THE NATURE OF LEADERSHIP

Because “leadership” is a term that is often used in everyday conversation, you

might assume that it has a common and used in accepted meaning. In fact, just the
opposite is true – like several other key organizational behavior terms such as
“personality” and “motivation”, “leadership” “leadership” is used in a variety of ways.
Thus, we first clarify its meaning as we use it in this book.

The Meaning of Leadership

We will define leadership in terms of both process and property. As a process,
leadership is the use of non-coercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of
group members to meet a goal. As a property, leadership is the set of characteristics
attributed to those who are perceived to use such influence successfully. Influence a
common element of both perspectives, is the ability to affect the perceptions, beliefs,
attitudes, motivation, and/or behavior of others. From an organizational viewpoint,
leadership is vital because it has such a powerful influence on individual and group
behavior”. Moreover, because the goal toward which the group directs its efforts is often
the desired goal of the leader, it may or may not merit with organizational goals.
Leadership involves neither force nor coercion. A manager who relies solely on
force and formal authority to direct the behavior of subordinates is not exercising
leadership. Thus, as discussed more fully in the next section, a manager or supervisor
may or may not be a leader. It is also important to note that on one hand, a leader may
actually posses the characteristics attributed to him or her on the other, the leader may
merely be perceived as possessing them.

Leadership versus (U of C 8.167 as a preposition) Management

From these definitions, it should be clear that leadership and management are
related but they are not the same. A person can be a manager, a leader, both or
neither. Some of the basic distinction between the two are summarized in Table 12.1.
On the left side of the table are four elements that differentiate a management and a
leadership point of view. For example, when executing plans, managers focus on
monitoring results, comparing them with goals, and correcting deviations. In contrast,
the leader focuses on energizing people to overcome bureaucratic hurdles to help reach
goals.
To further underscores the differences, consider the various roles that might
typify managers and leaders in a hospital setting. The chief of staff of a large hospital is
clearly a manager by virtue of the position itself. At the same time, this individual may
not be respected or trusted by others and may have to rely solely on the authority
vested in the position to get people to do things. But an emergency room nurse with no
formal authority may be quite effective at taking charge of a chaotic situation and
directing others in how to deal with specific patients problems. Others in the emergency
room may respond because they trust the nurse judgment and have confidence in the
nurse’s decision-making skills.
And the head of pediatrics, supervising a staff of twenty other doctors, nurses,
and attendants, may also enjoy the staff’s complete respect, confidence, and trust. They
readily take her advice and follow directives without questions, and often go far beyond
what is necessary to help carry out the unit’s mission. Thus, being a manager does not
ensure that a person is also a leader – any given manager may or may not also be a
leader. Similarly, a leadership position can also be formal, as when someone appointed
to head a group has leadership qualities, or informal, as when a leader emerges from
the tasks of the group according to a consensus of the members. The chief of staff

1|Page
describe earlier is a manager but not really a leader. The emergency room nurse is a
leader but not a manager. And the head of paediatrics is likely both.
Organization need both management and leadership if they are to be effective.
For example, leadership is necessary to create and direct change and to help the
organization get through tough times. And management is necessary to achieve
coordination and systematic results and to handle administrative activities during times
of stability and predictability. Management in conjunction with leadership can help
achieve planned orderly changed, and leadership in conjunction with management can
keep the organization properly aligned with its environment. In addition, managers and
leaders also play a major role in establishing the moral climate of the organization and
in determining the role of ethics in its culture. As you can see from the Ethics box on
next page entitled “When Does Leading Email Misleading” maintaining one’s ethical
balance while discharging other leadership duties can sometimes require an executive
to walk a fairly fine line.

TABLE 12.1 Kotler’s Distinction between Management and Leadership

Activity Management Leadership
CREATING AN AGENDA Planning and budgeting Planning and budgeting
Establishing steps and Establishing steps and
timetables for achieving timetables for achieving
needed results, allocating needed results, allocating
the resources necessary to the resources necessary to
make those needed results make those needed results
to happen. to happen.
DEVELOPING A HUMAN Organizing and staffing Aligning people
NETWORK FOR Establishing structure for Communicating the
ACHIEVING THE accomplishing plan direction by words and
AGENDA requirement, staffing that deeds to all those whose
structure with individuals, cooperation may be
delegating responsibility needed to influence the
and authority for carrying creation of team and
out the plan providing condition that understand
policies and procedures to the vision and strategies
help guide people and and accept their validity.
creating method or
systems to monitor
implementation.
EXECUTING PLANS Controlling and Problem Motivating and inspiring
solving Monitoring results Energizing people to
vs. plan in some detail, overcome major political
identifying deviation, and bureaucratic and resource
their planning and barriers to change by
organizing to solve these satisfying very basic, but
problems. other unfulfilled human
needs.
OUTCOMES Produces 0 degree of Produces change, often to
predictability and order and a dramatic degree and has
has the potential to the potential to produce
consistently produce major extremely useful change
results expected by various (e.g. new products that
stakeholders (e.g. for customers want, new
customers always being on approaches to labor
time for stockholders, relations that help make a
being on budget. firm more competitive.

2|Page
EARLY APPROACHES TO LEADERSHIP
Although leaders and leadership have profoundly influenced the course of human
events, careful scientific study of them began only about a century ago. Early studies
focused on the traits, or personal characteristics, of leaders. Later research shifted to
examine actual leader behavior.
Trait Approaches to Leadership
Lincoln, Napoleon, Joan of Arc, Hitler, and Gandhi are names that most of us
know quite well. Early researchers believed that leaders such as these had some
unique set of qualities or traits that distinguished them from their peers. Moreover, these
traits were presumed to be relatively stable and enduring. Following this trait approach
these researchers focused on identifying leadership traits, developing methods for
measuring them, and using the methods to select leaders.
Hundreds of studies guided by this research agenda were conducted during the
first several decades of the twentieth century. The earliest writers believed that
important leadership traits included intelligence, dominance, self-confidence, energy,
activity, and task-relevant knowledge. The results of subsequent studies gave rise to a
long list of additional traits. Unfortunately, the list quickly became so long that it lost any
semblance of practical value. In addition, the results of many studies were inconsistent.
For example, one early argument was that effective leaders such as Lincoln
tended to be taller than ineffective leaders. But critics were quick to point that Hitler and
Napoleon, both effective leaders in their own way, were not tall. Some writers have
even tried to relate leadership to such traits as body shape, astrological sign, or
handwriting patterns. The trait approach also had a significant theoretical problem in
that it could neither specify nor prove how presumed leadership traits are connected to
leadership per se. For these and other reasons, the trait approach was all but
abandoned several decades ago.
In recent years, however, the trait approach has received renewed in interest.
For example, some researchers have sought to reintroduce a limited set of traits into the
leadership literature. These traits include emotional intelligence, drive, motivation,
honesty and integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, knowledge of the business, and
charisma (which is discussed in Chapter 13). Some people even believe that biological
factors may play a role in leadership. Although it is too early to know whether these
traits have validity from a leadership perspective, it does appear that a serious and
scientific assessment of appropriate traits may further our understanding of the
leadership phenomenon.

Behavioral Approaches to Leadership

In the late 1940’s, most researchers began to shift away from the trait approach
and started leadership as an observable process or activity. The goal of the so-called
behavioral approach was to determine what behaviors are associated with effective
leadership. The researchers assumed that the behaviors of effective leaders would be
the same across all situations. The behavioral approach to the study of leadership
included the Michigan studies, the Ohio State studies, and the leadership grid.
The Michigan Studies. The Michigan leadership studies were a program of
research conducted at the University of Michigan. The goal of this work was to
determine the pattern of leadership behaviors that results in effective group
performance. From interviews with supervisors and subordinates of high- and low-
productivity groups in several organizations, the researchers collected and analyzed
descriptions of supervisory behavior to determine how effective supervisors differed
from ineffective ones. Two basic forms of leader behavior were identified – job-centered
and employee-centered – as shown in the top portion of Figure 12.1.

3|Page
 The Michigan Studies

Job-Centered Employee- Centered

Leader Behavior Leader Behavior

The Ohio State Studies

Low Consideration High Consideration

Behavior Behavior

Low Initiating High Initiating

Structure Behavior Structure Behavior

Figure 12.1 Early Behavioral Approaches to Leadership

Two of the first behavioral approaches to leadership were the Michigan and Ohio
State Studies. The results of the Michigan Studies suggested that there are two
fundamental types of leader-behavior, job-centered and employee-centered which were
presumed to be at opposite ends of a single continuum. The Ohio State Studies also
found two similar kinds of leadership behavior “consideration” and “initiating structure”
but this research suggested that these two types of behavior were actually independent
dimensions.
The leader who exhibits job-centered leader behavior pays close attention to,
performance. The leader’s primary concern is efficient completion of the task. The
leader who engages in employee-centered leader behavior attempts to build effective
work groups with high performance goals. The leader’s main concern is with high
performance, but that is to be achieved by paying attention to the human aspects of the
group. These two styles of leader behavior were presumed to be at opposite ends of a
single dimension. Thus, the Michigan researchers suggested that any given leader
could exhibit either job-centered or employee-centered leader behavior, but not both at
the same time. Moreover, they suggested that employee-centered leader behavior was
more likely to result in effective group performance than was job-centered leader
behavior.
The Ohio State Studies The Ohio State Leadership Studies were conducted
about the same time at the Michigan Studies (in the late 1940’s) and early 1950’s.
During this program of research, behavioral scientists at Ohio State University
developed a questionnaire, which they administered in both military and industrial
setting, to assess subordinates perceptions of their leader’s behavior. The Ohio State
studies identifies several forms of leader behavior but tended to focus on the two most
significant ones consideration and initiating structure.

4|Page
 When engaging in consideration behavior, the leader is concerned with the
subordinate’s feelings and respects subordinate’s ideas. The leader-subordinate
relationship is characterized by mutual trust, respect, and two-way communication.
When using initiating-structure behavior, on the other hand, the leader clearly defines
the leader-subordinate rules so that subordinates know what is expected of them. The
leader also establishes channels of communication and determines the methods for
accomplishing the group’s task.
Unlike the employee-centered and job-centered leader behavior, consideration
and initiating structure were not thought to be on the same continuum. Instead as
shown in the bottom portion of the Figure 12.1, they were seen as independent
dimensions of the leader’s behavioral repertoire. As a result, a leader could exhibit high
initiating-structure behavior and high consideration. A leader could also exhibit high or
low levels of each behavior simultaneously. For example, a leader may clearly define
subordinates roles and expectations but exhibit little concern for their feelings.
Alternatively, she or he may be concerned about subordinate’s feelings but fail to define
roles and expectations clearly. But the leader might also demonstrate concern for
performance expectations and employee welfare simultaneously.
The Ohio State researchers also investigated the stability of leader behavior over
time. They found that a given individual’s leadership pattern appeared to change little as
long as the situation remain fairly constant. Another topic they looked at was the
combinations of leader behavior that were related to effectiveness. At first, they believed
that leaders who exhibit high levels of behaviors would be most effective. An early study
at International Harvester (now Navistar Corporation), however, found that employees
of supervisors who ranked high on initiating-structure behavior were higher performers
but also expressed lower levels of satisfaction. Conversely, employees of supervisors
who ranked high on consideration had lower performance ratings but also had fewer
absences from work. Later research showed that these conclusions were misleading
because the studies did not consider all the important variables. Nonetheless, however,
the Ohio State studies represented another important milestone in leadership research.

Leadership Grid Yet another behavioral approach to leadership is the

Leadership Grid (originally called the Managerial Grid). The Leadership Grid provides a
means for evaluating leadership styles and then training managers to move toward an
ideal style of behavior. The most current version of Leadership Grid is shown in Figure
12.2. The horizontal axis represents concern for production (similar to job-centered and
initiating-structure behavior), and the vertical axis represents concern for people (similar
to employee-centered and consideration behavior). Note the five extremes of leadership
both production and people, the 9,1 manager (authority-compliance) who is highly
concerned about production but exhibit little concern for people, the 1,9 manager
(country club management), who has the exact opposite concerns from the 9,1
manager, the 5,5 manager (middle of the road management) who maintains adequate
concern for both people and production, and the 9,9 manager (team management) who
exhibits maximum concern for both people and production.
According to this approach, the ideal style of leadership is 9,9. The developers of
this model thus created a multiphase training and development program to assist
Equicor, and other companies have used the Leadership Grid, and anecdotal evidence
seems to confirm its effectiveness in some settings. However, there is little published
scientific evidence regarding its true effectiveness and the extent to which it applies to
all managers and/or to all settings. Indeed, as we discuss next, such evidence is not
likely to actually exist.

5|Page
 High

9 1,9 Team Management 9,9

C
Country Club Management Work accomplishment is
O
8 Thoughtful attention to the from committed people;
N needs of people for satisfying interdependence through a
C relationships leads to a “common stake” in

E 7 comfortable, friendly organization purpose leads

organization atmosphere and to relationships of trust and
R work tempo. respect
N 6

F 5 Middle-of-the-Road
Management 5,5
O Adequate organization performance is
R 4 possible through balancing the necessity
to get out work with maintaining morale of
at a satisfactory level Authority-Compliance
P
Efficiency in operations
3
E
results from arranging
O conditions of work in
2 Impoverished Management such a way that
P
exertion of minimum effort to
human elements
L get required work done
interfere to a 9,1
E 1,1 is appropriate to sustain minimum degree.
organization membership.

Low 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Low High
Concern for Production
Figure 12.2 The Leadership Grid

The Leadership Grid is a method of evaluating leadership styles. The overall

objective of an organization using the Grid is to train its managers using organizational
development techniques so that they are simultaneously more concerned for both
people and production 9,9 style on the Grid.

6|Page