Leadership has taken on many different definitions over the years. Not because its meaning is constantly changing, but because we can examine the concept from different perspectives. Origins of leadership have various roots and explanations, leading to numerous ways to define this concept. They are better known as leadership theories. This paper will reflect on my understanding of leadership and its role in my professional life, based on the concepts I learned in class and other academic sources.
Main Characteristic of a Leader
The topic of leadership is relevant these days for many spheres of life: business, politics, sports. Comparing different definitions, we can conclude that the main characteristic of a leader is the ability to influence people and make them follow. Traditionally, speaking of leadership, we remember famous charismatic personalities who inspire and charge with their ideas. Usually, Gandhi, M. Luther King, Mandela or Ford, Jobs, Gates come to mind.
It seems that many of these people did not seek to influence someone in the first place. The main characteristic of all these leaders is a vision, an idea that guided them. Vision gives a person the strength and resources to be confident in what you are doing, and this confidence, in turn, ignites people’s hearts. Indeed, people always follow something or someone who gives confidence in an unstable and changing world. For the same reason, religions and other social institutes provide guidelines for behavior and action.
The classic question in this regard is obviously whether leaders are born or made, and I considering all mentioned above would state that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Since the leader, in my view, is primarily a person with a heightened sense of vision, it must be recognized that a person must have a certain tendency to imagination and obstinacy from birth. However, the lion’s share of success comes from social experience and psychological soil formed in childhood. It is these processes that determine our interests and how much we believe in ourselves and our ideas. In the next section, I will examine different approaches to leadership to compare them with my perception.
Approaches to Leadership
The traditional approach to leadership is the earliest and is based on two theories: the theory of leadership qualities and the concept of leadership behavior. Within the framework of the first direction, researchers tried to identify the qualities that distinguished the “great people” in history from the masses. Researchers believed that leaders had some unique set of relatively stable and unchanging qualities that distinguished them from non-leaders. This approach was based on the idea that leaders are born, not made. The most famous in this theory are the studies of Ralph Stogdill, Warren Bennis, and Edwin Ghiselli.
In 1948, Ralph Stogdill investigated the topic with a purpose to summarize and categorize the leadership qualities. He found that leaders tended to be distinguished by intelligence, desire for knowledge, reliability, accountability, activism, social participation, and socioeconomic status (Marshall, 2018). However, Stogdill noticed that in different situations, leaders show other traits. Hence, the researcher concluded that a person does not become a leader only because he has a particular set of personal properties.
Edwin Ghiselli paid particular attention to this area. He devoted more than 20 years of scientific activity to studying this issue and compared 30 different personality traits and intelligence to create the ideal leader. Ghiselli made the following conclusion: a leader with pronounced authoritarian inclinations is less likely to succeed than a person who is calmer in this regard (Matos, & Machado, 2020). This is an interesting observation, but I would assume it worked more accurately in 20th-century politics and business. I am sure that a similar study conducted in the modern world would not lead to such a result. The values ​​of society have changed a lot since then. The world has become more open and transparent. In the corporate and political world, sincerity and charisma are valued more, concepts such as “social responsibility” “sustainable development” have appeared. Humanity is not on the brink of war and therefore does not need authoritarian leaders as before.
Coming back to the approaches to leadership, we should highlight one more idea. In 1995, Warren Bennis, an American consultant conducted a study that collected data on leadership qualities of 90 successful leaders. The following main characteristics were then identified:
- Management of attention, i.e., the ability to predict the potential results or outcomes of actions taken today and follow the direction based on this intuition.
- Knowledge management, i.e., the ability to transfer one’s knowledge to understand and accept it by followers.
- Trust management, i.e., the ability to organize their activities in such a way as to gain the complete confidence of subordinates
- Controlling yourself, i.e., the ability to know well and recognize your strengths and weaknesses in time so that other resources, including the help of other people, can be skillfully used to strengthen your weaknesses.
Bennis emphasized that subordinates need to feel the value of their work. A subsequent study led to the derivation of several groups of leadership qualities:
- Physiological: height, weight, figure, appearance, health, a vigor of movement. more masculine or pronounced physical qualities (tall stature, well-developed muscles, broad shoulders) do not in any way affect the predisposition to leadership.
- Psychological qualities are manifested through the character of a person. It should be noted, though, that most of the qualities have not been confirmed by the practice of their connection with leadership.
- Intellectual qualities: These qualities among leaders are higher than among non-leaders (Silva, 2016).
Nonetheless, the correlation between these qualities and leadership is relatively tiny. These qualities are mainly acquired. However, it has not yet been possible to prove that these qualities define an effective leader. Indeed, there are many examples of physically unremarkable leaders who have successfully inspired or inspire people. As you know, Napoleon Bonaparte was tiny, and yet he skillfully led the army, striking the world with new victories. Today I find very motivating Nick Vujicic, a man who, having lost his arms and legs due to an accident, inspires millions of people with his speeches thanks to hard work and a clear vision of his life goal, for which he is not afraid to go.
The approach that studies leadership qualities is interesting. Still, the list of qualities turned out to be very large, and therefore it is impossible to create a “unique” image of a leader. It was not possible to consider the close relationship between these qualities and leadership. However, this theory served as an impetus for the emergence and development of other concepts of leadership. The lack of research within the framework of character theory has led to the expansion of the search scope. This is how the foundation of the idea of behavior was born. An essential difference from innate qualities was that this concept assumed the possibility of training leaders according to specially designed programs.
Leadership Models
Overall, the discussed failures of first classical approaches to define and categorize leadership stimulated researches to further investigate the field and build new approaches and models within them, overviewing leadership from a different perspective. Thus, situational theories became more scrutinized and received popularity. Mainly, situational models suggest that leadership is flexible, and it adapts according to differences in the environment. Situational models have significant differences in the set of considered leadership styles in the collection of situational factors and ways of finding a connection between them (Meier, 2016). The effectiveness of leadership is defined differently in various models. Nonetheless, models constituting situational leadership have a common feature in focusing on external factors as determinants of leadership style. Thus, the models are complementary to build a whole picture of the leadership phenomenon.
Traditional and situational concepts have assumed that leadership and managerial impact can be changed and easily identified. Since this is far from the truth, such an approach gave impetus to the emergence of new leadership concepts. Transactional theories, also known as leadership exchange theories, are characterized by transactions between leaders and followers. This idea was first suggested by Geirge Graen in the 1970s and was further revised several times in subsequent years. (Cote, 2017). Essentially, the theory introduces the idea of ​​a positive and mutually beneficial relationship. According to transactional theories, to be a successful leader and have motivational values, the leader must find the means for an adequate system of rewards for his followers for completing the tasks set by the leader.
Transactional theorists argue that people, in general, strive to maximize pleasant experiences and reduce unsatisfactory experiences. Thus, we strive to associate ourselves with people who make us stronger. The early stage of transactional leadership involves negotiating a contract whereby employees are given salaries and other benefits. The company (and, by extension, the general manager) gains authority over the employees. When a transactional leader provides work to subordinates, they are fully responsible for it, regardless of whether they have sufficient resources or the ability to carry out their plans.
The concept of charismatic leadership looks at the charisma of a leader. A charismatic leader is one who, under his personality traits, can have a profound impact on followers. However, charismatic leadership is not always required to achieve high results in business (Cote, 2017). For business, the importance of charismatic leadership increases as the need to conduct radical organizational changes is due to the critical situation.
In the concept of transformative leadership, the idea of “transformative” or “reformatory” leadership has much in common with charismatic leadership. A reformer leader is a reformer, not a savior. They show creativity, realities stand behind him, not myths, lead followers from result to result, orient people, to work. Their goal is not just to change the world but to change the world through development (Shields, 2020). As a result of the analysis of the concepts and approaches, I have the following conclusions:
- Early concepts placed great emphasis on the qualities of leaders or their patterns of behavior, whereas situationally was not taken into account.
- Approaches based on situational leadership were supposed to explain leadership effectiveness through the influence of external factors without taking into account the leader as a person.
- New concepts combined the leader’s personality and also took into account the influence of external factors. New approaches focus on the leader’s ability to create a new vision for solving a problem and, using his charisma, inspire followers and generate enthusiasm for taking action to achieve a goal.
The last conceptual leadership models are the most universal since they seem to integrate traditional and situational concepts. However, the role of the first approach discussed in the previous section concepts should not be underestimated since it was they who pushed researchers to develop new ideas of leadership, laying a foundation for the research of this problem.
Overall, I feel that charismatic leadership is reflected in public speaking and is relevant to experts in their field. A characteristic charismatic leader of our time, in my opinion, is Elon Musk, who, even without completely understanding something, manages to convince investors of the success of his business and is not afraid to dream. Musk definitely energizes everyone who also wants to strive for something bigger and sometimes daring. However, transformative leadership is more commonly found in more conservative organizations. It helps you move smoothly and steadily, track changes, and help your business adapt.
Leader versus Manager
Continuing the topic of corporate leader, I want to discuss in this section the difference between a leader and a manager. Leadership basically describes an ability of a person to lead other people to achieve specific goals. Management is the process of influencing subordinates, which is a way to make them work towards a common goal (Priest & Middleton, 2016). Comparing these two concepts, based only on the definition, we note that the leader leads people, using his authority, his abilities, and people feel satisfaction from achieving this goal. Regarding this point, I like one quote of the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, “A leader is best when people barely know he exists when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.” (Tuffley & Antonio, 2017). The leader makes him work towards the goal, using his position in the organization, and at the same time, people do not feel satisfaction from work.
However, in the modern world, this is far from the case. Every effective leader strives not to force but to lead people. The strict opposition of leadership and leadership is hardly legitimate since these concepts are very close to each other, and their differences depend on the established traditions in their interpretation and research approaches. By the way, I think that this aspect is also significantly related to the country’s cultural characteristics in which the business is conducted. It is no coincidence that leaders are advised to study in advance the traditions and customs of people in the region where the company is planning to expand.
Moreover, we should also distinguish between the concept of formal and informal leadership. The traditional leader is the priority influence of a specific person on the group members, based on the leadership position in the social hierarchy associated with the possession of power and resources. In contrast to formal leadership, informal leadership is understood as the personal ability, willingness, and ability of a person to fulfill the role of a leader and the recognition of his right to leadership by members of the group.
Both of these aspects – formal and informal – characterize effective leadership. The leader, by his very design, assumes that people engaged in this kind of activity have appropriate qualifications and a particular advantage (compared to subordinates) in managerial qualities, which means that managers have at least business authority, which, when combined with personal power, develops into informal leadership. Thus, leadership is always formal leadership, whereas leadership is informal influence.
Leadership Theory Implementation: Areas of Strength and Development
I noticed long ago that the word “leadership” has long become fashionable in the corporate world. Even an ordinary employee is now required to have soft skills, lead projects, communicate and be proactive, and have his own vision of the situation. Even when looking for vacancies, I often noticed that a “leader” is exhausted, ambitious, and ready to charge everyone around with his energy. Indeed, this approach to the formation of human resources is very beneficial to management. After all, leaders are not inspired by money or a comfortable office but by an idea, passion, values.
As I mentioned earlier, I believe that leadership is, for the most part, a skill to be acquired. Assessing my abilities, I can say that I have that same vision. Therefore, I consider this to be my advantage in a potential job. I can think outside the box, critically analyze the assignment, and always take the initiative when I am genuinely interested. However, such interest is quickly lost in more routine duties, and I no longer feel like a leader. I think I should work on learning how to maintain leadership even when things get monotonous. I think the solution lies in communicating with new people and discovering something new in your field every day.
References
Cote, R. (2017). The vision of effective leadership. International Journal of Business Administration, 8(6), 1-10.
Hamlin, B. (2016). Evidence-based leadership and management development. In Gower handbook of leadership and management development (pp. 223-246). Routledge.
Marshall, S. (2018). Leadership. In Contemporary Issues in Leadership (pp. 7-19). Routledge.
Matos, M. H., & Machado, C. F. (2020). The Role of Institutional Leadership in Employee Motivation, Satisfaction, and Personal Development — Design. Research Methodology in Management and Industrial Engineering, 129.
Meier, D. (2016). Situational Leadership Theory as a Foundation for a Blended Learning Framework. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(10), 25-30.
Priest, K. L., & Middleton, E. (2016). Exploring leader identity and development. New directions for student leadership, 2016(149), 37-47.
Shields, C. M. (2020). Transformative leadership. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.
Silva, A. (2016). What is leadership?. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 8(1), 1.
Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., & Tushman, M. L. (2016). Both/and” leadership. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 62-70.
Tuffley, D., & Antonio, A. (2017). Five traits of an ethical leader.