I like to question a lot of mainstream concepts. I believe that there is a lot of opportunities for a smart and thoughtful businessman to make a lot of money on teaching leadership concepts and ideas. The fact that leadership doesn't have a standardized definition and that leadership researchers haven't been able to identify in an objective way what differentiates non-leaders from leaders (Bennis, W., & Nanus, B., 1985), there's a lot of business opportunities for thought leaders to define their own version of leadership and influence others to believe in the same leadership concepts and philosophies.
According to Germaine, M. (2008), over the last decade, we have seen several leadership theories influence the business community. Based on the work of Germaine, M. (2008), we are able to understand that we successively had the Great Man Theory (1900s), the Trait Theory (1940s-1950s), the Behavioral Theory (1950s-1960s), the Contingency Theory (1960s-1970s), the Participative Theory, the Situational Theory (1960s), the Transactional Theory (1970s) and the Transformational Theory (1980s). Interestingly, Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007), explains how the context in history had a great influence on how leadership theorists defined leadership and leadership traits. For example, this is quite obvious for the Great Man Theory which emerged during a period where there were a lot of global wars and where the world relied on strong leaders who had this instinctive flair for leadership.
I believe that the Situational Theory has had a big influence on the leadership and business community. I've watched a lot of interviews of high profile leaders and they are often asked about their leadership philosophies and very often these leaders will respond that "it depends on the situation". There is a global understanding that the context matters. Situations have a huge influence on how the leader behaves and how his environment reacts to his behavior. According to philosophers like Hegel and Spencer, leaders are "merely puppets of social forces" (Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G., 2007). There is a chaotic situation and at this moment, a leader steps up to ensure that the collective welfare of the group is maximized. For example, a leader who has to motivate his staff when the business is performing really well and the same leader who has to motivate his staff when things are going wrong will not communicate in the same way. If he doesn't adjust to the context, he won't be able to get the results that he is looking for. We can easily understand the differences that will be seen by the followers in the leader's tone of voice, body language and the words that he will use to influence his subordinates.
I have seen that depending on the urgency of the situation, I will either adapt a more authoritarian leadership style or a participative leadership style. For example, I am working on a business project with a partner and I am very relentless in how things should move forward so that we can meet our deadlines. I am very laid back and hands-off when I feel that we have time to polish our work and show it to our clients. However, when we are time-bound, I will enforce my ideas because I have more experience in this field and I believe that we cannot miss these opportunities. In that chaotic moment, I know that my leadership style will be very different because I want to achieve the end result.
References:
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper
Germaine, M. (2008). Traits and Skills Theories as the Nexus between Leadership and Expertise: Reality or Fallacy? Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Research Conference in the Americas (Panama City, FL, Feb 20-24, 2008). Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/
Comments