Drucker (2008, p288) defines a leader as an
individual who is capable of ‘lifting a person’s vision to higher sights, the
raising of a person’s performance to higher standards, and the building of
personality beyond its normal limitations’. A number of models have been
proposed that aim to define the attributes of a leader.
Trait Theory proposed that leaders are born
and not made (Robbins, 2004) and attempted to investigate if
specific traits such as charisma, courage, passion and enthusiasm led to a
better leader. However, many deficiencies in such a proposition were identified
and found that ‘some traits increase the likelihood of success as a leader, but
none guarantee success’ (Robbins, 2004, p339).
Trait Theory gave way behavioral theories
such as those tested in the Ohio and Michigan State studies. These focused on
the belief that Initiating Structure and Consideration were vital for effective
leadership (Fleischman, 1953) . Such beliefs provided a
structure for the separation of leadership into personal and professional
leadership (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007) . However,
Bartol et al (2004, p403-404) believe that the idea of a “high-high” leader is
a myth and that ‘situational elements such as subordinate expectations and task
nature’ underpin better leadership behaviors.
A better business leader will be able to
modify their leadership style based on specific situations. Path-Goal and
Situational Leadership theory proposed that better leaders select a leadership
style that takes into account the willingness of the sub-ordinates to follow (Hershey & Blanchard, 1982) , the
characteristics of the sub-ordinates and environmental factors (House, 1971) .
In doing so, a better business leader will more easily engage co-operators who
willingly contribute their efforts to realize better business outcomes (Mastrangelo, Eddy, & Lorenzet, 2004)
It is shown that better business leaders
are able to genuinely earn the trust and respect of their followers,
demonstrate consistency of values, morals and integrity and understand that
they alone cannot achieve greatness – it is their ability to motivate and
inspire the power and ability of the collective that will define their success
as a better business leader.
The question of what makes a “better”
business leader is the topic of continual academic research and hypothesis.
Over the past 50 years over 1,000 studies (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007) have explored
why business leadership is important, what skills, attributes and traits define
a leader and the impacts of the leader on subordinates and peers. Whilst the
research supports no single definition or answer to these questions there is a
commonly accepted hypothesis that a person is not born a great leader (Durcker, 2008) though through the application
of leadership theory in demonstrable behaviors, beliefs, processes and
practices one can be considered a great leader by their peers and subordinates.
Leadership theory developed and matured
with evolving technology, business practices and global events. The Rational
Goal (1900-1925), Internal Process
(1900-1925), Human Relations (1926-195), Open Systems (1971-1975) and The
Integrated Approach (1975) models all provide varying levels of effectiveness,
emphasis and role definition. As there is no one size fits all approach to
leadership, the acknowledgement that traits, behaviors and motivations vary for
each individual and the ability to capitalize on these (Buckingham, 2005) unique attributes in varying
situations is key to better leadership.
This paper contends that individuals with good
self-awareness and understanding that beneficial business outcomes are more
readily achieved by organizations whose employees demonstrate leadership that
inspire staff toward honest, willing and committed participation in the
activities of the business make better business leaders. This is further bettered
by converting awareness of leadership theory, life experiences and values into
specific behaviors and actions (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007) that
transform the peer/subordinate relationship from one of management to one of the
more desired leadership.
Within this contention, we seek to
understand what makes a better business leader. One may question better
compared to what and how is one leader “better” than another ? The Cambridge
dictionary defines “better” as “comparative
of good; of a higher standard, or more suitable, pleasing or effective than
other things or people”. For the purpose of this contention, we shall imply
that a better business leader is one who is more effective and efficient at
achieving business outcomes than another.
This contention is explored through a
literature review focusing on fundamental management models (Taylor, Fayol and
Weber, Mayo, Rothslinger, McGregor, Maslow, Herzberg, Katz and Khan et. al),
genuine and authentic leadership (Buckingham, 2005) , and The Theory of The Business (Durcker, 2008) . Supported by
evidence taken from case studies, research and personal experience it will be
shown that better business leaders are able to develop a deep and personal
integration of these theories and demonstrate this through actions and behaviors,
ultimately proven by improved business outcomes.
No single approach to leadership can be
clearly identified as the “right” approach. Studies have been undertaken from a
number of perspectives (Mastrangelo, Eddy, & Lorenzet, 2004) in an attempt
to validate and prove a number of hypotheses; from the Open Systems Model (Katz & Kahn, 1966) and the
Integrated Model (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002) to situational
theory (Hershey & Blanchard, 1982) and The
Theory Of The Business (Durcker, 2008) . No definition, traits,
attributes, values and/or behaviors have been identified that definitively
encompass what it is that makes a better business leader. However, these
theories support the contention in as much as collectively they highlight the
importance of self-awareness, staff engagement and willingness in leadership.
In 2004, Robbins proposed that ‘leaders are
born, rather than created’. This proposition would render the contention invalid
as it would be impossible to make a better business leader. Over time
and through the maturing of leadership theory, specific traits and qualities
were attached to leadership in an effort to distinguish good and poor
leadership. However, the realization that some traits improve the likely
outcome of leadership, though “none guarantee success” (Robbins, 2004) lead to significant limitations
of trait theory. The contention is non-specific in relation to its breadth of
applicability. Specifically, the one-size fits all approach, especially that of
trait theory, failed to consider that differing management situations and characteristics
that may give the perception of leadership rather than a measure of actual
performance and the possible “elitist” concept of leadership may discourage
those without obvious leadership traits from pursuing leadership positions. As
such trait theory fails to support the contention as it doesn’t take into
account situational leadership which is an essential capability of a better
business leader.
As leaders cannot succeed on their own (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007) it is
important that they balance concern for people (relationships) and concern for
tasks (production). The Ohio state studies explored definition and structure of
work and implied that a better business leader would be able to structure their
role and the role of their subordinates in an effort to attain a goal (Fleischman, 1953) .
Additionally, to have relationships defined by mutual trust, respect for
sub-ordinate ideas and regards for their feelings (Fleischman,
1953) .
This study lends weight to the contention by validating the importance of
specific values such as trust and respect in better business leadership.
Similarly, the Michigan study further
explored task and relationship oriented behaviors and suggested that there are
three types of leader behaviors; Autocratic – unilateral decision making,
punitive feedback; Democratic – Participative decision making, feedback for
coaching and support; and Laissez-faire – gives complete freedom, avoids
feedback (Likert, 1961) . It is reasonable to conclude
from these studies that an individual who can balance both task and
relationship behaviors will be a better business leader. The contention implies
a better business leader must have a strong understanding of both the theory of
the business and the impact of relationship behaviors and as such the outcomes
of the Michigan studies lend further weight and validation to the contention.
Blake and Mouton (1964) suggested that a
leadership grid (see Figure 1) integrating
both the Ohio and Michigan studies could classify leadership based on specific behaviors
rather than specific traits. This led to the concept that there is a “best” way
to lead people (Blake & Mouton, 1964) – commonly
called the 9,9 way.
The Blake and Mouton’s model came into
question as it failed to clarify whether a single leadership behavior was adequate
to derive maximum benefit in all situations. A better business leader within
the context of the contention should be able to adapt their leadership style
based on the situation. Path-Goal and Situational Leadership theory proposed
that leaders should select a leadership style that takes into account the
willingness of the sub-ordinates to follow (Hershey & Blanchard, 1982) , the
characteristics of the sub-ordinates and environmental factors (House, 1971) .
In doing so, a better business leader will more easily engage co-operators who
willingly contribute their efforts to realize better business outcomes (Mastrangelo, Eddy, & Lorenzet, 2004) . Hershey and
Blanchard support the contention by confirming that a better business leader
must understand the skill and experience of their employees and select the most
appropriate leadership style suitable for them and the specific situation.
Evans (1970, p277) proposes that “the
individual’s perception of how his action or behavior (path) may be related to
the individual’s idiosyncratic outcomes (goals)” allowing Path-Goal theory to
cater for individuality in the peer/sub-ordinate and provides a model that
links leadership behaviors, situational factors to a desired end result.
However, such a model does not take into consideration the benefits of
emotional awareness .According to Goleman (1998), emotional intelligence and
awareness enhances the likelihood of being a better business leader. Such
emotional awareness is said to lead to six leadership styles (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002) 1) Visionary
2) Coaching 3) Affiliative 4) Democratic 5) Pacesetting 6) Commanding. The
contention is in agreement with Goleman who supports the position that a better
business leader should be able to determine the appropriate style based on the
situation.
The literature reinforces the contention is
as much as those who are in tune with themselves, with others and with their
environment/situation make better business leaders. However, as suggested by
Druker (1994) too many people work in ways that are not their natural style and
this “almost always leads to nonperformance” (Durcker, 2008) .
George, Sims, McLean and Mayer understood this and proposed that leaders
are primarily driven by intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. These motivations
are underpinned by a sense of meaning to life and measurement of success
against outside world parameters (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007) . Therefore, in
agreement with the contention, a better business leader would be “authentic”,
demonstrate a passion for their purpose, consistently practice their values and
lead with their hearts as well as their heads. (George, Sims,
McLean, & Mayer, 2007) .
In 2004, Mastrangelo, Eddy and Lorenzet
proposed that effective leaders engage in both professional and personal
leadership behaviors. Further, they suggest that personal leadership “mediates”
the relationship between professional leadership and willing co-operation.
This is reflected in the contention and is
best supported by Kouzes and Posner who propose that “excellent” leaders
exhibit these behaviors in at least 5 practices; 1) Challenge the process –
take risks and learn from success and failure 2) Inspire a shared vision –
communicate a vision and persuade others to commit to it 3) Enable others to
act – foster collaboration and get people to work together 4) Model the way –
act as a role model and set people up for success 5) Encourage the heart –
reward individual contribution and celebrate group success (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) .
Each of these behaviors are implicit in the contention further strengthening
that argument that better business leadership requires awareness of leadership
theory, life experiences and values into specific behaviors and actions.
Whilst, personal leadership may carry the
professional message, the leader must be intimately familiar with the
assumptions on which the organization is based (Durcker, 2008) . Mastrangelo, Eddy and Lorenzet
suggest that professional leadership is positively related to willing
co-operation. This would support the contention that better leaders must cater
for both the heart and the head.
Darling (1999) articulated this in his
“Model of Keys to Success and Leadership Strategies” in which four leadership
strategies were identified 1) Attention Through Vision 2) Meaning Through
Communication 3) Confidence Through Respect 4) Trust Through Positioning. Such
strategies are in agreement with the visionary style of leadership identified
by Goleman (2002), Kouzes and Posners concept of “Model The Way” and the
importance of authenticity (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007) .
The implied behaviors and actions within
the stated contention require the consistent demonstration of authentic and
trustworthy behaviors (rather than traits) that connect to their peers and
sub-ordinates in a meaningful and “human” way. Such a connection provides a
medium that carries the professional message (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007) , vision and
common purpose to such an extent that unknowingly the peer/subordinate becomes
a willing participant in the actions that fulfill the goals of the business.
Though the literature supports varying
models, interpretations and definitions, one may reasonably conclude that there
is sufficient literary evidence to robustly support the stated contention.
There is no doubt that the financial turn
around of Continental Airlines during the period 1994 to 1997 was remarkable.
However, one cannot overlook the critical role leadership took in achieving
such an outstanding result. Facing almost certain financial ruin, Brenneman and
George Bethune (CEO) devised a “Go Forward Plan” to save Continental. Whilst
the financial and commercial aspects of this plan are interesting, it is clear
that the link between leadership behaviors, actions and business outcomes are a
central theme in the ultimate successful application of the strategy.
Coming from a middle class background, Greg
Brenneman had little operational experience when appointed Chief Operating
Officer in 1994. By no means would Brenneman be considered a “born leader”,
however, from the outset he knew that Continental would fail unless everyone in
the company pulled together (Brenneman, 1998) . He achieved this by creating a
“go forward plan” which at its core inspired a shared vision. Supported by the
concepts of Kouzes and Posner the intent of this vision was to ensure that
every employee was heading in the same direction. However, Brenneman was aware
that the staff needed to “buy-in” to this vision and plan, and as such he sold
it to them with “energetic zeal” (Brenneman, 1998, p. 168) . He also
understood that the success of the plan needed to be “tracked relentlessly” (Brenneman, 1998, p. 168) developing a
sense of shared accountability for the outcomes.
Such an approach is in agreement with the
proposition that better business leaders are able to address both professional
and personal leadership (Mastrangelo, Eddy, & Lorenzet, 2004) . By coupling
the shared vision with strong performance metric monitoring, Brenneman
understood that the customers of Continental would experience an improved product
and Continental would become an airline of choice (Brenneman, 1998) . This in turn, would yield
improved business outcomes for staff and shareholders.
Through the “Go Forward Plan” a new
corporate culture was created. By restoring employee confidence in management
and the establishment of a co-operative atmosphere between working groups a
results oriented work environment was built. This was achieved through a
top-down ethos of teamwork, dignity, respect and collaboration. The
demonstration of these personal leadership behaviors led to the willing
co-operation of staff which ultimately (though not solely) made a major
contribution to the successful turn-around.
Though Brenneman undertook many complex and
difficult professional leadership actions including down sizing, refinancing
debt and restructuring the organization, one could conclude that his personal
awareness and understanding of the situation was a key factor in his success.
The development and execution of the strategy was of paramount importance (Nohria, Joyce, & Robertson, 2003) , though by
identifying the most appropriate leadership style for the situation Brenneman
was able to engage his staff and his customers. This is highlighted by his
“listening to the customer in seat 9C” example, where after understanding the
needs of the customer he employed the innovation, consultation and democratic
styles across the business to ensure the customers needs were met – “when the
customers won, the employees did too” (Brenneman, 1998, p. 174)
Brenneman refers to many intimate emotions
and feelings ranging from painful, embarrassed, humbling and confession,
demonstrating his deep understanding that “strong leadership is imperative” (Brenneman, 1998, p. 176) and personal.
He further acknowledges that the most important job of the leader is to
cultivate honesty, trust, dignity and respect (Brenneman, 1998) – “they all go together; they
reinforce one another” (Brenneman, 1998, p. 176) .
Brenneman unknowingly used a deep and
personal integration of leadership theory to drive his actions and behaviors.
The success of which was ultimately proven by the financial outcomes of the
company.
One can never be confident that they are a
better business leader and surely could never place themselves in the same
realm as true business leaders like Jack Welch, John Chambers, Richard Branson
or Steve Jobs. However, one can only do their best to honor and respect the
effort, passion and energy of their staff and peers.
Personal experience has led me to believe
that being a better business leader is not achieved by being smarter, faster or
“better” than my peers and competitors – it is achieved by energizing, exciting
and empowering those around me, by focusing their efforts on a common goal and
together relentlessly striving for continual better outcomes.
In my various roles at senior levels in the
telecommunications industry both locally in Australia and overseas I have led
technical organizations through mergers and acquisitions, initial public offerings
and through insolvency – the one common thread across all situations is the
unwavering needs of my staff to believe in the “end game” and to trust in their
leadership to “win” this game. In my younger years, I found it confusing that
even facing adversity, provided there was a clear goal and honest and open
communication, staff would be committed and willingly engage their energy to
the fulfillment of the goals. On reflection, this is in alignment with Kouzes
and Posners “encourage the heart” and “create a shared vision”.
I have learnt over the years, through
observation, painful lessons and heartwarming experiences, that leadership is
about people, listening, showing respect and understanding that your colleagues
experience feelings and emotions in response to each word, each action and each
decision taken by their leaders, managers and peers. I have concluded that
there is no single management or leadership theory that will make the best
business leader – though by understanding, integrating and demonstrating
consistent values, morals and integrity, one can strive to be a “better”
business leader. Through my experiences I propose that the stated contention is
valid.
It has been shown that a better business
leader is one who achieves better business outcomes by selecting the most
appropriate leadership model depending on the situation and the needs of their
follower. It is clear that there is no right or wrong answer to what makes a
better business leader, however, specific behaviors and actions are more likely
to solicit willing co-operation from peers and sub-ordinates. These behaviors
and actions are underpinned by a consistent and moral value system based on
trust, integrity, caring, sharing and honesty.
Drucker said “A person is not born a great
leader and traits such as charisma have little bearing on one’s success in a
leadership role” (Durcker, 2008, p. 147) . As shown by
Brenneman of Continental Airlines when a leader shows “leadership” behaviors such
as trust, integrity, caring, sharing and honesty with authenticity and
discipline, better business outcomes are more easily achieved – personal traits
and characteristics are not significant factors in being a better business
leader.
A better business leader is a leader who is
able to genuinely earn the trust and respect of their followers, is able to
demonstrate consistency of values, morals and integrity and understand that
they alone cannot achieve greatness – it is their ability to motivate and inspire
the power and ability of the collective that will define their success as a
better business leader.
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964).
The Management Grid. Houston, Texas, USA: Gulf Publishing.
Brenneman,
G. (1998). Right Away and All at Once: How We Saved Continental. Harvard
Business Review , 76 (5), 162-164.
Buckingham,
M. (2005). What Great Managers Do. Harvard Business Review .
Durcker,
P. (2008). Management (Revised Edition). 280-291.
Evans, M.
(1970). The Efficiency of Supervisory Behaviors on the Path-Goal
Relationship, Organisational Behavior and Human Performance.
Fleischman,
E. (1953). The Description of Supervisory Behaviour. Personnel Psychology
, 37, pp. 1-6.
George,
B., Sims, P., McLean, A., & Mayer, D. (2007). Discovering your authentic
leadership. Hardvard Business Review .
Goleman,
D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). The New Leaders (Vol. Ch.4).
London, The United Kingdom: Little Brown.
Hershey,
P., & Blanchard, K. (1982). Management of Behavior: Utilizing Human
Resources (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
House, R.
(1971). A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly , 16, pp. 321-339.
Katz, D.,
& Kahn, R. (1966). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York,
NYC, USA: Wiley.
Kouzes,
J., & B, P. (1987). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco, CA,
USA: Jossey-Bass.
Likert, R.
(1961). New Patterns of Management. New York, NYC, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Mastrangelo,
A., Eddy, E., & Lorenzet, S. (2004). The importance of personal and
professonal leadership. The leadership & organisational development
journal , 25 (5), 435-451.
Nohria,
N., Joyce, W., & Robertson, B. (2003, July). What Really Works. Harvard
Business Review , 43-52.
Robbins,
S. (2004). Organization Behavior (11th ed.). New Jersey, USA: Prentice
Hall.
