Discussion: View Thread

Colleagues,
Glenn queried me on my last post - though we'd share it with all of you
Regards,
Dave

>On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Glenn Rowe wrote:
>
>> David
>>
>> I am one of those who believe that there is something "a construct"
called
>> leadership. Just because we cannot measure IT yet does not mean that
it is
>> not there.
>
>How can you measure what you can't define?
> Your post at the end here makes a very OB type of assumption
>> that bothered me for along time until I flipped it around. You make
the
>> assumption that leadership is part of management. What happens if we
make
>> the assumption that management is part of leading. Does this make
>> leadership a construct which is easier to measure.
>>
>> I look forward to your thoughts
>>
>> Glenn
>>


>Glenn,
>I understand your point, and in a sense I resurrected a
>conversation that started months ago. The short version is that I, as a
>social scientist, am driven by the same thing that drives other scientists
>- theory.. The first comprehensive theory of management, and one that is
>the bedrock upon much of what we now know is "General and Industrial
>Management" by Henri Fayol. He suggested that managers in this new field
>of "administration" in large complex organizations perform certain
>fuctions - plan, organize, control and direct (i.e., lead), among others
>(each of which is a chapter). So, the original conception was that leading
>was simply another function of management. It wasn't until the 50s that
>"leadership" sort of took on a life of its own in the OB literature, and
>it was treated as a construct. My problem remains that "leadership" has no
>contruct validity, and it matters not how you look at it terms of
>managerial functions - i.e., as subhumed in something called "management"
>or stand alone as a seperate function - the problem remains. It just
>bothers me when we, as social scientists, devote so much time and energy
>on something like this, when there are precisely defined, measureable
>contructs out there (like power) that, in my humble opinion, can help us
>learn a good deal more about what goes on in organizations and why. Now,
>for many years, folks in this field (with the notable exception of Jeff
>Pfeffer) have been reluctant to talk about such nasty topics as power and
>politics in organizations, but I think that's where the explanatory wheat
>is ready to be harvested. Now, it's a lot more fashionable (and for some,
>profitable) to extol the virtues of transformational leadership,
>empowerment, followership, pathfinding, quality circles, etc. etc., all of
>which have a theoretical underpinning in stuff that was written 75 years
>ago. Unfortunatley, most of us in social science do not want to study and
>explore the fundamental constructs (nor, in all fairness, are we rewarded
>for doing so, even by our peers), but rather prefer to try to take a
>shortcut to organizational effectiveness by reinventing the conceptual
>wheel every couple of decades. So, sorry for going beyond addressing your
>two main points, but this an intellectual hot button with me, and doggone,
>I feel better now!
>Regards,
>Dave
>

I accept that leadership is difficult to define and that this property
makes it suspect to a "social scientist" which is why I place leadership
in the category of liberal arts, not business. But that is an old beef of
mine. ;]

I wish it deal with the definition part of the argument being advanced
on construct validity. I suspect that it would be difficult to define a
construct for "tomorrow" that would hold any validity because it is a
hypothesis that cannot be tested. Yet, if you will check your daytimer
(tool of individual oppression), many of you are probably scheduling on
faith that "tomorrow" will be there to become "today".

Leadership is also one of these types of beliefs. The fact that social
science has not developed well enough to furnish us with a valid construct
for "leadership" or "tomorrow" does not mean that they do not exist, it
means the tools for building the construct are still rather crude stone
axes.

I have generally held that leadership is a higher skill than management
because the demands and the accountablity are greater for a leader. It is
this belief that provides the basis for putting leadership training in the
liberal arts (speech communication would be a great choice) instead of the
B-schools.

______________________
Great Optimism,

Dutch Driver
Dept. of Communication
McMurry University
Abilene, TX
ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu

On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Dutch Driver wrote:

> I accept that leadership is difficult to define and that this property
> makes it suspect to a "social scientist" which is why I place leadership
> in the category of liberal arts, not business. But that is an old beef of
> mine. ;]

I can't say that I disagree here. Much of what we attribute to
"leadership" are things like communciation skills, interpersonal skills,
listening skills, the ability to analyz and then synthesize, critical
thinking, the ability to translate a complex idea into a simple,
articulate statement, etc, etc - all of which cloud the defintional issue.
Many of these are, perhaps, best left to the liberal arts college (being
somewhat self-serving here as a graduate of Ohio Wesleyan Univ.)

> I wish it deal with the definition part of the argument being advanced
> on construct validity. I suspect that it would be difficult to define a
> construct for "tomorrow" that would hold any validity because it is a
> hypothesis that cannot be tested. Yet, if you will check your daytimer
> (tool of individual oppression), many of you are probably scheduling on
> faith that "tomorrow" will be there to become "today".

Sure, but because "tomorrow" is a phenomemon, that doesn't make it a
construct. That particular phenomenon is rather easily explained and
predicted by the laws of physics. Much of what we have in the leadership
literature makes explanation and prediction very risky business because it
is not governed by any immutable laws.

> Leadership is also one of these types of beliefs. The fact that social
> science has not developed well enough to furnish us with a valid construct
> for "leadership" or "tomorrow" does not mean that they do not exist, it
> means the tools for building the construct are still rather crude stone
> axes.

True, but some people think unicorns exist, but I don't think I'm going to
spend a great deal of energy and resources to find one. Besides which, one
can never "prove" a negative. It's like the guy in Ohio who beats a drum
on his front lawn every day at 7AM. When his neighbor asks why he does it,
his reply is "To keep the elephants away" The neighbor notes that there
are no elephants within thousands of miles of Ohio. The guy replies "See,
it works!"


> I have generally held that leadership is a higher skill than management
> because the demands and the accountablity are greater for a leader.

I don't think the CEO of an outfit like GM with more in revenues than the
GNPs of more than 100 countries would agree.

It is
> this belief that provides the basis for putting leadership training in the
> liberal arts (speech communication would be a great choice) instead of the
> B-schools.

Again, I agree, because that takes out the realm of social science.

Good discussion!
> ______________________
> Great Optimism,
>
> Dutch Driver
> Dept. of Communication
> McMurry University
> Abilene, TX
> ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu
>

On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, David J. Lemak wrote:

/clipped/
> True, but some people think unicorns exist, but I don't think I'm going to
> spend a great deal of energy and resources to find one. Besides which, one
> can never "prove" a negative. It's like the guy in Ohio who beats a drum
> on his front lawn every day at 7AM. When his neighbor asks why he does it,
> his reply is "To keep the elephants away" The neighbor notes that there
> are no elephants within thousands of miles of Ohio. The guy replies "See,
> it works!"


Yes, some do believe in unicorns. Though your argument is that you do not
believe in the existence of leadership--which is only asserted in the
realm of social science. I note with pleasure that you had no problem
using acknowledged _political- and _sports_ leaders in another post in
reponse to Richard. Why choose these individuals if leadership does not
exist?

______________________
Great Optimism,

Dutch Driver
Dept. of Communication
McMurry University
Abilene, TX
ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu

On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Dutch Driver wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, David J. Lemak wrote:
>
> /clipped/
> > True, but some people think unicorns exist, but I don't think I'm going to
> > spend a great deal of energy and resources to find one. Besides which, one
> > can never "prove" a negative. It's like the guy in Ohio who beats a drum
> > on his front lawn every day at 7AM. When his neighbor asks why he does it,
> > his reply is "To keep the elephants away" The neighbor notes that there
> > are no elephants within thousands of miles of Ohio. The guy replies "See,
> > it works!"
>
>
> Yes, some do believe in unicorns. Though your argument is that you do not
> believe in the existence of leadership--which is only asserted in the
> realm of social science. I note with pleasure that you had no problem
> using acknowledged _political- and _sports_ leaders in another post in
> reponse to Richard. Why choose these individuals if leadership does not
> exist?

Whoa, I never said 'leadership" was exclusively in the realm of social
science. Quite the contrary, I think it belongs somewhere else. The people
I mentioned are indeed all acknowledged as leaders in all different
contexts but for lots and lots of different reasons (and attributes). My
only point is that it is fruitless to try and identify some (even very
broad) commonalities and then think somehow we can "teach" that to people.
Look, my whole purpose here was to stimulate some critical thinking and
generate some lively discussion about something we all take for granted,
Having said that, I think we take it (leadership) way too seriously in
both academia and in the consulting world. Let's just be honest about what
we're doing, and focus on what we CAN teach (need I go through the list
again?) and stop kidding ourselves about the holy grail of "leadership".
Clearly we're going to be stuck using that term to cover any multitude of
virtues (or sins), but when dealing with teaching, let's be more precise,
realistic and even pragmatic about what we're doing.

On another note, do Abilenians still go to Buffalo Gap on weekends for
catfish?

Regards,
Dave
> ______________________
> Great Optimism,
>
> Dutch Driver
> Dept. of Communication
> McMurry University
> Abilene, TX
> ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu
>

David

You wrote:

>Let's just be honest about what
>we're doing, and focus on what we CAN teach (need I go through the list
>again?) and stop kidding ourselves about the holy grail of "leadership".

So you are suggesting that because we cannot in a scientific fashion get a
handle on what leadership is we should not discuss it in the classroom or in
the scientific community?

Glenn Rowe

W. Glenn Rowe
Faculty of Business Administration
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF, Canada, A1B 3X5
709 737 4363
709 737 7999 (Fax)

ASAC 97 is being held in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada from May 31 to
June 3, 1997. St. John's is the oldest city in North America and is only 8
miles west of Cape Spear, the most easterly point of North America. Come
join us at ASAC 97 and help us celebrate the 500th anniversary of the
arrival of John Cabot to Newfoundland in 1497.

On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Glenn Rowe wrote:

> David
>
> You wrote:
>
> >Let's just be honest about what
> >we're doing, and focus on what we CAN teach (need I go through the list
> >again?) and stop kidding ourselves about the holy grail of "leadership".
>
> So you are suggesting that because we cannot in a scientific fashion get a
> handle on what leadership is we should not discuss it in the classroom or in
> the scientific community?
>
> Glenn Rowe

Glenn,
Not at all, but let's simply be upfront about what know and what we don't
know. To wit, leadership means different things to different people, and
I'm not going to kid someone into thinking I teach them what the magic
formula is. Instead, let's focus on communication, interpersonal skills,
etc, and allow each student to develop their own definition or conception
of leadership. This is much different than saying we know in any
scientific sense what leadership is. If it's an art form, so be it, and
let's be upfront about. Thus, my agreement with Dutch that this is better
left to the liberal arts folks than the B-school folks. But, if we
(B-schools) are going to persist, then treat it as art and not (social)
science.

Regards,
Dave