Enlightened Leadership Theory

Dr. Sharon L. Bender

October, 2006

The purpose of my study in the area of leadership has been to examine the principle and application of theory that nurtures or creates outstanding leaders in our society today. I have found that no matter who the leader is, they all possess certain qualities and characteristics that excite constituents, pulling them together and giving them the motivation to move forward with zeal. There exists in a relationship between leader and follower; one of inherent trust, respect, bonding, passion, caring, interest, and hope. What evolved in my examination of these characteristics was my own leadership challenge, to determine my own leadership style and to understand the need for effective communication skills, a key element in the persuasion and collaboration of the leader’s constituents.

Defining Leadership

Leadership occurs when one person can influence others to do something of their own volition instead of doing something because it is required or because they fear the consequences of non-compliance. This voluntary aspect of leadership sets it apart from other influence processes, such as non-referent power or authority. (I noted this as an opportunity in my SOR Analysis.)

The reason organizations have leaders is because they can enhance organizational function. The organization benefits when leaders react more quickly and effectively. An effective leader perceives and interprets environmental events accurately. Leaders reduce uncertainty. In ambiguous circumstances leaders can coordinate activities and reduce uncertainty for subordinates. Leaders enhance organizational stability. Effective leaders attend to what satisfies and bothers followers. Accommodating such needs stabilizes the organizational environment.

What makes a leader is a product of personal attributes. Effective leaders will be good leaders regardless of where they are (trait approach). Alternatively, what makes a leader is a function of behaviors. Whoever correctly identifies the proper behavior and acts accordingly will be the leader (behavioral approach). Leaders are everywhere. They are fellow workers, mothers and fathers, statesmen, and teachers. They influence our workforce, our children, our nation, and our students. Leadership is something managers possess in varying degrees. Concepts of leadership, ideas about leadership, and leadership practices are the subject of much thought, discussion, writing, teaching, and learning. True leaders are sought after and cultivated. Leaders should leave behind them assets and legacy (DePree, 1989). Leaders are obligated to provide and maintain momentum. Momentum is not abstract or mysterious. It is the feeling among a group of people that their lives and work are intertwined and moving toward a recognizable and legitimate goal. It begins with competent leadership and a management team strongly dedicated to aggressive managerial development and opportunities.

It is important to note that although managers possess leadership skills, leadership is quite different than management. Managers teach people to use rational, analytical, and deductive approaches to solving problems and stating goals, whereas leaders are visionaries; they develop new ideas, open new issues and are more like artists and scientists (Snyder, 1994). The vision reflects a depth and breadth of understanding, and guides the follower through the present and future, values and beliefs (Snyder, 1994).

Leadership is defined as a social influence process in which the leader seeks the voluntary participation of subordinates (individuals) in an effort to reach organizational objectives. Formal leadership is the process of influencing relevant others to pursue official organizational objectives. Informal leadership, in contrast, is the process of influencing others to purse unofficial objectives that may or may not serve the organization’s interests (Kreitner, 1992).

During most of recorded history, the prevailing assumption was that leaders are born and not made. Leaders such as Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, and George Washington were said to have been born leaders. This approach to leadership eventually succumbed to trait theory. As the popularity of the trait approach mushroomed during the second quarter of the twentieth century, literally hundreds of physical, mental, and personality traits were said to be the key determinants of successful leadership.

During World War II, the study of leadership took on a significant new twist. Rather than concentrating on the personal traits of good successful leaders, researchers began turning their attention to patterns of leader behavior (leadership styles).

Behavioral styles theorists and mangers hailed democratic leadership as the key to productive and happy employees. Although there is general agreement that these basic styles exist, debate has been vigorous over their relative value and appropriateness. Convinced that no one best style of leadership exists, a number of management scholars have advocated the situational or contingency theory approach. Situational-leadership theorists stress the need for flexibility. They reject the notion of a universally applicable style. Among the various leadership theories proposed so far, Fiedler’s contingency theory is the most thoroughly tested, getting its name form the assumption that the performance of a leader depends on two interrelated factors:

1.       The degree to which the situation gives the leader control and influence equals the likelihood that the leader can successfully accomplish the job.

2.       The leader’s basic motivation or self-esteem depends primarily on accomplishing the task or on having close supportive relations with others.

In his 1978 book, Leadership, James Burns characterized leaders as visionaries who challenge people to achieve exceptionally high levels of morality, motivation, and performance. These types of leaders were characterized in his transformational leader’s theory. According to Burns, only transformational leaders are capable of charting necessary new courses for modern organizations because they are masters of change. They can envision a better future, effectively communicate that vision, and get others to willingly make it a reality.

Effective Leadership

Effective leaders speak positively. They say "will" rather than "try" and are very upbeat. They speak from the heart. They talk in terms of mutual goals, using the word "we" rather than "I" (Kouzes, 1995). They interact with the audience, rather than lecture. Stand up comedy, for example, is often a participatory event. The monologue, with no eye contact or opportunity for response, has the potential for being a dreary form of communication.

Superfluous words, pet words, fad words, excessive slang, and exaggeration can make presentations strained and dull. Speech is perhaps man's greatest gift. What is uttered should not be wasted. The more advanced the society, the richer the language present. We are able to create a variety of sounds that emanate mood, emotions, and attitudes and elicit a call to action. 

Sometimes leadership involves risk taking in ideas and style. Powerful words and unheard of ideas may travel a very fine line between effective and offensive (DuPree, 1989). Effective leaders educate. If a speaker is able to open up the mind of another, it will be easier for them to fill that mind with new ideas. Explaining the vision in detail and including historical attempts, summaries, analogies, and projections can be very helpful in making people feel comfortable with a new concept. Telling stories about teachable moments through examples of personal experiences and real life observations is very effective in nurturing understanding, especially if the tales are delivered dramatically, with mystery, humor, or irony. 

One way to acquire this quality is to observe others. A leader not only relates personal experience, but also uses examples of others as a tool. Leaders observe others for appealing and entrancing behavior, and expressions, which they can then incorporate into their own style. A leader must learn and use new words that heighten awareness or foster new images. The same vocabulary, usual expressions, and overdone clichés are boring and uninspiring.

Effective leaders relate rather than merely tell stories (Gardner, 1995, p. 9). They gesture, symbolize, and embody their thoughts. The innovative leader can take a boring story, spice it up, and add life and a fresh twist. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were innovative leaders. They could take a historical or existing scenario and reactivate the experience. Conversely, Ghandi was a visionary leader. Not content to borrow someone else's tale, he created his own. Many of our religious leaders were visionaries, such as Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Confucius (Gardner, 1995, p. 11). Successful leaders are able to articulate a coherent vision of a changed environment as well as have the imagination to overcome obstacles to change (and new ideas) (Orsburn, 1990, p. 37).

Diverse audiences relate to different types of leadership: democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire. The social climate induced by democratic leadership revolves around community decision. Policies become a matter of group discussion and decision, which are encouraged and assisted by the leader (Patton, 1989, p. 90). The effective leader keeps the group on track, sometimes reiterating the group steps or objectives; and suggests alternative procedures, is objective or fact minded, quick to dish out praise, and diplomatic in criticism, with the express goal of keeping things harmonious and spirited. 

The effective leader does not commit to doing much of the work nor offer innovative ideas, but acts like the glue that brings all of the different characters and ideas together. An effective leader offers some additional thoughts and ideas as an extension to the plan on the table, therefore, emphasizing and supporting other participants; so that everyone feels like they have contributed to the decision and have some semblance of control over their futures.

Because many organizations are working in teams and groups, a lot of otherwise good leaders are experiencing anxiety. There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about how to communicate in teams, there are very few effective role models for leaders to learn from. An article in The Total Quality Review (1995), Communication Secrets of Effective Team Leaders, reveals communication secrets revealed by successful leaders (Houston, 1989). 

1.       Leaders of teams must be direct.

2.       Leaders need to learn to admit mistakes.

3.       It does not just happen naturally.

4.       Keep key stakeholders informed.

5.       Do not get caught in the middle.

Ineffective Leadership

After participating in several focus groups, I have witnessed and experienced the colliding of two distinct corporate cultures (polarization). Members of different generations, portraying different values and goals represent these two cultures. I found that a new generation, with new ideas, and new standards were not inclined to follow a predetermined regime, and certainly didn't care for the current leadership style, whatever it was at the time. 

Inherent in my entrepreneurial mentality, I have the potential to be a good leader; I am not much of a manager, though. I’ve discovered, however, that there is danger of failing as a leader because of an inability to communicate goals effectively. I was a member of several focused groups during my nearly ten years of working in the corporate environment, so I have a good number of notes from my meetings.  I reviewed my notes and found that the leaders' chosen words created negativity in most cases. The good news is that they instilled emotion. The bad news is that the emotion emanated cynicism, and its impact resulted in little being accomplished at these meetings.

If leaders are visionaries, they must be able to communicate their vision, because it is not outlined by existing regulations in the form of written policy or law. The first step is to emphasize the importance of the vision, so that the audience will see that the topic is worthwhile. Conveying simple words, repetitively, and focusing on the core values of the vision, serves to make the communication clear and motivating (Snyder, 1994). People need to see how they will interact, participate, and benefit from their action on this vision. Leaders inspire a vision to be shared (Kouzes, 1995). They can't create passion in others if they don't express their own enthusiasm through vivid language and expressive style (Kouzes, 1995).

Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner introduce "Leader Characteristics that Constituents Admire." They include, but are not limited to honesty, inspiration, competency, and forward thinking (Kouzes, 1995). In order to appeal to the audience, then, one must project those qualities in their physical, written or oral communication. Leaders are cheerleaders of a sort - energetic, enthusiastic, team players. They mobilize others to join in the cause, sometimes by extrinsic motivation, and sometimes by intrinsic motivation (Kouzes, 1995). We will look at the latter, for, effective verbal communication can incite the positive inner feelings needed to act and instill a sense of pleasure one gets in doing something enjoyable. Leaders, through effective speaking, must draw upon the mental processes of creating images (Kouzes, 1995). In this respect leaders are motivators. 

Positive images leaders instill through their communication, can express competency. Competency comes with credibility. Credibility comes with trust. Trust infers demonstration of benefit to the group. Unable to communicate the benefit and instill trust, leaders can create a two-culture battlefield (polarization). Even simple decisions cannot be made. Members of the focused groups seemed to sit in a meeting with their guard up and their backs arched, in a defiant and unreceptive posture.

Effective communication and the art of persuasion must have content and style. The competency and credibility of a leader is reflected in, not just the content of their message, but their presentation style as well. Their ideas must show relevance and opportunity for the listener. They must make sense, even if they are outside the realm of current thinking. They must be clearly and concisely stated so they do not overburden the listener (Snyder, 1994). (This is why I state that over-triangulating can be a deficit.)

Each leader/speaker has a unique personality, communication, and leadership style. Their life experience provides different sets of analogies and personal stories. The language a speaker uses can provide unity for the listeners. Such is the case at Disney, where the employees are called "performers." The personnel department is called "central casting" (Snyder, 1994). This type of powerful language gives life to visions (Kouzes, 1995). Martin Luther King, Jr. used many visual and aural images in his speeches. His speeches reflected "…a beautiful symphony of brotherhood" and "…a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." These examples provide vision and the ability to picture the future (Kouzes, 1995).

Metaphorical expressions also provide vividness to ideas. Observe, for example, the apparent competition when a speaker says, "we're going to beat their brains out," or "there will be only a few survivors," or "we won't tolerate that behavior." In contrast to this hostile and militant style, a notion of liberation and joy is evident in language that uses words such as freedom, hope, fun, celebrate and share (Kouzes, 1995, p. 135). Mark Twain said, "the difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightening and the lightening bug. “

It has been found that young leaders have charisma (Kouzes, 1995, p. 138). Their expressions and actions are attractive, and not aggressive. They "aren't the young Rambos. They are not the hitters, scratchers, pinchers, biters, and pullers. The natural leaders are those who offer toys to others, lightly touch or caress, clap hands, smile, extend a hand, lean sideways, and the like" (Kouzes, 1995, p. 138). These actions convey sincerity and conviction, promoting trust and compassion. Herein lays the impact of the generation differences in my focused group situation. Young people place great importance on bonding, on perks, on enjoyable atmospheres, and on flexibility. In much of my focused group experience leader’s dictates were not received well by this new, younger group. The leader’s style was effective, however, in some of the focused groups, but not in all. I believe the problem in the unsuccessful groups was the lack of bonding. Some group leaders did not seem to recognize or feel the need to bond. Bonding did not seem to matter to them, results did.

One leader’s style may work for some groups of people and not others. I can't say that their methods are entirely wrong. They just didn't seem to net the result the group members appeared to hope for. As a result, I would have to vote that the meeting, in this instance, cannot be considered a success or that it indicated effective communication. An important part of communicating effectively is confidence. Style and presentation are generally enhanced when the speaker has the confidence to take risks and use powerful language. Confidence is learned by experience. For the leaders of my focused groups to experience this necessary confidence, they needed to experience success. They also needed to learn by graceful losing in order to become resilient.

Leadership Styles

There are several forms of leadership style. One such form of leadership is authoritarian, in which the leader makes all determination of policy, and the leader dictates work tasks. Members of the group react by remaining aloof and withdrawing from group participation. This appears to have been the style of the leaders I evaluated in my focused group study. When I evaluated the details of their style, I found that they closely matched with their apparent perceptions and actions. The environment they created was basically autocratic.

Laissez-faire leadership style offers complete freedom for the group or individual in making the decision, with a minimum of participation of the leader. The leader makes it clear that information will be supplied when asked for, but won't elaborate on it or take part in the ensuing discussion. Whether that represents leadership had to be determined. Nevertheless, my group study produced some respectable results. I found that democratic leadership led to more and better productivity than did laissez-faire leadership, and that autocratic leadership led to more productivity than did democratic leadership over a short period of time, but in the long run, democratic leadership tended toward higher productivity. The quality of work was consistently better in the democratic groups, compared with the autocratic groups.

When the autocratic group leaders were absent, the group tended to fall apart. This did not happen in the democratic groups. Members of the democratic groups were more satisfied than members of both the autocratic and the laissez-faire groups. There was less absenteeism and fewest dropouts in the democracy environment. Autocratic leadership was characterized by the greatest incidence of hostility and aggressiveness among members or by the greatest apathy. Finally, the autocratic groups displayed the least "talking back" to leaders. The inescapable conclusion is that the more group members participate in the making of decisions that affect them, the more they will have greater productivity and greater satisfaction (Patton, 1989, pp. 89-90). This result supports the democratic style of leadership.

Along the shared task and shared vision mode of thinking, delegation is a good way to develop relationships. According to studies, compensation is not the main motivation for commitment to a job. It is the opportunity to learn, hone skills, and take on personally rewarding work (Winston, 1994, pp. 240-241). While it is found to reduce the burden of the leader or manager, delegation also increases productivity. Recognizing the conceptual skills required for various functions, appraising the staff or followers' strengths and weaknesses, and coordinating skills in a complementary manner will prove to heighten morale and commitment to the leader and the mission, message, or cause (Winston, 1994, pp. 246-248).

There is also the concept of "situational leadership." Sometimes, a circumstance calls for an authoritarian. Winston Churchill was dogmatic, impatient, and opinionated, but in the crisis of a war, England needed his authoritarian leadership to inspire the people in a single-minded mission (Patton, 1989, p. 91). Situational leadership promotes the idea that different kinds of leaders may be effective if the conditions and circumstances favor their unique talents.

Not all leadership style is successful. It is necessary to differentiate the power of leadership, inherent in trust, confidence, passion, innovation, delegation, manipulation and so forth, from the result of the leadership; the emergence of leadership. A high degree of trust and confidence in people is the key to emerging leaders. By trusting their colleagues and subordinates, leaders tend to be more open, permissive in goal setting and non-controlling in style and policy (Patton, 1989, p. 91). People with a great deal of self-acceptance and confidence trust others more readily and trust assumptions about their motives and behavior. People who are self-adequate tend to assume others will be adequate, responsible, and loyal (Patton, 1989, p. 91).

Traditional leadership entails a leader directing and controlling. The individual or the group acknowledges the leader's authority and responsibility. The leader focuses on the task at hand, controlling diversions and limiting interruptions, setting strict limits or guidelines to stick to the agenda. The traditional leader suppresses the emotion of others, and takes responsibility for controlling others' disruptive behavior. The needs of the individual or group are less important than the needs of the goal (Patton, 1989, p. 98).

Conversely, group-centered leadership fosters group participation with the leader contributing to its effectiveness. The leader acts as servant and helper of the group and will intervene when needed to keep the goal on track. Emotions are legitimate and the leader believes that problems and conflicts must be tended to and resolved by the entire group. The leader provides structure, helps to stimulate discussion, clarifies communication, and summarizes and tests the constituents for consensus. Leadership is a very important consideration in the success or failure of a group or simply a goal.

The art of persuasion and manipulation is woven with content and style, and is crucial for breaking through traditional thought and supporting innovative and creative thinking. The use of powerful language, metaphors, and personal stories, mixed with confidence and style, is a leading factor in building the requisite trust in attracting constituents. Content and credibility, in and of themselves, are not enough.

Evolving leaders need to have different leadership styles available as tools of the trade. They need to experience the reaction to those styles and gain experience. Leadership comes with a lot of power, but also a lot of responsibility. It is challenging, but also rewarding.

The following is a table of the classic leadership styles I have discussed in this paper. It represents a compilation of Kreitner's (1992) work addressed under SOR Analysis.

(SOR Analysis)

My Own Leadership Style and Theory

While attempting to determine my own leadership style, I have explored the various style possibilities. I feel the style that matches my own leadership style best is the democratic leadership style with a bit of authoritarian leadership style in the mix. I don’t like to have complete control, but I don’t feel comfortable delegating it away either. I seek the participation and feedback of others in the process, and I definitely put a lot of time into the effort. My SOR Analysis follows:

Strengths: Stresses orderly performance, seeks participation, and permits and encourages independent effort.

Opportunities: Advantage having voluntary participant selection (able to choose participants of seemingly quality characteristics).

Roadblocks: Time spent in leadership process with individuals can diminish resources available to others.

One model that best describes how I view my leadership style is one that contrasts two types of extreme leadership styles. The model represents these extremes in terms of a scale of 0 to 10 along a continuum. The two extremes are described as the reactive leader and the creative leader. I view myself as being more like the creative leader. On the scale of 0 to 10, I feel my style would value a rating of 7.

According to the extreme leader model, reactive leaders tend to have a compelling desire to find and fix problems. The more problems they fix, the more they find to fix. Creative leaders, on the other hand, tend to balance their focus on the soft and hard issues, knowing the actual cause of problems if often a soft issue. They quickly move from problem orientation to a solutions orientation. They know the