FORMS OF LEADERSHIP
Through history leadership has been called upon to meet social needs. These needs can also be determined by what the various situations in history have called for. Situations call for leadership of a specific nature given the circumstances. There are at least four such situations where different forms of leadership are called for. The table below summarizes the call of leadership, the form of leadership, the achievement expected of that leadership and the leadership character.
THE CALL
REFORM
The Reformer works with paradigms, systems and structures and seeks to renew them. Transformational leadership often presents new ideas that seem out of touch with reality and are sometimes quite complex. Yet they are usually just matters presented from a different standpoint. Like the “base” concept in mathematics, if you change the base from 10 to 5 your sums will have different answers, though you use the same figures. The challenge of the reformer is to evolve systems and to get other people to see things in the same way and act accordingly. Once the people grasp and adopt the concept transformation occurs. Reformers can remodel, reorganize, modify and fashion anew. Reformers can work with failed, destroyed or incomplete works. Reform often appears radical but its main aim is not to capsize the boat, just rock it a little to stop it from keeling over or redirecting it to stop it from getting lost. Reformers optimize organization or institution performance. Reformers aim at improvement, efficiency and effectiveness. Reform drives creativity, invention and innovation it focuses on improvement and does not necessarily seek to destroy, but it will seek to re- invent the wheel. It is mainly conceptual (philosophical) though it can also be technical and professional in outlook.
GOVERNOR
The governor has the call to establish. Leadership is required to preserve and consolidate gains made by the organization. The role of governance is to initiate modest growth and development in the context of the status quo. This is a no sparks, no surprises approach to leadership. The governor ensures harmony and order as the overriding principle of the process. Stability is the main achievement. The governor does not seek to introduce anything new. Governing is by nature conservative, dutiful and steadfast. This kind of leadership stays the course despite the circumstances. Governors guard institutions with their lives and their measure of achievement is in handing them over intact. This form of leadership thrives in an era where reliable efficient systems and structures have been built, are in existence and only need maintenance. When society is happy or comfortable with the status quo they call for governance.
LIBERATORS
The Liberator call is to set free. Leadership is characterized by firebrands who have nothing to lose. Their intention is to overthrow and dispose of whatever existed before. They attack any and every institution and individuals that has a vague reference to what they describe as the oppressor. Liberators have a few ideas but they are mainly concerned with the removal of the oppression. This form of leadership does not mind destroying. Liberators do not think about rebuilding. Their interest is purely and simply the dismantling and removal of oppression, it does not matter that no structures will be left in which to shelter. The basis of achievement is emancipation.
This form of leadership is antagonistic and is driven by the enemy. Whatever the enemy is perceived to be. However this type of leadership is singularly vulnerable in that its existence is dependent on the enemy, is focused on the enemy and needs the enemy to succeed. Without that one focus leadership will fall apart. In its success are the seeds of its downfall. Unfortunately much of political leadership falls in this category.
THE CONQUEROR
The final call is of the conqueror. The form of leadership adopted by the conqueror is perhaps the shrewdest by nature. This form of leadership builds and builds rapidly by taking advantage of opportunities, exploiting both strengths and weaknesses alike. The conqueror enjoys a conquest. The conqueror is not radical. The conqueror takes calculated risk but can be extremely persistent. Conquerors make no pretensions about intentions and often go public about them. Conquerors go about their business with meticulous planning and detailed execution. This form of leadership is highly competitive. The achievement is in winning. To be a winner is all that matters. This leadership is best charged with the responsibility to expand territory or to take it over. The conqueror, contrary to the liberator, does not need an enemy or a visible focus of attention. The conqueror in the absence of a challenge formulates a territory to invade and then proceeds to go out and conquer it. Conquerors make conquests of all that is undesirable and even anything that may be desirable.
ORGANIZATION
Our own view is that circumstances give direction to leadership but also facilitates the identification of suitable leaders based on their individual strengths that will be characteristic of desired leadership. It is also of our opinion that though leadership and leaders have strengths in one situation few if any will be universally talented in leadership of every situation. Hence we believe that mature organizations must develop leadership capacity to enable the organization to face and successfully overcome the varied forms of challenge it will face in its existence. This will also ensure that leadership is rotated within the ranks as the situation demands.
Of the four calls none can be said to be more or less important. But the excitement elicited by the Reformer is muted and often goes unrecognized, however the effects of their initiative can last for generations. Pioneers, inventors and researchers can be classed as Reformers seeking to redraw social paradigms. The conqueror draws much public acclaim the effect of the victory however is often short-lived. After one battle there must be another battle soon. Governors do not cause much of a fuss unless they do not meet social expectations. Liberators on the other-hand cause a captivating stir of emotions reverberating long after the event. The response of society to the fruits of leadership efforts can be misleading when considered in the light of their achievements. On the whole an organization facing new challenge will also need to change its leadership. Successful change will enable the organization to move on and survive with an appropriate form of leadership in place.
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT CYCLE
These four forms of leadership required in diverse circumstances can also be interpreted as an organization development cycle. Emerging from liberation or redemption an organization would naturally require Reform before it becomes self-governing under a new (different form oppression) form of governance in line with its new aspirations and goals. With time an organization would plateau or move to the next phase where expansion, or diversification would be key to its continued growth. Once it has achieved this it is likely that the organization will reach some sort of peak and thus require liberation from itself again (or further reformation) plunging the organization through another cycle of organization change. Missing a stage is perhaps not altogether healthy.
THE CALL
Does society call for leadership or do leaders Provide leadership? If the first is true then leaders have no responsibility other than to act in response to society and to serve the people’s interests. If the latter is the case then leaders must dominate society completely. We shall see the application and effects of both these approaches to leadership.
SUMMARY
The demands of the situation call for specific forms of leadership but the nature of the work also frames leaders. This presents some interesting questions. When the situation changes can leadership change? Or when leadership demands change can leaders change to suit the demands? More specifically is there such a thing as an “all round” leader able to adapt to all four calls of leadership without so much as a second thought? Do situations enable appropriate leadership to show forth? Do leaders and people in leadership demonstrate personal strengths and weaknesses in the various forms of leadership? Can the appropriate form of leadership be learned or is it built on natural talents. Is it true that there are some people who have leadership ability which will never show forth because the situations they are in will never facilitate its expression? Does this mean that for an organization to have mature leadership it must have capability (depth and breadth) of all forms of leadership in its ranks to effectively deal with every organizational situation?
CAREERS
Those pursuing leadership as a career development strategy must make careful selection of the form of leadership one can/is able to take up. Otherwise competence will be frustrated by poor choice of leadership form or poor match between organization (job) demands and ones leadership strength (competence). E.g. a Skilled businessman may find leadership hard going in politics.
THE STATE OF LEADERSHIP IN AFRICA
From the profiles of leaders drawn up against the above forms of leadership it would be interesting to debate whether the liberator (heading a liberation movement) can form a good governor? The leadership demands are as different as the leadership characteristics. It would be very difficult for a liberator to become a governor if only by temperament. Many of the Great Ones were liberators. Could they have been expected to transform themselves overnight to become governors?
This presents a new angle to the dilemma faced by leadership at the birth of nations. Leadership in Africa was principally made up of liberators charged with the responsibility of governance. The liberation movement had one simple enemy whom they fought with heart and soul. Now this same leadership was charged with the responsibility of governance over what they had successfully vanquished. Take a closer look at the four forms of leadership and it will become clear that what was needed was Reform not even immediate governance. But transformational leadership ability was not in short supply it was in no supply. A new form of leadership would have had to have been developed and charged with the responsibility of rebuilding before handing over the nation to governors.