Connell Fanning
We are seeking a solution to the ‘leadership problem’ in business organisations.
There are two aspects to the ‘leadership problem’, as it can be observed. One is the confused state of thinking as conveyed by the plethora of definitions for the key concept of ‘leadership’ coupled with the lack of objective criteria for choosing among them. The second is that the conceptual definitions are mostly asserted rather than established by reasoned arguments, that is, if a definition is stated explicitly at all, which is often not the case. This dominant mode of assertion, we suggest, is also a factor contributing significantly to the continuing conceptual muddle about ‘leadership’. The challenge we took on in The Leadership Mind is to find a way forward to resolve this situation by avoiding the traps of how the current state of thinking has come about.
The ‘leadership’ problem
Even a cursory survey of the literature about ‘leadership’ in business organisations turns up multiple definitions of a central concept for a theory of leadership and without any criterion for choosing between them.[i] Thus, in effect, the selection of the concept to work with by organisations would seem to be just a matter of going with whatever one feels like. However, rather than asserting even this as the situation, we show it with two recent, representative examples of the mode of assertion at work and with one also conveying what is going on in the muddle about definitions.
The first, simple example is from Brené Brown’s Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts[ii], which has been on The New York Times Business Bestseller List for some years. Without any preliminary argument, Brown simply states:
“I define a leader as anyone who takes responsibility for finding the potential in people and processes, and who has the courage to develop that potential…we desperately need more leaders who are committed to courageous, wholehearted leadership and who are self-aware enough to lead from their hearts, rather than unevolved leaders who lead from hurt and fear.”[iii]
The second example is a more comprehensive illustration about the state of the field of thinking about ‘leadership’. David Gergen is a White House adviser to four presidents and founder of the Harvard Center for Public Leadership. His recently published book, Hearts Touched With Fire: How Great Leaders Are Made[iv] is a convenient example that conveys various aspects of the current situation and how it unfolds in terms of the plethora of concepts, with the choice made solely on the basis of personal feeling, and in the assertive mode of working.
Gergen first notes that:
“Altogether, students of leadership have found over two hundred definitions of leadership”.[v]
He then goes on, without paying any attention to the extraordinary implications of what he has just said, to give some examples of ‘leadership’:
“Many of [the definitions] are similar. A number touch on the ability to inspire others. Ronald Reagan…thought a great leader is ‘one that gets the people to do the greatest things’. A slightly different school of thought emphasizes the selfless nature of leaders. Lao-tzu famously said, ‘A leader is best when people barely know he exists; when work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: We did it ourselves’. Likewise, Nelson Mandela thought it better to empower others, leading from behind and allowing them to celebrate the fruits of their labour. Others home in upon personal traits, common among them courage, vision, and integrity. Today there is a school of thought emerging around the idea of leaderlessness – a concept that emphasizes collective action and shared roles rather than a single individual guiding the masses.” [vi]
Gergen continues by plumping for his preferred definition and asserting it on the basis of an appeal to the authority of Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Garry Wills:
“The definition that I find most compelling, however, and use in classrooms comes from the Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian Garry Wills. In a book written a quarter of a century ago, Certain Trumpets: The Nature of Leadership[vii], he presented biographical sketches of individual leaders, weighing how followers shape their leaders. Sorting out distinctions, Wills offered this definition of a leader: “one who mobilizes others toward a goal shared by leader and followers.” [viii]
He adds a little elaboration which, however, leaves unaffected the assertive mode of working:
“Traditionally, scholars have agreed that there are three main elements to leadership: the leader, followers, and context. Each matters. We spend most of our time focusing on leaders and overlooking followers. But as Garry Wills recognizes, the qualities of followers heavily influence the success of leaders”.[ix]
We can observe in this representative example a common approach to ‘the question, what is ‘leadership?
First, and most remarkable, is an author recognising that there are many definitions of the central concept but not adverting to it, apparently oblivious to the implications of that fact for the field of thinking about ‘leadership’.
Second, an author merely asserting a personally preferred definition without providing any grounds for the choice, other than that personal taste, which of course, in this instance, may be influenced by the authority of another being depended upon.
Third, in addition to the definition of ‘leadership’ just being asserted on the basis of personal preference, an author, operating in this mode of thinking, leaves questions hanging in a circularity of reasoning, in this case about the pre-selection of ‘leaders’ and how the ‘followers’ seem to be there already, as well as the goal already being shared by the ‘leader’ and ‘followers’.
In neither of these examples is an underlying argument presented to support the definition of ‘leadership’, although making a case is necessary for the validity of any theory of leadership and for it to be useful for practitioners.
The Leadership Mind
When embarking on what became The Leadership Mind, we were conscious of the need to think differently than the standard practices in the field so as not to end up with the same kind of results and problems.
The first decision, and probably the most consequential for us, was to approach our task in the company of others, that is, by inviting readers to join us in thinking through an answer to the fundamental question, what is leadership? This approach shaped our style of thinking throughout the book. It meant writing in a mode of discovery rather than a mode of exposition or assertion as is common in the field.
The immediate implication of this was that there had to be a shared starting point, specifically agreement that there is a serious problem requiring attention in the field of thinking about ‘leadership’ in business organisations because of the sheer number of definitions facing practitioners and the lack of criteria for selecting any particular one as one’s tool for thinking with in practice. With this, hopefully, established on foot of surveys of the field, we turned to exploring how such a situation is perpetuated and offered a working hypothesis which further helped to clear thinking for a new approach.
Our next step was to identify how the current state of the field could continue by proposing that there is a category error being made when ‘leadership’ is treated as being of the same nature as ‘management’, despite frequent assertions by writers to the contrary. As a matter of logic, ‘Leadership’ as a phenomenon of human affairs has to be approached differently from ‘Management’ as an organisational function. This recognition directed us away from the usual approach in the field to an alternative and, we believe, richer theoretical approach.
This required a new way of thinking about ‘leadership’. To avoid falling into the trap that would result in the old results, we formulated a conceptual framework to guide our observation and analysis of the ‘leadership episodes’. The latter were selected for attention by consulting commentators, historians, and other analysts in the field.
Through this approach we reached a definition of ‘leadership’ grounded in an explicit argument and sufficiently different and more fundamental from the conventional ones that we hoped would refresh the conversation about ‘leadership’ in business, even if we had not presumed to have reached the last word.
With a foundational and encompassing conception of ‘leadership’ in hand we could proceed to identify and examine two further fundamental questions prompted by it, namely, what order of mental capability is required for the potential for ‘leadership’ and how can that capability be developed?
As well as providing a viable and sustainable concept to think with, the conception proposed is fruitful in surfacing entailments, implications and ramifications to further thinking about ‘leadership’ in business organisations, such as being a gender-free conception and the likely need for personal development. Specifically, the concept proposed also allows the placing of the conventional ideas about ‘leadership’ into the realm of ‘Management’ and identifies the important role of the latter in relation to the practice of ‘leadership’.
Conclusion
The Leadership Mind, we respectfully suggest, successfully addressed the two aspects to the current ‘leadership problem’ noted at the outset. We moved beyond the confused state of thinking, as reflected in the plethora of definitions for the central concept of ‘leadership’ and the lack of criteria for choosing among them, by providing a foundational, encompassing and workable tool of thought. The mode of assertion was avoided by transparently following a reasoned line of arguments in which readers could make their own judgments. The multiple definitions in play at present are brought under the wing of this conception and locating the role they have in relation to ‘leadership’.
[i] Connell Fanning and Assumpta O’Kane. The Leadership Mind. The Keynes Center, UCC, Cork, 2022, Chapter 2.
[ii] Brené Brown, Dare to Lead: Brave Work. Tough Conversations. Whole Hearts. Random House, New York, 2018.
[iii] Brown, 2018, page 4.
[iv] David Gergen. Hearts Touched With Fire: How Great Leaders Are Made. Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, New York, 2023.
[v] Gergen, 2023, page 22. It would seem Gergen is referring to the Rost study that is a topic of Chapter 2 in The Leadership Mind.
[vi] Gergen, 2023, page 22.
[vii] It does not add anything much to turning to Wills’ approach of defining ‘leadership’ through a series of profiles of historically prominent people. Wills opens by setting up “two unacceptable alternatives – the leader who dictates to others and the one who truckles to them”. Pointing out that “[m]ost of the how-to-manuals on leadership assume one or the other of these models – o, inconsistently, both, Rejecting both of these options, Garry Wills, Certain Trumpets: The Nature of Leadership, Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 1994. Note: The title page is subtitled differently than the cover as The Call of Leaders.
[viii] Gergen, 2023, page 23.
[ix] Gergen, 2023, page 23.
