What is "Leadership?"
Leadership refers to an extremely wide range of roles that have profound influence on the world. The range is so wide, in fact, that sometimes the term leadership seems to include almost everyone. Indeed, some corporations have adopted the slogan: "Everyone is a leader."
A word which can refer to any person at any level of an organization, in any field, living or dead, who significantly influences others, for good or ill, is so broad as to be of questionable utility. Consequently, as the patriarch of modern leadership studies, James MacGregor Burns, observes: "Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth"[1]. Another analyst in the field elaborates: "Leadership studies have suffered from a 'lack of a common language.'"[2]
This is why German publishers reacted so ambivalently when yet another book on "leaders" crossed the Atlantic for their consideration. In order to translate it, they were compelled to put the word "fuehrer" once again into print. German publishers were understandably reluctant to invest their hopes in words that had so cruelly betrayed them.
Additional insights into leaders and leadership are offered by several Beyond Intractability project participants.
|
Although perhaps not so obviously, the Germans' dilemma regarding leadership is shared by the English-speaking world. Although the English word "leader" does not evoke the negative response of its German equivalent, it is nevertheless heavily burdened with more subtle but still dangerous implications.
The English word "leadership" originates in the ancient root leith, which meant "to go forth and die," as in battle. By this definition, those who lead Group A to commit violence against Group B are "leaders." Even if we remove violence from the equation, and even if the "leader" represents some higher cause or value, the word still means the act of mobilizing one group to dominate or vanquish another. Particularly in our shrinking, interconnected world, this is not a particularly inspiring or comprehensive portrait of leadership.
Confronting this vacuum, experts on "leadership" have tried to save this thorny noun with rosy adjectives: "authentic" and "transformational," "ethical" and "entrepreneurial," "democratic" and "collaborative," etc. More perceptive writers, who confronted the vacuum honestly, examined "why leaders can not lead," acknowledged that "nobody's in charge," explored leadership "without easy answers," and addressed the challenge of "reinventing leadership." But none of that changed the fact the word itself, without a modifier, seemed increasingly hollow. ("Don't follow leaders," sang Bob Dylan prophetically. "Watch the parking meters.")
What makes the term "leadership" particularly problematic for the field of conflict studies is that leaders commonly represent their "side." Yet leaders themselves are often one of the biggest obstacles in resolving conflict.
To distinguish between leaders who exacerbate and ameliorate conflict, many scholars have developed useful typologies. John W. Gardner developed the concept of "cross-boundary" leaders who are capable of working effectively.[3] Peter Senge has referred to "advocates for the whole" to highlight some leaders' capacity to work effectively on behalf of all the "parts" in an organization or community.[4] Peggy Dulany and the Synergos Institute have coined the term "bridging" leadership, and have gathered case studies from throughout the world documenting how leaders have effectively linked disparate, and often hostile, constituencies[5]. Other writers influenced by American philosopher Ken Wilber have invented the term "integral" leadership.And William Ury, best known for co-authoring Getting To Yes, has spoken of "third-side leadership" to signify those who have developed the capacity to act as a healing force between opposing "sides."[6]
All of these efforts are attempts to define the positive qualities of leadership. To frame these efforts, let us examine three dimensions of leadership -- sector, scale, and values -- that breed confusion. Doing so will also help to define the different branches of the field of leadership studies and to clarify its relationship to the conflict resolution field.
Sector
There are traditionally two major strands of leadership studies: one is the political and public sector, and the other is business and the private sector. "Walk into a bookstore of any size at all and you will see that the materials on leadership in government are located in one place, while the materials on leadership in business are located somewhere else," writes Barbara Kellerman. While formerly this made sense, Kellerman argues "times change." In her view "the differences between public sector types and their private sector counterparts are far outweighed by the similarities -- which make the separation between them nothing if not passed."[7]
Nevertheless, gaps in language and perspective between these two sectors persist. Noting the "suspicion" that exists between the two sectors, Carol Bellamy, director of UNICEF, bluntly acknowledged: "The private sector thinks those of us who have been in the public sector are a little, well, retarded... a little below caliber. They think we're well-meaning ... just not quite up to the job."[8] The stereotypes, however, go both ways because many government sector leaders see the typical business leader as someone who "does not" care, or does not really want to make a difference, who are only there to make money, who really do not want to leave the world a better world. It is changing, but there is "still too much suspicion." Whether the gap between the two is deep (as Bellamy suggests) or narrowing (as Kellerman concludes), it is critical to understanding the contextual nature of leadership. Leaders rise to prominence by following the "rules of the game." As the rules vary, so does the nature of leadership.
This variation is also evident in the "third sector," which has emerged in recent years as a central force in local, national and global affairs. Variously referred to as the "civic" sector or "civil society" (or "independent," "NGO" sector), this third strand has received considerable attention recently because of its unique role in democratic life. Robert Puttnam, among others, has popularized the awareness that leadership in this third sector makes a profound difference in the strength, resilience, and productivity of communities.[9] The literature on "community leadership" often stresses the role that these civic leaders play, which neither business nor government leaders can perform.
Scale
This second dimension addresses the dilemma of where, exactly, this elusive quality of "leadership" resides. Is it a character trait that resides within a single individual? ("The senior class president has great leadership potential.") Is it a group phenomenon? ("The other team won because they demonstrated superior leadership.") Does it reside within the structure of an organization or community? ("Consistent leadership training has raised the productivity of their sales department.") Or, even more mysteriously, does it reside in the space between people -- in the relationship?
Confusion about this question of scale exists particularly in cross-cultural conversations about leadership. Western leadership experts tend to view it as an individual characteristic. Elsewhere, in less individualistic cultures, there tends to be more stress on the collaborative, communal nature of leadership.
"More traditional approaches to leadership often talk about individual leaders and their followers, usually within organizations," observes Jacinto Gavino, professor at the Asian Institute of Management in Manila. "But that's not how we will find more just solutions to the deepening social divides around us."[10]
Like many of his colleagues in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, Gavino believes there is an "inordinate emphasis on the self" in the European and North American leadership model. Indeed, in the several dozen in-depth case studies of "bridging leaders" gathered from seven countries, Gavino and his fellow members of the Global Leadership Task Force found that the subjects of their research did not think of themselves as separate individual "leaders" but as part of a leadership "web" or "fabric" or "community."[11]
Recently, within the North American and European perspective on leadership, a significant shift has occurred from emphasis on the individual to a broader focus on the team or community. "Teams outperform individuals acting alone or in larger organizational groupings, especially when performance requires multiple skills, judgments, and experiences," writes one of the foremost analysts of team leadership.[12] "A team inevitably gets better results than a collection of individuals operating within confined job roles and responsibilities. Teams are more flexible than larger organizational groupings because they can be more quickly assembled, deployed, refocused, and disbanded, usually in ways that enhance rather than disrupt more permanent structures and processes."[13]
Other commentators, such as Robert Terry and James MacGregor Burns, describe leadership as a relationship or as a "field" that exists between human beings. "Leadership is an interaction between members of a group," writes Terry. "Leaders are agents of change, persons whose acts affect other people more than other people's acts affect them. Leadership occurs when one group member modifies the motivation or competencies of others in the group."[14] Thus a leader is defined not primarily in terms of qualities they possess, but by the nature of their impact on others.
Values
Perhaps the subtlest, and therefore most elusive, dimension of leadership concerns values. For some, the word "leadership" is a totally value-neutral term. Anyone who influences others is a leader regardless of whether the impact is positive or negative. As educator Parker Palmer has noted, "a leader is someone with the power to project shadow or light" onto the world around him. The result can be a world "as light-filled as heaven or as shadowy as hell."[15]
From this perspective, many different kinds of people, good and evil, loving and tyrannical, can be called a "leader" today. Undeniably, Mahatma Gandhi was a leader. Winston Churchill and Eleanor Roosevelt were leaders. But Hitler was also a leader. So was Stalin. And we certainly have to call Osama bin Laden, Slobodan Milosevic, and Kim Jong Il leaders as well.
Since the same word refers to mass murderers and heroes, visionaries and tyrants, the concept of "leadership" yearns for adjectives. As a naked, unmodified noun, leadership is amoral. First Marx and Freud eviscerated the concept; then Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot dismembered it. For Marx, most so-called "leaders" were blind defenders of their economic interests; for Freud, they were egotistical manipulators of their follower's projections. And for the 20th century's tyrants, "leadership" was a license for genocide.
Unlike those who consider leadership to be a value-neutral term that applies to all who have significant impact on others, another branch of the leadership field considers the word to be inherently value-based. Perhaps more widely than any other author on leadership, Stephen Covey popularized the notion that leadership inherently involves core values, or principles, that inform the leader's actions.
"The most effective leaders are, first models of what I call principle-centered leadership," writes Covey. "They have come to realize that we're all subject to natural laws or governing principles, which operate regardless of our awareness of them or our obedience to them. Our effectiveness is predicated upon alignment with these inviolable principles -- natural laws in the human dimension that are just as real, just as unchanging, as laws such as gravity are in the physical dimension. These principles are woven into the fabric of every civilized society and constitute the roots of every organization that has endured."[16] James MacGregor Burns goes even further. He limits leadership to those situations "when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality." According to Burns, leadership is not only morally based. It actually lifts morality to a higher plane.[17]
This second, value-based perspective is clearly attractive because it directly addresses the obvious challenge in democratic societies of making a choice between competing leaders. But it also raises a further thorny question: If we define leadership as value-based, which values matter most? Whose values, yours or mine, will be used to define who are leaders, and whose are not?
The ambiguities in these three dimensions of sector, scale, and values, when multiplied by each other, can create a profound confusion of language and logic. The field of conflict resolution can make a contribution to reducing this confusion. Let us briefly explore what this contribution is and why it can make such a vital difference in the leadership field.
The concept of leadership has meaning only within certain specified boundaries. A president of a corporation, who has the status of a "leader" inside its boundaries, loses that standing when he crosses those boundaries. At church or synagogue, he may just be another worshipper; or on the soccer field, just another member of the team. Leadership, in other words, is context-specific.
It is not only common but also inevitable, then, that leaders come into conflict. Because they lead in the interest of the part they represent, they will eventually encounter other leaders who are defending the interests of their part of the whole.
On this level, the field of leadership reaches its limit. Two opposing leaders, approaching their shared frontier with competing agendas and often widely divergent worldviews, cannot find a way out of the conflict without challenging the very concept of leadership itself.
Conflict resolution provides a language and framework for filling this vacuum in leadership studies. For this reason, deeper and more catalytic conversation between the two fields deserves further investment and will certainly produce significant value for both.
An important dividend that will result from this investment will be to clarify the relationship between leadership, conflict resolution, and democratic (or civic) engagement. For many citizens, because of the prevalent models of leadership in highly partisan, multiparty political systems, becoming "engaged" or "involved" means taking sides. Regarding controversial social issues, they equate becoming "active" as a citizen who identifies themselves with a "pro" or "con" (or sometimes "liberal" or "conservative") position.
If the field of leadership studies were more integrated with the field of conflict resolution, leaders would understand that they have another option. They would know that they could be "cross-boundary," "collaborative" or "third side" leaders (or some other equally useful phrase).[18] They would know that that, too, is leadership and, arguably, the most precious kind of all.
[1] Burns, J.M. Leadership. New York: 1978. 2.
[2] Terry, R. Authentic Leadership: Courage in Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993. 11.
[3]John W. Gardner, On Leadership, NY: The Free Press 1993
[4] Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline NY: Doubleday 1990.
[5] Unpublished Manuscripts, for information, see The Synergos Institute's Website at http://www.synergos.org.
[6] Fisher, R., Ury, W., and Patton, B. Getting to Yes. New York: Penguin. 1991. and Ury, W. The Third Side. New York: Penguin. 2000.
[7] Kellerman, B. Reinventing Leadership. Albany: State University of New York, 1999, p. 1.
[8] Bellamy, Carol. "From 1960s Guatemala Volunteer to Global Director." Winter 2003, page 12. From a speech delivered at Harvard University?s Kennedy School job fair.
[9] Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. NY: Touchstone. 2000.
[10] Gavino, Jacinto. Unpublished Manuscript, for information, see The Synergos Institute's Website at http://www.synergos.org.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Katzenbach, J. and Smith, D. The Wisdom of Teams. Boston: Harvard Business School, 1993. p. 9
[13] Ibid. 15
[14] Terry, R. Authentic Leadership: Courage in Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993. 11.
[15] Palmer, Parker, Let Your Life Speak. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 2000.
[16] Stephen R. Covey "Three Roles of the Leader in the New Paradigm" in Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., and Beckhard, R. The Leader of the Future. New York: Drucker Foundation, 1996. 151.
[17] Burns, J.M. Leadership. New York: 1978.
[18] "Cross-Boundary" is Gardner's term, used in John W. Gardner, On Leadership, NY: The Free Press 1993; "Collaborative" is used by David Chrislip in The Collaborative Leadership Fieldbook. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 2002; and "Third-Side Leaders" is used by William Ury in The Third Side. New York: Penguin. 2000.
Use the following to cite this article:
Gerzon, Mark. "Leaders and Leadership." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/leaders/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources
American News Services. "Decision Making: Too Much Talking May Backfire." , 1900
Available at: Click here for more info.
This article discusses how to design effective, but limited discussion among employees when trying to make collective decisions. The article focuses on the role of the "leader."
Research Report - Leadership/Conflict Management. Kennedy School of Government.
Available at: Click here for more info.
Provides citations for a variety of resources on leadership and conflict management.
Williams, Christopher and Lee Yun Joo. The Minds of Leaders: De-Linking War and Violence. Westmorland General Meeting Preparing for Peace Initiative.
Available at: http://www.preparingforpeace.org/williamsjoo.htm.
This article examines several factors that influence a leader's desire, ability, and choice to go to war. It furthermore suggests alternative ways to think that will lead leaders away from choosing to go to war.
Offline (Print) Sources
Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, March 1998.
"Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink examine a type of pressure group that has been largely ignored by political analysts: networks of activists that coalesce and operate across national frontiers. Their targets may be international organizations or the policies of particular states. Historical examples of such transborder alliances include anti-slavery and woman suffrage campaigns. In the past two decades, transnational activism has had a significant impact in human rights, especially in Latin America, and advocacy networks have strongly influenced environmental politics as well. The authors also examine the emergence of an international campaign around violence against women." -Amazon.com
Terry, Robert W. Authentic Leadership: Courage in Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, August 1993.
This work argues that leadership is a type of action. The author discusses how this perspective on leadership carries consequences for the consideration of courage, vision, ethics, and spirituality as they relate to leadership. It is argued that authenticity is the central organizing principle of leadership, and that authenticity combined with action results in effective leadership.
Lederach, John Paul. "Identifying Key Actors in Conflict Situations: Levels of Leadership." In Peacebuilding: A Field Guide. Edited by Paffenholz, Thania and Luc Reychler, eds. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001.
Burns, James M. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.
Lederach, John Paul. "Levels of Leadership." In Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Herndon, VA: USIP Press, December 1997. Pages: 38-46.
In chapter four, Lederach discusses the hiercharchical structure of populations affected by conflict and suggests that we view this hierarchy in terms of a pyramid. This particular section of the chapter focuses on the types of actors serving as leaders at the top, middle, and grassroots levels of Lederach's population hierarchy. Click here for more info.
Kellerman, Barbara. Reinventing Leadership: Making the Connection Between Politics and Business. Albany: State University of New York Press, February 1999.
"In a striking departure from past practices, Barbara Kellerman explores the fact that although we persist in viewing political and business leadership separately, the similarities between them far outweigh the differences. Kellerman claims that thinking of government and corporate leaders as a breed apart contributes to the dysfunctional gap between them, and she argues that in order to tackle those political, economic, and social problems that are the most intractable, political and business leaders will have no choice but to work together." -Book Jacket
Hesselbein, Frances, Marshall Goldsmith and Richard Beckhard, eds. The Leader of the Future: New Visions, Strategies, and Practices for the Next Era. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.
"The prestigious Peter F. Drucker Foundation for Nonprofit Management brings together a peerless selection of leaders, respected executives, best-selling authors, and world-renowned consultants who share their visions of the future of leadership. The Leader of the Future is a compAndium of new thought, a book about the future quality of our lives, our businesses, our organizations, our society and the leadership required to move us into the organization of the future."
-Amazon.com
George, Alexander L. and Jane E. Holl. "The Warning-Response Problem: Missed Opportunities in Preventive Diplomacy." Edited by George, Alexander L., ed. Washington, DC: Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, 1997.
This report argues that leaders need the kind of warning that will induce them to act preventively, not simply warning that a bad situation is getting worse. Leaders tend to put off hard decisions as long as they can, and this has often resulted in delay or paralysis in dealing with developing crises. To prevent violent conflicts, leaders must overcome this initial policy paralysis. Click here for more info.
Katzenbach, Jon R. and Douglas K. Smith. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating a High-Performance Organization. Harper Business, 2003.
This book explores the concept that teams are the key to improving performance in all kinds of organizations. Dozens of stories and case examples show the effectiveness and the testament to the power of teams. Wisdom lies in recognizing a team's unique potential to deliver results and in understanding its many benefits - development of individual members, team accomplishments, and stronger companywide performance.
Return to Top
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
Gormley-Heenan, Cathy. From Protagonist to Pragmatist: Political Leadership in Societies in Transition. INCORE.
Available at: http://www.incore.ulster.ac.uk/publications/pdf/ptpfinalreport.pdf.
This paper discusses problems associated with leadership in societies in transition. It presents case studies of Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, and South Africa.
Offline (Print) Sources
Palmer, Parker J. Let Your Life Speak: Listening for the Voice of Vocation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, September 10, 1999.
The theme of this work is based on the Quaker adage, "Let you life speak." The author explains this spiritual approach to living.
Return to Top
Audiovisual Materials on this Topic:
Offline (Print) Sources
A. Philip Randolph: For Jobs and Freedom . Directed and/or Produced by: James, Dante. California Newsreel. 1996.
This film documents what transpired during the U.S. civil rights movement. It focuses on a moderate civil rights leader who helped to bridge party differences in the quest for equal access to education, jobs, and other important resources. Click here for more info.
Last Summer Won't Happen. Directed and/or Produced by: Gessner, Peter and Tom Hurwitz. First Run Icarus Films. 1968.
Shot in 1968, one year after the Summer of Love, this is a critical yet sympathetic examination of the anti-war movement in New York City. Click here for more info.
Prelude to Kosovo: War and Peace in Bosnia and Croatia. Directed and/or Produced by: Michalczyk, John. 1999.
This documentary film was shot just prior to the Kosovo crisis. It blends interviews from religious and political leaders in Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia with intense images of events occurring in the Balkan region. Click here for more info.
Public Enemy. Directed and/or Produced by: Meurer, Jens. First Run Icarus Films. 1999.
This film takes an intimate look at the lives of four men involved in the black liberation movement of the 1960's. Click here for more info.
The War at Home . Directed and/or Produced by: Brown, Barry. First Run Icarus Films. 1979.
This film goes in-depth into the issues and leaders involved in the Vietnam anti-war movement that swept across the United States. Click here for more info.
You Got to Move . Directed and/or Produced by: Phenix, Lucy Massie and Veronica Selver. First Run Icarus Films. 1985.
This documentary, by chronicling the actions of individuals who have strived to promote civil, environmental, and women's rights in Southern US states, details the general progression of social movements and their leaders. Click here for more info.
Return to Top
|
