‘Perhaps we can begin with a summary of where we are,’ began the young chief executive. ‘First we identified the key question: why is it that one person is accepted as a leader rather than another? The three “paths up the mountain” to answering the question were the:
- QUALITIES Approach – the contingent and generic characteristics of the person concerned. What you are.
- SITUATIONAL Approach – the emphasis here being possessing technical or professional knowledge appropriate to the situation. What you know.
- FUNCTIONAL Approach – the Three-Circles model of needs present in working groups and the key functional responses. What you do.
We explored, too, the idea that although most groups and organizations have designated leaders – elected or appointed or both – wise leaders do not attempt to perform all the necessary functions themselves: they share the work (if not the burden) of leadership rather than keeping it all to themselves. By involving others as much as possible in decision-making, for example, they generate a sense of responsibility as well as commitment.
‘Then we had a discussion about necessary and sufficient conditions. I think you were saying that if a person scores high in all three approaches it is highly probable – nothing is certain in this life – that he or she will be perceived to be a leader and, where one is needed, accepted as such.
‘Then the principle emerged that leadership exists on different levels,’ he continued, ‘and we identified three: the team leader (a direct descendent of the hunting party leader), the operational leader, who has more than one team reporting to him and heads up a significant part of the whole, and the strategic leader who heads up the whole organization.
‘Then we touched on the much-debated differences between managing and leading. You suggested that the simplest way of resolving the issue was to consider the kinds of situations that called for one rather than the other. Where there is little or no change, where things are governed by rules, where the organization can be conceived as a machine or self-perpetuating system, then it is appropriate to put it in the charge of managers who will plan, control, supervise and administer it on behalf of the owners, be they private, shareholders or the public via the instrument of government. Characteristically they achieve conformity and performance by the fear of people losing their jobs and by the provision of incentives such as monetary rewards or promotional prospects.’