Revisiting Leadership

Leadership is probably the most discussed and least understood concept in our society today. We throw the word around primarily in the desires we have for people in authority in government, business, families, teams, and so forth. The key debate centers on the notion of whether leaders are born or made - is effective leadership based on traits of a person or what they learn to do.

The main reason there are so many views on leadership, so much effort to produce it, and still such a crisis in the lack of it is the misconceptions we have about it. One issue is that people confuse position with leadership. The fact is that all people in authority are not leaders and all leaders are not people in authority. So we need to dismiss that aspect in understanding who is and who is not a leader.

Another major issue is that leaders influence, but not all influence is leadership. A salesman influences another person to buy his product, but the salesman did not exercise leadership. Parents influence what their children eat but are not necessarily leading them to better health. Much influence is exchange based, using incentives or coercion, and is not considered leadership.

The study of leadership across the past 30 years focuses on the idea that an individual leads when he/she inspires others to commit to a goal whose outcome benefits them and others in mutual ways. The key words here are "inspire" and "mutual". To inspire someone is to effect their motivation by appealing to their intrinsic factors versus their extrinsic ones. Intrinsic factors of motivation are the benefits an individual receives from inside their own soul based on a behavior. These internal benefits are usually purpose, meaning, and enjoyment. Extrinsic are supplied by the individual's external environment, such as money, praise, and punishment. Mutual refers to outcomes that benefit the individual as a member of a larger group. This benefit requires individuals to commit to something beyond themselves, leaving self interest mainly out of their motivation.

Basically, what leadership involves is for the leader to emotionally take the goal pursuit of a group on his/her shoulders and move them all forward. The leader is taking others to a new and better place, not focusing on making the status quo right, but making the future bright. This requires that the leader have vision, or can see a future that is not yet. The leader must have a passion, not as much for the vision but for the benefit of the vision to the followers. For example, R E Lee didn't have a passion for Succession or slavery, but he had a passion for his fellow Virginians and there ultimate welfare. For someone to lead he/she must have the emotional courage to see opportunities in the midst of uncertainty and push through obstacles as if they were not there. The leader does not just think about the journey, the leader lives the journey.

Given that these are true about and fundamental to leadership, are there characteristics of individuals that contribute to the likelihood one will be effective at leading? My understanding of the study of leadership and my own experience finds that there are stable, embedded traits that must be present in individuals and some traits that cannot be present. First those traits that cannot. An individual cannot lead and be dogmatic. One who is constrained by whether situations are black and white cannot see possibilities well. An individual cannot be a blame avoider. Leaders must take responsibility for their own actions or they will be hesitant to act when circumstances look formidable. leaders cannot be more afraid of making a mistake than concerned about missing an opportunity.

Leaders must have a high EQ (emotional intelligence). This ability allows the leader to empathize with the followers emotions as well as regulate his/her own emotions. The regulation of emotions allows the leader to effectively reappraise situations to relieve negative felt emotions rather than suppressing them creating stress and burnout. Leaders must have energy for the journey. Leaders must have a high need for autonomy given that often they are having to act before others have caught up. Most importantly, leaders must be primarily intrinsically motivated. If they are to be missional, they must be purpose driven. Many people, who have authority positions, may be successful managers but lack leadership because they are primarily driven by the external rewards of success, such as financial gain, power, and status.

Often people confuse traits of a leader with leadership style. Characteristics, such as need for control and extraversion/introversion, determine the way someone leads, not whether they can lead. Leadership style can impact effectiveness of leadership depending on the situation. However, when assessing whether an individual has qualities of a leader, style should not be considered. Confusing the two is a common mistake of people who select and assess others for leadership.

There is much more to this question of leadership than what is shared here, but hopefully this provides a framework for those interested in leadership to do some pondering .....