Examining the Leader

  Ralph Stogdill reflects and critiques the leadership findings of Smith and Krueger in 1933 and Jenkins in 1947 by proposing that leadership is not embodied by a person with a list of characteristics or traits.  Rather, leadership is embodied by a person who possesses certain traits that are supremely applicable for a given situation.  Stogdill looks at a variety of studies and draws upon characteristics listed within a majority of the studies as being worth looking further into.  These characteristics are: intelligence, scholarship, dependability in responsibility, social participation, and socio-economic status (Wren, 1995, pg. 128).  These characteristics are compared to the average person in the group that the supposed leader is a part of.  Yet, as important as these five characteristics are, they are on equal footing with the ability for the leader to apply these traits correctly in the given situation.  Of all the characteristics that were found in multiple studies as being important to leadership, Stogdill categorizes them into five general headings: capacity, achievement, responsibility, participation, and status (Wren, 1995, pg 129).  But Stogdill proposes a sixth, vital heading as situation.  "A person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits, but the pattern of personal characteristics of the leader must bear some relevant relationship to the characteristics, activities, and goals of the followers.  Thus, leadership must be conceived in terms of the interaction of variables which are in constant flux and change" (Wren, 1995, pg 130).  While the individual characteristics of the leader and follower are relatively stable and unchanging, the situation is consistently fluctuating and so the person who uses their characteristics and traits appropriately in any given situation will be seen as the leader.  

  Kirkpatrick and Locke contend against Stogdill's assertion that it is not the traits of the leader that matter so much, but instead the ability to apply characteristics to the appropriate situation.  Kirkpatrick and Locke have brought back trait theory and supposed that while traits are not the necessary and sufficient conditions for asserting leadership, they are the precondition (Wren, 1995, pg 134).  The traits that Kirkpatrick and Locke suggest are: drive, the desire to lead, honesty/integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge of the business (Wren, 1995, pg 134-135).  They continue to delve in and explain each trait as well as how it is broken down further into different aspects of the trait.  

  When I reflect on my future, there are plenty of hierarchal structures set in place within the medical field.  And often, the people in positions of authority have arrived there because of dedication to their field and immense aptitude.  Often when I meet doctors, nurses, or administrators in health care, they exhibit many of Kirkpatrick and Locke's traits.  Yet I cannot imagine a leader not possessing the ability to apply given characteristics at the appropriate juncture and in the appropriate manner.  This reaction to the given situation is the essence of leadership in my mind.  I cannot help but think of the end of East of Eden where Adam Trask is on his deathbed with his son Cal heartbroken, heavy laden under the weight of his guilt for prior actions.  In that moment, Adam understands the situation and reacts in such a perfect manner, that eternal healing is provided to his son.  This healing enables Cal to live a fuller life from that point forward.  Adam's ability to live and lead in the moment, in the given situation, was more valuable than all of the leadership characteristics he displayed (or failed to display) throughout the book.  So when I look for leadership in myself and in others, if I look for certain traits, I first look for the ability to live and succeed in different situations.  

Steinbeck, J (1952) East of Eden.  New York: The Penguin Group

Wren, J (1995) A Leader's Companion. New York: The Free Press

Modern Leadership Views

  James MacGregor Burns is a well known and respected author on the topic of leadership and has written a Pulitzer Prize winning biography on Franklin D. Roosevelt.  When he views leadership, he spurns the commonly held notions that a leader is someone who influences a follower to do what they would otherwise not choose (Wren, 1995).  Instead, he suggests that leaders help motivate followers towards certain goals that are representative of values that both the leader and the follower hold.  This creates an inseparable bond between the leader and follower and their combined goals and aspirations.  The common goal that is being strived for is representative of both parties values and aspirations and not simply the leader's.  Here, Burns suggests two different forms of leadership: transactional leadership and transforming leadership.  Transaction leadership involves the exchange of valued things with both parties recognizing the humanness of the other but not attempting to continue a pursuit of higher purpose.  Inversely, transforming leadership involves the interaction or engagement of two parties that results in the raising to higher levels of motivation and morality.  This is still possible to occur in conjunction with the practical achievement of a shared goal.
  Nadler and Tushman look at the "Charismatic Leader" who could embody characteristics of the transactional or transformational leader though by definition would be more plausibly seen as a transformational leader.  The charismatic leader is seen exhibiting a "special quality that enables the leader to mobilize and sustain activity within an organization through specific personal actions combined with perceived personal characteristics" (Wren, 1995, p. 108).  This is an interesting definition because so much of it is dependent upon public perception instead of reality.  Through the characteristics of the charismatic leader, they are more equipped to be able to bring about transformation in their followers and lead the collective to a greater level of success.  The authors then proceed to list out some of the potential pitfalls experienced by charismatic leaders and their followers.  In closing, Nadler and Tushman introduce instrumental leadership as leadership style designed to bring to reality the vision given from charismatic leaders.  They suggest that instrumental leadership is vitally important to charismatic leadership and in fact, they are interdependent for success.  
  The example I have read about that embodies the transformational leader as well as aspects of both the charismatic and instrumental leadership styles is Darwin Smith, CEO of Kimberly-Clark.  His story was detailed in Good to Great (Collins, 2001) and was a model for how to apply leadership to daily life in the here and now.  Smith embodied the ability to show personal humility while exerting fantastic professional will and this carries itself out to into my future profession.  I am immensely confident that I will not be the best in the world in whatever I choose to do with my professional life so humility in it will come easily enough.  But the ability to transform the environment I find myself will require a great deal of will in the endeavor.  As I place a final stamp on my college career, I hope that I find the will and strength to imprint my impact on the environments I have found myself in these four years.  

Collins, J (2001) Good to Great. New York: Harper Collins Publishers
Wren, J (1995) A Leader's Companion. New York: The Free Press

Plato vs. Aristotle on Leadership

  If one had the ability to write a blog post and title it "Plato vs. Aristotle on Leadership", who would not take that opportunity?  Given that exact opportunity, this post examines the third section of Wren's Leader's Companion which focuses on the historical views of leadership (1995).  Within the pages of that section are excerpts from Tolstoy, Plato, Aristotle, Bernard Bass, Machiavelli, and Gandhi.  There are too many incredible comparisons to be drawn between these giant thinkers to give adequate weight to all the thoughts and theories presented within these few pages.   Instead I focused on the ancient philosophers with perhaps the greatest name recognition of any two thinkers in the history of the world.  
  Plato grew up in ancient Athens and was a pupil of the thinker Socrates.  He suggests that the falsehood of freedom that is claimed by those enjoying a democracy is overthrown by a demand for tyranny (Wren 1995 p. 61).  In his made-up conversation with Glaucon, he points out the necessity for power and authority within society, such as the relationship between teacher and scholar, using those examples as proof for the obligatory tyranny (Wren 1995 p. 61).  Plato continues to discuss the causality of war and tyranny from the simple democratic state in which a champion emerges to nurse the nation into greatness.  Instead of this perpetual cycle of tyranny and war followed by a call for democracy that only further perpetuates tyranny and war, Plato suggests the alternative of philosopher-kings (Wren 1995 p. 63).  The requirements Plato suggests for these philosopher-kings would supposedly keep evilness at bay all while requiring those not fit for leadership (or the study of knowledge) would be relegated to followership (Wren 1995 p. 64).  
  Aristotle was Plato's greatest pupil as well as critic.  Aristotle pushes back on Plato's notion that there are set leaders and followers and the followers will never exceed expectations to reach the level of philosophy as the leaders.  Aristotle suggests that the examples of power relationships Plato discussed are so because Nature has provided distinction between people (Wren 1995 p. 66).  Despite the differences in idealogy between the two great thinkers, they do both agree that the purpose of leadership should be the pursuit of the perfect life (Wren 1995).
     I love basketball and always have loved seeing the fact that basketball seems to be one of the team sports where a true team effort has the opportunity to overcome talent.  One of the most incredible coaches to ever live was John Wooden and one of his books They Call Me Coach detailed his coaching days and life (2004).  Within the book, he continually details how he does not think highly of himself as some great man, but only a normal man attempting to do great things.  This would come into conflict with Plato's theory and as I read the two opposing leadership theories, remembering Coach Wooden's words helped me resonate with Aristotle's theory.  The application of this theory is similar in both my professional or academic and personal life.  If I treat others as if they have the potential for leadership, regardless of the capacity, then they may be able to lead through followership.  I do not necessarily have specifics for how this will look because I do not yet know the specifics of what my life will look like.  But I am positive that everybody can benefit from giving each other the space and ability to be the best they can be in whatever leadership capacity they hold.  

Wooden, J (2004) They Call Me Coach.  New York: McGraw-Hill Books
Wren, J (1995) A Leader's Companion. New York: The Free Press