4.6 ‘Learner’/Emergent Leadership 4.7 Women and Leadership
4.2 The ‘Trait’ Theory of Leadership
Early discussions of leadership assume a male paradigm without explicit reference to gender. The ‘great man’ theories of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries claimed that men were destined to lead by birth. One of the earliest leadership theorists, Max Weber (Gerth et al. 2009) believed that the charismatic leader had exceptional powers and qualities that differentiated him from ‘ordinary’ men. In this theory it was the personal traits of a particular individual which predicted leadership. They reflected personality traits specifically associated with what was termed the ‘command and control’ type of leadership style (Mann 1959; Stogdill 1974). These traits were seen to be inherent rather than acquired through learning or experience. Writing at the same time as Weber,
87
one of the rare female management theorists, Parker-Follet (1924) promoted the value of collaboration, coordination, the sharing of power and information and the empowerment of the workforce (Wilson 2004). As a woman of her era, she did not ascribe these qualities to being found in women, she promoted them as sound business principles for male leaders to adopt in management positions.
Recent management theorists continue to study leadership qualities of men and women and promote these attributes as essential to the demands of the leadership environment today. One of the most published studies of women leaders was conducted by Helgesen (1995) who applied a methodology used by well-known management theorist Mintzberg (1979) in the 1970’s in his study of the effectiveness of male managers. In her study, Helgesen (1995) revealed a number of traits that differentiated women leaders from men when comparing the study to that of Mintzberg. These included women’s willingness to share information with others;; maintain perspective on issues outside of their job and career; and pace themselves to remain attentive to others’ needs.
Helgesen (1995) concluded that the relationship focus of women leaders and their concern with process in addition to outcome of the task was a critical advantage for leadership requirements of the times. Theories on the characteristics of ‘male’ and
‘female’ leadership will be elaborated on in section 4.7 on women and leadership.
However, even earlier theorists, such as Spotts (1976) recognised that these ‘leadership trait’ theories were limited in their failure to address the relational dynamic between a leader, their followers and the environment that they operate in. The research into leadership qualities did not uncover a constellation of universal traits distinguishing one leader from another (Conger 1999). The charismatic leadership models that were posited by theorists such as House (1977) and Berlew (1974) were critiqued for ignoring the follower relationship which gave rise to studies which focussed specifically on the ‘leader-follower’ dyad (Avolio & Bass 1988; Conger & Kanungo 1987). While these theorists subsequently revised their studies to focus on the collective in the organisation, they provided a framework for studying the leader-follower interaction which remains an area of research into leadership effectiveness today (Avolio 2007; Bligh 2010; Ehrhart 2012; Hudson 2013). Hudson’s (2013) recent study reveals that regardless of their organisational standing leader-follower interactions are determined by each party’s internal psychological models. Leaders with more positive
88
models were found to be more secure in their relationships with followers and therefore able to be more available and attentive, resulting in more effective leadership, better relationships and increased organisational effectiveness.
Along with the questioning of the behavioural paradigm in psychology and organisational theory, contextual explanations have gained ground in identifying propensity for leadership over above inherent ‘traits’. This explanation asserted that the needs of the times would determine who would emerge as a leader (Freeman et al.
2001). The rapidly increasing rate of change and the competitive demands on organisations to perform more effectively in the corporate world during the 1980’s and beyond escalated studies into leadership and its effectiveness, particularly in the United States (Van Rensburg 2007). The study of the interplay between behavioural traits of a leader and their ability to positively influence followers to move above and beyond themselves became the focus of what was termed ‘transformational leadership’.
4.3 Transformational Leadership
Transformational and transactional leadership theories were initially developed by MacGregor Burns (2003). MacGregor Burns distinguished between transactional leaders who exchange relationships with their followers by focussing on team work, task accomplishment and problem solving from transformational leaders who tap into followers’ motives and seek to engage them to move beyond their self-interests for the benefit of the group and the organisation (Bass & Avolio 1993; Odetunde 2013). These transformational leaders resemble the early charismatic leaders of the 18th century, not by virtue of their position, tradition, or rulings, but from the followers’ faith in their gift of exceptional powers and qualities (Freeman et al. 2001).
Conger and Kanungo (1998) describe the transformational leader as individuals who are wholly involved in a vision of change and inspire others to pursue their articulated goals Antonakis, Avolio & Sivasubramaniam 2003). There is attachment and trust in the leader-follower relationship and innovation and creativity are stimulated amongst followers so that they become strongly committed and motivated towards the mission of the organisation (Nicholson 2007). The self-esteem and aspirations of followers are elevated by the transformational leader as they are empowered by the leader’s faith in
89
their abilities and by group cohesion based on shared beliefs (Antonakis et al. 2003).
This form of leadership “binds leaders and followers together in mutual and continuing pursuit of a higher purpose” (Conger & Kanungo 1998: 20).
The origin of the ‘transformational leader’ was a revolution against the tyranny of tradition, according to Freeman (2001). The leader takes on the role of a change agent who perceives opportunity in a crisis situation and mobilises human minds and emotions towards a vision. He instils faith in his followers and consequently empowers them, reducing their feelings of helplessness and instability (Conger 1999; Johns &
Moser 2001). While Weber (in Gerth et al. 2009) had envisioned charismatic leadership as transitory, creating and institutionalising a new order, transformational theorists (Avolio et al. 1988; Conger 1999; MacGregor Burns 2003) believed that charisma alone would not be transforming enough to sustain and institutionalise change in business organisations. On the contrary, these theorists believed that transformational leaders seek to empower followers to participate in the process of establishing the new order and to question views established by the leader (Avolio & Yammarino 1990;
Conger 1999). Judge and Piccolo (2004) demonstrated that transformational leadership is a very powerful influence over leader effectiveness by increasing the intrinsic motivation of their followers and building more effective relationships with them.
While transformational leadership theories continue to be explored and expanded on, common to all of them is the emphasis on the leaders’ ability to: create a vision; inspire others; role model; stimulate followers; help to make meaning out of situations; set expectations; and foster a collective identity (Conger 1999; Kouzes & Posner 2002;
McLaurin & Amri 2008).
Psychodynamic theorists studying leadership proposed that the followers of charismatic leaders were most likely dependent individuals who created a powerful emotional attachment to the charismatic leader (Kets de Vries 2006). Equally a leader’s narcissistic tendency may result in them constructing a charismatic identity to shape the image they wish to convey and the messages they wish to deliver (Conger 1999; Kets de Vries 2006). However, several leadership theorists argue that followers are often attracted to charismatic leaders because of a more constructive identification with their abilities, a desire to learn from them and an independent conviction in their mission (Conger 1999; Johns & Moser 2001; Judge & Piccolo 2004; Odetunde 2013). The
90
debate does raise the question around the nature of the power exercised by a charismatic leader and the extent to which it is empowering or coercive.
Freeman et al. (2001) critiques the transformational leadership theories further for associating our enduring masculine cultural images with charisma. In a study conducted by Ibarra and Obodaru (2009) while women received favourable ratings on many leadership dimensions, their perceived ability to inspire around a vision was ranked significantly lower than their male counter-parts. While women may be perceived to have other strengths, they concluded that charismatic leadership remains a male stereotype. In contrast with this study, the study using the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ) designed by Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe (2007) to measure differences between men and women concluded that generally women display more transformational, while men display more transactional, forms of leadership.
Odetunde’s (2013) research which investigated the effects of transformational and transactional leadership styles and gender on organisational conflict management behaviour concluded that transformational leadership is a stereotypically gender- balanced style. While research continues to grow in the area of transformational leadership and its effect on followers, Conger (1999) cautioned that we need to be careful of making conclusions without exploring other dimensions affecting leadership such as the understanding of contextual issues. The need for understanding of complex contextual issues still applies to studies of leadership today and in particular to the complex phenomenon of power in relation to leadership (Kets de Vries 2011).
4.4 Situational Leadership and Emotional Intelligence
The impact of contextual issues on leadership is one of the key considerations which led to the development of situational leadership theories in the 1970’s. Hersey and Blanchard (1977) developed the best known situational leadership model which has been revised and developed by themselves and other theorists over time (Blanchard, Hyblis & Hodges 1999; Goleman 2000). The model provides a framework for assessing needs of a situation and identifying a leadership style best suited to it. The model challenged the assumptions around ‘trait’ and ‘transformational’ leadership that one leadership style is superior over another. These styles accommodate a range of uses of power. Two of the styles, namely directing and delegating, require a level of leader
91
dominance, whereas the styles of coaching and supporting require greater power sharing (Shriberg et al. 2005).The situational approach has been adopted in some form or another by most current leadership theories which try to clarify what determines an effective leader.
In applying a situational approach to leadership theory, theorists acknowledge the dynamic between personal characteristics of the leader and their context. Applying personal characteristics with a sense of judgement to a situation has been the focus of more recent studies into situational leadership (Goleman 2000; Kets de Vries 2011;
Matthews, Zeidner & Roberts 2002). A decade of research linking emotional intelligence to business results, started by McClelland (1973) and developed by Goleman (2000) found that leaders with strengths in a range of emotional competency areas were far more effective than peers in reading situations and creating a positive work climate. Goleman’s (2000: 82–83) research investigated how six different leadership styles affected the working atmosphere in an organisation and when they are most appropriate. The following represents a summary of his findings:
The coercive style which demands immediate compliance works best in a crisis to kick-start a turnaround or with problem employees, but has a negative impact on the climate in the organisations
The authoritative style mobilises people towards a vision and is useful when changes require a new vision or clear direction and is mostly experienced as positive by employees
The affiliative style creates harmony and builds bonds and is valuable in healing rifts in a team or motivating people during stressful circumstances and has a positive impact on the work climate.
The democratic style forges consensus through participation and is best used to get buy-in or consensus, or to get input from valuable employees and has a positive impact on the climate.
The pacesetting style sets high standards for performance and is most appropriate to get quick results from a highly motivated competent team.
However, overall it was found to have a negative impact on the work climate.
92
A coaching style develops people for the future and is best used to help an employee improve performance or develop long-term strengths and has a positive effect on the organisational climate.
Goleman’s (2000) study supported the situational theorists claim that the more styles a leader exhibits the better. However, it is notable that the styles, such as affiliative, democratic and coaching styles, where power is more diffuse amongst followers were all found to have a positive impact on working climate. Based on his observations of the leaders in the study, Goleman (2000: 87) also noted that “leaders switch flexibly among the styles as needed” and “don’t mechanically match their style to fit a checklist of situations – they are far more fluid”. Emotional Intelligence (EI) has been linked to organisational context in the several studies which have shown its positive correlation to the organisational climate and employee motivation levels (Kets De Vries 2006;
Klem & Shlechter 2008).
Situational leadership which focussed on the leader’s ‘reading’ of the situation and responding appropriately to elicit the most effective behaviour from their followers, emphasises the reciprocal relationship with followers in any given situation. Freeman et al. (2001) comment that with this shift in linking leadership to followers and their context, leadership has become more compatible with traditional stereotypes of women’s strengths and interpersonal connection and care, than in the days of the ‘great man’ theories. Equally the flexible and fluid approach to applying a variety of styles (Goleman 2000) is consistent with women’s more flexible and process approach to leadership according to Wilson (2004). Applying emotional intelligence as the process by which this is achieved has been widely accepted by theorists as a major factor contributing to leader effectiveness in both men and women (Kets de Vries 2011;
Matthews et al. 2002).
The ‘power’ of the leader within this process of applying emotional intelligence (EI) is more reflective of the definitions of power relating to self-actualisation, agency and personal mastery than those associated with influence (Compton 2005; Dhiman 2011;
Strümpfer 2005) as discussed in the section on positive psychology (section 2.3.2.2) in chapter 2. EI has typically included having high levels of self-awareness; having empathy for others; and having the ability to manage one’s own emotions in various
93
situations (Goleman 1996, 1998). An understanding and acknowledgement of the role of emotions at work has challenged the scientific ‘business’ paradigm and begun to reinterpret the organisational context and its’ requirements for success. Many leadership theoriests believe that this has given women a platform to thrive in the modern economy (Sandberg 2013; Valerio 2009; Wilson 2004). The concept of EI has also been expanded on more recently by leadership theorists, such as Kets de Vries (2011), to include the ability to reframe challenging situations in a positive way; remain consistent and resilient in tough situations; to build and operate effectively in teams; and to be able to socially network. These capabilities have become key focus areas in leadership studies and in particular are reflected globally in leadership development initiatives in organisations today (Barsh, Devillard &Wang 2012; Ely, Ibarra & Kolb 2011; Valerio 2009).
However the feminist perspective highlights this focus on emotional and relational competence in business as superficial and problematic in that it promotes gender stereotypes and continues to co-opt women into dominant, patriarchal modes of thinking (Burman 2011; Eisenstein 2010). In a study aimed at understanding the current trend of equating women’s EI capabilities with the future focus of organisations, Thory (2013) found that women fared less well than their male counterparts in acting on their interpretations of EI skills. She concludes that EI assessment and training can be damaging to individuals when used in work environments where masculinised management exists as the dominant paradigm. In a study attempting to validate measures that predict emotional competency, Brasseur, Gregoire, Bourdu &
Mikolajczak(2013) found that there was little difference in intrapersonal skills between genders. However, women demonstrated greater levels of emotional expression with men demonstrating greater emotional regulation. Much of the focus of EI in business today is on the self-regulation of emotions (Burman 2011) which has an interesting correlation to a potentially ‘male’ interpretation of the concept. The debate surrounding
‘male’ and ‘female’ characteristics of leadership will be discussed in greater detail in section 4.7 of this chapter on women and leadership. Other theories which have developed in parallel with situational leadership and the application of emotional intelliegence are also subject to feminist scrutiny in their perpetuation of patriarchal paradigms. The theory of servant leadership will be discussed and critiqued in the following section.
94 4.5 Servant Leadership
Greenleaf (1977) coined the phrase ‘servant leadership’ in his book “Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness”. The title alone indicates the centrality of ‘power’ to this theory, not in the form of control or domination, but rather in the sense of a legitimacy of worthiness through the service provided to others. Greenleaf’s (1977) writing was in response to his belief that the holders of power at that time were suspect and their actions begged questioning. He constructed the concept of leader as ‘servant’ to their followers above all else and promoted fulfilling this role through a number of processes. These include listening;
imagining a better future; accepting and empathising; using intuition and sensitivity;
having ethical foresight; using small acts to make a difference; and building community. Several prominent ‘moral’ leaders globally, such as Ghandi, Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela have been highlighted as the epitome of a servant leader (Sosik & Jung 2010).
While Greenleaf’s (1977) conceptualisation of servant leadership were inspired largely by western, Christian philosophies and led to a number of research initiatives in the United States, Hannay’s (2009) research concluded that servant leadership is a model which appears to accommodate other cultural dimensions as defined by Hofstede (1993) and is suited to workplaces across the globe. Specific to this study is Hannay’s (2009) finding that the servant-leader role seems to be a better fit with those traditionally female characteristics since service is identified as a largely female value.
Since servant leadership requires the leaders to understand the needs and desires of their employees it should engender an environment of trust and empowerment (Kolp & Rea 2006). Kolp and Rea (2006) reinforce that this nurturing relationship does not ignore performance, but rather it brings about change to enhance or improve performance.
Power distance is another of Hofstede’s (1993) cultural dimensions that Hannay (2009) relates to servant leadership, since power is distributed in the servant leadership model and therefore more readily adopted by democratic and participatory cultures. The view that servant leadership theory is applicable in a variety of cultures, contexts, and organizational settings seems widely supported (Parris & Peachey 2013).
95
However, Parris and Peachey (2013) highlight that servant leadership, while prominently advocated by popular management literature as a means to create employee satisfaction and organisational success (Block 1993; Covey 1990; Senge 1994; Spears 2005; Wheatley 2005), remains understudied in academia as a leadership theory. They caution against the popularisation of the theory as a management technique which was originally intended as a way of life. Other authors, such as Ngambi (2004) contest the notion that servant-leadership has its roots in Greenleaf’s (1977) theory, claiming that the approach has been applied for centuries in traditional forms of African community leadership. Reclaiming a form of African leadership which is believed to be better suited to the world today and to organisations on the African continent is a focus of leadership studies grappling with the integration of theory into practice which respects the local context (Mbigi & Maree 1995; Ngambi 2004; Van Rensburg 2007). In eastern philosophy the quest for self-awareness, meaningfulness and mastery has influenced the field of psychology, as discussed in the section on positive psychology in chapter 2 (section 2.3.2.2) and the applied field of leadership (Dhiman 2011).
While there is merit in calling for further academic studies into the notion of servant leadership as well as non-western models of leadership, many management theories founded on this form of leadership and associated approaches, recognise it as something more profound than a management technique, but as an approach rooted in a personal philosophy and lifestyle practice (Dean 2008; Jaworski 1998; Wheatley 2005). The adaptation of servant leadership into the current business world environment has taken a number of forms, but all of them speak to a quest for an approach which will provide anchoring in a world of uncertainty and chaos (Wheatley 2005). Values based leadership is an example of this in its focus on influencing relationships and organisations positively through choices guided by explicit and consistently practiced values, reflective of a healthy lifestyle (Dean 2008). Other approaches indicate leaders’
turning to ancient spiritual traditions from cultures outside of the west for the faith and resilience to deal with anxiety and turbulence (Wheatley 2005).