Interrogating Individual Differences in Leadership The Politics of Groups Aristotle and the Polity, and the Civic Ecology of Cities Leadership Culture Leadership Studies Human Agency Leadercentrism Hero Worship “Great Man” Theory” Freud on Great Men Criticisms of GMT Lincoln and the Great Man Theory Human beings have always functioned in groups. The most basic human group is the family, centered around, until very recently, the pairing of a male and female (and extended kinship networks) for the purpose of procreation and the raising of children. Family groups are held together by a strong bond of cohesion referred to as kinship. While kinship is often thought of in relation to blood ties, what is more important is the common sense of identity by which all the individuals are bonded to the group. This sense of identity causes the individual's self-conception to be inseparable from the group. Behavioral expectations (e.g., mutually beneficial exchanges based on trust and felt obligation or getting a sense of identity and self-esteem based upon their membership) within the group are often defined by the culture; norms and roles are established over time, usually in response to needs, and challenges of the environment. Traditions and practices strengthen group expectations, religion has historically sanctified them, and law codifies them. Institutions develop to enforce behavioral expections. These are all necessary functional responses to the need for the group to operate efficiently. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/humangroups.html Ties that bind groups: Shared purpose Interdependence Sense of belonging Inclusion Diversity Participative leadership Trust We are a fundamentally cooperative species (even our competition is defined by cooperative behavioral patterns). Human beings have always functioned in groups. The most basic human group is the family, centered around the pairing of a male and female for the purpose of procreation and the raising of children. Family groups are held together by a strong bond of cohesion referred to as kinship. While kinship is often thought of in relation to blood ties, what is more important is the common sense of identity by which all the individuals are bonded to the group. This sense of identity causes the individual's selfconception to be inseparable from the group. “When staying alive is not just the responsibility of the individual, but other members of the species … all members' chances are enhanced. We live in extremely complex and interdependent societies, where people band together in groups for mutual aid and protection. Such groups include families, friendships, associations, tribes, clans, states, nations …since the group enhances the members' chances of survival, group survival means personal survival. The individual benefits by supporting the group, because the group reciprocates by supporting the individual.” http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/humangroups.html & https://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/socself.html The characteristically Aristotelian defense of the city's authority over its members is summarized in the statements "every city exists by nature” and "man is by nature a political animal.” Cities then are collections of people in their natural state- humans, then, formulate increasingly complex human associations that culminate in cities. From couple to family Family to group Group to village Village to city Why do we live in cities? To mitigate against the perils of the natural world and its contingencies To preserve security and propagate human life For Aristotle, cities exist to perpetuate a good life 1) A city’s ultimate objective is to aspire to quality (to maintain the morality of the polity) 2) Quality means that individuals make contributions to the civic ecology– these contributions to the civic ecology define a good life 3) This section of Aristotle’s Politics outlines our moral obligation to one another (this is were the concept of leadership is particularly relevant) 4) Aristotle’s delineation of cities and the maintenance of quality is applicable to the culture of groups (leadership is an exercise in group ethos. Or, rather, how we’re bound to one another in various roles of agreement or coercion) Correct Deviant One Ruler Kingship Tyranny Few Rulers Aristocracy Oligarchy Many Rulers Polity Extreme Democracy For Aristotle, a polity represented a theoretical approach to the ideal state–how states are organized is, for Aristotle, essential to achieving happiness. Aristotle believed in the wisdom of crowds—that people could bring their experiences to bear on the shape of government. He also cautioned against extreme democracy whereby a majority of the crowd holds disproportionate influence over the state’s decision-making process. The polity, for Aristotle, was a variation of democracy were the many govern in their own interests rather than governing just for leadership. The success of a polity then was contingent upon the quality of leadership and their ability to work with –and take cues from—common interests (i.e., quality of law, virtue, and their relationship to the masses). The best polity is that which is formed by citizens of the middle class. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/ What tie bonds our group (i.e., what makes an American an American)? How does context, our civic ecology, influence what we value in ourselves and our leaders? Conceptual Definition: Leadership is not entirely a person or position. It is a complex moral relationship between people and that relationship is predicated on role agreement. Cultural, political, economic, and social context not only helps define these relationships, these factors help bind role agreement. In this way, leadership is a dynamic, co-creational process between leaders, followers, and environments. Basic Behavioral Definition: Leadership, according to Judge and Long , can be defined by actions by individuals and/or groups which serve to direct, control, or influence behaviors toward a particular objective. This phenomena of control, influence, and direction is essentially universal to the behavior of human groups Culture is learned, patterned behavior (or set of assumptions) that not only frames our experiences, but also influences what we expect, believe and experience. Displays of these values manifest in ways of knowing and interacting with physical landscape and other people (inside and outside of groups or the polity). We often measure people’s value systems by examining displays of behavior like kinship bonds, gender roles, class, etc. Religion, government, music, food, clothing, visual arts, history are also hard cultural examples (or, institutions that we associate with culture) Culture, broadly, on other hand, demonstrates how various social groups grapple with meaning– this is where we get into leadership studies (we use context to measure culture and culture is the barometer in which we make sense of role agreement). The study of leadership explores fundamental questions about who we are, how we live together, and how we influence the course of history. Leaders are not entirely a collection of people “deemed to be official by scholars on high.” Leadership is a process and the study of this process focuses on the ubiquitous phenomenon of role agreement in human groups– to this end it questions social context, culture, and organizational behavior. On the one hand, it examines the process of influence, power, and authority. On the other hand, leadership studies questions the legitimacy that leaders assert and followers grant (by consent or coercion). It also questions why and how certain types of leaders emerge when they do. Human agency is, quite simply, the ability for individuals and groups to influence change More broadly, human agency is the capacity for human beings to make choices. It is normally contrasted to natural forces, which are causes involving only unthinking deterministic processes. In this respect, agency is distinct from the concept of free will, the philosophical doctrine that our choices are not the product of causal chains, but are significantly free or undetermined. Human agency entails the claim that humans do in fact make decisions and enact them on the world or the institutions they partake in. Historically, people didn’t believe that most people made history. History, until recently, experts believed, was made by a few good men. “Many of our cultures are leader-centric; we have long looked at leaders as the predominant influence, believing that if we” invested enough in cultivating good leaders then good leadership would make our institutions (and lives) more livable. Leadercentrism not merely over-emphasizes the agency of leaders, but it also ignores how leadership represents significantly more than the behaviors of persons in positions of influence. It often fails to take into account how followers and environments shape outcomes. Heroes and hero narratives fulfill important (if often imaginary) “cognitive and emotional human needs, including the need for saviors, wisdom, meaning, hope, inspiration, and growth.” It is often the direct result of humanity’s need to make sense of life’s complexity and it frequently results in the glorification of a subject to divine level (the act of being raised to god-like status). This process is often a reflection of group/individual value systems and, most always, a reflection of specific contextual conditions. Great men theorists like Thomas Carlyle argued that history of humanity has been perpetuated by the actions of a few good men, heroes. These heroes were brought to earth by god to direct the initiatives of humanity. These people, Carlyle contended, were significant in influencing human progress on a grand scale. They were able to do this, scholars like Carlyle contended, because they were born with these Godgiven traits. For Carlyle, “Great Men” were, in a divine manner, rarely with flaw. Sigmund Freud was also essential in putting forward GMT (but with caveats). Freud believed that people’s need for great leaders was primal– it arose from the drive for dependency and love. Commitments to community groups –Aristotle’s civic ecology—shaped this need into culture and era-specific molds. Yet, for Freud, people’s reliance upon great men indicated a reduction in intellectual engagement and personal responsibility, and increased passivity of group members. GMT lacks context! GMT “reveals a long-standing tension between the desire to place an individual center-stage” at the expense of recognizing “that complex environmental dynamics help shape events.” We know now that the independent agency of non-leaders shapes directives and that toxic obedience to can have worrisome affects on human groups “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me!” What does he mean? The Great Emancipator! Why? Did he free slaves? Lincoln's proclamation, as has often been noted, freed not a single slave. It applied only to the slaves in territories then beyond the reach of federal authority. It specifically exempted Tennessee and Union-occupied portions of Louisiana and Virginia, and it left slavery in the loyal border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri -- untouched. Indeed, the Proclamation went no further than the Second Confiscation Act of July 1862, which freed all slaves who entered Union lines professing that their owners were disloyal, as well as slaves who fell under federal control as Union troops occupied Confederate territory. Steadily, as opportunities arose, slaves risked all for freedom by abandoning their owners, coming uninvited into Union lines and offering their help as laborers, pioneers, guides and spies. Slaves forced federal soldiers at the lowest level to recognize their importance to the Union's success. That understanding traveled quickly up the chain of command. In time, it became evident even to the most obtuse federal commanders that every slave who crossed into Union lines was a double gain: one subtracted from the Confederacy and one added to the Union. The slaves' resolute determination converted many white Americans to the view that the security of the Union depended upon the destruction of slavery. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/12/27/how-the-slaves-freed- themselves/7d58b82c-3446-4f96-a07d-52fc868eb960/?utm_term=.80fe484108b8 In a nutshell, African Americans forces Lincoln’s hand– slaves were the Confederacy’s chief labor force. As they fled to Union lines – known as contraband– Washington realized that they could undermine the Confederacy from within (blacks were a fifth column) Who are the agents? Where’s the hero worship? Why the hero worship? Why is the story of Lincoln so leadercentric and what does the narrative of Lincoln’s story tell us of what we value?
