Author: Steve Wolinski

How is it Transformational?

The name “transformational leadership” is sometimes meant to denote the transformation of team members from a focus on individual goals to a commitment to the goals of the organization. Another way of looking at it is the transformation that takes place in an organization as its members become more committed, motivated, and aligned with the vision and values of the organization. If one were to try and provide a bottom line objective of transformational leadership, it might be referred to as a leader’s efforts to align his or her goals, and the goals of team members, with the strategic goals of the organization. This description comes after distilling the theory of transformational leadership, into an approach to leadership (replete with specific leader behaviors), and demonstrating the connection with these behaviors and business outcomes. It has taken about 35 years to arrive at this place.

Where Does Transformational Leadership Make a Difference?

The following are some of the outcomes that have been reasonably well correlated with transformational leadership.

Innovation

There is evidence that transformational leadership behaviors (especially intellectual stimulation) can increase the overall innovative capacity of team members and, subsequently, organizations as a whole. In order for this to happen it is important that, in addition to intellectual stimulation, that leaders are go out of their way to empower team members to think creatively. It is also very helpful if team members view the organization as one that rewards innovation and initiative and that is committed to excellence.

Motivation and Perseverance

There appears to be a clear link between transformational behaviors and the level of motivation and perseverance toward goals demonstrated by team members. The best part of this connection is the corresponding link if motivation and perseverance with overall organizational performance. It is important to note that motivation can move rather quickly in the opposite direction if transformational behaviors are used with team members that are feeling overworked.

Commitment

There seems to be a firm connection between the commitment that team members have to a particular leader, group, or organization, and the demonstration of transformational behavior by organizational leaders. It is evident that one of the key variables is trust. That is, when team members trust organizational leaders, their commitment level rises accordingly.

Organizational Change

It is interesting how long it has taken for anything more than anecdotal evidence of a link between transformational behaviors and successful navigation and execution of organizational change initiatives. In the past couple of years this connection has become more firmly established. It is not surprising that the connection was hard to establish, as there are a multitude of factors – some totally unrelated to leadership — that contribute to the viability of change initiatives.

How does Transformational Leadership Make a Difference?

The next question has to deal with the relative influence of specific transformational behaviors on the above mentioned outcomes. My next entry is intended to provide some insight into these behaviors. In the mean time, feel free to share your reactions to the outcome data.

Is Transformational Leadership Unique?

Transformational leadership is the winner of the prize for the most researched, studied, and debated approach to leadership that has ever existed. It also has more influence than any other leadership approach on the organizational leaders of today. Although most of these leaders aren’t even aware it exists. I believe it is the approach to leadership most responsible for championing the notion that it is important for leaders to create shared vision, develop and coach future leaders, encourage innovation in others, and act with high levels of integrity and ethics. The irony is that transformational leadership is also simply a compelling phrase used by many consultants and organizations – most of who don’t even realize that an “official” approach with that name exists. It is a sexy term that is often used to build neat little models of leadership and hopefully score some coaching clients. And who can blame them? I mean, what have we to work with? Servant? Authentic? Situational?

Bernard Bass is arguably the person whose head is most firmly wrapped around the “official” form of transformational leadership (see Transformational Leadership, 2^nd Ed, Bass and Riggio, 2006). Bass and Bruce Avolio developed the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (see www.mindgarden.com) which has guided much of the research on this approach. The MLQ is intended to identify the extent to which leader exhibits transformational leadership by surveying the followers of a specific leader.

Basic Elements of Transformational Leadership

Bass has identified four components to transformational leadership and has creatively figured out a way that all four can start with the letter “I” so that it might be called the 4I Model. In my mind these four components are in essence role modeling, motivating, developing, and encouraging creativity. Needless to say, these aren’t all that sexy, and truth be told they do not get at the complexity and richness of the 4I Model. In light of this, here is a breakdown of the 4I Model’s description of the key elements of transformational leadership.

Idealized Influence

This component states that transformational leaders act as role models and that followers will seek to emulate their behavior. In addition to being considered generally extraordinary leaders, the three attributes that ideally are demonstrated through Idealized Influence are a willingness to take risks, consistent (versus arbitrary) behavior, and high levels of integrity and ethics. I personally think that Idolized Influence would have been a more appropriate and decidedly tongue in cheek term for this component.

Inspirational Motivation

This component states that transformational leaders behave in ways that are inspirational to followers and provide meaning and a sense of challenge to their work. This is achieved in three different ways: involving followers in the development of a preferred vision for the future, communicating clear expectations, and by demonstrating a clear commitment to the shared goals and vision of the group or team.

Intellectual Stimulation

This component states that transformational leaders include followers in addressing organizational problems and stimulate and support them in being as creative and innovative as possible in identifying solutions. The leaders accomplish this by encouraging followers to challenge assumptions, reframe problems, and approach existing problems in novel ways. This is all supposed to be done in a context in which no idea is considered too stupid.

Individualized Consideration

This component states that transformational leaders give individualized attention to each follower’s professional development by acting as a coach or mentor. The key element of this component is that customized learning opportunities are designed for each follower based on that person’s unique needs and desires. These learning opportunities are often delegated action learning tasks that the leader assigns and monitors.

Conclusion

As previously stated, in my opinion, transformational leadership is the most influential approach and theory to leadership that exists today. This doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have its detractors and it doesn’t mean that it has remained a uniform approach. It has come to mean many things to different people. What does it mean to you? Do you like it? Do you think it is going too far to say that it is more influential than other approaches? Why?

In Cater McNamara’s blog entry from earlier this week (“Are we Really Just Looking for Leaders to Save Us from Ourselves?”) he asks how much consultants are fantasizing when they come up with all the “wondrous traits” that the leaders of today are supposed to possess. I am not sure if it is fantasy, but certainly agree that it is not based in reality. I would like to keep in mind this question (i.e. is it fantasy?) in mind as we explore the theory of transformational leadership.

Introduction to Transformational Leadership

James MacGrgeor Burns was the first to talk about transformational (and transactional) leadership theory in 1978. It is relatively evident to me that the research, training, and academic teaching on transformational leadership have outpaced that of any other theory of leadership in the past twenty-eight years. There is an interesting phenomenon in the way that transformational leadership is almost never discussed, at least not at length, without differentiating it from transactional leadership. I will lend support to this claim by doing just that.

What is Transactional Leadership?

Transactional leadership is grounded in the notion that leaders lead through social exchange. That is, they offer rewards to followers, financial and otherwise, for meeting productivity and performance standards, and withhold rewards to followers if productivity and performance are considered deficient. These transactions are established by leaders specifying with followers the rewards that are available for meeting expectations.

What is Transformational Leadership?

The theory of transformational leadership views the transactional leadership style as appropriate in certain circumstances, and even as an extension of transformational leadership, but believes leaders must also attend to the sense of self-worth of followers and the garnering of full-fledged commitment to individual, team, and organizational objectives. In conducting a quick scan of the literature the following attributes and qualities of transformational leaders emerged: charismatic, inspirational, challenging, persuasive, intellectually stimulating, considerate, supportive, respected, risk-taker, coach, mentor, consistent, ethical, enthusiastic, encouraging, and personable. It is a long laundry list of worthwhile qualities and roles. But does it cross some line, intimated by Carter, which has the theory flirting with foolishness? I say “yes”, “no”, “maybe”. In my mind it depends on whose version of transformational leadership you embrace. I like the way that Bass delineates the main components by stating that transformational leaders should:

• Inspire followers to extraordinary performance and to a shared sense of commitment to a vision for the organization
• Encourage and challenge followers to be creative and innovative in their efforts to solve organizational problems
• Focus on the development of the leadership skills of others through coaching, mentoring, and other forms of support

Conclusion

While the proponents of transformational leadership, of which there are many, may excessively romanticize the theory at times, it is my opinion that the central components of the theory are just tangible and relevant enough to make it a valid and valuable leadership model. In future blogs a more in-depth description and analysis of transformational leadership will be provided. In the meantime, what are your thoughts? Is it too much, too little, or just right?

Guest submission from Carter McNamara of Authenticity Consulting, LLC.

An Earlier Time When We Fantasized Heroic Leaders

In the 1960s and ‘70s, many of us took part in “rap” sessions. Back then, rapping was a free-floating discussion, usually centered around utopian dreams of what society should be, but wasn’t. We lamented how corrupt “the establishment” was, how adults didn’t understand us and how business was ruining the world.

We fantasized a world where business leaders worked only for the good of humankind, where leaders stopped war or famine, where leaders ensured everyone was happy everywhere all the time. We desperately needed heroic leaders.

Too Often We Blamed Leaders – We Should’ve Blamed Ourselves

But even back then, many of us were haunted that, rather than working to improve the world, we were actually trying to escape from it. Rather than trying to understand the world of those who had bills to pay or children to feed, we believed instead that we were the only ones who really knew “the truth.”

Soon we grew tired of the rap sessions – each one sounded like the last. Soon we quit tuning in. Instead, many turned on — and too many just dropped out.

Are We Again Searching for Heroic Leaders to Save Us?

Just read any article about leadership today (especially those written by consultants) and those articles very likely assert an almost inhuman range of features that leaders simply must have. They must be visionary, inspirational, motivational, virtuous, principled, centered, humble, servants, passionate, productive, mentor, counselor, coach, facilitator, wise, nurturant, diplomatic, learning, adaptable, fun, assertive, not aggressive, systems thinker, conscientious and on and on. Consultants assert that leaders should be “true leaders” and “they should not be managers”.

Deep Yearning for Meaning Today – No One Else Can Give That To Us

A famous movement in philosophy is “existentialism.” There are many different major players in this movement, some of them deeply religious and some atheists. But all of them believed that each individual was responsible for the quality – the essence – of his/her own life.

Many believed that if someone tries to avoid the responsibilities and tensions of day-to-day reality, then that person will fall into chronic anxiety, boredom and despair. Means to avoid reality might include addictions or the belief that one is somehow outside the rest of the routine world. Chronic fantasies are also very popular means to avoid reality.

How much are we just fantasizing when we assert the many wondrous traits of the “true leader”?

———————————————————————————
Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250
Read my weekly blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, Nonprofits and Strategic Planning.

Introduction to Leadership Approaches

In a recent blog entry an overview was provided of some of the more common leadership theories. It resulted in a lively discussion about the role that these concepts should play for people that are in positions of leadership, or for individuals that work with leaders as consultants, coaches, human resource partners, and so on. My plan is to revisit these theories in more depth at some point in the future. For now I would like to spend some time examining a number of approaches to leadership (aka leadership models). These approaches, while no doubt grounded in one or more theories of leadership, can be distinguished from theories in that they attempt to place the concepts into more applied frameworks. That is, they attempt to describe leadership theories in a way that is meant to facilitate the application of the ideas.

The Seven Approaches to Leadership

I am planning to spend some time reviewing and critiquing the following seven leadership approaches/models:

• Transformational
• Charismatic
• Authentic
• Servant
• Dynamical
• Adaptive
• Strategic

This list is not exhaustive of the different frameworks that could be considered legitimate leadership approaches or models. Some of these approaches (e.g. transformational leadership) are typically considered full-fledged leadership theories in their own right. And some of the frameworks (e.g. strategic leadership) might be viewed more as a specific leadership competency or leadership role rather than a framework. I happen to think that these seven are some of the legitimate contenders for categorization as distinct approaches to leadership.

Other Approaches?

Do you agree with this list? I want to encourage readers, as we examine each one, to chime in whether you think the different approaches have real value. Also, please feel free to advocate for other models that you think warrant consideration as a proven and valuable approach to leadership.

Introduction to Leadership Competencies

It is clear that competencies have become a dominant method for the selecting, developing, and directing the efforts of leaders in organizations. My current definition of competencies is that they are the qualities most strongly associated with advanced levels of leadership and desired outcomes in an organization. The following is an example of a competency I created for manager level leaders:

Maximize Relationships: The manager develops solid relationships and models the importance of working together in a collaborative manner. He/she works to remove unhelpful boundaries and promote collaboration between teams and business units. Strives to include and incorporate the ideas of others into decisions, tasks, and projects. He/she is willing and able to address and resolve conflict between and with others. Is sensitive to individual differences and respects the work styles of others. He/she stays aware of technological trends, his/her role in communicating with team members, and seeks ways to harness these activities to improve cooperation.

It is not uncommon for organizations to have different competencies for different levels of leadership (e.g. manager, functional leader, senior leader). It is more common for competencies to remain the same at different leadership levels, but the descriptions – also known as behavioral anchors — will vary based on the level of leadership. It is also not unusual to see individual competencies divided into segments designed to indicate the level of proficiency a person demonstrates within a specific area. For example, does an individual demonstrate underdeveloped, average, or advanced capacity in a particular competency.

Leadership Competency Models

The use of competencies is typically accomplished by the design of a competency model that is considered unique to the culture of an organization and aligned with the organization’s business goals and strategy. These models normally typically segment the individual competencies into type-alike groups and consist of a list of competencies with the corresponding descriptions or behavior anchors. Research suggests that the optimum number of competencies in a model, from a validity and reliability standpoint, is between six and ten. The following are a couple of models that have been used by some well-known organizations. I have not included the behavioral anchors in these models as it would make for a really long blog. IBM’s COMPETENCY MODEL

CATEGORY ONE: FOCUS TO WIN

• Customer Insight
• Breakthrough Thinking
• Drive to Achieve

CATEGORY TWO: MOBILIZE TO EXECUTE

• Team Leadership
• Straight Talk
• Teamwork
• Decisiveness

CATEGORY THREE: SUSTAIN MOMENTUM

• Building Organizational Capability
• Coaching
• Personal Dedication

CATEGORY FOUR: THE CORE

• Passion for the Business

3M’S COMPETENCY MODEL

FUNDAMENTAL LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES Fundamental competencies are those which an individual may possess at the time of hire, but which will develop further as the individual progresses through successive management positions.

• Ethics and Integrity
• Intellectual Capacity
• Maturity and Judgment

ESSENTIAL LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES: Essential competencies are those that the individual will develop as he becomes responsible for a functional unit or department.

• Customer Orientation
• Developing People
• Inspiring Others
• Business Health/Results

VISIONARY LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES: Visionary competencies are those which leaders must possess to assume increased levels of responsibility.

• Global Perspective
• Vision and Strategy
• Nurturing Innovation
• Building Alliances
• Organizational Agility

Origins of Leadership Competencies

It can be argued that the concept of competencies traces back to the 1970s. Concern developed at that time about the widespread use of intelligence and related aptitude tests in the workplace. The concern was that these instruments were too far removed from actual leadership practices and business outcomes. The idea took shape that knowledge, skills, abilities, and traits were a more useful and accurate method for measuring leadership abilities. The popularity of competencies gained considerable momentum in the United States in the early 1990s, in large part due to the accelerated pace and complexity of change taking place in many industries and organizations. The notion that leadership roles were a static set of behaviors and responsibilities was challenged by the idea that these roles should in fact be defined in more general terms, thus allowing leaders greater flexibility in roles.

Benefits of Leadership Competencies

The primary benefit of competencies is that they provide an easily shared and understood view of leadership that can be used in a wide variety of ways to build human capital and drive business outcomes. For instance, competencies can provide a unifying framework in such areas as recruitment and selection, leadership development, and performance reviews. In order for competencies to have maximum positive impact it is important that they are designed, introduced, and implemented in a manner that assures widespread support in the organization. It can be a powerful tool for growth and development when a set of competencies is embraced and incorporated into the dominant narratives of the organization.

Critiques of Leadership Competencies

One of the concerns is that the identification of competencies and competency models can be costly in terms of time and money. Some people believe that, when it is all said and done, selection and promotional decisions are rarely made based on competencies, and that it is a waste of time and money to develop and maintain. There is also concern with the efforts of some “experts” to try and arrive at a universal list of competencies – which would then be applied generically without an eye to culture and desired outcomes. Finally, there is some concern that competencies contribute to a culture that overly focuses on the deficits in its leaders rather than identifying and leveraging strengths. It is my opinion that these criticisms and concerns are far outweighed if competencies are designed, deployed, and utilized appropriately.

Do you agree? Do you think too much attention is given to competencies versus such areas as strengths or employee engagement? What are your thoughts, comments, questions about leadership competencies?

Introduction to Leadership Development

What is meant by leadership development? In this blog entry leadership development will be discussed as processes for development of leadership capabilities within organizations. This particular submission will focus its overview of leadership development on current trends in the for-profit sector. The primary reason for limiting my entry to the business realm is due to the fact that it’s what I know best. Also, there will be plenty of opportunities to converse on how leadership development practices are employed in other domains, such as academia, government, and non-governmental organizations. And I invite others to share of their experience of this discipline in other contexts. I imagine my co-host Julia will likely have some thoughts on leadership development in the non-profit sector.

Leadership Development Design

The following suggestions are high level and extremely simplified for the sake of some blog brevity. The design of a leadership development processes is slightly more involved than what the following summary might suggest. To start, the design requires an in-depth analysis of the leadership qualities and capabilities an organization requires, now and in the future. These requirements include an understanding of the culture and the type of leaders that tend to thrive in that particular environment. It also involves developing clarity on desired business outcomes and the qualities that an organization anticipates will be required of its leaders to drive these outcomes. Once the desired qualities and capabilities (often classified into competencies) are confirmed, the appropriate leadership development systems and tools can be selected. The majority of leadership development programs include some, if not all, of the following components: mentoring, coaching, assessment, action learning, instruction, and the use of internal leaders as instructors. There also is notable effort being placed on the design of leadership development processes that are more interactive, integrated, globally oriented, and leverage social media technology. These components will be presented in detail in future installments. In the meantime, it would be fitting if anyone wanted to comment on or add to this list.

Keys to Success

In many ways, the key to the design of an effective leadership development process is to assure alignment with the organization’s culture, strategic direction, and the business initiatives considered most critical to future success. Some people might be put off by my not placing more emphasis on individual self-actualization, leadership ethics, and having a positive influence on the world at large. My hope, and intent, is that any development process shall in fact contribute to personal growth (if not transformation), ethical decision making, and a socially responsible outlook. But the best way to assure wide based support and the necessary resources to implement and maintain effective leadership development initiatives is to establish a clear cultural fit and correlation with business imperatives. To this end, there has been concerted effort in recent years to integrate leadership development to human capital systems and develop methods for measuring the impact of the processes on different levels of the business. Of course, the evaluation of impact remains a highly desired, challenging, and somewhat elusive goal for most organizations. The measurement of leadership practices on the bottom line (triple or otherwise) will definitely be discussed further in the near future on this site. But if anyone has any noteworthy perspectives in the topic, feel free to chime in now.

There is a wide and ever growing variety of theories to explain the concept and practice of leadership. I will provide a brief overview of the more dominant or better known theories. I hope that others will share their thoughts on whether this list neglects any theories of note. In the future we can discuss some of the emerging leadership theories/approaches such as adaptive, authentic, and appreciative. It is important to note that this submission attempts to provide an overview of leadership theories versus models. I view models as attempts to functionalize the more theoretical aspects of leadership and make them easier to put into play by organizations and consultants. This is, in and of itself, an important activity.

Most theories view leadership as grounded in one or more of the following three perspectives: leadership as a process or relationship, leadership as a combination of traits or personality characteristics, or leadership as certain behaviors or, as they are more commonly referred to, leadership skills. In virtually all of the more dominant theories there exist the notions that, at least to some degree, leadership is a process that involves influence with a group of people toward the realization of goals. I will say on the front end that, in my opinion, leadership is a dynamic and complex process, and that much of what is written these days tends to over-simplify this process. My goal here is to provide an overview that keeps things simple, without crossing into over-simplification, and for the most part refraining from any critiquing of the various theories. I will leave that to my fellow bloggers for now.

Trait Theory

This theory postulates that people are either born or not born with the qualities that predispose them to success in leadership roles. That is, that certain inherited qualities, such as personality and cognitive ability, are what underlie effective leadership. There have been hundreds of studies to determine the most important leadership traits, and while there is always going to be some disagreement, intelligence, sociability, and drive (aka determination) are consistently cited as key qualities.

Skills Theory

This theory states that learned knowledge and acquired skills/abilities are significant factors in the practice of effective leadership. Skills theory by no means disavows the connection between inherited traits and the capacity to be an effective leader – it simply argues that learned skills, a developed style, and acquired knowledge, are the real keys to leadership performance. It is of course the belief that skills theory is true that warrants all the effort and resources devoted to leadership training and development

Situational Theory

This theory suggests that different situations require different styles of leadership. That is, to be effective in leadership requires the ability to adapt or adjust one’s style to the circumstances of the situation. The primary factors that determine how to adapt are an assessment of the competence and commitment of a leader’s followers. The assessment of these factors determines if a leader should use a more directive or supportive style.

Contingency Theory

This theory states that a leader’s effectiveness is contingent on how well the leader’s style matches a specific setting or situation. And how, you may ask, is this different from situational theory? In situational the focus is on adapting to the situation, whereas contingency states that effective leadership depends on the degree of fit between a leader’s qualities and style and that of a specific situation or context.

Path-Goal Theory

This theory is about how leaders motivate followers to accomplish identified objectives. It postulates that effective leaders have the ability to improve the motivation of followers by clarifying the paths and removing obstacles to high performance and desired objectives. The underlying beliefs of path-goal theory (grounded in expectancy theory) are that people will be more focused and motivated if they believe they are capable of high performance, believe their effort will result in desired outcomes, and believe their work is worthwhile.

Transformational Theory

This theory states that leadership is the process by which a person engages with others and is able to create a connection that results in increased motivation and morality in both followers and leaders. It is often likened to the theory of charismatic leadership that espouses that leaders with certain qualities, such as confidence, extroversion, and clearly stated values, are best able to motivate followers. The key in transformational leadership is for the leader to be attentive to the needs and motives of followers in an attempt to help them reach their maximum potential. In addition, transformational leadership typically describes how leaders can initiate, develop, and implement important changes in an organization. This theory is often discussed in contrast with transactional leadership.

Transactional Theory

This is a theory that focuses on the exchanges that take place between leaders and followers. It is based in the notion that a leader’s job is to create structures that make it abundantly clear what is expected of his/her followers and also the consequences (i.e. rewards and punishments) for meeting or not meeting these expectations. This theory is often likened to the concept and practice of management and continues to be an extremely common component of many leadership models and organizational structures.

Servant Leadership Theory

This conceptualization of leadership reflects a philosophy that leaders should be servants first. It suggests that leaders must place the needs of followers, customers, and the community ahead of their own interests in order to be effective. The idea of servant leadership has a significant amount of popularity within leadership circles – but it is difficult to describe it as a theory inasmuch as a set of beliefs and values that leaders are encouraged to embrace.

Closing Comments and Questions

I have a bias toward trait, skills, and transformational theories. I am a psychologist and there is no doubt in my mind that people are born with certain qualities. But I am equally sure innate traits inevitably become fully interwoven with a person’s acquired knowledge and skills. And I lean toward transformational theory because of how it views the practice of leadership as, more than anything else, relational interaction.

So how can these theories apply to one’s work? Well, in my work, if I am hired to help an organization select a leader via an assessment process, some of the theories become readily apparent. To start, it is important that the first step in the assessment is a meeting in which the client clarifies the qualities needed for the specific role and paint a picture for me of the organizational culture. By doing this I am able to be look for those qualities, skills, knowledge, to assure finding someone that is a good fit for the job and the culture (Contingency Theory). The assessment process includes tools to measure personality, cognitive abilities, and drive (Trait Theory), adaptability (Situational Theory), and sociability (Transformational Theory). It also involves, through interviews and work simulations, an evaluation of a person’s work-related skills and knowledge of the business (Skills Theory).

So what are your biases? Does theory inform any of your work — knowingly or unkowingly? Maybe you have your own theory of leadership. Let’s hear it.

What is Management?

First of all, after this blog entry, my plan is to avoid drawing a strong distinction, unless absolutely necessary, between leadership and management. The word management means many different things to people. For example, it is sometimes conceptualized as a discipline, as is medicine or engineering. It is also commonly viewed as a set of specific, or not so specific, behaviors. And for many, management is the same thing as the role of manager, which is seen as a certain job level or classification. In referring to it as a discipline, Joan Magretta states that management is the “accumulating body of thought and practice that makes organizations work”. While this is a wonderfully succinct way of describing a vast body of knowledge, I will not be talking about management as a discipline. Although I highly recommend Joan’s book “What Management Is” (2002) for a delightfully easy-to-read overview of the discipline. I will be talking about management as a type of leadership also as a level of leadership (i.e. the manager).

What Happened to Management?

In the era of Dilbert, management and mangers have had a pretty tough time in terms of their credibility and status within western culture. The term “manager” really suffered at the hands of Jack Welch in his early years as CEO at General Electric. This is ironic since Welch was actually a huge proponent and practitioner of what, at that time in the early ‘80s, were core management principles and best practices. But Jack was out to shake GE up and felt that the term “manager” carried too many negative associations within the company. He replaced it with the term ““leader” and help start an era in which this anointed leaders held a special status. Funny enough, although he replaced the word manager with leader, he actually strove to develop at GE the use by leaders of proven management principles. Of course Jack and the good folks at GE were also at the forefront in developing management practices now widely used across industries and generally accepted as best-in-class. But there were many other influences in the loss of luster for those involved in management, such as when the ultimate management guru, Peter Drucker, decided to start using the term “executive” in place of “manager.

Management and Leadership Differences

It is clear to me that people in “managerial” roles are, in fact, in positions of leadership. From an organizational perspective, all managers are leaders, and all leaders, to some extent, are involved in or responsible for certain practices that should be considered management. But, although having stated that management is a type of leadership, there are some important distinctions that I use in my work as a consultant involved with leadership assessment, development, and coaching. The distinctions I make are related primarily to levels of leadership, and the skills, qualities, and knowledge that commonly correspond with success at different levels. This is an important, arguably necessary distinction when and organization is involved in succession planning and developing its leadership “pipeline”. For example, organizations need different abilities and qualities from team members that are individual contributors, in comparison to managers, in comparison to managers of managers, and so on up the functional ladder. My point is, from a practical standpoint it is almost impossible to develop a coherent and effective approach to talent management without delineated levels of leadership — or at least roles.

Why Management?

I think that organizations should acknowledge that managers are, in fact, leaders and critical to the success and sustainability of the business. It has been clearly demonstrated that managers — those that oversee the work of those that do the work — have enormous influence on the goals and bottom-line of an organization. This is because of their central role in ensuring that line staff, for lack of a better term, is engaged and productive at work. There is strong evidence that employees that have a strong sense of connection with their boss, feel appreciated, cared for, and understand how their work fits into the larger vision, are more satisfied and productive. This is more often than not the job of the manager.

What is Management Work?

With regard to specific responsibilities, it is my belief that a significant difference between managers from more “senior leaders” (or senior managers for that matter), is in how managers get things done, the tools they use to things done, and the type of influence they have within an organization. Historically, the term management has referred to individuals engaged in the activities of planning, organizing, leading, and coordinating resources toward the attainment of specific goals. In recent years, and in many organizations, management has come to include a variety of other responsibilities in such areas as talent management, coaching, and change management, to name a few. The specific around the how, tools, and influence of management can be discussed at another time. For now, I would simply like to make a number of other distinctions between managers and the core responsibilities of other, more senior leaders. These core responsibilities are the a) direct involvement in the execution and implementation of business strategy, b) monitoring and measuring of performance and outcomes, and, perhaps most importantly, the c) selecting, developing, and leading (influencing) of the people that do the work

So What?

There is an almost overwhelming amount of available information and opinion on the topics of management, leadership, and management in comparison to leadership. I have provided some information and shared lots of professional and personal opinion. It would be great if others would jump in and engage in the dialogue. I have no-doubt that my co-host, Julia, will have her own interesting and unique response to the topic.

Greetings

The plan is to dialogue this week about how leadership is, or might be defined. There are hundreds of definitions of leadership and this is not an attempt to come to a consensus on a definition. The hope is to get readers to reflect on what they believe about leadership. It is also an attempt to give blog participants a general sense of how certain “experts” are describing leadership, in the hope that you may come to your own definition, which can then be used to guide your work. What is leadership? Some view leadership as a series of specific traits or characteristics. Others see it as comprised of certain skills and knowledge. And some, me included, think of leadership as a process. This view of leadership, as a process, places an emphasis on social interaction and relationship. This is the idea that leadership is a type of relationship, one that typically includes influencing others in a certain direction. This leads to my current working definition of leadership: Leadership is a relationship that involves the mobilizing, influencing, and guiding of others toward desired goals. This definition does not assume that the goals are shared or even explicit. The word desire simply means that someone in the relationship, perhaps just the person in a leadership role, wants a particular outcome. The following are some definitions that have a bias toward leadership as a process:

• “Leadership is a process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective effort, and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose.” (Jacobs & Jaques)
• “Leadership is the process of influencing the activities of an individual or a group in efforts toward goal achievement in a given situation.” (Hersey & Blanchard)
• “Leadership is an attempt at influencing the activities of followers through the communication process and toward the attainment of some goal or goals.” (Donelly)
• “Leadership is defined as the process of influencing the activities of an organized group toward goal achievement.” (Rauch & Behling)
• “Leadership is interpersonal influence, exercised in a situation, and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals.” (Tannenbaum, et al)

It has been my experience that many organizational leaders, knowingly or unknowingly, view leadership as a set of specific traits or skills. Below are a few definitions that are grounded in skills and, to a lesser extent, traits.

• “Leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realize your own leadership potential”. (Bennis)
• “Leadership is about articulating visions, embodying values, and creating the environment within which things can be accomplished.” (Richards and Engle)
• “Leadership is the creation of a vision about a desired future state which seeks to enmesh all members of an organization in its net.” (Bryman)
• “It is a complex moral relationship between people, based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a shared vision of the good.” (Ciulla)

These definitions are entirely valid perspectives — they are simply different from a leadership as process perspective. Having said that, it is my impression that, overall, definitions of leadership are becoming more process and relationship oriented. How important is it to have a definition of leadership? In my role as a leadership consultant it is not necessary for me to share my clients definition of leadership – but it is important to know whether they have a definition and, if they do, what is included in that definition. If there isn’t an understanding of what leadership entails it diminishes the likelihood that the client will get what they want from our relationship. It is similar to a client looking to hire a consultant to increase employee engagement and, after digging a bit deeper with the client, discovering that what they are actually looking for is a way to improve the efficiency of work processes. What do you think?

Do you agree that defining relationship is a worthy effort…or is this much ado about nothing? What is your definition of leadership? If you don’t have one, and this is an important topic for you, I suggest that you take some time and create a working definition. It would be great if you would share your definition with the rest of us — but coming up with a definition is an exercise that is ultimately meant for your benefit.