Discussion: View Thread

<<
From: Bill Snavely <snavelwb@MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: On Defining Leadership
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
I'm going to try one more time.
>>

may be limiting the line length manually could help.
Emil
Systematic Innovations
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm

It was worth the wait.

>----------
>From: Bill Snavely[SMTP:snavelwb@MUOHIO.EDU]
>Sent: Thursday, March 20, 1997 10:21 AM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: On Defining Leadership
>
>Having tried to send this message twice already, it's now become a bit
>
>anti-climactic - it's really not that profound. But on the other hand, it
>has
>
>become a challenge to get it to work. So I'm trying a suggestion given
>
>to me by a few of you... thanks and here goes:
>
>
>One short note on the issue of defining leadership. Some have argued
>
>here that leadership falls short as a useful concept because it's hard to
>define.
>
>And other have offered reasonable conceptual definitions. I would
>
>remind you that just because we haven't defined it well, doesn't mean it
>
>doesn't exist. Carl Sagan argues in his last book that "no proof" does not
>
>equate with "proof of nothing". Think about it. And if so many people
>
>believe in it, talk about it, and think they observe leadership in action,
>then
>
>I suspect "it" is there somewhere. So the challenge is to refine the
>definition
>
>till we agree and then see where it takes us. I for one would rather be
>"led"
>
>than "managed" and it's not just semantics.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Bill
>
>
>p.s. Management Educators: The OBTC Ring is growing - check it out:
>
>
>http://www.muohio.edu/~snavelwb/obtc.html
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
><bold><color>ffff,0000,0000Dr. Bill Snavely
>
></color></bold><color>ffff,0000,0000Miami University
>Department of Management
>
>Richard T. Farmer School of Business
>
></color>E-MAIL: snavelwb@muohio.edu
>
>WEB: "http://www.muohio.edu/~snavelwb/"
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
><color>8080,0000,8080"When the only tool we have is a
>hammer, we tend to treat everybody like a nail."
>
>- Maslow
>
></color>
>

Bill Snavely <snavelwb@MUOHIO.EDU> wrote:

>>... I for one would rather be "led" than
"managed" and it's not just semantics...<<

I agree, and when we experience leadership it is invigorating.

It is easy to manager poorly, hard to manage well and a lot harder
to lead effectively. Maybe that is why we have so many poor
managers--it is too easy--and so few leaders?

Bob

<<
From: Bill Snavely <snavelwbUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: On Defining Leadership
>>
wrote
<<
Carl Sagan argues in his last book that "no proof" does not
equate with "proof of nothing". Think about it.
>>

Exactly. This matches the view of Fritz Zwicky and Hermann Holliger
who developed the Creative Morphological Approach. (see site for more)
This was the basis of Zwicky's predictions in astronomy
(in the 40ties, I believe), rejected by science journals and
proven to be correct later on.

Emil Zahner
Morphological Institute Canada
Making innovators
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm

Bill, Sorry, but you simply can't "prove" a negative. Look, if we observe
a phenomenon, e.g., someone getting a bunch of people to do something they
would not otherwise do, then we give that phenomenon a label (let's call
it pizzaz), we have proposed a construct. Now, the question becomes does
pizzaz meet certain criteria to be considered a construct - to wit: does
it have explanatory power, can it predict, is it consistent over time
(i.e., reliable), is it valid (does pizzaz make people what they otherwise
would not do), is it new, but more importantly, unique, and is it
coherent? If pizzaz meets all these tests, then we have a construct we can
define, measure, study and make predictions from. Moving on, if see a
bunch of people willing to commit genocide against another group of people
because of what one person says/believes and we see another group of
people willing give up personal possessions and personal safety to save
another group of people because of what one person says/believes, are both
demonstrating pizzaz? Does pizzaz help us explain what is going on in both
cases? Can we make predictions from it? If someone has pizzaz, is that the
same thing as the construct called power (in one case) or is it another
construct called charisma (in the other case)? If so, then pizzaz is not
unique. Now, I can simply say that it hasn't been proven that pizzaz
doesn't exist, and, by golly, I'm going to keep looking for it, because I
know it when I see it (like pornography). So, I can see one instance of
people doing something, and say, 'see - that's pizzaz" And you can see
something quite different, and say "yeah, that's pizzaz too'. And Bob can
see a third thing, and call that pizzaz. And maybe we can agree that all
three situations have some elements of pizzaz. But then, how does that
help us develop pizzazers in ogranizations to make them (and the people in
them) more effective? And if we teach pizzaz, and then situations change
(as Bob points out) will pizzaz mean the same thing? If not, there's no
construct validity in pizzaz - thus, it may be preferable to be managed
than to be pizzazed, because at least we know what to expect in the first
case.
Enjoy!
Dave



On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Davis, Miles wrote:

> It was worth the wait.
>
> >----------
> >From: Bill Snavely[SMTP:snavelwb@MUOHIO.EDU]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 20, 1997 10:21 AM
> >To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> >Subject: On Defining Leadership
> >
> >Having tried to send this message twice already, it's now become a bit
> >
> >anti-climactic - it's really not that profound. But on the other hand, it
> >has
> >
> >become a challenge to get it to work. So I'm trying a suggestion given
> >
> >to me by a few of you... thanks and here goes:
> >
> >
> >One short note on the issue of defining leadership. Some have argued
> >
> >here that leadership falls short as a useful concept because it's hard to
> >define.
> >
> >And other have offered reasonable conceptual definitions. I would
> >
> >remind you that just because we haven't defined it well, doesn't mean it
> >
> >doesn't exist. Carl Sagan argues in his last book that "no proof" does not
> >
> >equate with "proof of nothing". Think about it. And if so many people
> >
> >believe in it, talk about it, and think they observe leadership in action,
> >then
> >
> >I suspect "it" is there somewhere. So the challenge is to refine the
> >definition
> >
> >till we agree and then see where it takes us. I for one would rather be
> >"led"
> >
> >than "managed" and it's not just semantics.
> >
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >
> >Bill
> >
> >
> >p.s. Management Educators: The OBTC Ring is growing - check it out:
> >
> >
> >http://www.muohio.edu/~snavelwb/obtc.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> ><bold><color>ffff,0000,0000Dr. Bill Snavely
> >
> ></color></bold><color>ffff,0000,0000Miami University
> >Department of Management
> >
> >Richard T. Farmer School of Business
> >
> ></color>E-MAIL: snavelwb@muohio.edu
> >
> >WEB: "http://www.muohio.edu/~snavelwb/"
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> ><color>8080,0000,8080"When the only tool we have is a
> >hammer, we tend to treat everybody like a nail."
> >
> >- Maslow
> >
> ></color>
> >
>

On Sat, 22 Mar 1997, Bill Snavely wrote:

> At 11:28 AM 3/21/97 -0800, David Lemack wrote:
>
> You seemed to be arguing that since we didn't have a consensus
> definition
>
> of leadership, that it didn't exist and was not fruitful. My point is
> that you
>
> cannot prove a "lack" of something just because you lack proof of it.
> I
>
> support your right to be skeptical, but suggest that our time might be
> spent
>
> on better defining and observing behavior which we seem to believe is
> of
>
> value in describing human behavior in the workplace, rather than closing
> the
>
> door on an entire genre of theory and research because it lacks
> perfection.

It's not that it lacks perfection, it lacks construct validity. Just pick
up any introductory management or OB text book - how many theories,
schools of thought, etc. will you find? Probably 3 to 6. And yet, all of
those theories purport to explain and predict the same phemonomon called
leadership. How can that be?

>
> Your response in terms of "pizzaz" is similar to an argument I learned in
> my
>
> methodology course in graduate school - "pholgiston". The difference
> is
>
> that phlogiston was a concept which could not inherently be tested. I
>
> dispute the idea that Leadership has any such flaw. I have seen a number
> of
>
> reasonable conceptual definitions of leadership and none of them defy
>
> measurement by their nature.

Exactly my point - if it has a number of different defintions and a
number of different ways to measure them, how can all of them be a
unique construct called "leadership'?

>
> In <underline>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</underline>, Kuhn
> further suggests
>
> that we do not discard a theory or concept until we have consensus that
> some
>
> other model is infinitely superior in describing the phenomenon (pizzaz
> or
>
> leadership or whatever). I'm sorry, but I don't see yet what is so much
> better
>
> in describing what we call leadership.

Kuhn is one of my favorite sources when talking about social science in
general and managememt theory in particular. Remember, we have to have a
paradigm to discard before we offer a new one. Given that you agree that
"leadership" has any number of definitions which questions its validity as
a construct, how in the world can it be a paradigm in the Kuhnian sense -
specifically that it be accepted by a scientfic community, that it
explains phenomona better than other paradigms, and that it provides the
basis for further scientific investigation (what Kuhn calls "normal
science"). If there were a leadership paradigm, we wouldn't have anything
to argue about (unless I suggested that "pizzaz" did all that stuff
better).


>
> If we discard a concept because we haven't yet met all of your
> criteria...

They're not MY criteria. These are the accepted criteria for any construct
in social science. See Kerlinger or any other research design book.

>
> >pizzaz meet certain criteria to be considered a construct - to wit:
> does
>
> >it have explanatory power, can it predict, is it consistent over time
>
> >(i.e., reliable), is it valid (does pizzaz make people what they
> otherwise
>
> >would not do), is it new, but more importantly, unique, and is it
>
> >coherent? If pizzaz meets all these tests, then we have a construct we
> can
>
> >define, measure, study and make predictions from.
>
>
> ....then we may be missing a truly valid construct. The creation of the
> answers
>
> to each of those criteria are a process, not a one-time shot.
>
>
> How do we create theory? Stone and others suggest we begin with an
>
> observation, we then inductively describe what we see, and then we make
>
> deductive predictions and test them. I suggest that there are plenty
> of
>
> examples in the literature of all of this going on. What I don't yet
> see, but
>
> hope to, is some convergence and consensus. I suggest that may be
> where
>
> you and I do agree.

Absoulutely. Generating theory is not the problem - we've been doing that
for 50+ years. The rub is in the empirical testing of those theories, and
that where the construct validity issue always rears its ugly head. This
whole discussion was my attempt to get us, as colleagues, (in and out of
academia) to simply think about some things that we just take for granted
day in and day out. We used to get into some very interesting discussions
with the cadets at Air Force when we suggested that they're four year
experience in the world's biggest leadership laboratory was just a sham!
Clearly, we have much yet to learn about behavior in organizations, how to
make organizations more effective and life in them more fulfilling and
productive. I am simply asking us to be honest about what we know and what
we don't know. I'm not the evil Catbert of the OB world who wants to cast
aside all we know about this phenomenon called leadership - all I'm saying
is that we should be wary of offering answers to our students and clients
when we should be asking questions instead.

And yes, spring training was a hoot - and the Mariners are going to be
the team to beat in the AL West.

On another note, I hope to see many of you in Boston at the Academy of
Management annual meeting. As incoming Division chair of MED, let me
persoanlly invite all you list subscribers to our annual MED business
meeting and social hour. Unless it listed differently in the program, it
should be Tuesday, August 12. I'll post a reminder on the list as the
meeting date draws near.

Regards to all,

Dave

Bill,
Well said, anything I would add would be redundant!
Enjoyed it.
Dave

On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Bill Snavely wrote:

> It's taken me a while, but I wanted to get back to David on this thread
>
> of whether Leadership is a construct or not..... I said previously
>
> >> I support your right to be skeptical, but suggest that our time might be
>
> >> spent on better defining and observing behavior which we seem to believe is
>
> >> of value in describing human behavior in the workplace, rather than closing
>
> >> the door on an entire genre of theory and research because it lacks
>
> >> perfection.
>
> >
>
> At 12:09 PM 3/22/97 -0800, David Lemack wrote
>
> >It's not that it lacks perfection, it lacks construct validity. Just pick
>
> >up any introductory management or OB text book - how many theories,
>
> >schools of thought, etc. will you find? Probably 3 to 6. And yet, all of
>
> >those theories purport to explain and predict the same phemonomon called
>
> >leadership. How can that be?
>
> >
>
> Wait a minute! Is that the measure of lacking construct validity? Multiple
>
> theories? In that case, there is no such thing as communication... no such
>
> thing as motivation for sure... and learning theories abound.... in fact I
>
> suspect you would have to abandon the field since I am aware of so very
>
> few universal theories of management.
>
> > >
>
>
> I also said....
>
> >> Your response in terms of "pizzaz" is similar to an argument I learned in
>
> >> my methodology course in graduate school - "pholgiston". The difference
>
> >> is that phlogiston was a concept which could not inherently be tested. I
>
> >>dispute the idea that Leadership has any such flaw. I have seen a number
>
> >>of reasonable conceptual definitions of leadership and none of them defy
>
> >>measurement by their nature.
>
>
> David replied....
>
> >Exactly my point - if it has a number of different defintions and a
>
> >number of different ways to measure them, how can all of them be a
>
> >unique construct called "leadership'?
>
>
> See comment above. Also, it is not unusual to have theorists or scholars
>
> debate the definition. There are as many different definitions of communication
>
> as there are people writing about it - certainly many definitions of motivation and
>
> of learning. I think we better spend our time trying to figure out what the
>
> essential components might be and resolve the differences than to throw up
>
> our hands and say "since there is so much difference of opinion, there must
>
> be nothing here at all!"
>
>
> I also said that....
>
> >> In <<underline>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions<</underline>, Kuhn
>
> >> further suggests that we do not discard a theory or concept until we have
>
> consensus that some other model is infinitely superior in describing the
>
> phenomenon (pizzaz or leadership or whatever). I'm sorry, but I don't see yet
>
> what is so much better in describing what we call leadership.
>
>
> David replied...
>
> >Kuhn is one of my favorite sources when talking about social science in
>
> >general and managememt theory in particular. Remember, we have to have a
>
> >paradigm to discard before we offer a new one. Given that you agree that
>
> >"leadership" has any number of definitions which questions its validity as
>
> >a construct, how in the world can it be a paradigm in the Kuhnian sense -
>
> >specifically that it be accepted by a scientfic community, that it
>
> >explains phenomona better than other paradigms, and that it provides the
>
> >basis for further scientific investigation (what Kuhn calls "normal
>
> >science"). If there were a leadership paradigm, we wouldn't have anything
>
> >to argue about (unless I suggested that "pizzaz" did all that stuff
>
> >better).
>
>
> I would have to agree that leadership falls short of being an accepted, single
>
> paradigm. But I think the spirit of Kuhn is still applicable here. It seems to
>
> me you are asking us to accept the null hypothesis and that is what Kuhn
>
> argues against. If what I and others here think we see is something we call
>
> leadership, then we must continue to work on that concept until the
>
> paradigm gains acceptance. If you think there is no leadership, then you
>
> have the burden to replace it with something the scientific community
>
> agrees better explains the phenomenon.
>
> Later, David said....
>
>
> >Absoulutely. Generating theory is not the problem - we've been doing that
>
> >for 50+ years. The rub is in the empirical testing of those theories, and
>
> >that where the construct validity issue always rears its ugly head. This
>
> >whole discussion was my attempt to get us, as colleagues, (in and out of
>
> >academia) to simply think about some things that we just take for granted
>
> >day in and day out. We used to get into some very interesting discussions
>
> >with the cadets at Air Force when we suggested that they're four year
>
> >experience in the world's biggest leadership laboratory was just a sham!
>
> >Clearly, we have much yet to learn about behavior in organizations, how to
>
> >make organizations more effective and life in them more fulfilling and
>
> >productive. I am simply asking us to be honest about what we know and what
>
> >we don't know. I'm not the evil Catbert of the OB world who wants to cast
>
> >aside all we know about this phenomenon called leadership - all I'm saying
>
> >is that we should be wary of offering answers to our students and clients
>
> >when we should be asking questions instead.
>
>
> I think your effort has been well-conceived and motivated. It has certainly kept
>
> me thinking and I agree that a lot of work needs to be done. Ultimately we agree
>
> that you can't just create a word "leadership" and leave it at that.
>
>
> This has been fun - I'll look forward to seeing you all in Boston!
>
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <bold>Dr. Bill Snavely
>
> Miami University Department of Management
>
> Richard T. Farmer School of Business
>
> </bold>E-MAIL: snavelwb@muohio.edu
>
> WEB: "http://www.muohio.edu/~snavelwb/"
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <color>8080,0000,8080The OBTC Ring connects Management
> Professors'
>
> Home Pages: http://www.muohio.edu/~snavelwb/obtc.html
>
> </color>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>