Elements of Leadership

I find these interesting because they contain two essential elements of what is leadership; the people elements and the task elements (related to objectives). Every successful leader has to work with both of these. But I am concerned that these leadership definitions involve a common task or objective. These words suggest that the end goal is already provided, clearly defined or laid down. Leadership doesnt always have the luxury of such clearly stated purposes. Sometimes leaders and followers evolve these together, with the leader consulting others to gather opinion and win support. I prefer to think of leaders as providing direction (that is, a dream of an ideal future or a vision) which may then be crystallised into a "common goal" and objectives, perhaps involving some of the followers in doing so. But here we are touching on the idea of leadership style . And thats for another part of the website. So, lets have another go at defining what is leadership.

More definitions
Turning now to the text books, Peter Drucker, in The Leader of the Future, says: The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers. While Peter Maxwell, in 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, says: Leadership is influence - nothing more, nothing less. My own leadership definition, based upon my own experiences, studies and observation as a practitioner, is that: A leader is someone whose direction and approach other people are willing to follow. And therefore, leadership is: Influencing others to follow a given direction.

Implications for Leaders

This definition of what is leadership carries a number of implications. First, within an organisation leaders are not always managers or supervisors, formally appointed by others.

In fact, this is one way of distinguishing between managers and leaders; managers are appointed from above (ie, by more senior management), leaders are appointed (or anointed?) from below (ie, by their followers). To really grasp what this means, think of terms like Ring leader to describe someone who leads a group of people into trouble. Ring leaders are not appointed from above but from within the group. We also talk of some people as being a Bad influence. We are concerned about people who are a bad influence because, once again, we recognise their ability to lead others into trouble. Ring leaders and bad influences are clearly not appointed, but they are most definitely followed. Secondly, leaders dont even need to have responsibility for a team. Sometimes people are recognised as having leadership characteristics or qualities by others, who then simply choose to follow what the person says or does. Good examples are people who lead religious (such as Jesus Christ), revolutionary (such as Napoleon) or civil rights (such as Martin Luther King) movements. Another implication is that being a manager does not make you a leader. A manager may have excellent skills in organising work, creating policies and procedures, following disciplines and delivering services. But if others dont willingly follow their lead, they are not a leader. So, leaders must offer others (their followers) a cause, direction or objective that is interesting, attractive or satisfying enough for others to wish to follow. Finally, is a leader created, or is leadership defined, by giving someone a job title? No, its defined by what a person is (their qualities), what they have learned (their skills) and what they do (their actions). Others recognise these attributes and choose, willingly, to follow. So, to answer the question "what is leadership?", leadership is: Influencing others to follow a given direction. And it can be thrilling, challenging, scary, satisfying, humbling and very rewarding! The trait theory of leadership still assumes that leaders are born, not made. But it sought to identify those personality traits associated with the best leaders, to help understand leadership and to identify people who, ahving the same traits, could (it was assumend) make good leaders. Trait theory still has its adherents. Some psychometric instruments used in the recruitment of leaders were built on the idea of inherent or built in traits. 2. Functional leadership theories Functional leadership theories are based on very different assumptions. They focus on what leaders actually do. That is, their actions or functions.

One of the best known and most influential of functional theories of leadership, used in many leadership training programmes, is John Adair's "Action-Centred Leadership". From here it is a short leap to the belief that if one person can do something, then others can learn to do it. We are now in the world of leaders being made, not born. And we open up the possibility of leadership development and planned leadership training. This question of whether leaders are born or made is part of the whole question of whether human behaviour is due to nature or nurture . Functional theories of leadership are developed by studying successful leaders and identifying the actions and behaviours they show. Large studies with lost of data make it possible to correlate the actions with the successful results. 3. Situational leadership theories Functional leadership is all very well but it doesnt help us to deal with changes, different situations and the nature of the people being led. Situational theories of leadership were developed to find good ways of adapting leadership actions to meet the needs of different situations and circumstances. One classic situational model of leadership ( Hersey & Blanchard ) is concerned with identifying the ability (or competence) and willingness (commitment or motivation) of those being led, and then determining the best style of leadership to follow. Other approaches (eg, Lewin, Tannenbaum & Schmidt ) suggest of continuums of leadership style. Leadership style here refers to the broad approach adopted by a leader. A leader's style of leadership is often based on a leaders own beliefs, personality, experiences, working environment and the situation at the time. Some leaders work within one leadership style. Others are more flexible and can adapt their style of leadership to meet the needs of different situations. 4. Autocratic vs Participative leadership theories These theories of leadership developed out of the concept of leadership style. However, they focus very much on the balance of power between the leader and the followers. Autocratic leaders tend to make decisions and impose them on others. They often believe that they are best placed to make the decisions, that others should accept their authority. Some such leaders have certain personality traits, such as a need to be in control of situations. Autocratic leadership is suited to certain situations, such as emergencies or time critical circumstances. But they dont tend to nurture other people or get the best results from followers who are capable and motivated. Participative leaders consult others and involve them in the decision making process. They may make the final decision but in consulting others they are demonstrating consideration, respect for

others and the ability to listen. The assumption behind this approach is that it tends to be appreciated by followers who return the favour by being loyal and committed. Participative leadership also develops other people and builds support for the overall direction, leading to a shared vision and common goals. Participative leaders often also adopt a facilitative leadership style. That is, they empower and encourage others to take make decisions, take action and act with authority, normally within defined boundaries. 5. Transactional vs Transformational leadership theories Another way of looking at leadership approaches is to do with the type of work and the relationship between the leader and the follower. Transactional leadership theory is based on transactions or exchanges between the leader and the follower. It assumes that the working relationship is one where the leader issues the work, praises or criticises, rewards or punishes. The follower has little responsibility, other than doing as they are required, correctly. All works well if both leader and follower carry out their part in the transactions as expected. This approach is more often seen in low skilled jobs, where procedures are clearly defined or where there is little change. Transformational leadership theory is all about change. Transformational leaders inspire others to follow a vision. They create opportunities for people to show flair and to take responsibility for new ideas. They are often very extravert, charismatic and strategic. They see the big picture rather than the detail. They inspire great loyalty, providing they succeed. If they fail, or are seen to be hypocritical, the followers may well become disillusioned or cynical. Transformational leadership is more appropriate in fast changing situations, where people have high levels of skill and where the leader can afford to get involved in the detail. 6. Moral leadership Moral approaches to leadership emphasise the role of the leader in various moralistic positions, such as:
y y y y y

making the world a better place treating people well caring for the environment religious beliefs being true to, and acting consistently with, ones vision.

Various leadership writers have included moral elements in their work. They tend to suggest that leaders are more likely to be successful if they have a positive impact on others - rather than lead others just to benefit themselves. Politicians and religious leaders, in particular, are expected to be moral leaders, partly because they address the issues above or adopt a moralistic platform.

Business leaders are perhaps expected to be less moralistic. However, when they do truly act for the good of others in general, and not just themselves and their shareholders, they tend to be highly regarded. Related to moralistic leadership is the idea of leadership ethics, which are largely to do with the relationship between the leader and their followers. First, leaders are expected to act consistently with their own vision and the values they claim to espouse. Politicians who moralise to their electorate - and then are found to be acting differently themselves - are soon replaced. Business leaders who act contrary to the values they expect in others are met with cynicism and obstruction. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, when criticising the policy of "strategic communication", said, "To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate. Each time we fail to live up to our values or don't follow up on a promise, we look more and more like the arrogant Americans the enemy claims we are." He seems to understand the success cycle and four steps leadership! An unwritten code But "doing the right thing" also means acting according to a code of leadership ethics that, while not always written down, followers expect of their leaders. At the heart of the unwritten code of the ethics of leadership is the expectation that leaders will act in the best interests of their followers - that they will put them first, before themselves. This is partly because when a leaders asks people to follower them, they are often asking them to put "the cause" or other people before themselves. The leader is expected to do likewise.

In the UK members of parlaiment who were found to have claimed excessive expenses from the "public purse" - whether it was allowed in the rules or not - were heavily criticised by the public at a time when many people are suffering financially. Some of them lost their seat as a result people were no longer willing to follow them. The ethics of leadership also expect leaders to be honest, open and truthful to their followers. When leaders are found to have lied, trust goes out of the window. As it would it most relationships! Trust is also an essential leadership ethic. Followers will take a view on whether they can trust a leader but their decision will normally be based on the leader's judgement in past situations. After Senator Edward Kennedy left the scene of a car crash in which his young female passenger died, the American public did not believe they could trust him with the presidency - although he continued to be elected to the Senate by those who knew him better than the wider American public. Personal morality is often expected in the leadership code of ethics, depending on the moral framework in which the leader is working. Most of the American public seemed to forgive Bill Clinton for his adulterous affairs, but that may have been because he already had a good track record as a president. Other politicians have not fared so well. A long period of quiet reflection out of the public eye - is often called for before a leader can return. Where exactly is Lord Archer now? Written codes Sometimes the code of leadership ethics is written down. The Committee for Standards in Public Life (also known as the Nolan Committee) defined the Seven Principles of Public Life. Many companies define their corporate values. And there are groups and organizations who promote ethical leadership and who explicitly define ethical codes. The Center for Ethical Leadership is an example of one that works with diverse groups to help them to explore and develop their leadership values. The Center asks a very sharply focused central question, "What kind of leadership does the common good need at this time in this place?" My position? I do expect leaders to follow a code of ethics, whether it is written down or not. Leadership involves a psychological and emotional contract between leader and follower. And if a leader expects something from followers, he or she should be willing to live up to that. My own personal code of ethics is driven by the Scout Law, one of the best statement of values I have come across. Written for young people and adults, it covers much of the ground discussed above and offers us all something we can strive every day to live up to.