating a process for achieving goals, aligning processes and procedures) and personal leadership behaviors (e.g. building trust, caring for people, acting morally) (Angelo). The main purpose of leadership is to obtain willing cooperation. “Willing” is a key term in this concept. Leadership is persuasion, not domination; persons who can require others to do their bidding because of their power are not leaders. Leadership only occurs when others willingly adopt, for a period of time, the goals of a group as their own (Hogan). A key element in obtaining willing cooperation is engaging members by creating a “benefit” for cooperation.  Willing cooperation is a dependent measure [for leadership] (Angelo). According to a study in The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, personal leadership (i.e demonstrating expertise, trust, caring, sharing and morals) and professional leadership (i.e. providing direction, process, and coordination) will be positively related to willing cooperation (Angelo). Willingly cooperating implies a conscious effort on behalf of a person to follow a particular individual or organization.  Leadership is expressed or displayed through interaction between people and necessarily implies its complement, "followership." For one to influence, another must permit himself to be influenced (Jago).

Leadership is not only some quality or characteristic that one possesses or is perceived to possess; it can be something that one does. It therefore can describe an act as well as a person. Leadership does not involve the use of force, coercion or domination and is not necessarily implied by the use of such titles as manager, supervisor, or superior (Jago). On the other hand, leadership can be used as an institutional symbol like a priest is to a church. If this is the case, the secret of his success depends mainly upon his doing nothing to disturb the social sentiments that are attached to certain established institutions of his group. Ultimately, this leader’s position is based on the coercion of the supervisors above him/her.  This situation can be seen in large institutions such as the relationship between priest and the church.  The minute a priest deviates from the teachings and the traditions of the church, he or she may be removed from their office because they no longer serve as the symbol for that institution. At an early age, I had an experience that taught me this lesson clearly. As the class president, I voiced my opinion about the strong resistance of the class I represented in the date and location of our prom.  It was going to be at a museum a month and a half earlier from graduation and many approached me to vocalize their opinions.  Upon approaching our advisors, I was quickly referred to the administration who cautioned me to “go with it and support them.”  Upon stating that my job was to represent the class and not the administration, I was, in a very sneaky way, quietly removed from office and replaced with someone who would do as they said. It was clear that my position was contingent on those in power and my alignment with authority, and my role was clearly as a symbol of the institution.

Alan Hooper, director of the Centre for Leadership Studies at the University of Exeter, says: “If someone wants to be a leader, you can develop it (Mark).” From the turn of the century through the 1940's leadership research was dominated by attempts to show that leaders possessed some intrinsic quality or characteristic that differentiated them from followers. The search was directed toward identifying that property possessed by the likes of Napoleon, Hitler, Abraham Lincoln,Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, John F. Kennedy (and their lesser known counterparts in educational, military and industrial settings) that would ultimately prove to be the essence of successful and effective leadership. Research concentrated on the measurement and quantification of leadership traits and the relationship between such traits and criteria of leader effectiveness (Jago).  There are 8 major leadership theories: “Great Man” Theories, Trait Theories, Contingency Theories, Situational Theories, Behavioral Theories,  Participative Theories, Management Theories, and Relationship Theories. We can elaborate on each of these; however we will simply split them into two groups: Born Leader theories and developed leader theories. The first two theories focus on the thought that great leaders are born, not made. The following six theories focus on developmental theories that are found on the premise that great leaders are made. It may seem tempting to single out one perspective on leadership (or, more narrowly, one theory of leadership within a given perspective) as having contributed the greatest knowledge or as having the greatest practical utility. To make such a judgment, however, would inappropriately undervalue the very real contributions made in other approaches (Jago). There are characteristics that some are born with that enable them to have a greater capacity to lead, however there are also great leaders that are created. Even the leaders that are “born” need to continue to develop their talents.

Sarasate, the greatest Spanish violinist of the nineteenth century, was once called a genius by a famous critic. In reply to this, Sarasate declared, “Genius! For thirty-seven years I’ve practiced fourteen hours a day, and now they call me a genius.” –John Maxwell

Leadership is an evolving, dynamic process (Jago). As early as 386 BC, Plato initiated one of the first leadership training centers in the world, an institute he called the Academy. Now we have thousands of leadership books, seminars, and gurus such as Anthony Robbins giving guidance across the world.  Leadership has changed as cultures have evolved.  The world is becoming more complex, and it is more important than ever to develop leadership capacity and to help leaders understand the profound societal and global interconnects (Smith). There are fundamental characteristics to leadership, some of which were described earlier; however as technology, culture, and people change, leaders must gain a better understanding of the most effective way to lead the particular generation or constituency they hope to receive willing cooperation from.  The world is more interconnected now that the internet and social media, such as Facebook, give many more people a platform to share their voice.  These changes affect everyone.  

Many parents whose responsibility to lead their children who have access to technology and media they know nothing about, have a difficult time adequately influencing their children. If one does not understand this evolution of culture, then he or she will not be effective as a leader. Valarie Joyce Smith, a professor of leadership at the Royal Roads University in Canada, observed that [leaders] current understanding of leadership is the best and therefore, the basis for the most effective way to lead. In other words their current beliefs about leading others are held to be the only truth about leadership. For example, an autocratic  leader who uses power and control to get work done and a human-centered leader who uses consensus to engage people in work  both believe their values and style are the most effective and maybe the only way to lead. Then when conditions change in their sphere and new leadership values emerges, the old values are left behind or possibly integrated into a new understanding that becomes the basis for the new most effective way to lead (Smith). As the famous poet Maya Angelou says simply, “If they know better, than they can do better.”  So in order to cultivate a society of better leaders, one must understand the importance of leadership development. Some leaders stay at the same understanding of leadership their entire careers and others move through several leadership paradigms (Smith). The understanding of the change that Facebook alone has created can give someone insight to the important role of development in leadership.  Furthermore, this shows us that culture changes, and people who do not continue in their development of leadership will find that they are merely speaking or wasting their energies, not leading.

There is also a change in who the people want to follow on a macro level.  Historically we have had different structures including kings and rulers, the church, and democracy. Over time, organizations have evolved from those with an authoritarian style to ones with a more comfortable work environment, and then to organizations where people are empowered, encouraged, and supported in their personal and professional growth.  The Industrial Revolution shifted America’s economy from an agriculture base to an industrial one and, thereby, ushered in a change in how leaders would treat their followers. The Industrial Revolution created a paradigm shift to a new theory of leadership in which “common” people gained power by virtue of their skills (Clawson, 1999). New technology, however, was accompanied and reinforced by mechanization of human thought and action, thus creating hierarchical bureaucracies (Morgan, 1997).  In the 1980s a new view of leadership began to come to life, one still being developed. The central view is that leadership is a group process and depends on the existence of a shared social identity between the leader and other group members. This view offers an explanation of the underlying psychological processes that make leadership possible.  This type of connection is important in our day as technology continues to influence the individual or organization trying to lead.  Times change and we now see that common people now have a voice while some who used to dominate in power have lost a lot of it.  An individual or small group of individuals could have a big positive or negative impact, such as those who helped initiate the Occupy Wall Street Protests or the Catholic church who does not have the power it once had, as it used to institute its own laws, lands, and taxes. Each must adapt and learn to develop itself to have willing cooperation from the people.

Interestingly, “leadership development” often focuses on the professional side of leadership, such as a focus on communication, time management, and performance management. Research suggests that organizations would benefit from training and development on the personal side of leadership (Angelo). If an individual or organization seeks to implement leadership development, which is essential for progressive success, there is no shortage of who is willing to offer that training.  If “leadership development training” is typed into a search engine, hundreds of “developers” will offer their services.  Some begin with self-assessments, culture and climate training, human behavior models, motivational tips, among many.  This is not a discussion on how to develop leadership, but in understanding the importance of development. Once it is clear that such is necessary, one can shop around for the training.

Every worthwhile accomplishment has a price tag attached to it. The question is always whether you are willing to pay the price to attain it – in hard work, sacrifice, patience, faith, and endurance. – John C. Maxwell

The effect that leadership has on society is profound.  There were always “good” leaders and “bad leaders” as we can see from the hesitancy set forth by Plato (1952) and other moral philosophers such as Aristotle (1985), Aquinas (1963), Pascal (1990), Locke (1971).  It takes leadership to be both a Somali warlord who is trying to bring together a group of clansmen to control food supplies and an inner-city Chicago minister who is trying to bring together a group of parishioners to help the homeless (Hogan). At the historical level one might reflect on the horrific consequences of the leadership of Adolph Hitler in Germany from 1933 to 1945 and Joseph Stalin in Russia from 1927 to 1953. Millions of people suffered and died as a consequence of the visions of these two flawed geniuses, and the consequences of their rule persist even today (Hogan). Also, the fact that Lincoln’s army was inert until Ulysses S. Grant assumed command and that some coaches can move from team to team transforming losers into winners is, for most people, evidence that leadership matters (Hogan). There is no doubt that strong leaders make all the difference.  The more clearly this is understood, the more proactive an individual or organization will be in seeking leadership development.

Becoming a leader is never defined by one single event or act. It is who we have become that can make it seem that an individual moment defines our leadership (Timothy). Jokingly, Eddie Cantor, a comedian stated a profound truth: “It takes twenty years to make an overnight success.” Leadership development is a process and a journey, but it is only a journey if we decide to take that path. Everyone from parents, to teachers, to clergy, to world leaders need to develop good leadership.  People and culture change through time and this generation is a different generation to lead.  It will take a different type of parenting, teaching, ministering, and inspiring to reach this generation than it has previously. Leadership is valuable and necessary and leadership development is an undertaking of great importance.  

Angelo Mastrangelo, Erik R Eddy, and Steven J Lorenzet. "The importance of personal and professional leadership. " Leadership & Organization Development Journal  25.5/6 (2004): 435. ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest. Web.  8 Oct. 2011.

Christopher Day. The passion of successful leadership, School

Leadership & Management, 24:4 (2004), 425-437

Gomibuchi, Seishi. "Trust and Leadership." Sage Journals Online. Political Science. Web. 08 Oct. 2011. <http://pnz.sagepub.com/content/56/2/27.short>.

Hogan, Robert, Gordon J. Curphy, and Joyce Hogan. "What we Know about Leadership: Effectiveness and Personality." American Psychologist 49.6 (1994): 493,493-504. PsycINFO. Web. 8 Oct. 2011.

Jago, Arthur. "Leadership: Perspectives in Theory and Research." Management Science 28.3 (1982): 315-36. JStor. INFORMS. Web. 8 Oct. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2630884>.

King, Andrew J., Mark Van Vugt, and Dominic D.P. Johnson. "The Origins and Evolution of Leadership." Current Biology 19.19 (2009): R911-916. USC Libraries :: Electronic Resources :: E-Journals & E-Books. Web. 08 Oct. 2011. <http://zb5lh7ed7a.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004>.

Mark Whitehead.  "Everyone's a leader now. " Supply Management  25 Apr. 2002: ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest. Web.  8 Oct. 2011.

Smith, Valerie Joyce. "The Evolution of Leadership." Royal Roads University (Canada), 2002. Canada: ProQuest.Web. 8 Oct. 2011.

Timothy A Shepherd.  "Everyone is a Leader. " Resource  1 Jan. 2005: Social Science Module, ProQuest. Web.  8 Oct. 2011.