10. What is a leader/leadership?
One word/phrase responses:
Being in front of the followers
A facilitator of group objectives
A consensus builder
A guide
A coach
A vision caster
The boss
The bridge builder
11. The Changing Definition of Leadership
According to Page (2009), the first modern use of the
word leadership came from John Wesley in 1742 “to
describe how his mother, Suzanne Wesley, organized
an hourly timetable for activities for each of her 17
children” (p. 17).
In 1768 the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica
under the word “lead” were the instructions to look
under chemistry. So while there have always been
leaders, they were referred to by their positions as
kings, generals, presidents, etc. (Page, 2009).
12. The Changing Definition of Leadership
Page (2009) cites the work of Ciulla (1995) and Rost and
Baker (2000) to illustrate the changing definitions of
leader.
1920’s “[Leadership is] the ability to impress the will of
the leader on those led and induce obedience,
respect, loyalty, and cooperation.”
1930’s “Leadership is a process in which the activities of
many are organized to move in a specific direction
by one.”
1940’s “Leadership is the result of an ability to persuade
or direct men, apart from the prestige or power
that comes form offices or external circumstance.”
13. The Changing Definition of Leadership
1950’s “[Leadership is what leaders do in groups.]
The leader’s authority is spontaneously
accorded to him by his fellow group members.”
1960’s “[Leadership is] acts by a person which
influence other persons in a shared direction.”
1970’s “Leadership is defined in terms of
discretionary influence. Discretionary
influence refers to those leaders behaviors
under control of the leader which may vary
from individual to individual.
14. The Changing Definition of Leadership
1980’s “Regardless of the complexities involved in the
study of leadership, its meaning is relatively
simple. Leadership means to inspire others to
undertake some form of purposeful action as
determined by the leader.”
1990’s “Leadership is an influence relationship between
leaders and followers who intend real changes that
reflect their mutual purposes.
2000’s “Leadership in the post-industrial world can be
defined as an influence relationship among
leaders and collaborators who intend real changes
that reflect their mutual purposes, and not
exclusively in organizational goals.” (pp. 18-19)
15. The History of Leadership Focus
How long has leadership been around?
How long has the study of leadership been around?
“Egyptian rulers, Greek heroes, and biblical
patriarchs all have one thing in common—
leadership” (1).
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005). The history of leadership focus. Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Virginia
Beach, VA: Regent University, http://www.regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/
servant_leadership_roundtable/2005/pdf/stone_history.pdf
16. Is leadership important?
Don Page (2009)states:
“Good leadership is the most important factor in
contributing to an organization’s success and longevity”
(p. 17).
Do you agree with this statement? Why?
What is “good leadership”? (See myths of leadership, p.20)
What is organizational “success”?
Page, Don. (2009). Servant empowered leadership: A hands-on guide to
transforming you and your organization. Langley, BC, Canada: Power to
Change.
17. The History of Leadership Focus
The earliest leadership studies dealt with
leadership traits. Usually the larger than life
leaders were identified and then efforts were
made to identify the leadership traits that all
great leaders had in common.
Eventually, it was discovered that no qualitative
evidence could be found that proved that all great
leaders shared the same traits.
18. The History of Leadership Focus
Early Leader Studies:
With the rise of the Industrial Revolution some
began to view human interaction in mechanistic
terms.
Max Weber, a German sociologist, “observed the
parallels between the mechanization of industry
and the proliferation of bureaucratic forms of
organization” (2).
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
19. The History of Leadership Focus
Early Leader Studies:
Henri Fayol and F. W. Mooney “devoted their
energies to identifying methods through which
this kind of organizational structure could be
achieved” (2)
The goal was to maximize the efficiency of the
bureaucracy for the benefit of the organization.
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
20. The History of Leadership Focus
Early Leader Studies:
Fredrick Taylor took the study of bureaucracy and
structure to another level and introduced “Scientific
Management” to the world.
“Taylor fused the perspective of an engineer into
management with a strong emphasis on control . . .
efficiency, quantification, predictability, and de-skilled
jobs. He initiated time-and-motion studies to . . .
achieve the highest level of efficiency possible” (2).
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
21. The History of Leadership Focus
Early Leader Studies:
What do you see a potential pitfalls to this
approach to leadership?
“Although mechanistic organizations proved
productive . . . Emerging theorists encouraged
leaders to recognize that humans are not machines
and could not be treated as such” (2)
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
22. The History of Leadership Focus
Hawthorne Studies:
Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne studies focused on the
effect of the work situation on leaders and
followers. They found that the reactions of other
individuals to their work, influenced workers as
much as the structure of the organization.
(Study of lighting variations in the workplace.)
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
23. The History of Leadership Focus
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs:
In 1959 Maslow proposed that productivity is tied
to the motivation of the worker to produce.
Why was this was an important concept for
leadership?
Maslow proposed a “hierarchy of needs,” which
could be and should be employed by leaders in
developing work strategies for employees.
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
25. The History of Leadership Focus
Herzberg’s Dual Factor Theory (HDF):
Maslow’s theory resulted in a redirection of
leadership focus toward workers needs. The HDF
theory furthered Maslow’s work “by providing
insights into the goals and incentives that tend to
satisfy a worker’s needs” (2)
Herzberg concluded that people have two
categories of needs: Hygiene and Motivators.
The two needs should be met simultaneously.
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005). The history of leadership focus. Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Virginia
Beach, VA: Regent University, http://www.regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/
servant_leadership_roundtable/2005/pdf/stone_history.pdf
26. Herzberg’s Dual Factor Theory
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_herzberg_two_factor_theory.html
Typical Hygiene Factors Typical Motivation Factors
• Working conditions
• Quality of supervision
• Salary
• Security
• Company
• Job
• Company policies and administration
• Interpersonal relations
• Achievement
• Recognition for achievement
• Responsibility for task
• Interest in the job
• Advancement to higher level tasks
• Growth
27. Herzberg’s Dual Factor Theory
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_herzberg_two_factor_theory.html
28. Herzberg’s Dual Factor Theory
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_herzberg_two_factor_theory.html
Combining the hygiene and motivation factors in four scenario’s:
• High Hygiene+High Motivation: The ideal situation where
employees are highly motivated and have few complaints.
• High Hygiene+Low Motivation: Employees have few complaints but
are not highly motivated.
• Low Hygiene+High Motivation: Employees are motivated but have
a lot of complaints. A situation where the job is exciting and
challenging but salaries and work conditions are not up to par.
• Low Hygiene+Low Motivation: The worst situation. Unmotivated
employees with lots of complaints.
29. The Shift in Focus
The shift in focus in leadership studies.
Stone and Patterson argue that by the 1930’s “leader
focus had moved to understanding the relationship
between a leader’s actions and the follower’s
satisfaction and productivity. Theorists began to
consider behavioral concepts in their analysis of
organizational leadership” (3).
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
30. McGregor (1960)
McGregor believed that the management practices
represented by a hierarchical, pyramid, organizational
structure represent a view of workers that he termed
Theory X.
Managers who hold a Theory X view of workers assume
that workers prefer to be directed, are not interested in
taking responsibility, and want safety above all else.
Therefore structure includes control and close
supervision of employees (3).
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
31. McGregor (1960)
McGregor believed that management needed practices
based on a more accurate understanding of human
nature and motivation.
He proposed the Theory Y view of workers which
proposed that individuals are not, by nature, lazy and
unreliable. People can be self-directed and creative at
work if properly motivated. An essential task of
management is to unleash this potential (3).
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
34. Situational/Contingency Theory
Researchers defining the situational/contingency theory
of leadership acknowledged that leaders id more than
simply “act”—they often had to “react” to specific
situations, and thus, the situational/contingency theory
of leadership evolved.
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
35. Hersey and Blanchard (1996)
Situational Leadership, proposed by Hersey and
Blanchard advocated that the leader’s use of differing
leadership behaviors were dependent upon two
interrelated maturity factors: (a) Job maturity—relevant
task and technical knowledge and skills, and (b)
Psychological maturity—the subordinate’s level of self-
confidence and self-respect (Yukl, 1998)
An employee with a high level of job and psychological
maturity requires little supervision; while an employee
who has a low level of job and psychological maturity
requires hands-on attention (5).
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
36. Hersey and Blanchard (1996)
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/situational_leadership_hersey_blanchard.htm
37. Fielder’s Contingency Theory
Fielder’s contingency theory posited that leader
effectiveness is determined not by the leader’s ability to
adapt to the situation, but by the ability to choose the
right leader for the situation.
Some leaders are Simply better for specific situations
than others and the situation determines the identified
leaders’ success, though leaders would need to be
capable of understanding when they were not right for
the situation and remove themselves–a task of humility
(5).
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
38. Transactional Leadership
Research in the 1990’s revealed that many leaders engage
in transactional leadership models:
Focuses on managing status quo.
Focuses on specific interactions between leaders and
followers.
Focuses on control not adaptation.
Leadership is an exchange of rewards for employees’
compliance.
Does not focus on identifying the organization’s goals
and how employees can work toward aligning goals.
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
39. Transformational Leadership
Further research revealed power derived from a leader’s
position in a hierarchical structure is becoming obsolete.
In contrast transformational leaders look at where the
organization should be and how to handle internal an
external change and employee needs to reach that goal.
Burns (1978) says that the transformational leader model
asks followers to transcend their own self-interests for
the good of the group, organization, or society.
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
40. Transformational Leadership
Bass & Avolio (1990) developed Burn’s ideas and posited
the formal concept of transformational leadership.
Transformational leadership is concerned more about
progress and development.
Transformational leadership enhances the effects of
transactional leadership on followers.
Followers are empowered to accomplish
organizational objectives.
Transformational leaders inspire followers to higher
levels of performance for the sake of the organization.
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
41. Transformational Leadership
Transformational leaders transform the personal values
of followers to support the vision and goals of the
organization by fostering a climate of trust and shared
visions.
According to Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino (1991)
there are four primary behaviors of transformational
leaders:
1. idealized influence (charismatic influence),
2. inspirational motivation,
3. intellectual stimulation, and
4. individualized consideration.
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005).
43. Transformational Leadership
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005), p. 11.
Bennis & Nanus (1985) Bass (1985) Kouzes & Posner (1987)
Attention through Vision Charisma Challenging the process
Meaning through
communication
Inspiration Inspiring a shared vision
Trust through positioning Intellectual stimulation Enabling others to act
Deployment of self Individualized
consideration
Modeling the way
Encouraging the heart
Transformational leadership strategies and characteristics
44. Transformational and Servant Leadership
Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2005), p. 11.
Both are high-order evolutions in leadership paradigms.
Both emphasize a high concern for people and
production.
Servant leadership is a logical extension of
transformational leadership. How do they differ?
Servant leaders do not have an affinity for an abstract
organization; rather, they value people who constitute
the organization.
Primary difference is the leader’s focus. The focus of
the servant leader is on service to their followers.
Servant leaders rely on service rather than power.
45. Servant Leadership
Robert Greenleaf coined the term “servant-leader” in a
1970 essay. Most would consider him the “father” of
the servant-leader model.
We will explore “Servant Leadership” in more detail in week 5”
The shift in leadership focus is reflected in the work by
Jim Collins, Good to Great (2001).
