Q&A VL-3 – Susanna Fanelli March 2023 1. Are leaders born rather than made? The assumption that leaders are born rather than made has led to various theories. Authors suggest the existence of the leadership gene. This gene is not a genetic gene but is a concept referring to a mix of biogenetic and biographical factors which creates a complex, making an individual a good leader. It’s a matter of a set of key personality traits that leads to the “common-sense assumption”, an assumption through which, in an organization, “everybody knows” who the leader is. Leaders have the largest number of desirable traits for a group or a system and this could be noticed in the way they define themselves, their roles and responsibilities, how they manage change, develop and communicate the vision and mission. These theories state that some of us are “wired to be a leader” whilst others are wired to be led. 2. To what extent are the main traits associated with effective leadership well established? Leadership main traits are basically personal qualities and they can be established in three main macro areas: personality, intelligence, and motivation. In an effective leader all these three properties should be considered. As far as personality is concerned, an effective leader could be recognized by being reliable, achievement-oriented and concerned with quality and standards. They are socially confident and therefore they are often more empathic and open to interaction always searching for new input and new ways to challenge themselves. They are intelligent but not even the most intelligent ones. As a matter of fact, they are more moderate than highly intelligent, but they are more likely to have a different vision and able to see the big picture on a different wavelength than others. Cognitive power and social intelligence are fundamental and these features highlight the level of complexity a leader can cope with. Last, but not least, a leader’s trait can be identified in motivation. Therefore, we find a leader more able to align other people to their goals because of their desire to impact the working environment, make the change and influence others. Their need of self-actualization is on the deepest level of their pyramid needs and thanks to their aggressive personality, they are more likely to reach their goals. Moreover, their expansive lifestyle pushes them to question themselves, searching for new interaction and highlights their need to manage. 3. What features of the situation interact with a leader’s style? A leader’s style heavily interacts with some features of the situation and although it could rule the “common sense assumption”, also known as the implicit theory of leadership, we can still consider some of its important properties. People could acquire leadership through different contributions: it has been revealed that, in the early stages of a group, leaders are more likely to talk more and emerge first. The quantity of contributions indicates their intention to have the role, but the quality of contributions allows a potential leader to be appointed as an acceptable one and allows the others to design their action-traits. It has also been revealed that the most searched for action-traits in a group are those concerned with socio-emotional spheres such as empowerment, energizing and providing a vision. Moreover, a dynamic that could arise is the distinction between actual and perceived competences: this is why leaders have to be able to demonstrate their level of task competence allowing the group to understand how much they can rely on the individual as a leader and how much the individual can cope with the leadership role. Indeed, followers have to be influenced and, to do that, researchers defined a skillful leader as the one who balances spontaneity and contagion well. A good balance between these two properties allows the leader to display mastery of the group tasks and observe group norms. (Idiosyncrasy credits, Hollander - 1958) In conclusion, good leaders have to cope with all the interactions and make their style fit. 4. To what extent is it possible to be a democratic leader? After the Second World War, some issues about working environments arose. Hundreds of studies were carried out and many of them used Likert’s framework (1961). In his vision there are four systems: exploitative and benevolent autocratic, consultative and democratic. He strongly believed in the democratic management system. Although moving to a democratic system is not easy because it involves a huge shift in behavior and organizational culture, it has been proved that it allows a positive impact on organizational effectiveness. In 1997, Gastil developed a theory of five behaviors that a democratic leader should display in order to be considered as a good one. It includes clarifying, the extent by which leaders clarify their decisions, lines of their power, agenda and motives and reducing some dynamics, privileges, hierarchies, inequalities and power. Democratic leaders should also distribute responsibility creating cohesion, participation and empowering individuals; mentoring or coaching in order to develop people capabilities as well as their analytical abilities and self-esteem. Last but not least, they should facilitate processes, the extent by which leaders create a congenial environment in which norms are enforced and where free discussions and opinions are supported. Being a democratic leader means having a balanced mindset between personal and organizational commitment and personal and organizational skills. 5. To what extent does leadership research support the idea of ‘one best way’ in leadership style? Leadership researchers have been involved in studying leadership styles for a long time. We’ve seen how many dynamics a leader must cope with and how many factors a leader has to face. A large amount of research has tried to identify “one best way” of leadership. It seemed that systems involving a democratic leadership are more effective because of their emotional and skilling management which leads involved individuals to fulfill fundamental psychological needs. It means that people involved in a democratic system are able to identify themselves in it, feeling free to share feelings, opinions and ideas and being encouraged in setting goals- achievement process. It has also been noticed that democratic leadership can be much more expensive and slower than an autocratic and directive style. Some evidence highlights that this leadership style, in some instances, has been used manipulatively while other evidence states that there is no best way but the situational one to which leaders adapt themselves according to the multifaceted dimension they have to tackle. According to Fiedler leadership style is a relatively fixed feature and basically characterized by two different types: task-oriented leadership and relationship-oriented leadership. He tried to explain the nature of leadership effectiveness but his data and findings show that effectiveness is contingent on the situation and the multiple factors and dynamics involved. However, in spite of all the research and all of the studies aiming to understand the art of leadership, it is true that some areas are yet to be developed and elaborated. 6. Is there a difference between a leader and a manager? Although leader and manager are terms which have been used interchangeably, many researchers and writers highlighted a difference between them. Leaders seem to have a deeply embedded energy through which it is easy to project their vision, their nature and their motivation. It also seems that, if communication works in the proper way, they naturally induce excitement, empowerment and the right flow of dynamics in the organizational landscapes. The main difference is the internal force. On the other hand, managers seem to be moved by external sources and though sometimes effective, their approach appears impersonal. If to be a manager it were sufficient to hold a managing position, being a leader would mean to naturally embody the values and motivation making followers feel inspired. 7. Is charisma a trait? Charisma has been studied and discussed for a long time. As Burns (1978) and many other authors like Conger, Bass and Avolio, Kirkpatrick and Locke revealed, charisma is more than a simple trait. It’s an ensemble of personal innate properties that lead people to become followers by feeling inspired. According to Burns, charismatic means transformational leadership in which core components are many. One of them is the charismatic communication style by which leaders generate trust and respect, motivating followers also intellectually; moreover, they’re able to communicate a vision, to set challenging goals for their followers who then start questioning traditional values and approaches, and the implementation of this vision leads followers to focus on their efforts to achieve their goals. Finally, transformational leaders’ followers feel unique due to the fair but individualized treatment. Whereas management is more likely to implement established policies, a transformational leader is equated with huge adaptive changes in organizations. 8. In what sense can leaders be trained or developed? Leader’s training and development is by now a very useful and commonplace practice. Development programs have been fostered and expanded in order to allow a good leader to transfer theoretical ideas to practical actions, which is on the fundamentals of leadership. For example, a leader must perceive the group’s needs and in order to accomplish that, empathy and sensitivity have to be improved. This is a key area of leadership training and many techniques have been developed for this purpose. For many years, the mainstay of leadership training was the T-group training in which trainees had to analyze multiple factors of the group and explain what occurred. It seemed that it was a psychologically powerful experience, so they thought to reduce the impact and the stress-making. Nowadays, sensitivity trainings for leaders have been standardized and though not as powerful as Tgroup training, still this process is able to make leaders learn to understand the way they respond to groups dynamics and the impact their behaviour has on other people. This also demonstrates that learning processes are transferable in the workplace. It has been noticed that training programs and improvement, especially T-groups Trainings, promote an increase in self-awareness, desire to share, reach decisions participatively and a reduction in assertive leadership behaviour. In other words, though a leader could be born as one, they always have to improve their skills and capabilities properly.
