Abstract
This paper challenges the notion of traditional leadership. Rather than focus on the industrious, problem-solving nature typically associated with leaders, this paper explores a newer concept of leadership, which involves providing catalysts for change, as well as managing the anxiety and distress that inevitably appears as a result of groundbreaking change. It seeks to explore a various strands while settling on a unique definition of leadership. The paper features three separate leadership theories that have influenced the construction of this particular definition. The three leadership styles that are examined are as follows: Authentic, Servant and Transformational Leadership. The paper also examines the role of followership. Finally, the paper presents my own personal insights that were gained throughout this course. The ceaseless implications of what was learned about the true nature of leadership are noted upon, particularly in how they influence not only work and business, but everyday life as well.
The traditional concept of a leader often shrouds the true importance of such a role in our lives. The concept of a strong, unshakeable and confident persona, who is able to locate problems and offer solutions, remains our go-to imagery for what it means to be a leader. Their confidence in both themselves and their purpose instills a sense of inner trust and harmony that both invigorates and placates its followers. Leaders are often viewed as being what Kotter states as “the province of a chosen few” (1990). Modern day discovery and discussion, however, has begun to promote an entirely new way of viewing leaders. Quite simply, leadership focuses on “coping with change,” rather than “coping with complexity” (Kotter, 1990). In this thorough exploration of the multifaceted nature of leadership, this one fact remains consistent throughout all facets: traditional leadership cannot suffice any longer in this changing world, and a new call for more dynamic leadership which favors long-lasting wellbeing over momentary comfort and maintenance of equilibrium is of utmost necessity for the progressive growth of mankind.
The definition of leadership is rapidly changing. Charisma is commonly considered as a “central feature of leadership,” with a “long history in leader ascension” (William, Ueltschy and Baucus, 2014). This widespread belief is perpetuated by visions of a leader that offers its followers with galvanizing visions. Yet the root of charisma is charm, and this charm can oftentimes be regarded as a tool for manipulation—and also oppression. William, Ueltschy and Baucus remind us that though charisma has the potential of being harmless, oftentimes it is used to “actively seek to exchange insincerity for personal gain” (2014). The highly visible nature of such charismatic and influential leaders reveals an idea of self-promotion rather than betterment of mankind. It is therefore important to expose the faulty natures of leadership and examine what makes a leader truly effective in improving the lives of those around him or her. Even in the realm of charisma, state that the power of charisma lies in its ability to influence “values and feelings” (2012). Charismatic people are able to “help listeners understand, relate to, and remember a message” (Antonatkis, Fenley, and Liechti, 2012). When used for beneficial purposes rather than personal gain, charisma can actually give to its followers more than it gives to the leader him or herself.
While they are glorified for their power and influence, leaders are often put in perhaps the most difficult position in all of society. In order to continue to progress of human growth, it is imperative that leaders not only embrace the beneficial aspects of being in a position of power, but also take full responsibility for the implications of his or her role. To rule is to bear. There is a deep sense of accountability that must be self-sustained at times, and held under control even in the midst of outer strife and seemingly unending mayhem and distress. While followers are soothed by the comfort, equilibrium and problem solving that is brought to them by their leaders, the continual of this treatment leaves little room for individual growth and progress. The flattery that is brought upon by the idealization of a single person by a delighted herd of people halters the forward-thinking capabilities that lay within every individual. Leaders are not babysitters; they are not meant to placate, quell and soothe individuals. They are meant to instill a deep desire for change, so that progress becomes not their own individual aim as the leader, but rather a collective responsibility that is grasped by every individual. The only way that this can wholly come to be is by asking the questions that most others would want to avoid. It is by forcing people to face their own willingness to walk out of their comfort zones. Finally, the last pillar of true leadership is to be able to effectively manage and handle the “resulting distress” (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997).
Followership is an important aspect of leadership as well. While most believe that success depends upon the quality of leadership, it is important to note the significance of quality of followership. Kelley (2001) offers key components of effective followership: they manage their own lives well; they are able to commit to something greater than themselves; they focus on improving their skills and contribution; and they carry a heart full of courage and integrity. Their entire mindset is based on cooperation and equality. They seek out “training and development” rather than waiting for them to come to them (Kelley, 2001). They seek to expose problems rather than hide from them out of fear or apathy. A collective of good followers enables a leader to effectively cope with change while promoting perpetual progress.
The traditional rules of leadership included defining problems and offering solutions, protecting the group from outside threats; specifying roles and duties; reinstating order; and maintaining equilibrium (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). The new concept of leadership as explored by Heifetz and Laurie are to ask difficult questions and expose critical issues; to allow for enough pressure to inspire change; to dismount existing roles and feel comfortable with temporary ambiguity; to shed light on buried conflict; and to openly challenge systems perpetuating unproductivity (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). Rather than avoid and ameliorate conflict, leaders understand that conflict can actually be “the engine of creativity and learning” (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). One aspect of new leadership that is reflected in the traditional concept of leadership is that the leader “must have presence and poise” (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). In the light of this more advanced concept of leadership, however, the leader must be able to handle the resulting distress in the face of growth and change. As perhaps the leader’s most challenging obstacle, the pressures to preserve stability cannot be overstated. Traditionally, leaders may have been seen as pacifiers who are able to understand the struggles of his or her followers in the face of change or readjustment. In the newer version of leadership, however, leaders must be able to withstand the ongoing tension and see the vision that lies ahead as a result of this newfound stimulus. Otherwise, Heifetz and Laurie state that “change is lost” (1997).
Authentic leadership attempts to identify and explore real-life problems in the most relatable and realistic fashion. Leaders of this nature are resilient, secure and uplifting individuals that are rooted deeply in reality rather than lofty idealism. Masterful self-awareness is a elemental facet of this type of leader. As a key component of emotional intelligence, self awareness means “having a deep understanding of one’s emotions, strengths, weaknesses, needs, and drives” (Goleman, 1998). In order to promote an environment based on equality and trust, those in charge must have “control of their feelings and impulses,” which are based on their deep understanding of their own selves (Goleman, 1998). Self-awareness allows for a clear identification of one’s role, abilities, and purpose. Self-aware people are also most often able to self-regulate themselves. Their integrity to the cause in their heart allows for an integrative and cohesive method of organization that does not wander or waver in set purpose. The other side of this is that authentic leaders practice a refusal to compromise on important values and principles in regards to their work and their life. Personal conviction tends to be the driving motivator for authentic leaders, and they are less swayed by the ego-driven desires of recognition of gain. Relationships are critical to their success. Authentic leadership breaks down the barriers that separate follower and leader, and level the playing field so that a genuine understanding can be birthed. It is based on the ability to be open with others and form genuine connections with those who look up to him or her. Their power lies in “mutual disclosure,” which humanizes the role they are playing as leader (Northouse, 2013).
Servant leadership, on the other hand, focus on serving the needs of all those around him or her. The priority lies in the interest of others’ wellbeing, whether by meeting their specific needs or encouraging their unique dreams. Even in the face of a multitude of situations, servant leadership does not waver in its focus on meeting the needs of others. Rather than follow the pattern of authentic leaders in their proactively adaptive methods, servant leadership focuses on empathy and listening rather than action and direction. One unique feature of servant leadership is that “when followers receive caring and empowerment” from their servant leaders, the “followers themselves become servant leaders” (Northouse, 2013). Therein lies a cyclical nature to this specific type of leadership. Its deeply altruistic nature beckons that “leaders should put followers first,” regardless of the situation (Northouse, 2013).
Thirdly and lastly, Northouse (2013) defines transformational leadership as “socialized leadership, which is concerned with the collective good.” This type of leadership is centered on the desire to catalyze change within both individuals and the organization at large. The effective implementation of transformational leadership is in creating indispensible positive change in the followers. The ultimate goal is to transform such followers into leaders themselves. The motivation and uplift in morale promotes an expansion of performance and pride within the followers. As the individual’s sense of self and collective responsibility broadens, so does his or her desire to be a leader as well. Encouraging followers to assume larger ownership for their work enables more power to be implemented in the grander goal of the collective. Inspiration is a crucial element of transformational leadership, as it is the vision of the leader, which enables the follower to hold steadfastly to one’s passion and purpose in the hopes of achieving marvelous things. The transformational leader sets the example for the followers by actually implementing valuable methods of operation in his or her own life, therefore promoting a visible display for the purpose of providing motivation and inspiration.
In my own journey, the three key leadership lessons I have learned from this course are: 1) the need for adaptive change in any direction towards growth 2) the five components of emotional intelligence at work, and 3) nurturing my own seeds of greatness as much as possible. Of all these, the concept that has most shaped me and been of the highest importance to me has been the idea that leaders must be comfortable with being uncomfortable, and in fact enjoy the growth that this position permits. A leader must be able to calmly and gracefully “tolerate uncertainty, frustration, and pain” (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). He or she must be able to prevent his own potential anxiety from overruling his consciousness, particularly when surrounded by the anxiousness of his followers in the face of challenging questions. The leader must understand that his affect is a product of not only his her words, but also of his nonverbal language—all of which are elemental to providing a steadfast source of calm and strength. The leader must be able to translate his being into a source of pure confidence in his or her ability to master and overcome to daunting obstacles that lie ahead. Because a leader understands that true learning occurs only when one is open to different opinions, he or she is naturally capable of viewing issues from multiple angles. Pride is not an obstacle in expansion. My attitude towards my own personal practice of leadership is to be honest with myself and recognize my tendency to avoid work by either avoiding disturbing issues or avoiding conflict of any sort by restoring equilibrium. I will further show myself the importance of “discipline attention,” remembering that it is the “currency of leadership” (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). I now see that leadership is not about maintaining vision and alignment with said vision, but rather in recognizing the need for adaptive change in spite of the strife and distress. The traditional image of a charismatic and authoritative figure is virtually bankrupt in its effectiveness if without the ability to both instigate and withstand internal and external tension. The traditional combination of “grand knowing and salesmanship” are ineffectual in the face of advancement and changing needs (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). I have learned that adaptive situations are not clear-cut problems to be solved, but rather a dynamic and ever-changing dilemma that requires patience and considerable effort of not only the leader but also each member of the organization. I have also learned that those who are stuck in old patterns of traditional leadership are in for a “rude awakening” (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). Rather than fall into the vice of pride in his ability to solve difficult problems, this new kind of leader must be able to readjust to changing values, to open him or herself to new perspectives, and also to develop entirely new habits. While there is a loss in this singular source of pride and achievement, in lieu of problem solving, he or she is alleviated of the ceaseless burden of solution providing. As a result of all this newfound knowledge and awareness, the two specific actions I will take to enhance my leadership effectiveness are: 1) view every day as an opportunity to practice this newer, more comprehensive version of leadership and 2) remain open and flexible to changing methods of both thinking and doing. For the first action, I will pay attention to my affinity for comfort, and see my everyday habits of followership which really aid in my avoidance of personal responsibility. I will follow leaders who do not follow “conventional thinking” and provide me with “false reassurance that [my] best is good enough,” but rather ones who remove the blinders from my eyes and show me the true nature of my struggle and situation (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). I will daily move towards the issues and questions that I would naturally avoid in favor of comfort, stability and routine. I will be a leader for both myself and all those who are around me by daily encouraging myself and others to constantly “surpass [ourselves]” (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). I will change my natural tendency to avoid conflict in favor of peace and harmony, in the hopes of catalyzing necessary change. In the second action towards more effective leadership, I will first and foremost understand that candor and bravery in both speech and action are likely to be met with anxiety and distrust. I will understand that if I can simply remain open to all opinions, even those that come into direct conflict with my own, that I will be in a better place to make the best environment for true change and growth. I will “cultivate emotional fortitude” in order to focus on maximizing well-being over comfort (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). I now understand that it is essential to remain open to redefining values, to developing novel ways of operating, and to consider previously unseen strategies. Rather than cling to my deeply ingrained beliefs and methods of operation, I will challenge myself constantly to remain open and flexible. I will pride myself in facilitating true action in spite of discomfort from both my own individual actions and of those around me. In the face of “new roles, new relationships, new values, new behaviors, and new approaches to work,” I will remain rooted in my own personal trust and faith in my own capabilities in spite of what the outer world may appear to be. Instead of expecting those above me to alleviate me of any challenge or struggle, I will openly accept the tension as the price to pay for growth and greatness. Un-learning previously set expectations will be a critical part of remaining open.
Leadership is now marked by its role in handling change in the face of an ever-expanding world, rather than its previous concepts of maintenance and management. Leaders promote motivation and inspiration not only to drive dreams to fruition but also “[to satisfy] basic human needs for achievement, a sense of belonging, recognition, self-esteem, a feeling of control over one’s life, and the ability to live up to one’s ideals” (Kotter, 1990). These are absolutely elemental features of human happiness, which is why leaders are revered with such fervor and applaud. By being in the presence of an effective leader, one is able to “catch a glimpse of that truth [] about what is best in human beings,” which enables us to recognize our own ability to make our lives the best they can be (Kelley, 2001). Longevity of benefits is prized over immediate comfort. Ultimately, this exploration of leadership highlights one continual fact: that conventional viewpoints of effective leadership must be replaced with a rejuvenated definition which includes the ability to focus on long-term gain as opposed to instant gratification.
Bibliography
Antonatkis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2012). Learning Charisma. Retrieved February 28,
2016, from https://hbr.org/2012/06/learning-charisma-2
Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve. Retrieved
February 28, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2005/07/level-5-leadership-the-triumph-of-humility-and-fierce-resolve/ar/1
Goleman, D. (1998). What Makes a Leader? Retrieved February 28, 2016, from
https://hbr.org/2004/01/what-makes-a-leader/ar/1
Heifetz, R., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The Work of Leadership. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from
https://hbr.org/2001/12/the-work-of-leadership/ar/1
Jr, William, Norton, Murfield, M. L., & Baucus, M. S. (2014). Leader emergence: The
development of a theoretical framework. Leadership & Organization Development
Kelley, R. E. (2001). In Praise of Followers. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from
https://hbr.org/1988/11/in-praise-of-followers/ar/1
Kotter, J. P. (1990). What Leaders Really Do. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from
https://hbr.org/2001/12/what-leaders-really-do/ar/1
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
