Chapter IV: Are Leadership Styles Necessary?
“Tell me, and I will forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand” (Confucius circa 450 BC)
What Does Style Impact?
Why have so many wrestled with so many differing styles to locate the common denominator of a true skillful, in-charge person? This script will discuss a limited variety of reasons for perhaps selecting differing leader style(s). More so, which of the items discussed already need a brisk polishing? Finally, the sole purpose of this section demonstrates that all roads will eventually lead to four germane terms Drink, Swear, Steal, and Lie. Readers may wish to concentrate on avenues that permits one to capture multiple traits of leadership as contemporary times, concerns, issues, and situations require fit within each of the aforementioned categories. These four terms will ultimately provide sufficient individualized elements for innovation, enthusiasm, charisma, competence, goal setting, values, and integrity to demonstrate that you have what it takes to be a leader (if you are not already one).
Not unlike any change in an organization or life the reader needs to understand the “What’s in it for me” by reading this manuscript. If the “What’s in it for me” is not sufficient to convince the reader why this is just not another guru fashioned book then I understand I have lost the audience. So, in brief, let me reiterate why this material was written as it relates to you. I say with absolute certainty, you the reader will not find my name among high profile leaders like Eisenhower, Gandhi, or Lincoln, to name a few.
I have been relegated to the everyday leadership that impacted people just like you. I did not lead armies, a country through a war, nor provide spiritual guidance to the lost souls of foreign soils. I have been fortunate to be the leader of three different police agencies, a couple of professional organizations, and the Chair of a state municipal police training council. My story is full of mistakes and recoveries employed for success. This is not a lecture, but rather a conversation albeit references are made to theoretical styles that I think I was modeling. This is about the lumps and bumps that you have or will encounter during your ascension to the leadership role, with or without the title.
Myth or Reality
- If it ain’t broken; don’t fix it!
- The higher up I go, the less I need to worry about what leadership style I use.
- Great leaders begin with questions, not answers.
I am torn between which of the above bulleted items to write, but must assert in no uncertain terms the first two are mythical and destructive, and the third is the most accurate of the three statements. The first two are “killer phrases” within an organization that accompany others such as, “we tried that before, or don’t rock the boat, or relax kid you’ll have your turn someday, or my personal favorite, I’m retiring in a few years, let the next guy deal with it.” If the first two are the center piece of conversations within your organization than you are killing your organization.
Great leaders begin with questions, not answers. In my opinion, the most appropriate of the three items listed at the beginning of this section. I subscribe to the third bulleted item as illustrated by the manner I entered three different leadership situations in my tenure as a Police Chief. The latter of the three illustrates an essential to effective leadership. Blanchard and Zigarmi (1985) emphasize how an effective leader understand the relationship between the leader, follower and context. The effective leader is one that is able to conform to the situation (Zigarmi, et al., 2005).
In order to find solutions to problems, the problems must first be identified. Leaders do not show up with solutions to problems without finding the real concerns first (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Peer & Organizational Pressure
Tate & Copas (2010) examines this phenomenon in their study of peer pressure and group dynamics among youth groups claiming that effective dynamics is dependent upon social science of group dynamics, strength based orientation, sound group work practice, and building culture of concern. The effective leader develops the culture of concern and atmosphere of change. The effective head of an organization deals with peer influences, breaks down myths, demonstrates the need for change on a personal and group horizontal plane.
In a similar study of the importance of diversity leadership, Mayekiso and Snodgrass (2008) find that equity and diversity initiatives have gained traction in higher education institutions that convert traditions through innovative practices that challenge long-standing organizational structures. At the heart of the study are questions rather than answers, such as: Why do it? Why fix what ain’t broken?
Mobilize or to Organize?
What might make a difference in an organization is whether a leader relies on mobilizing or organizing. Mobilizing is to make something movable or capable of movement or to organize to support something within the organization (Merriam-Webster; Google Dictionary). To organize is to put the parts into the whole, synchronize, coordinate, or harmonize (Google Dictionary). Again, these terms are not mutually exclusive, however I assert that mobilizing is very strategic, may serve a tactical or task purpose, and may be part of the larger picture. Mobilizing is temporary and serves a specific singular purpose. Unlike organizing, mobilizing is part of the long term planning. Organizing will, more often than not, represent uncomfortable change to some members. Organizing is closely attached to member commitment of the group.
Not to belabor the point but crucial to the discussion at this moment is emphasized in an article by Ryan (2010) in Social Policy attesting to the difference in leadership between grass roots organizations and mobilizing; the point here is that just mobilizing isn’t organizing. It’s just more of the same (status quo) rather than building strong organizational commitment and long term strategies forged within a broad and deep base of members and leaders. If one begins with conclusion rather than asking the “Correct Questions,” it’s just another missed opportunity. I, therefore, reassert my statement that the first two bullets are not only mythical but destructive to an organization and the latter is important to modern leaders!
Having scanned the first few paragraphs of this section, pause, take a deep breath, and perform a self-analysis of what you have read. From what you have read, what was important to you? See, you have what it takes, just need to step out of those comfortable pair of slippers you reside and “Just do it.” I’m sure the new sneakers of leadership will fit you well.
Ok, we’ll get back to this in just a moment, let’s move on.
Authority/Power?
Influence and authority are results or elements of power. Authority may reside in a title such as Chief, Superintendent, Director, President, Provost, Dean, etc. that assumes direct control or clout over another. The former may be less deliberate, and is not necessarily situated in a single person but may be exerted by a group, a body, or even a mission. The two may differ, but one would not argue both are essential within the influence of leadership. Therefore, influence and authority may be observed at differing levels of an organization. It is unescapable for the leader to erect, use appropriately, and to secure relationships inherent in success.
Monin and Bathurst (2008) examined the works of Mary Parker Follett from the early 20’s. Originally, a Social Worker turned an organizational theorist she offered that researchers should pay more attention to the functions of leadership and less emphasis should be placed on the leader. Principal to her work was the concept that as situations were being understood while at the same moment change was in the happening. Her work emphasized the primary style for discussion herein, Transformational Leadership. Time is a primary constant in leadership and as it passes the leadership attempted is also dissipating. Ergo leadership requires flexibility, compassion, innovation and leader/follower relationships primarily based on trust and an ethically sound footing (Monin and Bathurst, 2008). What role does ethical leadership play in transforming and enhancing an organizations?
Justice
Leadership is not performed in a void. It is a continuous fluid process that transcends multiple leadership style boundaries. Justice cannot escape leadership, decision making, and is generally grounded in some ethical premise. Justice has a similar DNA of ethics. Both require legitimacy, reasonableness, lawful, fair and valid virtue at each turn in the leadership orbit. Leadership requires ethical centered persons at the helm to appropriately deliver service in a just, impartial, and equal fashion requiring influence and motivation (Anderson et al, 2006). We will forego Presidential references for now; I think you get the point.
Leaders that influence others does so through some form of power. The manner in which the power is dispensed is critical to the followers of the organization whether the power is perceived as coercive, reverent, or via trust, and charisma will influence further leadership or the derailment thereof. The ethical influence of the leader may determine if or how an organization meets, exceeds a goal, objective, and mission. The lack of ethical influences ascend one into the dark abyss of failure.
Ethics in Leadership
Virtue is commonly associated with good character, good judgment, and good ethical decision making. Obviously, these are characteristics sought in criminal justice employees and governance roles. Virtue is behavior showing high moral standards and Virtue Ethics (or Virtue Theory) is an approach to Ethics that emphasizes an individual’s character as the crucial component of ethical thinking (Deontological Approach), duty to act ethically instead in comparison to the acts or consequences of the act themselves (Teleological Approach) (Carr & Steutel, 1999).
Virtue ethics is well-established in the works of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Socrates engaged his followers in a battery of question answer dialogue forcing his students to develop their own theory. This has become known as the Socratic Method. He viewed knowledge, wisdom, and virtue as identical (Albanese, 2012). Plato committed his study to writing attributing Socrates virtue as the knowledge of good and evil that is a prerequisite for achieving the ultimate good.
Plato became disillusioned with government corruption following the death of his mentor, Socrates at the hands of the government. He felt few laws were unnecessary due to highly developed morality and character of inhabitants (Albanese, 2012). Aristotle, a student of Plato, formed his own school, The Lyceum where he produced more than 400 works ranging in several topics. One such work, the Nicomachean Ethics provided the earliest study of the history of ethics in Western Civilization (Albanese, 2012).
According to Aristotle, all human pursuits are aimed at some good, complete life is needed to achieve happiness because many changes occur in life; there are ups and downs. In other words, “how ought people live their lives.” This is established, not by honor, wealth or power, but by rational activity in accordance with virtue over a complete life.
The theoretical longevity of the early philosophers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle may be observed in later ethical determinations. The works of Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) deontological ethics (duty); John Stuart Mills (1806-1873) teleological (action is judged in the results); Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) Consequentialism (pleasure absent pain resulting from a decision) on into politics and the Rule of Law observed in John Locke and Thomas Hobbs. The conglomeration of research and theoretical acumens did not suffer deaf ears as viewed in Socio- Psychological theory like self-actualization asserted in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need (Aristotle, 1998).
The works of these philosophers discussed, while not discounting others, are established in Natural Rights. That is, the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property. According to civil law or labor laws employees may have life, liberty, and property interest rights to employment. Yet the culture of a discipline may provide greater authority. The culture within an organization or profession may pose such power or authority over its membership that the members may yield to unsavory behaviors or they may be sterling performers.
Ethically building a critical mass of support for an idea the leader cares about is contiguous with getting things done in the work place through the membership. It is surviving with honor while working within the human system. Leaders must possess the mindset of cooperation and not competition. “We have seen the enemy and they are us” (Personal Conversation with Dr. Bill Tafoya, FBI, Quantico, VA, 1991). Governance is essential in creating the environment for positive aspects to flourish by member and overall association. The environment created is responsible for developing personnel, creating an atmosphere for creativity, transparency, and avenues excluding the discomfort to file grievances for wrong- doing. Sound ethical formatting of an organization will sacrifice weariness for well doing and replenish with willingness to do better.
The ability for organizations to operate free of government control (not government oversight) is permitted in a free society such as the United States, as is the type of governance provided in each. The Founding Fathers directly or indirectly achieved this measure in the theory that individual freedoms are “conceived in liberty, not born in freedoms” (Wills, 1992, p. 174).
Most organizations are not run by committee, but solicit input from members. Effective leaders recognize and appreciate personal attributes, direct resources, and generally do not achieve goals through dictatorships. At the end of the day, the person at the top of the pinnacle is required to make a decision and is held accountable for each rendered. Memberships within often deliver a leader into prominence or obscurity.
Was Hitler An Effective Leader?
As was Jim Jones, Charlie Manson, and Hitler they were an effective leader, but for all the wrong reasons. All three of these social malcontents were influential and dominated their membership; Hitler, of course, gained power then crushed all opposition which converted his status to tyrant (Ciulla, 1995). As defined under morally bankrupt leadership style these were all leaders, perhaps each possessed traits and qualities that great leaders had in common, albeit the former seized power for immoral purpose (Ciulla, 1995). Hitler not only coveted malignant views but sought methods for furthering his beliefs. First, he believed that the end justified the means; second, he had contempt for peace; and third, his influence was in the form of propaganda embracing total distortion of reality (Gardner, 1990). Power is ethically neutral, it can be used for good or bad purposes, and therefore leadership must be addressed from a moral framework (Gardner, 1990).
The two basic types of ethical systems are deontological ethical system (Duty Bound)- intent of the act will determine whether an act was good or bad and teleological ethical system (the end justifies the means) which judges the outcome of the act or consequentialism, simply the end justifies the means (Pollock, 2010). The transformational leader practices the former along with his/her vision, fostering values for the organization. There are three core themes to vision construction through values and they are: High performance standards; caring about people in the organization; and a sense of uniqueness and pride (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Hitler was of the teleological view that the end justified the means and was willing to sacrifice the German people to save his own portrait in history. He devised hideous schemes to portray the Jews as the enemy, as those responsible for the negative plight of the German people at that point in history. Hitler is the antithesis of the definition of character. Character is about doing good rather than harm to others whether the harm is intentional or not (Zigarmi et. al, 2005).
Although Hitler possessed many of the traits that you may recognize in respected leaders, his motives were ill conceived. Leaders of a transformational style are able to influence members to achieve the goals and vision of the organization, but do so with benevolent intent rather than malignant malfeasance.
To fast forward to contemporary periods, say 2016 through 2020, the leader of the free world may be subject to examination and much of the same criticisms. A transactional leader requiring quid pro quo (a favor or getting a leg up for something provided) that has ethically set aside tried and true processes for the sake of personal monetary gain, egotistical satisfaction, stepping on those that put the leader in the oval office, and ignoring the “Rule of Law” while at the same time trampling the time tested seam of the First Amendment (Free Press) all for satisfying a narcissistic personality. One may begin to see similarities. I’m just saying critical thinking is required here. Recall if you would, critical thinking, requires critical listening.
Again, I reiterate that complacency is not a friend, when courage and integrity are required by the group or populace to resurrect the vestiges of those values held sacred. Especially when it is mandated upon all to excise immoral, illegal, and unethical conduct from authority and structures of power that may or may not serve to appropriately influence future leaders. Bullies are on this earth for one purpose. That is to provide strength to the unsuspecting hero or less inclined to act, to punch the bully squarely in the nose. This not by physical force, but rather through intellect, fact, voice, vote, and sound moral obligation to act. How about your family, school or organization, anything come to mind?
Thus far, the reader has been privy to traits, character, and the need for leadership serving as a prelude to a few styles that may be familiar to some. However, before moving into the highly flaunted leadership styles, I want to spend just a few moments to review the informal leader. Who is this masked man? Who made this informal leader the go to person? Perhaps it may be you.
The Informal Leader
Societies and/or organizations achieving success have done so by removing obstacles that thwart human development and growth. Intuitive instinct resides within individuals in the varying diverse branches of learning disciplines. During periods of difficult times these individuals find unsuspected intensity brought forward by a circumstance or disillusionment in existing practice. They liberate themselves by stepping out of the expected behavior and find bravery in a single overt act. They find hidden within the endurance, strength, compassion, and capacity for change necessary to make a difference. These incidences of crisis, real or perceived, find fellowship from those stepping curiously in pursuit. Thus, may emerge both the informal and formal leader of the group. When these people are successful we attach names such as leader and hero, and when they have failed such terms as goat or non-compliant are eagerly assigned.
Bravery is not limited to periods of war or tumultuous conduct. Individuals labeled as brave do not lie in a sub marginal tier of society awaiting their opportunity to surface, but rather within all of us permeates undiscovered qualities and strengths, and when provided an opportunity to excel she/he will do so. Perhaps those that can unlock these individualized truths from within self or in others, permitting human talent and energy to prevail, is the real leader.
Perhaps those that build permissive environments of encouragement where human imperfection is thought of as lessons in life rather than scathing rejection of enthusiasm is the true leader. The understanding of this civil experiment is instrumental to the leadership veil.
The person that is not restricted to the limited information of a particular discipline and is amenable to external forces that provides knowledge may be better suited to be the risk taker required of contemporary leadership. It is crucial at this point in the discussion to recognize that leadership is not the sole possession of the front office. The informal leader, often times unsolicited, commonly referred to as the go to person, residing outside bureaucratic structures, and emerges as a powerful unit within most organizations. How does one of leadership deal with the informal leader? If thought of as an important component of the organization is to listen then the front office is in cooperation with rather than competition with its members will more likely provide an environment for growth than stagnate climates that have drowned otherwise good groups.
The leader that is open to the concept of gaining insightful information from other sources is also rife for ridicule and those awaiting the opportunity to say, I told you so. This information flow that may come from within an organization as well as external to an entire discipline creates mine fields of blasphemy, irreverence by those that control current philosophy and sets the leader up for great periods of discomfort which very well may lead to his/her demise. Mark Twain puts this dilemma in perspective, “The man with a new idea is a crank, until the idea succeeds.” Leadership requires risk! This includes breaking down old barriers of thought and practice making way for bridges of hope and transformation. Having spent 38 years in public service I say with great confidence the best that government has to offer is hope. In fact, on a global platform the populace can only hope the person in charge will deliver goods, services, support, or direction in a socially defined acceptable fashion.
The aforementioned provides yet another example of a leadership style, often discounted, but equally important to an organization. A leader dedicated to outcomes, betterment of member and the organization will develop the informal leader. The informal leader should not be discounted in favor of the formal leader as this may create needless conflict, acrimony, and non- healing wounds perilous to the unit. The informal leader should be regarded as a partner. One of the leading functions of a leader to perform is to showcase the finest in others. Catch the members doing something right. Be there for your members when least expected, unannounced, without ceremony and do so without the expectation of gratitude from the member. As Nike puts it: “Just Do It.” The information received by a leader from members at this level may prove invaluable. In fact, perhaps the most accurate and honest communication within the organization. What then if the informal leader is in an adversarial role?
Important to this model is the fact that not all informal leaders willingly or knowingly took on the role. They may have had this authority thrust upon them out of respect. Second, although they may have significant influence in an organization, they can become significant impediment to the mission if they become adversarial. Third, the former provides meaningful implications of developing the informal leader more completely. Fourth, the promoting of the informal leader to a position of authority may dilute his/her effectiveness. Fifth, and final critical implication is that this style of leadership may have derived due to individual integrity. If formal leaders attempt to co-opt this member it may backfire.
To reflect and synthesize on the preceding information, the informal leader is an intricate part of any organization, positive or negative impacts may occur. The effective leader recognizes an informal leader, understands the informal leaders’ significance, channels their approach, and makes the informal leader part of the executive team.
Having examined whether styles are necessary in leadership or not I would appreciate it if the reader would pause here and simply jot down four or five traits or characteristics that you feel you currently possess. Those traits that would make you an effective leader and not just a good leader. The following section commits a substantial portion of white space to one specific type of leader. When you have completed the next section, take a moment and compare your list against the styles presented. Which style/role do you see yourself filling? I interject role here because those with authority in any organization may be the leader (commonly thought of as the head of the agency) or a manager (generally the task master of day to day routine). The pressing question you now pose is this: Can a head of an agency be both? You tell me.
For the record, a Transformational Leadership Style (TLS) creates the relationship between the leader and follower. The TLS is equipped with the skills leaders need, fundamental to creating a vision, and the substance to motivate people (Cragg & Spurgeon, 2007, Burns, 1978, Bass &. Steidlmeier, 1999). Is focusing on the individual member’s productivity a function of a leader or manager? Might organizations promote personnel for the wrong reasons? Such as, because the member was productive, he/she deserved a promotion. Has the association simply promoted a highly talented producer to perhaps a mediocre manager? The true leader will aid in developing future leaders. Indirectly, the leader will enhance future employee’s performance. Leaders who have positive traits may enhance or hinder employee development depending on the focus of the leader.
Positive traits such as charisma, ethics, and relationships skills professionally improve organizational performance, however research shows there is a dark side to TLS and that is Pseudo-transformational Style. This type of leader use their ability to transform people in a destructive manner such as was Hitler’s influence (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999, Kanungo & Conger, 1988). The evolution of leadership has changed from modern perspective to postmodern perspective. Everyday leaders are reminded the industrial age is gone and the information era is intertwined with postmodern leadership. Examining leader’s characteristics enhances organizations and employees’ performance. Also, examining how leaders take charge, adjust to consistent changes, and adapt to situations in order to make progress. All the models discussed hence forth foresee follower’s motivation in their own way while trying to create the same outcomes of quality leadership and employee performance. The professionalism of an organization is sometimes measured by questioning the traits, behavior, and contingency of the person in charge. This impacts how internal and external outcomes are measured.