Leadership Thought

Perspectives on leadership can be traced to the ancient writings of Chinese general Sun Tzu in The Art of War and the treatises of Greek philosopher Aristotle. However, it was not until the second quarter of the 20th century that leadership gained traction as a field of study. Management thought appeared much sooner, growing out of the need to formalize and teach the newer methods of production created during the Industrial Revolution (Wren, 1987). For decades, management was the central focus of business education in the western world and managerial performance the exclusive point of validation for theories and concepts of organizational behavior. As understanding grew about the complex nature of work, so did awareness of the value of attending to how people were led as well as to how they were managed.

There is no one generally accepted theory of leadership. As the context of leadership has shifted, so have expectations and conceptualizations of what it is. Leadership has been defined as an inborn trait found in certain people, as the characteristics shared by those who lead, as a social process driven by the interaction between leader and follower, by what leaders do, and by the situational and environmental conditions under which work is accomplished. Transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, leaders as stewards, self-leadership, and distributed leadership are among frequently cited forms of leadership currently gaining attention.

Much of the literature on leadership is devoted to comparisons between leadership and management. In an effort to differentiate between management and leadership, Burns (1978) compared ordinary (transactional) leaders, who exchange tangible rewards for the work and loyalty of followers, and extraordinary (transforming) leaders, who engage with followers, focus on higher order intrinsic needs, and raise consciousness about the significance of work. According to Kotter (1990), both management and leadership are important in large organizations with a dynamic environment; that as an organization becomes larger and more complex, the need for management increases and as the external environment becomes more dynamic and uncertain, leadership becomes more important.

Heifetz and Laurie (1997) believe the most important quality in leadership today is competence in “adaptive change,” which they define as the sort of change where organizations are forced to adjust to a radically altered environment: “Adaptive work is required when our deeply held beliefs are challenged, when the values that made us successful become less relevant, and when legitimate yet competing perspectives emerge. We see adaptive challenges every day at every level of the workplace—when companies restructure or reengineer, develop or implement strategy, or merge businesses. We see adaptive challenges when marketing has difficulty working with operations, when cross-functional teams don’t work well, or when senior executives complain, ‘We don’t seem to be able to execute effectively.’ Adaptive problems are often systemic problems with no ready answers.” (p. 124)

Experiential Learning Theory

There is a long history of experiential learning methods in leadership education dating back to the popularity of Kurt Lewin’s laboratory training group (T-group) methods for teaching group dynamics in the 1960s. Although the classic T-group technology has diminished in use, training programs and courses based on experiential learning are widespread and commonplace. Kolb (1984) draws on the work of Lewin and other prominent 20th century scholars, such as John Dewey, Jean Piaget, William James, Carl Jung, Paulo Freire, Carl Rogers, to develop ELT, a theory that defines learning as the major process of human adaptation involving the integrated functioning of the total person—feeling, perceiving, thinking, and doing. The holistic nature of ELT makes it applicable beyond the classroom. Research in ELT is highly interdisciplinary, addressing learning and education issues in many fields (Kolb & Kolb, 2006). Studies using ELT have examined many aspects of diversity (e.g., Rainey & Kolb, 1995) and have been conducted around the world supporting the cross-cultural applicability of the model. Basic concepts of ELT, the learning cycle, learning styles, learning space, learning skills, are used in this article.

The Experiential Learning Cycle

In ELT, learning proceeds as a recursive cycle or spiral and results from the integration of four learning modes: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (see Figure 16.1). Learners must be able to fully and openly engage in new concrete experiences; reflect on, observe, and consider these experiences from various perspectives; create concepts that assimilate these experiences into sound theories; and, appropriately apply these theories to their life situations. Learning results from the dynamic tension created by the interplay among the four learning modes which are dialectically positioned along two primary dimensions of knowledge. Grasping, knowing by taking in experience, includes concrete experience and abstract conceptualization. Transforming, knowing through modification of data, includes reflective observation and active experimentation.

Organizational Learning

At the organizational level, learning is a process of differentiation and integration focused on mastery of the organizational environment (Kolb & Kolb, 2009). The organization differentiates itself into specialized units charged with dealing with one aspect of the organizational environment. For example, marketing deals with the market and customers, research and development with the academic and technological community, manufacturing with the production of consumer goods and products. This creates a corresponding internal need to integrate and coordinate the specialized units. Too often this integration is achieved through domination of one functional mentality in the organization culture. Leadership is one of the numerous ways organizations achieve integration. The role of leadership is to resolve internal conflicts between specialized units and achieve a coherent direction for the organization. It is with integration that leaders can get the broadest range of knowledge and support to respond to adaptive challenges.

Relationship, Strategy, Vision, Performance Fundamentals of Leadership

An age-old question in the annals of leadership is whether there is one leadership style. The response of ELT is leadership is an adaptive process anchored in learning that is suitable for a range of experience and positions the most skilled with the situation at hand. In actuality, this means that any style will be a leading style in the right context.

The RSVP Model identifies the primary components of integrated leadership practice. Similar in structure to the experiential learning cycle, the model consists of four leadership activities positioned along two dimensions. Relationship mastery and strategy mastery make up the north/south dialectic dimension and correspond to concrete experience and abstract conceptualization. Vision mastery and performance mastery make up the east/west dialectic dimension and correspond to reflective observation and active experimentation. Effective leadership requires the ability to touch all four bases and the flexibility of learning to lead individuals, groups, and teams around the learning/leadership cycle. (See Figure 16.2.)

Relationship Mastery

Note: The term “mastery” is used to suggest a higher level of competence. Senge (1990) identifies five disciplines of the learning organization: personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking. Personal mastery is the discipline of continually and deepening personal vision, of focusing energy, of developing patience and seeing reality objectively.

Leadership is a role. Leadership is also an enactment. Those who lead do so in relation to others. This social constructionist perspective means that leadership must forge and sustain healthy relationships with its constituent community. Relationship building is directly tied to the leader’s ability to communicate, build trust, and inspire others to commit to the vision, strategy, and goal achievement. With an emphasis on rationalism, early management thought did not assign a place for the human side of enterprise. Wider receptivity of subjective experience in the workplace came with the publication of the Harvard Business Review article, “Emotional Intelligence,” by Daniel Goleman (1995). The author positioned emotional intelligence (EI) at the core of effective leadership and identified four overarching components: self-awareness, self-management, awareness of others and relationship management. According to Goleman, EI makes a measurable difference in leader and follower bottom-line performance. His findings have been confirmed in other independent research in the United States, Europe, and Asia. (See Exhibit 16.1, Relationship Box.)

In the current era of social networks, it is clear that good relationships are influenced by systems and processes and things as well. In the new millennium, technology has become a critical player in relationship building. Leaders can use technology to build faster and more informed responses to adaptive challenges. Immediate connections can be made, including those beyond typical sources (employees, experts, competitors, suppliers), to gather data, seek opinions, and engage in conversations with people in remote parts of the world.

Strategy Mastery

Strategy is the means organizations use to bring order and direction to the way forward through the establishment of clear goals. (See Exhibit 16.2.) Standards of operation are set against which everyone, including leadership, can be held accountable. Because strategy plays such an important role in shaping organizational mindset, the strategic process must be undertaken by leadership. This is not to suggest that leadership should go it alone. Organizations are wise to open their strategy process to a cross section of the workplace but leadership must be situated at the forefront of the strategy process. In the role of strategist, leadership becomes the communicator of clear intent, which Cynthia Montgomery (2012) refers to as meaning maker: “It is the leader—the strategist as meaning maker—who must make the vital choices that determine a company’s very identity, who says, “This is our purpose, not that. This is who we will be. This is why our customers and clients will prefer a world with us rather than without us.” Others, inside and outside a company, will contribute in meaningful ways, but in the end it is the leader who bears responsibility for the choices that are made and indeed for the fact that choices are made at all” (p. 2).

Depending on the magnitude of an adaptive crisis, leaders may need to outline a supplemental strategy that is tailored to the situation at hand. Even under special circumstances, strategy must continue to rest on clear purpose and operational practicality. Thus, strategy at the level of leader becomes the compass providing direction rather than a codified pronouncement of detailed routes.

Vision Mastery

Regardless of where in the organization it exists, leadership dangles on a precipice at the border of the internal and external environment. In the role of visionary, leadership becomes a systems thinker, seeing the bigger picture and component parts both internal and external in relation to each other. Barton and colleagues (2012) report that many leaders feel the need to view “the world through two lenses: a telescope, to consider opportunities far into the future, and a microscope, to scrutinize challenges of the moment at intense magnification” (p. 10). Similarly, crafting a vision requires bifocal competence of far-sightedness and near-sightedness. Visioning is an inductive process involving reflection and contemplation in order to gain sight.

Kotter (1990) notes that most discussions of vision have a tendency to degenerate into the mystical and suggestions that vision is beyond human grasp. On the contrary, says the author, creating a vision is not magic but the tough, sometimes exhausting work of broad-based thinkers who are willing to take risks. One of the most challenging aspects of vision creation is balancing the personal dream of the leader with the aspirations of members of the organization. (See Exhibit 16.3.) As leaders seek to stay personally connected to their visions, they must be tuned to the need to cultivate followership. It is the constant tug of “I want and we need.” An equally pressing issue is assimilating various inputs into a compelling picture of the future. Vision is a finely woven tapestry of organizational purpose over the longer term that has the strength of fiber to hold together in the wake of unforeseen crises.

Performance Mastery

Like conceptions of leadership, determinants of performance differ from one school of thought to another. Most researchers evaluate leadership effectiveness in terms of the consequences of influence on a single individual, a group or team, or an organization. One common indicator of leader effectiveness is the extent to which the performance of the team or organizational unit is enhanced and the attainment of strategic goals is facilitated. Performance is the ability to deliver on the promise, whether through empowering and enabling others, enhancing quality of life, producing intended results, establishing competitive advantage or value creation. In the role of performer, leadership seeks to make a difference by producing positive results. Regardless of the objective, good performance leaves people and things feeling transformed either qualitatively or quantitatively and sometimes in joyful combination.

Performance requires leaders to take personal risks while influencing others to accompany them into unchartered waters. Adaptive work is fraught with uncertainly. Leaders will find that even at the highest levels, one of the toughest jobs is aligning stakeholder support for change (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). Alignment is a methodical process of building stakeholder motivation and determination to work though fear and obstacles to land on the positive side of change. (See Exhibit 16.4.)

Warren Buffet is in a class by himself when it comes to return on investment. When the self-made billionaire investment guru speaks, everyone listens. But what makes Buffet special is his philanthropic efforts. In 2006, Buffett gave his entire fortune, estimated at $62 billion, to charity, the largest act of charitable giving in U.S. history. And it did not stop there for Buffet. The octogenarian is quite adept at forging relationships across generational lines, whether through his cartoon investment lessons for children or his collaboration with members of the hip-hop community. Buffet touches all the bases and best represents the consummate adaptive leader.

Strategies for Leadership Development: The Road to Mastery

According to Heifetz, Linsky, and Grashow (2009), people cannot make the adaptive leap necessary to thrive in a new environment without learning new attitudes, values, and behaviors. In their understanding, mastering change depends on the extent to which people have internalized the change itself. Leonard (1992) discovered that the road to mastery is through learning certain skills, whatever those skills might be. He discovered that mastery is not reserved for the super-talented or those born with exceptional talents; instead, mastery begins when an individual decides to learn. Central to a learning perspective on leadership is the ability to deliberately learn from experience (Kolb & Yeganeh, in press). As Ashford and DeRue put it: “To illustrate, consider the fact that leadership development programs customarily teach leadership concepts and skills, but rarely do development programs teach individuals how to learn leadership—which is ironic considering that over 70 percent of leadership development occurs as people go through the ups and downs of challenging, developmental experiences on the job. We contend that the return on investment in leadership development would be much greater if organizations invested in developing individuals’ skills related to the learning of leadership from lived experiences, as opposed to simply teaching leadership concepts, frameworks, and skills” (2012, p. 147).

The basic concepts of ELT, learning cycle, learning styles, learning space, learning skills, are a platform for RSVP coaching, executive team development and leadership development, training and education. One example comes from teaching adaptive leadership to family medicine residents: “Effective experiential learning requires flexible use of all four styles. As a result teaching leadership requires understanding a learner’s style preference and creating individualized experiences to foster flexibility. An example of this is a resident who struggled to produce a rich enough practicum proposal. Completion of Kolb’s style preference tool showed a very strong preference for concrete experience and explained why the coach’s abstract questions about organization dynamics had not stimulated reflective observation or active experimentation. This led to changes in coaching style and learner focus to incorporate increased experimentation while still encouraging the use of alternate styles” (Eubank, Geffken, Orzano, & Ricci, 2012, pp. 247–248).

The Learning Skills Profile (LSP)

Learning styles are translated into learning skills with the Learning Skills Profile (Boyatzis & Kolb, 1991, 1995, 1997). The LSP is a practical tool that can be used for leadership development. Figure 16.3 illustrates the four skill areas of the LSP with the four fundamental areas of the RSVP model.

The LSP is well suited for 360-degree assessments for management and leadership development programs (Kolb, Lublin, Spoth, & Baker, 1986); Rainey, 1991; Rainey, Hekelman, Galazka, & Kolb, 1993; Smith, 1990). It highlights which functions of the RSVP Model leaders are likely to deploy more than others. The basic protocol involves:

• Skill Level Assessment. Determine using a 7-point scale the proficiency level of the leader for each skill.
• Job Demand Assessment. Determine using a 7-point scale the extent to which each skill is a demand of the job in question.
• Gap Analysis and Developmental Planning. Construct a leadership development plan based on the gap between skill level and job demand.

Development programs should begin with the administration of the Learning Style Inventory to (a) teach leaders how to learn from experience, (b) appreciate the value of experiential learning in effectively managing today’s adaptive challenges, and (c) identify learning preferences and individual learning styles. The next step is to conduct a 360-degree assessment using the LSP.