This essay touches on the essential characteristics of organizational leadership.
Organizational Leadership

Table of Contents

Gus Prestera, March, 2002

Introduction

While organizational leadership has eluded widely-accepted definition, Zaccaro and Klimoski (2001) suggest the following characteristics of leadership:

"Organizational leadership involves processes and proximal outcomes (such as worker commitment) that contribute to the development and achievement of organizational purpose. Organizational leadership is identified by the application of non-routine influence on organizational life. Leader influence is grounded in cognitive, social, and political processes. Organizational leadership is inherently bounded by system characteristics and dynamics, that is, leadership is contextually defined and caused" (p.6).

These characteristics touch on several facets of leadership that have been discussed in the management literature for decades, including the difference between leadership and more routine forms of management; the situational versus the empirical essence of leadership; and the systemic characteristics that shape leadership (e.g., ethical, legal, and practical considerations). In the following essay, three popular models of leadership are summarized, possible differences between managers and leaders are discussed, ethical issues surrounding leadership are presented, and suggestions for recruiting and developing effective organizational leaders are offered.

Three Models of leadership

Early conceptions of leadership were dominated by trait theory, which suggest that leadership qualities are or are not possessed at birth. This view implied that leadership could not be taught, trained, instilled, or developed. By World War II, behavioral researchers began working towards models of leadership which suggested that leadership behaviors could be developed. These models were refined through the lens of contingency theory, which suggested that the decision of which leadership style is most appropriate depends on the situation. More recently, a variety of leadership models have come to the forefront of the debate, including charismatic leadership, visionary leadership, and transformational versus transactional leadership.

Behavioral theories

Since the 1940s, behavioral researchers have worked to develop a concise list of leader behaviors that could be used not only to select leaders but also to train future leaders. Four major perspectives are associated with behavioral theories (Robbins, 1998) and are summarized below.

  1. Initiating structure and consideration. The Ohio State studies began with over a thousand behaviors associated with leadership and found that the vast majority clustered around two independent behavior styles: initiating structure and consideration. Initiating structure represents the degree to which leaders structure roles and processes in order to attain a goal. For example, a high structure initiating leader assigns tasks, sets expectations, and follows-up on deadlines. Consideration refers to behaviors that create mutual trust, respect, and regard for feelings. A high consideration leader shows concern for the well-being, status, and satisfaction of his/her followers.

  2. Employee oriented and production oriented. The Michigan State studies came up with slightly different behavior styles: employee orientated and production oriented. Employee-oriented leaders take a personal interest in the needs of their subordinates, while production oriented leaders emphasize the technical and task-related elements of the job.

  3. Concern for people and production. Blake and Mouton (1964) later developed their own taxonomy, concern for people and concern for production, to depict the two critical dimensions of leadership. They placed these two dimensions on what they call the managerial grid, allowing 9 possible positions along each axis. Not surprisingly, they recommend that cell 9,9 (high concern for people and high concern for production) represents the most effective leadership style. However, they offer little empirical support for this conclusion (Robbins, 1998).

  4. Development orientation. More recently, Scandinavian researchers have explored a third dimension of leadership: development orientation. In summary then, almost 60 years of behavioral research has found that engaging in behaviors that show care for the work as well as for subordinates and their development is critical for the success of leaders.

Contingency Theories

One problem with behavioral theories of leadership is that they fail to take into account situational variables that may influence the need for a particular style over a different one. In some situations, a task-oriented approach may be more appropriate than people-oriented or developmental ones. While several models approach leadership in this way (e.g., leader-member exchange theory and path-goal theory), Fiedler's contingency model seems to exemplify this perspective best.

Contingency Model. In an attempt to address the question of what leadership styles are most effective in what situations, Fiedler (1967) proposed a framework in which leader styles - task-oriented and relationship-oriented were compared with three general situational factors: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. Fiedler proposed that leader styles are fixed. In order to maximize the leader's effectiveness, the leader's style must match the situation. When it does not, there are only two options: replace the leader with someone with the right leadership style or change the situation to match the leader's style.

Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership

Bass and Avolio (1994) proposed that managers generally fall into two categories: transactional and transformational. Transactional leaders contract with subordinates to perform in return for some immediate reward (Robbins, 1998). Transformational leaders, on the other hand, transcend their own self-interests for the good of the organization and instill their subordinates with a sense of pride, trust, and vision. These leaders are often charismatic in their communications and visionary in their outlook, yet they are more than that. They are "self-defining" and have "strong internalized values and ideals… they are able and willing to forgo personal payoffs and, when necessary, to risk loss of respect and affection to pursue actions that they are convinced are right" (Bass & Avolio, 1994: p.18). This distinguishes them from not only transactional leaders but also leaders who are "team players." Team players derive their self-definition in large part from their associations with others, suggesting that they may have difficulty making the tough decisions. Transformational leaders care about people, but they do not take responsibility for the self-esteem of others and so are willing and able to make tough decisions and risk alienation. This, of course, can isolate the transformational leader. However, Robbins (1998) points out that several studies support the claim that transformational leadership correlates more strongly with lower turnover rates, higher productivity, and higher employee satisfaction than transaction leaders (p. 375).


Are all managers leaders?

Leaders as vision. Locke (1991) distinguishes leaders from managers in terms of their relationship to vision. A leader establishes the vision, while the manager implements it. This distinction implies that leadership is a singular construct. In reality, organizations typically consist of multiple leaders, who often have their own visions, agendas, purposes, missions, and overarching goals. In addition, Locke's distinction implies that the highest ranking member of an organization is the leader, by virtue of setting the organization's vision, while everyone else is a manager or a subordinate to a manager insofar as they operationalize the vision. As he puts it, "the manager and subordinates act in ways that constitute the means to achieving the stated end" (p. 4). Again, in practice, managers and subordinates can have their own agendas, which may or may not be in alignment with that of the "leader." In other words, I suggest that the highest ranking manager or administrator is not necessarily a leader, while the lowliest line manager is not necessarily just a manager. Senge (1999) supports this view when he counters the question of whether or not leaders are just the top managers by stating: "This question (and the assumption behind it) is disrespectful and disempowering to everyone in the organization who is not a top manager. It constrains innovative thinking and actions" (p. 75).

Finding leaders in a sea of managers. Visions, while they may often start at the top are diffused throughout an organization and reinterpreted through the lenses of each worker. In most cases, the worker will either accept or reject the vision and behave accordingly (i.e., work to carry out the vision or overtly/covertly resist carrying out the vision). For leaders, the matter is more complicated. Since they have their own visions pertaining to the organization, it is very possible that their visions will conflict with the one handed down from their superiors. They must choose whether to accept, reject, or rationalize the vision. By rationalize, I mean that they may modify the vision to more closely match their own visions or vice versa. In hierarchical organizations, this presents a potential change barrier in that the chief executive's vision can become distorted, diluted, or redirected by the leaders below them. In order to combat that interference, chief executives use a variety of strategies and tactics designed to create conformity with their vision statements. These levers can include incentive programs, goal setting and quotas, promotions, layoffs, and internal marketing. A product of these organizational change efforts is that managers often rise through the ranks by either suppressing their own visions or by not having one of their own at all. On the other hand, those with strong personal convictions (i.e., those with transformational leadership qualities) become part of the "out" crowd and either fade into the background, leave the organization, or become agitators. As a result of this dynamic, it is often difficult to distinguish those with leadership qualities (especially those who hide their own agendas) from those who do not possess them at all, making it difficult to recruit leaders from inside the organization.

Leadership as courage. According to Locke's argument, anyone who "establishes the basic vision of the organization" (p. 4) is a leader. I suggest that leadership is more than simply setting out a vision. I argue that many leaders in society become leaders before they are able to articulate their visions. Consider Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. These leaders did not necessarily have articulated visions until after they became leaders. It seems clear that they had agendas that were driven by passion and the fuzzy beginnings of a vision manifested in their convictions, which together with contextual circumstances drove them to take actions that were counter-cultural, counter-norm. They established their leadership by taking self-less actions that put them at great personal risk. These actions established their credibility, which in turn gave credibility to their subsequent vision statements. It is this personal risk that I believe distinguishes a leader from a manager. Robbins (1998) supports this, stating: "Leaders work from high-risk positions - indeed, they are often temperamentally disposed to seek out risk and danger…" (p. 346). A leader is both a symbol of a set of beliefs (what one may argue is the articulated or unarticulated vision) and a target of others who do not share those beliefs. Therefore, in setting himself or herself apart from the norm, leaders take on personal risk… risk to their reputations, their careers, their personal safety, etc. Managers risk little. They are simply executing someone else's vision. In the movie Braveheart, Mel Gibson's character best summarizes my viewpoint by saying, "Men do not follow men: they follow courage."

Rothschild (1993) describes a variety of leadership types stemming from 3 basic profiles: risktakers, caretakers, and surgeons. Each of these leadership profiles differs from the others in terms of its mission and methods. The risktaker is the innovator, while the caretaker is the stabilizer, and the surgeon is the turn-around specialist. Yet leaders of all types may need to take on personal risk in order to advocate their initiatives and articulate their mission statements. For example, when a caretaker takes over an organization following a risktaker regime, he/she must take steps to transform the organizational culture from that of a fly by the seat of your pants mentality to that of a more formal one. In taking that counter-cultural position, even the caretaker leader takes risks. It is this personal risk and the courage it represents that we often find noble and inspiring about our leaders. It is this risk that gives them the moral high ground from which to inspire. Bass and Avolio (1994) support this, suggesting that transformational leaders "exhibit a strong sense of inner purpose and direction, which often is viewed by others as the great strength of their leadership" (p. 18). I suggest that this inner strength, exhibited through acts of courage, is the difference between a politician and a statesman, an executive and a business leader, an officer and a combat leader. In conclusion, I submit that while leaders usually articulate a vision, it is not merely that which makes them leaders. The level of personal risk, or more importantly, the degree to which followers perceive the leader to have taken personal risk in defense of their convictions, is a critical factor in determining the degree to which followers will perceive someone as a leader.

Therefore, to answer the initial question, no, not all managers are leaders, unless one accepts Locke's distinction of being able to present a vision. Not everyone has the potential to be a leader, even if given the right set of circumstances to become one (e.g., appointed CEO). There is something internal to a leader, a passion and a clear set of beliefs that runs counter to or at least independently of socio-cultural norms. When these internal elements converge with the right set of external conditions, the leader steps up to the bat, while a manager simply suppresses the passion, compromises the beliefs, or avoids the conflict altogether.


Ethics in leadership

Recent headlines involving the Enron scandal demonstrate some of the consequences of unethical, immoral, and illegal leadership behaviors and intents. They also demonstrate how the slippery the slope from unethical to illegal can be.

Ethics and morality. As I see it, the term ethics refers to the rules of conduct governing a particular role in society. What is considered ethical behavior in one vocation may not be considered ethical in another. For example, it might be fine for a journalist to report a congressman's secret health problem (it may even be unethical not to report it), while it would be considered a serious ethical breach for that congressman's doctor to do the same. The doctor has a set of responsibilities (a duty) associated with the privilege of having access to that information. Similarly, managers have a duty to those they manage, which is associated with the privilege of having power over them (or authority if you prefer).

Ethical guidelines and regulations are often, but not always, established by professional associations (e.g., the AMA) and enforced through membership and/or certification. Morality, on the other hand, is a construct that is defined and mediated by culture, spirituality, and social circumstances. In this country, speaking of morality appears to be a socio-cultural faux-pas. Particularly when it comes to business, individuals are almost expected to behave in objective, morality-neutral ways. Questions of morality are often substituted with questions of practicality, fairness (objectivity), norms, professional ethics, and legality. On the other hand, codes of ethics are often grounded, or justified, in terms of practical implications (e.g., if patients cannot trust their doctors with confidential information, they may not reveal important health issues) Given this moral ambiguity, it should be no surprise that managers sometimes push the boundaries of ethical codes and legal standards in the name of survival, personal gain, and bottom-line results.

Moral ambiguity. Moral ambiguity makes it difficult to mount socio-cultural pressure on individuals to conform with moral obligations. It also makes rationalization and acceptance of unethical behavior possible, which leads to the normalizing of this behavior. Consider Richard Nixon (Watergate), Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra), and Bill Clinton (perjury). These leaders, arguably the most powerful figures of their respective times, were able to elude the full weight of justice after engaging in not only unethical behaviors but also criminal acts. Oliver North is currently narrating military documentaries on cable television. Bill Clinton is among the highest paid speakers on the lecture circuit. Their behaviors and intentions were swept under rug in the name of America's mantra, 'let's just put it behind us.' If heads of state and political figures cannot maintain or be held accountable to ethical, moral, or legal standards, what hope is there for a CEO of a troubled company, a middle manager, or a grocery store clerk?

As discussed above (in 2.2), organizational leaders pressure their subordinates to conform with their visions through a variety of organizational change levers. An unfortunate side-effect of this is that transformational leaders within an organization, those who are most likely to have strong convictions about morals and ideals, are often left isolated within the organizational hierarchy (Bass & Avolio, 1994). The odd exception to this is when the head of the organization is a transformational leader herself. Transformational leaders welcome a variety of opinions, even dissenting ones. This openness makes it more difficult to hide or rationalize unethical behavior.

Bunker mentality. High level executives often appear to insulate themselves from not only public scrutiny but also from their own subordinates. These closed systems do little to create an environment of ethical, moral, and legal behavior (and intentions). In such environments, we typically observe negative social phenomena such as groupthink and attenuated accountability for decision-making. After all, it is easier to justify going along with bad decisions when others are willing to approve them.
The primacy of financial analysts. In an effort to combat the unethical behavior of senior executives, boards of directors have popularized the use of stock option plans. These plans are designed to give executives a significant stake in the long-term success of a corporation, which, it is hoped, focuses high-level executives on bottom-line results. While these plans may have experienced some success, it has come at a price (as most solutions do). Some senior managers appear to be so focused on their companies' stock prices that they allow financial analysts and investment bankers to have as much (if not more) input regarding management goals and strategies as (than) people who are internal to the organization. This has served to isolate upper management further from the day-to-day operations and has encouraged a short-term rather than long-term focus on profitability. Short-term focus leads to short-term strategies, which leads to short-term success at the cost of long-term stability.

Strange bed-fellows. The use of strategic partnering and vendor-partnering have become commonplace in business. While these practices can create economies of scale, leverage competitive advantages, and improve service (e.g., by more intimately linking vendors and clients), they also create awkward ethical dilemmas. When companies work closely together, it is not uncommon for senior managers to serve on each other's boards of directors. Practiced in extremes, board swapping can create fertile grounds for corrupt management behavior. Vendor-partnering can also lead to problems. With Enron, for example, the CPAs working for the accounting firm auditing Enron's financial activities (Arthur Andersen) were likely under a great deal of pressure from their own superiors to 'keep the client happy.' Where does good client service end and unethical behavior begin?

In summary, while there are a myriad of situational factors that contribute to unethical behavior among senior executives, I believe that the problem is primarily a systemic one. Moral ambiguity within the socio-cultural system, the isolation of senior managers from day-to-day operations, incentives and feedback systems that reward short-term, bottom-line thinking, and the corruption of traditional checks and balances (e.g., BODs, and auditors) have all contributed to an environment that normalizes unethical, immoral, and at times even illegal activities.

Drucker (1999) suggests that this society is becoming more and more pluralistic, and that the fate of previous pluralistic societies has been eventual collapse due to the erosion of community, the common good. In order to avoid that same fate, we need to look beyond building communities towards building community. Leaders need to look beyond the immediate system in which they operate and work toward the common good of society. This means going beyond ethical leadership and social responsibility, in which they merely do no harm, it means taking civic responsibility in the pursuit of their organizations' visions.

Developing effective leadership

Developing effective leadership is a difficult proposition in most organizations. As described earlier (in 2.2 and 2.3), leaders often resort to management practices that create a culture of conformity at best and passive-aggressiveness at worst. Even innovative high performance companies, such as Microsoft, HP, and Apple, can stifle the development of leadership, burying strong leaders under the weight of their singular corporate cultures. In order to combat this, organizations should seek out managers with transformation leadership qualities; invite (not just tolerate) sincere criticism and alternate views; move towards more open systems (particularly at the top); and ensure that transformational leadership is not disincentivized. That is, organizations should remove any glass ceilings (to use a popular term from the 80s) that may be preventing the cream from rising to the top. Personally, I find that it is easier for organizations to put artificial structures in place than it is to remove them and allow for the natural evolution of things, like leadership. In such an environment, where self-defining leaders become less isolated, it is more likely that they will move up and around within an organization, grow their cognitive flexibility by experiencing a wide range of management situations, and rise to senior positions.

References

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 92-113.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Binswanger, H. (1991). Volition as cognitive self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 154-178.

Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Drucker, P.F. (1999). The new pluralism. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & I. Somerville (Eds.), Leading Beyond the Walls. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Banks.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Garvin, D.A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 78-91.

Heneman R.L. (1992). Merit pay: Linking pay increases to performance ratings. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Hollenbeck, J.R., Williams, C.R., & Klein, H.J. (1989). An empirical examination of the antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 18-23.

Locke, E.A. (1991). The Essence of Leadership. New York, NY: Lexington Books.

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

London, M. (1996). Redeployment and continuous learning in the 21st century: Hard lessons and positive examples from the downsizing era. Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 67-79.

Kraiger, K., Ford, J.K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311-328.

Robbins, S.P. (1998). Organizational Behavior (Eighth Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rummler, G., & Brache, A.P. (1990). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the institution chart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schuler, R.S., & Jackson, S.E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 207-219.

Senge, P.M. (1999). Leadership in living organizations. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & I. Somerville (Eds.), Leading Beyond the Walls. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Banks.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24-33.

Wheelen, T.L., & Hunger, J.D. (1995). Strategic Management and Business Policy (Fifth Edition). Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.

Wright, P.C., & McMahan, G.C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295-320.

Wright, P., Pringle, C.D., & Kroll, M.J. (1994). Strategic Management: Text and Cases (Second Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Zaccaro, S.J., & Klimoski, R.J. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership: An introduction (Chapter 1). In S.J. Zaccaro and R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), The Nature of Organizational Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.