xCEO offers email address to all CEOs.
Leadership involves an element of vision — except in cases of involuntary
leadership and often in cases of traditional leadership. A vision provides
direction to the influence process. A leader (or group of leaders) can have one
or more visions of the future to aid them to move a group successfully towards
this goal. A vision, for effectiveness, should allegedly:
* appear as a simple, yet vibrant, image in the mind of the leader
* describe a future state, credible and preferable to the present state
* act as a bridge between the current state and a future optimum state
* appear desirable enough to energize followers
* succeed in speaking to followers at an emotional or spiritual level (logical
appeals by themselves seldom muster a following)
For leadership to occur, according to this theory, some people ("leaders") must
communicate the vision to others ("followers") in such a way that the followers
adopt the vision as their own. Leaders must not just see the vision themselves,
they must have the ability to get others to see it also. Numerous techniques aid
in this process, including: narratives, metaphors, symbolic actions, leading by
example, incentives, and penalties.
Stacey (1992) has suggested that the emphasis on vision puts an unrealistic
burden on the leader. Such emphasis appears to perpetuate the myth that an
organization must depend on a single, uncommonly talented individual to decide
what to do. Stacey claims that this fosters a culture of dependency and
conformity in which followers take no pro-active incentives and do not think
independently.
kanungo's charismatic leadership model describes the role of the vision in three
stages that are continuously ongoing, overlapping one another. Assessing the
status quo, formulation and articulation of the vision, and implementation of
the vision. This model suggests effective leadership needs these behaviors
Leadership's relation with management
Some commentators link leadership closely with the idea of management. Some
regard the two as synonymous, and others consider management a subset of
leadership. If one accepts this premise, one can view leadership as:
* centralized or decentralized
* broad or focused
* decision-oriented or morale-centred
* intrinsic or derived from some authority
Any of the bipolar labels traditionally ascribed to management style could also
apply to leadership style. Hersey and Blanchard use this approach: they claim
that management merely consists of leadership applied to business situations; or
in other words: management forms a sub-set of the broader process of leadership.
They put it this way: "Leadership occurs any time one attempts to influence the
behavior of an individual or group, regardless of the reason. . . . Management
is a kind of leadership in which the achievement of organizational goals is
paramount."
However, a clear distinction between management and leadership may nevertheless
prove useful. This would allow for a reciprocal relationship between leadership
and management, implying that an effective manager should possess leadership
skills, and an effective leader should demonstrate management skills. One clear
distinction could provide the following definition:
* Management involves power by position.
* Leadership involves power by influence.
Abraham Zaleznik (1977), for example, delineated differences between leadership
and management. He saw leaders as inspiring visionaries, concerned about
substance; while managers he views as planners who have concerns with process.
Warren Bennis (1989) further explicated a dichotomy between managers and
leaders. He drew twelve distinctions between the two groups:
* Managers administer, leaders innovate
* Managers ask how and when, leaders ask what and why
* Managers focus on systems, leaders focus on people
* Managers do things right, leaders do the right things
* Managers maintain, leaders develop
* Managers rely on control, leaders inspire trust
* Managers have a short-term perspective, leaders have a longer-term perspective
* Managers accept the status-quo, leaders challenge the status-quo
* Managers have an eye on the bottom line, leaders have an eye on the horizon
* Managers imitate, leaders originate
* Managers emulate the classic good soldier, leaders are their own person
* Managers copy, leaders show originality
Paul Birch (1999) also sees a distinction between leadership and management. He
observed that, as a broad generalization, managers concerned themselves with
tasks while leaders concerned themselves with people. Birch does not suggest
that leaders do not focus on "the task." Indeed, the things that characterise a
great leader include the fact that they achieve. Effective leaders create and
sustain competitive advantage through the attainment of cost leadership, revenue
leadership, time leadership, and market value leadership. Managers typically
follow and realize a leader's vision. The difference lies in the leader
realising that the achievement of the task comes about through the goodwill and
support of others (influence), while the manager may not.
This goodwill and support originates in the leader seeing people as people, not
as another resource for deployment in support of "the task". The manager often
has the role of organizing resources to get something done. People form one of
these resources, and many of the worst managers treat people as just another
interchangeable item. A leader has the role of causing others to follow a path
he/she has laid out or a vision he/she has articulated in order to achieve a
task. Often, people see the task as subordinate to the vision. For instance, an
organization might have the overall task of generating profit, but a good leader
may see profit as a by-product that flows from whatever aspect of their vision
differentiates their company from the competition.
Leadership does not only manifest itself as purely a business phenomenon. Many
people can think of an inspiring leader they have encountered who has nothing
whatever to do with business: a politician, an officer in the armed forces, a
Scout or Guide leader, a teacher, etc. Similarly, management does not occur only
as a purely business phenomenon. Again, we can think of examples of people that
we have met who fill the management niche in non-business organisations.
Non-business organizations should find it easier to articulate a
non-money-driven inspiring vision that will support true leadership. However,
often this does not occur.
Differences in the mix of leadership and management can define various
management styles. Some management styles tend to de-emphasize leadership.
Included in this group one could include participatory management, democratic
management, and collaborative management styles. Other management styles, such
as authoritarian management, micro-management, and top-down management, depend
more on a leader to provide direction. Note, however, that just because an
organisation has no single leader giving it direction, does not mean it
necessarily has weak leadership. In many cases group leadership (multiple
leaders) can prove effective. Having a single leader (as in dictatorship) allows
for quick and decisive decision-making when needed as well as when not needed.
Group decision-making sometimes earns the derisive label "committee-itis"
because of the longer times required to make decisions, but group leadership can
bring more expertise, experience, and perspectives through a democratic process.
Patricia Pitcher (1994) has challenged the bifurcation into leaders and
managers. She used a factor analysis technique on data collected over 8 years,
and concluded that three types of leaders exist, each with very different
psychological profiles. She characterises one group as imaginative, inspiring,
visionary, entrepreneurial, intuitive, daring, and emotional, and calls them
"artists". In a second grouping she places "craftsmen" as well-balanced, steady,
reasonable, sensible, predictable, and trustworthy. Finally she identifies
"technocrats" as cerebral, detail-oriented, fastidious, uncompromising, and
hard-headed. She speculates that no one profile offers a preferred leadership
style. She claims that if we want to build, we should find an "artist leader";
if we want to solidify our position, we should find a "craftsman leader"; and if
we have an ugly job that needs to get done (like downsizing), we should find a
"technocratic leader." Pitcher also observed that a balanced leader exhibiting
all three sets of traits occurs extremely rarely: she found none in her study.
Bruce Lynn postulates a differentiation between 'Leadership' and ‘Management’
based on perspectives to risk. Specifically, “A Leader optimises upside
opportunity; a Manager minimises downside risk.” He argues that successful
executives need to apply both disciplines in a balance appropriate to the
enterprise and its context. Leadership without Management yields steps forward,
but as many if not more steps backwards. Management without Leadership avoids
any step backwards, but doesn’t move forward.
Leadership by a group
In contrast to individual leadership, some organizations have adopted group
leadership. In this situation, more than one person provides direction to the
group as a whole. Some organizations have taken this approach in hopes of
increasing creativity, reducing costs, or downsizing. Others may see the
traditional leadership of a boss as costing too much in team performance. In
some situations, the maintenance of the boss becomes too expensive - either by
draining the resources of the group as a whole, or by impeding the creativity
within the team, even unintentionally.
A common example of group leadership involves cross-functional teams. A team of
people with diverse skills and from all parts of an organization assembles to
lead a project. A team structure can involve sharing power equally on all
issues, but more commonly uses rotating leadership. The team member(s) best able
to handle any given phase of the project become(s) the temporary leader(s).
For example, the Orpheus orchestra has performed for over thirty years without a
conductor -- that is, without a sole leader. As a team of over 25 members, it
has drawn discriminating audiences, and has produced over 60 recordings for
Deutsche Grammophon in successful competition with other world-class
orchestras.[8]
Rather than an autocratic or charismatic conductor deciding the overall
conception of a work and then dictating how each individual is to perform the
individual tasks, the Orpheus team generally selects a different "core group"
for each piece of music. The core group provides leadership in working out the
details of the piece, and presents their ideas to the whole team. Members of the
whole team then participate in refining the final conception, rehearsal, and
product, including checking from various places in the auditorium how the sound
balances and verifying the quality of the final recording.
At times the entire Orpheus team may follow a single leader, but whom the team
follows rotates from task to task, depending on the capabilities of its members.
The orchestra has developed seminars and training sessions for adapting the
Orpheus Process to business.
Co-leadership
As a compromise between individual leadership and an open group, leadership
structures of two or three people or entities occur commonly. Ancient Rome
preferred two consuls to a single king, and the Roman Empire grew to accommodate
two Emperors - those of the East and of the West - simultaneously. The Middle
Ages saw leadership divided between the secular and spiritual realms - between
Emperor and Pope. Some groups - often left-wing or Green in orientation - employ
a co-leader structure today.
Triumvirates have long served to balance leadership ambitions - notably in Rome
in the first century BC, but also as recently as in the Soviet Union troikas of
the 20th century. Compare the separation of powers (legislative, judicial and
executive) formalised (for example) in the constitution of the United States of
America.
Divided leadership
Whereas sometimes one can readily and definitively identify the locus of
leadership, in other circumstances the situation remains obscured. Pre-modern
Japan offers a classical example: the emperors provided symbolic and religious
leadership, but the shoguns embodied virtually all political and administrative
leadership.
Similar dichotomies appear in many places and in many periods. Any
constitutional monarch has a potentially confusing relationship with the
day-to-day leader (typically a prime minister) who remains (at least
theoretically) subordinate - socially as well as politically. Regents may stand
against monarchs (and their supporters) during the minority or absence of those
monarchs. Heads of state may operate at cross-purposes with heads of government
(see governmental co-habitation). Political leaders may or may not align closely
with religious leaders. And in federal-type systems, regional leadership and its
potentially different systems may cross swords with national leaders. Not to
mention the potentially conflicting leadership manifestations of boards of
directors and of Chief Executives.
Historical views on leadership
Aristocratic thinkers have postulated that leadership depends on one's blue
blood or genes: monarchy takes an extreme view of the same idea, and may prop up
its assertions against the claims of mere aristocrats by invoking divine
sanction: see the divine right of kings. Contrariwise, more
democratically-inclined theorists have pointed to examples of meritocratic
leaders, such as the Napoleonic marshals profiting from careers open to talent.
In the autocratic/paternalistic strain of thought, traditionalists recall the
role of leadership of the Roman pater familias. Feminist thinking, on the other
hand, may damn such models as patriarchal and posit against them
emotionally-attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance and
matriarchies.
Comparable to the Roman tradition, the views of Confucianism on "right living"
relate very much to the ideal of the (male) scholar-leader and his benevolent
rule, buttressed by a tradition of filial piety.
Within the context of Islam, views on the nature, scope and inheritance of
leadership have played a major role in shaping sects and their history. See
caliphate.
In the 19th century, the elaboration of anarchist thought called the whole
concept of leadership into question. (Note that the Oxford English Dictionary
traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back as the 19th century.)
One response to this denial of élitism came with Leninism, which demanded an
élite group of disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist
revolution, bringing into existence the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Other historical views of leadership have addressed the seeming contrasts
between secular and religious leadership. The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have
recurred and had their detractors over several centuries. Christian thinking on
leadership has often emphasized stewardship of divinely-provided resources -
human and material - and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan.
Compare servant leadership.
For a more general take on leadership in politics, compare the concept of the
statesman.
Alternatives to leadership
Within groups, alternatives to the cult of leadership include using
decision-making structures such as co-operative ventures, collegiality,
consensus, anarchism and applied democracy. One can downplay the ubiquitous idea
of leadership by using structures such as information clearing houses or
stressing functions such as administration. Note the different implications and
connotations of the two phrases "coalition of the willing" and "US-led
coalition". The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, which practices a form of distributed
leadership, provides a textbook example of alternative leadership.
Leadership has a formal aspect (as in most political or business leadership) or
an informal one (as in most friendships). Speaking of "leadership" (the abstract
term) rather than of "leading" (the action) usually implies that the entities
doing the leading have some "leadership skills" or competencies.
In closely held corporations, it is general business culture that the office of
Chief Executive Officer is also the Chairman of the Board. Specifically, one
person often shares the Chairman and CEO titles while another person takes the
presidency or may become chief operating officer (COO). However, the term
president is from the U.S. whereas in the UK Managing Director (MD) is favored.
Underneath that comes the Executive Vice President (U.S.) or Executive Director
(UK). In publicly held corporations, the CEO and Chair positions can be
separated but there are implications in corporate governance by doing so.
In some European Union countries, there are two separate boards, one executive
board for the day-to-day business and one supervisory board for control purposes
(elected by the shareholders). In these countries, the chief executive officer
presides over the executive board and the chairman presides over the supervisory
board and these two roles will always be held by different people. This ensures
a distinction between management by the executive board and governance by the
supervisory board. This allows for clear lines of authority. The aim is to
prevent a conflict of interest and too much power being concentrated in the
hands of one person. There is a strong parallel here with the structure of
governments, which tend to separate the political cabinet from the management
civil service.
In rare circumstances an Executive Chairperson can be appointed but this is
either illegal in many jurisdictions or frowned upon by Regulators.
In the United Kingdom many Charities and Government Agencies are headed by a
Chief Executive who is answerable to a Board of Trustees or Board of Directors.
In the UK, the Chair (of the Board) in public companies is more senior than the
Chief Executive. Most public companies now split the role of Chair and Chief
Executive.
In France a CEO/MD is known as the "PDG" (Président Directeur Général), In
Sweden the CEO/MD is known as "VD" (Verkställande Direktör), in Spain the usual
name is "Director General", while in Italy it's called "AD" (which stands for
Amministratore Delegato).
Reporting structure
Typically, a CEO has a cadre of subordinate executives, each of which has
specific functional responsibilities. These direct reporting relationships most
often include: Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Marketing
Officer, Chief Information Officer, and the Director of Human Resources.
However, depending on the industry in which the company operates and/or the
organizational structure the company has employed, various other functional
areas may be highlighted through the CEO's direct span of control. Some of these
less common monikers include: Chief (Business) Development Officer, Chief
Knowledge Officer, Chief Learning Officer, Chief Strategy Officer, Chief Risk
Officer, Chief Innovation Process Officer, Chief Credit Officer, and Chief
Creative Officer.
Different Types of leadership styles:
The laissez-faire “leave it be” leadership (Lewin, Liippit, & White, 1939) is
the leadership style that gives no continuous feedback or supervision because
the employees are highly experienced and need little supervision to obtain the
expected outcome. On the other hand, this type of style is also associated with
leaders that don’t lead at all, failing in supervising team members, resulting
in lack of control and higher costs, bad service or failure to meet deadlines.
The bureaucratic leader (Weber, 1905) is very structured and follows the
procedures as they have been established. This type of leadership has no space
to explore new ways to solve problems and is usually slow paced to ensure
adherence to the ladders stated by the company. Leaders ensure that all the
steps have been followed prior to sending it to the next level of authority.
Universities, hospitals, banks and government usually require this type of
leader in their organizations to ensure quality, increase security and decrease
corruption. Leaders that try to speed up the process will experience frustration
and anxiety.
The charismatic leader (Weber, 1905) leads by infusing energy and eagerness into
their team members. This type of leader has to be committed to the organization
for the long run. If the success of the division or project is attributed to the
leader and not the team, charismatic leaders may become a risk for the company
by deciding to resign for advanced opportunities. It takes the company time and
hard work to gain the employees' confidence back with other type of leadership
after they have committed themselves to the magnetism of a charismatic leader.
Autocratic leadership (Lewin, Liippit, & White, 1939) occurs when the leader has
been given the power to take decisions based solely on his person, having total
authority. This leadership style is good for employees that need close
supervision to perform certain tasks. Creative employees and team players resent
this type of leadership, since they are unable to enhance processes or decision
making, resulting in job dissatisfaction.
The democratic leader (Lewin, Liippit, & White, 1939) means that the leader will
hear the team's ideas and study them, but will make the final decision. Team
players contribute to the final decision thus increasing employee satisfaction
and ownership, feeling their input was considered when the final decision was
taken. When changes arises, this type of leadership helps the team assimilate
the changes better and more rapidly than other styles, knowing they were
consulted and contributed to the decision making process, minimizing resistance
and intolerance. A shortcoming of this leadership style is that it has
difficulty when decisions are needed in a short period of time or at the moment.
People-Oriented Leader (Fiedler, 1967) is the one that, in order to comply with
effectiveness and efficiency, supports, trains and develops his personnel,
increasing job satisfaction and genuine interest to do a good job.
Task oriented leaders (Fiedler, 1967) are those who focus on the job, and
concentrate in the specific tasks assigned to each employee to reach goal
accomplishment. This leadership style suffers the same motivation issues as
autocratic leadership, showing no involvement in the teams needs. It requires
close supervision and control to achieve expected results.
A servant leader (Greenleaf, 1977) is the leader that facilitates goal
accomplishment by giving its team members what they need in order to be
productive. Is an instrument employees uses to reach the goal rather than an
commanding voice that moves to change. This leadership style, as well as
democratic leadership tends to achieve the results in a slower motion than other
styles, although employee engagement is higher.
A transaction leader (Burns, 1978) is the power given to a certain person to
perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team’s performance. It gives
the opportunity to the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow
his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in exchange for something else.
Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct and train subordinates when
productivity is not up to the desired level and reward effectiveness when
expected outcome is reached.
A transformation leader (Burns, 1978) is the one who motivates its team to be
effective and efficient. Communication is the base for goal achievement focusing
the group in the final desired outcome or goal attainment. This leader is highly
visible and uses chain of command to get the job done. Transformational leaders
focus on the big picture, needing to be surrounded by people who take care of
the details. The leader is always looking for ideas that move the organization
to reach the company’s vision.
The Environment Leader (Carmazzi, 2005) is the one who nurtures group or
organisational environment to affect the emotional and psychological perception
of an individual’s place in that group or organisation. An understanding and
application of group psychology and dynamics is essential for this style to be
effective. The leader uses organisational culture to inspire individuals and
develop leaders at all levels. This leadership style relies on creating an
education matrix where groups interactively learn the fundamental psychology of
group dynamics and culture from each other. The leader uses this psychology, and
complementary language, to influence direction through the members of the
inspired group to do what is required for the benefit of all.
The situation leader (Joseph Praveen Kumar,Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2008)
is the leader that uses different leadership styles depending on the situation
and the type of employee that is being supervised.
