Handout #

MA-GaD 504 – Principles & Dynamics of Leadership and Development (PDLD)

OF LEADERS AND LEADERSHIP***

by R.G. VALERIO

“Some LEADERS are born, some are made, others are thrust into it!"

Leadership is without doubt one of the most talked about, written and researched topics
nowadays yet until now many, many management professionals, students of management,
public and private at that, even authors of books on the subject, do not sing the same tune, so
to speak! That Leadership is distinct and different from Management, many do not care nor
clear out the confusion. Yet as we have already seen, one cannot do without the other, they are
similar and use interchangeably. This is true from the time man has thought of the concept
until now and will continue even in the future, leadership concepts will still continue to baffle
many, many people. Just three or four decades ago, the process of LEADING is considered to
be one of the four (4) basic management functions but nowadays, the element of LEADING
has already been replaced as one of the four elements. Its place was already renamed as
DIRECTING and is focused more on MOTIVATING employees for efficiency and
effectiveness.
This blurb attempts to "crystallize” these concepts especially for those who are not yet
very clear regarding the nuances of such concepts. Leadership is one of those elusive attributes
that separate effective managers from the less effective ones. Although much is known about
the management process itself, Leadership is very complex and highly situational specific, so
that it frequently appears that we know little of any practical value. For some others, they just
end up concluding that "each to his own leadership styles"!
Despite the great deal of research made/done on the topic, many management
practitioners cannot yet fully explain the many contradictions and inconsistencies that results
from discussions about effective leaders and/or leadership. Because leadership is such an
important part of attaining organizational effectiveness, IT IS BETTER TO KNOW
SOMETHING ABOUT IT THAN NOTHING AT ALL - WORSE, IF WE ARE STILL
NOT SURE ABOUT THE LITTLE SOMETHING WE KNOW ABOUT IT!
This blurb then is an attempt to clear some of the "cobwebs" regarding this topic.
Hopefully, from the discussion in this blurb, you can now develop your own understanding
and proceed from there!
What Is The Nature Of Leadership?
I will first attempt to discuss the nature of leadership so that we can more or less define
what leadership is.
 Leadership is similar, yet distinct from management. It is derived from POWER.
Hence, necessarily we have to discuss the nature of POWER. To develop a working
definition of leadership, we must first understand three (3) related but fundamental concepts.
These are POWER, INFLUENCE, and AUTHORITY.
POWER. Power as defined in the Webster dictionary, means possession of
CONTROL, AUTHORITY or INFLUENCE OVER OTHERS. It is the potential ability
to affect the behavior of others. Therefore, power is generally related to the control of valued
or scarce resources – be it human or otherwise.
INFLUENCE. Influence, on the other hand, as defined in the Webster dictionary,
means the ACT of PRODUCING AN EFFECT WITHOUT APPARENT EXERTION
OF FORCE or DIRECT EXERCISE OF COMMAND. It also means the POWER or
CAPACITY of CAUSING AND EFFECT IN INDIRECT or INTANGIBLE WAYS.
It is usually directed to the minds and/or behavior of others. Therefore, influence exists
when a person consciously or unconsciously exercises power to affect the behavior or attitudes
of someone else.
AUTHORITY. Authority, meanwhile, is defined in the Webster dictionary as THE
POWER TO INFLUENCE or COMMAND the THOUGHT, OPINION or BEHAVIOR
OF OTHERS. Therefore, authority is POWER PER SE CREATED AND/OR
GRANTED BY INDIVIDUAL, GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATION –
FORMAL OR INFORMAL. If the organizational chart specifies that Rachel is the Boss and
Tony is the subordinate, then Rachel has the authority over Tony. The other side of the coin is
that, the subordinate must acknowledge and accept the authority of his superior for it to
have any real meaning. Within the context of the organization, Rachel also has the power and
influence. Outside the organization, Rachel might not have any power or influence over Tony
at all.
Leadership then can be understood simply as the SKILLFUL USE OF POWER AND
INFLUENCE. Ergo, persons or people who are skillful in using power and influence are
tagged or labeled or recognized and acknowledged as LEADERS. They may or may not
have AUTHORITY.
On the other hand, concepts of management and leadership almost always overlap to
varying degrees. However, the bottom line for both is that the concepts of power, influence
and authority serve as the very foundation for leadership and management.
The Sources And Uses Of Power
Because our premise is that leadership is the skillful use of power and influence, it is
just fitting and proper that we take a look at POWER more closely.
 Earlier, we said that power is the potential ability to affect the behavior of others,
one then can have power without actually using it. For example, a basketball coach has the
power to bench a player who is not performing up to par. The coach seldom has actually to use
this power, because the players recognize and acknowledge that the power exists and that they
should work hard to keep their starting positions or to keep on playing on the court.
In the context of organizational settings, there are usually five (5) kinds of power. These
are considered as “sources” or “bases” of power. A manager or a leader, for that matter, may
have one or more of these powers.
1. Legitimate Power. This is power granted by the hierarchy.
2. Reward Power. This is the power to give or withhold reward.
3. Coercive Power. This is the power to punish.
4. Referent Power. This is the power through identification, imitation or charisma.
5. Expert Power. This is power through expertise, skills or information.
LEGITIMATE POWER is power granted through the organizational hierarchy. This
is the power that is attached to the position that one is occupying and is conferred as part
of the way the position is defined within the structure or hierarchy. A Boss can tell a
subordinate to do something and, if the subordinate refuses, he or she can be reprimanded or
even fired.
Such outcomes stem from the Boss’s legitimate power as defined and vested in her or
him by the position he or she occupies in the organization. Legitimate power, then, is the
same as authority.
ALL MANAGERS HAVE LEGITIMATE POWER (AUTHORITY) OVER
THEIR SUBORDINATES. HOWEVER, THE MERE POSSESSION OF LEGITIMATE
POWER DOES NOT BY ITSELF MAKE SOMEONE A LEADER (if our definition of
leadership is meant as the skillful use of power and influence). In many, many cases,
subordinates follow only orders that are strictly within the span of organizational rules and
policies. If asked to do something outside or beyond their defined domain, they either refuse
outright, give some alibi or excuses for not being able to do it, or just do a slipshod job ---
especially if there is no accompanying “rewards”! In such cases, the manager concerned is
only exercising authority, but not leadership.
REWARD POWER is the power to give or withhold rewards. Depending on where
the manager is situated as far as the organizational hierarchy is concerned, the power to
reward may be absolute or limited
Rewards may include salary increases, promotions, bonuses, recommendations or
endorsements, praise, recognition, job assignments, or other perks and privileges. In general,
the greater number of rewards controlled by the manager, the greater the manager’s reward
power. On the other hand, the reward power of a manager or leader is tempered by how
important and critical the rewards are to the subordinates. This is one of the
“CONTRADICTIONS” as far as reward power of a manager or leader is concerned. Why a
contradiction?
COERCIVE POWER is the power to force compliance via psychological, emotional
or physical threat. In some cases, coercion can take the form of physical punishment. This is
especially true in military organizations. In most organizations, however, the available means
to coercion are limited because of the recognition of the rights of subordinates per se (human
rights). Some managers or leaders go as far as they are allowed in terms of “abuse” and
“humiliation” by the object of the coercion – just so they can “manipulate” the outcome,
behavior or attributes they want to coerce.
The more punitive the elements under a manager or leader, the more coercive power the
manager or leader possess. Again, this is tempered by the importance of these
“punishments” to the subordinates. On the other hand, the more a manager uses
coercive power, the more likely he or she is to provoke resentment, hostility, or enmity
which ultimately will result to inefficiency and ineffectiveness.
REFERENT POWER is the power through identification, imitation or charisma.
Compared to legitimate, reward and coercive power, which are relatively concrete and
grounded in the context and facets of organizational settings, referent power is more
abstract. That is, followers or subordinates may react favorably because they identify in some
way with the leader or manager, who may be like them in personality, background, or
attitudes. In some situations, followers or subordinates might choose to imitate a leader or
manager with referent power by wearing the same kinds of clothes, working the same hours,
or espousing the same management philosophy or practice or ideology. Referent power may
also take the form of CHARISMA – an intangible attribute in the leader’s or manager’s
personality that inspires loyalty, enthusiasm or even subservience.
EXPERT POWER is power through information, expertise or skills. A manager who
knows how to deal with an eccentric but important customer, a scientist who is capable of
achieving an important technological breakthroughs that no other company has dreamed of,
and a secretary who knows how to unravel bureaucratic red tape --- all have expert power over
anyone who needs the information.
The more important the information or knowledge or information, the greater the
degree of expert power possessed by any one individual.
The preceding discussions were focused on the “sources” of power which is the foundation of
leadership concepts. Now that we have an idea of the different kinds of power that a leader
may be able to skillfully use, we turn our attention to the other aspects of leadership concepts.
Management vs. Leadership
In most situations, it is difficult to distinguish between management and leadership.
Basically, management is founded on legitimate, reward and coercive power. Followers or
subordinates comply, with orders and directions but are not necessarily committed to them. On
the other hand, leadership may also draw on legitimate, reward and coercive power, but it
usually depends more on referent and expert power. THEREFORE, A PERSON MAY
EITHER BE A MANAGER OR A LEADER WITHOUT NECESSARILY BEING THE
OTHER.
Normally, in most organizational settings, a manager may be able to use legitimate,
reward or coercive power to et things done but may be drawing purely on his/her authority that
is attached to the position that the manager is occupying. This person is a manager but might
not qualify as a leader. In other situations, someone with no authority at all may be able to use
personal identification or inspirational appeal to influence people’s behavior to get the things
done. This individual is a leader but may not be a manager. Some people call him/her as
the informal leader.
From the standpoint of organizational effectiveness, it is clearly preferable to have
managers who are also good leaders. This explains much of the pre-occupation with leadership
in both management theory and practice --- ORGANIZATIONS WANT TO
UNDERSTAND LEADERSHIP CONCEPTS AND THEORIES SO THAT THEY CAN
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF THEIR PEOPLE WHO ARE BOTH MANAGERS
AND LEADERS.
Leadership Traits vs. Behavior vs. Situational Leadership
Because of the desire of most organizations to have people who are both managers and
leaders, many researches and studies has been conducted regarding these concepts.
The first organized approach to studying leadership was to analyze the
PERSONALITY TRAITS of strong and effective leaders. The underlying assumption of
the TRAIT APPROACH was that there existed some basic traits or set of traits that
differentiated leaders and non-leaders. If those traits could be isolated and defined,
potential leaders could be identified in advance and then nurtured, It was thought that
leadership traits may be replicated or imbibed by an individual to become a leader. Some
of these traits may include, intelligence, assertiveness, self-confidence and other similar
attributes.
 Literally, hundreds of studies were conducted in an attempt to identify these so-called
important leadership traits. However, the results of these studies gave rise to more questions
rather than answers. For every set of leaders who possess common "leadership traits”, a long
list of exceptions was also found and that as a result, the list of suggested “leadership traits”
became so long that it had little practical value left. For example, it was observed that many
strong and effective leaders have good communication skills and are assertive in nature . But
the question comes into the picture – were these traits (good communication skills and
assertiveness) being the cause of the strong and effective leadership, or were these traits
displayed AFTER leadership positions have been achieved?
Because of some of the criticisms on the trait approach, many gave up trying to identify
traits as predictors of leadership ability/competence. This development in turn gave way to the
LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR APPROACH.
Proponents of the LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR APPROACH contend that the
behavior of strong and effective leaders differ from that of non-leaders. Hence, the desire
to have an in-depth study and gain full understanding of the behavioral approach to leadership
effectiveness. The goal was to identify again those behaviors.
Research and studies done at the University of Michigan and Ohio State University
identified two (2) basic forms of leadership behavior. One is concentrating on work and
performance and the other is concentrating on employee welfare and support. The former
is the job-centered or initiating-structure behavior and the latter is the employee-centered or
consideration behavior. These are related to the Managerial Grid Technique on organizational
development interventions. In short, the technique hopes to train managers to exhibit high
levels of both forms of behavior, that is, maximum concern for both people and production.
The leadership behavioral approach has played an important role in the understanding of
the concepts of leadership per se as it urge us NOT to be pre-occupied with what leaders are
(the trait approach) but to concentrate on what leaders do (the behavioral approach).
However, there is a limitation or shortcoming to the behavioral approach. The underlying
assumption here is that the appropriate forms of leadership behavior are applicable
universally, in all situations!
This limitation gives way to another approach which is the SITUATIONAL
APPROACH to leadership. In this approach, there are basically three (3) situational
theories that are being advanced. These are: 1) the Contingency Theory; 2) the Path-
Goal Theory, and 3) Vroom-Yetton Model Theory.
The CONTINGENCY THEORY suggests that a leader’s behavior should be either task-
oriented or relationship-oriented, depending on the favorableness of the situation.
Favorableness, in turn, is based on leader-member relations, task structure, and the leader’s
position of power. This theory also assumes that leaders cannot change their behaviors, if
a mismatch exists, and that, IT IS THE SITUATION THAT MUST BE CHANGED.
The PATH-GOAL THEORY suggests that directive, supportive, participative or
achievement-oriented leader behaviors may be appropriate, depending on the personal
characteristics of subordinates (ability and focus of control) and on environmental
characteristics (task, structure, formal authority system, and work groups).
The VROOM-YETTON MODEL THEORY, on the other hand, maintains that leaders
should vary the extent to which they allow subordinates to participate in making decisions as a
function of seven situational factors.
I will no longer discuss in details these approaches. If anyone of you wants to learn
more on these subject matters, there are many management books that deal in these topics
where particular examples and lengthy discourses are available. Suffice it to say that both the
Path-Goal Theory and the Vroom-Yetton Model Theory assume that the leader behavior
is flexible. You may find out in your further readings that these three situational approaches to
leadership concepts are not always consistent, but so far these are the most widely accepted
approaches to leadership concepts.
There are other approaches that other management books may mentioned such as the
focus on charismatic leadership approach, the direction of causality (this means the behavior
of followers or subordinates may affect subsequent leader behavior) and the substitutes for
leadership approach.
Lastly, although POLITICAL BEHAVIOR, POLITICAL POWER and POLITICS
in organizations may or may not be related to leadership concepts per se, but since they
are clearly related to POWER which is one of the very foundation of leadership, you may want
to make further readings on these topics.

This is all for now!

_________________________________________________________________

***This blurb is prepared and compiled by R.G. Valerio for purposes of class discussion only. Adapted for
use in the MBA/MPA/MA-GaD programs of the Ateneo de Zamboanga University Graduate School.
December 1996. Reprinted November 1999, December 2001, April 2002, January 2003, August 2005,
December 2007, 2009, June 2011, 2013, January 2015 and October 2016.