‘You say that these are necessary functions, not needed all together – every section of the orchestra playing at the same time – but as and when they are required. But I notice you did not say that they are leadership functions in that only the designated leader can perform them.’
‘Some groups – jazz bands, string quartets – don’t have a designated leader,’ I replied. ‘Theoretically any member can perform any function. I can think of a small company making pure fruit juices that is run by a triumvirate of its three young founders, who are the directors of finance, production and marketing, respectively – there is no chief executive. Early American theorists used to say that whoever contributed something that could be classified under one of these broad functions was the leader for the moment.’
‘So groups no longer needed designated leaders?’
‘Yes, that was their position, reinforced by what they perceived to be the failure of the traits theorists used to establish the existence of such a thing as leadership qualities. The talk was of leaderless groups being the thing of the future, the new democratic (good) model as opposed to the old authoritarian (bad) one associated with having a designated leader.’
‘How did that work out in practice?’
‘Not very well. In the “group laboratories” (as they were called) that gave rise to the new dogma, the groups studied had no real task to do, their mission being entirely one of group-introspection. Even there, however, there were leaders, though they were called “trainers” or “facilitators”. Outside, in the real world, the doctrinaire abandonment of designated leaders proved to be counterproductive. A Russian symphony orchestra, for example, did away with its conductor and played sitting facing each other in order to try and keep together. They eventually decided to get another conductor. In Britain the National Health Service also experimented with the same dogma and experienced a similar disappointing result. More often than not, working groups do need a designated leader.’
‘What about that small company you mentioned?’
‘As they grow larger in size and the complexity increases, they will be compelled to select a leader, a “first among equals”. It’s the difference between being a string trio and becoming an orchestra.’
‘How do people get selected as leaders?’
‘Basically in two ways: you can be either elected or appointed. As a broad generalization, where groups throw up their own tasks they tend to elect their own leaders who are accountable to the electors. Trade unions and sports clubs are good examples of this practice. By contrast, where tasks are given to groups from on high, as it were, leaders tend to be appointed. Such leaders are primarily accountable to the authority that entrusted them with both the task and the group.’
‘Quite a big difference,’ commented the young chief executive.
‘Ideally both elected and appointed leaders should be chosen from those who would have emerged naturally in that field or situation – the “admirable Crichtons” if you like.’
‘And all three approaches – Qualities, Situational and Functional – would be needed to explain why one person rather than another emerged as the leader.’
‘That’s it. The British prime minister begins life as an emergent leader; he or she is then elected by their party and the voters; finally they are appointed by the Crown.’
‘Does that mean that all the functions you listed are now to be regarded as the preserve of the designated leader?’
‘He or she is accountable for them. Moreover, basic leadership training should develop the awareness and understanding needed to know when each is required, together with the skills to provide them. But any group of more than five people needs more functions than any one individual can supply. Therefore a wise leader will encourage others to share the work of meeting the task, team and individual needs.’
‘How does that principle apply to decision-making? There is a strong belief still around that leaders should be the decision-takers. Isn’t decisiveness a generic leadership quality?’