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.
7 comments:
Great article. Your critique of most leadership theories is on point. Would you agree then studying the group rather than studying leaders leaders would yield greater insights for us as a species? And why are we so much more interested and invested in the former?
[erratum] And why are we so much more interested and invested in the latter?
You are correct. What will become obvious is that human groups are not like animal groups. They are close approximations but they do not follow the same principles. Nature is an interesting teacher if we pay attention. van Vugt was only partially correct in his description of animal leadership. But studying the group is a good first step.
We almost could not help the way our leadership theories have developed. Until we understand natural global leadership we won't know where our focus ought to be.
Darius: 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.
Thank you very much for bringing this up Darius. If we are to look at leadership itself we are to look at the first story about leadership. Leadership is about survival in the natural world. It entails a vision, a strategy, implementation, and reflection.
This is what I observe in the second creation story. Before being part of the larger society we are part of a smaller nucleus, the family. This is the first place where we come in contact with leadership and it is this very place that nurtures or cripples the leader in each one of us. While that nucleus grows into a band in the animal kingdom, in humans it breaks down into individuals that are disconnected from one another. Hence, the search for a mate, unknown to the individual. Whatever progress that was achieved in the initial nucleus is technically lost. Therefore, we are keep on re-inventing a wheel, which causes us to regress instead of evolving towards a single cohesive species.
The natural example is modeled clearly in the story about Avraham and Sarah. It started with 2, then it becomes 3 take away Ishmael and Hagar, then 6, then Jacob with 4 wives, 12 sons and unnamed daughters except for Dinah.
70 in total they made it to Egypt, they came out as numerous as the stars of heaven. What kept them together throughout slavery? What has keep them since? What do they know about leadership?
That was well put, Phil. It is sad that we often forget that humans are also a part of nature. There are aspects of human development that have the same success ratio as the rest of nature when it comes to the effect of leadership.
Thanks Darius. It is time that people take an interdisciplinary approach to solving problems. Animals seem to have an in-built feedback system that allows for auto-correction and improvement. We seem to purposely avoid reflection, which serves exactly the same purpose. There's one thing that I have noticed in the Tanakh but I am still reflecting on it, not willing to voice it yet.
Allow me to correct a few typos in my previous post:
Before:
a) Therefore, we are keep on re-inventing a wheel...
b) What has keep them since?
After:
a) Therefore, we keep on re-inventing a wheel...
b) What has kept them since?
Post a Comment