Blog I: Defining Leadership
Throughout time, the conceptual understanding of leadership has varied where in the early 20th century for example, leadership was thought to be linked to specific behavioral or personality traits that certain people possessed (Northouse, 2016). Today we will be critically examining the modern definition of leadership, as defined by Northouse, and the components which make up its definition.
Northouse defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group towards a common goal.” Northouse goes further to identify the four components of leadership that’s remained consistent over time which have been included in his operational definition: 1) that leadership is a process, 2) it involves influence, 3) it occurs in groups, 4) and it involves a common goal (Northouse, 2016).
Overall, I largely agree with the definition that Northouse has given about leadership but with the major difference occurring amongst individuals in how they influence their followers towards a common goal. I also think there’s another dimension to consider in regards to the idea of leadership being a process, and that involves time.
The estimated time it will take for a group to accomplish their goal is a factor that should be considered when leaders determine how they will lead their group from point A to point B. Generally, if a leader is tasked with leading a group or an organization to completing a large and lengthy operation, it would be advantageous for the leader to take on a transformational servant style of leadership to produce followers that’s also capable of accepting more responsibilities (particularly leadership). In doing so, a leader would accomplish lessening their workload, produce highly competent and empowered followers, and would ensure a smooth running operation if the leader were to depart.
In contrast for shorter operations, my hypothesis is that a leader should adopt a more authoritative style of leadership, assuming the leader at least has referent and expert power at their disposal. Reasons for this is because for operations where time is the enemy, ideally you’d want to accomplish the task as quick and efficiently as possible. Authoritative leaders are better suited for these types of tasks and in situations where a groups members are unfamiliar with one another because leader don’t have time to necessarily influence followers, only direct them to execute certain tasks for the sake completing the goal.
From the point I articulated in this post, it’s easy to see why the definition of leadership has differentiated over time as it’s such a fluid concept with many factors to consider. In my readings so far of Northouse’s textbook, I haven’t yet seen any discussion about the relationship between leadership styles and time but I think it’s a factor that’s certainly worth exploring when trying to understand the process of leadership. Which styles of leadership DO YOU think is best suited for a leader handling shorter operation? What about a leader handling a longer one? Let me know what you think in the comments section below.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice (Seventh ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
What Makes a Great Leader [Digital Image]. (2016). Retrieved September 29, 18, from https://www.linkstrategies.com.au/blog/15-important-leadership-qualities-for-success
October 4, 2018 @ 8:26 am
Ruiz,
You’ve highlighted an interesting concept about leadership style — and the need for authoritarian leadership in certain circumstances. For example, one might imagine in an operating room, an airplane cockpit, or a building on fire, the leaders in those contexts would need to be more authoritarian, as decisions will need to be made quickly, the stakes are high, and there is not necessarily time to gain consensus.
And yet, leadership theory has addressed situations just like this, with many scholars maintaining that it is in just these situations that collaboration and mutual engagement in decision making is necessary.
In his book “Outliers,” Gladwell (2008) posited that there was a link between the hierarchical culture of Korean Airlines and the large number of airline crashes they had experienced. You can read about it here: https://money.cnn.com/2008/11/11/news/companies/secretsofsuccess_gladwell.fortune/
When do you think authoritarian leadership is necessary? Should it be preceded or accompanied by collaborative leadership? Is there way to combine a strict and clearly-defined procedure/checklist/process/protocol (which is sometimes necessary) to include input from others? Should that be part of the process?
Would love to know your thoughts!
— Leadership Prof
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.