7 - what is leadership

8/2/2019 7 - What is Leadership

1/38

Leadership South West

Research Report

What isLeadership?


2/38

W h at is

Leadersh ip?

Leadership South WestResearch Report

Richard Bo lden

July 2004


3/38

Conten ts

Introduction3

Defining Leadership 4

Leadership and Management 6

Theories of Leadership 9

Leadership Competencies 15

Leadership and Performance 19

The Shadow Side of Leadership 25

The Future of Leadership 28

Further Reading and Resources 31

References 32

Appendix 1 CLS Faculty 36

A c k n o w l e d g e me n t s

The current report was written byRichard Bolden on behalf of LeadershipSouth West. I would like to thank mycolleagues Jackie Bagnall, Peter Case,Elaine Dunn, Jonathan Gosling andMartin Wood for their valuable input andcomments. I would also like to thankthe South West Regional Development

Agency for their support of this project.

Copyright 2004Leadership South WestAll rights reserved.

Leadersh ip Sou t h W est

Based at the University of ExetersCentre for Leadership Studies andsupported by the South West RegionalDevelopment Agency, Leadership South

West is a major regional initiative toimprove the uptake and provision ofleadership development in the Southwestof England.

By working with key partners, agenciesand businesses in the Region we aim toenhance awareness of the value ofleadership development and to improvethe availability, relevance andeffectiveness of all forms of support,education and policy.

A summary of faculty members is givenin Appendix 1. For further informationplease visit our website.

Leadersh ip South WestXFI Bu i l d ing

Un ivers i ty o f Exe terRennes Dr iv e

Exet er EX4 4ST

Te l : 01392 262257 8Fax : 01392 26 2462

Em ai l : l sw @exeter .ac.uk

www. l e a d e r sh i p so u th we s t . co m

This report is available electronically onour website.

2 www. l e a d e r sh i p so u t h we s t . co m


4/38

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Welcome to the first in a series ofresearch reports from Leadership SouthWest, which gives an introduction tosome of the key issues in the field ofleadership, including what is it, how canit be measured and what impact does ithave upon performance? This reportdoes not claim to be the definitive guideto all things leadership, but rather topresent some of the most significantconcepts and debates to have emergedin recent years.

Leadership is currently one of the mosttalked about issues in business andorganisation. It is hard to turn on thetelevision, open a newspaper or attend a

conference without coming acrossnumerous references to leaders,leadership and leading. A search of theAmazon.com website in Spring 2003revealed 11,686 results for the word

leadership alone and similar searches ofthe Ebsco business and managementpublications database reveal anexponential increase in the number ofpublished articles on leadership, from136 in 1970-71, to 258 in 1980-81,1,105 in 1990-91, and a staggering10,062 in 2001-02 (an average of 419articles per month) (Storey, 2004).

The recent focus on leadership is aninternational phenomenon, as isincreased investment in leadership andmanagement development. In the US,for example, Fulmer (1997) estimated anannual corporate expenditure of $45billion in 1997 (up from $10 billion onedecade before) and Sorenson (2002)identified 900 college or universityleadership programmes (double that of

four years earlier), over 100 specialistdegrees and a wide range of relatedactivities.

Similar trends are occurring in the UKand Europe. Leadership is regarded asthe key enabler in the EuropeanFoundation for Quality Management(EFQM) Business Excellence Model(EFQM, 2000) and has become a centralfocus for numerous other public, privateand voluntary sector developmentinitiatives. Recent years have seen

centres of excellence in leadershipestablished for nearly all parts of thepublic sector, including health, defence,education and police. Leadership, it

seems, is increasingly becoming thepanacea of the 21st Century.

Amidst this flurry of activity, however, anumber of concerns arise. There is no

widely accepted definition of leadership,no common consensus on how best todevelop leadership and leaders, andremarkably little evidence of the impactof leadership or leadership developmenton performance and productivity.Indeed, most initiatives appear toactively avoid addressing these issuesand simply opt for the feel good factor ofdoing something about it whatever itmay be!

Whilst action is frequently preferable to

inaction, without at least someunderstanding of the underlyingprinciples and assumptions aboutleadership and leadership development,it is likely that action may be misguided at least reducing its possibleeffectiveness and at worst damagingwhat was there in the first place. Theintention of this report, therefore, is tochallenge some of the more popularistand stereotypical notions of leadershipand to offer some insights into

alternative ways of conceiving andaddressing the issue.

Leadership South West will continue toproduce these research reports on aregular basis, with each addressing adifferent theme of regional, national andinternational importance. The secondreport, due in early 2005, will explorethe issue of leadership development,comparing and contrasting a wide rangeof different approaches and offeringguidance as how best to structure and

deliver leadership development within agiven context.

In addition to this, we will also beconducting our own research andsupporting regional organisations withtheir research to encourage a morefocussed and critical perspective withinthe South West. Should you beinterested in exploring opportunities forcollaboration, sharing research findingsand/or networking with other leadershipresearchers in the Region please do nothesitate to contact us.

We hope you find this report interesting,useful and inspiring!

www. l e a d e r sh i p so u t h we s t . co m 3


5/38

Def in ing Leadersh ip

The topic of leadership has been ofinterest for many hundreds of years,from the early Greek philosophers suchas Plato and Socrates to the plethora ofmanagement and leadership gurus,whose books fill airport bookshops.Seldom, however, has the need foreffective leadership been voiced morestrongly than now. It is argued that inthis changing, global environment,leadership holds the answer not only tothe success of individuals andorganisations, but also to sectors,regions and nations.

"Our productivity as a nation isalready lagging behind our

competitors in North America andEurope. By tackling our managem ent

and leadership deficit with real vigour,we will unlock the doors to increased

productivity, maximise the benefits ofinnovation, gain advantage fromtechnological change and create theconditions for a radical transformationof public services. (DfES, 2002)

Despite recognition of the importance ofleadership, however, there remains acertain mystery as to what leadership

actually is or how to define it. In areview of leadership research, Stogdill(1974, p.259) concluded that there are

almost as many definitions of leadershipas there are persons who haveattempted to define the concept - andthat was 30 years ago!

At the heart of the problem of definingleadership lie two fundamentaldifficulties. Firstly, like notions such as

love, freedom and happiness,leadership is a complex construct open

to subjective interpretation. Everyonehas their own intuitive understanding ofwhat leadership is, based on a mixture ofexperience and learning, which is difficultto capture in a succinct definition.Secondly, the way in which leadership isdefined and understood is stronglyinfluenced by ones theoretical stance.There are those who view leadership asthe consequence of a set of traits orcharacteristics possessed by leaders,whilst others view leadership as a social

process that emerges from grouprelationships. Such divergent views willalways result in a difference of opinionabout the nature of leadership.

Leadership appears to be, like power,an essentially contested concept(Gallie, 1955 cited in Grint, 2004 , p1)

Grint (2004) identifies four problems

that make consensus on a commondefinition of leadership highly unlikely.Firstly, there is the process problem alack of agreement on whether leadershipis derived from the personal qualities(i.e. traits) of the leader, or whether aleader induces followership through whats/he does (i.e. a social process).Secondly, there is the position problem is the leader in charge (i.e. withformally allocated authority) or in front(i.e. with informal influence)? A third

problem is one of philosophy does theleader exert an intentional, causalinfluence on the behaviour of followersor are their apparent actions determinedby context and situation or evenattributed retrospectively? A fourthdifficulty is one of purity is leadershipembodied in individuals or groups and isit a purely human phenomenon?

In addition to these relatively theoreticalcontentions Grint also distinguishesbetween attitudes towards coercion.

Some definitions of leadership restrict itto purely non-coercive influence towardsshared (and socially acceptable)objectives. Within such frameworks thelikes of Hitler, Stalin and SaddamHussein would not be seen as leaders,but rather as tyrants working solely fortheir own benefit and depending onthreat, violence and intimidation ratherthan the more subtle processes ofinterpersonal influence more frequentlyassociated with true leadership. Such

distinctions, however, are alwaysproblematic as the actions of nearly allleaders could be perceived more or lessbeneficially by certain individuals andgroups.

Scholars should remind us thatleadership is not a moral concept.Leaders are like the rest of us:trustworthy and deceitful, cowardlyand brave, greedy and generous. Toassume that all leaders are goodpeople is to be wilfully blind to the

reality of the human condition, and itseverely limits our scope for becomingmore effective at leadership.(Kellerm an, 2004, p45)



6/38

The psychodynamic approach, madefamous by researchers at the TavistockInstitute, adds further areas forconsideration: what are thepsychological factors that encouragepeople to become leaders or followers,and what is it about groups,organisations and societies that givesrise the perception of leadership? Thisapproach emphasises the importance ofunderstanding self and others and,through this, understanding thetransactional nature of the relationshipbetween leader and followers (Stech,2004). Thus, for example, it could beconcluded that the leader fulfils a role ofsense making, offering security and

purpose to his/her followers and it is forthis reason that they choose to remainfollowers.

In a recent review of leadership theory,Northouse (2004) identified fourcommon themes in the way leadershipnow tends to be conceived: (1)leadership is a process; (2) leadershipinvolves influence; (3) leadership occursin a group context; and (4) leadershipinvolves goal attainment. He thusdefines leadership asa process wherebyan individual influences a group ofindividuals to achieve a common goal(ibid, p 3).

This is a good definition, but it stilllocates the individual as the source ofleadership. A more collective concept ofleadership arises out of a review by Yukl:

Most definitions of leadership reflect theassumption that it involves a socialinfluence process whereby intentionalinfluence is exerted by one person [or

group] over other people [or groups] tostructure the activities and relationshipsin a group or organisation (Yukl, 2002,p3). Even this definition, however,obscures as much as it reveals. Justwhat exactly is the nature of this socialinfluence; how can it structureactivities and relationships; and whenapplied in a group setting who is the

leader?

In short, leadership is a complexphenomenon that touches on many

other important organisational, socialand personal processes. It depends on aprocess of influence, whereby people areinspired to work towards group goals,

not through coercion, but throughpersonal motivation. Which definitionyou accept should be a matter of choice,informed by your own predispositions,organisational situation and beliefs, butwith an awareness of the underlyingassumptions and implications of yourparticular approach.

...leadership is like the AbominableSnowman, whose footprints areeverywhere but who is nowhere to be

seen. (Bennis and Nanus, 1985)



7/38

Leadersh ip and Managem ent

It has become fashionable over recentyears to distinguish leadership frommanagement however increasingevidence indicates that this distinctionmay be misleading.

Zalenznik (1977) began the trend ofcontrasting leadership and managementby presenting an image of the leader asan artist, who uses creativity andintuition to navigate his/her way throughchaos, whilst the manager is seen as aproblem solver dependent on rationalityand control. Since then the leadershipliterature has been littered with boldstatements contrasting the two. Bennisand Nanus (1985, p21), for example,

suggest that managers do things rightwhilst leaders do the right thing andBryman (1986, p6) argues that theleader is the catalyst focussed onstrategy whilst the manager is theoperator/technician concerned with the

here-and-now of operational goalattainment.

Central to most of these distinctions isan orientation towards change. Thisconcept is well represented in the workof John Kotter (1990) who concluded

that management is about coping withcomplexity whilst leadership, bycontrast, is about coping with change(ibid, p104). He proposed that goodmanagement brings about a degree oforder and consistency to organisationalprocesses and goals, whilst leadership isrequired for dynamic change (see Figure1 for a summary of his ideas).

The distinction of leadership frommanagement as represented by Kotterand his contemporaries clearly

encourages a shift in emphasis from therelatively inflexible, bureaucraticprocesses typified as management tothe more dynamic and strategicprocesses classed as leadership, yeteven he concludes that both are equallynecessary for the effective running of anorganisation:

Leadership is different frommanagement, but not for the reasonmost people think. Leadership isn'tmystical and mysterious. It hasnothing to do with having charisma orother exotic personality traits. It's notthe province of a chosen few. Nor is

leadership necessarily better thanmanagement or a replacement for it:rather, leadership and managementare two distinctive andcomplementary activities. Both are

necessary for success in anincreasingly complex and volatile

business environment. (Kotter, 1990,p103)

Figure 1: Leadership and Management(Buchanan and Huczynski, 2004, p 718 -based on Kotter, 1990)

Leadershipfunctions

Managementfunctions

Creating

an agenda

Establishing

direction:Vision of thefuture, developstrategies forchange toachieve goals

Plans and

budgets:Decide actionplans andtimetables,allocateresources

Developingpeople

Aligningpeople:Communicatevision andstrategy,influence

creation ofteams whichaccept validityof goals

Organizingand staffing:Decidestructure andallocate staff,develop

policies,proceduresand monitoring

Execution Motivating andinspiring:Energizepeople toovercomeobstacles,satisfy humanneeds

Controlling,problemsolving:Monitor resultsagainst planand takecorrectiveaction

Outcomes Producespositive andsometimesdramaticchange

Producesorder,consistencyandpredictability

Despite the popular appeal of adistinction between leadership andmanagement, however, there is somedoubt as to whether they are really quiteas separate as this in practice. Firstlythere is increasing resistance to the wayin which such analyses tend to denigrate

management as something rather boringand uninspiring. Joseph Rost (1991), forexample, highlights the need forconsistency and predictability in many



8/38

aspects of management and leadershipbehaviour and concludes that down withmanagement and up with leadership is abad idea. Gosling and Murphy (2004)similarly propose that maintaining asense of continuity during times ofchange is key to successful leadership.Thus the leader must ensure thatsystems and structures remain in placethat offer workers a sense of securityand balance, without which it would behard to maintain levels of motivation,commitment, trust and psychologicalwellbeing.

Secondly, much research evidenceimplies that, far from being separate, the

practices described as management and leadership are an integral part of thesame job. From detailed observations ofwhat managers do, Mintzberg (1973,1975) identified 10 key roles, of whichone was leadership (see Figure 2). Heconcluded that far from being separateand distinct from management,leadership is just one dimension of amultifaceted management role.

Figure 2: The Managers Roles

(Mintzberg, 1975)

Much of the difficulty and confusion thatarises from contrasting leadership andmanagement is the manner in whichthey are often mapped to differentindividuals. Thus, we talk of managers

and leaders as if they were different(and to a large extent incompatible)people we consider leaders asdynamic, charismatic individuals with the

ability to inspire others, whilst managersare seen as bureaucrats who just focuson the task in hand. Such a view,however, does not coincide well with thelived experience of being a manager.People are generally recruited into

management, rather than leadership,positions and are expected to complete amultitude of tasks ranging from day-to-day planning and implementation, tolonger-term strategic thinking. None ofthese are done in isolation, andthroughout, it is essential to workalongside other people to motivate andinspire them, but also to know when torelinquish the lead and take a back seat.

Most of us have become soenamoured of leadership that

management has been pushed intothe background. Nobody aspires to

being a good manager anymore;everybody wants to be a great leader.But the separation of managementfrom leadership is dangerous. Just asmanagement without leadershipencourages an uninspired style, whichdeadens activities, leadership without

management encourages adisconnected style, which promoteshubris. And we all know thedestructive power of hubris inorganisations. (Gosling andMintzberg, 2003) .

In conclusion, whilst the distinctionbetween management and leadershipmay have been useful in drawingattention to the strategic andmotivational qualities required duringperiods of change, the bipolarrepresentation of managers and leaders

as completely different people can bemisleading and potentially harmful inpractice. Indeed, if it is believed thatleaders and managers are differentpeople, one might well conclude that (a)it is necessary to change themanagement team regularly ascircumstances change, and (b) it is notpossible for managers to become leaders(and vice versa). Such a view isseverely limiting and greatlyunderestimates the abilities of people inmanagement and leadership roles. Thisis not to say, however, that all peoplewill be equally adept at all aspects ofleadership and management, nor that



9/38

there is one profile that is appropriate inall situations (these are issues that willbe discussed in the next section onTheories of Leadership) but that toachieve maximum effect we should seekto recruit and develop leader-managerscapable of adopting the role in its most

holistic form. It is for this reason that,like Mintzberg (2004), we will use thewords management and leadershipand manager and leader largelyinterchangeably throughout the rest ofthis report.



10/38

Theor ies o f Leader sh ip

Whilst practitioners often see theory asseparate from practice, within an appliedfield such as leadership the two areinextricably related. Traditional andcontemporary theories of leadershipstrongly influence current practice,education and policy and offer a usefulframework for the selection anddevelopment of leaders - in other words:

There is nothing as practical as agood theory (Lewin, 1935).

Theories help shape the way we conceivethe world by simplifying andsummarising large quantities of data butas a result, they can also give rise toassumptions and modes of thought that

become unquestioned. For example,traditional leadership theories have theirroots in US organisational research andtake a particularly individualistic view ofleadership. Contemporary theories arebeginning to redress the balance, butremain predominantly Anglo-American inorigin. In this article we will discusssome of the most influential leadershiptheories, which offer a valuable contextfor the consideration of wider issuesabout defining leadership capabilities and

development approaches.

Leade rsh ip t r a i t s

For the first half of the twentieth centuryit was assumed that it would be possibleto identify and isolate a finite set oftraits, which could be used whenselecting and promoting individuals toleadership positions. This search wasstrongly influenced by the great mantheory that focussed on how (primarilymale) figures achieved and maintained

positions of influence. The assumptionwas that these people were born to beleaders and would excel by virtue of theirpersonality alone.

In an extensive review of trait studies,Ralph Stogdill (1974) found somequalities that appeared more often thanothers (see Figure 3). The same set oftraits, however, has not been identifiedin other studies (e.g. Bird, 1940;Stewart, 1963) and with the list growing

ever longer it has now been widelyaccepted that no such definitive set oftraits will ever be identified. Some weakgeneralizations, however, may exist.

Shaw (1976) and Fraser (1978), forexample found that leaders tend to scorehigher than average on scores of ability(intelligence, relevant knowledge, verbalfacility), sociability (participation,cooperativeness, popularity), andmotivation (initiative and persistence).It is clear, though, that none of these aresufficient in themselves to serve as thebasis for the identification ordevelopment of superior leaders.

Figure 3: Leadership Traits(Stogdill, 1974, p81)

Strong drive for responsibility, Focus on completing the task, Vigour and persistence in pursuit of

goals, Venturesomeness and originality in

problem-solving, Drive to exercise initiative in social

settings, Self-confidence, Sense of personal identity, Willingness to accept consequences of

decisions and actions, Readiness to adsorb interpersonal

stress, Willingness to tolerate frustration and

delay, Ability to influence the behaviour of

others, Capacity to structure social systems to

the purpose in hand.

Leadersh ip s ty les & behav iour s

An alternative to the trait approach wasto consider what leaders actually do,rather than their underlyingcharacteristics. Interest in this approachlargely arose from work by DouglasMcGregor (1960), which proposed thatmanagement and leadership style isinfluenced by the persons assumptionsabout human nature. He summarisedtwo contrasting viewpoints of managersin industry. Theory X managers take afairly negative view of human nature,believing that the average person has aninherent dislike of work and will avoid itif possible. Leaders holding this view,believe that coercion and control isnecessary to ensure that people work,and that workers have no desire for

responsibility. Theory Y managers, onthe other hand, believe that theexpenditure of physical and mental effort



11/38

in work is as natural as play or rest, andthat the average human being, underproper conditions, learns not only toaccept but to seek responsibility. Suchleaders will endeavour to enhance theiremployees capacity to exercise a highlevel of imagination, ingenuity, andcreativity in the solution oforganizational problems. It can be seenthat leaders holding differentassumptions will demonstrate differentapproaches to leadership: Theory Xleaders preferring an autocratic style andTheory Y leaders preferring aparticipative style.

Another influential behavioural approach

to leadership/management is theManagerial Grid developed by Blake andMouton (1964). This model focuses ontask (production) and employee (people)orientations of managers, as well ascombinations between the two extremes.A grid with concern for production on thehorizontal axis and concern for people onthe vertical axis plots five basicmanagement/leadership styles (seeFigure 4). The first number refers to aleader's production or task orientationand the second, to people or employeeorientation. It was proposed that TeamManagement - a high concern for bothemployees and production - is the mosteffective type of leadership behaviour.

Figure 4: The Managerial Grid(Blake and Mouton, 1964)

Si tu a t ion a l leadersh ip

Whilst behavioural theories introducedthe notion of different leadership styles,they gave little guidance as to what

constitutes effective leadershipbehaviours in different situations.Indeed, most researchers today concludethat no one leadership style is right forevery manager under all circumstances.Instead, situational theories weredeveloped to indicate that the style to beused is dependent upon such factors asthe situation, the people, the task, theorganisation, and other environmentalvariables.

Fiedler (1964, 1967) proposed that thereis no single best way to lead; instead theleaders style should be selectedaccording to the situation. Hedistinguished between managers who

are task or relationship oriented. Taskoriented managers focus on the task-in-hand tend to do better in situations thathave good leader-member relationships,structured tasks, and either weak orstrong position power. They also do wellwhen the task is unstructured butposition power is strong, and at theother end of the spectrum when theleader member relations are moderate topoor and the task is unstructured. Suchleaders tend to display a more directiveleadership style. Relationship orientedmanagers do better in all othersituations and exhibit a moreparticipative style of leadership.

Hersey and Blanchard (1969, 1977,1988) had similar ideas but proposedthat it is possible for a leader to adapthis/her style to the situation. Theyargued that the developmental level ofsubordinates has the greatest impact onwhich leadership style is mostappropriate. Thus, as the skill and

maturity level of followers increases, theleader will need to adapt his/her task-relationship style from directing tocoaching, supporting and delegating. Asimilar model was proposed byTannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) whopresented a continuum of leadershipstyles from autocratic to democratic.

Another influential situational leadershipmodel is that proposed by John Adair(1973) who argued that the leader mustbalance the needs of the task, team and

individual as demonstrated in his famousthree-circle diagram (see Figure 5). Theeffective leader thus carries out thefunctions and behaviours depicted by the

1 0 www. l e a d e r sh i p so u t h we s t . co m


12/38

three circles, varying the level ofattention paid to each according to thesituation.

Figure 5: Action Centred Leadership

(Adair, 1973)

Transfo rmat iona l Leadersh ip

James MacGregor Burns was the first toput forward the concept of transformingleadership. To him, transformingleadership is a relationship of mutualstimulation and elevation that convertsfollowers into leaders and may convert

leaders into moral agents (Burns,1978). He went on to suggest that

[Transforming leadership] occurs whenone or more persons engage with othersin such a way that leaders and followersraise one another to higher levels ofmotivation and morality. At the heartof this approach is an emphasis on theleaders ability to motivate and empowerhis/her followers and also the moraldimension of leadership.

Burns ideas were subsequently

developed into the concept of transformational leadership where theleader transforms followers:

The goal of transformationalleadership is to transform people and

organisations in a literal sense tochange them in mind and heart;

enlarge vision, insight, andunderstanding; clarify purposes;make behaviour congruent withbeliefs, principles, or values; and

bring about changes that arepermanent, self-perpetuating, andmomentum building (Bass and

Avolio, 1994) .

The transformational approach has beenwidely embraced within all types oforganisations as a way of transcendingorganisational and human limitations anddealing with change. It is frequentlycontrasted with more traditional

transactional leadership, where theleader gains commitment from followerson the basis of a straightforwardexchange of pay and security etc. inreturn for reliable work. Figure 6contrasts these two approaches youwill note similarities with the commonconceptualisation of managementversus leadership.

Figure 6: A Comparison of Transactional

and Transformational Leadership(Covey, 1992)

Transformational Leadership

Builds on a mans need for meaning

Is preoccupied with purposes and values,morals, and ethics

Transcends daily affairs

Is orientated toward long-term goalswithout compromising human values andprinciples

Focuses more on missions and strategies

Releases human potential identifying and

developing new talent Designs and redesigns jobs to make them

meaningful and challenging

Aligns internal structures and systems toreinforce overarching values and goals

Transactional Leadership

Builds on mans need to get a job done andmake a living

Is preoccupied with power and position,politics and perks

Is mired in daily affairs

Is short-term and hard data orientated

Focuses on tactical issues Relies on human relations to lubricate

human interactions

Follows and fulfils role expectations bystriving to work effectively within currentsystems

Supports structures and systems thatreinforce the bottom line, maximiseefficiency, and guarantee short-term profits

Char ism at ic leadersh ip

The concept of the charismatic leader,

although introduced earlier (e.g. Weber,1947; House, 1976), became popular inthe nineteen eighties and nineties whencharisma was viewed as an antidote to



13/38

the demoralising effects of organisationalrestructuring, competition andredundancies dominant at the time. Thecharismatic leader was seen as someonewho could rebuild morale and offer apositive vision for the future.

This approach, in effect, combines bothnotions of the transformational leader aswell as earlier trait and great mantheories. Researchers have takendifferent positions, but overall four majorcharacteristics of charismatic leaders canbe identified: (1) a dominant personality,desire to influence others and selfconfidence; (2) strong role modelbehaviour and competence; (3)

articulation of ideological goals withmoral overtones; and (4) highexpectation of followers and confidencethat they will meet these expectations(Northouse, 2004, p171).

Despite the hype, confidence in thisapproach to leadership is rapidlydeclining. A number of high profilecorporate scandals, plus the tendency ofcharismatic leaders to desertorganisations after making their changes(often leaving even more significant

challenges), has highlighted that thismay not be a sustainable way to lead.Because of the way in which charismaticleadership presents the leader as asaviour, it is now often referred to as

heroic leadership1. There is aresistance to this view of the leaderwithin many industries and organisationsare seeking alternatives that developquieter, less individualistic leadership(Mintzberg, 1999; Badaracco, 2002).

Servan t and t eam l eade rsh ipThe notion of the servant leader hasbeen around for some time. Like Burnsearly conceptions about transformingleadership, the emphasis is on the moraland ethical dimensions of leadership.The difference, however, is that theservant leader follows his/her path out ofa desire to serve rather an out of adesire to lead.

The servant-leader is servant first

It begins with the natural feeling that

1 See Mintzberg, 2004, p104 for a goodcritique of this approach.

one wants to serve, to serve first.Then conscious choice brings one toaspire to lead. He or she is sharplydifferent from the person who isleader first, perhaps because of the

need to assuage an unusual powerdrive or to acquire material

possessions. (Greenleaf, 1970)

The focus on serving a greater purposehas made this approach popular withinthe church and non-profit sector but hashad limited impact in more commercialsectors. A related concept that has hadwider acceptance is that of teamleadership.

Katzenbach and Smith (1993) emphasise

the importance of leaders knowing whento follow and the importance of theleader acting as a facilitator rather thandirector. They propose that the leadershould ask questions rather than givinganswers; provide opportunities for othersto lead them; do real work in support ofothers instead of only the reverse;become a matchmaker instead of a

central switch; and seek a commonunderstanding instead of consensus.Belbin (1993) presents a similar image

of the team leader as someone whochooses to delegate and share teamroles; builds on and appreciatesdiversity; seeks talented people;develops colleagues; and creates a senseof mission.

Dis t r ibu ted leadersh ip

An increasing awareness of theimportance of social relations in theleadership contract, the need for aleader to be given authority by their

followers and a realisation that no oneindividual is the ideal leader in allcircumstances have given rise to a newschool of leadership thought. Referredto as informal, emergent, dispersedor distributed leadership, this approachargues a less formalised model ofleadership (where leadershipresponsibility is dissociated from theorganisational hierarchy). It is proposedthat individuals at all levels in theorganisation and in all roles (not simply

those with an overt managementdimension) can exert leadershipinfluence over their colleagues and thus



14/38

influence the overall direction of theorganisation.

The key to this is a distinction betweenthe notions of leader and leadership.

Leadership is regarded as a process ofsense-making and direction-giving withina group and the leader can only beidentified on the basis of his/herrelationship with others in the socialgroup who are behaving as followers. Inthis manner, it is quite possible toconceive of the leader as emergentrather than predefined and that their rolecan only be understood throughexamining the relationships within thegroup (rather than by focussing on

his/her personal characteristics ortraits).

The origins of such an approach havetheir foundations more in the fields ofsociology and politics than the moretraditional management literature anddraw on concepts such as organisationalculture and climate to highlight thecontextual nature of leadership. It is amore collective concept, and wouldargue for a move from analysis anddevelopment of individual leader

qualities to an identification of whatconstitutes an effective (or moreappropriate) leadership process within anorganisation: a move in focus from theindividuals to the relationships betweenthem; from managers to everyonewithinthe organisation.

A still more radical process view ofleadership encourages a differentapproach to the identification anddevelopment of leadership withinorganisations. It promotes a focus on

the way relationships give rise to varyingidentities, each defined by how theyrelate to others. So we should talk of aleader/follower effect rather than

leaders and followers per se. Thisdraws attention to the outcomes ofeffective leadership rather than thenecessary precursors or behaviours; andon the development and promotion ofleadership skills within all people at alllevels in the organisation rather than

just those at the top of the hierarchy.

The aim is to produce an ambience andculture that encourages high levels ofintegrity, creativity, imagination, careand collective ambition for excellence.

The process view also draws attention tothe emergent nature of leadership. It isnot a fixed entity, but rather a flowingand evolving process whereby different

leaders may become revealed over timeas a consequence of group interaction.

Leaderless but leaderful.(Vanderslice, 1988)

Leadersh ip th eory in p rac t i ce

Despite being presented as achronological sequence, many of theideas presented remain popular todayand there is no consistent agreementbetween academics or practitioners as towhich is preferable or most effective.

Northouse (2004) offers some usefulcomparisons as to how leadership iscurrently conceived (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Key Leadership Concepts(Northouse, 2004, p3)

Trait versus process leadership: the traitapproach proposes that leadership is a quality thatresides within specific individuals, whereas theprocess view sees it as a phenomenon that residesin the context and behaviours of interacting people.

Assigned versus emergent leadership:assigned leadership refers to situations where the

leader has been formally assigned his/her role,whereas emergent leadership is where a leaderbecomes visible because of the way other groupmembers respond to him/her.

Leadership and power: power and leadershipare related because both involve a process ofinfluence. In organisations we can distinguishbetween position power (where authority isassigned by rank) and personal power (whereauthority is assigned by followers). True leadershiptends to rely on a power that arises fromrelationships and a desire of followers to be 'led'.

Leadership and coercion: coercion is a formof power that relies on the use (or threat) of force.

Classic examples of coercive leaders include AdolfHitler, Jim Jones and David Koresch who usedpower for their own aims rather than the generalbenefit of the group. Such methods and techniquesare generally not included in models of what 'good'leadership is about.

Leadership and management: leadershipand management are phenomena that have a lot incommon. Both involve influence, working withpeople, goal achievement, etc. however, it hasbeen argued that there are some significantdifferences (see previous section). To besuccessful, these two activities need to bebalanced and matched to the demands of the

situation.



15/38

In truth, there is no one theory that canexplain all circumstances - each has itsstrengths and weaknesses and thechoice as to which is accepted owes asmuch to personal beliefs and experienceas to empirical evidence. The traitapproach, for example, whilstproblematic could prove useful whenattempting to identify or recruit a leader.The style approach tells leaders whatthey should do, rather simply focussingupon which attributes they shouldpossess. The situational approachencourages the leader to consider thenature of the task and followers and toadapt his/her style accordingly. Thetransformational approach offers

guidance as to the most appropriateleadership style in times of change. Andservant, team and distributed leadershipoffer alternative ways of conceiving theleadership process, the manner in whichit occurs and the associated values andethics.

Leadership is a complex phenomenonthat touches on many other importantorganisational, social and personalissues. It eludes simple definition ortheoretical representation and yet isbecoming increasingly significant in allaspects of our endeavours. The theoriespresented in this article have madesubstantial advances to ourunderstanding of the nature ofleadership, leading, leaders and the ledbut there is still much room forimprovement and a considerable degreeof discretion required in their application.

The nature of management and

managers and of leaders and

leadership is highly problematic: thereis no agreed view on what managersand leaders should do and what theyneed to do it. And there never canbe, since such definitions arise notfrom organizational or technicalrequirements (which are themselves

the product of managers theories oforganization), but from the shiftingways in which over time thesefunctions are variouslyconceptualized. The manager: asmuch as the worker, is a product ofhistory. (Salaman, 2004, p58).



16/38

Leadersh ip Com pet enc ies

Despite the fact that trait andbehavioural theories of leadership haveproved unsuccessful in isolating adefinitive set of leader characteristics,the competency approach to leadershipdevelopment and assessment isbecoming increasingly widespread.Leadership standards, qualities and/orcompetency frameworks now form thebasis of the management developmentand review processes within most largeorganisations.

The notion of management (andleadership) competence owes much of itsorigin to the work of McBer consultantsfor the American Management

Association in the late 1970s and early1980s. The aim of this work was toexplain some of the differences ingeneral qualitative distinctions ofperformance (e.g. poor versus averageversus superior managers) which mayoccur across specific jobs andorganisations as a result of certaincompetencies which managers share(Boyatzis, 1982, p9), with a jobcompetency being defined as anunderlying characteristic of a personwhich results in effective and/or superiorperformance in a job (ibid, p21).

This concept was widely adopted as abasis for management education anddevelopment in the UK following theReview of Vocational Qualificationsreport in 1986 (De Ville, 1986) andcontinues to be widely promoted.Following the Council for Excellence inManagement and Leadership research(CEML, 2002), for example, the UKgovernment pledged to address the

national management and leadershipdeficit through a range of initiatives toincrease demand and improve supply ofmanagement and leadershipdevelopment (DfES, 2002). As theseinitiatives are rolled-out across thecountry the emphasis on evidence-basedpolicy, measurable performanceoutcomes and consistency of approachencourages increased reliance ongovernment-endorsed models,frameworks and standards. Some of themost influential generic and public sectorframeworks currently used in the UK areshown in Figures 8 and 9.

From a review of 26 leadership andmanagement frameworks in usethroughout the public and private sectorsBolden et al. (2003) concluded that asomewhat moderated version oftransformational leadership (Bass, 1985;Bass and Avolio, 1994) tends to bepromoted in most frameworks. Whilstmany go beyond simple definitions ofbehaviours, to consider the cognitive,affective and inter-personal qualities ofleaders, the role of followers is usuallyonly acknowledged in a rather simplistic,unidirectional manner. Leadership,therefore, is conceived as a set ofvalues, qualities and behavioursexhibited by the leader that encourage

the participation, development, andcommitment of followers. It isremarkable, however, how few of theframeworks reviewed (only 8 out of 26)referred to the leaders ability to listenand none mentioned the word follow(following, followers, etc.).

The leader (as post holder) is thuspromoted as the source of leadership.He/she is seen to act as an energiser,catalyst and visionary equipped with aset of abilities (communication, problem-solving, people management, decisionmaking, etc.) that can be applied acrossa diverse range of situations andcontexts. Whilst contingency andsituational leadership factors may beconsidered, they are not generallyviewed as barriers to an individualsability to lead under differentcircumstances (they simply need toapply a different combination of skills).Fewer than half of the frameworksreviewed referred directly to the leaders

ability to respond and adapt his/her styleto different circumstances.

In addition to soft skills, the leader isalso expected to display excellentinformation processing, projectmanagement, customer service anddelivery skills, along with provenbusiness and political acumen. Theybuild partnerships, walk the talk, showincredible drive and enthusiasm, and getthings done. Furthermore, the leaderdemonstrates innovation, creativity andthinks outside the box. They areentrepreneurs who identify opportunities

www. l e a d e r sh i p so u t h we s t . co m 1 5


17/38

- they like to be challenged and theyreprepared to take risks.

Of interest, too, is the emphasis on theimportance of qualities such as honesty,

integrity, empathy, trust and valuingdiversity. The leader is expected toshow a true concern for people that isdrawn from a deep level of self-awareness, personal reflection andemotional intelligence (Goleman, 1998).

This almost iconographic notion of theleader, as a multi-talented individualwith diverse skills, personal qualities anda large social conscience, posses anumber of difficulties. Firstly itrepresents almost a return to the great

man or heroic notions of leadership,which venerate the individual to theexclusion of the team and organisation.Secondly when you attempt to combineattributes from across a range offrameworks the result is an unwieldy,almost over-powering list of qualitiessuch as that generated during the CEMLresearch, which identified 83management and leadership attributes,condensed from a list of over 1000(Perren and Burgoyne, 2001). And

thirdly there is little evidence in practicethat the transformational leader is anymore effective with regards to improvingorganisational performance than his/heralternatives (Gronn, 1995).

To a large extent these difficulties are adirect result of the functional analysismethodology central to the standardsapproach. This method generates a listof competencies from analysis ofnumerous managers jobs the result,therefore, is not a list of activities or

behaviours demonstrated by any oneindividual, rather an averaging outacross multiple individuals. Imagine if asimilar technique was used to determinethe characteristics of the lovable man:hed be caring, strong, gentle, attractive,kind, rich, etc. in effect an unlikely, ifnot impossible, combination!

Whilst personal qualities of the leaderare undoubtedly important they areunlikely to be sufficient in themselves forthe emergence and exercise ofleadership. Furthermore, the manner inwhich these qualities translate intobehaviour and group interaction is likely

to be culturally specific and thus dependon a whole host of factors, such as thenature of the leader, followers, task,organisational structure, and culture(national, corporate and group).

We conclude, therefore, that whilst thedevelopment of frameworks andstandards can be a valuable way ofencouraging individuals andorganisations to consider their approachto management and leadershipdevelopment, it is in the application ofthese standards and frameworks thatdifficulties often occur. When workingwith frameworks and standards there isfrequently a temptation to apply them

deductively to assess, select andmeasure leaders rather than inductivelyto describe effective leadership practiceand stimulate debate. With anincreasing awareness of the emergentand relational nature of leadership it isour opinion that the standards approachshould not be used to define acomprehensive set of attributes ofeffective leaders, but rather to offer a

lexicon with which individuals,organisations, consultants and otheragents can debate the nature ofleadership and the associated values andrelationships within their organisations.



18/38

Figu re 8 - Gene r i c Managem en t and Leade rsh ip Fram ew ork s

CEML Fram ew ork o f Managem ent and Leadersh ip Ab i l i t ies The Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership conducted an extensive piece of research

using primary and secondary data sources to identify a key set of management and leadershipabilities (Perren and Burgoyne, 2001). The resultant framework identified 83 distinct management andleadership abilities (condensed from an initial list of 1013), which were grouped into three genericcategories and 8 meta-groups. The categories and meta-groups are as follows:

Thinking Abilities: Think Strategically People Abilities: Manage self, Manage and lead people, Lead direction and culture, Manage

relationships Task Abilities: Manage information, Manage resources, Manage activities and quality

The full report can be downloaded from:www.managementandleadershipcouncil.org

Nat ion a l Occupat iona l Standards in Managem ent and Leadersh ip NOS in management were first introduced in the UK in 1992 to address the relatively low level ofeducation and training of UK managers in relation to their overseas counterparts. They act as abenchmark for effective practice and form the basis of NVQ and SVQ awards in management.

A revised framework is due to be introduced soon and divides management and leadership into sixkey functions: providing direction, facilitating change, achieving results, working with people, usingresources, and managing self & personal skills. For each of these elements the framework definesoutcomes, behaviours, knowledge & understanding and skills.

Further details are available at: www.management-standards.org

I nvesto r s in Peop le Leadersh ip and Management Mode l The IIP Leadership and Management Model sets out a framework for the assessment of leadership

and management capabilities in relation to the new leadership and management dimension of theInvestors in People Award. There are four main principles (commitment, planning, action andevaluation) each with associated indicators.

For further information please visit: www.investorsinpeople.co.uk/leadership/entry/home.asp

EFQM Business Excel lence ModelThe European Foundation for Quality Management Award is an internationally recognised qualityaward based around business processes, of which one is leadership. The leadership dimension is akey enabler and covers the following four areas:

1a Leaders develop the mission, vision and values and are role models of a culture of Excellence; 1b Leaders are personally involved in ensuring the organisations management system is

developed, implemented and continuously improved; 1c Leaders are involved with customers, partners and representatives of society;

1d Leaders motivate, support and recognise the organisations people.

For further information please visit: www.efqm.org/model_awards/model/excellence_model.htm

I ns t i tu t e o f Cha r te red Managem en t Cha r te red Managem en t Sk i l l s Chartered Manager candidates need to demonstrate (and provide evidence of) learning, developmentand impact in the workplace against two of these six categories: Leading People, Meeting CustomerNeeds, Managing Change, Managing Information and Knowledge, Managing Activities andResources, and Managing yourself.

For further information visit:

www.managers.org.uk/institute/content_1.asp?category=3&id=37&id=30&id=14

http://www.managementandleadershipcouncil.org/http://www.management-standards.org/http://www.investorsinpeople.co.uk/leadership/entry/home.asphttp://www.efqm.org/model_awards/model/excellence_model.htmhttp://www.managers.org.uk/institute/content_1.asp?category=3&id=37&id=30&id=14http://www.managers.org.uk/institute/content_1.asp?category=3&id=37&id=30&id=14http://www.efqm.org/model_awards/model/excellence_model.htmhttp://www.investorsinpeople.co.uk/leadership/entry/home.asphttp://www.management-standards.org/http://www.managementandleadershipcouncil.org/


19/38

Figu re 9 Pub l i c Secto r Leade rsh ip and Managem en t F ram ew ork s

Sen io r Civ i l Serv ice Com petency Fram ew orkThis framework sets out key attributes that have been identified by Civil Service Corporate

Management as required for the Senior Civil Service (SCS). There are six main sets of competences,each with a series of related behaviours. The competencies are as follows: Giving purpose anddirection, Making a personal impact, Thinking strategically, Getting the best from people, Learning andimproving, and Focusing on delivery.

For more information please visit: www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/civilservice/scs/competences.htm

Defence Leadersh ip Cent re He l ix Mode l The Leadership Helix Model has been recently developed by the Defence Leadership Centre to act asa basis for the development of leadership attributes in the armed forces. It comprises 9 qualities:integrity, vision, communication, professional knowledge, decision making, innovation, focussed ondevelopment, humility and an unspecified quality entitled ?.

For further information visit: https://da.mod.uk/DLC/Research/HelixModel/document_view

EO fo r Loca l Governm ent Com pend ium o f Com petenc iesThe Employers' Organisation for local government's (EO) role is to help councils achieve the highstandards of people management needed to ensure the continuous improvement of services. Theirwebsite includes a compendium of leadership competencies developed by and/or used by localauthorities across the UK. These have been classified into 20 different categories, including: Change,Communication, Corporate Focus, Customer Focus, Decision Making, Equality and Diversity, Focuson Results, Impact and Influence, Information Management, Integrity, Leading People, Partnerships,Personal Management and Drive, Political Awareness, Project and Process Management, ResourceManagement, Safety, Service Improvement, Strategic Focus, and Team Building.

For more information please visit: www.lg-employers.gov.uk/skills/leadership_comp

NHS Leadersh ip Qua l i t ies Fram ew ork

The NHS Leadership Qualities Framework, developed by the NHS Leadership Centre, identifies 15key qualities (personal, cognitive and social) across three broad clusters: Personal qualities, Settingdirection and Delivering the service.

Personal qualities: Self belief, Self awareness, Self management, Drive for improvement,Personal integrity

Setting Direction: Seizing the future, Intellectual flexibility, Broad scanning, Political astuteness,Drive for results

Delivering the service: Leading change through people, Holding to account, Empowering others,Effective and strategic influencing, Collaborative working

For full details on the framework please visit: www.nhsleadershipqualities.nhs.uk

http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/civilservice/scs/competences.htmhttps://da.mod.uk/DLC/Research/HelixModel/document_viewhttp://www.lg-employers.gov.uk/skills/leadership_comphttp://www.nhsleadershipqualities.nhs.uk/http://www.nhsleadershipqualities.nhs.uk/http://www.lg-employers.gov.uk/skills/leadership_comphttps://da.mod.uk/DLC/Research/HelixModel/document_viewhttp://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/civilservice/scs/competences.htm


20/38

Leadersh ip and Per fo rm ance

Although the link between effectiveleadership and performance is widelytaken for granted, good empiricalevidence of this relationship is in shortsupply. In this article we review recentresearch and the types of indicators thatcan be considered when decidingwhether or not leadership and leadershipdevelopment have any demonstrableimpact on the bottom-line. We concludethat when considering the effect ofleadership within organisations it isimportant to take a broad view of thenotion of performance and to considerthe impact of contextual factors.

Leade rsh ip , m anagem en t and

hum an resou rce m anagem en t

Part of the difficulty in demonstrating theimpact of leadership (or any otherorganisational process) on performanceis the manner in which a multitude offactors interact. Traditionalmanagement and HRM (Human ResourceManagement) practices relating toplanning, organising and controllingresources (both material and human) areclosely associated with leadership

practices of setting direction, aligningpeople - and motivating and inspiringthem. Furthermore, performance,however conceived, is impacted by ahost of factors other than leadership(many of which are intangible and cannot be measured). For these reasons,when assessing the impact of leadershipand leadership development it isbeneficial to take a more holistic, multi-disciplinary perspective. In particular,we will consider management andmanagement development in conjunctionwith leadership.

Implicit within any assumption of arelationship between management andleadership development (MLD) andimproved performance is a supposedchain of causality, whereby it is arguedthat MLD will lead to enhancedmanagement and leadership capability(MLC), which in turn will lead toenhanced performance see Figure 10.

Figure 10: Management and leadershipdevelopment, capability and performance(Burgoyne et al., 2004)

Thus, to determine the impact ofmanagement and leadership onperformance it is necessary to unpack awhole range of complex issues: whatconstitutes MLD, MLC and performance?We will not enter into an analysis of MLDand MLC in this article, as they aretouched on elsewhere in this andsubsequent reports, however, it wouldbe valuable to briefly consider the natureof performance.

What i s pe r fo rm ance?

When considering the likely impact ofleadership and management onperformance a number of different levelsof effect can be identified.

The initial effect is likely to be at anindividual level. Following development,it will be expected that the individualleader/manager will become moreeffective. This may be revealed through

hard measures, such as enhancedproductivity, technical competenceand/or knowledge, but is perhaps morelikely to be demonstrated through softermeasures, such as improved self-awareness, communication and strategicthinking.

The next level of effect is likely to be at agroup level, whereby an individualleaders behaviour begins to impact uponthat of his/her colleagues andsubordinates. As before, this change

may be revealed in hardproductivity/output measures, however,it is more likely to be exhibited (at least



21/38

initially) through improvedcommunication, motivation, morale andteam working. Related measures thatmay be affected include decreasedabsenteeism and staff turnover,increased willingness to work overtime,and enhanced participation,accountability and suggestions/feedback.

A third level of effect can be seen at anorganisational level. Indeed, improvingorganisational effectiveness is often thekey driver behind investment inmanagement and leadershipdevelopment. At this level of impact, itis intended that through development ofa critical mass of effective leadership in

different parts of the organisation, theorganisation as a whole becomes moresuccessful. Such impacts may well berevealed in hard measures such asimproved profit, turnover and sharevalue and reduced wastage; however awide array of other measures could beconsidered, including customersatisfaction, relationship with suppliers,organisational culture and innovation.

Whilst most consideration of the impactof MLD stops at the organisational level,

the commitment of national and regionalgovernment to enhance MLC indicatesthat the potential impact of effectiveleadership can traverse organisationalboundaries. By building the capabilityand performance of organisations withina specific geographic area (be it regional,national or international) much largerscale impacts are possible (includingeconomic, social and environmental).

In short, leadership and leadershipdevelopment can have an effect at many

levels and there are a host of factors,besides simple financial measures, uponwhich they impact.

Another key thing to consider whenattempting to monitor the performanceimpact of management and leadership,is the likely time delay for visibleimprovements. Thus, for example, it willbe far easier to measure the impact ofan MLD initiative in terms of staffattitudes rather than changes inproductivity as the latter will be slow to

achieve and will be subject to a muchwider range of influencing factors 2.

The remainder of this article will considerthe empirical evidence for a link between

management, leadership andperformance at different levels3.

The re la t ion sh ip be tw een MLD,

ind iv idu a l capab i l i ty andp e r f o r m a n c e

Whilst it is widely assumed that MLD willenhance individual capability andsubsequently performance, the evidenceimplies a more complex interaction.

Keep and Westwood (2003), for

example, argue there is little evidencethat the current supply of MLD isaddressing the right skills, improvingcapability or enhancing performance.Bramley (1999) in a wide review of theevidence likewise found little supportneither for the impact of off-the-jobmanagement education nor for genericmanagement courses. He did, however,conclude that the most useful kinds ofdevelopment relate to work-basedactivities such as giving and receiving

detailed feedback, goal setting andaction planning.

Boyatzis (1993) revealed concerns abouta possible break in the supposed chain ofcausality, whereby he discovered thatsimply having leadership competenciesdoes not mean that you will use them.He went on to argue that MLD shouldthus aim to encourage and supportpeople to take on leadership roles and

2 In a review of international performance

indicators the DTI is considering usingmeasures of perceived quality ofmanagement due to the absence of any moreobjective measurements (see www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//97626/productivitych

s.pdf for more details). In addition, recentresearch at the Institute of Work Psychology,University of Sheffield has found a strongcorrelation between self-report measures oforganisational performance and objectivemeasures such as productivity and profit,thus supporting the use of this relativelyeasy-to-collect data in studies oforganisational performance.3 This review draws heavily on a review

conducted by the Management andLeadership Development Research Network(Burgoyne et al., 2004).

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//97626/productivitychs.pdfhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//97626/productivitychs.pdfhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//97626/productivitychs.pdfhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//97626/productivitychs.pdfhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//97626/productivitychs.pdfhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//97626/productivitychs.pdf


22/38

responsibilities rather than simplyequipping them with the necessary skills.

A recent review of the literature(Burgoyne et al., 2004) did, however,

identify two key factors that seem toincrease the impact of MLD on individualcapability and performance: (1) theinclusion of opportunities for receivingand discussing individual feedback; and(2) the quality of management processespreceding, supporting and reinforcingdevelopment activities. Thus, it appearsthat providing MLD alone is insufficientto ensure an increase in individualcapability and performance, rather itneeds to incorporate appropriate

opportunities for feedback anddiscussion, and be accompanied bysupportive management processes.

The problem in demonstrating therelationship between MLD, capability andperformance is largely the result of thedifficulty in untangling a series of inter-woven debates, including theappropriateness of MLD (does it addressthe right skills? for the right people? viaan appropriate pedagogy? etc.) and theimpact of MLD (does it increase

capability? performance? other qualities?etc.). It is without doubt that not allMLD activity is equal and that it is morethe quality than the quantity thatmatters.

The re l at i onsh ip be tw een MLCand o rgan i sa t i ona l per fo rm ance

In a similar vein to individualdevelopment, capability andperformance, despite the tendency ofmany management and leadership gurusto make categorical statements aboutthe characteristics of leaders ofsuccessful organisations based on limitedcase study material, more reliableempirical evidence is hard to come by.

Two studies that do make this link,however, include a study of data from800 Sears stores in the US, which foundemployee attitudes towards their job andemployer to be positively linked tocustomer attitudes and business results,

with the line manager emerging as a keylink in this chain (Rucci et al., 1998), anda similar study of 100 stores of a majorUK retailer that found employee

satisfaction and commitment to bepositively related to sales increases(Barber et al., 1999). In both thesestudies, the quality of line management(as perceived by staff) was an importantlink in the chain between capability andorganisational performance via its impacton employee commitment andmotivation.

In a longitudinal study of the impact ofbusiness tools and techniques4 Nohria etal. (2003) concluded that none of thesetechniques in themselves had a directcausal relationship to superior businessperformance what did make adifference was having a clear grasp of

management and leadership practices

5

.Without exception, companies thatoutperformed their industry peersexcelled at what we call the fourprimary management practices

strategy, execution, culture andstructure. And they supplemented

their great skill in those areas with amastery of any two out of foursecondary management practices talent, innovation, leadership, andmergers and partnerships. (Nohria

et al., 2003, p.43)

Further evidence is presented byCockerill (1993) who found thatmanagement competence has a greaterinfluence on performance in dynamicenvironments than in staticenvironments, thus implying thateffective management and leadershipare more necessary in times of changethan in periods of stability.

The re l a t i onsh ip be tw een MLD

and o rgan i sat i ona l pe r fo rm ance

Despite massive investment inmanagement and leadershipdevelopment in all sectors, empiricalevidence of a link between MLD andorganisational performance is also

4 Such as Total Quality Management (TQM),Customer Relationship Management (CRM)and Supply Chain Management (SCM).5 In this study the concept of leadershipwas only used in regards to seniormanagement (CEOs and the Board). It is our

view that all of the practices termed management in this study have asubstantial leadership element.



23/38

limited, but does generally support apositive causal relation.

Two studies that have identified directfinancial benefits of investing in MLD

include a study by Lee et al. (1993) whoestimated British Telecom to have saved270 million as the result of amanagement-training programme (dueto the reduction in errors by untrained

junior managers and waste caused bymissed deadlines, customer complaints,etc.). And DTZ (1998) who found that63% of firms involved in managementdevelopment activity (supported by theTraining and Enterprise Council) couldidentify an impact of this on business

performance - primarily via improvedstaff morale, improved response andflexibility and improvements in qualitywhich in turn, they believe, lead togreater customer loyalty and newbusiness.

Mabey and Thompson (2000) found thatpositive outcomes of managementdevelopment investment could largely beattributed to the manner in which anorganisation made its policy choices,with particular importance being given to

the companys commitment to trainingactivity. Marshall et al. (1993) found aclear relationship between the use ofexternal consultants in managementdevelopment in SMEs and businessperformance, and in a study ofleadership in UK organisations Horne andStedman Jones (2001) concluded thatwhere systematic implementation ofleadership development existed therewas a strong relationship to theperceived quality of leadership in that

organisation and organisationalperformance. Mabey and Ramirez(2004) reached similar conclusions in arecent international study as indicatedbelow:

There is strong statistical evidencethat management development leadsto superior organisationalperformance across companies of allsizes, sectors and national location.

An impressive 16 per cent of varianceis explained by three factors: the

extent to which HR is integrated withbusiness strategy, the degree towhich the firm takes a thoughtful,long-term approach to developing

managerial capability and the beliefby line managers that their employeris taking management developmentseriously. (Mabey and Ramirez,2004, p9).

In addition to this selection of studies,there are a large number that indicate alink between HRM practices andorganisational performance as well asthe impact of training more generally.In a synthesis of research on HRMpractices, for example, Becker andHuselid (1998) identified managementdevelopment and training activitieslinked to the needs of the business asone of four key HRM systems. Additional

work on the benefits of HRM emphasiseshow managers need to implementpractices through their own personalskills (e.g. empowerment, team working,and performance management) and, asconcluded recently by Purcell et al.(2003), it is the quality ofimplementation that really affects thesuccess of an intervention more than thenature of the initiative itself.

In a longitudinal study of over 100 UKmanufacturing companies Patterson et

al. (1997) found that 18% of variationsin productivity and 19% in profitabilitycould be attributed to peoplemanagement practices. Research isincreasingly indicating that HRMinitiatives are more likely to be effectivewhere they fit with other HR andbusiness strategies within theorganisation and that the key to this liesin successful management andleadership (see Richardson andThompson, 1999 for an excellent review

of this literature).Although findings are complex and it ishard to quantify in any consistent waythe link between MLD, capability andperformance it is now fairly wellaccepted that management andleadership are critical factors in theeffective implementation of HRM andbusiness strategies that, in turn, affectorganisational performance.

The r e l at i onsh ip be t w een MLC

and na t i ona l per fo r m ance

For a number of years the UKgovernment has believed that effective



24/38

management and leadership is the keyto unlocking national productivity and aseries of reports have consistentlyargued that poor national performance isdirectly associated with a deficit of goodmanagers and leaders (e.g. CEML, 2002;DTI, 2001; Handy, 1987), but is thisreally the case?

The recent report from Porter and Ketels(2003) review of UK productivityquestioned both whether the UKseconomic performance is poor andwhether management is one of the maindeterminants of economic performance.They concluded there is always room forimprovement but that efforts to

upgrade management will not howeverbe sufficient to achieve a sustainedimprovement in UK competitiveness.

Research into whether or not there is anational deficit in management skillstends to point more strongly to aqualitative shortfall (i.e. a perception ofpoor management and leadership withinorganisations) rather than a large-scalequantitative absence of managementskills per se. The National SkillsTaskforce (DfEE, 2000) and Skills in

England report (Campbell et al, 2001)indicated that skills shortages are moreprevalent within technical, generic,intermediate, ICT and numeric skillsareas than management, even thoughthis was noted as an area of concern.

Horne and Stedman Jones (2001),however, found a third to a half ofrespondents in their survey of 15,000managers rated leadership within theirorganisations as poor, with similar,findings being reported by Charlesworth

et al. (2003) about management in thepublic sector.

With regards to how the leadership andmanagement capability of UK managerscompares with that in other countries,such information is inherently difficult togather and interpret (see Jagger et al,2002). In a comprehensive review ofthe stock of UK management, however,Bosworth (1999) identified a lower levelof academic qualification amongst UKmanagers in relation to those ofcompetitor nations althoughdemographic trends indicate that this

situation will be redressed over time(Campbell et al, 2001; Wood, 1992).

Conc lus ions : the l i nk be tw een

m anagem en t , l eade rsh ip andp e r f o r m a n c e

Despite widespread assertions about theimportance of management andleadership with regards to individual,organisational and national performance,empirical evidence remains limited.Economic analyses tend to imply thatwhilst management and leadership mayplay a role in determining nationalcompetitiveness, their impact is only oneof many factors. At an organisational

level, management and leadershipappear to have an effect on a range ofoutcomes, but only as part of a moregeneral set of HRM practices. At theindividual level the impact of MLD seemsto be dependent on the type ofintervention and the desire andopportunity of individuals to take onleadership responsibilities.

Whilst this evidence in itself may notpaint an overly positive image of theimpact of management and leadership

on performance a number of key lessonsdo emerge:

With regards to HRM (and otherbusiness initiatives), its not somuch what you do as how you doit that is important. Thus, anintegrated approach aligned withthe strategic objectives of theorganisation is more likely to beeffective than any number ofstand-alone initiatives.

With regards to MLC, it is theleaders influence upon employeemotivation and commitment thatappears to have the greatestimpact, rather than any specificcharacteristic or behaviour of theleader per se.

And with MLD, the developmentof skills and knowledge alone isnot sufficient to improveperformance - it requires theprovision of constructive

feedback, appropriate supportand encouragement to take onmanagement and leadershipresponsibilities.



25/38

These findings demonstrate theimportance of considering leadership inthe wider context of the organisation. Inisolation, there is no guarantee that

leadership development and/or capabilitywill enhance individual or organisationalperformance, however, if considered as akey enabler within wider organisationaland HRM processes its impact becomesevident. Conversely, the presence ofeffective leadership and managementprocesses within an organisationincreases the likelihood of furthertraining and development beingsuccessful. Without a sense of vision,inspiration and direction, HRM and MLD

initiatives will not be integrated withbusiness objectives and employees willlack the motivation and commitment towork towards shared organisationalgoals.

A further point arising from this review isthe pressing need for more extensiveresearch into the relationship betweenleadership and managementdevelopment, capability andperformance. Of particular importance isan improved understanding of themanner in which these (and other)elements interact to make them effectivewithin certain situations but not others.To this extent, it is advised that allorganisations should seek to find ways ofevaluating their management andleadership capability and developmentprocesses, not in a simplistic linearfashion, but as part of a holisticintegrated organisational strategy. In aLeadership and ManagementDevelopment Best Practice Guide

developed during the CEML research,evaluation was included as one of thekey elements of any initiative (Burgoyneand James, 2002) and a recent article inthe Harvard Business Review (Ittner andLarcker, 2003) argued that the majorityof organisations fail to take sufficientaccount of non-financial performanceindicators.

Thus in conclusion, despite the presenceof definitive empirical evidence indicatingthe relationship between management,leadership and performance it is nowwidely agreed that these are keyingredients in the effective performance

of individuals, groups, organisations,regions and nation states. The difficultyin measuring this relationship in anydirect linear manner indicates the needfor more elaborate longitudinal researchthat considers performance in its widestsense. The manner in which improvedmanagement and leadership leads toenhanced performance is highly complexand thus when considering the benefitsarising from interventions a muchbroader notion of performance needs tobe embraced than one simply ofenhanced productivity or profit.



26/38

The Shadow Side o f Leadersh ip

Whilst much is written and said aboutthe benefits of effective leadership, farless consideration is given to thepossible negative impacts of a culturethat promotes leadership as theanswer.

It is not just where leaders turn bad,working for selfish or deluded aims andencouraging followers to work towardsgoals that are ultimately not in their owninterests or those of society, whereleadership can have a negative effect.In corporate scandals such as AndyFastow of Enron and Dennis Kozlowski atTyco it is clear how personal ambitionand greed lead to disastrous

consequences for their organisations andsimilar examples are replete in politics,religion, and all other domains of humanactivity (Kellerman, 2004). Of equalconcern, however, is where more subtlesocial and psychological factors interactto undermine the very principles thatgood leadership is meant to address.

In an influential paper Gemmill andOakley (1992) proposed that leadershipcould be an alienating social myth that,rather than empowering organisations,

deskills employees and places excessivedependency on the leader. To makethis argument, they draw heavily onpsychodynamic literature and proposethat through a process of reification, theabstract notion of leadership is taken asrepresentative of an objective reality ineffect, the very existence of notions suchas leader and leadership compel us tobelieve that such things must indeed bereal.

Within this framework it is argued the

leadership myth functions as a socialdefence whose central aim is to repressuncomfortable needs, emotions, andwishes that emerge when peopleattempt to work together (ibid, p. 273),the implication being that followers learnto depend on figures in leadership rolesto offer them a sense of meaning,direction and purpose.

When pain is coupled with aninordinate, widespread, and pervasivesense of helplessness, social mythsabout the need for great leaders andmagical leadership emerge from theprimarily unconscious collective

feeling that it would take a miracle ormessiah to alleviate or ameliorate thispainful form of existence (Gemmilland Oakley, 1992, p.273) .

This paper was written largely inresponse to the recurring emphasis oncharismatic and inspirational leadershipdominant at the time, and which is stillwidely pursued within manyorganisations. The primary concern wasthat in over-idealizing the leader,members deskill themselves from theirown critical thinking, visions,inspirations, and emotions (ibid, p.279). Such a situation, rather thanempowering followers to reach their

maximum potential, engenders a senseof alienation, helplessness and failurethat leads to passivity and a childlikedependence on the leader. The authorsconclude by proposing that leadershipneeds demythologising to enable allindividuals, no matter at what levelwithin the organisation, to recognisetheir internal drivers and abilities andthus find new ways of expressing theircreativity and identity when interactingwith others.

Conger (1990) expresses similarconcerns, but this time from the leadersperspective, arguing that there are threemain areas in which leaders can becomedeluded and lose touch with reality. Thefirst of these is strategic vision. Whilst itis recognised that a strong vision hasbeen central to the success of manywell-known leaders, the strength of thisvision and a personal commitment toachieving it can lead to a stubbornrefusal to consider alternative and

competing approaches. This convictionthat the world really is or should be configured exactly as we see it isdiagnosed by Maccoby (2000) asnarcissism, common amongst leadersbecause it is one of the forces drivingthem to seek power: that is the power tomake their vision come true. Such asituation may mean that the leader failsto detect important market changes, thenecessary resources required to achievethe vision and an exaggeration of theneeds of markets and constituents. Ineffect, the leader may become blind-sighted, seeking out only informationthat supports his or her vision and



27/38

ignoring that which conflicts. Thissituation may be compounded whereother people within the organisation failto challenge the leaders vision, eitherdue to fear of repercussions, or over-dependence and trust in the leaders

judgement.

Others in the organisation, who tendto become dependent on a visionaryleader, may perpetuate the problemthrough their own actions. They may

idealize their leader excessively andthus ignore negative aspects andexaggerate the good qualities. As aresult, they may carry out theirleaders orders unquestioningly and

leaders may in certain circumstancesencourage such behaviour because of

their needs to dominate and beadmired (Conger, 1990, p. 291).

A second way in which leaders can losetouch with reality is as a result of theircommunication and impression-management techniques. It isundoubtedly true that effectivecommunication is a key leadership skill,however it is also one that is open toabuse. In order to make his or her

vision more appealing, a leader may betempted to distort the information thatthey convey selectively presenting onlythose aspects that enhance theirmessage. Whilst this may serve todeceive followers (either intentionally orunintentionally) there is evidence toindicate that it may ultimately begin todelude the presenter as well. This isparticularly likely where positiveresponses are received from theaudience, which reinforce and confirm

the leaders argument.The third issue presented by Conger thatmay undermine a leaders effectivenessare management practices that becomeliabilities. Whilst unconventionalbehaviour may commonly be associatedwith charismatic and visionary leaders, itmay well give rise to difficulties in theorganisation that are hard to overcome.In particular, problems may arise withmanaging upward and sideways,relationships with subordinates, a lack of

attention to administrative detail andimplementation, and failure to plan forsuccession. Thus, the leaders need fordominance may sour relationships with

colleagues and subordinates, limit thedevelopment of future leaders, andengender an action-orientated culturethat fails to take sufficient account ofeveryday detail.

Maccoby and Kets de Vries expresssimilar concerns, but this time they pointto an almost compulsive or pathologicaltrend within leaders towards narcissismand an organisational tendency towardsneurosis. Maccoby (2000) argues thatlarger-than-life leaders are almostinevitably driven by a need forrecognition, power and self-promotionthat is key to their success, andoccasionally their downfall. Such leaders

tend to express a clear vision and arecapable of inspiring followers throughtheir charisma and communicationabilities. On the negative side, however,they are often sensitive to criticism, shunemotions, are poor listeners, lackempathy, have a distaste for mentoringand development, and are intenselycompetitive. Kets de Vries (2004)echoes these thoughts, as well as thoseof Gemmill and Oakley by stressing thatleaders and followers are susceptible toneurosis at both an individual andcollective level. The blind desire offollowers to be lead can be just asharmful as the blind ambition of theleader.

So what can organisations do toeliminate or minimise these risks?Firstly it is important to be aware thatsuch processes may be occurring thevery fact of making them conscious andexplicit can alert people to the fact thatsomething may be astray. Secondly,

checks and controls can be put in placeto minimise the potential negativeimpact of narcissism. Maccoby proposesa number of solutions including finding atrusted sidekick who can challenge theleaders assumptions and encouragethem to consider alternatives;indoctrinate the organisation tointernalise the vision and values of theleader; and get into psychoanalysis,because through self-awareness andreflection narcissistic leaders will bebetter placed to exploit the positiveaspects of their personality and minimisethe negative impacts. And thirdly,organisations can reconsider the



28/38

importance that they place ondesignated leaders in resolving theirchallenges. Kets de Vries argues thatgreater attention needs to be paid toachieving congruence between thepersonal needs of employees andorganisational objectives. This, heproposes, will lead to a greater sense ofdetermination, sense of competence,feeling of community, sense ofenjoyment and sense of meaning. Hedoesnt, however, give much guidance asto how this can be achieved and itremains likely that people will continueto be motivated as much, if not more, bytheir dysfunctional emotional needs asby their altruistic and rational goals.

Responsible leadership requires a deepsense of self and community - valuingdiversity, ethics, the individual and thecollective. In effect, at its heart is ashared emotional intelligence or, as AlanWheelis (1975, p.15) expresses it:

Freedom is the awareness ofalternatives and the ability to choose.

7 - what is leadership

Documents