Leadership Is a Complex Subject

Leadership is a complex subject to study, in part because there are so many definitions of leadership. As a result of these multiple competing definitions, studying leadership is itself a complex endeavor, and one that will often be driven by one's views on what leadership is. Some of the approaches to the study of leadership are the trait approach, the behavior approach, the power-influence approach, the situational approach and the integrative approach. I personally feel that the integrative approach is the best one. I feel this because I recognize that the world is inherently complex and with a high degree of uncertainty. Leaders in particular must be able to manage in conditions of uncertainty and high complexity, and therefore should not be limited by the constraints that the other leadership approaches place on our understanding of how leaders achieve success. I feel that the integrative approach is more comprehensive, and allows for the flexibility that leaders need in order to achieve their objectives.

If there is a downside to the integrative approach, it is that there are times when it may overcomplicate a situation -- leaders cannot afford to be bogged down by detail. However, I feel that a good leader recognizes that complexity and uncertainty can and should be managed, so that even when multiple approaches are being utilized that the leader does not become bogged down or lose focus on the task at hand. It is also possible that the study of leadership is inherently geared towards single-variable theories. This is more a reflection of the nature of academia than of leadership itself. No academic wants to approach a study with an unwieldy number of variables, especially when those variables interact with each other. This might be true, but the issues that have constrained academic study of an integrative approach to leadership are not issues with the integrative approach in the real world. I am more interested in the integrative approach precisely because it reflects real world conditions of complexity and uncertainty more thoroughly than an approach that comes with artificial constraints built into it that inherently encourage rigidity in thinking.

The integrative approach is almost always used in real world leadership. No leader succeeds solely on the basis of traits, solely on behaviors or solely be adapting to situations. Leaders use all of the tools at their disposal. Consider Apple under Steve Jobs. Jobs had some fantastic traits as a leader, particularly with respect to his vision for the company, its products and how society would use those products. But Apple never succeeded solely on vision. Jobs' behaviors served to reinforce his vision and the corporate culture. His formal and informal power was constantly leverage to make the company better. He used power in dealing with suppliers, partners, and consumers as well, all of which has contributed to Apple's success. The only approach not used at Apple under Jobs was situational leadership, because the company never really changed its leadership style to fit the circumstance. But like any good leader, Jobs used a number of different tactics to drive that company forward. Any theory of leadership that focuses solely on one set of characteristics at the expense of others is failing to understand the total package that was Jobs' leadership. When you look at other companies it is the same thing. Fred Smith runs FedEx by balancing his own power with the power of other top executives at the company -- he gives them room to stretch their wings. Apple would never do that -- but Smith is a Marine and thus values a balance between letting great people do their thing, and building a tight-knit team that functions well together. So his behaviors and traits both work along with a nuanced understanding of different uncertainty conditions. It is a completely different leadership style than Jobs, but both were hugely successful. Only an integrative approach to studying leadership can truly allow the student to comprehend the subtlety, complexity and nuance that comprises modern leadership.