addouglas

Abstract

What would happen if you take two scholarly pieces involving defining leadership composed by reputable leadership professors and compare and contrasted them? You would most likely find a deeper understanding of leadership analysis, observations, and concepts. One author takes a look at a Democratic view on leadership, while the other wants to expand the study of the relationship between leaders and their followers. This essay involves a breakdown of each author’s point of view through the eyes of an Information and Communication Scientist eager to extract valuable information to further his knowledge on “leadership”, an increasingly popularized term used to enhance management styles in today’s fast paced society.

Introduction

Leadership has become such a complex term/concept over the years, and as a result, many journalists, philosophers, professors, and students have different views on what makes a leader a good quality leader. Questions arise on how to actually analyze leadership. Is it based on the number of followers? How about the amount of tasks an individual has accomplished within an allotted amount of time? It turns out that there is a lot more to it than basic questions and answers. In this essay, I shall summarize two essays: The Historical and Contemporary Contexts of Leadership: A Conceptual Model written by J. Thomas Wren and Marc J. Swatez and Leadership and Democracy written by Thomas E. Cronin. After the summarization of the two, I will see what these two looks at leadership have in common, as well as, where these authors differ perceptively. Either way, there is no such thing as the “perfect” definition of leadership. There is only professional reasoning based on a great deal of research.

The Historical and Contemporary Contexts of Leadership: A Conceptual Model

J. Thomas Wren and March J. Swatez wrote this piece on how leadership is an extremely complex phenomenon that is difficult for anyone (followers, leaders, students, etc.) who has attempted to participate in, observe, or analyze the process. Wren and Swatez used this essay to stress the “context of leadership,” and did so using real world examples, conceptual models, personal experiences, and researched materials (Wren, pg 245).

These authors begin by talking about how in the past, “contingency” theories and models have been use to describe the leadership process, but have failed to fully capture leadership since these theories and models didn’t address the “the long-term historical forces and the influence of cultural values upon leadership” (Wren, pg 246).

They went on to discuss how during the twentieth century, most of the leadership studies that were done were restricted to the just the leader. For example, the distinctive characteristics of the leader or the actions of the leader. This type of research was very simplistic in nature and didn’t really grasp the essence of leadership. A better, and more advanced way of looking at leadership is to concentrate on the followers as well. By looking at the followers, leaders, and the relationship between the two yields a far more all-encompassing conception of leadership. For instance, they mention Fiedler’s contingency theory that pertains to such factors as “leader-member relations, task structure, and leader position power in determinging the appropriate style of leader behavior, while path-goal theory considers task and environment characteristics as well as the needs and expectations of the followers” (Wren, pg 246).

There is an already noticeable difference between the simplistic concentrations on the leader and the combined leader-member relationship with the incorporation of follower/member needs and collaborative tasks. This newer take on leadership starts to take a look at “macro” contextual factors. This means that the previous studies zoned in on smaller groups/organizations which is considered to be “micro” contextual factors while newer/advanced theories and models tend to point towards larger leader-member groups which relates better to today’s work force.

Wren and Swatez developed a model to combine both macro and micro contextual factors titled “A Model of Leadership Contexts” (Wren, Figure 1, pg 248).

This model consisted of overlapping contextual categories illustrated by concentric circles. Basically there are two joint circles in the middle that are titled “Leader” and “Follower.” Surrounding these two circles are three outer circles. The one closest to the leader and follower are “The Immediate Context of Leadership.” This inner circle contains aspects such as Structure and “Goals”, “Culture”, and “Task Characteristics.” This type of context describes the “micro” side of leadership groups. The circle outside of that is titled “The Contemporary Context of Leadership.” This pertains to “Social Values”, “Cultural Mores”, and “Subcultural Norms”. These contextual facets can be considered to be sub-external. This means that there are some factors that affect leadership that don’t have to necessarily include the followers and leaders directly, but still affect the leadership process nonetheless. These are things like “norms, values, and customs of the surrounding society – in short, the impact of cultural mores” (Wren, pg 249).

The third and most outer circle represents “The Historical Context of Leadership.” Leadership cannot be fully analyzed without having to look at the history of past leaders or past leadership theories and models. The authors discuss how “any contemporary situation is at least partially a product of what has gone on before” (Wren, pg 247).

It common sense to see where the history of leadership would play a major role in the examination, observation, and study of leadership styles, concepts, and roles.
By creating an innovative model, these authors hope to achieve a more rational leadership process which would make the mutual goals of both leaders and followers easier to achieve.

Leadership and Democracy

Thomas E. Cronin wrote an essay describing how democracy and leadership seems to have a direct relationship. He starts out by explaining how in many respects, leadership is in opposition towards democracy. Since leadership is defined as “the process whereby an individual or a few select individuals are in a position to provide the vision and make things happen,” that democracy would in fact argue this since in a democratic society, the “followers” would have the power and provide the vision (Wren, pg 304).

This creates conflict between the terms “leader” and “follower.” Cronin believes a true democracy would seek ways to reconcile these two concepts. Throughout history, governments have not been of and by the people, but instead ran by elites. Unfortunately, history also points out these supposed elites created more harm than good for the masses. In this sense, leaders would be considered to be untrusting, and corrupted by power.
The strangely ironic battle occurs within America between leaders and followers. Americans tend to admire power, yet consequently fear it. We as Americans (follower side) “may love to unload our civic responsibilities on our leaders, yet we dislike – intensely dislike – being bossed around” (Wren, pg 305).

Cronin then goes on to further promote our (as followers) dislike for power through famous sayings such as “A friend in power is a friend lost,” and “Power is ever stealing from the many for the few.”
A gap obviously exists between our perception of the typical politician and the ideal statesperson. Cronin believes this gap exists because of the follower’s (us as Americans) unrealistic expectations. When an official is elected, they are chosen by the people to be perfect when this is never the case. They don’t have all the answers as we the followers might hope. Because of this unrealistic view, warring concepts between leaders and followers tend to happen which illustrates the point of leaders opposing democracy.

Cronin believes in order to solve this “war,” we must redefine leader and follower through actual definitions, as well as, behavioral and attitudinal changes between the two. “The very word “followers” is a negative and demeaning word and ought, if possible, to be discarded or at least greatly modified” (Wren, pg 306).

This is the main point to Cronin’s overall leadership theory. He believes that “followers” should instead be referred to as citizen-leaders which would indicate that the “followers” actually contain leadership-like qualities. The citizen-leaders need to be willing to lead as well as follow. This citizen-leader recognizes that power wielded justly today might be wielded corruptly tomorrow. A citizen-leader, in Cronin’s eyes, sees democracy resting solidly upon a varied view of human nature. These new types of followers will enhance democracy in that although we has a nation prize majority rule, we need to be skeptical enough to ask whether a majority is always the correct method.
Cronin finishes his essay by saying that democracy demands competing leaders. He explains how the leaders and citizen-leaders are one in the same. Both make mistakes, and both need to learn from them and rectify the situation. Citizen-leaders should never be satisfied thus yielding better elections in a sense that the bar continues to raise creating a better society for all. Leader competition illustrates the idea that the ideal politician is fictitious, and therefore conflict will always reside causing a need for problem solving within a diverse nation. Since American liberties invite diversity, the nation as whole consequently invites conflict. For this there will be contending ideas for the nation, which will create a need for competitive leaders.

Cronin ends by saying “we shall know we are making progress not when we discover or produce a handful of charismatic Mount Rushmore leaders, but when we can boast we are a nation no longer in need of those larger-than-life great leaders because we have become a nation of citizens who believe that one person can make a difference and every person should regularly try” (Wren, pg 309).

A Democratic Look at Contextual Leadership

The main similarity is that the essay involving leadership in terms of democracy really points towards “macro” contextual factors mentioned in the first essay. The nation is a very large group, and requires the two outside circles within the “Model of Leadership Contexts.” Also, research in this area would greatly fall on the newer type of contingency leadership theory meaning that concentration on just the leader would not help the advancement of a democratic nation. Wren truly wanted to design a model that would take into account a larger follower population, and Cronin was deeply concerned for a nationwide equality among leaders and citizen-leaders (followers).

Both essays recognized the importance of historical evidence to guide future leadership styles. Within Wren’s contextual model, the historic context of leadership was vital due to the fact that any contemporary situation is at least partially a product of what has already gone on before. Basically saying that any newly developed theories or concepts we have today are partially linked to past theories and concepts. Both essays also used historic examples to further illustrate the importance of past events when looking at leadership.

Differences Between Democratic and Contextual Leadership

One of the main differences between these essays was that Wren’s essay provided a all encompassing model that both incorporated small, medium, and large groups/organizations involving leaders and followers, while Cronin’s view on democratic societies concentrated on large nationwide groups when referring to leader and follower relationships.

Furthermore, Cronin believed that the term “follower” was incredibly demeaning, while Wren used the term follower in his final conceptual model. Cronin would not have agreed with Wren’s model simply due to his passionate opinions towards to actual words used to describe those who were part of the member-leader relationship.

Another example would be that Cronin worried more about how leaders and citizen-leaders would affect a Democratic America as a whole, rather than Wren’s concern for simply analyzing and studying the leadership process in general.

Conclusion

Both Essays were very interesting, and both held very valid points with discussing the relationship between leaders and followers. I can see where Cronin feels that the term follower has a negative connotation to it. We as Americans are encouraged during our upbringing to walk our own path and specialize in something that will make us important or unique. Standing out from the crowd is the exact opposite when thinking of the fall-in-line term “follower.”

The democratic look at leadership really hits home for me since I am immersed in a leader-member democratic society. Cronin really took a different view on the leader/follower relationship. He had a lot of good points when leaders sometimes need to become followers and followers in some situations need to be leaders. Normally when I think of leaders and followers, they are both in totally separate categories, but Cronin’s view seemed to point out that they are virtually the same when it comes to the heart of the matter.

The contextual model looked at, in my mind (from inside the circle, moving outward) , direct analysis of the leader/follower, sub-external analysis of the leader/follower, and overall historic view of past leaders, leadership processes, theories, and models to aide in the analysis directly and sub-externally. I learned a lot from these essays since I may have just come up with my own theory which would be a slightly modified model of leadership contexts.

References:

J. Thomas Wren, ed. (1995). The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership Through
the Ages. Essay 36: The Historical and Contemporary Contexts of Leadership:
A Conceptual Model. New York: Free Press.

J. Thomas Wren, ed. (1995). The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership Through
the Ages. Essay 41: Leadership and Demoacracy. New York: Free Press.