Skip to main content

Leadership

Leadership: Exploring Different Perspectives

Leadership is a crucial aspect that cannot be overlooked. When discussing motivation in the workplace, it inevitably involves considering the influence of specific individuals on the rest of the group. It's about their ability to guide and direct actions and the trust they can build with the group to gain acceptance for their proposed direction.

While leaders are not the sole motivating factor in a company, they are indeed the ones most directly responsible for its development.

However, the problem with such power is that everyone wants to define it. This leads to an overwhelming number of adjectives attached to the status of a leader: alpha leader, intuitive leader, situational leader, directive leader, delegation, and so on.

Honestly, I had a lot of fun listing as many leadership "types" as possible to synthesize them. It's an amusing exercise highlighting how we often express the same ideas on this subject but with different words.

From this exercise, I have identified five positions that leaders can take to the group:

  1. Leading from behind, pushing the group forward. With varying degrees of authority, they organize the maneuver as an expert (self-qualified). They focus on the "how" without fully understanding the "why."
  2. Leading from the front, pulling the group along. With a clear vision and conviction in their choices, they move forward and indicate the direction, without being overly concerned about the "how."
  3. Accompanying the group from the side. They act as negotiators and diplomats, coaching teams and empowering them to take responsibility for the "why" and the "how."
  4. Collaborating within the group. They become the equivalent of all the team members they seek to bring together.
  5. Remaining detached and uninterested in the group. They leverage their status and allow the group to act as it pleases.

This synthesis is based on eight models, resulting in 40 different "styles" of leadership.

However, even this synthesis creates ambivalence in our understanding of the leader's role. We might question whether an "off-field" leader who shows no interest in their team can be considered a leader. We may also wonder if a leader who focuses on organizing and checking their team's work is more of a manager...

Similarly, a "leader" can be in front of their team on certain subjects they are passionate about and out of the spotlight on others they are less affinity for. They may choose to be active team members when applying specific techniques they have mastered and prefer to manage from behind the scenes under external pressures.

These factors contribute to the lack of coherence in the numerous definitions of a leader.

And that's why it's vital to ensure that we clearly understand what we mean when we talk about leadership.

To begin with, leadership is often seen as a talent, but someone who holds the title of a leader may not necessarily possess that talent. There are two types of leaders: de jure and de facto.

A de jure leader has been given their leadership status by the organization. They hold a leadership position by function, sometimes as an honorary title. However, their actions may not reflect true leadership qualities.

On the other hand, a de facto leader is someone who is elected as a leader by their peers and teams. They are recognized as leaders based on the trust they inspire through their choices and skills. These leaders must develop a behavioral strategy to maintain their position for as long as necessary.

It is therefore important to distinguish between leadership talent and the title of leader.

When it comes to leadership, it can be defined as follows:

A person's ability to influence and unite a group to achieve a common goal, based on mutual trust. - Antonin Gaunand1

This definition is where leadership sets itself apart from management.

Furthermore, this definition is unrelated to morality or right or wrong.

Great leaders have led their communities to success and victories, just as there have been leaders who have led them to failure.

Leadership can be found in politics, opinions, and sports teams. It cannot be bought or imposed. Leadership is shaped by the context, culture, and personality of the person in the role and their relationship with their audience.

It is interesting to observe how leaders recognized for their leadership qualities in one company can be perceived as incompetent and incapable in another. Leadership skills are not universal; a leader may lack the necessary skills in a new situation.

Another important quality of a leader is their ability to adapt to the group and its context rather than imposing a model based on past experiences.

Jean-Michel Plane (2015) proposes the following definition of leadership:

Leadership can be defined as a process of guiding and influencing the actions of a group of people to implement a policy and achieve specific objectives. This complex process involves mobilizing and uniting individuals and/or groups around collective action.2

So, we can see that Machiavelli's idea that a good leader should be feared rather than loved is far from the current understanding of leadership. However, it is important to note that in 1513, the concept of leadership was not developed in the same context as it is today.

I have already mentioned Mary Parker Follett, who was among the first to propose a "win-win" approach for managers and their staff. She introduced the concept of shared leadership and advocated for a distribution of responsibilities throughout the organization.

Follett also believed that leadership could emerge from individuals depending on the context and challenge. She distinguished between the authority managers acquired and the trust leaders acquired.

This trust is also emphasized in Lewin's findings on leadership.

More recently, Mintzberg has emphasized the importance of "growth" skills:

Growth competencies (often overlooked) refer to the ability to learn and question oneself (including unlearning certain routines)3

As we can see, leaders can have various roles in addition to leading their teams. This is perhaps why there are so many adjectives associated with leadership.

What is certain is that it is not enough for a leader to motivate and inspire their team. They must also mobilize their team members, guiding them from enthusiasm to action.