We have been this way before. Five hundred years ago a French social reformer by the name of Auguste Comte witnessed the same conditions that trouble us on the news today. The details were different then. Very different. But the conditions were the same.
There were no rampaging hordes of youth threatening to burn a global financial center to the ground. There were no reports of multiple suicide bombings taking the lives of scores of innocent victims. There were no airplanes to be flown into buildings filled with thousands of human beings. There were no Timothy McVeigh's or Anders Behring Breivik's going on one-man campaigns to save their world.
Some details certainly were the same. Back then there were a few individuals with lots of wealth that had been accumulated on the backs of the many who remained in poverty. They also had their slums and ghettos.
Auguste Comte felt the same way we feel today. Something was wrong with society. He could tell that society was in trouble. Sociology was his academic response to the malaise he saw around him. He had seen how science had been used to transform society physically. He hoped it could be used to transform it socially.
It must be obvious to us also that society is in trouble. By our reactions to these incidents we have declared that our society is sick. But the measures we have been proposing to correct these conditions suggest that we think otherwise. It is easy for us to blame the gangs who roamed the streets of London for these four nights in August and struck fear into the hearts of its citizenry. But this is nothing more than blame-shifting. That's a bit like blaming the river for the damage caused by the flood.
It is statistically possible for a freak storm to wreak much more damage than these young people caused. It is not the damage to life and property that offends us but the fact that it was caused by our children. We cannot understand how they could do this to our peace and quiet. I cannot help but think that they are asking a similar question. "How can they do this to us? How can they take away our chances at a good education, or a job to make a living? How can they do this to us?" Whether we admit it or not, their actions are their last ditch effort to change conditions they find to be oppressive. That is what Tim McVeigh thought he was doing. That is what Anders Breivik thought he was doing. It is not a sustainable solution to do to them the same thing they did to us, neither will it help future generations if we only kick the can a little further down the road.
We ask, "Where are the parents of these children?" Good question. But, maybe they have their own question. "Where were you when we were struggling to hold down two or three jobs so we could put food on the table for these children, and have enough money left over so I could buy for them all those glamorous consumer goods the media keeps telling them they must have? Where were you then?"
We advise our children to stay away from gangs as if gangs are an alien species? These gangs are all homegrown. They did not spring up out of nothing. They did not invade our societies from outer space. We produced these gangs. We created the circumstances in which they sprout and flourish.
We have been this way before. Comte recognized that it was a problem with collective action. He recognized that was he observed among the poor of society did not only define them; it defined the entire society. The gangs are not sick. All the groups and individuals that strike fear into our hearts are not sick. We are sick. The problem is collective action. Leadership is nature's response to the need for collective action. This is what we need today. We need leadership that will correctly identify the problem we have, and then be capable and bold enough to suggest the type of corrective action that will make these recent events nonessential. If we fail to rise to the occasion we will be this way again.
A systems level discussion on Organizational Leadership and World Peace written by:
© Darius A. Lecointe, Ph.D., J.D., M.A. Join in the discussion here or through dalecointe@gmail.com
Monday, August 22, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Complexities
What is it that makes a good leader? Is a good leader the same thing as being a successful leader? Is there anything as a bad leader? How many times and under what circumstances is a leader allowed to fail before he can be called a failure? Those are not easy questions because we are dealing with a concept that has correctly been called “the most complex and multifaceted phenomenon to which organizational and psychological research has been applied,” (van Seters and Field, (1990). However, these are important questions for those of us living in the twenty-first century because leadership will become more and more important as society becomes more and more complex.
Our interest in leadership began by focusing on individual in world history (mostly men) whom we considered to be great. Drawing on the lives of individuals like Muhammad, Shakespeare, Luther, Rousseau, and Napoleon, Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle (1888) thought that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men.” He was joined in that view by American scholar Frederick Adams Woods (1913) whose book, The Influence of Monarchs: Steps in a New Science of History, examined 386 rulers from the 12th century till the French revolution in the late 18th century and the influence of their lives on historic events. These and other Great Man views of history were later incorporated into what has been called the Personality Era of leadership theories. They have also had an inordinate influence on our contemporary understanding of leadership itself.
It is important to note that the Personality Era in our evolution of leadership theories does not begin with the leadership histories of the great men whose lives are the focus of that era. These great men were not aware of the leadership theory with which they have been affiliated. Circumstances had prevailed upon them and they heeded the call to leadership. They were not proponents of any theory of leadership.
Neither were the historians and thinkers like Bowden (1927) and Galton (1869) who would, years later, examine their lives and their work. It is interesting that the origins of the Personality Era of leadership theory do not coincide with the period with which that theory is identified. Proponents of the academic theory did not study the conditions under which those leaders became leaders. They did not study the lives of other individuals in that period that did not go on to be leaders or why those great men did become great. They may have given more credence to the views of Spencer (The Study of Sociology, 1896) who countered Carlyle by suggesting the emergence of a great man on the stage of history “depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown…. Before he can remake his society, his society must make him.”
It did not take long for other academics to recognize that personality was not a sufficient explanation for the leadership prowess of these great men. If leadership was related to personality one would expect that notable leaders would have similar personalities. However, it was obvious from the lives of contemporary leaders that successful leadership is associated with a range of differing personality types. There was also a problem for practicing managers because it is extremely difficult to imitate the personality of another individual. It was necessary to sever the link between leadership and particular individuals. A new theory was proposed which focused on identifying a number of traits that one could adopt to enhance leadership skills.
As before, no effort was made to formally define leadership for research purposes. From that point onwards leadership theories have been focused on leadership styles rather than on leadership. The purpose has not been to improve leadership but to improve leadership styles. Unfortunately, many have conflated the two and have tended to confuse leadership style with leadership.
Our interest in leadership began by focusing on individual in world history (mostly men) whom we considered to be great. Drawing on the lives of individuals like Muhammad, Shakespeare, Luther, Rousseau, and Napoleon, Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle (1888) thought that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men.” He was joined in that view by American scholar Frederick Adams Woods (1913) whose book, The Influence of Monarchs: Steps in a New Science of History, examined 386 rulers from the 12th century till the French revolution in the late 18th century and the influence of their lives on historic events. These and other Great Man views of history were later incorporated into what has been called the Personality Era of leadership theories. They have also had an inordinate influence on our contemporary understanding of leadership itself.
It is important to note that the Personality Era in our evolution of leadership theories does not begin with the leadership histories of the great men whose lives are the focus of that era. These great men were not aware of the leadership theory with which they have been affiliated. Circumstances had prevailed upon them and they heeded the call to leadership. They were not proponents of any theory of leadership.
Neither were the historians and thinkers like Bowden (1927) and Galton (1869) who would, years later, examine their lives and their work. It is interesting that the origins of the Personality Era of leadership theory do not coincide with the period with which that theory is identified. Proponents of the academic theory did not study the conditions under which those leaders became leaders. They did not study the lives of other individuals in that period that did not go on to be leaders or why those great men did become great. They may have given more credence to the views of Spencer (The Study of Sociology, 1896) who countered Carlyle by suggesting the emergence of a great man on the stage of history “depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown…. Before he can remake his society, his society must make him.”
It did not take long for other academics to recognize that personality was not a sufficient explanation for the leadership prowess of these great men. If leadership was related to personality one would expect that notable leaders would have similar personalities. However, it was obvious from the lives of contemporary leaders that successful leadership is associated with a range of differing personality types. There was also a problem for practicing managers because it is extremely difficult to imitate the personality of another individual. It was necessary to sever the link between leadership and particular individuals. A new theory was proposed which focused on identifying a number of traits that one could adopt to enhance leadership skills.
As before, no effort was made to formally define leadership for research purposes. From that point onwards leadership theories have been focused on leadership styles rather than on leadership. The purpose has not been to improve leadership but to improve leadership styles. Unfortunately, many have conflated the two and have tended to confuse leadership style with leadership.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Psychological Biases
Modern human leadership is related to our ability to organize and is based on psychological biases that were acquired almost 2.5 million years ago (van Vugt, 2008). Out of those early evolutionary pressures emerged a form of leadership that anthropologists believe can be observed among the !Kung San people of the Kalahari Desert and the Yanomamo of the Amazon. It bears little or no resemblance to the forms of leadership studied by those being prepared for leadership in today’s world.
The differences between the egalitarian leadership style practiced by our early ancestors and the dominance hierarchies that form the basis of our current leadership model is striking. The personality and trait driven leadership models on which our current leadership models are based do not represent a natural evolution from that early model of natural leadership.
Much is made of the fact that humans are a social species but we often forget that our first permanent groups were our families. It is from these family groups that we developed our leadership psychology and the egalitarian leadership style it produced.
We must have acquired those psychological biases much closer to the beginning of the first phase of human development and we have maintained this stable and successful form of leadership for the past 2.5 million years.
Van Vugt’s account of how we developed the conditions that gave rise to our current dominance hierarchies is instructive. The development of agriculture was a natural facet of our evolutionary development, but the authoritarian leadership style that emanated was not inevitable.
If our psychological biases produced an egalitarian form of leadership, it stands to reason that our social psychology must have also been egalitarian. We must have been pre-disposed to consider any surpluses accumulated by the community as the property of the community, rather than the property of the one who happened to be in charge at the moment.
Use of communal property to create cultural elites was an unfortunate turn of events. But the evolution of our leadership styles to the quasi-egalitarian Transformational Era is an indication that the evolutionary processes that gave rise to our first and lasting form of leadership have not been successfully overcome.
The answer is not to abandon all vestiges of individual ownership and return to communal ownership. The genie is already out of the bottle.
If we desire to make the transition to the form of global leadership that nature prescribes we must find a way to bridge the gap between the two.
The effects go beyond our formal organizations. In a weird twist of fate family life is now infested with the same authoritarian approach to leadership. We have turned back on ourselves. An egalitarian family structure produced reinforced psychological biases that gave rise to egalitarian organizational structures. Now, our formalized and authoritarian leadership styles have produced the same approaches in the family unit.
At the same time that we continue to improve our current forms of leadership in our business, social and cultural organizations we must find the common thread between our current leadership style and the leadership that was practiced by our ancestors. That will be the subject of the next blog.
The differences between the egalitarian leadership style practiced by our early ancestors and the dominance hierarchies that form the basis of our current leadership model is striking. The personality and trait driven leadership models on which our current leadership models are based do not represent a natural evolution from that early model of natural leadership.
Much is made of the fact that humans are a social species but we often forget that our first permanent groups were our families. It is from these family groups that we developed our leadership psychology and the egalitarian leadership style it produced.
We must have acquired those psychological biases much closer to the beginning of the first phase of human development and we have maintained this stable and successful form of leadership for the past 2.5 million years.
Van Vugt’s account of how we developed the conditions that gave rise to our current dominance hierarchies is instructive. The development of agriculture was a natural facet of our evolutionary development, but the authoritarian leadership style that emanated was not inevitable.
If our psychological biases produced an egalitarian form of leadership, it stands to reason that our social psychology must have also been egalitarian. We must have been pre-disposed to consider any surpluses accumulated by the community as the property of the community, rather than the property of the one who happened to be in charge at the moment.
Use of communal property to create cultural elites was an unfortunate turn of events. But the evolution of our leadership styles to the quasi-egalitarian Transformational Era is an indication that the evolutionary processes that gave rise to our first and lasting form of leadership have not been successfully overcome.
The answer is not to abandon all vestiges of individual ownership and return to communal ownership. The genie is already out of the bottle.
If we desire to make the transition to the form of global leadership that nature prescribes we must find a way to bridge the gap between the two.
The effects go beyond our formal organizations. In a weird twist of fate family life is now infested with the same authoritarian approach to leadership. We have turned back on ourselves. An egalitarian family structure produced reinforced psychological biases that gave rise to egalitarian organizational structures. Now, our formalized and authoritarian leadership styles have produced the same approaches in the family unit.
At the same time that we continue to improve our current forms of leadership in our business, social and cultural organizations we must find the common thread between our current leadership style and the leadership that was practiced by our ancestors. That will be the subject of the next blog.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Perspectives
(Last time we looked at two excerpts from New Scientist magazine that documented the failure of our leadership efforts and gave a short overview of the history of leadership in human development.)
Van Vugt’s article has introduced into the discussion a perspective that has been missing from our academic debate of leadership. Van Seters and Field’s nine eras reflect how we tend to think of the way that the human leadership process evolved. In that model, leadership began with the kind of leadership described in the one-dimensional and authoritarian Personality Era and gradually evolved into the more egalitarian and collaborative Transformational Era.
It is only the latter part of the van Seters’ evolutionary tree that is prescriptive. The leaders whose leadership style is represented in the Personality Era did not have a leadership theory to follow nor did they set out to create something new. They responded to a need that arose before them and they had the personality to satisfy that need. The different theories shown in van Seters’ tree are really academic efforts to explain why early leaders were successful and those explanations were used in the training of contemporary leaders.
Van Vugt’s work enables us to attach a timeline to van Seters’ evolutionary tree. Van Seters' evolutionary tree corresponds to all of the final phase of leadership in van Vugt’s model and extends into that period in van Vugt’s second phase where chiefs, kings and warlords emerged. It does not cover the extended period of the first phase and a major portion of the second phase. Viewed in isolation the nine eras of leadership theories appear to be an evolutionary process of continued improvement and development. This is the approach that leadership theorists have, no doubt, taken. Van Vugt’s model requires a revision of that view. The evolutionary tree is only a small part of a much longer cycle and it marks a period during which humanity has been striving to regain a model of leadership it once had and for which its psychology is adapted.
Those two views require two approaches because they are moving in different conceptual directions. The contemporary view of leadership views leadership as a work in progress. It is analogous to the invention of the automobile. Each new model works fine but it suits the prevailing conditions better and incorporates new technologies that were not available before. The view I am proposing views leadership as a work to be restored to its natural state. To maintain the analogy, leadership is viewed as an automobile with obvious mechanical difficulty. It works, but not efficiently. Van Seters’ evolutionary tree reflects our years of tinkering with the engine. How close we are to the original condition we will never know until we find the original blueprint.
Van Seters and Field posit that with the Transformational Era we may have arrived at a more definitive concept of leadership. This was the end of an evolutionary developmental process in which “each new era evolved after a realization that the existing era of understanding was inadequate to explain the leadership phenomenon, and poorly adapted to serve useful practical application.” We are now ready, they believe, to enter into the Tenth Era which they call the Integrative Era.
Van Vugt’s article has introduced into the discussion a perspective that has been missing from our academic debate of leadership. Van Seters and Field’s nine eras reflect how we tend to think of the way that the human leadership process evolved. In that model, leadership began with the kind of leadership described in the one-dimensional and authoritarian Personality Era and gradually evolved into the more egalitarian and collaborative Transformational Era.
It is only the latter part of the van Seters’ evolutionary tree that is prescriptive. The leaders whose leadership style is represented in the Personality Era did not have a leadership theory to follow nor did they set out to create something new. They responded to a need that arose before them and they had the personality to satisfy that need. The different theories shown in van Seters’ tree are really academic efforts to explain why early leaders were successful and those explanations were used in the training of contemporary leaders.
Van Vugt’s work enables us to attach a timeline to van Seters’ evolutionary tree. Van Seters' evolutionary tree corresponds to all of the final phase of leadership in van Vugt’s model and extends into that period in van Vugt’s second phase where chiefs, kings and warlords emerged. It does not cover the extended period of the first phase and a major portion of the second phase. Viewed in isolation the nine eras of leadership theories appear to be an evolutionary process of continued improvement and development. This is the approach that leadership theorists have, no doubt, taken. Van Vugt’s model requires a revision of that view. The evolutionary tree is only a small part of a much longer cycle and it marks a period during which humanity has been striving to regain a model of leadership it once had and for which its psychology is adapted.
Those two views require two approaches because they are moving in different conceptual directions. The contemporary view of leadership views leadership as a work in progress. It is analogous to the invention of the automobile. Each new model works fine but it suits the prevailing conditions better and incorporates new technologies that were not available before. The view I am proposing views leadership as a work to be restored to its natural state. To maintain the analogy, leadership is viewed as an automobile with obvious mechanical difficulty. It works, but not efficiently. Van Seters’ evolutionary tree reflects our years of tinkering with the engine. How close we are to the original condition we will never know until we find the original blueprint.
Van Seters and Field posit that with the Transformational Era we may have arrived at a more definitive concept of leadership. This was the end of an evolutionary developmental process in which “each new era evolved after a realization that the existing era of understanding was inadequate to explain the leadership phenomenon, and poorly adapted to serve useful practical application.” We are now ready, they believe, to enter into the Tenth Era which they call the Integrative Era.
What is required is a conceptual integrating framework which ties the different approaches together, and makes possible the development of a comprehensive, sustaining theory of leadership. It must be realized that leadership effectiveness can be determined not from any one approach alone, but rather through the simultaneous interaction of many types of variables. Until we have the framework it will not be possible to understand the result. We need “thick” theorising [sic] which treats leadership more as it should be treated: a complex cognitive and political enterprise (Clark, 1984).
Friday, August 5, 2011
Solutions
Everything I want to say about leadership is in these excerpts from an article written in 2008 and published in New Scientist magazine. Now, ‘contain’ may not be the correct word because the author , Mark van Vugt, does not say exactly what I would like to say. I disagree with some of the ideas he expresses in the article and I am also certain that he did not intend his words to be interpreted the way I will. But those excerpts do point us in the direction of everything I think we need to consider if we are serious about gaining the greatest benefits from our exercise of leadership. The first excerpt comes from the end of the article. The second excerpt is intended as background for discussing how our ancestors developed the psychological bases for leadership.
The following excerpt does more than just briefly detail the history of leadership among humans. I will highlight the significant points in a subsequent blog:
There are major differences between modern leadership roles and the kind of leadership for which our psychology is adapted, and this mismatch can be problematic. For a start, our hunter-gatherer ancestors would have deferred to different leaders depending on the nature of the problem at hand. Yet today a single individual is often responsible for managing all aspects of an enterprise. Few leaders have the range of skills required, which may account for the high failure rate of senior managers – in corporate America it runs at 50 per cent ( Review of General Psychology, vol 9, p 169 ). Surveys routinely show that between 60 and 70 per cent of employees find the most stressful part of their job is dealing with their immediate boss. This may be partly because ancestral leaders only acquired power with the approval of followers, whereas in modern organisations leaders are usually appointed by and accountable to their superiors, while subordinates are rarely allowed to sanction their bosses. What’s more, our psychology equips us to thrive in smallish groups of closely related individuals, which may explain why many people feel indifferent to large organisations and their leaders. Finally, in ancestral societies there would have been minimal differences in status between leaders and followers. In the US, average salaries for CEOs are 179 times those of their workers.
The following excerpt does more than just briefly detail the history of leadership among humans. I will highlight the significant points in a subsequent blog:
The animal evidence supports the idea that adaptations for leadership and followership tend to evolve in social species. In humans, they were probably further shaped by our unique evolutionary history. There were three distinct stages in human development where the nature of leadership altered to reflect cultural and social changes ( American Psychologist, vol 63, p 182 ).
The first and by far the longest phase extended from the emergence of the genus Homo, around 2.5 million years ago, until the end of the last ice age about 13,000 years ago. Natural selection for certain successful strategies of leadership and followership during this long era is likely to have shaped the distinctly human leadership psychology we still have to this day. Throughout this time, our ancestors probably lived in semi-nomadic,hunter-gatherer bands of between 50 and 150 mostly related individuals. Their lifestyle is widely thought to have resembled that of today’s hunter-gatherer societies such as the !Kung San of the Kalahari desert and the Amazonian Yanomamo. These groups are fundamentally egalitarian, with no formal leader. Although there are “Big Men” – the best hunters and warriors or wisest elders, for example – the influence of each is limited to their areas of expertise and, crucially, it is only granted with the approval of followers. This suggests that collaboration among subordinates allowed early humans to move beyond the dominance hierarchies found in other primates, towards a much flatter prestige-based hierarchy with a more democratic style of leadership.
With the development of agriculture some 13,000 years ago, groups settled, populations grew rapidly and, for the first time in human history, communities accumulated surplus resources. They needed leaders to redistribute this surplus and to deal with increasing conflict both within and between groups. The power of leaders grew accordingly, and with it the potential to abuse this power. Leaders could now siphon off resources and use them to create cultural elites, while disgruntled followers were less free to move away from exploitative rulers. The result of such changes was a more formalised, authoritarian leadership style and the emergence of the first chiefs and kings, as well as warlords bent on extracting resources through force.
The industrial revolution, some 250 years ago, paved the way for the final phase of leadership – the one to which academic discussions of leadership, which tend to focus on business and politics, almost exclusively refer. At the beginning of this era followers were little more than slaves, but as citizens and employees acquired more freedom to defect from overbearing leaders, the balance of power shifted away from authoritarian leaders and back to something more like the egalitarian approach of ancestral times.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Transitions
(In the last blog we reviewed the origins of leadership theory and discussed how our views on the nature of leadership are influenced by the conditions surrounding those origins. In this blog we will review the evolution of our ideas on leadership).
Van Seters and Field (1990) (1) have identified nine leadership eras beginning with the Personality Era all the way to the current Transformational Era. Each of these eras contains two or more periods of theory development.
Van Seters and Field go into great detail showing how each period differed in its focus from others that came before it. Three types of changes are obvious from their analysis.
Generally, new eras evolved as practitioners realized that the existing theories of leadership were “inadequate to explain the leadership phenomenon, and poorly adapted to serve useful practical application.” For example, the transition within the Personality Era from the Great Man Period to the Trait Period occurred because it became apparent that many effective leaders had widely differing personalities. More importantly, it is extremely difficult to imitate an individual’s personality. The Trait Period focused on a number of traits that one could develop to enhance leadership and potential. It also fell into disuse because, in addition to the fact that most traits cannot be learned, studies could not identify one single trait or group of characteristics associated with good leadership. This is the first type of transition: an improvement of an old theory because of new information.
At times new eras took the field in a completely new direction. This is what happened with the transition from the Influence Era to the Behavior Era. The Influence Era had improved on the previous Personality Era, but the Behavior Era emphasized what leaders do instead of their traits or sources of power. This is the second type of transition in which the theorist adds an entirely new perspective to the field. The new theory may be able to coexist with the other.
Finally, sometimes old theories were revisited given the benefit of new advances in the field, as with the rise of the Transactional Era. Whereas the Contingency Era suggested that effective leadership was contingent on one or more of the pure, unidimensional forms of the first four eras, the Transactional Era suggested that “leadership resided not only in the person or the situation, but also and rather more in role differentiation and social interaction.” The Transactional Era can also be viewed as the Influence Era revisited because “it addresses the influence between the leader and subordinate.”
1. Van Seters, D. A. and Field, R. H. G. (1990). “The Evolution of Leadership Theory.” Journal of Occupational Change Management. Vol. 3 Iss: 3, pp.29 – 45. < http://apps.business.ualberta.ca/rfield/papers/evolution.PDF >
Van Seters and Field (1990) (1) have identified nine leadership eras beginning with the Personality Era all the way to the current Transformational Era. Each of these eras contains two or more periods of theory development.
1. Personality Era: Great Man Period; Trait Period
This Era equated leadership with personality and marked a beginning in the understanding of the leadership process.
2. Influence Era: Power Relations Period; Persuasion Period
This Era built on the last by recognizing that leadership did not only depend on the personality of the leader but involved a relationship between the leader and the followers.
3. Behavior Era: Early Behavior Period; Late Behavior Period; Operant Period
Similar to the Trait Period in the Personality Era, this Era emphasized the Behavior traits of leaders.
4. Situation Era: Environment Period; Social Status Period; Socio-technical Period
This era recognized that leadership did not only involve leader and follows but was influenced by the situation and circumstances.
5. Contingency Era
This was something of an hybrid era. It was recognized that leadership was not unidimensional as was theorized in the previous eras but was contingent on one or more of the emphases in the previous eras.
6. Transactional Era: Exchange Period; Role Development Period
In this era it was suggested that leadership did not only reside in the person or the situation but was influenced by role differentiation and social interaction.
7. Anti-Leadership Era: Ambiguity Period; Substitute Period
This era was a reaction to the apparent failure of the current leadership paradigm. Studies to test the extant theories were inconclusive. Some concluded that there was no articulable concept called leadership.
8. Culture Era
We recovered from the cynicism of the Anti-Leadership area with the idea that leadership is not just a phenomenon of the leader or of the group but is omnipotent in the entire organization.
9. Transformational Era: Charisma Period; Self-fulfilling Prophecy Period.
This is the current approach to leadership in which the leader attempts to “transform those who see the vision, and give them a new and stronger sense of purpose and meaning.”
Van Seters and Field go into great detail showing how each period differed in its focus from others that came before it. Three types of changes are obvious from their analysis.
Generally, new eras evolved as practitioners realized that the existing theories of leadership were “inadequate to explain the leadership phenomenon, and poorly adapted to serve useful practical application.” For example, the transition within the Personality Era from the Great Man Period to the Trait Period occurred because it became apparent that many effective leaders had widely differing personalities. More importantly, it is extremely difficult to imitate an individual’s personality. The Trait Period focused on a number of traits that one could develop to enhance leadership and potential. It also fell into disuse because, in addition to the fact that most traits cannot be learned, studies could not identify one single trait or group of characteristics associated with good leadership. This is the first type of transition: an improvement of an old theory because of new information.
At times new eras took the field in a completely new direction. This is what happened with the transition from the Influence Era to the Behavior Era. The Influence Era had improved on the previous Personality Era, but the Behavior Era emphasized what leaders do instead of their traits or sources of power. This is the second type of transition in which the theorist adds an entirely new perspective to the field. The new theory may be able to coexist with the other.
Finally, sometimes old theories were revisited given the benefit of new advances in the field, as with the rise of the Transactional Era. Whereas the Contingency Era suggested that effective leadership was contingent on one or more of the pure, unidimensional forms of the first four eras, the Transactional Era suggested that “leadership resided not only in the person or the situation, but also and rather more in role differentiation and social interaction.” The Transactional Era can also be viewed as the Influence Era revisited because “it addresses the influence between the leader and subordinate.”
1. Van Seters, D. A. and Field, R. H. G. (1990). “The Evolution of Leadership Theory.” Journal of Occupational Change Management. Vol. 3 Iss: 3, pp.29 – 45. < http://apps.business.ualberta.ca/rfield/papers/evolution.PDF >
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Origins
Even among other topics in the social sciences leadership is unique as an academic discipline. This unique nature is reflected in the greater influence that the conditions that surrounded the origins of our leadership theories has on these theories when compared to the influence of leadership itself. Unlike other areas of academic study leadership is not a “standalone” concept or entity. The study of leadership did not begin with the discovery of leadership, as is the case with other areas of academic interest, but with interest in the outcome of leadership.
The first students of leadership were interested in determining what it was that enabled one individual to control the behavior of a larger group of individuals. It is possible that for some the interest was entirely academic. More than likely these individuals were interested in exerting the same level of control over others. They hoped that by studying the characteristics and behavior of those individuals they could replicate their success or avoid their failures.
It is no accident, then, that great man theories lie at the heart of all our leadership theories. We still call them leadership studies but DeGrosky (2011) has pointed out that the ancients who first made this their study -- individuals like Plato, Aristotle, Sun Tzu, Seneca, Lao Tzu and others -- examined the lives of the effective leaders of their time. Naturally, the first studies focused on emperors, kings and generals and the nations and armies over which they exercised their power and control. From these individuals they drew inferences as to the nature of leadership.
Many improvements have been attempted since those great man theories were first developed, but the focus on the individual was never lost, even when we moved from viewing leadership as a one-dimensional, internal and individualistic process and recognized that leadership is a relationship between individuals and not a characteristic of the solitary leader. Leadership continues to be viewed as an invention of human beings.
The first students of leadership were interested in determining what it was that enabled one individual to control the behavior of a larger group of individuals. It is possible that for some the interest was entirely academic. More than likely these individuals were interested in exerting the same level of control over others. They hoped that by studying the characteristics and behavior of those individuals they could replicate their success or avoid their failures.
It is no accident, then, that great man theories lie at the heart of all our leadership theories. We still call them leadership studies but DeGrosky (2011) has pointed out that the ancients who first made this their study -- individuals like Plato, Aristotle, Sun Tzu, Seneca, Lao Tzu and others -- examined the lives of the effective leaders of their time. Naturally, the first studies focused on emperors, kings and generals and the nations and armies over which they exercised their power and control. From these individuals they drew inferences as to the nature of leadership.
Many improvements have been attempted since those great man theories were first developed, but the focus on the individual was never lost, even when we moved from viewing leadership as a one-dimensional, internal and individualistic process and recognized that leadership is a relationship between individuals and not a characteristic of the solitary leader. Leadership continues to be viewed as an invention of human beings.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Leadership and the American Experiment
My friend Coach Judi made the following post in response to a question I posed on LinkedIn. I asked what the current debt ceiling debacle teaches us about leadership. I obtained her permission to reproduce her response below.
As a paradigm our government was designed to work as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" per Abe Lincoln.
From an Anthropological standpoint, humans are not naturally predisposed to herding where the strongest "bulls" end up as leaders. We are social creatures but we survive by co-operation in pooling our brain power against the brute force of our enemies and the physical superiority of our prey. Our superior brainpower used in co-operation is what enables our species to not only survive but to take our place at the top of the "food chain," for the time being, that is.
Historically, humans have had Hunting and Gathering, Herding, and Agrarian (farming) cultures. Only the Agrarian succeeded and that's because it was based on co-operation. A man might be the "leader" of his family, but when the farmers came together into community, each man represented his family and each co-operated with the others for the good of the community at large. It worked, but they were a small, close community, highly-visible, responsible, and accountable. They were intelligent, had character, excellent co-operation, and communication skills so were also in full co-operation with their wives and children because working together was how they ensured survival for all.
When the "community" grew to the point where neighbors no long knew one another and such cooperation became too difficult, Democratic government was invented and designed to duplicate the co-operative community, but on a larger scale.
In theory it seemed an excellent idea. They tried to design it so that a larger "family unit" would vote for their leader to go to the community meetings and cooperate on their behalf. It didn't come off the drawing board so well, so they invented the "electoral college" as part of the checks and balances, but it became an excuse for confusion when activities needed some confusion to hide them.
The net effect was that with so much distance from the "family" which the "leaders" were supposed to represent, they realized how much power could be had with so little visibility and they fell behind the convenient cloak of "group dynamics" where a group of people can do the most awful things and no single person is accountable. So, they began to view their new power as a personal "cash cow" and the distance and group dynamics made them invisible to the "family" and all responsibility and accountability began to fade and fall by the wayside. Co-operation was lost as self-interest was born and the very same "leaders" used their power for personal gain.
The very core of humanity is not going to change. We are still only able to survive through pooling our brainpower in co-operation. We may not have to fight off woolly mammoths and lions, but there are other animals who can bring us down, like super-bugs, and there are other enemies who would like to steal our resources, and are certainly actively attempting that even as we speak. And then there is our economy and the feeding of our "family," along with shelter (housing)... which we are now losing. And there is the defense of our nation also at stake.
Given that our species only survives by co-operation of brainpower, and the co-operation of brainpower at the core of our nation has become completely absent, we are in big trouble. What the pseudo-leaders in Washington have failed to realize is that they are also part of the Human Enterprise and there are certain rules for survival that must be adhered to or we all fall down, and they fall with us. If they think they truly are above the "Law" and they don't have to co-operate, they will learn the error of their ways, but the big concern is how much damage will be done in the meantime?
In human terms on a "natural" level Cooperation is Leadership..
http:/www.ecninstitute.com
http:/www.entrecomm.net/Blog
http://www.entrecomm.net/Forum
http://www.coachjudi.com
As a paradigm our government was designed to work as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" per Abe Lincoln.
From an Anthropological standpoint, humans are not naturally predisposed to herding where the strongest "bulls" end up as leaders. We are social creatures but we survive by co-operation in pooling our brain power against the brute force of our enemies and the physical superiority of our prey. Our superior brainpower used in co-operation is what enables our species to not only survive but to take our place at the top of the "food chain," for the time being, that is.
Historically, humans have had Hunting and Gathering, Herding, and Agrarian (farming) cultures. Only the Agrarian succeeded and that's because it was based on co-operation. A man might be the "leader" of his family, but when the farmers came together into community, each man represented his family and each co-operated with the others for the good of the community at large. It worked, but they were a small, close community, highly-visible, responsible, and accountable. They were intelligent, had character, excellent co-operation, and communication skills so were also in full co-operation with their wives and children because working together was how they ensured survival for all.
When the "community" grew to the point where neighbors no long knew one another and such cooperation became too difficult, Democratic government was invented and designed to duplicate the co-operative community, but on a larger scale.
In theory it seemed an excellent idea. They tried to design it so that a larger "family unit" would vote for their leader to go to the community meetings and cooperate on their behalf. It didn't come off the drawing board so well, so they invented the "electoral college" as part of the checks and balances, but it became an excuse for confusion when activities needed some confusion to hide them.
The net effect was that with so much distance from the "family" which the "leaders" were supposed to represent, they realized how much power could be had with so little visibility and they fell behind the convenient cloak of "group dynamics" where a group of people can do the most awful things and no single person is accountable. So, they began to view their new power as a personal "cash cow" and the distance and group dynamics made them invisible to the "family" and all responsibility and accountability began to fade and fall by the wayside. Co-operation was lost as self-interest was born and the very same "leaders" used their power for personal gain.
The very core of humanity is not going to change. We are still only able to survive through pooling our brainpower in co-operation. We may not have to fight off woolly mammoths and lions, but there are other animals who can bring us down, like super-bugs, and there are other enemies who would like to steal our resources, and are certainly actively attempting that even as we speak. And then there is our economy and the feeding of our "family," along with shelter (housing)... which we are now losing. And there is the defense of our nation also at stake.
Given that our species only survives by co-operation of brainpower, and the co-operation of brainpower at the core of our nation has become completely absent, we are in big trouble. What the pseudo-leaders in Washington have failed to realize is that they are also part of the Human Enterprise and there are certain rules for survival that must be adhered to or we all fall down, and they fall with us. If they think they truly are above the "Law" and they don't have to co-operate, they will learn the error of their ways, but the big concern is how much damage will be done in the meantime?
In human terms on a "natural" level Cooperation is Leadership..
http:/www.ecninstitute.com
http:/www.entrecomm.net/Blog
http://www.entrecomm.net/Forum
http://www.coachjudi.com
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Made To Lead?
The first lesson we can learn from our emphasis on the history of leadership is that Leadership predates man. The effects of leadership were noticeable on the planet long before humans appeared.
When we emerged into our existed we found a world that was fully functional. Fish were schooling then the same way that they do now. Birds flew in patterns then the same way they do now. We may consider ants to be pests at our picnics but they became masters of the top soil long before we made our appearance. Chimpanzees did not need us to teach them how to coordinate group movement and to keep the peace or wage war. Leadership is a natural phenomenon not a human phenomenon. It is one of the few things we do that are independent of human ingenuity.
We really should have understood this lesson a long time ago. It should have been included in our leadership programs. Unfortunately, our leadership theories have focused on the human application of fundamental leadership theories. Beginning with the ancients who examined the effective leaders of their time and drew inferences about the nature of leadership from them, leadership studies have focused on great-man theories. (Mike DeGrosky, (2011). “Where we Came From.” Wildfire Magazine.
< http://wildfiremag.com/mag/article_24/ >).
A comprehensive treatment of leadership has never been of interest to the leadership theorists. They have never denied that leadership predated humanity but their silence on the subject has had the same effect. The unfortunate consequence of teaching leadership by studying great-man theories is that leadership and leaders are viewed as being synonymous, even after the scholars emphasize that leaders are people and leadership is a process.
The current emphasis in our leadership studies poses another problem because it overplays the importance of the role humans play in the world. For some reason we forget that there was a time when the environment functioned flawlessly without us. The environment did not need us for it to survive. If humans we were to become extinct the environment would continue to exist as it has after the dinosaurs became extinct. In addition, it negates the fact that everything humans have ever done consciously has been borrowed from nature. The need for many leadership theories is probably due to the fact that we do not yet adequately understand the principles of natural leadership.
When we emerged into our existed we found a world that was fully functional. Fish were schooling then the same way that they do now. Birds flew in patterns then the same way they do now. We may consider ants to be pests at our picnics but they became masters of the top soil long before we made our appearance. Chimpanzees did not need us to teach them how to coordinate group movement and to keep the peace or wage war. Leadership is a natural phenomenon not a human phenomenon. It is one of the few things we do that are independent of human ingenuity.
We really should have understood this lesson a long time ago. It should have been included in our leadership programs. Unfortunately, our leadership theories have focused on the human application of fundamental leadership theories. Beginning with the ancients who examined the effective leaders of their time and drew inferences about the nature of leadership from them, leadership studies have focused on great-man theories. (Mike DeGrosky, (2011). “Where we Came From.” Wildfire Magazine.
< http://wildfiremag.com/mag/article_24/ >).
A comprehensive treatment of leadership has never been of interest to the leadership theorists. They have never denied that leadership predated humanity but their silence on the subject has had the same effect. The unfortunate consequence of teaching leadership by studying great-man theories is that leadership and leaders are viewed as being synonymous, even after the scholars emphasize that leaders are people and leadership is a process.
The current emphasis in our leadership studies poses another problem because it overplays the importance of the role humans play in the world. For some reason we forget that there was a time when the environment functioned flawlessly without us. The environment did not need us for it to survive. If humans we were to become extinct the environment would continue to exist as it has after the dinosaurs became extinct. In addition, it negates the fact that everything humans have ever done consciously has been borrowed from nature. The need for many leadership theories is probably due to the fact that we do not yet adequately understand the principles of natural leadership.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Leadership comes naturally
I came late to the study of leadership but it is obvious to me that it must play a central role in the future of humanity. Certainly, we need improved leadership to improve the performance of our groups, organizations, business enterprises or clubs. We need it more in humanity because the only reason we have these organizations is because we exist as a species.
One thing I have found from my brief review is that leadership theories tend to focus more on the qualities of leaders or on the structural organizational form through which leadership is exercised rather than on leadership itself. This emphasis accounts for the fact that many will find it difficult to see leadership as a function of the individual rather than as a function of the group. This focus is also the reason that leadership is views as involving the ability to get others to behave in certain ways rather than simply as the characteristic that facilitates collective action. The former defines leadership as a uniquely human characteristic since only we have the ability to persuade. Yet, it is obvious that there is some level of leadership that exists among animal species. This is what Mark van Vugt had to say about that:
We should be able to learn something from that pedigree that will be of greater benefit to us than the multiplicity of theories to which we have been exposed. Many of those theories only have relevance to a small set of leadership situations. We need ideas with general applicability.
One thing we all seem to agree on is that there is a genetic component to leadership. As a friend of mine noted, leaders are born and they receive their practical skills on the job; a combination of being born and being made. If leadership is genetic then it must be in each organism’s genes and the definition of leadership as the characteristic that facilitates collective action is the most useful. For every species participates in some level of collective action. The characteristics that define each species constitute this type of collective action.
I can think of two interesting example in which such collective behavior by a species is explicitly noted. The first comes from the wise man and ancient Hebrew king Solomon who wrote:
The second is more recent. When Neil Armstrong stepped out of his Lunar Exploration Module to become the first man on the moon his made reference to collective action by humanity: “This is one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind.”
All four of these examples -- ants, conies, locusts, humans -- have one characteristic in common. They focus on the concept of leadership rather than on the characteristics of an identified leader. Solomon takes the time to point out that the locusts go forth by bands even if they have no king. They act as a collective unit without any visible organizational or leadership structure. This is the ultimate in effective seamless leadership. If we wish to gain the full benefits of leadership we would do well to study what we can learn from leadership as it is practiced in its natural context.
1. van Vugt, M. (June 14, 2008). "Follow Me." New Scientist, 42 - 45.
One thing I have found from my brief review is that leadership theories tend to focus more on the qualities of leaders or on the structural organizational form through which leadership is exercised rather than on leadership itself. This emphasis accounts for the fact that many will find it difficult to see leadership as a function of the individual rather than as a function of the group. This focus is also the reason that leadership is views as involving the ability to get others to behave in certain ways rather than simply as the characteristic that facilitates collective action. The former defines leadership as a uniquely human characteristic since only we have the ability to persuade. Yet, it is obvious that there is some level of leadership that exists among animal species. This is what Mark van Vugt had to say about that:
The foraging patterns of many insects, the schooling of fish and the flying patterns of birds all suggest that species lacking complex cognitive capacities can nevertheless display leadership and followership – perhaps using the simple rule "follow the one who moves first". Our closest animal relatives, chimpanzees, also use leadership to coordinate group movement and to keep the peace or wage war. (1)
We should be able to learn something from that pedigree that will be of greater benefit to us than the multiplicity of theories to which we have been exposed. Many of those theories only have relevance to a small set of leadership situations. We need ideas with general applicability.
One thing we all seem to agree on is that there is a genetic component to leadership. As a friend of mine noted, leaders are born and they receive their practical skills on the job; a combination of being born and being made. If leadership is genetic then it must be in each organism’s genes and the definition of leadership as the characteristic that facilitates collective action is the most useful. For every species participates in some level of collective action. The characteristics that define each species constitute this type of collective action.
I can think of two interesting example in which such collective behavior by a species is explicitly noted. The first comes from the wise man and ancient Hebrew king Solomon who wrote:
The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer; The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks; The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands. (Proverbs 30:25-27).
The second is more recent. When Neil Armstrong stepped out of his Lunar Exploration Module to become the first man on the moon his made reference to collective action by humanity: “This is one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind.”
All four of these examples -- ants, conies, locusts, humans -- have one characteristic in common. They focus on the concept of leadership rather than on the characteristics of an identified leader. Solomon takes the time to point out that the locusts go forth by bands even if they have no king. They act as a collective unit without any visible organizational or leadership structure. This is the ultimate in effective seamless leadership. If we wish to gain the full benefits of leadership we would do well to study what we can learn from leadership as it is practiced in its natural context.
1. van Vugt, M. (June 14, 2008). "Follow Me." New Scientist, 42 - 45.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Born To Lead
Some people believe that leaders are born not made. It comes as no surprise that there are other people who believe the exact opposite; that humans are made not born. In part, the reason for this dichotomy is because humans find it difficult to agree on anything.
Recently, I read an article in Psychology Today in which the author Ronald Riggio wrote: “Studies using identical twins estimate that leadership is about one-third born (due to genetic factors) and two-thirds made. Yet, many leaders say the exact opposite – believing leaders are mostly born.” (1) I guess the debate will continue into the future. I want to look at another side of the debate.
One of the reasons for the difference of opinion is because humans have this uncanny knack of ignoring what we know intuitively when we get into academic discussions. When people are considering whether leaders are born or made they instinctively restrict the idea of being born a leader to being born with the innate ability to provide effective leadership under all conditions. Anyone who is born without that innate ability would have to be made into a leader. If the studies that Riggio cited are to be believed it is obvious that whatever abilities one is born with have to be nurtured and developed. This is not only true of leadership.
There are two reasons why one attends a leadership program: to discover whether one was born as a leader or to be made into a leader. The philosophy behind all leadership programs is that leaders are made. Since these programs are run by humans one has to wonder where they got their ideas concerning leadership if they were not born as leaders.
But this is not the angle I wish to explore here. Instead of focusing on leadership I think the question asks us to focus on the difference between being born and being made. Humans are born not made. The lesson is not that only some humans are born as leaders and that it is our task to sniff them out by exposing them to a battery of leadership principles that will ignite the leadership that lays dormant within them. The lesson is that only organisms that are born can be leaders. The obverse to this is that all humans are leaders by virtue of the fact that they are born.
The truth of this is seen in the fact that leadership can not only be seen in humans; it is also evident in all non-human species where existence is a function of "birth." We find leaders among fish, among birds, among chimpanzees, among lions, among ants. Every organism has leadership qualities and exercises those qualities whenever nature requires that it be exercised.
Only among humans is leadership fraught with so much inefficiency. This is not because leaders among non-human species are always effective. Nature has a mechanism in all non-human species for moving ineffective leaders out of the way. Observations of this have been made among gorillas, for example. If the leader of the pack cannot maintain his position he will be replaced. Only among humans is an ineffective leader able to maintain his position. In some cases leadership is a function of seniority, or leaders remain in position for a time fixed regardless of performance. This is not the natural way of providing leadership.
I hasten to say that the answer is not to change our leadership and organizational structure so that ineffective leaders can be removed more easily. That is the negative approach to leadership inefficiency. Besides, our assessment that a leader may be ineffective may be wrong. Because we are humans we often stumble. It is no surprise that leaders often stumble in their leadership. Replacing a ‘bad’ leader is no guarantee that she will be replaced by a more effective leader.
The answer to our leadership problems is to recognize that leadership is a natural phenomenon. We must base our practice of leadership on the principles of leadership that are on display in the world to which belong. The first lesson we will learn from nature is that leadership is not a function of the individual; it is a function of the group. Being a leader means nothing unless there is a group to be led.
Several years ago I heard a story about three boy scouts who were sitting around a camp fire. Suddenly, one of the scouts one of the boys got up and began to walk into the woods. The narrator concluded: If the two other boy scouts also got up and followed him into the woods we have a leader, otherwise all we have is a boy scout taking a walk.
1. Riggio, Ronald. (2010) “Are Leaders Born or Made? Why The Question Itself is Dangerous.” Psychology Today Blog: Cutting-Edge Leadership. < http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201012/are-leaders-born-or-made-why-the-question-itself-is-dangerous. > [Accessed July 18, 2011]. Citing Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 1-20; Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Kreuger, R.F. (2007). Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 693-706.
Recently, I read an article in Psychology Today in which the author Ronald Riggio wrote: “Studies using identical twins estimate that leadership is about one-third born (due to genetic factors) and two-thirds made. Yet, many leaders say the exact opposite – believing leaders are mostly born.” (1) I guess the debate will continue into the future. I want to look at another side of the debate.
One of the reasons for the difference of opinion is because humans have this uncanny knack of ignoring what we know intuitively when we get into academic discussions. When people are considering whether leaders are born or made they instinctively restrict the idea of being born a leader to being born with the innate ability to provide effective leadership under all conditions. Anyone who is born without that innate ability would have to be made into a leader. If the studies that Riggio cited are to be believed it is obvious that whatever abilities one is born with have to be nurtured and developed. This is not only true of leadership.
There are two reasons why one attends a leadership program: to discover whether one was born as a leader or to be made into a leader. The philosophy behind all leadership programs is that leaders are made. Since these programs are run by humans one has to wonder where they got their ideas concerning leadership if they were not born as leaders.
But this is not the angle I wish to explore here. Instead of focusing on leadership I think the question asks us to focus on the difference between being born and being made. Humans are born not made. The lesson is not that only some humans are born as leaders and that it is our task to sniff them out by exposing them to a battery of leadership principles that will ignite the leadership that lays dormant within them. The lesson is that only organisms that are born can be leaders. The obverse to this is that all humans are leaders by virtue of the fact that they are born.
The truth of this is seen in the fact that leadership can not only be seen in humans; it is also evident in all non-human species where existence is a function of "birth." We find leaders among fish, among birds, among chimpanzees, among lions, among ants. Every organism has leadership qualities and exercises those qualities whenever nature requires that it be exercised.
Only among humans is leadership fraught with so much inefficiency. This is not because leaders among non-human species are always effective. Nature has a mechanism in all non-human species for moving ineffective leaders out of the way. Observations of this have been made among gorillas, for example. If the leader of the pack cannot maintain his position he will be replaced. Only among humans is an ineffective leader able to maintain his position. In some cases leadership is a function of seniority, or leaders remain in position for a time fixed regardless of performance. This is not the natural way of providing leadership.
I hasten to say that the answer is not to change our leadership and organizational structure so that ineffective leaders can be removed more easily. That is the negative approach to leadership inefficiency. Besides, our assessment that a leader may be ineffective may be wrong. Because we are humans we often stumble. It is no surprise that leaders often stumble in their leadership. Replacing a ‘bad’ leader is no guarantee that she will be replaced by a more effective leader.
The answer to our leadership problems is to recognize that leadership is a natural phenomenon. We must base our practice of leadership on the principles of leadership that are on display in the world to which belong. The first lesson we will learn from nature is that leadership is not a function of the individual; it is a function of the group. Being a leader means nothing unless there is a group to be led.
Several years ago I heard a story about three boy scouts who were sitting around a camp fire. Suddenly, one of the scouts one of the boys got up and began to walk into the woods. The narrator concluded: If the two other boy scouts also got up and followed him into the woods we have a leader, otherwise all we have is a boy scout taking a walk.
1. Riggio, Ronald. (2010) “Are Leaders Born or Made? Why The Question Itself is Dangerous.” Psychology Today Blog: Cutting-Edge Leadership. < http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201012/are-leaders-born-or-made-why-the-question-itself-is-dangerous. > [Accessed July 18, 2011]. Citing Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 1-20; Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Kreuger, R.F. (2007). Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 693-706.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
To the Moon . . . and Beyond?
It was in July, 1969 that Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on to the surface of the moon. An estimated 500 million around the globe watched as he stepped off the ladder of the Lunar Exploration Module and utter his now famous words: “That’s one small step for (a) man; one giant leap for mankind.” Everyone seemed to think that this was a significant moment in human history and Armstrong’s words seemed to echo that sentiment.
There was one small problem; no one heard him say “a man.” After much background debate the newspapers reported what they and everyone else had heard, even though it was obvious what he had meant to say. It could not have been both a small step and a giant leap for the same individual, man and mankind being synonymous. For his part, Armstrong said he had been misquoted.
There was so much debate and confusion over the difference between what he said and what he meant to say that we never had the chance to consider the meaning and significance of his message. Not just the literal meaning of his words but the much deeper meaning of his message.
Most people agree that the purpose of the statement was to link the action of one man with the monumental achievement of humanity, but our scholars and academicians never made any attempt, as far as I can tell, to help us understand what it should mean for us as a species. It is almost as if they were happy to be diverted by the confusion over the apparent flub.
Today, anyone with a connection to the internet can view a clip of that historic moment. They can watch as Armstrong takes several more “small” steps on the moon that day, along with Buzz Aldrin who joined him on the surface of the moon. “One small step by a man” is easy to grasp, but in what way did humanity make a giant leap? What does it mean for a group of several billion people to make a giant leap? Are there other leaps we should have been making since that historic day? Have we made any of those leaps?
More importantly, what about leadership? The Apollo 11 mission was a NASA undertaking that was executed under the leadership of the President of the United States and the many administrators at NASA. Who is providing the leadership to humanity as we make these leaps? Whose responsibility is it to ensure that we make those leaps? What relationship is there between the exercise of leadership in humanity and the exercise of leadership in our groups and organizations?
These and other questions were not addressed forty-two years ago. As we move into another era of space exploration with the suspension of the successful shuttle program maybe it is time to begin exploring the answers.
There was one small problem; no one heard him say “a man.” After much background debate the newspapers reported what they and everyone else had heard, even though it was obvious what he had meant to say. It could not have been both a small step and a giant leap for the same individual, man and mankind being synonymous. For his part, Armstrong said he had been misquoted.
There was so much debate and confusion over the difference between what he said and what he meant to say that we never had the chance to consider the meaning and significance of his message. Not just the literal meaning of his words but the much deeper meaning of his message.
Most people agree that the purpose of the statement was to link the action of one man with the monumental achievement of humanity, but our scholars and academicians never made any attempt, as far as I can tell, to help us understand what it should mean for us as a species. It is almost as if they were happy to be diverted by the confusion over the apparent flub.
Today, anyone with a connection to the internet can view a clip of that historic moment. They can watch as Armstrong takes several more “small” steps on the moon that day, along with Buzz Aldrin who joined him on the surface of the moon. “One small step by a man” is easy to grasp, but in what way did humanity make a giant leap? What does it mean for a group of several billion people to make a giant leap? Are there other leaps we should have been making since that historic day? Have we made any of those leaps?
More importantly, what about leadership? The Apollo 11 mission was a NASA undertaking that was executed under the leadership of the President of the United States and the many administrators at NASA. Who is providing the leadership to humanity as we make these leaps? Whose responsibility is it to ensure that we make those leaps? What relationship is there between the exercise of leadership in humanity and the exercise of leadership in our groups and organizations?
These and other questions were not addressed forty-two years ago. As we move into another era of space exploration with the suspension of the successful shuttle program maybe it is time to begin exploring the answers.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The end of the world
Something is drastically wrong with the way we think. Why does everyone act as if Harold Camping has done something strange? He predicted that, based on rather detailed calculations, the rapture would take place on May 21, 2011. His assumptions may be wrong but his calculations appear to be quite in order.
The second part of his prediction places the end of the world on October 21, 2011. He belongs to a very small group who believe that to be the case but he is not the only one to believe in the end of the world. Scientists and theologians alike predict and end of the population. One scientists predicts that it could occur in 100 million years. Most look for the end to occur when the sun becomes a red giant in several billion years. Most Christians say it could occur "at any time."
We are missing something much more important about this phenomenon. Christians are upset at Camping because they fear the failed prediction will make them look bad. Scientists have ignored him because they don't think it has anything to do with them. Both have failed to carefully analyse the event.
The second part of his prediction places the end of the world on October 21, 2011. He belongs to a very small group who believe that to be the case but he is not the only one to believe in the end of the world. Scientists and theologians alike predict and end of the population. One scientists predicts that it could occur in 100 million years. Most look for the end to occur when the sun becomes a red giant in several billion years. Most Christians say it could occur "at any time."
We are missing something much more important about this phenomenon. Christians are upset at Camping because they fear the failed prediction will make them look bad. Scientists have ignored him because they don't think it has anything to do with them. Both have failed to carefully analyse the event.
Monday, May 9, 2011
The Curse of Universal Knowledge
Knowledge is power. I learned this as a kid. But knowledge that is considered to be universal, in that it is widely accepted by all to be true, may sometimes be more of a curse than a blessing. This is because we tend to assume that this knowledge is being applied appropriately in all settings. As a result, no one is willing to test whether it is being used appropriately lets they draw the ire of those whose work is being "questioned."
This phenomenon is evident in the field of peace=building. It is generally accepted that a system is more than the sum of its parts. Most people can provide at least one example of this principle at work. Water is a simple but powerful example. Water is made up chemically of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Neither hydrogen nor oxygen is wet; both are gases. But when they are combined in the chemical formula for water they take on emergen properties of water that cannot be found in either hydrogen or water.
Given the universal state of this knowledge it is strange that it is also universally assumed that this principle can be ignored in the search for global peace. Every peace building initiative assumes that peace can be brought to humanity one person at a time. Those involved in this vital work seem to work under the assumption that if peace can be brought to humans individually then collectively peace will reign throughout humanity.
As long as we continue to follow a principle we know is flawed we will never achieve the greatest prize that we seek.
This phenomenon is evident in the field of peace=building. It is generally accepted that a system is more than the sum of its parts. Most people can provide at least one example of this principle at work. Water is a simple but powerful example. Water is made up chemically of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Neither hydrogen nor oxygen is wet; both are gases. But when they are combined in the chemical formula for water they take on emergen properties of water that cannot be found in either hydrogen or water.
Given the universal state of this knowledge it is strange that it is also universally assumed that this principle can be ignored in the search for global peace. Every peace building initiative assumes that peace can be brought to humanity one person at a time. Those involved in this vital work seem to work under the assumption that if peace can be brought to humans individually then collectively peace will reign throughout humanity.
As long as we continue to follow a principle we know is flawed we will never achieve the greatest prize that we seek.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Working our way back to peace
Just today I reflected on an interesting contradiction. Every war humans have ever fought has been motivated either by religion or by politics. In most cases both politics and religion are involved. This is not to suggest that something is wrong with either politics or religion. The evidence is overwhelming that both politics and religion have made positive contributions to human development over the years.
The contradiction lies in the fact that humans rely exclusively on religion and politics to help them find the path back to a world where war and violence are no longer a threat. There is no other way to describe this than that we are using the fox to guard the hen house.
Does anyone have an answer to this obvious contradiction? What does it say about how we feel about our chances of achieving world peace?
Over the next few weeks I hope to write a bit more on this subject. I would welcome contributions from any of my readers.
The contradiction lies in the fact that humans rely exclusively on religion and politics to help them find the path back to a world where war and violence are no longer a threat. There is no other way to describe this than that we are using the fox to guard the hen house.
Does anyone have an answer to this obvious contradiction? What does it say about how we feel about our chances of achieving world peace?
Over the next few weeks I hope to write a bit more on this subject. I would welcome contributions from any of my readers.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Serious about Peace
A workman is known by his tools. Over the years they will accumulate a great number of tools associated with their trade. The same is true in the world of peace building. If we are serious about peace building we will rely on tools that provide the greatest possibility of success.
But the tools of peace building are not physical; they are conceptual. A mechanic must not only use the tools of his trade, he must also rely on the concepts of his trade. The same is true for every other workman.
Every problem humans have ever solved has been solved by finding appropriate models in nature. The same is true with peace building. Our best intentions will fail us if we depend on the wrong models.
Nature has no models for peace building, but it has models of conflict and violence. We need to find the model that best fits our situation. I have identified three models of conflict and violence and I will briefly introduce them here. A more extensive treatment will be attempted later.
The first model is also the best known. It is associated with the food chain or food web. It is there that we see all of the violence of nature. Lions chase and eat gazelles. Octopuses consume small fish. Spiders trap flies in their webs. Cows and other herbivores eat grass. The violence of nature is ubiquitous. This violence is associated with differences between the species of the predator and the prey and occurs only at meal time. The rules are clear. Today's diner becomes tomorrow's dinner.
The second model moves from the species to the individual organisms in each species. Each organism has an immune system that defends it from foreign pathogens. This is its standing army. The work that the immune system does each moment is best understood by observing what happens when life ceases and the immune system no longer operates. The foreign pathogens move in and in quick time reduce the organism to dust. A major difference between this model and the first is the fact that the species do not have a standing army. This is because the relationship between prey and predator is a cooperative one. Predators are not intent on driving their prey to extinction. This risk does not exist.
The third model moves further in. In this model the natural process of cell division causes mutations in the organism's DNA that may result in cancers or auto-immune diseases. Cancerous cells continue to divide past the Hayflick limit, exerting negative forces on the rest of the body and can lead to the death of the organism if not arrested. In an auto-immune disease the body's standing army receives flawed information regarding the organism's enemies and begins to view the organism itself as the enemy.
Only one of these three models represents the present human condition. Solutions that are applicable to the other two will not work in our quest for peaceful coexistence. Which model do you think applies?
But the tools of peace building are not physical; they are conceptual. A mechanic must not only use the tools of his trade, he must also rely on the concepts of his trade. The same is true for every other workman.
Every problem humans have ever solved has been solved by finding appropriate models in nature. The same is true with peace building. Our best intentions will fail us if we depend on the wrong models.
Nature has no models for peace building, but it has models of conflict and violence. We need to find the model that best fits our situation. I have identified three models of conflict and violence and I will briefly introduce them here. A more extensive treatment will be attempted later.
The first model is also the best known. It is associated with the food chain or food web. It is there that we see all of the violence of nature. Lions chase and eat gazelles. Octopuses consume small fish. Spiders trap flies in their webs. Cows and other herbivores eat grass. The violence of nature is ubiquitous. This violence is associated with differences between the species of the predator and the prey and occurs only at meal time. The rules are clear. Today's diner becomes tomorrow's dinner.
The second model moves from the species to the individual organisms in each species. Each organism has an immune system that defends it from foreign pathogens. This is its standing army. The work that the immune system does each moment is best understood by observing what happens when life ceases and the immune system no longer operates. The foreign pathogens move in and in quick time reduce the organism to dust. A major difference between this model and the first is the fact that the species do not have a standing army. This is because the relationship between prey and predator is a cooperative one. Predators are not intent on driving their prey to extinction. This risk does not exist.
The third model moves further in. In this model the natural process of cell division causes mutations in the organism's DNA that may result in cancers or auto-immune diseases. Cancerous cells continue to divide past the Hayflick limit, exerting negative forces on the rest of the body and can lead to the death of the organism if not arrested. In an auto-immune disease the body's standing army receives flawed information regarding the organism's enemies and begins to view the organism itself as the enemy.
Only one of these three models represents the present human condition. Solutions that are applicable to the other two will not work in our quest for peaceful coexistence. Which model do you think applies?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
A Different Lesson from Egypt
During the 18 days of the Egyptian Revolution all eyes were on the Egyptian army. Everyone seemed to understand that the final outcome of this uprising depended on how the army responded. Less than one week into the uprising there was a global sigh of relief when the army issued a statement that it would not "resort to use of force against our great people," and being "aware of the legitimacy of your demands" were "keen to assume their responsibility in protecting the nation and the citizens, affirm that freedom of expression through peaceful means is guaranteed to everybody."
It is curious that with the departure of Hosni Mubarak we are in such a hurry to forget the role that the Egyptian army played, or did not play, in the uprising. Instead the pundits are trying to determine who should get the credit for the results. This response misses the mark.
As the uprisings spread across the Middle East it may be a good idea to contemplate why the ability of a people to change their government should depend on the whims of a standing army. One could say that Hosni Mubarak was driven out of power because the army decided it was time for him to go. We can only imagine what the result would have been if they had been ordered to suppress the demonstrations. What if they had done their job and had protected the government of the nation?
Democracies in many other countries demonstrate that governments can be changed without getting permission from the army. It is ludicrous that the peaceful transfer of power should come at the cost of maintaining a standing army. It is also ludicrous that the peace we enjoy in Western democracies should also come at the same cost. Standing armies cost money -- money that can best be used to educate and house our people. I can only imagine what the impact would be on the cost of fuel if the fuel used to keep the military mobile was made available to the open market?
Sadly, we are not at the place yet where we can get rid of standing armies. But that is the direction in which we should go. Peace at the point of a gun, even if that gun is not pointed in my direction, is not really peace.
It is curious that with the departure of Hosni Mubarak we are in such a hurry to forget the role that the Egyptian army played, or did not play, in the uprising. Instead the pundits are trying to determine who should get the credit for the results. This response misses the mark.
As the uprisings spread across the Middle East it may be a good idea to contemplate why the ability of a people to change their government should depend on the whims of a standing army. One could say that Hosni Mubarak was driven out of power because the army decided it was time for him to go. We can only imagine what the result would have been if they had been ordered to suppress the demonstrations. What if they had done their job and had protected the government of the nation?
Democracies in many other countries demonstrate that governments can be changed without getting permission from the army. It is ludicrous that the peaceful transfer of power should come at the cost of maintaining a standing army. It is also ludicrous that the peace we enjoy in Western democracies should also come at the same cost. Standing armies cost money -- money that can best be used to educate and house our people. I can only imagine what the impact would be on the cost of fuel if the fuel used to keep the military mobile was made available to the open market?
Sadly, we are not at the place yet where we can get rid of standing armies. But that is the direction in which we should go. Peace at the point of a gun, even if that gun is not pointed in my direction, is not really peace.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
A Shot at Peace
The recent tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ which left 6 dead and 13 wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), is only the latest reminder of the vexing problems that we, as a species, face on this planet. Any connection that exists between that incident and mental disease or the current political climate in the United States of America should not blind us to the fact that this is a symptom of a much larger global problem. This is not a uniquely American problem. It is not the first incidence of mass murder and, unless we move quickly and decisively to act, it certainly won’t be the last. The question from President Obama at the memorial service resonates: "What, beyond prayer and expressions of concern, is expected of us as we go forward?"
Representative Giffords was not shot in the head at close range because she was Gabrielle Giffords, daughter of Gloria and Spencer Giffords, a graduate of Scripps College and Cornell University, and wife of Astronaut Mark Kelly. I doubt her shooter knew that about her. He did not care who she really was, and he certainly did not want to get to get better acquainted. Based on evidence retrieved by the authorities it appears that she was targeted because of what she represented. In that sense it was not an act of personal violence against Rep. Giffords. Those who were killed and injured in the shooting suffered because of their association with her, however remote it may have been.
Why do we experience such feelings of anger and loss at the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords? I can think of a number of scenarios under which we would laud Jared Loughner for his actions. We are angry because we know that neither she nor any of the other victims of Loughner’s actions represented a threat to Loughner. The only problem was that Loughner considered her to be a threat because she represented an institution that he considered to be a threat. The fact that he is mentally ill does not change this. Even though she was not shot because of who she was, Loughner shot her because of who he perceived her to be. But deep within our collective consciousness something tells us that humans should not be turning on each other; that such self-destructive behavior is of no benefit to us as a people.
Soon, Loughner will be tried on Federal and State charges. In each case a jury of his peers will determine his guilt or innocence and the courts will impose the sentence society considers to be appropriate. But whatever happens in the courtroom will only bring closure to this particular case. It will not prevent a recurrence. Except for those who who have been intimately affected by the shootings, for most of us the incident will become a distant memory. We will be blissfully unaware that the most important defendant in this case will never be tried – the society that created Loughner and others like him for whom mental defect is not a convenient excuse.
The irony should be obvious. What is it that makes us turn on each other? I have no doubt that those who have complained about the role played by the rhetoric of some on the right of the political spectrum are not just engaged in finger pointing. But I am also convinced that their complaints are driven by our collective reluctance to blame ourselves for what one of ours has done. Those on the right are reluctant to be blamed for what one of theirs has done. As humans we are reluctant to be blamed for what one of us has done.
Loughner is not a member of an alien species. He is a part of human society, and while it is true that he may have been mentally deranged before he carried out the shootings, many people considered to be sane by society have committed similar acts. We have a long history of self-destructive behavior.
Once again we have heard references to “home-grown” terrorism as if there is any other kind of terrorism. We have conveniently forgotten that home is this planet. We may live in different nations or different communities but we all share the same home. None of our violence or wars makes sense because every war we fight is a civil war. Our reaction to the shooting of Rep. Giffords shows that we have an aversion to this infighting, but we seem unable to find a solution.
Many cling to the idea that we will get rid of terrorism if we can rid of the terrorists. This is an extension of the view that we will get rid of crime if we can get rid of criminals. That type of thinking is stymied by the fact that terrorists and criminals look the same as ordinary human beings do. Truth be told, this is the only reason these acts of violence are able to terrorise the populace. Until he stepped forward and discharged his 31 rounds he was just another face in the crowd. He was “one of us.”
Since we cannot identify terrorists and criminals before they act we are forced to spend significant portions of our national budgets to protect ourselves from these individuals. We will never know just how large our global military and enforcement budgets are. But we do know that they represent resources that could be used to improve the lives of many around the globe if we could only find a way to “stop this madness.” Peace that is imposed with the threat of violence is not peace. Peace that can only be maintained at great cost is not peace.
Representative Giffords was not shot in the head at close range because she was Gabrielle Giffords, daughter of Gloria and Spencer Giffords, a graduate of Scripps College and Cornell University, and wife of Astronaut Mark Kelly. I doubt her shooter knew that about her. He did not care who she really was, and he certainly did not want to get to get better acquainted. Based on evidence retrieved by the authorities it appears that she was targeted because of what she represented. In that sense it was not an act of personal violence against Rep. Giffords. Those who were killed and injured in the shooting suffered because of their association with her, however remote it may have been.
Why do we experience such feelings of anger and loss at the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords? I can think of a number of scenarios under which we would laud Jared Loughner for his actions. We are angry because we know that neither she nor any of the other victims of Loughner’s actions represented a threat to Loughner. The only problem was that Loughner considered her to be a threat because she represented an institution that he considered to be a threat. The fact that he is mentally ill does not change this. Even though she was not shot because of who she was, Loughner shot her because of who he perceived her to be. But deep within our collective consciousness something tells us that humans should not be turning on each other; that such self-destructive behavior is of no benefit to us as a people.
Soon, Loughner will be tried on Federal and State charges. In each case a jury of his peers will determine his guilt or innocence and the courts will impose the sentence society considers to be appropriate. But whatever happens in the courtroom will only bring closure to this particular case. It will not prevent a recurrence. Except for those who who have been intimately affected by the shootings, for most of us the incident will become a distant memory. We will be blissfully unaware that the most important defendant in this case will never be tried – the society that created Loughner and others like him for whom mental defect is not a convenient excuse.
The irony should be obvious. What is it that makes us turn on each other? I have no doubt that those who have complained about the role played by the rhetoric of some on the right of the political spectrum are not just engaged in finger pointing. But I am also convinced that their complaints are driven by our collective reluctance to blame ourselves for what one of ours has done. Those on the right are reluctant to be blamed for what one of theirs has done. As humans we are reluctant to be blamed for what one of us has done.
Loughner is not a member of an alien species. He is a part of human society, and while it is true that he may have been mentally deranged before he carried out the shootings, many people considered to be sane by society have committed similar acts. We have a long history of self-destructive behavior.
Once again we have heard references to “home-grown” terrorism as if there is any other kind of terrorism. We have conveniently forgotten that home is this planet. We may live in different nations or different communities but we all share the same home. None of our violence or wars makes sense because every war we fight is a civil war. Our reaction to the shooting of Rep. Giffords shows that we have an aversion to this infighting, but we seem unable to find a solution.
Many cling to the idea that we will get rid of terrorism if we can rid of the terrorists. This is an extension of the view that we will get rid of crime if we can get rid of criminals. That type of thinking is stymied by the fact that terrorists and criminals look the same as ordinary human beings do. Truth be told, this is the only reason these acts of violence are able to terrorise the populace. Until he stepped forward and discharged his 31 rounds he was just another face in the crowd. He was “one of us.”
Since we cannot identify terrorists and criminals before they act we are forced to spend significant portions of our national budgets to protect ourselves from these individuals. We will never know just how large our global military and enforcement budgets are. But we do know that they represent resources that could be used to improve the lives of many around the globe if we could only find a way to “stop this madness.” Peace that is imposed with the threat of violence is not peace. Peace that can only be maintained at great cost is not peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)