Looking for leadership: What's in a definition

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


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


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,


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

http://Dictionary.reference.com/


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?



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



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


(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.

http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-131053.html


http://www.managementconsultingnews.com/interviews/kouzes_interview.php



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.



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



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

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/do_or_do_not-there_is_no_try/250565.html



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


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



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


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


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.


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,


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.


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



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.








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.

http://tr.51job.com/kbc/index.php

Looking for leadership: What's in a definition

Documents

Transcript of Looking for leadership: What's in a definition