 |
 |
| Women in Leadership |
| A Review of Leadership Theory By Jan Secor, Ed. D., Siberian Academy for Public Administration, March 23, 2000 |
| STANDARD THEORIES Trait Theory The scientific study of leadership is relatively new. However, philosophers as far back as Plato, Aristotle, and Lao-tzu developed theories of leadership. Most these early theories relied on the idea that leaders are different from other people, that they have certain characteristics that set them apart. Therefore, the early study of leaders tried to identify the “traits” associated with effective leadership. After nearly thirty years of studying “great men” (women were entirely ignored), researchers were unable to identify any traits that could be consistently associated with leadership. Nevertheless, the trait theory persists as a popular idea despite the lack of any empirical evidence to support it. |
| Behavioral Theory Behavioral theory says that the personal characteristics of the leader are not so important. It is what he does that is important. This is a more democratic approach, because if effective leadership behaviors can be identified, they can be taught. Much of the leadership literature falls under behavioral theory. Most of it is based on interviews with large numbers of business and organizational leaders. These leaders are asked to describe what they do or are observed as they work. From these studies various formulas have been devised to help leaders decide what to do. In fact, I have a number of books in my office that are very useful in helping the leader think about how to carry out his role. Unfortunately, the books I have are all written in English. In the last twenty years, there has also been considerable research on women as leaders. Some of it concludes that women lead differently than men lead and that women’s leadership style may be more appropriate for the modern organization. In these studies women are credited with being more collaborative and with having better communication skills, while men are seen as more task oriented and authoritarian. The reasons for possible gender differences in leadership style are not yet understood. There are several problems with behavioral theory. These problems include the lack of agreement among scholars on the definition of leadership, confusion between leadership and management behaviors, and the focus of these studies entirely on the leader. Situational or Organizational Theory These problems with behavioral theory led scholars to understand that leadership is more complex than the leader’s characteristics or behaviors. It also involves the situation and the group. In these situational and organizational theories, the leader adapts his style to fit the situation and the group. For example, in an emergency with an inexperienced group the leader may need to adopt an authoritarian style, issuing orders until the emergency has passed. On the other hand, if the group has been trained to handle such emergencies and has experience working together, the leader may need to step out of the way to allow the group to handle the emergency. The leader observes their performance and then leads the group in an analysis of its performance after the emergency has passed. One of the problems with these theories is again the confusion between management and leadership. Another problem is that they require the leader to make judgements about the group and the situation that may be little more than guesswork. Finally, these theories assume that anyone in a leadership role can adopt whatever style is appropriate to the situation regardless of his personality type. This may be as unrealistic as trait theory, which relies entirely on personality type. Power Theory In analyzing the complex interaction between leaders and the groups they lead, researchers have also looked at power. If leaders are the ones who get things done, then they have to influence others to do what needs to be done. The medieval philosopher Machiavelli is often credited with originating power theory. However in the 1950’s French and Raven revived the theory by identifying five bases of social power, which are still central to leadership studies today: 1) Expert power, the power of knowledge; 2) Referent power, the potential to influence based on relationships between the leader and the follower; 3) Legitimate power, the authority derived from one’s formal or official position; 4) Reward power, the potential to influence based on one’s control over desired resources; and 5) Coercive power, the control of others through fear of punishment. These categories can be useful in helping a leader understand his position and the strategies available to him but do not describe all that leaders do and are not useful in all situations. French and Raven failed to look at the influence followers may have on the leader and at the power bases available to followers. Vision Theory In attempting to separate leadership from management, vision theory was developed. This remains as one of the most popular leadership theories. According to “vision theory” the leader is responsible for having a long-term view of the direction in which the company, organization, or country is to go. He is responsible for persuading others to adopt his vision through effective communication. The details of achieving the vision are left to the managers, who if they are also leaders will have a vision of how their particular unit fits into the overall direction articulated by the leader at the next higher level. In this way, there can be leaders at all levels. Vision theory sorts out the differences between management and leadership and focuses on the interaction between leaders and followers. It also takes into account the situation and organization as both are to be considered by the leader’s vision. Generally, however, vision theories don’t tell the leader how to create the vision. Transformational Leadership Theory Transformational leadership moves the vision one step closer to the followers and gives them a hand in creating it. James MacGregor Burns introduced the idea that leadership involves inducing followers to act for goals that represent the wants and needs of both leaders and followers. Leaders and followers interact in pursuit of a common or at least a joint purpose. In transactional leadership, the leader bargains with followers until they agree to do something in exchange for something that they want such as money, votes, prestige, a sense of accomplishment, whatever. In this transaction each person recognizes the value of the other person and is conscious of the attitudes and resources of the other. There is no manipulation but a free and fair exchange. However, transactional leadership does not establish an ongoing relationship between the leader and the follower. Thus, new transactions must constantly be negotiated. On the other hand, transformational leadership binds leaders and followers together in an interaction that enables them to raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality, according to Burns. Both leaders and followers are transformed as their purposes become fused. This view suggests leadership as a process of change. Both leaders and followers are transformed as well as situations and organizations in which they operate. The rapid change experienced at the end of the 20th Century has made transformational leadership a very popular theory because the leader and the group gain the hope that together they can control change, moving it in a mutually beneficial direction. Burns saw transformation in terms of social movements and transformational leadership in men such as Mahatma Ghandi. Recent transformational leadership literature sees performance that realizes an organizational goal and exceeds past accomplishments rather than major social transformation. It assures that followers remain subordinates of the transformational leader whatever else might be transformed. Many workers in the American corporations that have adopted programs of transformation offering promises of worker participation in decision making have become disillusioned. When traditional leader-follower relationships do not change, followers may feel that they have been manipulated in to working harder for lower wages. Whereas Burns envisioned transformational leadership as leading to significant change that raises both leaders and followers to higher levels of motivation and morality. NEW THEORIES “Nobody in Charge Systems” Large, centralized organizations such as governments are slow, inefficient, and often unable to change. Certainly, they have trouble adapting in a rapidly changing environment. Decentralization creates smaller units that operate more or less independently but still report to and are dependent upon central control. In a decentralized structure, the center is much smaller than in a centralized system and the subunits are more numerous but it is still possible to find out who is in charge at any level. Most transnational corporations are decentralized along national, regional, or product lines. On the other hand, the “nobody in charge system” is a network or web of connections, relationships and agreements. Everyone operates by the same set of basic principles but there is literally nobody in charge of the entire system. One of the best examples of this is the Internet. Another example is the VISA credit card system. And yet another example is ISO, International Organization for Standardization. Since I know more about the Internet, I’ll talk about it. The original Internet was designed by the US military to allow its units and units of the federal government to communicate with one another in case of a nuclear attack. The basic principle of the Internet was to be that any part of it could be destroyed and the rest of it would continue to function normally. Therefore, it is what Harlan Cleveland calls an uncentralized system. It isn’t a decentralized system because there is no center anywhere. There is an organization that assigns domain names and addresses to the various servers that make up nodes on the web but that is it. Nobody is in charge, which is very frustrating to countries such as China that would like to control the content and use of the Internet. There are certain problems with the Internet such as slow downs that occur when too many users try to access the same site at the same time or security problems in the transmission of confidential information like credit card numbers or the vulnerability of the system to disruption and damage through deliberate sabotage. However, these problems are being solved without changing the basic nature of the overall “nobody in charge system.” Living Systems Theory Organizations of the 20th century were compared to machines in part due to the industrialization that marked this century. Machine images assume that there are very smart people who can design better and better organizations like the engineers that have designed better and better machines. Machine images also assume we live in a predictable universe so that once a machine is designed it can operate for a longtime without significant changes being necessary. In the 21st century it has become obvious that we do not live in a predictable universe because things are changing too fast. Therefore, the appropriate images are natural, biological images because living systems are capable of change through evolution. Recent discoveries in evolutionary biology include that cooperation increases over time and that there is no such thing as independence. Everything is dependent on everything else. A change in one system leads to many changes in many other systems. Therefore, living systems must become self-adaptive in order to survive in a changing environment. Not only do they change to solve problems threatening their survival; they also continue experiment even after a “solution” has been found. Indeed, they sometimes adopt several “solutions” to the same problem. For an everyday example of a self-adaptive system think about an urban street corner anywhere in the world. Cars and pedestrians crossing the intersection follow two or three basic principles—red means stop and green means go, don’t run into anyone, and if it is icy don’t fall down. Most everyone follows these principles and people manage to cross streets without injury and without even thinking about it too much. When the light turns green pedestrians step off the curb on each side of the street walking directly into the path of the pedestrians from the other side of the street. Each person is a self-adaptive system interacting with other self-adaptive systems. Each person independently makes small adjustments in his or her path across the street to avoid the pedestrians coming from the other side and any potholes or puddles in the street. Trying to plan the path each of these people should take is an almost impossible task even with a computer. Yet, very few people have difficulty with the complex task of crossing a street at a crowded intersection. Life operates by some basic principles: 1) Life seeks to organize so that more life can flourish. 2) Life requires change, all systems change as conditions change. 3) Life leaps forward when it can share its meanings by sharing information. This is one of the recent discoveries of evolutionary biology. Evolution is not gradual as previously thought but moves in leaps of radical change. Every life form is created in a network of relationships that make other life forms possible. A life form comes into existence, stays in existence, and succeeds by working in harmonious relationships. Ruthless, greedy species destroy themselves, thus by analogy so do ruthless, greedy organizations. Organizations can be viewed as living systems—dynamic, complex, and filled with the capacity and behaviors that are at work in all living systems. Therefore, we need to work with life, not against it. Life is self-organizing. Living systems have the capacity to respond intelligently and continuously to change through a tangled web of meaning making. To nurture a living system we create healthy conditions for growth including resources such as food, water, air, soil, sunshine, shelter, warmth, education for the young, support for the weak. Maybe, that’s how we should run our organizations? Chaos Theory In physics it has been observed that the apparently random, unpredictable motion of particles is actually motion within limits. If enough of these motions are plotted by a computer over time a pattern emerges. There is something that has been called a “strange attractor” that seems to hold this chaotic motion within certain limits. Trust is one example in an organizational system of the “strange attractor” which in chaos theory becomes the organizing focus of the emerging patterns, the way out of chaos, the thing which gives meaning to movement. Organizations, which rely on trust as their principle means of control, are more effective, more creative, more fun, and cheaper to operate. Therefore, the principle task of organizational leadership is to find the “strange attractor” which will give meaning to movement, and around which a field of trust can be built. This “strange attractor” is the driving purpose of the organization, a solid, meaningful purpose which when coupled with trust will inspire workers to behave with integrity. In the machine age, machines were the principal assets of a company. The owners of the company owned the machines, the workers were interchangeable parts required only to perform routine tasks in the manufacturing system. In the current age of rapidly changing technology, workers are the principal assets of the organization. There are no owners since we can’t own people or their skills. There are only investors. The workers become members or associates in the organization sharing their energy and skills. They become much more than employees. Managers become the agents of the members not their bosses. The task of leadership becomes to attract and retain these highly skilled members around a “strange attractor” that will enable the system to be productive and profitable. In conclusion I would like to share an analogy from Max De Pree, the former CEO of Herman Miller Corporation and author of several books on leadership including one entitled Leadership Jazz. This is a somewhat simpler set of concepts than those based on the New Science that we have been discussing. The changes in leadership at the beginning of the 21st Century can be compared to the difference between the conductor of a symphony orchestra and the leader of a jazz band. The symphony conductor is responsible for organizing a large number of professional musicians into a coherent unit. Each player is a professional. The orchestra is organized in a hierarchical fashion into sections. A new player potentially can compete to work his way up the hierarchy to first chair in his section. Each player has the same musical score and knows his part. It is up to the conductor to share his vision of the music with the orchestra and to get everyone to play together according to the score and his vision. The jazz band is much smaller than a symphony orchestra, maybe 3-7 players. They are likely to hold other jobs as well as playing jazz, even if they are professional musicians. There are no sections or hierarchy. The leader selects the members of the band not only for their talent but also for their ability to complement one another in the particular style of jazz they have chosen to play. Members of the band may also play in other bands or may even be the leader of another band. The leader also plays an instrument. He does not just conduct the band. In many ways he is just another member of the band. His playing may be featured in some selections but the playing of every other member of the group may also be featured in some selections. There is no musical score. Everyone knows the melody of each piece to be played but will improvise around this theme as the music is played. Anyone in the band may compose songs to be performed or well-known pieces may be selected. The same piece will probably not be played in exactly the same way twice. The band may perform together for many years or only for one evening. According to Max De Pree “A jazz band is an expression of servant leadership. The leader of a jazz band has the beautiful opportunity to draw the best out of the other musicians. We have much to learn from jazz-band leaders, for jazz, like leadership, combines the unpredictability of the future with the gifts of individuals.” Max De Pree from Leadership Jazz (1992) Bantum Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. |