Leadership has been a scientific discipline for over 100 years. The magnitude of research has increased tremendously. A variety of leadership concepts and theories has been proposed. Now, I have identified types of leadership theories in order to understand the present fissured state of leadership research

Andersen, Jon Aarum

LSE Research Online

Leadership	studies:	All	bridges	have	been	burnedLeadership	has	been	a	scientific	discipline	for	over	100	years.	The	magnitude	of	research	has	increasedtremendously.	A	variety	of	leadership	concepts	and	theories	has	been	proposed.	Now,	I	have	identified	types	ofleadership	theories	in	order	to	understand	the	present	fissured	state	of	leadership	research.Leadership	theories	may	be	categorised	according	to	the	following	criteria:	(1)	theoretical	assumptions	onorganisations,	(2)	definitions	of	leadership,	(3)	focus	on	explanation	versus	description	and	understanding,	and(4)	method	and	empirical	data.	These	four	classification	criteria	are	chosen	because	they	pinpoint	significantdifferences	and	contrasts	between	a	number	of	theories.Based	on	these	criteria,	two	groups	of	leadership	theories	are	identifiable,	being	fundamentally	different	withrespect	to	the	conceptions	of	both	organisations	and	leadership.	While	one	group	of	theories	concentrates	ondescriptions	and	understandings	or	perceptions	of	leadership,	the	other	group	emphasises	causalrelationships	between	leadership	and	organisational	outcomes.The	two	groups	contain	several	theories.	Old	and	current	theories	appear	in	both	groups.	The	aim	is	not	toassess	specific	theories	or	approaches	with	regard	to	their	impact,	quality,	scientific	rigour	or	relevance.	For	thisvery	reason	the	groups	have	been	given	labels	in	order	as	far	as	possible	to	avoid	potential	associations	withsomething	good	or	bad	or	new	or	outdated,	namely,	the	‘leadership	effectiveness	theories’	and	‘leadershipdescription	theories.’	‘The	effectiveness	theories’	focus	on	the	explanation	of	organisational	outcomes	andaddress	in	particular	the	causal	relationship	between	leadership	and	organisational	effectiveness.What	I	have	named	‘leadership	description	theories’	or	‘leadership	process	theories’	are	theories	that	help	usunderstand	what	leadership	is	or	how	leadership	is	understood	and	perceived	or	the	symbolic	aspects	ofleadership.	All	that	matters	is	that	these	two	kinds	of	leadership	theories	are	different.	And	there	is	a	chasmbetween	them.‘Effectiveness	theories’	represent	an	outward	force	or	movement	from	the	behaviour	and	actions	of	the	leaderwith	a	focus	on	the	tasks	the	subordinates	need	to	perform	for	the	achievement	of	organisational	goals.	This	kindof	leadership	theory	draws	attention	to	the	leadership	situation	and	the	organisational	context.	The	formal	leaders’main	task	is	to	contribute	to	the	attainment	of	the	goals	as	decided	by	the	owners	or	principals.	The	end	variableof	‘effectiveness	theories’	is	organisational	goal-attainment.	The	scholarship	of	the	‘effectiveness	theories’	isacknowledged	by	managers.LSE Business Review: Leadership studies: All bridges have been burned Page 1 of 2		Date originally posted: 2017-09-05Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/09/05/leadership-studies-all-bridges-have-been-burned/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/The	‘process	description	theories’	represent	an	inward	force	or	movement	from	organisational	and	societalcontexts	into	the	leader	as	a	person.	The	external	force	or	influence	comes	to	the	leader	through	the	relationshipwith	the	followers.	The	leader	and	the	follower	enter	a	relationship	described	as,	for	instance,	one	of	‘mutualstimulation	and	elevation.’	Leadership	is	also	a	matter	of	how	managers	construct	and	describe	their	leadership.Thus,	the	end	variable	of	‘description	theories’	is	what	goes	on	in	the	minds	of	the	leaders,	or	in	the	management-of-meaning	stance,	what	reality	or	meanings	end	up	in	the	heads	of	the	subordinates.	These	theories	are	seldomknown	to	managers.	The	message	of	what	may	also	be	called	‘leadership	process	theories’	has	not	expandedbeyond	the	understanding	and	scholarship	stored	among	the	researchers	themselves.Scholarship	on	‘effectiveness	theories’	pertains	to	leadership	in	formal	organisations	where	organisations	areperceived	as	vehicles	for	the	achievement	of	the	goals	of	the	owners,	whether	they	are	private	or	public	ones.The	scholarship	on	‘description	theories’	pertains	to	leadership	in	political,	religious	or	social	movements	andorganisations	where	the	goals	are	those	of	the	leaders	or	common	goals.	Theoretical	advances	in	managerialleadership	or	in	political	leadership	are	neither	applicable	nor	beneficial	for	each	other	because	what	leadership	isall	about	and	what	to	lead	and	whom	to	lead	are	fundamentally	different.Additionally,	the	purpose	of	‘leadership	effectiveness	theories’,	which	is	to	find	causal	explanations,	contrastssharply	with	the	purpose	of	‘leadership	description	theories’,	which	is	to	describe	and	understand	leadership.	Thepurpose	of	the	latter	is	in	fact	to	understand	a	kind	of	leadership	that	differs	from	that	of	leadership	effectiveness.The	difference	between	these	two	groups	of	leadership	scholarship	is	at	its	most	profound	when	managerialleadership’s	focus	on	organisational	effectiveness	is	confronted	with	an	anti-performance	argument.By	acknowledging	these	contrasts,	conflicts	and	contradictions	between	‘effectiveness	theories’	and	the‘description	theories’	we	can	understand	the	present	state	of	leadership	scholarship.	A	critical	result	of	thesedivergent	emphases	is	that	the	theoretical	relationships	between	these	two	groups	of	scholarship	appear	to	haveended.	Advancements	in	one	area	may	no	longer	be	beneficial	to	other	areas.	It	behoves	us	to	consider	theconsequences	of	this	present	bifurcated	state.	We	ought	to	take	seriously	the	proposition	that	leadershipresearchers,	and,	in	the	final	analysis,	managers,	are	all	losers	if	the	present	state	prevails.Sometimes,	in	conversation	with	other	leadership	researchers,	I	relate	some	basic	concepts	and	findings	inleadership,	I	notice	from	their	astonished	questions	how	much	of	what	is	obvious	mainstream	scholarship	to	me	isincomprehensible	to	them.	And	they	are	right.	All	bridges	between	the	‘leadership	effectiveness	theories’	and‘leadership	description	theories’	have	been	burned.♣♣♣Notes:This	blog	post	is	based	on	the	author’s	paper	Leadership	scholarship:	all	bridges	have	beenburned,	Leadership	and	the	Humanities,	4	(2),	108-125.The	post	gives	the	views	of	its	author,	not	the	position	of	LSE	Business	Review	or	the	London	School	ofEconomics.Featured	image	credit:	Photo	by	Sweet	Ice	Cream	Photography	on	UnsplashWhen	you	leave	a	comment,	you’re	agreeing	to	our	Comment	Policy.Jon	Aarum	Andersen	is	Researcher/Professor	at	Örebro	University	School	of	Business,	ÖrebroUniversity,	Sweden.	He	holds	a	Master	of	Business	Administration	degree	from	Norway	and	aPh.D.	from	Lund	University,	Sweden.	Dr.	Andersen	has	written	13	university	level	textbooks	andhas	37	international	research	journal	publications.	LSE Business Review: Leadership studies: All bridges have been burned Page 2 of 2		Date originally posted: 2017-09-05Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/09/05/leadership-studies-all-bridges-have-been-burned/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/

Leadership studies: all bridges have been burned

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online