From: Erwin Rausch [mailto:
DidacticRa@aol.com]
Hi, MG-ED-DVers
This is in response to Gary Lundquist's requests for sharing of views on
the
meaning of leadership. Below is a 'Viewpoint' article which is about to
be
published in the Logistics Information Management Journal. I hope it
helps
to promote the exchange which Gary is attempting to get started.
***************
Logic, and the Meaning of Leadership
Authors who write for Logistics Information Management, and most if not
all
of the journal's readers, are attuned to logical thinking(. SO) are
most
people who work in the mathematical and physical sciences, engineering,
and
related disciplines. They are also fortunate that the appropriateness
of
their decisions or conclusions can usually be validated empirically
without
the need for excessive human and financial resources.
It is different in the behavioral sciences, and especially in research
related to defining leadership. There are so many variables that it
would
take many years to validate a hypothesis if it can be done at all. In
addition, it would take literally hundreds of researchers, organized to
cooperate and coordinate, or funding of many millions. Just think how
objective data could be gathered and analyzed, for instance, to show
how, and
how much, performance would improve if managers practiced more
appropriate
participation (by whom, how, and when) in decisions.
It is no suprise, therefore, that the enormous literature on leadership,
including reports of literally hundreds of studies, has not brought a
commonly accepted definition.
Though there is no such definition, there still is a fairly lively
debate
about how leadership differs from management, with 'managers' often
defined
as those who perform administrative functions, while 'leaders' provide
'vision', have the ability to 'influence' people and can bring desirable
change. That, of course, raises the question who these leaders are, if
they
are not the managers in the organization.
The word 'leadership' has evaded an acceptable definition because it is
just
a word - and nothing more. It takes on meaning only from the definition
of
the writer whose work is slanted by an advance opinion, or results from
the
direction of the respective research question or hypothesis.
Clearly, should we need a universal definition we would have to step
past
this extensive research literature, because leadership is not a concrete
phenomenon. That's why all the research has not brought any widely
accepted
definition.
Logic, it would seem, should be able to bring order into this chaos and
provide some answers, if the mindset demanding empirical validation
could
soften a bit.
First we need to get a clearer view of what leadership really is. To do
that
we have to differentiate leadership in organizations, from leadership in
the
arts, philosophy, and sciences. In the latter, leaders are outstanding
practitioners, who display totally different characteristics, and
require
very different skills, than leaders in organizations. Even inspiring
leaders
of causes, such as Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, and Mahatma
Ghandi,
while clearly articulating and living a 'vision' do not need, or apply,
the
skills of leaders who concurrently are managers of, or in,
organizations.
To understand leadership in organizations, and that is the type of
leadership
with which we are concerned, we need a focus, and that focus should be
on
usefulness. Practically speaking, the only really important reason for
finding out what 'leadership' is, or how it relates to 'management' is
to
determine what can be done to best help individuals become more
effective
leaders.
So, maybe the right question to ask is not 'What is the meaning of
leadership?', but rather 'Why do we want to know what leadership is?'
The best answer would seem to be: To help managers at all organizational
levels improve their leadership competencies. Fortunately, logical
thinking
can show the way here. That demands that management and
leadership-in-management educators and trainers stop trying to draw
arbitrary
lines of demarkation between management and leadership. Instead they
should
concentrate on helping learners sharpen the knowledge and skills that
can be
helpful to them as they strive to become better managers, and better
leaders
at the same time.
With respect to leaders in public and private organizations, this has to
start with the responsibilities of a 'leader' and also with those of a
manager. When we do that, it turns out that it is difficult to
distinguish
which is which. It is probably best to look at them as greatly
overlapping.
Responsibilities, fortunately, are fairly easy to delineate. There is
little
disagreement with the statement that managers and leaders need to HELP
their
organizations or organizational units
- decide what they want or should achieve and prepare effective plans
to
that achievement
- ensure that the competencies will be there, when and where needed,
to
achieve it, and finally
- see to it that staff members and other stakeholders will gain the
greatest possible satisfaction from reaching for it
These three requirements for effective leadership and management can be
translated into series of knowledges and skills on which agreement would
not
necessarily be easy to achieve.
Fortunately, agreement is not really essential. There may be several
different sets of approaches that could be equally satisfactory. All
would
be composed of several layers of knowledge with a few general
competencies
such as those for planning, ensuring competence, and bringing
cooperation and
motivation at the top. Each of these, in turn would be supported by
more
specific decision making competencies at the next lower level or levels.
The
lowest layer would likely consist of the detailed skills for
implementation,
and of the leadership theories which provide insights into distinctions
between, and possible respective usefulness of, behavioral,
transactional and
transformational leadership styles.
One such hierarchy is described below, to provide a specific example.
It is
based on the fact that decisions are the foundations for all action and
that
competence in decision making is based on thorough consideration of all
relevant issues.
The responsibilities and the need to consider all relevant issues then
leads
to a hierarchy of decision considerations where, at the top are those
which
- define the outcomes or goals desired to solve a problem, meet a
challenge or gain full advantage of an opportunity
- ensure appropriate participation by those who can and/or should
contribute to a decision
- ensure that what internal and external stakeholders need to know,
and
maybe also what they would like to know, is effectively communicated to
them
- place the best person into each position, and on every project, so
that
competence strengths are used most effectively
- lead to most effective and efficient development of competencies
- ensure satisfaction with the most appropriate psychological and
tangible
recognition for large and small contributions by staff members, and
finally,
- ensure that non-staff stakeholders will be as satisfied as possible
with
all decisions.
Behavioral sciences literature and the literature on learning provide
considerable concrete guidance. There are research conclusions, not
necessarily fully validated empirically, but with strong face validity,
for
identifying what should be considered with respect to each of these.
The
same would be true for similar sets of considerations that might be in
another, equally valid hierarchy, derived from a sound list of
leadership
responsibilities.
The point is not that research into leadership concepts and styles
should
stop. By no means. It definitely should continue. However it would be
more
useful and valuable if it were to focus on concrete issues that will
help
provide further guidance for managerial/leadership decisions and for the
implementation skills such as conflict management, conduct of meetings,
coaching, and effectively providing recognition. Little will be lost if
research into the ephemeral universal definition of leadership fades
away.
Before closing this Viewpoint it is necessary to clarify a thought that
may
have been a distraction had it been discussed earlier. It concerns the
distinction between the technical and non-technical domains of
managerial
decision considerations. Technical considerations are those that apply
to a
specific field or technical discipline - accounting, architecture,
engineering, marketing, medicine, etc. The non-technical domain covers
all
decision considerations that apply everywhere. It should be clear that
the
leadership discussion above refers almost exclusively to the latter.
The
qualifier 'almost' is used because the line dividing the technical and
non-technical domains is not a razor-sharp one.
Erwin Rausch,
didacticra@aol.com