The Exercise of Leadership

Do you always know what people really mean when they make statements to the effect that someone is a good leader, bad leader or even a natural leader? Such statements often require further elaboration and often times they refer to people’s expectations of and the responses to those expectations by someone else other than themselves; someone usually in authority and felt to have the ability to wield some power or influence.

Debates about leadership have long raged and have developed from those about whether leadership is innate or can be learned; through those about characteristics of leadership and what effective leadership looks like; to leadership styles and whether there is one best style of leadership or that indeed the situation determines the style of leadership or that leadership style is situational.

The possibility that leadership qualities may or may not be innate holds little relevance for me. It seems to me that even so-called “natural leadership” qualities or tendencies need to be recognized and nurtured in order that they may be expressed appropriately otherwise those same qualities are unlikely to be experienced as leadership. The question is, there comes a time when leadership must be exercised and when that time comes, who is to exercise that leadership and how is that leadership to be exercised?

It is not my intention to review or restate the various viewpoints about leadership here. Much has been written about the subject. My sense of the key points is that, the capacity to influence a situation must exist, but that alone is not enough. This capacity must be focused on a cause and deployed in appropriate ways and at appropriate times to be characterized as exercising leadership.   

I make a few deductions on my summation of the concept of leadership;

First, it is action oriented. So that when one refers to another as a leader, what is actually meant is that the person has exhibited or consistently exhibits leadership in a variety of contexts. The leader makes things happen. This is very different from referring to someone as the leader of a group, association, etc. The latter is a reference to position, title, job that does not represent the exercise of leadership even though there is some expectation that “the leader” will exercise leadership.

Caution is necessary here not to equate “action” to visibility or heroic acts. I am quite attracted to the type of leadership I will call “quiet leadership” which recognizes the need for and provides support, space, opportunities, motivation that initiates, activates and results in the achievement of group or common objectives. Such leadership unfortunately is often times hardly acknowledged and yet I suspect it is this type of empowering leadership that is needed more and more in today’s workplace.

That leads me to the second point; which is that leadership is not the preserve of managers, supervisors or any other “leader” position. It couldn’t be; for the simple reason that nominal leaders are not the only ones with leadership capacity and therefore leadership could be exercised by anyone at anytime, even by those who are not conscious of their capacity to “rise to the occasion”.

Third, leadership is situational. This means, the exercise of leadership is directly related to the context within which it manifests. The idea of a best style of leadership therefore is tenable only so far as it is the “best” in a particular context. The idea of a one best way to lead on the other hand would be pointless.

Finally, and this is an important one. Leadership is not about being “nice” or “good” to people. Sometimes to get things done, resolve a situation or ultimately to achieve that important objective, the leadership required involves some tough decisions and actions. Leadership is not for the fainthearted. 

The significance is that these ideas have a direct bearing at the work place and more so in the particular sociocultural context in which I live and work.

At the workplace (and indeed even socially) leadership is often both imposed and expected of a select group of people through formal and informal structures. Our notion of what leadership represents and how it must be exercised affects the relationship between the “leader” and others and how therefore work is carried out.

If it is felt that leadership responsibility is in the purview of only the “leader figure”, then chances are that the “leader’ will be at all times striving to be seen to deliver leadership (successfully or not) instead of opening up space for leadership to be exercised by others according to the strengths and weaknesses of the group. Others in the group will also defer to the leader figure and will either be constrained or unwilling to step up to the plate when necessary. 

The situation is further complicated in a cultural context which places natural leadership responsibility in older people and in superiority. While age, long service and a superior office may often translate into relatively more experience and knowledge at the workplace, it is not necessarily the case. Even when it does, experience and competence do not make one a leader. Therefore while the expectation that leadership should be offered by older, more knowledgeable, skilled and superior colleagues may be legitimate; it is unfair to expect that leadership capacity is naturally present in such people.

On the basis that leadership should in fact be a shared responsibility, it is my view that one of the critical qualities of leadership should be the ability to recognize, acknowledge and mobilize the capacities and resources of the group. Leader-managers therefore need not be leading in all situations. In this, humility and self knowledge of the “leader figure” are key.

Consequently those expected to lead in work places should receive support and be willing to develop their leadership capacity.  Ultimately, people in workplaces must develop leadership capacity whether they occupy positions of authority or not since their ability to exercise leadership in situations that may require their action is increasingly expected. This orientation necessitates a cultural change in which managers and supervisors do not feel threatened by the exercise of leadership by others.