Leadership

The modern study of leadership began with Weber in the late 19^th century (1958, 1964). He identified three “ideal” (not to be confused with “perfect”) types, each defined by essential or principal characteristics unlikely to be found in their pure forms in any actual, historical leader.

Traditional leadership, the first type Weber identified, derives from the ancient form of the master of his household. It takes three main forms. A gerontocracy involves rule by elders. Patriarchy involves male rule by inheritance. Patrimony involves personal rule backed by a military force. Weber saw all three as conservative and characterized by:

· Personal, often impulsive, rule limited only by tradition

· Administration by loyal personal retainers

· Lack of clearly defined departments

· Lack of a rational hierarchy

· Lack of training or specified qualifications for appointment

· Lack of a regular system for selection, promotion, or compensation

Such leaders learn by observation and are respected based on tradition. As the number of followers expands from family to clan to state to empire, leadership evolves from gerontocracy (e.g., hunter-gatherer bands) to patriarchy (e.g., Abraham) to patrimony (e.g., the pharaohs of ancient Egypt). In the latter, family members or favorites are appointed as officials who have responsibilities and privileges that the ruler can withdraw at any time for any reason. Frequently, reward was in the form of land, which office holders tried to make inheritable, increasing their independence and power at the expense of the ruler, leading to feudalism in Western Europe and to breakaway states in Asia and Africa.

The second type Weber identified is the charismatic leader, whose exceptional personal qualities, insights or accomplishments inspire loyalty and obedience—whether for good or for evil.

· Personal rule

· Lack of formal rules or precedents to guide decisions

· Administration by disciples and believers

· Lack of clearly defined roles for subordinates

· Lack of a rational hierarchy

· Lack of training or specified qualifications for appointment

· Lack of a regular system for selection, promotion, or compensation

Charismatic leaders require vision, passion, risk-taking, and continuous miracles or at least avoiding reverses and the continued well-being of followers. As this is almost impossible to maintain over a long period, charisma may be effective in becoming a leader but is an exceptionally fragile basis for sustaining it. Successors rarely inherit the hold of founding charismatics, so must find another basis for their authority. Failure to do so often results in the failure of the organization (Ritzer 1983). John F. Kennedy is a famous and Charles Manson an infamous charismatic leader.

Charismatic prophets envision an apocalypse. Only they can save their followers. They demand absolute loyalty, are intolerant of deviation or criticism, and seek complete control of information, behavior, and finances (Zimbardo 1985).

Third, Weber identified bureaucratic leadership as the type found in most modern organizations, militaries, and states, and in monetized societies. It is efficient, rational, and characterized by:

· A permanent organization

· Officials appointed based on specific skills, knowledge, and experience

· Salaried officials motivated by prospects of promotion

· Impartial execution of specific tasks based on written rules

· Departments with specific functions arranged in a hierarchal system

· An educational system to qualify candidates for positions

· Incumbents who do not own positions so cannot choose successors

Exemplars are Gerstner of IBM, Iger of Disney, Generals Eisenhower and Marshall, and Presidents Truman and Reagan, all of whom possessed two vital additional qualities Weber failed to mention, vision and integrity.

A dazzling array of theories of leadership followed that are little more than variations on Weber’s ideal types. “Situational leaders” supposedly are adept at adapting available resources and capability of their personnel to circumstances. “Transformational leaders” are visionaries who appeal to their followers’ ideals and morals. “Participative leaders” are facilitators, promoting the sharing of ideas and searching for consensus, and taking satisfaction of workers into account. “Informal leaders” emerge in groups based on personal characteristics of the leader such as self-confidence (warranted or not) or glibness. And so on.

Fielder suggested that leaders lie along a continuum ranging from task- to people-focused, and that relationships, power distance, and the leader’s personality determine particular styles. Blake and Mouton (1964) proposed a model of five leadership styles that soon expanded to seven:

Accommodating (originally “country club”) leaders exhibit thoughtful attention to people and develop a comfortable work atmosphere usually with low productivity.

Dictatorial (originally “produce or perish”) leaders exhibit low concern for people and high concern for output. They develop a rule-bound high-pressure workplace based on Theory X (McGregor 2005), which assumes people are motivated only by tangible rewards and punishments.

Indifferent (originally “impoverished”) leaders exhibit low concern for people and production and just want to survive and avoid responsibility for any mistakes.

Opportunistic (added to the original five) leaders are exploitative and manipulative and adapt to circumstances for personal benefit.

Paternalistic (added to the original five) leaders prescribe and guide, praise and support, but discourage input or ideas from subordinates.

Sound (originally “team”) leaders exhibit high concern for people and production and, based on Theory Y (McGregor 2005) try to build teamwork, mutual trust and respect, and high commitment to one another and the company.

Status quo (originally “middle of the road”) leaders try to balance company goals and worker needs and usually achieve satisfactory if not outstanding results.

A number of instruments assessing individual conflict styles derive from the Blake-Mouton model, most prominently that introduced in 1974 by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann. Reminiscent of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator of personality, it forces respondents to choose between two actions to generate a score that identifies them as accommodating, avoiding, collaborating, competing, or compromising.

Some theorists see management as an aspect of leadership; others distinguish the two. Management fads abound. A partial list includes “management by walking around” [MBWA], “intrapreneuring” which is to say developing an entrepreneurial spirit within an organization, “total quality management” [TQM], the “whole systems approach” focused on customer satisfaction, “preferred futuring,” the “Delphi technique” as a means of achieving consensus without imposing rank,² “real time strategic change,” and “just in time systems.” Bennis distinguishes managers who administer, maintain the status quo, and keep an eye on the bottom line from leaders who innovate, motivate, develop, inspire, and take a long term view. Asked once to make the distinction, I proposed the aphorism that “managers enforce rules; leaders overcome them.”

As one might expect, the military studies leadership closely (e.g., US Army Field Manual 22-10) because the price of failure is so great. The first requirement is a long list of personal qualities such as honesty, integrity, loyalty, and persistence, which is to say character. Military leaders must be able to work as part of a team, but make quick decisions and take full responsibility for their actions in risky situations with incomplete, often misleading, information.

Not everyone sees leadership in positive terms. Freud (1960) said that leaders are “masterful, narcissistic, self-confident, and independent.” Lasswell’s “displacement hypothesis” (1960) attributes leadership to people trying to compensate for feelings of inadequacy by seeking and exercising power. Wolfenstein (1967) draws on the Oedipus conflict and on the third of Erikson’s eight stages in an effort to locate the motivational dynamics that impel men to lead revolutions. In the same vein, Mazlish (1976), drawing on Weber, identified a cluster of traits that “epitomize the revolutionary ascetic,” consisting of narcissism and self-denial with libidinous aspects. Rejai and Phillips (1979), pulling all these strands together, identified revolutionary leaders as typically being in their 30s and 40s, middle class members of the ethnic majority within their own societies, better educated than average, male, from large rural families but with significant exposure to urban life and foreign cultures and ideas, and who have been in prison. They began as reformers motivated by perceived injustices, were disillusioned by failure to correct them, then rejected whatever social system they lived in and turned to revolution. They exhibit some or all of seven personality characteristics:

· Asceticism and puritanism

· Egotism, narcissism, and vanity

· Inferiority complex and compulsion to excel

· Marginalization

· Oedipal complex

· Relative deprivation

· Romanticism

These ideas are highly speculative, rest on a few anecdotes from existing biographies rather than direct evaluation, fail to explain why others with the same characteristics do not become revolutionary leaders, ignore historical circumstance, and are essentially untestable except perhaps by identifying leaders who do not possess the characteristics postulated. The most obvious examples of revolutionary leaders who do not fit the model, and thus put the model in question, are those of the American Revolution. Reif (1965) argues that Freudian and therapeutic approaches are inferior to older understandings of society and man.