More on Leadership

These are the fundamental questions that were asked of me as I explored the concept of leadership in the M.Ed program. I quickly discovered how diverse this topic is. A simple Google search can reveal the breadth and depth of writing done on leadership. Our society seems fascinated by leadership, and I am too. As an introvert I struggled to be seen as a leader because, for so many, the characteristic of extroverts are more valued (Cain, 2012). However, through my learning I have realized that there is no single answer to any of the questions. To lead can mean many things. It may not even equate to leadership. Leaders lead in many ways. And me? Well, I am many different kinds of leaders depending on the situation. And sometimes, I don’t lead at all, but choose to follow.

One of the earliest approaches to studying leadership was Trait Theory (Northouse, 2010). This happened in the early 20th century. In trait approach the qualities of people deemed “great leaders” were examined and leadership qualities extrapolated. These qualities were seen as innate; either you were born with them and were a leader, or you were not (Northouse, 2010). Fairholm and Fairholm (2012) suggest that this approach focuses on who a leader is; the capacities, talents, and person of the leader. Academics of leadership theory and critics of trait theory observed that those at the top were more often than not called leaders. Therefore, what they did in their leadership roles was leadership. However, within this viewpoint can confusion has arisen between the concept of leadership and management (Fairholm and Fairholm, 2012). Stogill (1948) challenged these notions of trait theory by asserting that different situations required different traits and different styles of leadership (Northouse, 2010; Zaccaro, 2007). That being said, Stogill did conduct several studies that looked at the impact of situations of leadership. While he criticized trait theory he actually identified a series of characteristics (traits) that contribute to a person’s ability to lead in a given situation (Northouse, 2010; Zaccaro, 2007). In this theory leadership becomes less about possessing traits and more about social relationships. Fairholm and Fairholm (2012) classify Stogill’s work into the Behavioral Theory of Leadership which is really about what the leader does.

Another framework for understanding leadership theory is Situational. In the situational approach leadership is defined by what leaders do in specific situations (Fairholm and Fairholm, 2012). The behaviours exhibited by the leader must fit with the situation the leader is in. Fairholm and Fairholm (2012) point out that:

“Homans (1950) develops a theory of leadership using three basic variables: action, interaction, and sentiments. Hemphill (1954) studied leadership in terms of the situations in which group roles and tasks are dependent upon the varying interactions between structure and the office of the positional authority. Evans (1970) suggests that the consideration or relationship aspects of leadership depend upon the availability of rewards and the paths through which those rewards are obtained. Fiedler’s (1967) classic contingency theory model suggests that leadership effectiveness depends upon demands imposed by the situation in that task-oriented leaders are more effective in very easy and very difficult situations, and relationship-focused leaders do better in situations that impose moderate demands on the leader.” (22).

Leadership Artifacts

Leadership in Social and Cultural Contexts

The fourth thread of leadership theory, as defined by Fairholm and Fairholm (2012) is Values Theory which has a growing body of research emerging since the end of the 20th century. They define a values leader as someone who “fosters an environment where people have freedom of thought, are comfortable talking about their different values and aspirations, and can take action to realize their values-laden vision with no fear of persecution or retribution. The leader’s authenticity is key as leaders try to impact organizational dynamics such as creativity, relationships, and innovation and attempt to create trusting work environments. Inspired leaders give voice to followers, serve them, listen to them, and positively impact their lives.” (Fairholm and Fairholm, 2012, 24). This theory recognizes the role of social and contexts to leadership because it takes into account values, which are often culturally and socially driven, as well as the relationship between the leader and the leader’s constituents. One area I did not explore at great length, but would like to, is how concepts of leaders differ between cultures. For example, it would be interesting to explore trait theory in different cultures. I wonder if the same leadership traits would emerge.

Digital Literacy in Leadership

Leadership connects well to digital literacy if we explore 21st century leaders. Many leaders are finding a new audience and stage via digital platforms. In increasing their own digital literacy leaders can communicate with their constituents in a whole new way. Take, for example, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. He is in a formal position of political leadership. He makes effective use of social media, like Twitter, to communicate his values, communicate with his constituents in a way that promotes dialogue, and allows for socially driven political discussion (which also relates to social contexts). In being digitally literate, this political leader is able to reach a wider audience than just using traditional media outlets. TED is another excellent example of digital literacy and leadership. This conference has its own website and app that allows viewers all over the world to view conference presentations. TED’s slogan, “ideas worth spreading”, further supports the concept of leaders and leadership because it implies that the speakers are communicating something of value that should be adopted. It is through the use of digital literacies that this conference reaches a wider audience. One clever tool on the app and website is the ability for viewers to download the video easily. This makes it easy to share even offline. Viewers can also save favourite videos. This is a lot like YouTube which has also seen a rise of leaders who use video editing skills to communicate ideas. Since anyone can upload to YouTube it means that voices from counter culture can be heard without the influence of dominant culture. Leaders that are digitally literate choose the right digital tools to communicate specific messages to their constituents.

Conclusions

Leadership theory is a broad and expansive topic. It is also a topic that connects with many other areas of study. In each field of academia, for example, we can identify leaders. In different situations we can see different kinds of leadership. It is a concept that has a direct relationship with our culture and society. Through my course work I have developed a more clear understanding of what kind of leader I am. This development will be discussed throughout my reflections.