It’s time for another entry at the Educated Leadership blog! This week we’re looking at Authentic Leadership Theory and two perspectives about that theory.
In our text, Rowe and Guerrero cited a definition of authentic leadership style as that “which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development. The authentic leader is confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, transparent, moral/ethical, future-oriented, and gives priority to developing associates to be leaders” (2013, p. 295-296). Northouse (2016) pointed out that very few studies on authentic leadership explain the moral component and how it serves as a motivating factor for the leader and that the theory of authentic leadership is still early in development.
Martin and Sims (1956) and Bailey (1988) wrote that all leaders must be manipulative to succeed. This point opens the idea that leadership is inherently negative and requires a type of coercion that may be less than savory. Bass & Steidlmeier countered that “in fact, it is pseudo-transformational leaders who are deceptive and manipulative” (1999, p. 196).
So, where does this leave us, the leaders in today’s world, as we look to be the best we can be? Let’s utilize critical thinking tools to analyze the situation.
The purpose of the two perspectives is defined in the roles they are playing. The critics are looking to poke holes in the theory while those attempting to adapt the theory are apt to expound on the positive aspects. Both sides, in this argument, appear to have been remiss in addressing the opposing points of integrity and ethics or the lack thereof. As we have learned along our journey, leadership that is implemented to enhance the success of only the leader will not continue in perpetuity. The leader needs to have the success of the followers, the organization, and the overall community as motivation and strive for that through values and morals that are acceptable and agreeable to those groups.
The question at issue is whether leadership is manipulation of the followers. The litmus test would be the ethics and integrity of the goals and in the way, the leader energizes the followers to assist in achieving those goals. The US political arena has provided some excellent examples of leaders claiming to be authentic while demonstrating qualities of charismatic leadership that skews toward being more self-serving in nature. Bass & Steidlmeier’s (1999) point above is applicable here.
Northouse (2016) noted that Authentic Leadership theory is still in its relatively early stages. Information may be less available than we would like, but there are studies available on the subject. As we are doing here, each study should be reviewed using critical thinking tools to enhance understanding of the overall theory. In the case of the two statements we are reviewing, the ethics and integrity of the leader are where we should concentrate our data mining. As we have striven to define leadership, integrity, trust, honesty, and ethics have become our cornerstones. Any questions about authentic leadership need to address those cornerstones and their application. That which is proper in some cultures may not be in others.
Interpreting the Martin & Sims (1956) and Bailey (1988) statement is clear cut. They were attempting to note that manipulation in any form is bad. The inference is negative. Wong & Cummings (2009) took the purely positive interpretation of authentic leadership and infer that by providing a positive atmosphere based on honesty and integrity, the change in behavior induced in the followers is good.
The concepts utilized by the two perspectives revolve around leadership and followership. Wong looked at the aspect of being genuine and Martin looked at the less altruistic concepts of power and influence. Both concepts are important and examining multiple facets of an argument is vital to both understanding and application of the theories we study.
The assumptions by Wong & Cummings (2009) are that authentic leadership is inherently positive because it stresses ethical leadership. The perspective assumes the opposite is often the case and authentic leaders need to be watched carefully.
As we learned when reviewing Charismatic leadership theory, blind followership leads to negative results. The implication of looking at only the positive, or only the negative, side of authentic leadership is having a gap in one’s perspective. As leaders, we all have gaps in our perspective. One of our fiduciary duties to our organization and our followers if to attempt to minimize our gaps in performance and perspective.
We need to be authentic leaders. We need to be transformational leaders. We need to be servant leaders. As I have studied Authentic Leadership, I have begun to believe that Authentic Leadership Theory is an underpinning for transformational and servant leadership. Being less than authentic would hamper any attempts to build the trust needed to implement those important leadership styles.
Have a great week!
Bailey, F. G. (1988). Humbuggery and manipulation: The art of leadership. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Carol A. Wong, G. A. Cummings. (2009). The Influence of Authentic Leadership Behaviors on Trust and Work Outcomes of Health Care Staff. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 18. doi:10.1002/jls.20104
Martin, N. H., & Sims, J.H. (1956). Thinking Ahead: Power Tactics. Harvard Business Review, 6, 12.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership - Theory and Practice (M. Masson Ed. Seventh ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
W. Glenn Rowe, L. Guerrero. (2013). Cases in Leadership (L. Todorovic-Arndt Ed. 3rd ed.).
No comments:
Post a Comment