They say a picture is worth a thousand words. If that is so, then the image above exemplifies a thousand-word divide between the conventional concept of a leader and a true concept of a leader. It also illustrates the difference between the mantras, “Do as I say but not as I do,” and “Lead by example.” Much of this disparity is due to the lack of understanding of what leadership is and what it is not.
Kevin Kruse preferred to discuss what leadership is not before settling on what it is. Kruse writes that leadership is not seniority, it’s not related to a company’s hierarchy, it’s not bestowed upon somebody in the form of inherent traits and leadership is definitely not management (2013). What we see in the example of a “boss” above, may very well be seniority, company hierarchy, authoritative traits and the management of other individuals but it is not leadership.
Kruse goes on to give his own definition of leadership:
Leadership is a process of social influence, which maximizes the efforts of others, towards the achievement of a goal (2013).
The boss is focused on delegating the tasks that are required to drive the mission forward while the leader is working with the team using social influence to achieve a common goal. Social influence is a major component of the definition since it supplies the “how.” In the case of the boss, workers motivation may be provided by coercive power or purely positional power. The leader, on the other hand is fueling the motivation of the team through the use of social influence – by being an inspiration or saying inspirational things that cause the team to be focused on the mission.
We don’t know anything about the positional power of the leader in the image above. For all we know he could be the “boss” or he could simply be a team member. This confirms the idea that a leader is not defined by position or determined by seniority. A leader certainly could be in a position of seniority but the position alone is not what makes a leader. What makes a leader is defined by what their team accomplishes. A leader is defined by whether or not their team consists of followers and how their team was motivated to move toward a goal.
In short, leaders emerge at all levels of an organization independent of their positional power, their title or their traits. There are leaders at the top of an organization’s hierarchy and at every level of each department. What makes them leaders is their understanding of the overall mission, or at the very least, their part of the mission and the will to inspire others to strive for it and want it as badly as they do.
References
Kruse, K. (2013, April 9). What is Leadership? Retrieved September 7, 2014, from Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2013/04/09/what-is-leadership/
Ted Charles Craig says
I like the saying, “You lead people, and you manage thing.” I like how you broke down the differences of a boss and a leader. However many times in the real world, those in a supervisory role are charged with being both. By your perspective, I am a boss at times, I am also a leader at times. At the same time, I am always the boss to my subordinates, and I am always displaying some form of leadership. Therefore, I don’t think you can simply split the roles as you have.
Role conflict typically prevents the “boss” from working hand and hand with the workforce, or towing the cart in your picture. Many times, the boss must keep and eye on the big picture. If he or she was down pulling the cart, then they may be off course or heading for a collision.
I have worked for great leaders that are poor managers (bosses), and poor leaders that do a good job of running things. Finding the mix or both and mastering each is the key to being a great leader.
Jay says
Would you say that your approach to leadership is “anti-trait”? Based on your writing, and the quotes from the Kruse article, it seems that you take a fairly strong stance in favor of a more psychodynamic approach to leadership. I agree with this perspective when weighing the trait approach against the psychodynamic approach. I also wrote about this in my piece involving personality assessments in my workplace. I find that there are some major shortcomings to the trait approach, such as how it does not take into account the situation where the leadership is being applied, and also perceives a person’s leadership ability as innate and fixed. According to Northouse (2013), the trait approach is also “not […] grounded in strong, reliable research”, another major shortcoming. From this perspective, it seems like you are presenting a psychodynamic approach to be more advantageous to effective leadership, because it takes into account how people can change to become effective leaders, and how understanding the interaction between leader and follower is key to effective leadership. I would agree that the “boss” in your image is displaying a more trait-based approach, in which he displays little to no direct interaction with his followers, and exercises his position power over his subordinates. His followers appear to be quite displeased and demotivated by the application of this approach to his leadership. This was a great article to choose in support of these claims, and the image is powerful in showing how minor changes in perspective and approach can lead to very different leadership outcomes.
jmf5251 says
Excellent post! I have had firsthand experiences with both the ‘boss’ and with the leader who needs no title. Leadership is truly not bound by any position or authority. It makes its own way, regardless as to the circumstances.
I wish I had come across your graphic a few years back. I really could have used that in a few situations!