Defining Leadership
Defining leadership is a difficult task because many different definitions, models, and theories attempt to describe this phenomenon. Stogdill once wrote: “There are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.” Despite the multitude of ways in which leadership has been conceptualized, there has been a shift over time from an emphasis on individuals to an emphasis on more collaborative processes. After reviewing literature from 1900 to 1990, Rost predicted the leadership paradigm had shifted from the industrial paradigm in the 20th century to the postindustrial paradigm in the 21st century. He was inspired by Burns’ definition of leadership which included the relationship and interplay of leaders and followers. Burns defined leadership, stating:
Leadership is the reciprocal process of mobilizing, by persons with certain motives and values, various economic, political, and other resources, in a context of competition and conflict, in order to realize goals independently or mutually held by both leaders and followers.
Uhl-Bien et al. also insisted leadership models of the 20th century had been products of top-down, bureaucratic paradigms. Although these models were quite effective for an economy premised on industrial production, they were no longer well-suited for a more knowledge-based economy of the 21st century.
According to Rost, the industrial paradigm contains many conventional views of leadership that have dominated leadership perceptions throughout most of the 20th century. Those views have included: (a) leadership is the property of an individual, meaning one person provides leadership for a group; (b) leader and leadership have been used synonymously; and (c) the terms “manager” and “leader” have also been used interchangeably.
On the other hand, the postindustrial paradigm of leadership is based on assumptions such as: (a) leadership is based on relationships and does not belong to any individual; (b) leadership is meant to create change; and (c) leadership can be done by anyone, not just by people who are designated leaders. Rost defined leadership as “an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes.” Some of the postindustrial models of leadership are followership, authentic leadership, adaptive leadership, and complexity leadership.
Followership
Followership is a key leadership concept in the postindustrial perspectives on leadership, particularly because of its focus on the relationship between leaders and followers. Followership theory challenges the traditional leader-centric views because it considers both leaders and followers as important parts of the leadership process, and an organization’s success depends both on effective leaders and effective followers. This approach adds a realistic perspective to leadership studies because it often happens that the same individual plays both the leader and follower roles depending on the context. Kellerman challenged the condition that followers blindly and thoughtlessly obey orders by leaders; instead, followers have to be courageous, engaged, responsible, and contributing members who exercise critical thinking. Chaleff even emphasized that, as the world evolves to a more egalitarian culture, dynamic follower–follower relations become as essential as dynamic leader–follower relations.
Authentic Leadership
Authentic leadership is a leadership theory expanded from Burns’ transforming leadership. Luthans and Avolio defined authentic leadership “as a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development.” Authentic leadership stresses awareness of one’s own and others’ strengths, values, and perspectives and the larger environment where leadership takes place. It also has a strong focus on having an authentic leader–follower relationship and leadership for good beyond oneself. Authentic leadership has been a growing field in leadership studies, especially after a series of incidents of misconduct by top management in the Enron financial scandal in 2001 and the Lehman Brothers shock in 2008. For example, International Leadership Association placed authentic leadership as the main theme in its 20th anniversary global conference in 2018.
Adaptive Leadership
Adaptive leadership focuses on the adaptations required of people to respond to changing, complex environments. Heifetz et al. defined adaptive leadership as “the practice of mobilizing people to tackle tough challenges and thrive.” Adaptive leadership places a strong focus on change and adaptation. The word thrive describes the process by which an organism adapts to the changing conditions of the larger system in which it operates. This living system metaphor reflects a need for organizations to evolve and adapt for survival and evolution. Adaptive leadership clearly differentiates leadership from authority or persons in power. The theory provides different approaches in the case of leadership with authority and without authority. It also differentiates adaptive challenges from technical problems. Technical problems are clear, and the solution is in the realm of one’s capabilities and past experiences. In contrast, adaptive challenges are more difficult to identify, and the solutions are unknown. Adaptive challenges must be faced in new ways by adopting new beliefs and new behaviors to better address desired changes. Adaptive leadership abandons emphases on specific leader-centric characteristics such as traits and behaviors, but instead, it identifies processes that contribute to the resolution of adaptive challenges.
Complexity Leadership
Using the concept of complex adaptive systems (CAS), which has its roots in the physical sciences, Uhl-Bien et al. proposed leadership should be seen not only as position and authority but also as emergent, interactive systems of dynamic, unpredictable agents that interact with each other and are bonded by common purpose or outlook. Whereas the unit of analysis in traditional leadership theory is often an individual such as the leader, or a relationship between the leader and others, the fundamental unit of analysis in complexity leadership is referred to as a CAS. Complexity leadership is a framework for leadership, enabling the learning, creative, and adaptive capacity of CAS in organizations.
Complexity leadership identifies three leadership roles to explore: (a) adaptive, (b) administrative, and (c) enabling. Drawn on the same principles outlined by Heifetz, adaptive leadership is a collaborative change movement that emerges from interactions among agents between CAS and with environments; it does not operate based on authority. On the other hand, administrative leadership is the traditional behavioral approach to leadership that focuses on the coordination of tasks and the alignment of actions with organizational goals. It is a top-down, hierarchical function based on authority and position. Uhl-Bien and Marion acknowledged the tension that can exist between administrative and adaptive leadership and the importance of the two functions working together effectively. To ensure the two functions worked together effectively, Uhl-Bien and Marion added enabling leadership as a catalyst to enable adaptive dynamics and help manage the entanglement between administrative and adaptive leadership in an organization.
Conclusion
This section included a paradigm shift of leadership definitions from the industrial model to the postindustrial model. It also elaborated several postindustrial theories. The key characteristic of the theories presented here is the departure from a hierarchical, leader-centric perspective. These theories take a more inclusive, systemic approach. However, there is a gradation among them. For example, both followership and authentic leadership emphasize the relationship between leaders and followers; however, the relationship is still based on the premise of the existence of positional leaders in power. On the other hand, adaptive leadership and complexity leadership are unique because they treat leadership completely independent from positional leaders. These theories apply an organism metaphor to leadership and organizations, and go beyond the individual role of leader and beyond the group, expanding to the large system.
Whereas the new leadership paradigm that advocates for a relational, collaborative, and systemic approach to leadership is growing in popularity, there is evidence of a parallel increased emphasis on hierarchical and leader-centric perspectives in leadership practice. Interestingly, neither adaptive nor complexity theory reject the traditional hierarchical paradigm. Instead, both theories provide concrete prescriptions for the traditional paradigm. For instance, adaptive leadership clarifies different approaches to leadership with and without authority. Complexity leadership also offers a mitigating solution by proposing enabling leadership, in addition to administrative leadership (i.e., a more traditional approach) and adaptive leadership (i.e., a more contemporary approach), to make both administrative and adaptive leadership function well. Both theories may assume the paradigm shift of leadership is not necessarily unidirectional from a hierarchical approach to a systemic approach; rather it is inclusive to both approaches.
This assumption is important and timely now since the world is nearly completing the transition from the analog to the digital age. Web3, blockchain technology brings about a decentralized, autonomous society, enabling new levels of transparency and distributed structure that eliminates the central authority. It is not easy, however, to ensure we can reap the full benefits of this transformational technology with the traditional way of thinking about leadership. We need to renew our leadership mindset. Adult development theory introduces to us a roadmap to change our mindset.
References
Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change. W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. John Wiley & Sons.
George, B. (2015). Discover your true north. John Wiley & Sons.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Harvard University Press.
Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Harvard Business Press.
Kılıç, G., & Atilla, G. (2022). Governance and leadership by blockchain. In Bali, S., Akkaya, M., & Topçu, G. (Eds.), Blockchain in finance, marketing and others (pp. 221–250). Nobel Bilimsel.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship (pp. 241–258). Berrett-Koehler.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. SAGE Publications.
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Praeger.
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership development in the new millennium. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199300100109
Salovaara, P., & Bathurst, R. (2018). Power-with leadership practices: An unfinished business. Leadership, 14(2), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715016652932
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. The Free Press.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2009). Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: A mesa model. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 631–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.007
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002
Watanabe, R. (2022). Exploring the impact of an online leadership course on Japanese undergraduate students’ conceptions of leadership (Order No. 29066360). [Doctoral dissertation, University of San Diego]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/exploring-impact-online-leadership-course-on/docview/2707828228/se-2