Snapshots of Great Leadership

Jon P. Howell, Isaac Wanasika

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351614955
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Commerce
• Subtopic: Leadership

Snapshots of Great Leadership describes leaders who have either accomplished amazing feats or brought destruction. Although the goals of these individuals were often quite different, the leadership processes they used were frequently similar. The opening chapter explains the latest theories of leadership. Each leader snapshot adds an important "reality check" to the theories and models described in most introductory leadership textbooks, making this a key text for students taking leadership courses. This new edition features additional women and international leaders, a new "You Decide" section, and a Conclusion that clarifies the differences between good and bad leaders.

Part I
Theoretical Basis of Leadership

1
Theories of Leadership

This is a book of stories. Most of the stories describe great leaders who accomplished amazing feats such as creating, preserving, or changing a nation or industry, or saving a group of people from exploitation or annihilation. Some of the stories demonstrate both good and bad leadership. A few of the stories describe bad leaders who brought destruction or death to scores of people. In retrospect, the disastrous effects of these bad leaders are no less astounding than the incredible accomplishments of the great leaders. Although the goals of these individuals were often quite different, the leadership processes they used were frequently similar. In relating stories of these leaders, we have described who they were, what they accomplished, and how they did it. We have referred to existing leader ship theories to help explain their leadership tactics and behavior as well as their effects on others. The use of these leadership theories will hopefully make the leaders’ effects more understandable and will clarify how the theories relate to leadership in action.

Scholars have developed theories of leadership to help understand and explain how leaders influence the organizations and people they lead. Organizations are simply groups of people working together in a cooperative and coordinated effort to achieve some goals. Based on research, leadership theories generally focus on specific leader characteristics and/or behavior patterns that are important in shaping societies and organizations over time.

Different scholars have focused on separate leader characteristics and behaviors, resulting in numerous distinct leadership theories being proposed and researched. The most popular theories are described in well-accepted leadership textbooks, and these theories are briefly summarized in this chapter. For students of leadership, this chapter may repeat information they previously studied. For the reader without this background, this chapter provides a framework to help the reader understand how the great and bad leaders described in this book shaped and changed the societies and organizations they led.

A definition of leadership seems appropriate at this point to give readers an idea of what is described in this book. Leadership is an influence process, usually (but not always) carried out by one person. The leader influences a group, who view the influence as legitimate, toward the achievement of some goal or goals. The leader may utilize many different strategies to influence followers’ efforts toward goal achievement. She might describe a desirable vision of the future that includes a mission with inspirational goals to be achieved, she might offer rewards to followers when they achieve the goals, or she might encourage followers to participate with her in setting desirable goals and strategies as a means of gaining followers’ ownership of the goals and their commitment to achieve them. These are all examples of leaders influencing followers to achieve goals, which is the essence of leadership. Snapshots of Great Leadership describes how different leaders used these and other strategies to lead their followers in achieving outstanding results.

Trait Theories

Through much of the 20th century, most people believed that great leaders were born, not made. We now know that leadership is complex and not simply the result of one or more personal characteristics of an individual. Over 100 years of research on personal characteristics of leaders (often called leadership traits) failed to demonstrate that any single trait or set of traits make a person a great leader. Leadership traits are characteristics of an individual that do not change from situation to situation, such as intelligence, assertiveness, or physical attractiveness. Literally hundreds of studies were carried out on scores of different traits and many traits were identified that may help an individual become an effective leader in specific situations. However, the key traits for one situation may be different for another situation. The following set of categories summarizes the mass of trait research and encompasses the most important leadership traits found in research: determination and drive, cognitive capacity, self-confidence, integrity, and sociability.

Determination and drive encompass traits such as initiative, energy, assertiveness, perseverance, masculinity, and occasionally dominance. Individuals with these traits work long hours, pursue goals with a high degree of energy and perseverance, are often ambitious and competitive, and may dominate others. Cognitive capacity includes intelligence, analytical and verbal ability, behavioral flexibility, and good judgment. Individuals with strong cognitive capacity are able to integrate large amounts of information, formulate strategic plans, create solutions to complex problems and adapt to changing situations. Great leaders such as Steve Jobs and Abraham Lincoln clearly exhibited the determination and drive as well as the cognitive capacity to persevere and deal effectively with their complex changing environments.

Self-confidence includes the traits of high self-esteem, assertiveness, emotional stability, and self-assurance. Self-confident individuals believe in their own capabilities and judgments, they do not hesitate to act on their beliefs, and they project their self-confidence onto others to build trust, respect, and commitment among followers. Integrity describes individuals who are truthful, trustworthy, principled, consistent, dependable, loyal, and not deceptive. Leaders with integrity are honest and open, they keep their word, adhere to generally accepted principles of behavior, and share common values with followers. Winston Churchill and Nelson Mandela demonstrated self-confidence, integrity, and determination to persist with assertive and principled behavior in achieving their goals.

Sociability describes individuals who are friendly, extroverted, tactful, flexible, and interpersonally competent. Sociable leaders like to interact with followers and others, they adapt their behavior effectively in social situations, and they are diplomatic when solving problems and relating to other people. Mother Teresa and Laymah Gbowee were highly sociable, determined, and showed amazing integrity in their diplomatic dealings with influential individuals outside their organizations.

Despite problems with the early trait research, these categories of leadership traits appear to be helpful for effectiveness in many situations. Few great leaders possessed all the important leader traits, but these leaders all demonstrated characteristics that were essential to succeed in their situation. Leadership traits themselves do not cause an individual to emerge as a leader or to become a great leader. The key traits for a specific leader ship position make it more likely that a leader will take effective action by demonstrating needed leadership behaviors in the situation. A leader who is sociable and controls her emotions will likely be effective at providing needed encouragement and interpersonal support for followers during stressful, threatening episodes that sometimes occur in organizations. Leaders who are intelligent, original, and assertive are more likely to create and instill an inspiring vision and mission for the organization. Leaders who are self-confident, assertive, and energetic will be comfortable in providing directive leadership for followers in solving difficult job or organizational problems. Specific leadership traits can clearly be important preconditions for effective leadership behavior, especially when they are aligned with other variables such as relevant skill for a position or social identity of followers. When a leader possesses the traits needed for a specific position and reflects those traits in her behavior, she is more likely to obtain the trust, respect, and cooperation needed from others for effective group or organizational performance. Recent studies have started to examine the “dark side” of personality that might lead to destructive/toxic leadership.

Early Behavioral and Contingency Theories

In the 1950s, several university based research programs began to focus on identifying the most effective behavior patterns of leaders. At first, these programs sought to identify one or two behavior patterns that characterized all effective leaders. This was later described as the “one best way” approach to leadership effectiveness. After numerous investigations, they identified two behavior patterns that seemed especially important. The different researchers used several labels for these two behaviors. One behavior pattern was called consideration, relationship orientation, concern for people, or supportive leader behavior and included showing a concerned and caring attitude toward followers, being friendly, encouraging followers’ feelings of personal worth, and supporting efforts to develop their capabilities. The second leader behavior pattern was called initiating structure, task orientation, concern for production, or directive leader behavior and emphasized a focus on task accomplishment by clarifying followers’ roles and the leader’s expectations of followers. This often included goal setting or setting performance standards, assigning tasks, scheduling, and explaining rules and procedures. These two leadership behavior patterns became the basis of several leader ship theories developed over the next 25 years.

The Leadership Grid

One such theory that became popular with consultants was the Managerial Grid, later renamed the Leadership Grid, which was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. This model includes the two leader behavior patterns described above in a two dimensional coordinate system that provides a grid-like representation of different levels of concern for people and concern for production. Concern for production is represented on the horizontal axis and concern for people is on the vertical axis. Five distinct leadership styles were described by Grid developers, depending on the amount of each leader behavior a leader demonstrates in her/his behavior.

Consultants who emphasize the Grid use questionnaires to obtain scores for each leader on the two behavior patterns, allowing leaders to plot their own position on the Grid. Working with the consultants, leaders presumably determine how they can adapt their style to improve their leadership effectiveness. Grid developers maintain that Team Leadership, which describes leaders who are high on both concern for people and concern for production, is the most effective style. Despite its popularity with consultants, research shows no single leadership style is best for all situations. Grid developers recently acknowledged this and describe some leaders as shifting styles over time, but maintain that most leaders have a single dominant style. The Grid developers do not describe different situations as requiring different leadership styles.

The Contingency Theory of Leadership

Another leadership theory that was developed about the same time emphasized the same two leader behavior patterns. The Contingency Theory of Leadership, developed by Fred Fiedler, labeled these two behaviors task oriented and relationship oriented leadership and included a unique questionnaire for measuring these behavior patterns. It was more complex and realistic than the Grid theory. The theory specified that the most effective combination of the two leader behavior patterns must fit the situation to be most effective. No single level of task and/or relationship oriented leadership was effective for all situations.

Fiedler described three important situational characteristics that determined which combination of the two behavior patterns was optimal. These situational characteristics were the leader’s power to control rewards and punishments for followers, the quality of the relationship between the leader and her followers (that is, are followers friendly and cooperative with the leader), and the clarity of task structure for followers (that is, are the task goals, procedures, and measures of their performance clearly specified). Fiedler rated situations as high or low on each of these three factors. The three were then combined to classify a situation as favorable or unfavorable for the leader. If the situation reflected high leader power, good leader-member relations, and high task structure, then the situation was considered highly favorable to the leader. A moderately favorable situation might include a poor leader-member relationship, high position power, and high task structure or some other combination of high and low scores on the situational factors. A very unfavorable situation had a poor leader-member relationship, low leader power, and low task structure.

The Contingency Theory predicted that a leader’s style was either task oriented or relationship oriented. A leader could not be both task and relationship oriented, although Fiedler later added a socio-independent leadership style that was apparently medium on both leader behaviors. Task oriented leaders were predicted to be most effective in highly favorable or highly unfavorable situations. Relationship oriented leaders were most effective in moderately favorable situations. Socio-independent leaders were predicted to be effective in very favorable situations.

Fiedler and his associates believe that leaders have a predominant style and attempts to change this style are unrealistic. They suggest that if a leader is ineffective, his style does not match the situation and he should be moved to another situation that is more appropriate. If this is not possible, the leader’s situation could be modified to fit the leader’s style. A training program was developed to teach leaders how to assess their own style and the situation, and to modify the situation to improve their effectiveness. The Contingency Theory has been researched extensively with conflicting results, but it has many advocates among practicing leaders.

The Situational Leadership Theory

The Situational Leadership Theory, developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, also emphasized the same two leadership patterns which they later renamed directive and supportive leadership. Their model is presented in a two dimensional coordinate system similar to the Leadership Grid. However, the Situational Leadership Theory asserts that the most effective leadership style must match the situation. In this sense, it is similar to the Contingency Theory, but Hersey and Blanchard describe a very different situational factor as important for the leader to consider. They point to the followers’ maturity and readiness to perform as the key factor the leader must evaluate as he adjusts his leadership style.

Followers with a low level of maturity and readiness are described as unable and unwilling to work on their own, requiring a telling leadership style that is highly directive with little supportiveness. Followers who are high in maturity and readiness a...