03.01.05
Posted in grad school at 12:46 pm by
As I mentioned a post about boobies ago, I am a graduate student studying communication. Basically, in order to be a COM scholar (and that’s what we call ourselves) you just need to study the communication of x. (Where x is just about any other human function you can dream up.) For me x = leadership. That’s what my thesis is about.
In the first draft of my thesis proposal I did a pretty good literature review but my biggest downfall was that I didn’t define my constructs to the satisfaction of my advisor. Frankly, she was right, I didn’t define them well enough. So…before Friday I need to define leadership. Not talk about who some leaders are or what leaders do–at least not exactly–I need to define leadership, in the abstract.
At first glance, this seems like a task akin to defining the color black. How can we do it? It’s a color. It’s not white, blue, red, green, or purple. It’s the absence of light. What it really is, is hard to describe or define. The same is true with leadership. I thought long and hard about what the first step in my journey along defining leadership should be, and I thought of all of you.
Basically, you’re my semi-captive audience. (Semi-captive because you could leave if you wanted to, but in spite of all of the crap that I’ve written so far you’ve stuck around…thus, you must be captive in some sense.) So, I decided I’d try my definition out on you. Bear with me here, I’m just going off the top of my head.
Here goes:
Groups are one of the most prevalent social structures that society employs to accomplish tasks. Firefighters, accountants, executives, sports players, and educators work in teams, committees, and groups. Finding a truly leaderless where no individual has stepped into or been appointed into the role of leader is nearly impossible. Thus, the prevalence of leadership is as prevalent as the social structure of the group in modern society.
Despite the prevalence of leadership, researchers have not arrived at any one definition as to what, exactly, leadership is (Stogdill, 1974).1 Some researchers have held that a leader is the embodiment of the central will of the group (Bass, 1990)2, while others contrast trait definitions of leadership with process definitions of leadership. One point of common ground in the leadership literature, however, is that leadership exists in a group setting.
Some concepts such as power, status, or influence are closely related to leadership. However, delineating these concepts from leadership is important. While many leaders are able to exert power, for example, it is not always the case that powerful individuals will be perceived as the leader of a group. Individuals who use power in a group setting may be leaders; however, their use of power may or may not steer the group toward a group objective.
Likewise, a group members’ status may be attained through experience, age, height, or any number of other characteristics. Status, however, must also be viewed as a related but separate construct from leadership. It is true that many high status members gain a leadership title, as well. However, in and of itself status simply is a measure of the hierarchy present within a group.
Influence, as well, is a related but not sufficient condition of leadership. Influence describes the ability of group members to persuade or coerce other members of their group. Certainly, being able to get all group members to follow (by persuasion) is a quality of leadership; however, if the sucess of the group is not the motivation of the influencer, this persuasion or coersion cannot be considered as part and parcel of leadership.
One common theme found in the process of deciphering these related but different constructs is the understanding of leadership as a goal directed role. An individual must have sufficient power, status, and influence within a group. However, without that power, status, and influence being used to direct a group toward a desired outcome of the group as a whole, leadership is not present.
Proponents of the process view of leadership hold that leaders are individuals who fit the needs of a particular situation. Because task situations vary widely as to the type of leadership that must be exerted, the type of individuals who will successfully serve as leaders in these situations varies widely, as well. On the contrary, the trait view of leadership states that individuals who have a certain constellation of in-born traits will be the most likely individuals to emerge as leaders.
Thus, for the purposes of this research leadership will be defined as the quality that individuals in group settings have that allows them, through the use of power, status, and influence, to lead a group toward a goal desired by the group as a whole.
____________
1 Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.
2 Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.
So, did I lose you yet?
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/03/01/leadership_in_the_abstract/trackback/
Posted in grad school at 12:46 pm by
As I mentioned a post about boobies ago, I am a graduate student studying communication. Basically, in order to be a COM scholar (and that’s what we call ourselves) you just need to study the communication of x. (Where x is just about any other human function you can dream up.) For me x = leadership. That’s what my thesis is about.
In the first draft of my thesis proposal I did a pretty good literature review but my biggest downfall was that I didn’t define my constructs to the satisfaction of my advisor. Frankly, she was right, I didn’t define them well enough. So…before Friday I need to define leadership. Not talk about who some leaders are or what leaders do–at least not exactly–I need to define leadership, in the abstract.
At first glance, this seems like a task akin to defining the color black. How can we do it? It’s a color. It’s not white, blue, red, green, or purple. It’s the absence of light. What it really is, is hard to describe or define. The same is true with leadership. I thought long and hard about what the first step in my journey along defining leadership should be, and I thought of all of you.
Basically, you’re my semi-captive audience. (Semi-captive because you could leave if you wanted to, but in spite of all of the crap that I’ve written so far you’ve stuck around…thus, you must be captive in some sense.) So, I decided I’d try my definition out on you. Bear with me here, I’m just going off the top of my head.
Here goes:
Groups are one of the most prevalent social structures that society employs to accomplish tasks. Firefighters, accountants, executives, sports players, and educators work in teams, committees, and groups. Finding a truly leaderless where no individual has stepped into or been appointed into the role of leader is nearly impossible. Thus, the prevalence of leadership is as prevalent as the social structure of the group in modern society.
Despite the prevalence of leadership, researchers have not arrived at any one definition as to what, exactly, leadership is (Stogdill, 1974).1 Some researchers have held that a leader is the embodiment of the central will of the group (Bass, 1990)2, while others contrast trait definitions of leadership with process definitions of leadership. One point of common ground in the leadership literature, however, is that leadership exists in a group setting.
Some concepts such as power, status, or influence are closely related to leadership. However, delineating these concepts from leadership is important. While many leaders are able to exert power, for example, it is not always the case that powerful individuals will be perceived as the leader of a group. Individuals who use power in a group setting may be leaders; however, their use of power may or may not steer the group toward a group objective.
Likewise, a group members’ status may be attained through experience, age, height, or any number of other characteristics. Status, however, must also be viewed as a related but separate construct from leadership. It is true that many high status members gain a leadership title, as well. However, in and of itself status simply is a measure of the hierarchy present within a group.
Influence, as well, is a related but not sufficient condition of leadership. Influence describes the ability of group members to persuade or coerce other members of their group. Certainly, being able to get all group members to follow (by persuasion) is a quality of leadership; however, if the sucess of the group is not the motivation of the influencer, this persuasion or coersion cannot be considered as part and parcel of leadership.
One common theme found in the process of deciphering these related but different constructs is the understanding of leadership as a goal directed role. An individual must have sufficient power, status, and influence within a group. However, without that power, status, and influence being used to direct a group toward a desired outcome of the group as a whole, leadership is not present.
Proponents of the process view of leadership hold that leaders are individuals who fit the needs of a particular situation. Because task situations vary widely as to the type of leadership that must be exerted, the type of individuals who will successfully serve as leaders in these situations varies widely, as well. On the contrary, the trait view of leadership states that individuals who have a certain constellation of in-born traits will be the most likely individuals to emerge as leaders.
Thus, for the purposes of this research leadership will be defined as the quality that individuals in group settings have that allows them, through the use of power, status, and influence, to lead a group toward a goal desired by the group as a whole.
____________
1 Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.
2 Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.
So, did I lose you yet?
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/03/01/leadership_in_the_abstract/trackback/
Resident Atheist said,
March 1, 2005 at 1:16 pm
I’m most comfortable thinking of leadership in basic biological terms as the alpha individuals. In practice, primates sometimes have a clearly defined individual leader (this is usually the case with male-dominant groups), and sometimes they have a kind of “council” of alphas (this is more common with female-led groups). The distinction between alphas and betas (and gammas and deltas and so forth) is that the group looks to the alphas to make the final decisions about what the group will do. It’s also not uncommon for a group to abruptly shift leaders when switching tasks–there may be a completely different set of alphas for, say, gathering food and fending off predators. This is compatible with both the process and trait approaches to leadership, because individuals who are perceptive, quick and articulate (primates communicate too!) are likely to excel at several tasks. This is just primates, but I think a lot of the same principles carry over into human interactions.
The bottom line, for primates at least, is that a leader is someone the individuals in the group trust (or at least allow) to make decisions for them. I think this is more or less what you’re saying?
Brandon said,
March 1, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Generally speaking, RA, the current literature would tend to group your perspective on different alphas for different tasks would fall under the general view of process leadership.
For my thesis I’m focusing on a more trait centered approach. Though, I’m looking at a trait that describes the way that indivduals are able to self-present (the trait is Snyder’s self-monitoring.)
I find your concept of trust in leadership to be facinating! I think I’ll add in a paragraph!
Wendy said,
March 1, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Whew! Glad I’m not trying to write a thesis! You said, “Thus, the prevalence of leadership is as prevalent as the social structure of the group in modern society.” However, history tells us that the concepts of groups and leaders have been established and utilized throughout history. Perhaps a clue to your definition of leadership could be found in why this methods works so well and has always been utilzed throughout history in all cultures no matter how diverse or isolated. Just a thought.
Brandon said,
March 1, 2005 at 5:10 pm
Wonderful point, Wendy. I have considered the issue of the intercultural nature of leadership. Fortunately for me, I have to draw some boundaries around that which I pour my time. For the purpose of my thesis, I’ll be looking at modern times leadership in group settings.
Nonetheless, I think the issue of intercultural leadership definitions would be an interesting study. I would actually be pretty surprised, though, if we saw the same types of leaders in different cultural contexts. I think that views of status, power, influence, and trust likely vary over different cultural traditions.
As to your question, though, that is basically, ‘why is it that a group only has 1 real leader?’ My answer is: I don’t know.
Resident Atheist said,
March 1, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Are you differentiating between a nominal leader and the one(s) who actually make the decisions? If so, there are circumstances (e.g. in article reviewing) where there is often no single official leader; and if not, there are often several people at the core of the decision-making process (e.g. Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc.) whose use of power and influence seems basically equivalent.
Deborah Tannen has done some work that explores why groups composed only of men tend to be hierarchal, whereas groups composed only of women are often much more egalitarian. I think that regardless of how the terms are defined, there are plenty of situations where you don’t have one single leader.
Brandon said,
March 1, 2005 at 7:24 pm
That thought, RA, about Tannen’s work raises a possible HUGE confound in the literature. Which, by the way, would also be a HUGE confound in the measurement of leader emergence in my study. So…for the time being I’m going to ignore it…not that you’re wrong but more that acknowleging the egalitarian / heirarchical would seriously screw up my study.
The short explanation of what the measurement confound is basically that when measuring leader emergence, women are often FORCED to give a ranking.
I think that the meaning of the term ‘leadership’ itself may take on different meanings within a group of men rather than a group of women.
Thanks for your thoughts, RA!