John Superman Research Paper

As a teenager, John was involved with a negative ‘street’ lifestyle that could’ve easily led to jail or the morgue. In his quest to overcome these challenges, live a purposeful life and become a millionaire he studied brain science and quantum physics – as they relate to achieving success in business and life.
Through consistent focus and application of what he learnt he was featured as one of the experts in the hit film and book The Secret. He is a New York best-selling author and has landed appearances on Larry King Live, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Anderson Cooper 360°, and many other major media outlets.
In the last 20 years he has built several multimillion dollar businesses, and is the founder of REMAX Indiana, a company that has 1,500
sales associates, who collectively generate $4.5 billion a year in sales.
We interviewed John to find out the importance of leadership within an organization.
Having started and built many multimillion-dollar and a billion-dollar business, how important was it to have the right leadership within your organization?
Having the right leadership is absolutely critical, it is no different to setting off on a military mission. You can have the biggest mission, vision or goal but unless you have the right people to buy into the mission and others who have the specific skills to execute the strategies and tactics you can never really achieve the goal.
People will work 8 hours a day for a job that they love, 12 hours a day for a boss they love and 24 hours for a mission that they buy into.
They say anyone can become a leader. Is it really possible? Aren’t their people who have traits that make them unfit to be a leader?
I personally think that in order to be a leader you must first have the propensity and desire to be a leader. Leadership to me is being able to bring out the best in other people. It’s not telling people what to do its showing people and giving them the opportunity to get it done, this is a skill that as a leader you have or you don’t.
What is one characteristic that you believe every leader should possess?
Empathy and compassion; if you can empathise with another person’s emotions and situation and be compassionate in the way you lead, then that to me is most important.
What is one mistake you witness leaders making more frequently than others?
Not paying the right people what they are worth.
What do you think is the biggest challenge facing leaders today?
Hiring and keeping great talent. The market place is very competitive and companies have realised that the biggest assets within a company is human capital, not their product or service. So to find the right people, train them, give them the right roles and responsibilities and compensate them fairly is the biggest challenge most leaders face today.
What are the dangers of having the wrong leaders within an organization?
If you have the wrong people executing the right strategy you will never succeed.
Can someone be a good leader, but not a good manager? Which is better for a company?
I happen to be one of those people, I am a very good leader but not a very good manager. I don’t like to manage processes and systems, I like to inspire and lead people with my vision, behaviours and work ethic. One of the things to recognise is to know what your core strengths, competencies and unique abilities are so you know what type of leader you are.
What are you doing to ensure you continue to grow and develop as a leader?
I read at least a book a week, go to at least four events per year and hire a private consultant to help me grow and develop into a more skilled and powerful individual.
What advice would you give someone going into a leadership position for the first time?
If you are going into a leadership role for the first time, the first thing you must understand is that people do want to be lead. People don’t want to be lead in a way that causes them to feel badly about themselves, they want to be lead in a way that will enable them to grow, love their role and take full responsibility for their actions and results.
People don’t mind being told when they don’t do something right, but don’t challenge who they are as a person, challenge the job that they did and show them that they are capable of doing better.
1. How did you become active in Academy affairs? Did you have a mentor or someone that introduced you to the Academy? Was there a specific objective to becoming active in the Academy?

In my residency (Iowa,'59-62), the Chairman (Carroll Larson) had been President of the Academy so we knew all about it and it was taken for granted that we were all going to pass the Boards and become Fellows. As far as becoming active, whenever there was a Committee opportunity I accepted it. I think my first Committee was The Committee on Arthritis. Interesting that when I was 1st Vice President in charge of revising the Committee structure, that was one I abolished.

2. Is there a particular public figure or historical figure whose leadership style you admire? In what ways have you tried to emulate him or her?

I can't say that there was, I was more tuned into living role models.

3. What acts of leadership, either within the Academy or in public life, impressed you? Please describe and tell us why.

Three role models in Orthopaedic Surgery. Dr. Ignacio Ponseti for his modest demeanor and dedication to his patients, Bill Donaldson for his leadership style, and Walter Hoyt for his consummate professionalism.

4. What leadership skills do you think are most important in a Academy president? During your career, is there an Academy president who style you tired to emulate? Why?

Pretty much the same as in any leader, the willingness to listen to all sides of an issue and make a rational decision even if it were not the one he or she would have chosen. The important thing is to make a decision at the end of debate. As for style, I pretty much had my own style although I obviously was influenced by others

5. What advice would you share with young orthopaedic surgeons just beginning their careers? Why should they become involved with the Academy? How did your involvement with the Academy teach you leadership skills?

The advice would be to 'get involved'. It doesn't have to be with the Academy. How about the County Medical Society, the Hospital Committees, other organizations. As for leadership skills, they are formed long before the Academy gets into the picture. I was president of the student council in junior high, high school, college fraternity, senior class in medical school, and the hospital medical board. The style may vary depending on the organization.

6. During your tenure as Academy president, what were the key leadership challenges and how did you deal with them? In retrospect, would you have handled them differently?

Right off the bat I was told that a committee had determined that Charlie Heck, the long time Executive Director of the Academy was to retire at the end of my tenure as President, and no one had given him any indication that this was to occur. It was simply that he had reached 65. It was an enormous blow to his ego, so I got him to write a history of the Academy as it was our 50th Anniversary. He got totally involved with this project and finished the book by the next Annual Meeting. It is entitled Fifty Years of Progress with most of it, of course, what he knew from personal experience. It is dry as a bone, but if you want to know anything about the origins of the Academy, it is in there. I would not have handled it differently.

7. As President of the Academy, what achievements were you most proud of? Can you describe the leadership challenges that these achievements presented? How did you overcome them?

One was related to the 'Affiliate Status' of other Orthopaedic Societies as adopted in the Bylaws in 1972. As far as I was concerned, this was a useless appendage, and that something meaningful should be substituted. The model I had in mind was based on the Board of Councilors except it would represent specialists in Orthopaedics. The Affiliate status was abolished with a stroke of the pen and the process started that culminated a year or two later with the Council of Musculoskeletal Specialty Societies being formed.

8. What achievements in your own career are you most proud of?

Of course President of the Academy would rank first, but also Chairman of the Board and President of the American College of Surgeons, as well as President of the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation.
9. Who, in your estimation, who were the greatest orthopaedic leaders? Please explain why.

"Greatest" isn't in my vocabulary in that regard. Prior to putting together my Presidential Speech, I read the previous 49 and it was obvious that everyone had made a contribution. And there were countless others who were never much involved with the Academy that made significant advances in the field.

10. How has being active in the Academy helped you in your professional practice?

Being active in the Academy introduced me on a personal level with leaders in the field who were involved in progressive and innovative projects. For instance, I had one of the first fifty permits to use bone cement in hip replacement.

11. What do you believe are the most critical issues facing orthopaedic surgeons today?

I think the most critical issues facing orthopaedic surgeons today are a mixture of economic, political and ethical aspects affecting the entire field.

12. Finally, the age old question: Are leaders born, or are they
made?

I personally think it is largely genetic and then strongly influenced by subsequent circumstances. Burning bright | Managing director C. D. Kamath explains how Tata Refractories has reinvented itself to reach the top, and the challenges of staying there | | | | Companies at the top can never rest on their laurels. Tata Refractories (TRL) — for long the leader in the Indian market for the heat-and-wear protection that furnaces or kilns used while processing materials — understands this truism. The company is among a select few in the world to have not only a wide range of products but also expertise in refractories management.In this interview with Saloni Meghani, TRL's managing director, C. D. Kamath reveals how the company is staying on its toes to keep ahead of the competition.How would you define leadership? What does a market leader have to do to retain its leadership position?
Leadership is a subject better left to academicians and experts, but there is no doubt that all leaders have to work hard, and continuously so, in order to maintain their position. Complacency is an ever-present threat. In fact, a market leader has to be far more proactive than its followers in order to maintain its position. A strong orientation towards customer satisfaction is the minimum pre-requisite for this.How has TRL maintained its leadership position?
TRL has maintained its leadership through a strong emphasis on two factors: change management and growth. We have recognised that in today's business environment, change is the only reality. We anticipate the trends in the environment and initiate proactive action within the organisation to cope with them.On the issue of growth strategy, we are led by two axioms: growth should be a continuous process and it should occur at an accelerating pace. Taken together, these demand a lot of diverse initiatives. This is the battle we are fighting in order to maintain our leadership in the marketplace.What are the challenges TRL has had to address in order to remain at the top?
Every organisation goes through cycles of prosperity and poverty and this has been true for TRL as well. During the period between 1996 and 1998, TRL was faced with a major cash-flow crisis. The entire refractories industry, in India as well as in the rest of the world, was in a trough at that time. The situation was so critical that without some major changes in the different operational aspects of the company, we would not have survived.These developments forced us to think on our feet. As they say, when the going gets tough, the tough get going. The turnaround process was, and is, a continuous one. We initiated many changes at different levels. One of the central themes was, of course, to upgrade our human resources: senior executives, middle-level officers and workers.We carried out, among other things, measures such as the installation of IT infrastructure, capital investments for modernisation and expansion, and financial restructuring.The Tata Group felt that TRL was a necessary partner for the success of the materials division headed by Tata Steel. The Group also gave us complete support in our endeavour to turn things around.What were the factors you had to keep in mind while managing this change inside the company?
The most important requirement for managing change entails preparing people for it. People who may be affected by it have to be given the requisite training. It is also necessary not to rock the boat unless there is an acute crisis. We had to carry our people with us at all times. This involves effective communication about the necessity and scope of changes and empowerment.Every available communication tool and technique was employed in our change management process. We had intensive interactions with our people and with trade union officials. Our in-house publications were used effectively and senior executives acted as faculty at different human resources programmes in order to convey the significance of the initiatives. We left no stone unturned in the pursuit of two-way communication.Secondly, we simplified the organisational structure and improved the responsibility of every employee towards customer satisfaction. We continue to keep the future of the company, as well as that of the industry, in view so that we are in sync all the time.How has TRL adapted to the trends in the domestic and global markets over the past few years?
It is not enough to adapt to the trends in the domestic and global markets. We should, in fact, anticipate them. We have structured our marketing activities in a manner that engenders this capability. Our marketing meets, held at least thrice a year, provide an effective forum for reviewing and anticipating the emerging trends in the marketplace. We also have an initiative that brings together marketing and R&D so that available information is converted into concrete action for product and process improvements. The purpose of these efforts is to satisfy our customers in every possible manner.TRL today faces competition not only from a large number of domestic refractory producers but also from every major global refractory company. Among our domestic competitors are Vesuvius India, ACC Refractories, OCL, IFGL, OAL and Maithan Ceramics. Our global competitors include RHI, Refratechnik, LWB and SIAM Refractories. We gear ourselves to overcome the competition through cost competitiveness, product quality improvements, timely deliveries, and also through every other aspect that enhances customer satisfaction.Which markets and areas of business is TRL planning to get into in the near future?
TRL has a well-defined growth programme that includes the modernisation of existing facilities, the expansion of production capacities in specific product lines, the exploration of acquisition opportunities in India and abroad, and diversification into new business lines. We are currently exploring the field of advanced ceramics for the latter purpose. It is also possible that we will go in for backward integration by producing synthetic raw materials.What are the challenges of the future in terms of consumption, technology and raw materials?
We are going to face many challenges: reduction in the per capita consumption of refractories, the technological upgrading of products and processes, and shortage of raw materials. We already have in place approaches to manage these challenges.Even though the consumption of refractories per tonne of steel, cement, copper, etc, is going to witness a continuous reduction, we also anticipate that the Indian refractories market is going to grow because of economic expansion. Over the next decade our market will double in size. Our response, therefore, is to grow in volumes to maintain our market share. We have launched a major initiative called Fortune 500, the objective of which is to make TRL a Rs 500-crore company with profits of Rs 50 crore within five years. This is the central focus of all our change management initiatives. We are hopeful of success in this objective | |
Personal profile:

I have worked in manufacturing & teaching sector for many years. To enhance my personality & leadership quality, I also joined Jaycees. All these past experiences have helped me to be in the responsible position that i am holding now.

I was born in Butwal on 1978. After the completion of S.L.C., I went to Allahabad in India to graduate in Computer Science. I got my first job break in Honey Food products. I also started teaching computer in Wintech Software in Bhairahawa.

Inspiration and role model

I am very proud of my parents and myself. My self-confidence and satisfaction has always encouraged me to try new things and my parent's hard work has also motivated me to struggle in life.

My role model is my father. He is no more in this world but I always remember him while taking any major decision in my life. He was a police officer who was very stern to his decisions and self made man. I admire him because of his great assets such as punctuality, hard work, honesty, sincerity and positive attitude.

Story of struggle:

I joined Nepal Ambuja Cement Udhyog Pvt.Ltd. in 2006 as a General Manager. My job was to run the whole organization efficiently. In the beginning, it was a small company with the production of 36000 MT Cement per annum. I was new in this field. I didn't have any experience of solving those problems but abundant of zeal and confidence. At that time, our main problem was sales according to the ratio of production. The production was huge compared to our actual sales. The staffs were not qualified either. Then, I decided to recruit experienced and qualified sales people to bring positive changes to the whole business. In a year, the positive result was seen on the ground. Our M.D Rishi Kesh Agrawal & Director Mr.Hemant Agrawal forwarded a proposal to increase the production to which we all agreed. He believed in me and my leadership. We expanded our production to 150000 MT cement per annum which was a huge jump. Sales had to be improved to maintain the profit. We had innovative and strategic market plan. We were very lucky that we had achieved 90% result. By the end of December 2011, we are going to manufacture 180000 MT cement per annum.

Secret to success…

Success is nothing but achieving exactly what we want. For me satisfaction is success. I consider my strengths to be my confidence, leadership quality , hard work, teamwork, and easy adjustment to changes. I believe in me and my abilities which help me to take the correct decision.

The Credit of success goes to my M.D, Directors, staffs, Colleagues, dealers & my family for supporting me in every step directly or indirectly.

Daily Routine…

My daily routine starts from 5 am in the morning. I go to my computer training center to teach the students there. After 9 am, I leave the computer center and go to our factory. There, I start my daily schedule by monitoring the reports, interacting with the Head of Departments, analyzing the trend and making the right decisions. I try to see my subordinates' progress and problems. I utilize my second half of the office time by making plans for the next day. I send necessary reports to the M.D. at around 7 pm. After that, I leave the factory and enjoy my personal time with family.
Personal profile:

I have worked in manufacturing & teaching sector for many years. To enhance my personality & leadership quality, I also joined Jaycees. All these past experiences have helped me to be in the responsible position that i am holding now.

I was born in Butwal on 1978. After the completion of S.L.C., I went to Allahabad in India to graduate in Computer Science. I got my first job break in Honey Food products. I also started teaching computer in Wintech Software in Bhairahawa.

Inspiration and role model

I am very proud of my parents and myself. My self-confidence and satisfaction has always encouraged me to try new things and my parent's hard work has also motivated me to struggle in life.

My role model is my father. He is no more in this world but I always remember him while taking any major decision in my life. He was a police officer who was very stern to his decisions and self made man. I admire him because of his great assets such as punctuality, hard work, honesty, sincerity and positive attitude.

Story of struggle:

I joined Nepal Ambuja Cement Udhyog Pvt.Ltd. in 2006 as a General Manager. My job was to run the whole organization efficiently. In the beginning, it was a small company with the production of 36000 MT Cement per annum. I was new in this field. I didn't have any experience of solving those problems but abundant of zeal and confidence. At that time, our main problem was sales according to the ratio of production. The production was huge compared to our actual sales. The staffs were not qualified either. Then, I decided to recruit experienced and qualified sales people to bring positive changes to the whole business. In a year, the positive result was seen on the ground. Our M.D Rishi Kesh Agrawal & Director Mr.Hemant Agrawal forwarded a proposal to increase the production to which we all agreed. He believed in me and my leadership. We expanded our production to 150000 MT cement per annum which was a huge jump. Sales had to be improved to maintain the profit. We had innovative and strategic market plan. We were very lucky that we had achieved 90% result. By the end of December 2011, we are going to manufacture 180000 MT cement per annum.

Secret to success…

Success is nothing but achieving exactly what we want. For me satisfaction is success. I consider my strengths to be my confidence, leadership quality , hard work, teamwork, and easy adjustment to changes. I believe in me and my abilities which help me to take the correct decision.

The Credit of success goes to my M.D, Directors, staffs, Colleagues, dealers & my family for supporting me in every step directly or indirectly.

Daily Routine…

My daily routine starts from 5 am in the morning. I go to my computer training center to teach the students there. After 9 am, I leave the computer center and go to our factory. There, I start my daily schedule by monitoring the reports, interacting with the Head of Departments, analyzing the trend and making the right decisions. I try to see my subordinates' progress and problems. I utilize my second half of the office time by making plans for the next day. I send necessary reports to the M.D. at around 7 pm. After that, I leave the factory and enjoy my personal time with family.
Fresh Perspective: Developing Leaders: An Interview with Bruce Avolio
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Download article as PDF
Developing Leaders: An Interview with Bruce Avolio
From the Center for Leadership & Strategic Thinking Foster School of Business University of Washington
Russ Volckmann

Bruce Avolio
Russ: I have been looking forward to talking with you because of your work in leader development. Where did you do your PhD work?
Bruce: At The Akron University, Ohio, in industrial, organizational and gerontological psychology.
Russ: That makes the link between psychology, leadership and organizations. My first memory of your work was with the late Bernard Bass (Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton University in New York; he authored significant ground breaking work on transformational leadership). My impression is that the notion of transformational leadership has been very important in your thinking. Is that an accurate statement?
Bruce: Yes. It has been important particularly around development, but it’s been important generally in terms of thinking about leadership that changes people, organizations and societies.
Russ: You mentioned a key term: development. It seems to me of the people I’m aware of in the field, there are very few who have made the kind of impact on leader development as you in your academic work. I think of other people like David V. Day, who also worked with the military as you have, among others. Would you tell us about what led you to the focus on development?
Bruce: In my work at Akron University the program had really three core components in terms of majors. One was clinical, another was industrial, and the third was lifespan psychology. Although I have a pretty strong background in clinical, particularly around assessments, I merged my interests in industrial and lifespan psychology. I was interested in differences in how people developed across the lifespan. Initially, I wasn’t at all focused on leadership. I was more focused on the development of capabilities, generally speaking, and what happens to people across the lifespan in terms of their capabilities.
My interest in leadership development began to emerge when I moved to Binghamton in 1981 and started to have conversations with Bernie Bass and others. Around the time, we were talking about transformational leadership and I was particularly interested in James MacGregor Burns’ notion of transforming followers into leaders. Of course, Bernie and the others and myself were also focusing on the charismatic side as well. Up until that point, there really hadn’t been a whole lot of attention to thinking about what actually gets developed when we say a leader or leadership develops. The integration of my life-span psychology roots and transformational leadership led me to really getting deep into what constitutes leader and leadership development.
Russ: When you talk about lifespan psychology, have you extended that into any of the adult development psychology material: stage theories, hierarchical complexity with Michael Commons, or any of those folks?
Bruce: Yes, I have. When I said lifespan, it really included the entire lifespan. In particular, my early work, which had nothing to do with leadership, was on aging and work competency. I did a lot of work in the area of gerontology during the first decade of my career up until tenure. As I was beginning to get interested in how it applies to leadership development, I certainly was looking in particular at Kegan’s work on moral perspective taking as well as Kohlberg’s, because I was interested in the light and dark sides of charismatic leadership. I wanted to try to understand what were the developmental components that made up those two types of leaders.
I started to look at those developmental theories, including Eric Erikson among others. I was almost always pretty oriented towards development being fairly elastic, even in my work on age competencies. I believe that as people get older, there are many things that they do even better. That actually proved out in the work that we were doing and age and work capabilities.
In terms of leadership development, I’m not such a strong proponent of stages. I think stages are a helpful way for us to think about and compartmentalize leadership development. But the notion that people go through different levels of complexity certainly fits my thinking about leader development, whether it is the leader’s self-complexity, more reasoning complexity or leader self-concept complexity and how those evolve and develop.
Russ: What did you find in a model such as Kegan’s that is essentially a stage model? Did you look at William Perry? Did you look more recently at Jane Loevinger’s work and how Susanne Cook-Greuter or Bill Torbert have built on that? What is it you get from those perspectives that you are seeing as relevant and valuable to leader development?
Bruce: Well, a variety of things. I’ll start out most recently and work back. Most recently is in our putting forward the concept of developmental readiness. It fits very well with the idea that people will be at different points along the developmental continuum. We call it stages or just a continuum. Because they are at different points, we engage them in different ways, if you want to accelerate development.
The absolute ideal situation is where we would be able to align the readiness of individuals to the type of developmental experiences and challenges that we present. I think in doing that, we would be able to move people along more quickly in their development. Whereas a lot of times, there is a big gap between what we are trying to offer somebody to help develop and where they are in terms of their readiness.
There’s a range, of course, in which that works. Sometimes, you stretch people beyond what their upper limit of readiness is. Most often, people have a lot of reserve that they’re able to bring to bear, in order to develop. More recently in thinking about these frameworks in terms of developmental readiness, I think leadership development would be optimized if we could align the kind of experiences, training and learning to the readiness of the individual with some degree of flex. Moving back in time, as I said earlier, I was interested in moral reasoning—the ethical framing aspects of Kegan, Kohlberg and others, including Torbert. We were trying to explain why certain leaders saw the world through the lens of action just being a transaction—quid pro quo, exchange or I get it you don’t—or better yet, what I can do for the good of the group, organization and society. I’ve always been really interested in unpacking how leaders at different levels of moral reasoning really come to their task with different lenses. This could be in development and it could be an actual task in terms of a work assignment. I think that moral reasoning, self-complexity, self-concept clarity lines of research help to unpack that.
Russ: Would you kind of break down the moral reasoning piece for us in terms of how you see that and its role in leader development?
Bruce: Ultimately, we’re trying to develop leaders to higher levels of moral reasoning. The more complex the world gets and the more complexity organizations have to deal with, one would want to position the leadership at the top, middle and every level to be able to handle that complexity. But let’s say we focus on the top leaders and their having the capacity to reason through and see that there may be things that offset other things that are more long term that might need to be taken into account, or that one’s self-interest should not always trump other people’s interests. Indeed, the long-term needs may need to trump the short-term interests for a leader to be successful.
To some extent, we want to have the best leaders in the most senior leadership roles in organizations, and therefore we want people with higher levels of moral reasoning complexity in those positions. This doesn’t mean that they can’t do quid pro quo analysis and satisfy everybody’s self-interest, but they can see beyond that and see that sometimes short-term sacrifice is good for long-term gain.
In the same way, to be able to transform followers into leaders they have to have a higher level of capacity to reason in the long-term. They need to be able to delay gratification. In other words, to put somebody in a leader position you may know that they are not quite going to be the best producer, but you also know that they’re going to develop to a much higher potential, and are willing to make that short-term trade-off. This takes a leader who doesn’t see their people simply as a means to an end to be able to do that.
The minimum qualification for a transformational leader is to have a sufficient level of moral reasoning to be willing to allocate the time, energy and resources to developing others without necessarily any direct benefit to the leader. People who have lower levels of moral reasoning would have a very difficult time doing that because they see the world through a transactional lens: if you do this, you get that. That would restrict them in terms of their development.
Russ: You have written about five specific constructs related to developmental readiness. I’d like to take a minute to look at each one of these.
One of these is the learning goal orientation. I really appreciated your discussion of that. I’ve been doing some research on a rather extensive year-long plus development program for entrepreneurs and CEOs in medium to small businesses. One of the early experiences that these people have in this program is getting in touch with the degree to which they approach things from the position of the knower versus the position of the learner. That is often a very critical “Aha!” experience, one of those critical moments that you also referred to. If they get it, it really opens them to a much longer term learning process and if they don’t get it, this may leave them stuck. Would you say more about the learning goal orientation?
Bruce: I’m noticing that this is as relevant to working with groups as it is to working with individuals. Let me take the individual first. Obviously, by definition learning goal orientation means a willingness to explore and navigate through without necessarily worrying so much that you are not going to achieve the same level of performance that you might expect when you’re in the learning mode. This contrasts with performance goal oriented people.
Let’s be very stereotypical, if you have somebody who’s high in learning goal orientation—let’s not talk about performance goal for a minute in that individual—and let’s take someone else who is high in performance goal orientation. If you just looked at those two individuals, the way you would go about approaching them in terms of their development could be quite different. The performance goal oriented person is oftentimes looking for tools, techniques and probably some rules and a framework that’s very concrete and that’s going to allow them to get this leadership stuff done. The learning goal oriented individual is going to spend more time trying to understand that there is a broader framework and theory, perhaps, and that there maybe a variety of ways that one can approach doing this thing called leadership; they’re not seeing it such a utilitarian way.
The optimum is having someone who is high in learning goal orientation and high in performance goal orientation such that they could drive a task to success when they need to. They could also step back—and this is also where meta-cognitive thinking comes in—and say, “Okay, I understand how this task gets done. But when I reason through it and think about different ways of doing it, I can come up with some maybe fundamentally unique and interesting ways to approach it.” That would be the learning goal oriented side.
On a very practical level as developers we tend to have more challenges working with people who are performance goal oriented than learning goal oriented, because they really want to get to how can I use this. The learning goal oriented person wants to get to how do I understand this.
Working with groups in the last couple of years, we just happened to have some groups that were pretty high in learning goal orientation relative to performance goal orientation. And we had the flipside of that—high performance goal orientation as a group.
The group that was high on performance goal orientation struggled through a lot of the assessments we were doing, including the developmental readiness assessments in the coaching process. Probably a third of them opted out of the developmental process. Another third tolerated the developmental interventions. The last third that were less performance goal oriented seemed to enjoy the developmental work the most.
In the high learning goal oriented group it was like a developmental Mardi Gras every day. They loved the developmental experiences—“Can we have more? They would ask are there other tools we can try for development?” One of the things I ask them to do is conduct a respected leader interview. They are asked to interview somebody you really respect, reach as high as you can in the organization: the president of your company is not out of reach.
A number of people in the learning goal oriented group didn’t just do one interview. They were emailing me saying, “Is it okay? I’m doing like my second or third interview, I don’t want extra credit. I’m just enjoying this.” I have one guy who has done seven interviews. I’ve asked them to stop it because, I said, “Next year, the class won’t be able to do interviews in your company because you’ll have done them all!” These are hard core learning goal oriented folks.
There are just some very interesting contrasts between the high and low learning or performance goal oriented groups that we have to factor into how we think about leadership development, among other facets of developmental readiness. Both their starting and end points in terms of development may be quite different.
Russ: It is interesting having you talk about the learning goal orientation. It seems to me you’ve raised issues about the other four constructs that you wrote about in terms of developmental efficacy, self-concept, clarity, self-complexity, and meta cognitive ability. You referred to the last one. It makes me wonder if there is something about meta cognitive ability that is a prerequisite for people to be able to move towards or enhance that learning goal orientation.
Bruce: I would think so. They’re positively related. I don’t know what causes what though. My guess is that they probably feed off each other. Mostly in the psychology of it there’s probably some reciprocal relationship. Probably, if we go back into the early development of the individual, we would likely see the formation of the learning goal oriented individual that results in their becoming more of a meta-cognitive thinker. Meta cognitive is a bit more of a complex form of thinking and processing. I would guess that the learning goal orientation becomes a base upon which people then become more meta- thinkers over time.
Russ: Another concept you referred to was tools. I think of tools and practices. Very often, tools and practices seem intuitively more associated with the manager role. Yet what I’m finding is that the effective use of certain kinds of self-management and productivity management tools and practices are critical to the development of even the capacity to exercise leadership in organizations. I’m wondering if you see any relationship like that, because it does speak to the attempt to differentiate manager and leader. I don’t always assume that a leader is someone who’s in a formal role. I’m curious if you have some sense of the degree to which the development of specific, what we might think of as manager or self-management tools and practices, is important for leader development.
Bruce: I want to make sure I understand what you mean by tools. If tools are a survey feedback form or process, well the answer is yes. If tools are like for example what we are doing in some leadership development work with surgical leaders, yes. With this particular group we decided that we didn’t want to take much time, because there was a complaint about their not having any time for development. Such folks lose a lot of money if they are in some day or two long training workshop. What we’ve done in terms of a tool is we’ve created some very short vignettes based on the life of a surgeon and surgical leader. We used those as means of having conversations while they’re suiting up for surgery. It doesn’t take extra time, you know; surgery often starts late. We’re inserting this discussion with this tool around things that really get their attention. So I guess the answer is, yes, in that sense I’m using that as a tool.
Russ: That’s an example of working with leaders in an extreme context, is that right?
Bruce: When they do something very routine every day, they probably don’t see their circumstances as extreme. Of course it can be. If the patient’s vital signs go to zero, it becomes extreme. It is certainly more extreme than necessarily being a bank teller, except when someone walks in with a gun. Then it becomes extreme.
Russ: As long as I brought it up, why don’t we talk about the concept of leadership in the extreme context? I had assumed that that applied primarily to the work you’ve done with the military. Is that correct?
Bruce: No, it is not necessarily restricted to the military. There are a variety of extreme contexts; it depends on what dimensions you’re using. For example, a financial trader could make a decision that could cost their organization a hundred million dollars, so each decision is couched within an extreme context. Oftentimes, we think about extreme context where there is a high degree of risk, not financial, but maybe a physical risk. And if that’s the case, yes, it could apply to trauma teams. It can apply to military units, police, SWAT, firefighters, etc.
We argue that, in fact, the world has created more extreme contexts by the nature of where we’re heading as a civilization. For example, the hotel in Bangalore that I stayed near and actually went to one evening for dinner a few months ago, didn’t have bomb sniffing dogs and people outside with AK-47s. But after the bombing in Bangalore around this particular area where a lot of ex-pats lived, it became an extreme place, an extreme context. But it wouldn’t have been three years ago.
So the nature of the world has changed.
Flying an airplane has become even more extreme than just going 500 miles per hour in a gas can, because now there are people inside that might want to do harm to you. And we’re seeing in business, how rapidly things can change. For example, I was just over at an airline company this morning. They had a meltdown in their transformer. They were actually replacing transformers and it went from very routine—we’re going to plug this into that—into seven hours during Spring Break with planes ready to go and some ready to land not knowing where to go because the computer system went down. What would have been a normal day with typical reservations being executed became in that case extreme.
Russ: What is it you see is the difference in terms of the requirements for effective leaders under these extreme conditions?
Bruce: Look at the things that define extreme. I mentioned risk. It is riskier on a certain set of dimensions whether it’s physical risk or financial risk. One of the things that a leader in the extreme environment needs to be able to do is to be able to reduce uncertainty. In the military context they use a term—situational awareness. That’s an extremely important part of leading in a military context. It is to (1) realize that you likely don’t have all the information you need, and (2) you better build up a pretty strong and coherent unit, because when things go extreme, they have to feel comfortable to challenge you by giving you information that perhaps you’re not ready to receive, but you need to receive.
There are a lot of things that leaders could do in any context to enhance awareness and reduce uncertainty, but a lot of it happens before the extreme conditions set in. How authentic is the leader? How transparent? Are they someone that followers trust? Are they a cement head or are they somebody who has big ears and listens to people? Are they people who ask questions as opposed to provide statements? Are they ethical or not? Are they abusive or not? All those things contribute to how well someone ends up performing. And then there are some more specific things. You have to have a certain degree of leader efficacy, which includes thought, means and actions. We would say certainly in terms of thought efficacy to know that you’re going to get into those situations and successfully challenge the way people think. And when you’re in those situations, you’re going to have to make some decisions based on the awareness that you have and the information you have gleaned from others. You’re also going to put people at risk and you have to be able to have the action efficacy to take the appropriate action when you need to. The third piece of it is the means. You have to develop your people and have the right resources so that when you’re engaged in that extreme situation you feel like you have everything you need to make the right choices and to execute.
Russ: You used the term authentic. When I first encountered the notion of authentic leadership, it was Bill George’s book. You may have been writing about it before then. What do you mean by authentic leadership?
Bruce: I have known Bill George since he wrote his first book. In fact, I’ll see him in a month or so at Harvard. First of all, we were writing about it at the same time and we went into two very different outlets. He’s more into the popular press and the work we were doing was for the academic press. His book came out in 2003, while our work emerged in 2004 and beyond in the leadership literature.
Actually, in 1997 or 1998, some of us were having a conversation. Jane Howell and I had started to write on personalized and socialized charismatic leaders. We discussed the bad leader types who we see out there doing bad things to people for their own self-aggrandizement. Then we explored the good types. That discussion in the late ’90s, early 2000, led to my early thinking about authentic leadership.
Also, I remember having a conversation with Bernie Bass. He put a paper out with Paul Steidlmeier who is a business policy professor, but really I think he was a former minister and philosopher. I was talking with Bernie one day about this idea of authenticity and I used the term pseudo vs. authentic transformational, which they used in the article. Using the term pseudo transformational we were raising the question that there are leaders who look like transformational leaders but aren’t and there are leaders who are authentic and really are. We assumed we were talking always about the authentic, but we just made it clearer.
That discussion evolved over time beyond just being an adjective to thinking about what were the components of authentic leadership. That really began when I was leaving Binghamton and going to the University of Nebraska.
My context affects me in terms of the work that I do. So if I’m doing work in the military, it affects my thinking about things. If I’m working with public schools or the police, which I have, it affects me. When I moved to Nebraska, I found that there was a high degree of value placed on authenticity. If you’re a farmer and your neighbor next door breaks a hip or something, you say that you’re going to come over and take care of business, and then you take care of business. Nebraska’s an agrarian society in terms of its ‘roots’ and there’s a lot of that metaphorically in the soil. I saw that in people.
I had the opportunity to meet Warren Buffet—who had graduated from the University of Nebraska—when he came to speak. I could see that there was a certain level of genuineness to him that I would call authenticity. The concept evolved from there. Meeting a lot of people whose names you’d never heard of, but grew up with people like Warren Buffet who were also authentic. In fact, people used to joke with our business school dean that they recruited students from the Midwest, in places like Nebraska, because they feltthey were more honest. They had this brand of being honest, being true to yourself and these are characteristics that Bill George certainly talked about. I brought on a post doc at Nebraska by the name of Fred Walumbwa from Kenya, who helped launch a lot of the research with me on authentic leadership. He has become well known in his own right for his work in this area. Bill Gardner also came to take a position with me in Nebraska. I had a leadership chair and he had an ethics chair. In 2002 we started to build that first summit on authentic leadership that was held in 2004. Then the books that came out Bill’s and ours made authentic leadership a topic for discussion.
Two groups worked on the foundational theory pieces for the first summit—our group and a group from Michigan State. Ironically, we came up with identical models working completely independently except theirs was a little more focused on wellbeing, which we also later included as an outcome of authentic leadership. So, quite independently, we came up with the 4 components of authentic leadership including: self-awareness, transparency, moral reasoning, balanced processing.
The whole idea was interesting in that they came up with the same concepts as we had come up with. Rarely do you find in the literature where two groups are going to take the exact same time writing a theory and both came up with identical components. We did that by going back to the literature, back to Plato and Aristotle and then moving forward and each group of authors ended up in virtually the same place We also added some unique concepts that had not been covered in prior literature such as transparency and balanced processing.
Russ: Say more about that.
Bruce: I think the justice literature would refer to balanced processing as being a core justice construct, which is you make decisions based on having a balanced view of things and that you’re trying to incorporate different thoughts and perspectives before you make a judgment. You need transparency in order to get the data to make those kinds of decisions. If people won’t be transparent, they won’t be able to be balanced in their decision-making.
Russ: Great. I’m going to shift the focus a little bit at this point because one of the things that you have brought up multiple times in our conversation and certainly it comes up in your writing is the notion of context. I think that you and David V. Day and his colleagues like to make a distinction between leader and leadership. I know I do as well. I think one of the big problems in the field of leadership studies is the sloppy use of language. Leader, leading, leadership, they tend to get used interchangeably. I’ve published something in a Sage book where I advocate for a distinction among these terms and I’ll just share very quickly my distinction. Then I’ll ask you to talk about how you’re using these terms.
I talk about leader as a role in the sense that it’s a set of expectations held by all the stakeholders in that role. Leading is what someone does when they step into that role. Leadership is about not only the roles and what people do in those roles, but it is also about the culture and the systems within which they’re operating. Furthermore, if we’re going to talk about someone leading, we can get a sense of that by taking a snapshot. But if we really want to understand leadership in a system, we’ve got to have a movie. I’m wondering if those ideas resonate at all with the ways you’re thinking about or distinguishing leader and leadership? Bruce: It resonates very well. I think that because when you say stepping into a role, I assume it doesn’t necessarily have to be a formal role.
Russ: Exactly.
Bruce: But it could be and some people step into the role and manage and not lead, and it can be a formal role. Now, I think the distinctions that you raised makes a lot of sense. I was thinking as you were talking about Joe Rost’s work.
Russ: Yes?
Bruce: You know, on the idea of the leadership episode within leadership. When you said the movie, when you think about leadership, it’s oftentimes a series of episodes that are connected together that you lead within and also between. It’s very much true when you think about strategic leadership that you lead within a certain episode that reverberates out into the organization, across time and intersects with other episodes going forward, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively.
Russ: Right. You mentioned Joseph Rost. He was one of the early people that I interviewed in Integral Leadership Review, about two or three years before he died. His work has always been among my favorites.
In any case, James O’Toole also wrote in a chapter for Warren Bennis and others’ edited volume, The Future of Leadership. He talked about research that he’d been while working with a consulting firm where they began to see increasingly that the effectiveness of individual leaders had a high level of dependency on the effectiveness of certain kinds of systems in the organization.
And you mentioned these in one of the things that you wrote where you mentioned the importance of rewards and recognition for supporting individuals in being effective leaders. Other systems variables that we could think of might include decision making processes or communication dynamics within and across boundaries as well as technology, organization structure, and a whole bunch of other systemic variables. It seems that you’re advocating for developing, not just the individual, but the organization. What is your thinking these days about those systemic variables in relation to leadership?.
Bruce: Well, leadership is always embedded in something. But then you know we were talking earlier about an extreme context. When you embed, take participative leadership in an extreme context, it may look different than if the context has nothing that resembles “extreme” in it. So the way we interpret leadership or the way we lead in those episodes are by definition embedded in and shaped by the context.
The context takes on a lot of interesting forms. One is the form of the mindset. We maybe call that culture or climate. Leading within that context of say different cultures takes on different meanings. In the Northwest of the United States, people expect you to dialogue before making decisions, whereas on the East Coast people want you to make decisions fairly rapidly and move on. These are different cultural contexts and they become part of the mindset. You see it in discussions in the way leaders interact. We just hired a new president from the University Utah and I could see the article about him emphasizing things like extreme listener and works collaboratively. They were assuring all of us about the cultural mindset, a set of checkmarks about the culture here at the University of Washington.
He even values what the faculties think. There you go, he must be collaborative!
So I think that the context is such an important part of leadership. The problem is where does the context begin and end? Is it in talking about the culture of the mind or is it something that’s really truly physical and separate. So for example, I did some work early on in Canadian Correctional Services and actually more recently in the United States, as well as in South Africa. Each of those cultures or countries had a different impact on the correctional services, how inmates were looked at, how development was perceived, the investment in leadership, development, things like that. So the context is such an important part of understanding leadership. I always sort of joke when I go to conferences that we take the context and we put it inside a little bubble and we call it a moderator.
And for me, it oversimplifies the different levels. I mean you have the historical context. For example, the behavior of people walking around here today in the United States is a function of things that happened a hundred years ago in this country. It still shapes the way we think and the way we behave. But it doesn’t have that impact on a new Korean student who’s doing his Ph.D. here at the University of Washington, because he is not part of the historical context, at least not as strongly. To me the context is the historical, it’s the proximal, it’s the distal context that ends up shaping how we come to enact and understand leadership
Russ: So, in a way it’s a biological notion of leadership and the interplay between the individual and the collective in terms of culture?
Bruce: Yes. Culture is one obviously important context.
Russ: Right. And are you doing anything by way of looking at other kinds of variables such as the more systemic as opposed to cultural, the structural, the process, the technology, things like that?
Bruce: Yes, depending on which study we’re looking at, we certainly are looking at some of those. I’m doing work currently with a couple of people here, one of my doctoral students, on what I’ve called distributed strategic leadership because so much of strategic leadership is seen as top management team in terms of the literature, a CEO.
What we’re talking about here is that leadership is embedded in the strategic leadership of an organization. What I mean by that is that the strategic leadership in an organization frames messages and reinforces certain ways of doing things. Those ways are enacted at subsequent levels of the organization or reinforced by the messages. The leadership at each level is embedded in the structure of strategic leadership and the process of strategic leadership. You might look at an optimal situation for the strategic leadership of an organization. Let’s take a hospital system that really is promoting patient centered care as their main core message. You would expect that the conversations and the way leaders go about emphasizing, reinforcing, looking for aspects of patient care, would be focused on patient centeredness. You would expect that to be distributed throughout the organization in such a way that you’d have a very high degree of alignment around that. Now pick something else. Pick anything. I think leadership at those subsequent levels is embedded in the strategic leadership of the organization.
Russ: I find that really fascinating. I’m reminded of how Shell Oil and other companies have used scenario development to do strategic planning, although I think that’s probably the least valuable function of scenario development processes in organizations. Itis much more about developing even the metacognitive capabilities of the individuals who go through the process, as well as creating linkages within organizational systems. Another piece I published with Keith Bellamy talks about scenario development as leadership development, because it’s developing individuals as leaders while they are going through the process of developing the scenarios. At the same time, scenario development is informally restructuring the networks within the organization. That’s a form of leadership development. Does that sound like it’s in accordance with the things you’re talking about?
Bruce: Well, from the development side, yes. I think from a strategic leadership point of view, strategic leadership in an organization articulates a scenario, which is part of their schema for how they want to see the organization evolve. They spend a lot of effort and energy trying to get that inculcated in others throughout the organization. Using scenarios might be one way of getting people to come to a deeper level of understanding about the direction that they should be heading in. I think when it’s enacted, it’s a way of teaching meta-cognitive thinking as you said.
Russ: Right. Well, let’s refocus on the individual for the few minutes we have left. You have referenced in your work the large amounts of money, historically, that has been spent on leader development. Generally, in terms of the value added that has been achieved through that, has not gotten all those high marks. If we’re talking about individual leader development and the qualities that you’ve been talking about and writing about in your work, it seems to me that we’ve got to stop thinking about leader development as an event, as a short workshop or something like that, and encompass many of the other kinds of leader development activities and processes that you referenced in your work. I’m curious if you could give us a picture of that.
Bruce: One of the reasons why I’ve taken that position is that I truly want people to take leadership development more seriously. The one way to get people in organizations to take it seriously is to monetize it. Until we monetize it and know what the return is, it’s always going to be something that the majority of the people will say that it’s nice to have, unless we’re short on resources.
One of my main purposes is not to eliminate leadership development but to recast it. If you asked experts in brand management 15 years ago, “What’s the value of the brand?” they would say it’s a lot. Today, they’ll tell you it’s four clicks and three milliseconds into the website and how much money it’s going to generate. They have a much better sense of what a brand is and its worth to an organization. I think from our point of view, in leadership development we have to push that and we have to force ourselves to think in a more, I don’t want to say quantitative way, but in a way that makes us more accountable. By being more accountable—I’m sure of this—development that actually does work would stick better. You know, there are some things out there and being used for development that are based on well- developed theoretical frameworks and empirical research. For example, I am sure we can do transformational leadership coaching and have an impact on people. But to the extent that the organization doesn’t hold the individuals accountable for doing it, coaching and the people who are being coached, it just won’t stick.
As Kegan says in his book, there are tremendous immunities to change in organizations. And organizations will literally kill development very easily. So I think we have to look at leadership events as being embedded in the life stream of one’s overall development and find ways to make development more accountable.
From an accountability point of view, as well from looking at it as embedded in the one’s lifestream, I think if we were to make leadership development more part of the natural process of development that goes on in organizations and is reinforced daily, we would not have to transfer it back to the job. You don’t have to take on insurmountable immunities because it’s part of the natural process or ebb and flow of an organization, which would no doubt increase the return on development investment in leadership.
The surgical development program I mentioned to you, that’s an example of what I am referring to above. We asked them how much time they would have to do development. They said none. Then I asked, does surgery start on time? And they said, no. I asked, if we were willing to scrub up and go into surgery and do development, would you be willing to accommodate that? And they said, “Yeah, we get tired of talking about what our kids did on a weekend in soccer, so we’d learn something.” Okay, great! We ended up not doing it in surgery, because they let us go into the briefing beforehand, before they actually walked into surgery. Development is embedded in their normal flow with challenges that they normally experience through dialoguing with people they normally work with. So that’s an example of embedding leadership development in the natural course of things in organizations.
Russ: Great. I know just in the last couple of years you moved from Nebraska to the University of Washington. The second edition of your book, Full Scale Leadership, came out last year. What’s new on the horizon for Bruce Avolio in the field of leadership studies?
Bruce: Besides life issues, there’s an awful lot to learn.
[Laughter]
Here are a few things. I am trying to examine leadership from a total systems perspective so that, if you looked at an organization and you were able to quantify all of the different episodes of leadership and the levels at which they occurred, you could see that some would be shared, some would be direct, some would be indirect, some would be large collectives leading and some episodes would be one on one. I think at the end of the day, we could optimize the organization’s leadership system by looking at it in a more comprehensive and integrative way. So that’s one area that I’m really looking at and trying to examine distributed strategic leadership. Another area that relates to what I described above relates to a question I came across a few years back of what constitutes the value of leadership? When you ask yourself that question, it is like what is self-awareness? When you ask yourself that question, you start to realize that there are all sorts of ways that one can look at the value of leadership. So let me put myself in the role of an equity analyst. When equity analysts ask, “What is the value of the corporation?” they look at things like what is the debt equity ratio, what is the market that the company operates in, what are new innovative products, investments, tc. But they also ask the question what is the quality of leadership?
When we interviewed equity analysts around the world, we wanted to confirm that leadership is one of the most important things in their estimates of the valuation of a firm. They do in fact think the quality of leadership is extremely important. That’s why they like to go to investor days, so they can hear from what they consider to be the leadership of the organization, the top management team. They look at all sorts of things like management’s behavioral integrity—if they said last time, they are going to grow by 3%, 4%, do they? They look at their demeanor. They look at even the tone by which they present. Are they optimistic? Are they genuinely optimistic?
So I’m really interested in literally what’s the value of leadership. If I have my equity analyst hat on, I’d like to know what the dollar value is of leadership, net present value, future earnings, etc. Going back to my total leadership system example, I think the equity analysts look at a very, very slim, narrow range of what constitutes the leadership of an organization. A great top management team can’t execute unless the people below them and below them and below them are aligned and are ready to move. I think we’re going to see increasingly a lot more focus on what constitutes the value of leadership and how can it be monetized.
In fact, when I did a presentation on this, which I’ll do again in a couple of weeks I usually start out with a slide that it looks like the Zagat rating for a restaurant. The question I ask is, How close are we now to a Zagat guide rated leader? We certainly have it with basketball coaches in college. We certainly have it in football. In fact, we have far more data on college coaches then we do on the CEOs of our corporations, far more.
If you go down one level, we don’t know anything about the next level. I’m working with Forbes Research on some stuff in that area, as well as the consulting firm Oliver Wyman. We are trying to figure out how analysts value leadership.
The third area is looking more at development the total leadership of an organization. About ten, maybe 15, years ago I went down to the Joint Readiness Training Center in Fort Polk, Louisiana and I went out with units in the field who were training. We were studying transformational leadership at that time in combat units. In fact, we published an article in the Journal of Applied Psychology on platoon units and their leadership. We found that the sergeant’s relationship with the lieutenant was really important. They would say, “Duh, of course it is!” We actually measured it and looked at if they were transformational or not together. We spent three days out in the field, running around in Humvees and getting shot at with blanks, fortunately, sleeping on the hard ground. One of the things I saw day after day was an entire battalion going through a debriefing in less than three hours. I was with what they called an observer-controller, a kind of Organizational Development consultant that does development on the ground and he said, “I’m going to show you something. I’m going to go from squad to the battalion leader in the next hour with you and I’ll show you how all these things interconnect.” And so we did. You know, I saw squads doing After Action Reviews out in the field in the rain. I saw platoon leaders sit down with company commanders. I saw company commanders with their leaders, so on up the line until I got to the briefing by the lieutenant colonel of the battalion. What was interesting was in this one battalion I mean there were just tremendous gaps. The lieutenant colonel presenting thought they did great during their missions that day. They had done terribly. He was completely out of touch with his units. There was a lot of dissention. They clearly weren’t ready and were failing in every sense. In another battalion, I saw there was a lot of alignment; there was a lot of consistency. The issues that had come up at one level were coming up at the next.
Based on that experience, I said someday I would love to test an organization in its entirety, to take them through and say, “Okay, are you ready to acquire this company? Let’s test it. Are you ready to merge? Let’s test it. Are you ready to launch this new product list? Let’s test it.” So I’m working with 23 year olds building a gaming simulation that will represent, I think, the first leadership enterprise system where we’ll actually be able to test if we want 12,000 employees interacting with each other as if they were in the organization assuming characters. We’ll be able to look at it as maybe the next generation of “live action cases” or cases without any borders like we have with paper based cases. Instead of a business case that you read, you are in the case creating it.
Russ: The After Action Review I always thought of as being an extremely valuable model. I actually introduced it a lot in working with project teams in organizations. I just think it’s really important. You know, I feel like I could talk to you for days and never be finished, Just one last question: is there anything I haven’t asked you, you wish I had?
Bruce: People always ask me, why did I get into studying leadership? I found my passion spot in terms of the work I do. It’s very generative to see leaders emerge and help and facilitate or to understand why certain leaders do what they do. And it has been something I can think about early on that I’ve always been fascinated by reading about historical leaders. I was intrigued trying to understand the context that they operated in from an early age.
I love the fact that I am frequently in organizations from surgical suites to police stations to military units to some trading floor in New York or a technology company in Bangalore and I don’t quite understand all the acronyms, but I do understand the leadership dynamics. It has been a really interesting journey to be in a field where you literally are relevant to every organization on Earth. It generalizes to every organization including the one I’m sitting in and at the same time, everybody has a theory of it, which is a fundamental challenge for developing it. [Laughs]
And I’m not just talking about people like us. I mean everybody. That’s sometimes the dark side of it—trying to get through to folks that there are some ways that we can systematically look at this and not come across as, well that’s what academics do or suggest. No that’s what really great leaders do. So anyhow, that would be it.
Russ: Thank you so much, Bruce.
Bruce: Thank you.
Common leadership interview questions relate to the applicant's past work experience in supervising or managing other people. Interviewers want to gain an understanding of how the job applicant for a leadership position met his or her previous job duties by leading and coaching others. Typically, questions about leadership style, principles and values are asked during an employment interview held to hire a supervisor or manager. Other leadership interviewquestions commonly asked include what the applicant would do in certain real life situations.
For example, the interviewer of a busy retail company may ask a leadership applicant how he or she would handle several employees not showing up for a shift which would likely result in customers not being served in a timely manner. Asking leadership interview questions that also involve solving a problem on the spot can give the interviewer an idea of the thinking process of each job applicant. In this way, the hiring manager can compare the answers, along with the resumes and other criteria, of his or her group of applicants to help find the best person for the job.
Leadership style questions commonly involve the job candidate having to explain how he or she deals with subordinates in order to accomplish required tasks. Hiring managers tend to askleadership interview questions concerning how the applicant prefers to give instructions to workers. Questions about how the person reprimands or corrects unsatisfactory behavior on the job may also be asked by the hiring manager in order to find a leader who seems like a good fit with the company's leadership philosophy.
The interviewer may first outline the firm's leadership values and main principles and ask the applicant how his or her ideals that relate to leading others fit in with them. Some hiring managers for supervisory or managerial positions ask the job candidate to define his or herleadership principles or values close to the beginning of the interview. Leadership interviewquestions about values or principles may help the hiring manager get a sense of what motivates each particular job applicant.
While looking at the applicants' resumes during interviews, many hiring managers will ask a series of questions that relate to their past jobs. For example, if the leadership job applicant's resume lists experience as a foreman at a fish packing plant, the interviewer may ask him or her how many employees he or she was responsible for and what exact outcomes were expected by upper management. Other common leadership questions that often result from the information on an applicant's resume include how the candidate solved problems in a particular job and what style of supervision or management he or she used in each case.
-------------------------------------------------
Behavioral leadership interview questions and tips * Provide an example of a time when you played a key leadership role in: an event/activity, a team work unit, or a project. Describe how you influenced/affected the activities – how people reacted to your actions as a leader? * Was there ever a time that you disagreed with your management and were you able to prove your conclusion and persuade your superiors? * Have you ever experienced a situation in which you had difficulties getting people to accept your ideas? What was your approach to handling these situations? * What practices do you implement during conflict situations and are they successful? * If we were to ask your superiors (reporting staff) or your teammates to comment about your leadership how would they respond?
Tips on answering these questions:
The interviewer wants you to define your leadership style.
Why do people listen to you? How do you influence people? What actions do you take to control these work efforts?
Therefore, provide examples of events in your previous workplaces where you’d been able to prove your positive leadership characteristics to support a company effort.
You should also tell about the way people react to your leadership – How were they affected?
-------------------------------------------------
Project leadership & team leadership skills: team lead interview questions and answers * How often do you consult team members? * Define your key team members? * How do you motivate your team? * Have you ever used your listening abilities to achieve goals? * When beginning a new project, can you outline the steps you implement? Can you outline a project from beginning to end that you finished and the specific steps used? * Are you often satisfied with your actions and outcome? * Are you flexible and able to achieve your goals in a fast moving environment? * Are you able to meet deadlines? Have you ever missed a deadline? * Could some of your team members assist you with meeting a difficult deadline? * How do you best use your time and what disciplines do you use?
Answer:
The interviewer wants to verify an important issue: the methods you use to manage and lead a team for achieving the goals within timelines.
These questions are more of “leading questions” to explain your team leadership discipline.
Therefore, explain – What course actions do you take for key situations? How do you recognize & use others team members skills to achieve goals? How do you manage your time to achieve your objectives? In summing up: How “positive manipulator” are you for managing a team?
-------------------------------------------------
Leadership and Decision making skills, leadership and analytical thinking skills * Have you ever had to make a decision without knowledge of all the necessary data? * How do you approach complex problems? * Can you give an example of a conclusion you had to change after obtaining new knowledge or facts? * Have you ever arrived at a wrongful conclusion? Can you explain what part of your analysis went wrong? * Do you believe all conclusions should be 100% accurate 100% of the time?
Tips on answering these questions:
It goes without saying that a decision-making makes a leader – One of the important qualities of a leader is to make a decision when all others are shaking or pray for a miracle.. Many people avoid making serious decisions - Here comes a leader who takes action.
Therefore, personal stories are welcome in these types of questions. You have to describe the ways you take a decision – The risk management and advantage/disadvantage factors for each decision.
Leadership: Personal Communication Skills for leaders * Are you most comfortable with verbal or written presentations? * How do you build a case and present it to an audience? * What are conversation impressions other than words? How do you use these to communicate effectively with others? * What are the techniques that you use to clarify the meaning of unclear messages? * How do you maintain a positive discussion?
Answer:
Communication is the flow of information and ideas from one individual to another. Many problems occur because of people failing to communicate effectively – Faulty communication causes problems in organizations and can cause a good plan to fail.
Therefore, the interviewer expects you to describe the methods you take to deliver your (and others’ messages. How you gather people around you for having a good discussion – Listening to one another and exchanging thoughts and ideas.
In summing up these questions, imagine yourself as a key basketball player shooting at the buzzer when all others are staring at you – This is the kind of a leadership behavior expected from you.
Alternatively, you want to be the one who decides to whom you hand over the ball at the most critical moment..
1. What are the most important values you demonstrate as a leader?
The most important value that I have is my integrity. I demonstrate honesty and trust in all my actions to establish credibility as a leader. By having this conviction behind my words and actions, those who I lead are gain buy in to the direction I take them.

2.How have you gained commitment from your team?
I gain commitment from my teams by influencing and persuading them to set specific objectives and also buy into the process. Once they have established cooperation and cohesion, they are on board to attain the goal.
3.How can a leader fail? Tell me about a time when you failed as a leader.
A leader can fail when they can’t get their team on board with the goals of the organization. Factors outside of a leader’s control may also lead to failure such as available resources, time constraints, and the economy.
In the example you give, make sure that you talk about how dealt with a difficult challenge and how you analyzed the setback. Make sure you explain how to seek honest feedback to ensure that you learned from the failure.
4. What is the difference between a leader and a manager?
A manger is able to handle tasks and responsibilities and ensure that others get their work done. A leader will inspire and motivate their team to achieve their goals.
5. What is your greatest strength?

Being able to lead and inspire a team to perform their best and strive to achieve goals. I do this through relationship building, being passionate about the goals, and influencing those around me.
6. What would be your greatest weakness?
When I delegate duties to others that I know I can do better myself. However if I don’t delegate, then I could end up with more work than I can handle myself. I’ve taken courses in time management and learned how to effectively delegate tasks to overcome this weakness.
7. How do you get others to accept your ideas?
I talk about the benefits of the idea and how to apply it. I would stay open to other thoughts and change my ideas in a way that we can all agree. When you gain buy in from others, you are much more successful in attaining the goals than when you make it mandatory to follow procedure.
8. How would you go about praising a team member in public?
I would use a time when we would be gathered in a group, such as a meeting to bring up the praise to the team member. I would recognize their success in front of the group so others could also learn best practices.
9. Are you more effective in a group or one on one basis?
I feel that I am more effective in a group because everyone has some special quality that they bring to a group. We can develop our interpersonal skills by helping those in the group who need it as well as learning from those who are successful.
10. How often do you feel it’s necessary to meet with your team?
I feel that I should meet with my team at least once a week on a set time and day of the week. Communication among teams is critical and this will give the team an opportunity to get together on a regular basis and talk about their challenges and best practices. Also, when our team reaches a milestone, new project begins, an award or promotion is given, or when there is a challenging situation, I would want to bring the team together. Everyone will get the same message that way and we can celebrate successes or come together in challenging times.
11. Describe a time you took a leadership position when you did not have the title of a leader.
In this question, take an example from a situation where you were in a group and took responsibility to delegate to achieve goals. Show how you gained buy in from the other members to follow your lead and the result of your leadership.
For instance, in college we were put into groups of four to complete a marketing project. We had to prepare a 15 page paper and 10 minute presentation on a new product that we would introduce to country outside the U.S. I took initiative among the group to lead a discussion on how we should split up the work, when we will meet throughout the semester, and deadlines for each person’s part of the work. Because I was the one to take lead the discussion and had a plan in mind, I gained the buy in of the other members quickly. I took everyone’s e-mail address and created a group email to help us all keep track of our progress and so we could help each other outside of class and our meetings. By the end of the semester, my group achieved a 95% on our project.
12. How would you go about getting cohesion among a team who disagree?
I would find common ground between the members who disagree. I would talk about the importance of the overall goal and the implications if we can’t come together to achieve it. We would then work together to come to an agreement that is a win/win for both sides.
13. What sort of leader would your team say that you are?
The type that will support them in their goals and success. They would describe me as someone who will clear the way when there are obstacles and always has their back.
14. How do you motivate your team?
I find out what motivates them individually so I can speak to how a goal or change is going to benefit them. I ensure that I have the right amount of positive and constructive feedback to help them perform effectively. My actions always match my words so when I speak to my team with conviction, they are on-board with performing their best.
15. How do you set an example to those on your team?
I perform my best at everything and ensure that my actions match my words. My team sees that my expectations that are set for them are the same expectations I put on myself.
16. Have you ever been in a mentor to another aspiring leader? How did you go about establishing that relationship?
Yes, I treated it much like the relationship that I have with my team. I built a strong working relationship with the person, listened to their goals, gave advice, and my personal experience. I shared my best practices and constantly monitored their progress to celebrate their success and move them in the right direction.
17. What is the most difficult part of being a leader?
In some ways, although you are part of group, you are alone. It’s a leader’s responsibility to see the end goal and vision of an organization to lead others towards it. When others do not see it the same way, you have to be the lone voice to bring them back on track.
18. How do you lead through change?
As a leader, you have to be the first one to embrace change because if you don’t those around you will quickly see that. After that, I ensure that I can communicate the change with conviction that it’s the right path to adopt .I prepare by ensuring that I can answer any questions that may be asked ,or have the resources to find the answers. I listen to others concerns about the change and help them through the transition.
19. How do you measure success for you as a leader?
By the goals that the team achieves. When someone on the team is successful, then it reflects on my leadership.
20. What motivates you to be a leader?
I am motivated by my team’s growth and achievement of their professional and personal goals.
21. What is a leader’s best asset?
Their ability to motivate and inspire a team of professionals who can work together to achieve the goals of the organization.
22. What do you do when you are unsure about how to achieve the goals of the team?
You have to be open to feedback and be willing to ask for help when you are not clear on how to achieve a goal. I would ask my leader first for their feedback on how they believe I should go about achieving the goals. In addition, I would use all the resources available to me to find the best course of action.
23. Are you more comfortable with verbal or written communication?
I am comfortable with both, however I feel that verbal communication is more effective. When you speak to someone directly, you will be able to see their body language toward the communication. You are also able to address questions/concerns faster than in written communication.
24. How would you deliver bad news to your team?
I would bring them together and state the news. I would explain as much as possible as to why it occurred and what steps we will need to take in the future. I would also open it up to the team to speak about their concerns, answer questions, and share their viewpoints as to how we can avoid a similar situation.
25. Is competition among a team healthy? Why or why not?
I believe competition among a team is good as long as it is in good spirit. A team has to have a high level of cohesion among its members to prevent misunderstandings. As a leader, it’s my responsibility to ensure that when there is competition that it is being monitored to ensure its positivity.
26. What are the most difficult decisions to make?
Its difficult to make the decision to let an employee go. However, if they are not performing the way that they should be, it is the right decision. It is never easy to make a decision that will impact a person’s life.
27. What do you get the most criticism about you on?
I have not received criticism on the same area over and over. I’m always open to personal and professional growth and welcome any opportunity to improve. When I receive criticism, I work on improving that aspect and furthering my growth.
28. How would you proceed to reorganize your team?
I would look at the overall goals of the organization and match my team’s strengths up with the reorganization.
29. Have you ever been a member of a successful team? What was your role in the success of the team?
Use an example of when you were part of a team and demonstrate the leadership skills that you used to pertain to your role.
30. How do you build support for ideas/goals with people who do not report to you and you have no authority over?
In situations where I must build support for my ideas with cross-functional teams, I ensure that I communicate my idea clearly and effectively. I listen to their feedback to the idea and I will make amends if they are necessary to build support or improve on the idea. I foster an environment where input is sought and validate my idea by explaining why its the best route.
31. How do you go about resolving conflict?
I take a mediated approach to conflict. I believe it’s important to listen to both sides and understand where each is coming from. There is usually some common ground among conflict and I start there and build.
32. Name a time when an employee disagreed with your directive and how you handled it?
I heard them out to understand why they disagree. I may have to go back and re-explain the directive and reasons for it. I would listen to their feedback and if it is the right thing to do, take it to change the directive. However, if that is not the case I would stick to the facts as to why their commitment is necessary.
33. Who are the most important members of your team?
Everyone is equally important. Each person contributes something different to the team and that makes us as a whole stronger.
34. How do you delegate responsibilities to your team?
I match up responsibilities with each member’s strengths. If I have a team member who is working on improving an aspect, I will give them the opportunity to take on the task and ensure they have the tools necessary to be successful. I would monitor their progress as well.
35. Name a time when you had to change a decision due to new facts.
Pick a situation where you showed that you were open to change and show how you were effectively at changing your decision based on the new facts.
For example, I had created new spreadsheet for managers to use at the end of the night to keep track of sales for the day. This spreadsheet was due in an e-mail every morning and helped us see how we were doing on a daily basis. A few months later, our point of sales system allowed us to input this information in a program that would allow managers to input sales for the day. With this new technology, I decided to do away with the spreadsheet and had the managers use the program to capture the information and send it to me.
36. How do you achieve objectives in a fast-paced environment?
I ensure that the team knows the objectives and the timeliness that have been set. I place milestones so each member can check in on their progress.
37. Explain a time when you had to make a decision without all the relevant facts.
Pick a decision that you would not have all the facts for at the time of the decision. Make sure that you speak about all the different options you had and how you picked the best one out of what you had available. Talk about the results/takeaways.
For instance, I had to decide whether our organization was going to be involved in a new marketing campaign that used social media to advertise our products. At this point in time, our company did not have relevant information on how successful our previous social media marketing campaigns were. If we were to proceed, I was going to have dedicate at least one member on my team to its success. It would be time-consuming and if not successful, would take up a lot of productivity time. I decided to take part in the campaign because it was relatively inexpensive and the potential to gather information about best practices when launching them in the future. We ended up with a very successful marketing campaign with measurable results.
38. How do you formulate and present arguments to others?
I look at all sides of an argument first so I know what may come up when I present my position. I base my arguments strictly on facts that are objective.
39. How did you a handle a time when you had to make an unpopular decision?
Talk about a decision that you made that was necessary, but not popular with your team. Explain how you communicated the decision, listened to their concern, and stood your ground on the decision.
One possible answer –
Last year I decided to change our commission structure to our sales reps. I felt it was a necessary change because there were too many sales reps who were doing the bare minimum to collect a paycheck. Needless to say, many of the sales reps were upset with the decision. I reiterated the reasons for the change and ensured they had the tools they needed to be successful in the new commission structure. The organization saw an increase in their revenue and sales reps were making 5% more with the new commission structure.
40. What do you do to remain engaged in a conversation?
I actively listen by para-phrasing what others say to me. That ensures that I am on the same page as the other person and keeps me attentive to the conversation.
41. How do you organize projects and tasks?
I organize them by what is the most important and time sensitive to complete.
42. Explain a time when you were not able to meet a deadline?
Use an example were you were not able to meet a deadline due to outside factors.
For instance , there was a big project that my team was working on and I had split up the work among some members and myself. During that time, one member of the team had to leave due to their spouse getting a position in another city. He left at a critical time and I had to re-assign his duties to someone else. I had to get this new person up to speed with the progression of the project and due to this, was not able to complete it on time. We were still able to complete the project a few days after the deadline even with the change in team member.
43. How have you rallied your team in the past in difficult projects/tasks?
I communicate my confidence in their ability to complete the project. I ensure that I remove as many obstacles as possible and they have all the tools/answers they need to complete the task. I ensure there’s clear expectations and open communication.
44. How do you encourage the development of your employees?
I develop my employees by being a mentor, giving effective performance feedback on a regular basis, and coaching. I take a personal interest in the development of my employees and when they see that I am committed to their growth, they are more motivated.
45. What is the most significant change that you brought to an organization?
Provide an example that shows how you demonstrated your vision to make a positive change in the organization. Also, talk about the results of the change.
For instance, at my previous organization, the management team came up the ranks and never had formal management training. They did not know how to lead their former peers and were uncomfortable having productivity discussions with their teams. I felt there was a need to train these managers on the skills they would need to be successful. So I made my case to the leadership team on why it is important and provided examples I was seeing. Due to this, all managers go through a rigorous management training program that prepares them for their new role.
46. Have you were developed an innovative solution to a non-traditional problem?
In your example, show how you promote change and innovation. Solutions to unique problems occur when there is a constant information flow in all directions to ensure responsiveness to change.
For instance, I was responsible for a sales team in my previous position. A separate production staff handled the orders that my sales team would prepare. This production team had difficulty making the deadlines that my sales team promised their clients. In addition, the product was sometimes not customized to the level the client was looking for. So I decided to change the process that our sales reps put in sales order by having the sales rep communicate with the production team who was responsible for each client’s product. This helped my sales rep create achievable timeliness and a product that was the way the client expects.
47. What is the role that leadership plays to a manager?
A leader’s role is to communicate with clarity to the strategic vision to the management team. This vision must be able to be in the form of a clear direction and plans. There should be clear priories, objectives timeliness, accountability, and performance measures.
48. What leadership style do you use?
This answer should be based on the type of organization you are joining. You should show that you are able to change your style in different circumstances.
49. How would you go about developing your team?
I encourage training courses, soft skills workshops, on the job mentoring, and coaching.
50. Have you ever taken on a job that you were unqualified for?
In your example, show how you are not afraid of taking risks to achieve goals at work. Demonstrate your focus on the job at hand and how it inspired others.
For instance, I took on management responsibilities in my previous position to take the place of my manager who had left. I did not have any management experience but I knew that the team was not going to be able to be effective without a leader in place. I may have made a few mistakes, but ultimately was successful in taking on that additional responsibility. The upper level management were impressed by my growth and efforts so they ended up promoting me into that position.
For example, were you present with the team, in the thick of the action, always around to motivate, support and feedback, or were you absent allowing the team to get on with things independently and supporting them sporadically as needed?
2) What leadership styles did you use? Did you use them at the right times?
For example, a sports team will often respond best to a visionary leader and/or a leader with acoaching style. The visionary leader inspires passion and desire in the team by making the team really believe in themselves and to see their future success and glory as not only possible but probable. The coach uses their experience of the sport and ability to motivate a person to play at their best and keep learning new skills. They are able to coax the best out of their players and their team.
Other examples of leadership styles are: autocratic - this is where a leader directs the action without asking for much creativity or decision making from the individuals in the team themselves, and laisez-faire leadership - this is where leaders allow their teams to get on with things and check in with them now and again to monitor progress and provide feedback.
Using certain leadership styles at the right time can be very important, such as when leading an already highly performing and highly skilled team, you may want to use a liasez-faire leadership style, letting the team get on with things while you focus on strategy and building partnerships with other parts of the organization or other organizations.
3) How did you develop your teams?
For example, were you clear about skills needs in your team? Did you implement clear development plans for individuals and the team? What development activities did you encourage, such as training courses, soft skills workshops, on the job mentoring, coaching, etc?
4) What feedback did you receive from your teams about how you supported them?
It is often the case that you don't know what your key strengths are, especially if those strengths come very naturally to you - you don't see them as anything special. So it is important to reflect on feedback that you received from your teams. What did people often say they appreciated about you? What positive feedback did you get from your bosses or peers? It might also be useful to contact people that used to work in your teams and ask them for feedback - people will remember the great things about you and will usually be only too happy to let you know what they are!
In short 1. Prepare well using reflective team leader interview questions and reflect on all the teams you have led (or in which you had a leadership role). Get feedback from others you have led as well as your previous peers and bosses. 2. You now know what leadership styles you have used and how you have adapted these to different working contexts and needs. Be confident in your unique individual abilities. 3. Know that you can make a difference in the job you are applying for, and talk honestly to that knowledge. Don't try to be something you are not, talk honestly and from the heart.
Joel Bild,
1. What is the shape of the perfect leader and does he or she exist?
To paraphrase W. Somerset Maugham, “There are three rules for creating good leaders. Unfortunately, no one knows what they are.”
There are no perfect leaders, that is why good leaders are always trying to improve themselves through self-study, training, education, mentorship, making mistakes and then learning from them, etc. Since there are no perfect leaders, it is hard to build a good leadership model, which is why there are hundreds of them. But, we can be sure of a few things that good leaders have: * A vision of the future (answers the question, “where are we going?”). * The ability to encourage followers to jump into that experience (work through the many changes that are required to achieve that vision). * A love of self-improvement for themselves and their followers. This love makes them good coaches and mentors. * Empowering their followers to get things done (delegates).
2. Does a leader need to be motivated? How can leaders maintain themselves to stay motivated?
A leader definitely has to be motivated; those who are not will quickly be seen as frauds in their followers' eyes as they expect their leaders to be enthusiastic about their work. Motivation comes in two forms: extrinsic and intrinsic.
Extrinsic motivators come from the outside. For example, one reason that I go to work is that I need to make a living in order to survive. Intrinsic motivators come from within. For example, another reason that I go to work is that I get a great deal of satisfaction when I accomplish a difficult task.
Good leaders set and achieve goals that allow them to get a healthy balance of both motivators. Although many people believe that intrinsic motivators are the best, that is not necessarily so. Often, the extrinsic motivators lead us into new situations and then our love for doing it (intrinsic) carries us through and on to new heights.
3. Does every manager need to be a leader?
All good managers are leaders to various degrees. They need to carry out their leaders' visions by creating their own visions that support the larger vision, and then getting their workers to accomplish the vision. For example, Howard Schultz, of Starbucks Coffee Company, had a vision of 2000 stores by the year 2000. This vision became one of the driving forces behind the company's success. Did Howard Schultz build those 2000 stores himself? No way! Schultz's vision was achieved by managers and supervisors throughout the organization who had smaller scale visions that directly supported his 2000 by 2000 vision. They got these visions accomplished by delegating the means and authority to their subordinates. These managers and supervisors also supported their employees by giving them the means and opportunity to grow by coaching and mentoring; and providing training, development, and education opportunities.
A CEO cannot be the sole leader of a large organization. There are simply to many leadership tasks that must be accomplished... a leader cannot do all of them herself.
4. You say anyone can become a leader. Is it really possible? Aren't there people who traits make them unfit to be a leader?
Anyone can become a leader that has the willingness and drive to achieve that goal. Traits can be changed or reduced by focusing upon the more desirable traits and then using them to overpower the unhealthy ones. This is one reason there are no perfect leaders — we all have a few unhealthy traits. But the better leaders concentrate on and grow their desirable traits so that they over-power their weaker traits.
5. In which way do you see that new technologies will affect leadership and leaders?
I do not see technologies affecting leaders, or people for that matter. What I do see are good leaders achieving their goals by selecting the right tools (technology) to achieve their goals. Good leaders focus upon their goals and then do what is necessary to achieve it; they do not pick a technology and then try to achieve some goal with it.
6. What is the relationship between leaders and followers?
Leaders are change agents who guide their followers onto new heights, while along the way, they develop and grow their followers. A leader's two driving goals should be make the organization a success and that if the leader should leave, then she has enough trained and developed people to fulfill his or her shoes.
7. Is there any trend that could be called “the new leader”? Or have things really not changed that much over the last 2000 years?
As we have gotten a better understanding of human behaviors over the last hundred years or so, leaders have moved along the “leadership continuum” by going from Douglas McGreagor's Theory X to Theory Y. We are still a long way to Theory Y, but we have tipped the scale to its favor.
8. Does a leader need power? How can a leader avoid being corrupted by the power?
The degree of power that a leader requires is determined by the goals that she must achieve. For example, the leader of a country requires different powers than the leader of a church. Power is the possession of control, authority, and/or influence over others. This power is used to achieve a goal. Some leaders, such as presidents, have all three possessions, while others, such as Mother Theresa, might have only one influence.
Power does not corrupt. Corruption is the degree that someone's action has veered from a moral value that a society or community has set. Although the amount of their action is controlled by the type of power they have, it is their inner-self that drives the action. For example, Hitler was a leader by almost every definition, yet there were certain groups that he hated. This hatred drove him to mass corruption (in his community it was not viewed as corruption, while in almost every other community it was). If he never achieved the position he held, his inner-hatred (corruption) of select groups would have still been there. His inner-self controlled the power. The only preventive medicine for corruption is a healthy respect for others (diversity).
9. Some authors say leaders must divide their time in three parts: one for handling finances, another for quality, and a third for relationships. What do you think about?
Leaders have two “leadership continuum” scales that they must follow. Earlier, I talked about the people scale, and how we have been moving from Douglas McGreagor's Theory X to Theory Y. This continuum can be seen as the vertical axis (concern for people) in Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid. The other axis is the “concern for task” and it is plotted along the horizontal axis. By focusing on the far end of the scales or continuum and developing goals to achieve the 9s, a leader can create her visions. And then by developing great people (people scale) and giving them the means to accomplish your vision (task scale), you have ensured that the necessary ingredients are there for organization success. In other words, good leaders have “goal directed visions” and then achieve them by inspiring their people to work through change and challenges in order for task accomplishment. This, in turn, equals a successful organization.
10. What's the worst fault a leader can have?
A failure to see the benefits of diversity. This creates like-people throughout the organizations and leads to one-way thinking. If you do not have a diverse team, then you cannot come up with the creative brainstorming solutions to stay competitive. Also, you alienate your customers and consumers who can be quite diverse.
11. As far as communication is a key point, how can a shy person be a leader?
Communication, from a leadership point, is more than just directing others (which shy people would draw back from), it is more about maintaining healthy relationships (which almost every shy person is capable of doing). One of my favorite quotes is from Captain Henry “Jim” Crowe, USMC. While in Guadalcanal on 13 January 1943, he used the following words and actions to motivate his troops: “Goddamn it, you'll never get the Purple Heart hiding in a foxhole! Follow me!” It was more than an order — it was his action of not showing his fear by being in the front that motivated his troops.
Leaders use both actions and words to get things done. Bossing others is the act of directing others to get things done without having any concern for the employees. Shy persons do not normally become bosses, but many of them do become leaders... while the bullies become bosses.
12. If so much material is written about leadership, why are there so few real leaders in companies?
Who says there are so few leaders? The only people who can call a person a leader are the followers. People outside the organization might call a person a leader, yet she might have just been a dictating tyrant who used her power of authority to get things done. This only made her the boss, not a leader. Only the people who work for another person have the authority to call that person a leader.
Too many people equate leaders with the power of authority, yet it is more about visioning and achieving goals through others. Organizations that are lagging behind their competitors often have a lack of leaders throughout their ranks. While great organizations have leaders throughout the organization, from top to bottom. Just as I mentioned earlier about Starbucks' goal of 2000 stores by the year 2000, it took a lot of leaders throughout the ranks to accomplish it.
13. The role of principles of leadership is so extensive that it puts one to think - isn't a good leader a kind of superman or superwomen? How can that be?
Leadership is like many other difficult skills — it takes skills and practice. That is why it is important to develop leaders throughout your organization; although you can learn the knowledge and the skills in a short period of time, it takes plenty of practice to get it right. Senior leaders should always be coaching and mentoring their subordinates on the leadership continuum.
14. Is a military model of leadership adequate to any company, as far as it based most on authority and discipline?
Researchers at McKinsey & Company and the Conference Board discovered that one highly effective route of leadership is demonstrated by the U.S. Marine Corps. The Marines' approach to motivation follows the “mission, values, and pride” (MVP) path, which researchers say is practical and relevant for the business world. A couple of other organizations that follow the MVP path are 3M, New York City Ballet, and KFC. There are four other valid paths to follow: Process and Metric (Toyota), Entrepreneurial Spirit (BMC Software) Individual Achievement (Perot Systems), and Reward and Celebration (Mary Kay).
The Marines invest in their front line by following five practices: * Over-investing in cultivating core value:
Make an investment by intensely focusing on core values. Give your employees more than a brief introduction -- assign some training to your most experienced and talented managers. One role model can influence 40 or 50 new hires. Also, focus on values after the training, i.e. Marriott prominently displays customer letters praising superior performance. * Preparing every person to lead, including frontline supervisors:
Training every front line person to lead has a powerful effect on morale. Do NOT write the followers off or give them superficial attention. You most embrace the notion that front line workers can lead. * Learning when to create teams and when to create single-leader work groups:
Genuine teams are rare in the business world where a single individual leading a group is the norm. Real teams get most of their motivation from its mission and goals * Attending to the bottom half, not just the top half:
Find the time to attend to the poor and mediocre performers, even if it means personal sacrifice. Normally, it is cheaper and easier to rejuvenate under-performers than it is to replace them. Marine Drill Instructors, despite their legendary toughness, refuse to give up on any recruit. * Encouraging self-discipline as a way of building pride:
Demand that everyone act with honor, courage, and commitment. For example, Southwest Airlines turns its planes around in less than half the time that is needed by most competitors; not by fear of punishment, but by a desire to be the best.
To emulate the Marines, many executives would have to embrace the notion that front-line workers can lead. (Jon R. Katzenbach and Jason A. Santamaria. Harvard Business Review “Firing Up the Front Line.” May-June, 1999, pp. 107 to 117.)
15. Is there an ideal percentage of leaders in a company? Can an excess of leaders turn into a problem?
Every organization is unique, hence it will require a different percentage. But every leader and supervisor must display some form of leadership, they cannot simply be bosses and expect the organization to become a great organization. As far as excess, how can you have too much of a good thing; is there such a thing as a company having too much profit?
16. What is better for a company that does not have huge sums to invest in training: try to build a team of leaders, with all the failure possibilities, or concentrate on building a good team of efficient managers?
Why would there be more failure possibilities with a team of leaders than with a team of managers? Managers can get things done, but they have to have leaders and leadership abilities of their own. Otherwise, what will they get accomplished? It takes leaders to have visions. Once you have your vision, it needs to be framed in general terms and communicated to your team. Your team then develops the ends (objectives), ways (concepts), and means (resources) to achieve the vision. Except for developing the means (resources), all of these are leadership tasks.
17. Can someone be a good leader, but not a good manager? Which is better for a company?
Just as there are many managers who cannot lead, there are many leaders who cannot manage. And neither is better for a company. Both strip the company of a valuable resource — a leader who can get things done or a manager who can lead her employees.
18. Is there any index of success for turning common managers into leaders, i.e., a tax of effectiveness of training?
I'm not so sure if there is an index, since this type of training falls more into the development category, which can be extremely hard to measure at times. For example, if you train someone to operate a forklift, you can then go to the job site to see if that person actually learned some new skills. But observing someone to see if they have gained some leadership skills is much more difficult. How do you effectively measure their visioning skills? Also, developing a leader is not accomplished in a two-week leadership course; that is where they learn the basics. The rest of what they learn comes through a trial and error period of practice. However, there are indicators that show how much value organizations place on leadership skills:
The March 2, 1999 edition of the NewsEdge had a story on an international study conducted by the HayGroup for Fortune magazine. They found that corporate cultures of the world's most admired companies are alike in many ways, but also differ from those of an average company.
This study reveals that the dominant values in the world's most admired companies are teamwork, customer focus, innovation fair treatment of employees, global reach, and vision. These are mainly leadership skills!
In average companies, the overriding values are making budget, supporting the decisions of management, and minimizing risks. While these are mainly management skills!
Great companies have leaders while average companies are run by managers!
Also, Aon Consulting of Chicago reported that the top five reasons for employee commitment are (notice that all five tasks are mostly leadership skills): * Employer's recognition of personal and family time * The organization's vision and direction * Personal growth * The ability to challenge the way things are done * Everyday work satisfaction
19. How do you keep people's loyalty in a company that is downsizing? Isn't it asking too much of a leader?
Leadership is more about enabling people to do their best and become the best, than it is about loyalty. Leaders inspire people while managers set polices that buy loyalty. Besides, organizations that have effective leaders throughout their organization will find themselves downsizing much less than organizations that are lacking leaders. That is because they will be performing the necessary steps to carry them on to the visions they have created. Also, if you have good leaders throughout the organization, you are going to find yourself doing the right things if and when it becomes cost-cutting time - being honest and compassionate.
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and it holds the universe together... — Carl Zwanzig
Leadership is like duct tape. It is the one thing that can be universally used to repair a broken organization.
20. One of the main trends in the new economy is people working at home, connected to work by net. How can one be a leader with much less eye-to-eye contact?
Most leaders still go to the “office” on a regular basis. In fact, it is extremely important that they be seen around the organization. The majority of people working at home are followers (who are just as important as the leaders). These followers who do work at home are some of the best led as they are being motivated both extrinsically and intrinsically by being well paid and being allowed to perform their job as they best see fit.
Leaders, who do work from the home due to the workplace being a mostly work-at-home environment, find these well-motivated employees are to their advantage. The only caution would be to have weekly or semi-weekly meetings to allow all the employees a chance to meet each other face-to-face on a regular basis.
Leaders must have the ability to innovate, inspire, motive, plan, strategize and make effective decisions. Most of all leaders need the courage to take risks and assume responsibility for outcomes.

Leadership is a social dynamic — not an easy thing to measure in an interview. Questions should challenge the candidate's creativity, communication skills and adaptability. The following sample questions are a good place to start.

1. Can you name someone who has had a big impact on you as a leader?
2. How did you build your personal reputation?
3. What advice would you give someone who is assuming a leadership position for the first time?
4. What keeps you up at night?
5. What improvements would you like to make regarding your leadership skills?
6. What is your style of leadership?
7. Do you lead from intuition?
8. Are you a risk taker?
9. Why do leaders fail? Can you give me some real world examples?
10. How do you bounce back from failure? Can you give me an example?
11. How do you define leadership success?
12. What is the difference between a leader and a manager?
13. What is the difference between a leader and a follower?
14. How do you develop new leaders in your team?
15. Who was the most difficult person you've dealt with? How did you manage the situation?
16. Tell me about a time when you missed an obvious problem.
17. When your credibility is compromised, how do you restore it?
18. How do you market your ideas?
19. How do you cope with change?
20. How do you define job satisfaction?
21. How do you need to improve?
22. Can you tell me about something you have learned in the past year?
23. Tell me about a time when you were admonished.
24. Can you tell me about a situation where you had to be very flexible?
25. Are you a dreamer or a realist?
26. How do you deal with difficult people?
27. Have you ever done something that you later regretted?
28. What are you most proud of?
29. What impact did you have in your last job?

Motivation
30. How do you sell ideas to your team?
31. How do you motivate disengaged team members?
32. How do you deal with underperforming team members?
33. Can you describe a time that you led by example?
34. How do you motivate senior, experienced employees?
35. When employees make mistakes — how do you ensure accountability without stifling innovation?
36. How do you ensure that your team is committed to your strategy?
37. How do you resolve conflicts amongst your team members?
38. How do you balance the need to challenge staff but not overwhelm them?

Innovation
39. How will the world be different in five years?
40. What are the biggest opportunities for [our] business in the next five years?
41. What is the most innovative idea you have ever had? What did you do with it?
42. What is the most significant change you brought about in an organization?
43. How do you empower your people to bring their ideas forward?
44. What are the threats to innovation?
45. How often does innovation succeed?
46. How do you make innovative ideas a reality?
47. How do you separate fads from meaningful trends?
48. To what degree is it possible to predict the future?

Decision Making
49. What was the worst decision you ever made?
50. Tell me about a time when you made an unpopular decision? How did you sell the idea?
51. How do you make difficult decisions?
52. Why do people make bad decisions?
53. How do you reach a decision when you don’t have all the facts?
54. How do you stay ahead of the competition?
55. What are the biggest drivers shaping [our company/industry]?
56. How quickly do you make decisions?

Ability to deliver
57. How do you set priorities?
58. How do you ensure that you do not become a bottleneck for your team? For example, that things run smoothly when you are on vacation?
59. How do you ensure that processes are not overly burdensome and bureaucratic?
60. How do you detect problems before they become serious?
61. Is it better to be persistent in the face of failure or give up and try again?
62. How do you know if your staff are managing projects effectively?
63. How do you know if your staff are managing time effectively?
64. Where is the line between quality and perfectionism?

Team Building
65. What is important to delegate? What should not be delegated?
66. How do you get feedback from your team?
67. How do you keep a pulse on the engagement level of your working level staff?
68. What kind of people do you avoid hiring?
69. How do you recognize staff who have the ability to influence?
70. How do you deal with emotionally charged situations?
71. How do you attract the best talent?
72. What are the best non-monetary ways to retain talent?
73. How do you reward top performers?
74. Is it important to recognize the accomplishments of satisfactory performers?
75. Who have you coached in the past 5 years? Can you give an example of results from your coaching efforts?
76. Do you make friends with your subordinates? What percentage of your team would you consider friends?
77. How do you deal with counter-productive political infighting amongst your staff?
78. What do you do to maintain trust amongst your team?
79. When do you have to be secretive with your staff?
80. What types of decisions do your working level staff make on a weekly basis?
81. How do you evaluate the work of your staff?
82. Can you tell me about a time that you helped someone on your team who was having difficulties?

Negotiation
83. What is your style of negotiation?
84. How do you strengthen your bargaining power before negotiations?

Influencing
85. How do you feel about office politics?
86. When it comes to office politics — what is out of bounds behavior?
87. Can you tell me about a time you turned an adversary into an ally?
88. How do you build your network?
89. What is your influencing style?

Creativity
90. If you could change the physics of the universe — what would you change?
91. If you could design a new color — what would it look like?
92. Can you give me a marketing slogan to promote tourism to Germany?
93. What have been some of your most creative ideas?

Critical Thinking
93. What is the biggest mistake that businesses make?
94. How would you improve the design of refrigerators?
95. Why do companies fail to innovate?
96. What is the best designed product in the market today? What is the worst?

Communication
97. Aliens visit the Earth and you are sent as an ambassador to make first contact. What would your first three sentences be?
98. Explain a nuclear power station to someone from the past (1 BC).
99. How do you confirm that someone is understanding what you are saying?
100. What is your style of communication when speaking to senior executives? What about working level staff?
101. What is the secret to effective presentations?
20 WAYS TO BECOME A LEADER by Ellen Ostrow, Ph.D.
A recent woman law school graduate might be surprised to find so few women among the leaders of the firm she just joined. After all, half of her law school classmates were women. And although this law school statistic is often reported as if it represents some dramatic change, the fact is that roughly 40% of law school students have been women since the mid 1980s.
Although there have been small positive changes, for the most part, legal workplaces continue to be sadly lacking in women leadership.
There are several reasons for this, perhaps chief among them, the fact that a "committed lawyer" is defined so that it excludes the majority of women lawyers. If "commitment" is mutually exclusive with pregnancy and motherhood, then the odds of a woman lawyer advancing to a leadership position are slim.
This definition also excludes male lawyers who want to be more than just financial providers for their families. In fact, any lawyer seriously wanting "a life" is at risk of being deleted from the potential- leaders list.
The best chance of changing this systemic obstacle is to tip the gender scales in leadership balance. As more women become leaders in legal organizations, organizational values and definitions are likely to change. The concept of the "ideal lawyer" [1] will broaden to become equally inclusive of women as well as men whose wives handle family matters. The inclusion of men and woman who understand that work and life are not a zero sum game would benefit the profession as well as the individuals practicing it.
As organizations move from mono-cultural clubs to diversity-welcoming institutions, one might expect that the "ideal lawyer" image would also evolve into one that equally includes lawyers of color and those of non-majority sexual orientation.
There is another reason to expect that fostering leadership ability among women lawyers will benefit the careers of these and future women attorneys, as well as the organizations in which they work:
Research on leadership indicates that 50-75% of organizations are currently managed by people sorely lacking in leadership competence [2]. They are hired or promoted based on technical competence, business knowledge and politics - not on leadership skill. Such managers often manage by crisis, are poor communicators, are insensitive to moral issues, are mistrustful, over-controlling and micro-managing, fail to follow through on commitments they've made and are easily excitable and explosive. The result is low morale, alienated employees, and costly attrition. Since the best business outcomes are achieved by satisfied employees, the legal profession can only gain by an increasing focus on the development of attorneys' leadership competencies.
Women lawyers can take the lead in this endeavor. Here are 20 ways to become a leader:
1. TAKE CHARGE
Become the sculptor of your own career and life – not the sculpture. Leaders are authentic – the authors of their own lives. Take responsibility for your professional development. No one has a greater investment in your success and satisfaction than you. Especially as a woman, you cannot depend upon the traditional management structure of your organization to put you on the path to achievement. It's up to you to direct and protect your career and to develop your own potential. You cannot afford to be passive or to accept roles assigned to you. Know what you want and why and be prepared to take action to make it happen.
2. KNOW YOUR STRENGTHS
Work is most meaningful and satisfying when it gives us an opportunity to use our strengths. Leadership is fundamentally about character. Knowing your character strengths enables you to find ways to select work environments and work assignments that allow you to express and develop them. For example, if one of your greatest strengths is loyalty and teamwork, you'll be most effective and satisfied working as a member of a team. If fairness is among your greatest strengths, you'll be frustrated and dissatisfied without an opportunity to work on issues of justice. If you're someone who loves to learn, you'll feel bored and frustrated unless you find ways to master new skills and bodies of knowledge.
It's also important to keep track of your own accomplishments. Unfortunately, legal workplaces are notorious for focusing on mistakes and defeats rather than what people have done well. However, good leaders develop talent by matching peoples' strengths with work tasks. They recognize contributions and celebrate accomplishments.
Start practicing good leadership by keeping a log of your successes. Record even small wins – this is essential for building your own confidence as well as developing a crucial leadership competence.
You can assess your strengths by taking the VIA Strengths Survey at http://www.authentichappiness.org. Dr. Martin Seligman, a psychologist known for his research in the areas of helplessness, depression, optimism and positive psychology has developed this website. Since he continues to do research on the instruments on his website, you can take them for free.
The Gallup StrengthsFinder is another way to assess your strengths. You can learn about it athttp://www.gallup.com.
3. CREATE YOUR VISION
Leaders are vision directed. A leader creates a compelling vision, is committed to this vision, and inspires others to action by aligning their goals with this vision.
Start developing this leadership competence by creating your own personal vision. Your vision statement is a picture of the future to which you can commit. It expresses your values, the contribution you want to make, and the way you want to live your life.
Without a clear vision, it's easy to be led by the expectations of others. As a professional coach, I can attest to the unhappiness of lawyers who've allowed the demands and approval of others to become their compass. It is heartbreaking to look back on your life with regret.
Your vision statement is your own personal "why." Knowing what you're working toward allows you to plan your professional development as well as to be resilient in the face of obstacles.
If you'd like a format for a personal vision statement, you can email me at [e-mail] with "Vision Statement" in the subject line.
4. CHOOSE A WORKPLACE WITH COMPATIBLE VALUES
One of the biggest mistakes many attorneys make is to accept a position in an organization with values contrary to their own. This situation leads to misery at worst, and job change at best.
Furthermore, you are much less likely to achieve a position of leadership in an organization with values at odds with your own ethics than you would in an environment that echoed your principles.
5. ESTABLISH YOUR OWN PERSONAL ADVISORY BOARD
Although the legal profession puts a premium on self-reliance, everyone needs guidance, role models and support. Old-style mentoring rarely exists in the 21st century legal workplace. Even if you have an assigned mentor, such "arranged marriages" rarely meet your most important professional development needs. It's especially difficult for women and attorneys of color to find mentors who identify with them or to whom they can look for time-tested strategies that apply to their unique challenges.
Establishing your own personal advisory board enables you to obtain assistance from several people. Each has a unique contribution to make to your career success. This approach also gives you an opportunity to seek needed assistance without over-burdening any one person.
In order to construct an effective personal board of directors you need to assess your learning needs. Identify the skills you need to acquire or improve in order to achieve the career goals you've set for the next year or two. Having identified your knowledge needs, you'll be ready to identify potential advisors. You can get recommendations from others. At the same time, observe people you'd like to emulate or those who have some special expertise in the areas in which you're interested. Look both within as well as outside your current work setting.
The people on your board will change as your learning needs change. Here are a few important tips for developing your advisory board: * Select people whom you trust. * Keep in mind that the alliances you form with your advisors are substantive, strategically important, and meaningful relationships. * Clarify each person's expectations for the relationship. Negotiate how long you expect the relationship to proceed in this form. * Understand what you mentor needs in order for the relationship to be mutually rewarding. For some advisors, helping another attorney succeed is sufficient. Others might feel rewarded by your offers to assist them in their own work.
You'll need to have advisors who serve different functions. The most important of these are:
A Culture Guide
If you're a new attorney, or are new to your current work setting, you'll need an advisor who can help you learn about the organizational culture. This mentor can provide tips on who is powerful, who the key players and decision-makers are, whom to seek out and whom not to cross. This mentor may also suggest committees to join and other avenues to pursue so that you will become more visible.
A Legal Skills Mentor
It's useful to find a mentor with deep knowledge in your area of the law – a senior and successful attorney who can provide candid and constructive feedback about your work. You need to have someone you trust to whom you can turn with substantive questions about your work. Ideally, this would not be someone who will be in a position of evaluating you: you can't hold back if you want to really learn.
A Role Model
It's especially helpful for women attorneys to form alliances with other women lawyers who share their work/life balance values. Ask someone you admire to share her strategies for balancing work and family.
It's particularly helpful to identify leadership role models. Think of the most inspiring leaders in your life and list the attributes that elicited your admiration and respect. Find role models who can advise you about how you can become a leader.
A Good "Connector"
Unless you have a well-established network, it's helpful to know someone who can introduce you to people you'd like to know. As a knowledge worker in today's economy, you simply cannot know everything. Establishing a knowledge network enables you to identify the fastest route to the information you need and the people who can connect you to that information. Whether you're seeking information requested by a client, connections to business development opportunities, or looking for another job, a well-developed network is an essential resource.
6. FIND A CHAMPION
It's essential to have someone who will be your champion in the organization. Most likely, this will be someone with whom you practice. The more value you add to the practice of a senior lawyer in your practice group, the more he or she will be invested in retaining you. People who like you, as well as your work, are more likely to be in your corner. It's also necessary that this person be in a secure position in the organization; someone in a tenuous spot is unlikely to feel able to go out on a limb for you.
7. WORK TOWARD EXCELLENCE IN YOUR PRACTICE
Excellent work performance is a necessary, although not sufficient condition for leadership. Stay on top of your professional development. Don't wait for your firm or organization to offer a seminar in the skills you want to learn – seek out your own training opportunities.
Keep in mind the difference between excellence and perfection. Maintaining high standards for your work reflects positive striving. On the other hand, being harshly self-critical for the smallest error will undermine your success. Perfectionism easily leads to micro-management and harsh criticism of others, neither of which are effective leadership behaviors.
It's difficult to strive for excellence unless you're doing what you love. People who are committed to what they do – who are strongly interested in their work – are resilient in the face of challenges. Enthusiasm and passion motivate hard work. Genuine interest sustains focused attention.
It's important to know what skills you should be developing as you progress in your career. The ABCNY Report of the Task Force on Lawyers Quality of Life delineates specific training goals for corporate and litigation associates. You can find these at: http://www.abcny.org/taskforce.html
Look for Attachment C. For a list of skills against which to assess your progress, you can send an email to me at [e-mail] with "Skills" in the subject line.
The more knowledgeable you are and the better your skills, the more you'll be a resource to others. Expertise builds your reputation as a credible and trusted resource, which is essential for attaining leadership roles.
8. TAKE INITIATIVE
Whatever you're trying to accomplish, you need to take control of your own destiny and act on your own convictions. To become a leader, you must first learn to lead yourself. Initiative is a fundamental leadership competence. Choose your work – don't let it choose you. Seek out work you like or from which you can learn. If the work you really want isn't coming your way, make a plan to find it. Forge alliances with people both within and outside your organization who can help you work with the kinds of matters and clients you prefer.
Avoid the "tyranny of the in-basket." [3] You need to actively work on your career, not just on your work. Develop a career plan. Identify specific, measurable goals and routes for accomplishing them. Go beyond adapting to whatever comes your way. Proactively select and influence the situation in which you work rather than merely reacting to situations created by others. Work to change yourself and your circumstances for the better.
Leaders create a vision, set goals that embody the vision, inspire action to accomplish the vision, and develop strategic plans which lead to their goals. Start on your path to leadership by leading yourself.
9. TAKE RISKS
Developing leadership skill requires getting out of your comfort zone. Set "stretch" goals that enable you to develop new skills. Join committees and take a leadership role. This is an opportunity to develop leadership competencies as well as increase your visibility. Many women lawyers have told me that they do their best to fly under the radar. They believe that this demonstrates that they are team players. I disagree. You stand to lose far more by being invisible than you do by taking risks. In order to break through the stereotypes that keep women from achieving positions of leadership, you'll need to appear confident. That means being willing to learn on the job instead of waiting until you know everything before you take on challenges. Ask your advisory board and network to help you fill in knowledge gaps. Present your ideas. Be decisive and to the point. Speak in a convincing manner and make your statements strong and powerful. Claim authorship of your ideas. Don't qualify your statements or apologize for speaking. Be assertive, not aggressive. Manage your emotions when you set limits and make requests. Avoid harsh criticism and always respect the dignity of others. Depersonalize your mistakes. Just because you failed at one thing doesn't make you a failure. View mistakes as learning opportunities. If you become so worried about how you're perceived after you make an error that you never try again, others will conclude that you always make mistakes. But if you attribute your error to insufficient information, you'll learn more and try again. Your track record of successes will outweigh the memory of your small errors. Taking risks builds resilience and self-confidence. The more you stretch yourself and succeed, the more confident you'll feel. This will empower you to strive toward a leadership position.
10. BE OPTIMISTIC
As "purveyors of hope," [4] leaders must be optimistic. Realistic optimists take control where they can and stop investing energy in things beyond their control. When faced with a setback, optimists don't succumb to feelings of helplessness. They maintain their focus on the larger purpose, finding ways to bounce back and pursue alternative routes to their goal. Optimists see mistakes as learning opportunities, not as catastrophes from which they'll never recover. This enables them to take the kinds of risks necessary for becoming a leader. Optimism is especially difficult for lawyers, since so much of legal work is about anticipating and preventing disaster. But even though pessimism may help you be more effective in practicing law, it will be an obstacle if you think this way about career planning or the rest of your life. You're probably used to thinking that optimism is just a personality characteristic and you either have it or you don't. But, the fact is that research has demonstrated that people can learn to think more optimistically and that these changes are enduring. If you want to learn to be more optimistic, I'd encourage you to read "Learned Optimism" by Martin Seligman, Ph.D. [5].
11. BECOME "UN-FUNGIBLE"
Find a niche which your organization values and about which you can be passionate. Develop your expertise in this area. If you are the only expert, or one of a few experts in this area, you'll be of considerable value to your firm. This increases your power to lobby for flexibility in your scheduling and opportunities to take on leadership roles.
12. MAKE YOUR CAREER MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR JOB [6]
Focusing on your long-term career goals enables you to minimize the power of any given employer. If your goals are incompatible with those of your organization, or if you can't get the support you need to make your vision a reality, look elsewhere.
13. DEVELOP YOUR SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
Leadership is interpersonal. Effective leadership is fundamentally about how you relate to people. Social intelligence consists of several components: * Self-management People who cannot manage the expression of their own emotions are unlikely to effectively manage others. It's important to develop an awareness of your own feelings and make deliberate choices about how best to use them in any given situation. Managing your emotions keeps them from clouding your perceptions and judgments. Being able to influence how others perceive you and coming across to others in the way you intend require self-awareness and self-regulation. It's essential to have a deep understanding of your own values, motives, strengths and limitations. Though it's not always easy to be honest with yourself, you need to develop this kind of honesty if you want to be interpersonally effective. Realistically appraise yourself without being overly self-critical. Ask others for feedback. The knowledge of how others perceive you is a powerful tool. Monitor yourself; pay attention to your feelings, actions and intentions. Observe the impact of your actions on others. Self-awareness is also critical for empathy since we tend to perceive others through the filter of our own needs, fears, expectations and hopes. When we are aware of what we expect to hear or are afraid of hearing, we can get past the filter and hear what's really being communicated. * Social radar Effective leaders can read emotional signals and assess other's emotional states. Your ability to influence others depends upon your skill at sensing their reactions and adjusting your approach accordingly. Practice "active" listening – listening not only to the other person's words but also their nonverbal expressions. Leaders are more persuasive when they can attune their message to their listeners. * Seek Win-Win Solutions to Problems Leaders elicit far more cooperation when they work toward equitable solutions, which all participants can embrace. Be flexibly open to others' points of view and demonstrate your understand of their perspectives. Always try to preserve the dignity of everyone involved in a problem or project. Leadership is about building and empowering teams. Practice creating an atmosphere of collaboration and openness.
14. BE YOUR OWN ADVOCATE
Many women attorneys who are excellent advocates for their clients are fearful of advocating for themselves. In our culture, women are socialized to believe that self-promotion is not only unbecoming and aggressive but will also damage their careers. But failing to advocate for yourself can have far-reaching consequences. In the short run, too much modesty feeds into the gender stereotype that women aren't "tough enough." Keep in mind that other people see only a small percentage of our actions. The missing information has to come from the actor herself. Share your knowledge by offering to help others. Broadcast your wins through in-house newsletters. Express your convictions. Self-advocacy is necessary for reaching positions of leadership. At the same time, make sure that you acknowledge and appreciate everyone who contributed to the group effort. Leaders are able to make their employees feel proud of their contributions. They don't need to steel the credit for themselves.
15. BREAK THROUGH EXPECTATIONS
Gender role stereotypes are an obstacle to women achieving leadership in the legal profession. But believing you'll never break the "glass ceiling" is sure to hold you back. Sometimes the only way to get past these stereotypes is to address them directly. Shining a light on unspoken assumptions can enable your listeners to hear and see beyond their expectations. By identifying these assumptions, you're conveying power and insight, which inspire trust.
16. BECOME AN EXCELLENT COMMUNICATOR
A leader must communicate her vision in a way that energizes people and galvanizes them toward action. The ability to gain the cooperation and support of others – through negotiation, persuasion and influence - depends upon communication skill, which in turn is essential for leadership. Be aware of gender differences in communication style. (For details, see Issue # 27 of "Beyond the Billable Hour at http://lawyerslifecoach.com/newsletters/issue27.html.) Essentially, you must take your listener's expectations into account in tailoring your communications. For women, it's especially important to give the other person a reason to listen by addressing a goal your listener wants to achieve. When people feel heard, they're more likely to hear you. When you understand their goals, you can articulate how their aspirations can be aligned with your vision. Although implicit gender role stereotypes foster the belief that mothers cannot be good leaders, the fact is that parenting is excellent training ground for leadership skills. As a parent you learn to plan strategically, negotiate, enlist cooperation and persuade – all of which you can transfer to the workplace.
17. SHOW CONCERN FOR OTHERS
Research [7] indicates that among the most important characteristics of effective leaders are compassion, nurturance, generosity, altruism and empathy. "Agreeableness" is a social trait and leadership takes place in a social context, so it's not surprising that these characteristics are so important for effective leadership. Women lawyers need to keep this in mind. All too often women are urged to "act like men" in working toward leadership positions. Be encouraged to learn that the most effective leaders demonstrate traits most often attributed to women.
18. DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN A SUPPORT SYSTEM
Taking the time to maintain supportive and close connections with others is necessary to attain and sustain the energy and well-being you need to achieve career success. At home, you'll need a partner who will agree to negotiate and share family work with you. Be clear with your significant others that you need their help in order to reach your goals. Being overloaded with family responsibility is as much of an obstacle to women reaching positions of leadership as is the "glass ceiling" at work. You'll also need the support of people you supervise - your support staff, paralegals, junior associates, etc. It's easier to recruit such support if you understand their needs and goals and treat them with compassion and respect. Compassion and encouragement motivate people much more than impatience and harshness. Learn to delegate well. Remember, leaders don't do all the work themselves: They effectively match people to tasks based on knowledge of their subordinates' strengths and aspirations. They are clear about their expectations when giving assignments. But don't allow perfectionism to derail good delegating. If you're not satisfied with the finished product, resist the urge to do it over yourself. Instead, return the work to the person who produced it and make sure that he or she understands your expectations. That way, you won't feel overburdened and you'll help the other person increase their own competence.
19. MAINTAIN INTEGRITY
Integrity may be the single most important characteristic of competent leadership; it's the sine qua non of a trusted advisor and effective leader. People are willing to be led by someone who follows through – someone they trust. Do what you say you will do. Don't promise to do what you can't. People without integrity may gain power, but they don't truly lead.
20. PERSEVERE
Persistence in the face of adversity is one of the cornerstones of resilience. Take responsibility for your own fate. Stay resolute in your values and goals and remain determined and self-disciplined in your efforts to achieve them. Persistence doesn't mean you never feel discouraged. Rather, it means maintaining your focus on the goal in spite of your feelings of discouragement. Like a marathon runner, you keep going because you believe in what you're doing. You simply will not give up. If your goal is to become a leader to help the legal profession become a truly diverse, welcoming and equitable profession, then don't give up. Your leadership is most needed.
Sometimes in cruising around the internet, I find an article that has one paragraph that really leaps out at me. This article by Jeffrey Cohn at CNN Opinion is a case in point. He’s talking about why we so often pick poor leaders, even though we know how important good leaders are to any business. This subject is dear to my heart: I can’t tell you how many times I’ve watched a board pick a new CEO or a senior executive hire or promote someone to fill a leadership spot, and thought to myself (or said it out loud, if I’m given the chance), “Really? That person? I’m pretty sure he or she is going to do a bad to mediocre job.” Sometimes I’m wrong, but most of the time I’m right. And I just hate to see the stress that such hires and promotions put on an organization – on the people, and on results.
Cohn offers a great, simple explanation (this is the paragraph that caught my eye):
The short answer is, we focus on all the wrong things, like a candidate’s charm, their stellar résumé or their academic credentials. None of this has any bearing on leadership potential. And despite claims to the contrary, even a candidate’s past results have little bearing on whether the promoted individual will succeed once promoted.
I couldn’t agree more. One example: Bob Nardelli’s unhappy tenure at Home Depot, followed by his even unhappier tenure at Chrysler. Great resume – rose through the ranks over a 30-year period to become a super-senior leader at GE, one of three considered to replace Jack Welch. How could he not be good, right?
So what gives? What should we be looking for in leaders, if not credentials, charm and prior results? Here are some key things I’ve noticed over the years:
Does the person fit the business? Someone can be successful in a given environment (in Nardellie’s case, GE), because he or she is a good fit for that culture, and understands the business. Nardelli’s tough, Welch-style management worked OK at GE…but alienated folks at all levels at Home Depot, which had been a more collegial and familial culture. Also, he clearly didn’t ‘get’ retail, and the importance of supporting front line customer service employees to be successful (investment in hiring, training and keeping good front line folks went way down on his watch). How would he? He’d spent his whole career in manufacturing.
11 Secrets of Hiring ManagersLearnVestContributor
The Results Are In: Women Are Better LeadersErika AndersenContributor
Top Executive Recruiters Agree There Are Only Three True Job Interview QuestionsGeorge BradtContributor
Is the person open to learning? Last year, a client of mine promoted someone to replace him as he moved up. She was an abysmal failure. I had warned him beforehand that I observed this woman as being rigid and closed to new ideas when working with others, and that I feared she’d bring this same attitude to the new job. He countered, “No, she’s just confident – it will serve her well in this bigger job.” Unfortunately, I was right. She came into the new job thinking she knew exactly how to do it, and not being open to coaching or new information…even from her boss. It was a disaster, and he had to let her go.
Is he or she ‘followable’? This is the core, in my mind (which is why it’s the focus of my new book). If you want a consistently accurate predictor of whether the person you’re hiring or promoting will be successful, look to see how he or she is viewed and supported (or not) by those who’ve worked for him or her. When someone I know was tapped to run a TV network a few years ago, I was almost positive he’d be successful – I knew he was a good fit for the company and was open to learning, but most important, I knew that he’d built a strong and loyal team at his previous company, and that his folks were sad to see him go.
No matter how smart, dazzling-to-the-interviewers, or well-educated someone is, if employees haven’t accepted that person as a leader in the past, and given him or her their support and allegiance, it’s unlikely they’ll do so now.
I’d also love to hear, as always, from you – what would you suggest organizations and executives look for when hiring leaders?

-------------------------------------------------
Theories
Leadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal". The leader may or may not have any formal authority. Students of leadership have produced theories involving traits,[2] situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values,[3] charisma, and intelligence, among others. Somebody whom people follow: somebody who guides or directs others.
[edit]Early western history
The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries. History's greatest philosophical writings from Plato's Republic to Plutarch's Lives have explored the question "What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?" Underlying this search was the early recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the "trait theory of leadership".
The trait theory was explored at length in a number of works in the 19th century. Most notable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works have prompted decades of research.[4] In Heroes and Hero Worship(1841), Carlyle identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In Galton's Hereditary Genius (1869), he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when moving from first degree to second degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership was inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both of these notable works lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of the leader.
[edit]Rise of alternative theories
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940;[5] Stogdill, 1948;[6] Mann, 1959[7]) prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as situational approaches (see alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades.
[edit]Reemergence of trait theory
New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For example, improvements in researchers' use of the round robin research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.[8] Additionally, during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conductmeta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following: * Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.[8] * Significant relationships exist between leadership and such individual traits as: * intelligence[9] * adjustment[9] * extraversion[9] * conscientiousness[10][11][12] * openness to experience[11][13] * general self-efficacy[14][15]
While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual frameworks.[16]
Specifically, Zaccaro (2007)[16] noted that trait theories still: 1. focus on a small set of individual attributes such as Big Five personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem-solving skills; 2. fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes; 3. do not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences; 4. do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective leadership.
[edit]Attribute pattern approach
Considering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers have begun to adopt a different perspective of leader individual differences—the leader attribute pattern approach.[15][17][18][19][20] In contrast to the traditional approach, the leader attribute pattern approach is based on theorists' arguments that the influence of individual characteristics on outcomes is best understood by considering the person as an integrated totality rather than a summation of individual variables.[19][21] In other words, the leader attribute pattern approach argues that integrated constellations or combinations of individual differences may explain substantial variance in both leader emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes, or by additive combinations of multiple attributes.
[edit]Behavioral and style theories
Main article: Managerial grid model
In response to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of successful leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles.[22] David McClelland, for example, posited that leadership takes a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful, perhaps even essential.[23]

A graphical representation of the managerial grid model
Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making, praise and criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project management) according to three styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire.[24]
The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders' concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.[25]
[edit]Positive reinforcement
B.F. Skinner is the father of behavior modification and developed the concept of positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is presented in response to a behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behavior in the future.[26] The following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a business setting. Assume praise is a positive reinforcer for a particular employee. This employee does not show up to work on time every day. The manager of this employee decides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the employee actually shows up to work on time. As a result, the employee comes to work on time more often because the employee likes to be praised. In this example, praise (the stimulus) is a positive reinforcer for this employee because the employee arrives at work on time (the behavior) more frequently after being praised for showing up to work on time.
The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leaders to motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates. Organizations such as Frito-Lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement to increase productivity.[27] Empirical research covering the last 20 years suggests that reinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally, many reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive, providing higher performance for lower costs.
[edit]Situational and contingency theories
Main articles: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom–Yetton decision model, path–goal theory, and situational leadership theory
Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as Carlyle suggested. Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around.[28] This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics; according to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. According to the theory, "what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions."[29]
Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building upon the research of Lewin et al., academics began to normalize the descriptive models of leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations each style works better in. The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the "hearts and minds" of followers in day-to-day management; the democratic leadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally, the laissez-faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it provides, but as the leaders do not "take charge", they can be perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems.[30] Thus, theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation, which is sometimes classified as contingency theory. Four contingency leadership theories appear more prominently in recent years: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decision model, the path-goal theory, and the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory.
The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader's effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational favorability (later called situational control). The theory defined two types of leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good relationships with the group (relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime concern carrying out the task itself (task-oriented).[31]According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation". Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favorability.
Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973)[32] and later with Arthur Jago (1988),[33] developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations, which was used in a normative decision model where leadership styles were connected to situational variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation.[34] This approach was novel because it supported the idea that the same manager could rely on different group decision makingapproaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This model was later referred to as situational contingency theory.[35]
The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971) and was based on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom.[36] According to House, the essence of the theory is "the meta proposition that leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance".[37] The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive, that are contingent to the environment factors and follower characteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the path-goal model states that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on what the situation demands. The path-goal model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the circumstances, and as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes the reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers.
The situational leadership model proposed by Hersey and Blanchard suggests four leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of follower-development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well.[38]
[edit]Functional theory
Main article: Functional leadership model
Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962; Adair, 1988; Kouzes & Posner, 1995) is a particularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute to organizational or unit effectiveness. This theory argues that the leader's main job is to see that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care of; thus, a leader can be said to have done their job well when they have contributed to group effectiveness and cohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton, 1986). While functional leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also been effectively applied to broader organizational leadership as well (Zaccaro, 2001). In summarizing literature on functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001), Hackman and Walton (1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert, Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed five broad functions a leader performs when promoting organization's effectiveness. These functions include environmental monitoring, organizing subordinate activities, teaching and coaching subordinates, motivating others, and intervening actively in the group's work.
A variety of leadership behaviors are expected to facilitate these functions. In initial work identifying leader behavior, Fleishman (1953) observed that subordinates perceived their supervisors' behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to as consideration and initiating structure. Consideration includes behavior involved in fostering effective relationships. Examples of such behavior would include showing concern for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards others. Initiating structure involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on task accomplishment. This could include role clarification, setting performance standards, and holding subordinates accountable to those standards.
[edit]Integrated psychological theory
Main article: Three Levels of Leadership model
The Integrated Psychological theory of leadership is an attempt to integrate the strengths of the older theories (i.e. traits, behavioral/styles, situational and functional) while addressing their limitations, largely by introducing a new element – the need for leaders to develop their leadership presence, attitude toward others and behavioral flexibility by practicing psychological mastery. It also offers a foundation for leaders wanting to apply the philosophies of servant leadership and “authentic leadership”.[39]
Integrated Psychological theory began to attract attention after the publication of James Scouller’s Three Levels of Leadership model (2011).[40] Scouller argued that the older theories offer only limited assistance in developing a person’s ability to lead effectively.[41] He pointed out, for example, that: * Traits theories, which tend to reinforce the idea that leaders are born not made, might help us select leaders, but they are less useful for developing leaders. * An ideal style (e.g. Blake & Mouton’s team style) would not suit all circumstances. * Most of the situational/contingency and functional theories assume that leaders can change their behavior to meet differing circumstances or widen their behavioral range at will, when in practice many find it hard to do so because of unconscious beliefs, fears or ingrained habits. Thus, he argued, leaders need to work on their inner psychology. * None of the old theories successfully address the challenge of developing “leadership presence”; that certain “something” in leaders that commands attention, inspires people, wins their trust and makes followers want to work with them.
Scouller therefore proposed the Three Levels of Leadership model, which was later categorized as an “Integrated Psychological” theory on the Businessballs education website.[42] In essence, his model summarizes what leaders have to do, not only to bring leadership to their group or organization, but also to develop themselves technically and psychologically as leaders.
The three levels in his model are Public, Private and Personal leadership: * The first two – public and private leadership – are “outer” or behavioral levels. These are the behaviors that address what Scouller called “the four dimensions of leadership”. These dimensions are: (1) a shared, motivating group purpose; (2) action, progress and results; (3) collective unity or team spirit; (4) individual selection and motivation. Public leadership focuses on the 34 behaviors involved in influencing two or more people simultaneously. Private leadership covers the 14 behaviors needed to influence individuals one to one. * The third – personal leadership – is an “inner” level and concerns a person’s growth toward greater leadership presence, knowhow and skill. Working on one’s personal leadership has three aspects: (1) Technical knowhow and skill (2) Developing the right attitude toward other people – which is the basis of servant leadership (3) Psychological self-mastery – the foundation for authentic leadership.
Scouller argued that self-mastery is the key to growing one’s leadership presence, building trusting relationships with followers and dissolving one’s limiting beliefs and habits, thereby enabling behavioral flexibility as circumstances change, while staying connected to one’s core values (that is, while remaining authentic). To support leaders’ development, he introduced a new model of the human psyche and outlined the principles and techniques of self-mastery.[43]
[edit]Transactional and transformational theories
Main articles: Transactional leadership and Transformational leadership
Eric Berne[44] first analyzed the relations between a group and its leadership in terms of transactional analysis.
The transactional leader (Burns, 1978)[45] is given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team's performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct, and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level, and reward effectiveness when expected outcome is reached. Idiosyncrasy Credits, first posited by Edward Hollander (1971) is one example of a concept closely related to transactional leadership.
[edit]Leader–member exchange theory
Main article: Leader–member exchange theory
Another theory that addresses a specific aspect of the leadership process is the leader–member exchange (LMX) theory, which evolved from an earlier theory called the vertical dyad linkage (VDL) model. Both of these models focus on the interaction between leaders and individual followers. Similar to the transactional approach, this interaction is viewed as a fair exchange whereby the leader provides certain benefits such as task guidance, advice, support, and/or significant rewards and the followers reciprocate by giving the leader respect, cooperation, commitment to the task and good performance. However, LMX recognizes that leaders and individual followers will vary in the type of exchange that develops between them.[46] LMX theorizes that the type of exchanges between the leader and specific followers can lead to the creation of in-groups and out-groups. In-group members are said to have high-quality exchanges with the leader, while out-group members have low-quality exchanges with the leader.[47]
[edit]In-group members
In-group members are perceived by the leader as being more experienced, competent, and willing to assume responsibility than other followers. The leader begins to rely on these individuals to help with especially challenging tasks. If the follower responds well, the leader rewards him/her with extra coaching, favorable job assignments, and developmental experiences. If the follower shows high commitment and effort followed by additional rewards, both parties develop mutual trust, influence, and support of one another. Research shows the in-group members usually receive higher performance evaluations from the leader, higher satisfaction, and faster promotions than out-group members.[48] In-group members are also likely to build stronger bonds with their leaders by sharing the same social backgrounds and interests.
[edit]Out-group members
Out-group members often receive less time and more distant exchanges then their in-group counterparts. With out-group members, leaders expect no more than adequate job performance, good attendance, reasonable respect, and adherence to the job description in exchange for a fair wage and standard benefits. The leader spends less time with out-group members, they have fewer developmental experiences, and the leader tends to emphasize his/her formal authority to obtain compliance to leader requests. Research shows that out-group members are less satisfied with their job and organization, receive lower performance evaluations from the leader, see thirir leader as less fair, and are more likely to file grievances or leave the organization.[49]
[edit]Emotions
Leadership can be perceived as a particularly emotion-laden process, with emotions entwined with the social influence process.[50] In an organization, the leader's mood has some effects on his/her group. These effects can be described in three levels:[51] 1. The mood of individual group members. Group members with leaders in a positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with leaders in a negative mood. The leaders transmit their moods to other group members through the mechanism of emotional contagion.[51] Mood contagion may be one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence followers.[52] 2. The affective tone of the group. Group affective tone represents the consistent or homogeneous affective reactions within a group. Group affective tone is an aggregate of the moods of the individual members of the group and refers to mood at the group level of analysis. Groups with leaders in a positive mood have a more positive affective tone than do groups with leaders in a negative mood.[51] 3. Group processes like coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. Public expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their goals, intentions, and attitudes through their expressions of moods. For example, expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem progress toward goals to be good. The group members respond to those signals cognitively and behaviorally in ways that are reflected in the group processes.[51]
In research about client service, it was found that expressions of positive mood by the leader improve the performance of the group, although in other sectors there were other findings.[53]
Beyond the leader's mood, her/his behavior is a source for employee positive and negative emotions at work. The leader creates situations and events that lead to emotional response. Certain leader behaviors displayed during interactions with their employees are the sources of these affective events. Leaders shape workplace affective events. Examples – feedback giving, allocating tasks, resource distribution. Since employee behavior and productivity are directly affected by their emotional states, it is imperative to consider employee emotional responses to organizational leaders.[54] Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage moods and emotions in the self and others, contributes to effective leadership within organizations.[53]
[edit]Neo-emergent theory
Main article: Functional leadership model
The neo-emergent leadership theory (from the Oxford school of leadership) espouses that leadership is created through the emergence of information by the leader or other stakeholders, not through the true actions of the leader himself. In other words, the reproduction of information or stories form the basis of the perception of leadership by the majority. It is well known that the great naval hero Lord Nelson often wrote his own versions of battles he was involved in, so that when he arrived home in England he would receive a true hero's welcome.[citation needed] In modern society, the press, blogs and other sources report their own views of a leader, which may be based on reality, but may also be based on a political command, a payment, or an inherent interest of the author, media, or leader. Therefore, it can be contended that the perception of all leaders is created and in fact does not reflect their true leadership qualities at all.
-------------------------------------------------
[edit]Styles
Main article: Leadership styles
A leadership style is a leader's style of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. It is the result of the philosophy, personality, and experience of the leader. Rhetoric specialists have also developed models for understanding leadership (Robert Hariman, Political Style,[55] Philippe-Joseph Salazar, L'Hyperpolitique. Technologies politiques De La Domination[56]).
Different situations call for different leadership styles. In an emergency when there is little time to converge on an agreement and where a designated authority has significantly more experience or expertise than the rest of the team, an autocratic leadership style may be most effective; however, in a highly motivated and aligned team with a homogeneous level of expertise, a more democratic or laissez-faire style may be more effective. The style adopted should be the one that most effectively achieves the objectives of the group while balancing the interests of its individual members.[57]
[edit]Engaging style
Engaging as part of leadership style has been mentioned in various literature earlier. Dr. Stephen L. Cohen, the Senior Vice President for Right Management’s Leadership Development Center of Excellence, has in his article Four Key Leadership Practices for Leading in Tough Times has mentioned Engagement as the fourth Key practice. He writes, "these initiatives do for the organization is engage both leaders and employees in understanding the existing conditions and how they can collectively assist in addressing them. Reaching out to employees during difficult times to better understand their concerns and interests by openly and honestly conveying the impact of the downturn on them and their organizations can provide a solid foundation for not only engaging them but retaining them when things do turn around.[58]
Engagement as the key to Collaborative Leadership is also emphasized in several original research papers and programs.[59] Becoming an agile has long been associated with Engaging leaders - rather than leadership with an hands off approach.[60]
[edit]Autocratic or authoritarian style
Under the autocratic leadership style, all decision-making powers are centralized in the leader, as with dictators.
Leaders do not entertain any suggestions or initiatives from subordinates. The autocratic management has been successful as it provides strong motivation to the manager. It permits quick decision-making, as only one person decides for the whole group and keeps each decision to him/herself until he/she feels it needs to be shared with the rest of the group.[57]
[edit]Participative or democratic style
The democratic leadership style consists of the leader sharing the decision-making abilities with group members by promoting the interests of the group members and by practicing social equality. This has also been called shared leadership.
[edit]Laissez-faire or free-rein style
A person may be in a leadership position without providing leadership, leaving the group to fend for itself. Subordinates are given a free hand in deciding their own policies and methods. The subordinates are motivated to be creative and innovative.
[edit]Narcissistic leadership
Main article: Narcissistic leadership
Narcissistic leadership is [Definition missing]. It is a common leadership style. The narcissism may range from anywhere between healthy and destructive.
[edit]Toxic leadership
Main article: Toxic leader
A toxic leader is someone who has responsibility over a group of people or an organization, and who abuses the leader–follower relationship by leaving the group or organization in a worse-off condition than when he/she joined it.
[edit]Task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership
Main article: Task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership
Task-oriented leadership is a style in which the leader is focused on the tasks that need to be performed in order to meet a certain production goal. Task-oriented leaders are generally more concerned with producing a step-by-step solution for given problem or goal, strictly making sure these deadlines are met, results and reaching target outcomes.[61]
Relationship-oriented leadership is a contrasting style in which the leader is more focused on the relationships amongst the group and is generally more concerned with the overall well-being and satisfaction of group members.[62]Relationship-oriented leaders emphasize communication within the group, shows trust and confidence in group members, and shows appreciation for work done.
Task-oriented leaders are typically less concerned with the idea of catering to group members, and more concerned with acquiring a certain solution to meet a production goal. For this reason, they typically are able to make sure that deadlines are met, yet their group members' well-being may suffer.[61] Relationship-oriented leaders are focused on developing the team and the relationships in it. The positives to having this kind of environment are that team members are more motivated and have support, however, the emphasis on relations as opposed to getting a job done might make productivity suffer.[61]
-------------------------------------------------
[edit]Performance
In the past, some researchers have argued that the actual influence of leaders on organizational outcomes is overrated and romanticized as a result of biased attributions about leaders (Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987). Despite these assertions, however, it is largely recognized and accepted by practitioners and researchers that leadership is important, and research supports the notion that leaders do contribute to key organizational outcomes (Day & Lord, 1988; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). To facilitate successful performance it is important to understand and accurately measure leadership performance.
Job performance generally refers to behavior that is expected to contribute to organizational success (Campbell, 1990). Campbell identified a number of specific types of performance dimensions; leadership was one of the dimensions that he identified. There is no consistent, overall definition of leadership performance (Yukl, 2006). Many distinct conceptualizations are often lumped together under the umbrella of leadership performance, including outcomes such as leader effectiveness, leader advancement, and leader emergence (Kaiser et al., 2008). For instance, leadership performance may be used to refer to the career success of the individual leader, performance of the group or organization, or even leader emergence. Each of these measures can be considered conceptually distinct. While these aspects may be related, they are different outcomes and their inclusion should depend on the applied or research focus.
-------------------------------------------------
[edit]Leadership traits
Most theories in the 20th century argued that great leaders were born, not made. Current studies have indicated that leadership is much more complex and cannot be boiled down to a few key traits of an individual. Years of observation and study have indicated that one such trait or a set of traits does not make an extraordinary leader. What scholars have been able to arrive at is that leadership traits of an individual do not change from situation to situation; such traits include intelligence, assertiveness, or physical attractiveness.[63] However, each key trait may be applied to situations differently, depending on the circumstances. The following summarizes the main leadership traits found in research by Jon P. Howell, business professor at New Mexico State University and author of the book Snapshots of Great Leadership.
Determination and drive include traits such as initiative, energy, assertiveness, perseverance, masculinity, and sometimes dominance. People with these traits often tend to wholeheartedly pursue their goals, work long hours, are ambitious, and often are very competitive with others. Cognitive capacity includes intelligence, analytical and verbal ability, behavioral flexibility, and good judgment. Individuals with these traits are able to formulate solutions to difficult problems, work well under stress or deadlines, adapt to changing situations, and create well-thought-out plans for the future. Howell provides examples of Steve Jobs and Abraham Lincoln as encompassing the traits of determination and drive as well as possessing cognitive capacity, demonstrated by their ability to adapt to their continuously changing environments.[63]
Self-confidence encompasses the traits of high self-esteem, assertiveness, emotional stability, and self-assurance. Individuals that are self-confident do not doubt themselves or their abilities and decisions; they also have the ability to project this self-confidence onto others, building their trust and commitment. Integrity is demonstrated in individuals who are truthful, trustworthy, principled, consistent, dependent, loyal, and not deceptive. Leaders with integrity often share these values with their followers, as this trait is mainly an ethics issue. It is often said that these leaders keep their word and are honest and open with their cohorts. Sociability describes individuals who are friendly, extroverted, tactful, flexible, and interpersonally competent. Such a trait enables leaders to be accepted well by the public, use diplomatic measures to solve issues, as well as hold the ability to adapt their social persona to the situation at hand. According to Howell, Mother Teresa is an exceptional example that embodies integrity, assertiveness, and social abilities in her diplomatic dealings with the leaders of the world.[63]
Few great leaders encompass all of the traits listed above, but many have the ability to apply a number of them to succeed as front-runners of their organization or situation.
-------------------------------------------------
[edit]The ontological–phenomenological model for leadership
One of the more recent definitions of leadership comes from Werner Erhard, Michael C. Jensen, Steve Zaffron, and Kari Granger who describe leadership as “an exercise in language that results in the realization of a future that wasn’t going to happen anyway, which future fulfills (or contributes to fulfilling) the concerns of the relevant parties…”. This definition ensures that leadership is talking about the future and includes the fundamental concerns of the relevant parties. This differs from relating to the relevant parties as “followers” and calling up an image of a single leader with others following. Rather, a future that fulfills on the fundamental concerns of the relevant parties indicates the future that wasn’t going to happen is not the “idea of the leader”, but rather is what emerges from digging deep to find the underlying concerns of those who are impacted by the leadership.[64]
-------------------------------------------------
[edit]Contexts
[edit]Organizations
An organization that is established as an instrument or means for achieving defined objectives has been referred to as a formal organization. Its design specifies how goals are subdivided and reflected in subdivisions of the organization. Divisions, departments, sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make up this work structure. Thus, the formal organization is expected to behave impersonally in regard to relationships with clients or with its members. According to Weber's definition, entry and subsequent advancement is by merit or seniority. Employees receive a salary and enjoy a degree of tenure that safeguards them from the arbitrary influence of superiors or of powerful clients. The higher one's position in the hierarchy, the greater one's presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may arise in the course of the work carried out at lower levels of the organization. It is this bureaucratic structure that forms the basis for the appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative subdivisions in the organization and endows them with the authority attached to their position.[65]
In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative unit, a leader emerges within the context of the informal organization that underlies the formal structure. The informal organization expresses the personal objectives andgoals of the individual membership. Their objectives and goals may or may not coincide with those of the formal organization. The informal organization represents an extension of the social structures that generally characterize human life — the spontaneous emergence of groups and organizations as ends in themselves.
In prehistoric times, humanity was preoccupied with personal security, maintenance, protection, and survival. Now humanity spends a major portion of waking hours working for organizations. The need to identify with a community that provides security, protection, maintenance, and a feeling of belonging has continued unchanged from prehistoric times. This need is met by the informal organization and its emergent, or unofficial, leaders.[66][67]
Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal organization. Their personal qualities, the demands of the situation, or a combination of these and other factors attract followers who accept their leadership within one or several overlay structures. Instead of the authority of position held by an appointed head or chief, the emergent leader wields influence or power. Influence is the ability of a person to gain co-operation from others by means of persuasion or control over rewards. Power is a stronger form of influence because it reflects a person's ability to enforce action through the control of a means of punishment.[66]
A leader is a person who influences a group of people towards a specific result. It is not dependent on title or formal authority. (Elevos, paraphrased from Leaders, Bennis, and Leadership Presence, Halpern & Lubar.) Ogbonnia (2007) defines an effective leader "as an individual with the capacity to consistently succeed in a given condition and be viewed as meeting the expectations of an organization or society." Leaders are recognized by their capacity for caring for others, clear communication, and a commitment to persist.[68] An individual who is appointed to a managerial position has the right to command and enforce obedience by virtue of the authority of their position. However, she or he must possess adequate personal attributes to match this authority, because authority is only potentially available to him/her. In the absence of sufficient personal competence, a manager may be confronted by an emergent leader who can challenge her/his role in the organization and reduce it to that of a figurehead. However, only authority of position has the backing of formal sanctions. It follows that whoever wields personal influence and power can legitimize this only by gaining a formal position in the hierarchy, with commensurate authority.[66] Leadership can be defined as one's ability to get others to willingly follow. Every organization needs leaders at every level.[69]
[edit]Management
Over the years the philosophical terminology of "management" and "leadership" have, in the organizational context, been used both as synonyms and with clearly differentiated meanings. Debate is fairly common about whether the use of these terms should be restricted, and generally reflects an awareness of the distinction made by Burns (1978) between "transactional" leadership (characterized by e.g. emphasis on procedures, contingent reward, management by exception) and "transformational" leadership (characterized by e.g. charisma, personal relationships, creativity).[45]
[edit]Group leadership
In contrast to individual leadership, some organizations have adopted group leadership. In this situation, more than one person provides direction to the group as a whole. Some organizations have taken this approach in hopes of increasing creativity, reducing costs, or downsizing. Others may see the traditional leadership of a boss as costing too much in team performance. In some situations, the team members best able to handle any given phase of the project become the temporary leaders. Additionally, as each team member has the opportunity to experience the elevated level of empowerment, it energizes staff and feeds the cycle of success.[70]
Leaders who demonstrate persistence, tenacity, determination, and synergistic communication skills will bring out the same qualities in their groups. Good leaders use their own inner mentors to energize their team and organizations and lead a team to achieve success.[71]
According to the National School Boards Association (USA):[72]
These Group Leaderships or Leadership Teams have specific characteristics:
Characteristics of a Team * There must be an awareness of unity on the part of all its members. * There must be interpersonal relationship. Members must have a chance to contribute, and learn from and work with others. * The members must have the ability to act together toward a common goal.
Ten characteristics of well-functioning teams: * Purpose: Members proudly share a sense of why the team exists and are invested in accomplishing its mission and goals. * Priorities: Members know what needs to be done next, by whom, and by when to achieve team goals. * Roles: Members know their roles in getting tasks done and when to allow a more skillful member to do a certain task. * Decisions: Authority and decision-making lines are clearly understood. * Conflict: Conflict is dealt with openly and is considered important to decision-making and personal growth. * Personal traits: members feel their unique personalities are appreciated and well utilized. * Norms: Group norms for working together are set and seen as standards for every one in the groups. * Effectiveness: Members find team meetings efficient and productive and look forward to this time together. * Success: Members know clearly when the team has met with success and share in this equally and proudly. * Training: Opportunities for feedback and updating skills are provided and taken advantage of by team members.
[edit]Self-leadership
Self-leadership is a process that occurs within an individual, rather than an external act. It is an expression of who we are as people.[73]
[edit]Primates
Mark van Vugt and Anjana Ahuja in Naturally Selected: The Evolutionary Science of Leadership present evidence of leadership in nonhuman animals, from ants and bees to baboons and chimpanzees. They suggest that leadership has a long evolutionary history and that the same mechanisms underpinning leadership in humans can be found in other social species, too.[74] Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson, in Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, present evidence that only humans and chimpanzees, among all the animals living on Earth, share a similar tendency for a cluster of behaviors: violence, territoriality, and competition for uniting behind the one chief male of the land.[75] This position is contentious. Many animals beyond apes are territorial, compete, exhibit violence, and have a social structure controlled by a dominant male (lions, wolves, etc.), suggesting Wrangham and Peterson's evidence is not empirical. However, we must examine other species as well, including elephants (which are matriarchal and follow an alpha female), meerkats (who are likewise matriarchal), and many others.
By comparison, bonobos, the second-closest species-relatives of humans, do not unite behind the chief male of the land. The bonobos show deference to an alpha or top-ranking female that, with the support of her coalition of other females, can prove as strong as the strongest male. Thus, if leadership amounts to getting the greatest number of followers, then among the bonobos, a female almost always exerts the strongest and most effective leadership. However, not all scientists agree on the allegedly peaceful nature of the bonobo or its reputation as a "hippie chimp".[2]
-------------------------------------------------
[edit]Historical views | This section needs additionalcitations for verification.(September 2009) |
Sanskrit literature identifies ten types of leaders. Defining characteristics of the ten types of leaders are explained with examples from history and mythology.[76]
Aristocratic thinkers have postulated that leadership depends on one's "blue blood" or genes. Monarchy takes an extreme view of the same idea, and may prop up its assertions against the claims of mere aristocrats by invoking divine sanction (see the divine right of kings). Contrariwise, more democratically-inclined theorists have pointed to examples of meritocratic leaders, such as the Napoleonic marshals profiting from careers open to talent.
In the autocratic/paternalistic strain of thought, traditionalists recall the role of leadership of the Roman pater familias. Feminist thinking, on the other hand, may object to such models as patriarchal and posit against them emotionally-attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance, which is sometimes associated with matriarchies.
Comparable to the Roman tradition, the views of Confucianism on "right living" relate very much to the ideal of the (male) scholar-leader and his benevolent rule, buttressed by a tradition of filial piety.
Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and discipline . . . Reliance on intelligence alone results in rebelliousness. Exercise of humaneness alone results in weakness. Fixation on trust results in folly. Dependence on the strength of courage results in violence. Excessive discipline and sternness in command result in cruelty. When one has all five virtues together, each appropriate to its function, then one can be a leader. — Sun Tzu[77]
In the 19th century, the elaboration of anarchist thought called the whole concept of leadership into question. (Note that the Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in English only as far back as the 19th century.) One response to this denial of élitism came with Leninism, which demanded an élite group of disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, bringing into existence the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Other historical views of leadership have addressed the seeming contrasts between secular and religious leadership. The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have recurred and had their detractors over several centuries. Christian thinking on leadership has often emphasized stewardship of divinely-provided resources—human and material—and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan. Compare servant leadership.
For a more general take on leadership in politics, compare the concept of the statesperson.
-------------------------------------------------
[edit]Leadership myths
Leadership, although largely talked about, has been described as one of the least understood concepts across all cultures and civilizations. Over the years, many researchers have stressed the prevalence of this misunderstanding, stating that the existence of several flawed assumptions, or myths, concerning leadership often interferes with individuals’ conception of what leadership is all about (Gardner, 1965; Bennis, 1975).[78][79]
[edit]Leadership is innate
According to some, leadership is determined by distinctive dispositional characteristics present at birth (e.g., extraversion; intelligence; ingenuity). However, it is important to note that leadership also develops through hard work and careful observation.[80] Thus, effective leadership can result from nature (i.e., innate talents) as well as nurture (i.e., acquired skills).
[edit]Leadership is possessing power over others
Although leadership is certainly a form of power, it is not demarcated by power over people – rather, it is a power with people that exists as a reciprocal relationship between a leader and his/her followers (Forsyth, 2009).[80] Despite popular belief, the use of manipulation, coercion, and domination to influence others is not a requirement for leadership. In actuality, individuals who seek group consent and strive to act in the best interests of others can also become effective leaders (e.g., class president; court judge).
[edit]Leaders are positively influential
The validity of the assertion that groups flourish when guided by effective leaders can be illustrated using several examples. For instance, according to Baumeister et al. (1988), the bystander effect (failure to respond or offer assistance) that tends to develop within groups faced with an emergency is significantly reduced in groups guided by a leader.[81] Moreover, it has been documented that group performance,[82] creativity,[83] and efficiency[84] all tend to climb in businesses with designated managers or CEOs. However, the difference leaders make is not always positive in nature. Leaders sometimes focus on fulfilling their own agendas at the expense of others, including his/her own followers (e.g., Pol Pot; Josef Stalin). Leaders who focus on personal gain by employing stringent and manipulative leadership styles often make a difference, but usually do so through negative means.[85]
[edit]Leaders entirely control group outcomes
In Western cultures it is generally assumed that group leaders make all the difference when it comes to group influence and overall goal-attainment. Although common, this romanticized view of leadership (i.e., the tendency to overestimate the degree of control leaders have over their groups and their groups’ outcomes) ignores the existence of many other factors that influence group dynamics.[86] For example, group cohesion, communication patterns among members, individual personality traits, group context, the nature or orientation of the work, as well as behavioral norms and established standards influence group functionality in varying capacities. For this reason, it is unwarranted to assume that all leaders are in complete control of their groups' achievements.
[edit]All groups have a designated leader
Despite preconceived notions, not all groups need have a designated leader. Groups that are primarily composed of women,[87][88] are limited in size, are free from stressful decision-making,[89] or only exist for a short period of time (e.g., student work groups; pub quiz/trivia teams) often undergo a diffusion of responsibility, where leadership tasks and roles are shared amongst members (Schmid Mast, 2002; Berdahl & Anderson, 2007; Guastello, 2007).
[edit]Group members resist leaders
Although research has indicated that group members’ dependence on group leaders can lead to reduced self-reliance and overall group strength,[80] most people actually prefer to be led than to be without a leader (Berkowitz, 1953).[90]This "need for a leader" becomes especially strong in troubled groups that are experiencing some sort of conflict. Group members tend to be more contented and productive when they have a leader to guide them. Although individuals filling leadership roles can be a direct source of resentment for followers, most people appreciate the contributions that leaders make to their groups and consequently welcome the guidance of a leader (Stewart & Manz, 1995).[91]
-------------------------------------------------
[edit]Action-oriented environments | This section does not cite anyreferences or sources.(September 2009) |
One approach to team leadership examines action-oriented environments, where effective functional leadership is required to achieve critical or reactive tasks by small teams deployed into the field. In other words, there is leadership of small groups often created to respond to a situation or critical incident.
In most cases these teams are tasked to operate in remote and changeable environments with limited support or backup (action environments). Leadership of people in these environments requires a different set of skills to that of front line management. These leaders must effectively operate remotely and negotiate the needs of the individual, team, and task within a changeable environment. This has been termed action oriented leadership. Some examples of demonstrations of action oriented leadership include extinguishing a rural fire, locating a missing person, leading a team on an outdoor expedition, or rescuing a person from a potentially hazardous environment.
-------------------------------------------------
[edit]Titles emphasizing authority | This section does not cite anyreferences or sources.(September 2009) |

| This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can. (February 2010) |
At certain stages in their development, the hierarchies of social ranks implied different degrees or ranks of leadership in society. Thus a knight led fewer men in general than did a duke; a baronet might in theory control less land than anearl. See peerage for a systematization of this hierarchy, and order of precedence for links to various systems.
In the course of the 18th to 20th centuries, several political operators took non-traditional paths to become dominant in their societies. They or their systems often expressed a belief in strong individual leadership, but existing titles and labels ("King", "Emperor", "President", and so on) often seemed inappropriate, insufficient, or downright inaccurate in some circumstances. The formal or informal titles or descriptions they or their subordinates employ express and foster a general veneration for leadership of the inspired and autocratic variety. The definite article when used as part of the title (in languages that use definite articles) emphasizes the existence of a sole "true" leader.
-------------------------------------------------
[edit]Critical thought
Noam Chomsky[92] and others[93] have brought critical thinking to the very concept of leadership and have provided an analysis that asserts that people abrogate their responsibility to think and will actions for themselves. While the conventional view of leadership is rather satisfying to people who "want to be told what to do", these critics say that one should question why they are being subjected to a will or intellect other than their own if the leader is not a Subject Matter Expert (SME).
The fundamentally anti-democratic nature of the leadership principle is challenged by the introduction of concepts such as autogestion, employeeship, common civic virtue, etc., which stress individual responsibility and/or group authority in the work place and elsewhere by focusing on the skills and attitudes that a person needs in general rather than separating out leadership as the basis of a special class of individuals.
Similarly, various historical calamities are attributed to a misplaced reliance on the principle of leadership.
[edit]Varieties of individual power
According to Patrick J. Montana and Bruce H. Charnov, the ability to attain these unique powers is what enables leadership to influence subordinates and peers by controlling organizational resources. The successful leader effectively uses these powers to influence employees, and it is important for leaders to understand the uses of power to strengthen their leadership.
The authors distinguish the following types of organizational power: * Legitimate Power refers to the different types of professional positions within an organization structure that inherit such power (e.g. Manager, Vice President, Director, Supervisor, etc.). These levels of power correspond to the hierarchical executive levels within the organization itself. The higher positions, such as president of the company, have higher power than the rest of the professional positions in the hierarchical executive levels. * Reward Power is the power given to managers that attain administrative power over a range of rewards (such as raises and promotions). Employees who work for managers desire the reward from the manager and will be influenced by receiving it as a result of work performance. * Coercive Power is the manager's ability to punish an employee. Punishment can be mild, such as a suspension, or serious, such as termination. * Expert Power is attained by the manager due to his or her own talents such as skills, knowledge, abilities, or previous experience. A manager who has this power within the organization may be a very valuable and important manager in the company. * Charisma Power: a manager who has charisma will have a positive influence on workers, and create the opportunity for interpersonal influence. * Referent Power is a power that is gained by association. A person who has power by association is often referred to as an assistant or deputy. * Information Power is gained by a person who has possession of important information at an important time