![\"\"](\"http:\/\/media.tumblr.com\/644e944a647767cec12aa126010b2f97\/tumblr_inline_mvx8tv5hFj1s88eo4.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
One factor that leadership theory, contemporary social theory, and theology all have in common is that writers in these particular fields do not always agree.\u00a0 Also, these fields do not contain all the answers to all the big questions.\u00a0 This is refreshing for me.<\/p>\n
Mark Zupan says in his article \u201cAn Economic Perspective on Leadership\u201d located in the Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice<\/em> (2010)[1]<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u2026scholars have been hard pressed to develop a model for leadership.\u00a0 This is not for a lack of trying.\u00a0 Each year, scores of books are written on the topic (more than on any other), cataloging traits and operating styles that effective leaders possess and\/or providing emblematic case studies and anecdotes.\u00a0 According to Bob Eckert, chairman and CEO of Mattel, Inc., a search on Amazon.com reveals nearly 200,000 books dealing with leadership (Eckert, 2008[2]<\/a>).<\/p>\n Imagine 200,000 Amazon matches; Google has 284,000,000 hits for the search word \u201cleadership\u201d (there will probably be more than that tomorrow).\u00a0 Just what a leader is and does is debatable.\u00a0 What are the main characteristics of good leaders?\u00a0 What does a good leader do with his or her time?\u00a0 What are the factors that create the best leaders?\u00a0 These topics are discussed and debated by many leadership scholars in the Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice,<\/em> edited by Nohira and Khurana (2010)[3]<\/a>.\u00a0 It is interesting to note that these scholars are interdisciplinary, which further enhances the nature of the field of leadership studies.<\/p>\n One thought kept resurging through my mind as I was reading this text, and it wasn\u2019t pleasant.\u00a0 I have recently decided that my dissertation will touch on the importance of indigenous leadership styles as they relate to higher education \u2013 and my thoughts for the past couple of weeks have been something like this, \u201cWait until they see my<\/strong> contribution to this field!\u00a0 They are all going to fall over in wonder and amazement when they read my<\/strong> transcript!\u00a0 I<\/strong> have found the answers to the questions about leadership<\/em>!\u201d\u00a0 Then, as I read this week\u2019s brilliant text, I realized that my work would be, at best, merely one voice in the field, one drop in an immense ocean.\u00a0 This awakening was both comforting and humbling.\u00a0 So, who is right?\u00a0 Whose theories are the best?\u00a0 It all depends on the situation; no one theory has all the answers.<\/p>\n Although all of the articles were helpful to my understanding of leadership, two sections of the text really stood out to me, both by the same author, J. Richard Hackman.\u00a0 The first article is called \u201cWhat Is This Thing Called Leadership[4]<\/a>\u201d; the second is titled \u201cWhat Makes Teams of Leaders Leadable?[5]<\/a>\u201d In this writing I will summarize and comment on the first essay, since taking on both essays would make this post much too loquacious.<\/p>\n In the first reading, Hackman raises six themes that emerged from a two-day leadership conference he attended:\u00a0 Domain<\/em>, Criteria<\/em>, Functions<\/em>, Contexts<\/em>, Conditions<\/em>, and It<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 The primary concern at the conference was on the leadership of purposeful social systems<\/em>, by which he means \u201c\u2026sets of people who work are identifiable as system members and who work interdependently to accomplish one or more collective objectives[6]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Hackman acknowledges that his thinking is one way among many of looking at good, effective, successful leadership and argues that the question is not only, \u201cShould leaders make a difference?\u201d The better question is, \u201cIn what ways do they make a difference?\u201d\u00a0 He then argues that the term \u201csuccess\u201d needs to be defined as \u201c\u2026that which enhances system viability<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0 Hackman goes on to spell out the three attributes for viable social systems:<\/p>\n First, those who are affected by the work of the system (for example, clients, collaborators, or other stakeholders) are reasonably satisfied, and perhaps even pleased by, what the system produces.\u00a0 Second, the system itself becomes more capable of performing as a unit over time.\u00a0 And third, individual members derive at least as much personal learning and fulfillment as frustration and alienation from their work within the system[7]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Hackman then discusses the reality of what he calls \u201cfunctional leadership,\u201d which includes members of the system who hold no formal leadership roles. The author presses his argument by declaring that good leaders resonate with research discoveries that identify \u201cthose leadership functions that are most critical to system viability \u2013 and that prompt them to consider fresh approaches for getting those functions fulfilled[8]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Hackman is arguing for good leaders to do their thinking in new boxes!\u00a0 Innovation, creativity, and openness to new methods are what will ultimately label a leader \u201cfunctional.\u201d\u00a0 I believe Hackman is urging his readers to fearlessly step into an unconventional way of thinking about leadership.<\/p>\n Hackman then goes on to discuss the various \u201ccontexts\u2019 for leadership, noting that every leader faces his or her own context; thus no one leadership behavioral style can be identified that will label the best leaders.\u00a0 He then returns to his theme of identifying the structural \u201cconditions\u201d that when present increase the possibilities of social system viability.\u00a0 He gives several examples of strategies that demonstrate mismanagement and micromanagement but then offers a better strategy of his own.\u00a0 Hackman writes:<\/p>\n Having the right conditions in place opens possibilities, allowing leaders to do their own work in their own ways<\/em> given their particular systematic contexts, using their own special strengths and styles<\/em>, and drawing on the full array of other resources that are available to them[9]<\/a> [italics mine].<\/p>\n Hackman then gives a potent illustration of leadership by using an experience he had watching the Russian conductor Yuri Temirkanov leading a performance of a Mahler symphony.\u00a0 As the conductor began, he dropped his hands to his sides, thus allowing the orchestra to play while he listened<\/em>.\u00a0 Although this conductor did guide the orchestra through parts of the symphony, generally he kept his hands to his sides.\u00a0 Hackman\u2019s point is that the conductor had prepared his musicians so well that he was now \u201cmanaging on the margin[10]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Hackman finishes this section, \u201cAs Temirkanov demonstrated, to focus on conditions rather than cause is the think differently about social systems, and to act differently when leading them[11]<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 This illustration helped me to realize the fact that those in a social system (in various contexts) will benefit from leaders who trust their colleagues.\u00a0 Why is it, then, that leaders so often \u201ccherish exaggerated ideas of their own importance?\u201d[12]<\/a><\/p>\n Finally, Hackman addresses the \u201cmystery\u201d of leadership by tackling the question, \u201cWhat is the \u201cit<\/em><\/strong>\u201d in a master leader?\u201d\u00a0 He illustrates using \u201cmasters\u201d from other disciplines who cannot explain to others why they themselves are great. \u00a0These, declares Hackman, are the truly \u201cexpert\u201d leaders.\u00a0 He concludes that there is no irrefutable answer to his question.\u00a0 Rather, the question regarding the \u201cit<\/em><\/strong>\u201d of leadership will have different answers for different situations. \u00a0But the reality is that even though we cannot explain how they got \u201cit<\/em><\/strong>,\u201d we all know that some leaders have \u201cit<\/em><\/strong>\u201d and some don\u2019t.<\/p>\n Years ago, I had a professor who answered another student\u2019s question by telling the student that he didn\u2019t have the answer.\u00a0 This was a biblical studies class, Old Testament survey.\u00a0 When I heard my instructor\u2019s answer, my respect for him went up immediately.\u00a0 This was the first time I had ever heard a teacher say that he didn\u2019t know.\u00a0 I will never forget that day; it was the best image I had ever seen of true, living humility.\u00a0 Although I still don\u2019t know what \u201cit<\/em><\/strong>\u201d is, I can guarantee that at least part of the answer has to do with a leader\u2019s humility level. \u00a0What a concept.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Mark A. Zupan, \u201cAn Economic Perspective on Leadership,\u201d in Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice<\/em>, eds. Nitin Nohira and Rakesh Khurana (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2010), 265<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [2]<\/a> Robert A. Eckert, \u201cLeadership\u201d Unpublished manuscript, in Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice<\/em>, eds. Nitin Nohira and Rakesh Khurana (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2010), 265<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [3]<\/a> Nitin Nohira and Rakesh Khurana, eds., Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice<\/em>, (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2010)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [4]<\/a> J. Richard Hackman, \u201cWhat Is This Thing Called Leadership?,\u201d in Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice<\/em>, eds. Nitin Nohira and Rakesh Khurana (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2010), 107<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [5]<\/a> Ruth Wageman and J. Richard Hackman, What makes Teams of Leaders Leadable?,\u201d in Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice<\/em>, eds. Nitin Nohira and Rakesh Khurana (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2010), 107<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [6]<\/a> J. Richard Hackman, \u201cWhat Is This Thing Called Leadership?,\u201d in Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice<\/em>, eds. Nitin Nohira and Rakesh Khurana (Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2010), 107<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [7]<\/a> Nohira and Khurana, Handbook of Leadership<\/em>, 109<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n