Lessons in Library Leadership: A Primer for Library Managers and Unit Leaders

journey!

Chapter 1

Leadership Theories

Abstract

This chapter examines the most widely accepted leadership theories. Having an understanding of these theories is important for two important reasons. First, it provides a historical context for how leadership theories have developed in relation to attempts to increase efficiency, improve employee morale, and achieve overall better performance. Second, it provides the reader with an opportunity to think about what it means to be a leader and to begin building a foundation for their own leadership development. Each leadership theory is explored in a way that examines both the advantages and limitations of each.

Keywords

Leadership theories; great man theory; trait theory; behavioral theory; contingency theory; transactional theory; transformational theory

Introduction

There is no question that leaders have existed and have profoundly impacted the course of human development in both large and small ways. History is littered with stories of conquerors, kings, queens, heroes, politicians, diplomats, scientists, entrepreneurs, social reformers, and the occasional every-man who are recognized as great leaders for many different reasons. They might be recognized for their prowess on the battlefield and for their ability to both forge and maintain an empire. Perhaps their business acumen and imagination allowed them to inspire employees to new heights in technological advances. They may have led the way in an unexplored scientific realm and ushered in a new age of discovery. Or, they could have stood quietly defiant and stared down the face of oppression. Whatever the claim to fame might have been, humans have recognized that the ability of some people to inspire others to action and achieve goals makes them stand apart from the crowd.

Since humans are curious creatures, the variety of traits recognized as desirable in leaders, the accomplishments attributed to leadership, and the wide diversity of individuals branded as leaders naturally lead to general questions about leadership and how leaders might be developed. Questions such as, Are leaders born or made?, What makes a good leader?, Are there certain traits that make individuals more prone to become leaders?, and How do leaders lead? have led to many ideas about leadership. More recently the quest to answer these questions and identify leadership qualities has evolved into a formal field of Leadership Science in addition to the formalization of several leadership theories.

A detailed exploration of the range of leadership theories could fill an entire book on its own and is admittedly well beyond the scope of this particular text. Having a basic understanding of the various leadership theories and the progression of such theories is important, however, so they will be swiftly discussed. Both aspiring and seasoned leaders would do well to possess a general working knowledge of leadership theories as it provides a solid foundation on which they can begin to develop successful leadership abilities and behaviors. These theories also provide a natural starting point for any discussion on both what it means and what it takes to be a leader and, as such, provides a great place for this book to begin.

The following chapter aims to create a solid foundation by introducing the reader to the most widely recognized leadership theories (Great Man, Trait, Behavioral, Contingency, Transactional, and Transformational). Each leadership theory is defined and placed within its historical context so that readers may understand the thoughts behind the theory and, in the broader context, see the progression in development of theories over time. The advantages and limitations of each theory are also discussed as a mechanism for allowing the reader to see how he or she might apply knowledge about the theory to his or her own work. The chapter wraps up with a suggested reading list for further exploration of leadership theories both from a historical and practical point of view.

Great Man Theory

History

While barriers and challenges still exist in many parts of the world, over the course of human history it has certainly become easier for individuals from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds to rise to positions of leadership. This was hardly the case for much of human history as class systems, stringently defined gender roles, and legal restrictions prevented individuals from filling positions of leadership or from tapping into their full potential. Additionally, these circumstances meant that only a relatively small number of people were provided the opportunity to truly shine as leaders. Rooted in the belief that The history of the world is but the biography of great men, the Great Man Theory focuses on the small number of historical actors whose actions and accomplishments history seems fit to remember (Carlyle, 1894, p. 42). The key argument of the theory is that pivotal moments in human history can be attributed to the influence and actions of a small number of individuals who were born with natural traits and characteristics that allow them to rise above the masses. The theory suggests that nature is to be credited with bestowing certain qualities on individuals and that these qualities make them natural leaders.

The theory itself is most often associated with 19th-century historian Thomas Carlyle. Carlyle’s book On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History examines the actions and decisions of a few key historical figures. The argument that is presented favors individual abilities over one’s environment and suggests that individuals were able to shape historical events by using their natural insight, charisma, intelligence, or other talents to influence the world around them. A proponent of the Great Man Theory would therefore focus on the household names of history—Julius Cesar, George Washington, Gandhi, etc.—and the impact their actions had on an event or series of events making the argument that historical events would have been significantly different or might not have occurred at all if these great men weren’t around to influence the outcome.

The Great Man Theory essentially ignores the role that world happenings, previous history, and society might have played in historical events and, therefore, it is quickly criticized by those that feel the theory is too limited in its view. Critics argued that the Great Man Theory is a fallacy and that leaders are created by the societies in which they live. One such outspoken critic of the theory, sociologist Herbert Spencer, believed that leaders were heavily influenced by their societies stating that before a great man can remake his society, his society must make him (Spencer, 1961, p. 31). In other words, societies provide the opportunities for Great Men to rise from the masses. Opponents of the theory generally make the argument that even individuals who possess natural abilities such as charisma, oratory skills, or wisdom will not become great leaders if world events do not support it. For example, George Washington would not have had the opportunity to lead the Continental Army and become the first President of The United States if Great Britain had chosen a different path with its American Colonies.

Testing

Because the Great Man Theory relies on leaders possessing naturally gifted abilities that a leader is born with, there is no test that can be given to determine if an individual has what it takes to be a leader or that allows a person to discover their preferred leadership style. Instead the way to test the theory essentially relies on two components to classify whether or not a person possesses the traits necessary to be a leader.

The first looks at the impact an individual has from an historical perspective and examines if the person is worth remembering for their exploits. Carlyle (1894) considered Great Men as heroes and looked to examine their reception and performance by asking how they have shaped themselves in the world’s history, what ideas men formed of them, [and] what work they did? (p. 5). By examining the heroes one might benefit by gaining an understanding of what attributes are necessary to be a leader because as Carlyle (1894) expressively states:

We cannot look, however imperfectly, upon a great man, without gaining something by him. He is the living light-fountain, which it is good and pleasant to be near. The light which enlightens, which has enlightened the darkness of the world; and this not as a kindled lamp only, but rather as a natural luminary shining by the gift of Heaven; a flowing light-fountain… (p. 6)

The second way to classify an individual’s leadership ability under the Great Man Theory is to identify if he is currently holding a position of leadership. The thought process being that individuals in positions of power have obtained them because their inherently preexisting abilities have set them apart from the crowd and allowed them to assume roles of authority and influence. Of course, not every person who has held a position of authority ends up being remembered and worshiped by humanity for their heroic deeds; therefore not all leaders can be classified as Great Men. This second classification tool therefore is a way to recognize leaders who, while certainly possessing the qualities of leadership, may not possess the good fortune to be great enough to have a substantial impact.

At this point you may be saying to yourself, This is absurd. I’ve known some people—maybe quite a few—in positions of authority that have no clue what they are doing. So-called ‘leaders’ who seemingly possess no leadership attributes whatsoever and who could never be considered a ‘great man.’ Be assured that you aren’t alone and that the author has also looked upon many a leader’s abilities with a healthy dose of disbelief. The Great Man Theory, while not specifically addressing this phenomenon, implies that individuals who find themselves in positions of authority but who do not possess the required natural abilities will eventually be rooted out as unworthy and replaced by those who do. This point, and much of The Great Man Theory, is contested and debated among scholars and therefore the theory should be approached—as many social scientists and modern leadership scholars have done—with skepticism. However, the theory still possesses a modicum of value because it serves as a starting point to begin thinking about those traits that are valued in leaders.

Traits

Thomas Carlyle is credited with helping the Great Man Theory obtain traction as a valid theory. With this in mind, it is natural to look to his thoughts when attempting to identify those traits associated with the theory. Carlyle (1894), saw fit to divide traits among six classes of heroes: Hero as Divinity; Hero as Prophet; Hero as Poet; Hero as Priest; Hero as Man of Letters; and Hero as King.

Hero as Divinity

In focusing on the Hero as Divinity, Carlyle (1894) chose to explore Norse Mythology and more precisely Odin as a Great Man, who through his traits influenced the beliefs and culture of an entire race. In the case of Odin, the traits professed as being valuable deal mainly with virtues related primarily to intelligence and valor. Odin is attributed as inventing letters and through this magic he is credited with inventing both written communication and poetry. Both inventions were gifted to Scandinavians and allowed them to progress. Additionally, Odin’s valor is celebrated as inspiring men to overcome fear which, left unchecked prevents men from moving forward. Carlyle (1894) adds that Valor is the Fountain of Pity too (p. 50) and suggests that Odin’s example is one of an honest and honorable strength. It is through these traits and more importantly, how Odin chose to use his natural abilities to act in supportive ways, that he is a Teacher, and Captain of soul and of body (Carlyle, 1894, p. 32).

Hero as Prophet

Focusing on the formation of Islam as a religion, and the prophet Muhammad (Mahomet), provides an opportunity to discuss the traits of sincerity, thoughtfulness, and originality. True and genuine sincerity in a person’s own words and deeds is a hallmark of any good leader. It is important to recognize, as Carlyle (1894) states, that a Great Man’s sincerity is of the kind he cannot speak of, is not conscious of (p. 63). Therefore a natural leader’s sincerity is innate and he is incapable of acting insincerely. It is this very innate sincerity that allowed Muhammad to be viewed as being true in what he did, in what he spake and thought (Carlyle, 1894, p. 73). Carlyle (1894) points out that Muhammad came from humble beginnings, lacked formal education, and relied on experiential learning for all his knowledge of the world. Despite this, he came to be viewed as wise among his peers always throwing light on the matter when he chose to speak (Carlyle, 1894, p. 73). Lastly, Muhammad was seen to be original in his thoughts. It was certain that his words were his alone and that he believed in his words. Originality is therefore valued as it opens the door to new thought and possibilities. These traits illustrate how sincerity, thoughtfulness, and originality enabled Muhammad to convince others of the value of his words and therefore provide for the Arab Nation… a birth from darkness into light (Carlyle, 1894, p. 105).

The Hero as Poet

Some individuals are better at summarizing the reality of the world, capturing the feelings of the masses, or serving as the voice for an institution or system of beliefs. The ability to do these things, and perhaps more importantly, to be able to connect and inspire not only the current generation but also generations to come are valuable qualities for a leader to possess. Carlyle (1894) explores the impact of both the works of Dante and Shakespeare and paints both as Great Men for their abilities to accomplish one of these things. Carlyle (1894) suggests that Dante’s Divine Comedy embodies the Religion of the Middle Ages, the Religion of our Modern Europe, its inner life (p. 136) and in doing so, provides a glimpse to the true Unseen World (p. 130): a vision of Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise that spoke to both the good and evil of creation. It is this ability to capture the essence of what possibly awaits after death and the ability for the text to still invoke discussion and impact current populaces that, in Carlyle’s view, makes Dante a Great Man. Shakespeare is approached from a different point of view, with Carlyle (1894) stating that he captured the chivalries, courtesies, humors, ambitions… and thus embodied the Outer Life of his time (p. 136). Shakespeare not only provided a historical glimpse for future generations but also directly influenced the men of his time by providing a voice for his nation and an intellectual argument, dressed in prose, for how society should behave.

Hero as Priest

Carlyle uses Martin Luther to help illustrate how Great Men can heroically cause change through conviction and tolerance. His discussion of Luther provides a clear image of traits as his conviction in approaching the changes he felt were necessary to the practice of Christianity inspired others to follow his lead and embrace his stated reforms. Even in a time of great peril to Luther and before the entire power base of Germany he refused to recant and instead stood before his detractors and espoused his belief. Carlyle (1894) states:

…after multiplied negotiations, disputations, it had come to this. The young Emperor Charles Fifth, with all the Princes of Germany, Papal nuncios, dignitaries spiritual and temporal, are assembled there: Luther is to appear and answer for himself, whether he will recant or not… Luther did not desert us. His speech, of two hours, distinguished itself by its respectful, wise and honest tone; submissive to whatsoever could lawfully claim submission, not submissive to any more than that (p. 180).

Luther, despite the great chasm the Reformation caused between men and nations, is to be recognized, Carlyle argues, because his tolerance—and the emulation of it by his followers—prevented the violence and wars that ensued after his death (1894).

Hero as Man of Letters

In authors, or men of letters as Carlyle calls them, we can see several traits that are considered valuable to leaders. Chief among these is the ability to communicate thoughts—complex or simple—to others as a means to inspire or bring about change. Using their words to persuade men, individuals are able to leave a mark on society by allowing the spread of new ideas, becoming a catalyst for the exchange of ideas, and inspiring creativity (Carlyle, 1894, p. 214). Carlyle also argues that authors choose a difficult path for carving out a living and therefore must possess a natural and heroic level of perseverance in order to be successful. He states that The strong man will ever find work, which means difficulty, pain to the full measure of his strength. But to make out a victory, in those circumstances of our poor Hero as Man of Letters, was perhaps more difficult than in any (Carlyle, 1894, p. 236). Lastly, having a passion about work that both drives and, possibly consumes, an individual is valued by Carlyle. Of Rousseau he writes that his ideas possessed him like demons…drove him to steep places! (Carlyle, 1894, p. 247). It was this passion which allowed his Social Contract theory to take hold.

Hero as King

In Kingship Carlyle finds the most important of Great Men and in espousing their characteristics identifies those leadership traits that are to be considered the most valuable combination (1894, p. 261). Carlyle suggests that men willingly surrender themselves to the will of kings when they possess all the qualities of Great Men—divinity, prophet, poet, priest, and man of letters—as these rare figures are truly the commanders of men (Carlyle, 1894). They must also possess some other traits to truly be considered heroic. Carlyle turns to Oliver Cromwell and Napoleon Bonaparte to illustrate additional traits that set them apart. Concerning Cromwell, Carlyle (1894) suggests that having a great level of ambition was a key to his success. Differentiating between normal ambition and that of heroes, Carlyle (1894) suggests that their ambition is that of a silent nature: one in which the individual does not use his ambition to achieve individual greatness but one in which a never spoken, silent ambition internally drives an individual to change society. In Napoleon, we find an individual that possess both a grand vision and the ability to build the dream into reality. In the case of Napoleon the vision was to provide a strong authority to tame [the]… self-devouring French Revolution (Carlyle, 1894, p. 319). Napoleon of course accomplished this by establishing himself as natural king in the eyes of men by his continued triumphs. Napoleon’s undoing though, according to Carlyle, was that he lost his way. As his empire grew, his actions became tyrannical, resulting in an unjust falsehood that could not last (Carlyle, 1894). Perhaps had Napoleon acted solely in a just way he could have conquered the world through his vision and ability to build.

Application

There is no doubt that the individuals Carlyle uses to express his views on valuable leadership traits left their mark on society and are certainly remembered historically. His claim that an individual must be a hero in order to be a great leader can however be safely discarded as rhetoric. By and large, the traits he attributed to Great Men can certainly be naturally found in individuals—for example, some people seem to be more creative or better communicators than others. If, however, we separate the men and their individual deeds from the traits, we quickly see that all of them can be practiced not just by heroes but by anyone in a leadership position. For the sake of simplicity we’ll divide the leadership traits identified by Carlyle into internal and external traits.

Internal traits are those that, while certainly having an impact on the external environment, do not directly involve personal transactions between two or more individuals. They act as inner stimuli that allow an individual to formulate plans, behave certain ways, deal with stressors, or motivate themselves. They include intelligence, ambition, valor, originality, conviction, perseverance, vision, and passion.

Intelligence deals not only with an individual’s natural level of aptitude but also concerns the technical proficiency of a person. All of the formal and informal education, training, and life experiences a person has accumulated over the course of their life provide them with a wide knowledgebase that can be tapped into to plan, plot, and troubleshoot. Leaders should recognize that their intelligence therefore offers them a springboard with which to jump into projects or usher in change.

Ambition is the inner flame or voice that drives an individual to assume a leadership role and strive for greater progress. Wise leaders realize that the progress isn’t about stroking their own egos but is instead about making positive, meaningful changes. Conviction and perseverance work in tandem to internally motivate the leader. Conviction provides the core beliefs that convince the leader that are capable of accomplishing what they set out to do. A leader’s path can be a lonely and difficult one at times. Perseverance kicks in when a leader needs a boost to deal with the inevitable obstacles that will manifest as they attempt to complete goals and meet objectives.

Passion is what drives the individual over all. It is the force that beckons—much like the sea to a sailor—an individual back time and again to a certain cause. For a librarian, perhaps the cause is a belief in superior customer service or maybe it relates to streamlined acquisitions processes. Whatever the cause, passion provides the fuel that lights the fire of ambition, conviction, and perseverance. It radiates from the leader and has the ability to stir to action those around them.

Valor or bravery allows the leader to act with integrity in all they do. It is essential to ensure that an example is set which clearly communicates that everyone will be held to the same standards, that everyone will be treated equally, and that doing the right thing, even when no one will find out, is