addouglas

Introduction

There are many different takes on leadership, and throughout this seminar I have covered quite a few. I will be discussing two articles. The first is an article titled Behavioral Theories of Leadership written by Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard. This article took a look at the difference between a leader’s overall task/goal and the relationship between the leader and the followers. The second article is pulled from the book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership written by John C. Maxwell. The piece used from this book is titled “Law 2 – The Law of Influence” which indicates that the true measure of leadership is influence. I will begin by briefly summarize the two theoretical writings, and then take a look at the relationship between the two articles themselves.

Behavioral Theories of Leadership

Hersey and Blanchard recognize both task and relationships when it comes to leadership. They believe that these are the two most important dimensions of leader behavior. The dimensions “task” and “relationships” have been termed differently from past authors. They have been “labeled “autocratic” and “democratic;” “authoritarian” and “equiltarian;” “employee-oriented” and “production oriented;” “goal achievement” and “group maintenance;” “taskability” and likability;” “instrumental and expressive;” “efficiency and effectiveness”” (Wren, 1995, p. 144).

These concepts or dimensions have been around, although titled differently, for a long time. Basically, when discussing leadership theories, there is concern for both the overall goal of the leader/followers and the actual relationship between the leader and followers. This may seem like common sense, but it can get a little complicated at times.

The leadership studies done at the Bureau of Business Research at Ohio State University date all the way back to 1945. The studies “questioned whether leader behavior could be depicted on a single continuum” (Wren, 1995, p. 145).

The OSU researchers were trying to take these two dimensions and see if they could provide a graphical representation that would display and measure leadership behavior involving “task” and “relationships.”

The OSU researchers, just like past leadership researchers, renamed “task” and “relationships” to “Initiating Structure” and “Consideration.” They also provided detailed definitions. ““Initiating Structure” refers to “the leader’s behavior in delineating the relationship between himself and members of the work-group and in endeavoring to establish well-defined patterns of organization, channels of communication, and methods of procedure”” (Wren, 1995, p. 145).

The term “”Consideration” refers to “behavior indicative of friendship, mutual trust, respect, and warmth in the relationship between the leader and the members of his staff”” (Wren, 1995, p. 145).

These once again were different ways of saying what the leader and followers work together to achieve versus the integrity of the relationship between the two.

Figure 1 on page 146 displays the Ohio State Leadership Quadrants. This model consisted of four quadrants: High Consideration (1), High Structure and Consideration (2), High Structure (3), and Low Structure and Consideration (4).

| (1.) | (2.) |
| (4.) | (3.) |

These quadrants were two axes. The horizontal axes running left to right creating a higher value of Initiating Structure, and a vertical axes running upward creating a higher value of Consideration. Ultimately the “best” style of leadership would be in the second quadrant (High Structure and Consideration). This is difficult to achieve, and was later mentioned in the article that in some situations, maybe not the best.

This article ended by discussing how leadership styles would differ depending on the situation. This means that anywhere on the quadrant might be optimal, depending on what is going on at the time. This argument leads to the beginning of “situational leadership,” leadership style based on surrounding factors.

The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Law 2 – The Law of Influence

“If you don’t have influence, you will never be able to lead others” (Maxwell, 1998, p. 11).

This is the basis of this particular chapter. Every leader is somewhat influential, or he/she wouldn’t have any followers. Maxwell begins to question the reader how to go about measuring a leader’s influencing capabilities. Then he answers with a story that is well known. Princess Diana and Mother Teresa died less than a week apart of each other. Maxwell brings up a good point that both of these women were very different from one another, however in a “1996 poll published by the London Daily Mail, Princess Diana and Mother Teresa were voted in first and second places as the world’s two most caring people” (Maxwell, 1998, p. 11).

This is a perfect example of how they were influentially measured. Maxwell continued to explain that someone like Diana could be regarded the same way as Mother Teresa because Diana was able to demonstrate the power of the Law of Influence.

Maxwell also covered the misconceptions about leadership within this section. Maxwell explains how a manager and leader is not the same thing. A main difference between the two, according to Maxwell, is that “leadership is about influencing people to follow, while management focuses on maintain systems and processes” (Maxwell, 1998, p.14)

This is a topic that has come up on multiple occasions within my leadership studies group. This particular view makes sense in the fact that a leader is concerned for his/her followers where as a manager might care more about the overall objective of his/her subordinates.

Maxwell goes on to say that when it comes to leadership, a knowledge myth exists. Basically he is saying that although knowledge might be power, but there is more required to produce an ability to lead. I have had some incredibly intelligent professors in the past, but as leaders, they need to have charisma and personality as well.

Pioneer myth is also discussed saying that the person that is physically in front of a group is automatically the leader. This is an interesting concept seeing as this type of sighting is the easiest to process for any common person. In actuality, there are those in the back that might be more motivating or caring than the person assigned the task of directing a crowd. Maxwell makes the same connection with myth of position as well (political officials, CEOs, etc. are not necessarily good leaders).

Maxwell says that “leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less” (Maxwell, 1998, p. 17).
Therefore, it doesn’t matter what a person’s position, amount of leverage, knowledge, or physical location within a group is. All that matters is that person can get others to participate in a common goal through the power of influence.

The Law of Influence and Behavioral Theories of Leadership

These two theoretical pieces have a few things in common. One is that Maxwell’s idea that influence makes an optimal leader would fit in with Hersey’s and Blanchard’s idea of High Structure and High Consideration. In order to influence, a person would have to take the followers feelings into consideration, as well as have somewhat control over the task at hand. Both optimal points seem to equate in my eyes when it comes to the best type of leadership.

If I took the situational leadership idea, and compared it to a simple influential leadership, I would still find that in any given type of leadership situation, there will always be influencing factors in terms of the leader. The only difference is whether to concentrate more on the followers or the actual goal. Regardless, the influence is still there in essence.

Whether or not a leader is influential is based on the leader’s behaviors. By nature a leader is influential, but how they act depends on just how influential they are to their followers. Based on behavior, there is a direct relationship with influence, which could possibly be combined to create a further developed model representing multiple dimensions depicted on a single continuum.

Conclusion

Overall, both articles promote the same idea if thought of on a deeper theoretical layer. A person can’t become a leader if they cannot influence others. A leader cannot influence anyone if he or she does not show concern for the actual task at hand and/or the emotional & physical state of their followers. There are grounds for further theoretical developments involving these two leadership ideas brought forth by both Maxwell, and Hersey & Blanchard. There is an obvious connection between the different theories, and eventually a better theory can be produced to help facilitate other researchers with the overall goal to perfect the concept of leadership.

References:

J. Thomas Wren, ed. (1995). The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership Through
the Ages. Essay 25: Behavioral Theories of Leadership. New York: Free Press.

John C. Maxwell, ed. (1998). The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership. Law 2: The Law of
Influence. Maxwell Motivation, Inc.