Leadership

Leadership, both as a research area and as a practical skill, encompasses the ability of an individual, group, or organization to "lead," influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or entire organizations. The word "leadership" often gets viewed as a contested term. Specialist literature debates various viewpoints on the concept, sometimes contrasting Eastern and Western approaches to leadership, and also (within the West) North American versus European approaches.

US academic environments define leadership as "a process of social influence in which a person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common and ethical task." Basically, leadership can be defined as an influential power-relationship in which the power of one party (the "leader") promotes movement/change in others (the "followers"). Some have challenged the more traditional managerial views of leadership (which portray leadership as something possessed or owned by one individual due to their role or authority), and instead advocate the complex nature of leadership which is found at all levels of institutions, both within formal and informal roles.

Studies of leadership have produced theories involving (for example) traits, situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values, charisma, and intelligence, among others.

Many personality characteristics were found to be reliably associated with leadership energence. The list includes, but not limited to (following list organized in alphabetical order): assertiveness, authenticity, Big Five personality factors, birth factor, character strengths, dominance, emotional intelligence, gender identity, intelligence, narcissicism, self-efficacy for leadership, self-monitoring, and social motivation. Other areas of study in relation to how and why leaders emerge include narcissistic traits, absentee leaders, and participation. While there are many personality traits that can be considered in determining why a leader emerges, it is important not to look at these in isolation. Today's sophisticated reasearch methods look at personality characteristics in combination to determine patterns of leadership energence.

Leadership emergence is the idea that people born with specific characteristics become leaders, and those without these characteristics do not become leaders. People like Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and Nelson Madela all share traits that an average person does not. This includes people who choose to participate in leadership roles, as opposed to those who are not. Research indicates that up to 30% of leader emergence has a genetic basis. There is no current research indicating that there is a "leadership gene," instead we inherit certain traits that might influence our decision to seek leadership. Both anecdotal, and empirical evidence, support a stable relationship between specific traits and leadership behavior. Using a large international sample researchers found that there are three factors that motivate leaders: affective identity (enjoyment of leading), non-calculative (leading earns reinforcement), and social-normative (sense of obligation).

• Assertiveness - the relationship between assertiveness and leadership emergence is curvilinear; individuals who are either low in assertiveness or very high in assertiveness are less likely to be identified as leaders.
• Authenticity - individuals who are more aware of their personality qualities, including their values and beliefs, and are less biased when processing self-relevant information, are more likely to be recognized as leaders.
• Big Five personality factors - those who emerge as leaders tend to be more (order in strength of relationship with leadership emergence): extroverted, conscientious, emotionally stable, and open to experience, although these tendencies are stronger in laboratory studies of leaderless groups. However, introversion - extroversion appears to be the most influential quality in leadership emergence, specifically leaders tend to be high in extroversion. Introversion - extroversion is also the quality that can be judged most easily of the Big Five traits. Agreeableness, the last factor of the Big Five persobality traits, does not seem to play any meaningful role in leadership emergence.
• Birth order - those born first in their families and only children are hypothesized to be more driven to seek leadership and control in social settings. Middle-born children tend to accept follower roles in groups, and later-borns are thought to be rebellious and creative.
• Character strengths - those seeking leadership positions in military organization had elevated scores on a number of indicators of strength of character, including honesty, hope, bravery, industry, and team work.
• Dominance - individuals with dominant personalities - they describe thenselves as high in the desire to control their environment and influence other people, and are likely to express their opinions in a forceful way - are more likely to act as leaders in small-group situations.
• Emotional intelligence - individuals with high emotional intelligence have increased ability to understand and relate to people. They have skills in communicating and decoding emotions and they deal with others wisely and effectively. Such people communicate their ideas in more robust ways, are better able to read the politics of a situation, are less likely to lose control of their emotions, are less likely to be inappropriately angry or critical, and in consequence are more likely to emerge as leaders.
• Intelligence - individuals with higher intelligence exhibit superior judgment, higher verbal skills (both written and verbal), quicker learning and acquisition of knowledge, and are more likely to emerge as leaders. Correlation between IQ and leadership emergence was found to be between .25 and .30. However, groups generally prefer leaders that do not exceed intelligence prowess of an average member by a wide margin, as they fear that high intelligence discrepancy may be translated to differences in communication, trust, interests, and values.
• Self-efficacy for leadership - confidence in one's ability to lead is associated with increases in willingness to accept a leadership role and success in that role.
• Self-monitoring- high self-monitors are more likely to emerge as the leader of a group than are low self-monitors, since they are most concerned with status-enhancement and are more likely to adapt their actions to fit the demands of the situation.
• Social motivation - individuals who are both success-motivated and afilliation-motivated, as assessed by projective measures, are more active in group problem-solving settings and are more likely to be elected to positions of keadership in such groups.
• Narcissicism, hubris, and other negative traits - a number of negative traits of leadership have also been studied. Individuals who take on leadership roles in turbulent situations, such as groups facing a threat or ones in which status is determined by intense competition among rivals within the group, tend to be narcissistic: arrogant, self-absorbed, hostile, and very self-confident.
• Absentee leader - existing research has shown that absentee leaders - those who rise into power, but not necessarily because of their skills, and are marginally engaging in that role - are actually worse than destructive leaders, because it takes longer to pinpoint their mistakes.
• Willingness to participate - a willingness to participate in a group can indicate a person's interest as well as their willingness to take responsibility for how the group performs. Those who do not say much during a group meeting are less likely to emerge as a leader than those who speak up. There is however some debate over whether the quality of participation in a group matters more than the quantity.

x-------x

Picture from Pexels.