Leadership reconceptualised: Back to the future

Another team, anchored by Ahmed Shaikh, has been tasked with the perennial question of whether leadership can be learnt.

Given the paucity of skills in leadership, worldwide, especially in the context of the problematique of globalisation, sustainable economic development and the global financial crisis have become causes of serious concern. The challenge has become even more accentuated in emerging countries, South Africa, included.

What are the intrinsic values?

In order to address the perennial question of leadership, it is necessary to define and critically examine what is meant by the concept. What, for example, are the intrinsic values and competencies of leadership?

To begin with, any cursory scan of the definition of the word or concept of leadership clearly indicates there are as many definitions of the concept as there are questions. It depends on who the respondent is. One thing is certain, though, it is an abstract and elusive term. It could easily be likened to the old adage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". It could also be equated to a layman's understanding of the concept of electricity. We know its function - it provides energy - but how does it work? The answer is hard to pin down. In a similar fashion, one can readily identify the key competencies and intrinsic values of leadership, but when it comes to precise definitions, it becomes an issue of relativity - its meaning or value can only be established in relation to something else. It changes according to circumstances or context. It informs and is informed.

Leadership, therefore, is a transformative concept. It changes with time, context, values, circumstances and paradigmatic episodes. It does, however, include some intrinsic values in its definition.

How does one evaluate it?

Indeed, if leadership is an abstraction, not simply definable, then what is it? How, for example, does one evaluate it? If it were a bundle of measurables, then we could provide a guidebook or template. We all know that a keen sportsman is incapable of become good at his sport just by reading about the necessary competencies required. It goes far beyond that. It is, in a sense, an intrinsic value or trait - you either have it or you don't. As Peter Drucker, a leading academic in leadership theory opined: "Leaders are born" and they have some identifiable skills, traits or values that cannot be taught. Drucker's work has spawned a host of books and articles on leadership, either concurring with his thesis or refuting it.

Some recent authors (James Kouzes and Barry Posner, for example) on leadership have suggested otherwise. They believe that these traits can be taught, over a period of time. There are still others, such as Lloyd Edwards who hypothesise that leadership can be learnt, but not taught.

In order to analyse these differing schools of thought critically, it is necessary to identify a set of competencies that can identify the mark of good leadership. In this respect, we are of the view that a useful exercise would be to identify similar descriptions for competent management comparatively.

A composite of research outcomes regarding descriptions of a competent leader or a manager reveals that there is a fundamental difference. A "competent" leader would have to be compassionate, honest, supportive, courageous, focused, humble, flexible, understanding, respectful, communicative, empathetic, reliable, assertive, tactical, technically savvy, financially capable, and good at organising, scheduling, delegating, planning; above all else, a mentor. A "competent" manager, on the other hand, is identified as someone who is responsible, accountable, assertive and good at organising, scheduling, delegating, planning, coordinating, reporting, budgeting, staffing and directing.

A primary difference

The results reveal a primary difference between descriptions of a leader and a manager. The majority of management competencies are extrinsic and teachable. In sharp contrast, competencies for a leader are value based. They are intrinsic and reflect the qualities of one's being and consciousness. Is it, therefore, possible to teach one about trustworthiness, honesty, compassion, empathy and humility, to boot? Leadership, as a result, is about intrinsic values being observed and appreciated by those who choose to follow. It is almost similar to the concept of respect. We cannot expect to be respected if we do not respect others. It is, in a sense, a dialectical relationship.

The critical and comparative analysis of competencies between a leader and a manager reveals that unlike a manager's competencies, a leader's intrinsic values and competencies cannot be taught. It would seem that while management is focused on tasks, leadership is focused on a person.

Can leadership be learnt? This question has taken on increased significance in recent years. In this regard, a number of contemporary authors on leadership have examined issues of a leader's character or personality traits. In his book On Becoming a Leader, Warren Bennis identifies a list of positive traits in all leaders. Inter alia, the main traits that stand out are: vision, inspiration, trustworthiness, and empathy.

Seemingly, much of the leadership literature includes as an implicit assumption, the belief that positive characteristics can, and should, be encouraged and practiced by leaders. Towards this end, some organisations are even moving away from viewing leadership solely in terms of leader attributes. They define leadership by a set of competencies that guide leadership development at all levels of their organisation.

Yet other organisations are employing their most competent leaders to act as mentors. They work on the assumption that a good leader will innately take on the responsibility to do everything in his power to nurture the personal and professional growth of employees and colleagues. In the end, it also depends on the mentee, if he is willing to learn. This thesis of leadership also presupposes that everyone has the basic seeds of leadership within them and how these are developed and cultivated will determine whether leadership qualities develop in an individual.

Notwithstanding the above, it is our conviction that an educational programme in leadership can only teach skills. It cannot teach character or vision. Leadership, therefore, cannot be taught - it must be learned. Learning how to be a leader is a highly personal process and is dependent on the personal circumstances of an individual. Whether it is formal or informal, lifelong learning suggests that we all continue to be shaped by those who are around us and perhaps the most influential is learning from our personal experiences by making meaning out of them. A leader, thus, has to be an organic intellectual (borrowing from Antonio Gramsci's and Paulo Friere's literary works).

In summation, we have become aware that leadership is an abstract concept and that it cannot be taught, but learnt. We also understand that it includes intrinsic values and is transformative. Furthermore, we have been informed that leadership is an increasingly omnipresent subject and a theme of hundreds of books and academic articles. Simultaneously, it has become the mainstay of the curriculum of many business schools and has been directed toward addressing the paucity of leadership skills, globally. Increasingly, leadership is viewed as inherently collaborative, social, and relational processes and is definitely not a static.

New conceptual minefield of leadership

In terms of the future, globalisation and the knowledge society will have profound effects in the way we understand the leadership concept, especially in its shared context of an organisation. As a result, leadership will be understood as the collective capacity of all members of an organisation to accomplish critical tasks. Traversing this new conceptual minefield of leadership will require a deeper understanding of the role of organisational systems and culture. It will require a variety of approaches to leadership theory, epistemology and praxis.

At the Regent Business School, we have adopted a theoretical posture that fundamentally accepts that leadership cannot be taught, but can be learnt. In this respect, our leadership pedagogy and praxis will require a critical dispensation on the part of academia and students, alike. So, for example, when we deal with questions of serious lapses in leadership actions and deeds, we will urge our students to think critically and dialectically and not simply to tender simplistic uni-dimensional answers, but to ask moral questions. A good starting point is to read Plato's The Republic.

Certainly, leadership is a perennial question and will always take us back to the future.