Post on 21-Feb-2023
Yudess, 2011 Page1 of 21
Looking for leadership: What’s in a definition?
People watch the leaders around the world and expect each
one to solve the economic, political, social and global issues of
their own and other countries or they make different assumptions
and decisions and expect them to fail. All, including scholars
and researchers, have opinions of how leaders should think, feel
and act. These definitions are not necessarily right or wrong,
they just disagree depending on context, circumstances and
personal experiences. It is rather like the old complaints about
food in a school or hospital; nobody cooks like everybody’s
mother used to cook. No leader will please everyone, nor will
everyone consider a given person a leader.
What is the concept we call leadership? It is interesting to
note that one researcher (Rost, 1993) analyzed 221 definitions of
leadership and the origins of the word before developing his own.
He asserted that most definitions were not multidisciplinary or
generalizable. From the trait and behavioral theories at the
early part of the last century to the modern approaches of
transformational, transcendent, authentic and emergent
Yudess, 2011 Page2 of 21
leadership, we have learned about behaviors, traits, styles,
theories and philosophies of working with people to get things
done. Rost (1993) postulates that definitions proffered often
suggest a style, a discipline, or a specific field in which the
author operates, but we have not defined the essential nature of
leadership in a way that everyone has accepted. Without an
accepted definition, we are often talking at cross purposes.
Constructionists would work toward a definition of the moment in
each circumstance. Pragmatists would pick one definition as the
paradigm and go with it forever. Students look up a definition
of the word and accept what they find, though they interpret the
words in the definition as they commonly understand the words.
The concern is that the full explanation and understanding of the
definitions by researchers may not be in a sentence, but in an
entire book – which students often don’t read. According to Rost
(1993), “It is the responsibility of the leadership scholars and
practicing leaders (the high priests of leadership studies) to
pass on an accurate understanding of leadership to succeeding
generations” (p.8) and “A clear definition of leadership is
Yudess, 2011 Page3 of 21
crucial to leaders’ and followers’ making a difference in
organizations and societies in the twenty-first century” (p. 8).
How do we define leadership in common terms to promote
understanding of the leadership paradigm we’d like to convey so
that students, practitioners or anyone can make a difference?
Granted, this suggests that there still may be as many
definitions as there are people wishing to identify a paradigm,
and, like other research studied, this work will be an
interpretation or personal view of leadership.
For the purposes of discussion, four commonly used
definitions; Northouse (2010); Kouzes and Posner (2010); Komives,
Lucas, and McMahon (2007); and Rost (1993) are examined to
outline the problem. Others could be examined in the same way.
The discussion includes language issues, potential
misunderstandings, and concepts to broaden understanding of what
definition issues might be. Finally, a new definition is offered
for further critique.
“Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a
group of individuals to achieve a common goal,” (Northouse, 2010,
Yudess, 2011 Page4 of 21
p. 3). Examine the various terms in the definition: process,
individual, influence, group and achieve a common goal. Process
is commonly used in other modern leadership definitions to
indicate that leadership is not a role. Process is generally
defined (http://Dictionary.reference.com) as “a systematic series
of actions directed to some end” or “a continuous action,
operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite
manner.” At first blush, it sounds similar to the definition of
leadership we’re examining. However, if we compare it to a
manufacturing process which also fits the definition, there are
some major differences. In manufacturing processes, the steps
are specific, prescribed, routine, definite, and mostly involve
machinery working correctly. Using process in the definition
leaves the impression that there is a specific, prescribed,
routine leadership process. In leadership, the steps, actions,
and even the leader are situational, ambiguous, complex, and
involve human beings with the attendant emotional components
assuring that everything will probably not go as planned. The
Yudess, 2011 Page5 of 21
leadership “process” then has so many levels with inherent risks
and opportunities, the word process does not cover all the bases.
Look at the word individual. Generally, that implies there
is one person who is charged with influencing others. As
research states (Boyatzis, Smith & Blaize, 2004; Cohen & Tichy,
1997; Fullan, 2002; Kouzes and Posner, 2007; Maxwell 2004) one of
the jobs of a leader is to develop other leaders and provide
opportunities for them to practice. If they are practicing, then
they, too, are developing other leaders. Individual is defined at
(http://Dictionary.reference.com) as:
1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
2. a person: a strange individual.
3. a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being,
instance, or item.
This indicates only one person as opposed to a developing group.
Might this also, inadvertently, reinforce stereotypical views of
leader as a white heterosexual male in a hierarchical position of
power?
Yudess, 2011 Page6 of 21
Influence sounds benign. What does it mean? From
http://Dictionary.reference.com, influence is “the capacity or
power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce
effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others.”
That doesn’t specify a positive influence. In that context,
shaming, threatening, torturing and blackmailing can be
influence, and not how we’d like leaders to operate. It allows
us to call Hitler a leader in the same sentence with Ghandi and
King.
Do leaders always need groups? There can be one other
person, there can be an organization (technically a collection of
groups according to Komives, et al., 2007) and, perhaps most
importantly, there can be self-leadership in which no one else is
involved. The skills of leadership are different in each of
these and require judicious use of different approaches at
different times.
There’s no problem with the phrase “achieve a common goal”
unless we look at it as the way a leader is defined. What if the
group doesn’t reach the goal, if not everyone agrees with the
Yudess, 2011 Page7 of 21
goal, or if the goal is changed? Does that mean there wasn’t
leadership? And if someone moves the group part way to the goal,
is that not leadership? Challenges could also be made to the
term common goal. It could be an individual’s goal, and often is
a goal chosen by the leader or the management of the
organization. Common goal only suggests that each is responsible
for the goal, not that they have any personal choice in it. It
could be an uncommon goal such as one held by a skunkworks team
outside of company standard goals, perhaps even unknown by
executive levels.
Popular in business circles, research-based authors, Kouzes
and Posner (1987, 1995, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2009, & 2010) have
written insightful and pragmatic material about leadership. In
this material, a reader is invited to follow the five practices
and ten commitments they elucidate as necessary for successful
leadership based on their studies. It is less clear how they
define leadership. From several sources, the definition was
shown as “leadership is the art of mobilizing others to struggle
for shared aspiration” (Kouzes & Posner, 2006, 2010). Their text
Yudess, 2011 Page8 of 21
(Kouzes & Posner, 2007) does not offer that definition, though a
online interview
http://www.managementconsultingnews.com/interviews/kouzes_intervi
ew.php with Kouzes in 2007, after the publication, quotes him
using the definition. Kouzes and Posner (2007) and the website
for the book
(http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-
131053.html) do not define leadership, they do define the book:
The Leadership Challenge is about how leaders mobilize others to
want to get extraordinary things done. It's about the
practices leaders use to transform values into actions,
visions into realities, obstacles into innovations,
separateness into solidarity, and risks into rewards. It's
about a climate in which people turn challenging
opportunities into remarkable successes (Kouzes & Posner,
2007, p. xi).
The early definition, however, is still seen in Kouzes and Posner
(2010), p. 12. It is not clear if their definition has changed
or if they simply chose not to focus on it in each publication.
Yudess, 2011 Page9 of 21
It is that definition, “the art of mobilizing others to want to
struggle for shared aspirations,” then, that is examined here.
In this definition, “process” becomes “art.” Art comes
closer to the actions of a leader who must be flexible and fluid
with situational, ambiguous, and complex challenges and with
interpersonal relationships. The definition
(http://Dictionary.reference.com) of art in this context varies
from “the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of
learning” to “skill in conducting any human activity.”
“Mobilizing” gives the impression again that the leader is
in charge. It is often used in terms of getting troops and
supplies ready for war. The metaphor may have been used to
indicate how a leader organizes and prepares people for work with
the intent of motivating them. This is also shown by the words
“mobilizing them to want to struggle.” While the outcome may be
desired, the implication of leader power draws critique,
particularly from those who believe motivation comes from within
the person.
Yudess, 2011 Page10 of 21
The word “others” is problematic. Other is one of the first
concepts we learn as babies and means those things that are not
part of us and so are different, perhaps even strange. Thus, it
is an exclusionary term putting those “others” in a different
status category. It seems impersonal, too, for authors whose
tenets include “Foster collaboration by building trust and
facilitating relationships. (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 26)”
Struggle has several meanings
(http://Dictionary.reference.com): “to contend with an adversary
or opposing force; to contend resolutely with a task, problem,
etc.; strive; to advance with violent effort; or (in athletes and
competitors) to be coping with inability to perform well or to
win; contend with difficulty.” None of these present a positive
view of the world of work or create inspiration in students.
“Shared aspirations” does give the impression of constituent
involvement in decision making regarding those aspirations. It
is important to examine how those aspirations are considered to
be shared. Are they generated and agreed upon by a group or does
the leader develop the vision and share it with the people as in
Yudess, 2011 Page11 of 21
Puccio, Mance and Murdock (2011), “Creative leadership is the
ability to deliberately engage one’s imagination to define and
guide a group toward a novel goal” (p. xviii). It is expected
that shared aspirations includes shared rewards, though in the
Kouzes and Posner or the Puccio, Mance and Murdock definitions,
it is not explicit that the outcomes benefit everyone.
“Leadership is a relational and ethical process of people
together attempting to accomplish positive change,” according to
Komives, Lucas and McMahon (2007, p. 13). This addresses the
potential concerns about individual, group and, to some degree,
accomplishing change. It specifies that the changes are positive
and the means are ethical. It explicates the concepts of
relationship, ethics and working together, though again using
“process,” eliciting the same remarks on the imprecise nature of
leadership as the Northouse (2010) definition. Attempting is a
word of concern. Basically, attempt means to try. In the
immortal words of Yoda from Star Wars, “Do or do not, there is no
try” (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/do_or_do_not-
there_is_no_try/250565.html). Others say that trying is doing
Yudess, 2011 Page12 of 21
with the intent to fail. A favorite excuse for failure is,
“Well, I tried.” Maybe another word here would be more
inspiring.
Rost (1993) proposed that "Leadership is an influence
relationship among leaders and collaborators who intend real
changes that reflect their mutual purposes" (p. 102). This
definition implies that leaders and collaborators are on an equal
level. It specifies intention for change, not requiring
accomplishment of the change. And “mutual purposes” clearly
indicates the concept of shared goals. Still, influence is a
sticking point when that word is defined.
Without meaning any offense to these or other researchers,
it isn’t difficult to see why there isn’t common agreement on a
leadership definition. Some of the issues are semantic, some are
philosophical, some are emotional, and some have other substance.
But, looking at these alternatives helps each one of us
personally conceptualize the meaning and implications of
leadership. Perhaps that is the best way after all: each person
decides what leadership means and builds personal leadership
Yudess, 2011 Page13 of 21
practices based on that understanding. The difficulty is for
leadership students who could make great use of an inspiring
concept definition.
In fairness, it isn’t right to critique other definitions
without offering alternatives that can also be challenged.
Starting with the concept of leadership as a process, how might
it be explained in a way that is indicative of the complexity,
ambiguity and lack of standard outcomes in leadership? Yudess
(2010) connects the studies of leadership and creativity to
understand how these two concepts work together to address those
concerns. Zacko-Smith (2009) offered a definition to
differentiate creative leadership from change leadership
describing creative leadership as a relational process of
bringing ideas into being to accomplish positive change.
Facilitation is a possibility. The definitions
(http://Dictionary.reference.com) of facilitate include “to make
easier or less difficult; help forward (an action, a process,
etc.); to assist the progress of.” That is, the act of making
something easier. Any person in a group could perform small or
Yudess, 2011 Page14 of 21
large actions that make it easier for the group to move forward.
It does not have to be a planned event; it can happen in a moment
or more long term. It involves each person taking leadership
responsibility for assisting the group in moving toward those
shared goals. Rost (1993) says that group facilitation is not
leadership. Facilitation is more concerned with process,
environment, and internal or external client satisfaction than
product. This would suggest caring enough for the group to
facilitate progress in a positive and supportive manner.
Facilitation does offer other implications. In creative
problem solving, the facilitator stays out of content, focusing
on process (Puccio, Mance &Murdock, 2011). This does not mean
the facilitator is not aware of the goal. The facilitator finds
ways to make it easier for the group to meet the goal in their
own way, not by the leader’s prescription. By not focusing on
outcome, the facilitator takes personal preferences and ego out
of the equation. This makes ethical action a probability. A
leader who takes this position does not abdicate responsibility
for decisions, but assists others in reaching appropriate
Yudess, 2011 Page15 of 21
decisions, trusting them and the problem solving and decision
making processes to move in the right direction. This does not
imply that the leader never takes a directive role, but that the
leader and the group are both aware of the hats a leader wears
and are clear when each one is worn. In the 1980’s, Donald
Quinlan of Graphic Controls Corporation (personal experience)
defined this as three types of decisions: those pushed down to
the level of responsibility on the manufacturing or department
floor, those in which he sought opinions from everyone and then
made an informed decision, and those in which he alone would make
the decision based on proprietary or legal information and
responsibilities. He pushed decisions downward as much as
possible and trusted the people with all the information they
needed to make good decisions. This trust was rewarded with a
strong work ethic, loyalty to the company, and maintenance of
information privacy outside the company.
The emphasis facilitation places on environment (Amabile,
1983: Ekvall, 1996) ensures the comfort of constituents in freely
sharing and openly discussing new and different ideas, changes in
Yudess, 2011 Page16 of 21
procedures, group dynamics, and work flow. Time is provided for
these discussions and debates to take place. Interpersonal
conflict is low. Support is given for testing potential changes.
Creating shared visions, goals, etc. can be a lengthy
process as everyone participates in generating ideas, debating
merits, foreseeing potentials, and making decisions. Many
organizations do not do this believing that those not in
leadership positions have no skills, interest or time for such a
process. This is lack of trust which eventually undermines the
implementation of the plans because they are not truly shared.
That lack of trust is challenged in Kouzes and Posner (2007) who
state that you can enable others to act by fostering
collaboration by building trust and facilitating relationships
(p. 26). Parker (1991) outlines a method for facilitating an
entire organization to make shared visions happen.
So, as a trial balloon, leadership is a relationship facilitation in which
any person can take in-the-moment, ethical action to make it easier to move toward a
positive shared goal benefitting those involved and their organization.
Yudess, 2011 Page17 of 21
This is to indicate more strongly that leadership is not a
position. It is something anyone can do. Leadership can be
manifested in many ways, in varying degrees of importance or
difficulty. Leadership empowers people to reach for the shared
and personal goals. This kind of leadership develops truly
supportive, growing, interactive teams, and strong interdependent
individuals.
What about the hierarchical role? If teams were acting in
this way, could they share all responsibilities and not need a
person in a formal title role? It may be that organizations
would restructure to envelop this style and begin to trust teams
with the kind of information often reserved for hierarchical
positions. Certainly, it would be a paradigm shift of major
proportion for much of the world. Or perhaps, if all people in
hierarchical roles acted in this fashion, the distinction between
people would diminish and those roles would be more readily
accepted and appreciated.
Does this definition help students understand the nature of
leadership with all the positive, growth-oriented, motivational,
Yudess, 2011 Page18 of 21
and inspirational messages we want them to receive when they
learn about the field? Probably, it would not. It, like all the
others, would take more explanation. What it does, however, is
remove some of the words with vague or multiple meanings. Trying
it with students is a next step in this study.
Yudess, 2011 Page19 of 21
References
Amabile, T. M., (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A
componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45, 357-376.
Boyatzis, R. E.; Smith, M. L.; & Blaize, N. (2006). Developing
sustainable leaders through coaching and compassion. Academy of
Management Journal on Learning and Education, 5, 8-24
Boyatzis, Smith & Blaize, 2004; Cohen & Tichy, 1997; Fullan,
2002; Kouzes and Posner, 2007; Maxwell 2004
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc.
Cohen, E. & Tichy, N. (1997). How Leaders Develop Leaders.
Training & Development, 51, 58-70.
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and
innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5,
105-123.
Fullan, M. (2002) The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59, pp.
16–20.
http://Dictionary.reference.com, retrieved May 12, 2011
Yudess, 2011 Page20 of 21
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/do_or_do_not-there_is_no_try/
250565.html, retrieved May 12, 2011
http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-
131053.html, retrieved May 12, 2011
McLaughlin, M. (2007). Meet the masterminds: James Kouzes on the
Challenge of Leadership. Management Consulting News. retrieved May
12, 2011 from
http://www.managementconsultingnews.com/interviews/kouze s_inte
rview.php,
Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2007). Exploring
leadership: For college students who want to make a difference, 2nd Ed. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2010). The Leadership Challenge
Workshop, Participant Workbook, 4th Edition. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2006). The Leadership Challenge Workshop
Facilitator’s Guide, 3rd edition. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1987, 1995, 2002, 2007). The
leadership challenge, (1st - 4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John
Wiley & Sons.
Yudess, 2011 Page21 of 21
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The leadership challenge
workbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice, 5th Ed..
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Parker, M. (1991). Creating shared vision: The story of a pioneering approach to
organizational revitalization. England: Dialog Intl.
Puccio, G. J., Mance, M. & Murdock, M. C. (2011). Creative
leadership: Skills that drive change, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New
York: Praeger.
The Ken Blanchard Companies (2007). A situational approach to
managing people. Ignite! Newsletter, http://tr.51job.com/kbc/index.php.
Yudess, J. A. (2010) The synergies, efficacies and strategies of teaching
creativity and leadership together: A grounded theory. Unpublished
doctoral thesis, St. John Fisher College, Rochester, NY.
Zacko-Smith, J. D. (2009). Creative Leadership Model. Unpublished
paper, Buffalo State College, Buffalo, NY.