The nature of leadership

¶ … Nature of Leadership written and edited by Antonakis, Ciamciolo and Sternberg is a compilation work containing a group of essays that explore the breadth and depth of leadership research and development and effectively introduces the reader/student to concepts and language specific to the leadership field of study. In the work the authors have carefully chosen leadership studies and essays that follow through a series of themes in leadership; assessment and measurement theories and techniques, the major schools of leadership research, leadership development to success and lastly current issues in leadership, national culture, gender and ethics.

The work opens with an introduction essay by the authors that is very informative and inclusive and each subsequent section contains a group of essays on a theme closing with essential new essays on emerging issues in leadership like gender, ethics and culture, all of which have significant implications for leadership studies and application. The essays chosen for each section are both informative and interesting. Reading through the essays gives kind of a broad timeline regarding modern issues in leadership as well as the historical standards of the leadership field. Each section is also supported by a historical summary in the introduction essay, written by the authors of the work and a brief introduction at the beginning of each section. The background knowledge offered by the authors regarding trends and standards in the leadership field help to create a much better sense of the field and its various histories and focuses. To some degree the work shows the nature of leadership as it follows concurrently with the broader sciences focusing more generally on basic human motivation and understanding, such as psychology, sociology and business motivation, which is helpful in context to understand why the authors would stress the conflicting and confusing nature of the elusive field of study. The authors contend that the history of leadership research is marked with confusion, where researchers commonly faced false starts and unsupported theories. Though opening the work with such a pessimistic stand on the subject the authors do counter it with an emphasis on the fact that current leadership has gained a great deal from early difficulties and is in a state of greater understanding and hope with regard to how to measure and develop leaders in today's context.(2004, 4)

The work answers several general questions about leadership that are essential to a greater understanding of the field including if it is really measurable, something that has been debated over the years, and includes a series of ways to seek a better measure of leadership. Measurability of leadership is clearly one of the issues that has plagued the body of study since its inception. To some degree it is made clear in the work that there was a line of reasoning that stated that the reason and/or context of leadership, or why one individual rose to it while others followed carried a sense of mystery that could not always be discovered by a researcher. This falsehood has essentially been dismissed as the body of research has grown to illuminate trait, behavior and context of enough people and situations that show commonalities of development. (12)

This reader found the concept of leadership trait measurability to be a very interesting line of reasoning but was much more driven to read the essay by Roya Ayman Situational and Contingency Approaches to Leadership, focusing on context of leadership and decision making as a necessary aspect of the equation. (148-170) My feelings on this essay and in the general approach to leadership in the past, as I understood it was that leadership was assumed to be something that could be taken out of context and then replaced into a varied context and still be effective. Ayman's essay makes clear that to truly understand leadership and the decisions made in its place you must understand that there are influences and decisions that need to be specific to the situation. In other words it has commonly been held that a leader is a leader, and that he (or she but usually he) can lead no matter the context. This is a rather broad manner in which to look at leadership, and it also follows the line that most leaders are born rather than made, which is a falsehood that the authors of this work wish to address, as they stress that leadership is most often a developed set of characteristics and skills that can be learned. This concept that the traits of a leader are innate and/or that his (or her) behavior in any given context will prove his or her leadership ability through a set of behaviors that are logical to the leader, is a theory that bars new leaders, unless like Carlyle believed, such traits are the mark of newly born "great men." (149) in my opinion if this line of reasoning is to be adhered to and believed that would mean that leaders are a fixed set of individuals that are just waiting to be identified in each generation, and that no others will be born or made. This plays on classical elitist ideas that stress innate ability over skill learning or even luck, which most people at the age of students of higher education recognize to be a significant aspect of success in leadership or otherwise. If leaders are born and not made the scope of leadership becomes limited and constrictive, Ayman points out the transition in historical leadership thought that brought it to the realization that though "great men" are born they are also made, by context, opportunity and skill building through watching, learning and doing. The rise of the idea that leadership characteristics and traits are developed as are many other skills gives future leaders a great deal more hope that even if they carry the trait of humility, which should counter ego, that they are capable of leading in the right context and with the right knowledge base.

Another aspect of leadership study that has of course been lagging is the acceptance of the idea that gender can be a significant aspect of how a leader is made, makes decisions and interacts with his or her subordinates and environment and that response by that environment can also be different given the gender of the leader. (152) [HIDDEN] for me this brought to mind undergraduate studies in gender communication, which seems to be one of the only areas of study (communication in general) that has long accepted the idea that men and women think and communicate differently and therefore develop different forms of leadership. I personally think that this distinction is important for leaders and those who will be their subordinates, not because it should sway ideas about stereotyped role expectations but because there is a real difference that should be acknowledged and worked with and most importantly that egalitarian ideals should be a the forefront of issues in business and/or public administration, policy and decision making.