Defining Effective Leadership and Environment

An effective leader can make or break any environment. The qualities that make an effective leader can be diverse. There is no single trait that deems someone a leader. This means there are many different styles of leadership. Instead, it is a mixture of personality, experience, and aptitudes contribute to effective leaders. An effective leader encourages the people they are leading to be positive and productive, ultimately leading to a successful environment which meets any predetermined goals.

There are many different environments that leaders work in. A few examples are academic, professional, military, informal, and emergency situations. While each of these environments may prosper from a different leadership style, it is obvious that each requires leadership of some sort. Without any leadership classes do not get taught, work does not get done, countries do not get protected, and friends never get together. In fact, one study in Psychology Press estimated that in a professional environment, “high performing executives add, on average, $25 million in value more than mediocre performers over a typical tenure” (Kaiser & Overfield, 2010, p. 164). This is only one example of how effective leadership is vital to a successful environment.

Some leadership styles will be more successful in certain environments than others. For example, servant leadership focuses on the responsibility a leader has to his/her organizations and subordinates. There are similarities to the concepts of transformational leadership in which a leader must connect with and motivate employees to consistently do their best work (Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012, p. 569). This style of leadership is most effective where strict outcomes are not the only indicators of success (for example, ROI, revenue, sales goals, etc). Effective leadership can take many different forms, in many different environments; each unique form contributes to a successful environment in its own way.

The academic environment has a unique form of leadership. Printy and Marks (2006) remarked, “In schools, teachers frequently work in teams, but without formal leadership. Such teaming structures are often interdisciplinary, with various members contributing differing kinds of curricular or instructional expertise” (p. 125). This kind of leadership is called shared leadership. Shared leadership refers to a group of leaders who work together without a hierarchy. For the rest of this analysis, “leadership” may refer to one leader, or a shared leadership situation.

A leader is defined by more than a title or high position. Although such titles might indicate leadership, they do not indicate effective leadership. Leadership is an influential and personal interaction between the leader and one or more people. Beyond that, leadership is so diverse that it is difficult to define exactly. In a paper on leadership values, Denehy (2008) reports, “Leadership, in its essence, is the ability to articulate a vision or a desired path of progress and to motivate others to strive for that vision” (p. 108). Logically, effective leadership, then, is effectively articulating a vision and motivating others. The degree to which these endeavors are successful measures the effectiveness of a leader.

Leadership should also be defined separately from management. For one, as described above, leadership refers to more situations than the work environment. In many situations, such as social or educational, there are leaders, but not necessarily managers. As discussed in a study on facilities management,

…Management refers to micromanagement and control practices, and leadership is the strategy of aligning people and resources in a manner that maximizes the ability of content experts to use their skills to create and implement workplace solutions. (Sullivan & McDonald, 2011, p. 302)

Besides defining leadership in juxtaposition to management, it can also be defined in terms of how leaders are perceived by non-leaders.

A case study by Schyns and Hansbrough (2008) outlines theories as to how people define leadership. One method is called the attribution theory. With attribution theory, individual infer leadership from behavior or outcomes that are in line with their preconceived notions of how a leader should act. Individuals often attribute leaders with responsibility which can lead to a too-common mistake of attributing the outcome of the project or successfulness environment to the leader entirely (Schyns & Hansbrough, 2008, p. 198). This is a mistake because it does not full take into account outside factors.

It is important to understand attribution leadership theory because every individual has mental model of what a “good” leader is, whether they are aware of it or not. Another example of attribution leadership occurs when people are following opinion leaders, usually politicians. In a report on opinion leaders, Christine Roch (2005) stated, “These studies largely rely on the idea that citizens use the presence of specific characteristics—such as “likeability”…elite status…and known issue biases…as signals indicating that the bearer possesses reliable or accurate political information” (p. 110). The way non-leaders react to leaders directly relates to how effective a leader can be. After all, if people are unwilling to follow—or be motivated—there is no true leading going on (Ilies, Gerhardt, & Le, 2004, p. 207). That being said, even within peoples’ preconceived notions, there are a wide range of effective leadership characteristics.

Leaders come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, just like the people they lead. The ways in which leaders become leaders is called “leadership emergence.” Since the very first step to being an effective leader is first becoming a leader, the analysis of leadership emergence is important to the analysis of effectiveness. There are obviously a lot of factors contributing to how leaders come to be. There are two main theories behind leadership emergence: genetic and non-genetic.

Non-genetic theories of leadership follow the idea that leaders are made, not born. “Leadership is skill that is developed over a lifetime and develops from hard work…Our leadership skills grow as we consider the challenges and opportunities inherent in each role we undertake” (Denehy, 2008, p. 106). Although some personality traits and values lend themselves better to leadership than others, the non-genetic concept means that anyone can become a leader through training. The genetic theory, on the other hand, states that some people are leaders from birth and those who aren’t won’t become so.

The genetics theory has its basis in behavioral biology. Basically, because our personality and traits can be traced to specific genotypes, it can be said that leadership from those traits is also genetic (Ilies et al., 2004, p. 207-08). The genetic leadership theory is less convincing because even genotypes can ultimately be influenced by environment. Nonetheless, whether leaders are made or born does not determine whether or not they will be effective.

Some leadership stereotypes are untrue, while some have validity. For example, the traditional idea that white men make better leaders has been proven incorrect in modern times, although the bias may still exist (Sczesny, Spreeman, & Stahlberg, 2006, p. 21). On the other hand, the idea that intelligence and extroversion of good predictors of a leader remains true (Mumford et al., 2000, p. 116). This report will focus primarily on aspects of leaders that are consistent and will avoid stereotypes with no little to no support. Not only will it define traits of effective leaders, it will also explore how each of those traits contributes to a successful environment.

The first aspect of leadership that will be analyzed is deep-level diversity. All leaders are different and in any group with multiple leaders, there will be differences. Deep-level diversity is a term used in contrast with surface-level diversity. Surface-level diversity is exactly what it seems: diversity based on skin color, age, ethnic group, gender, or other visible characteristics. Contrariwise, deep-level diversity traits are traits that are not visible. These can include level of education, job experience, family values, and personal beliefs (Klein & Mo, 2010, p. 932). This is not strictly a leadership quality but is instead a quality of an entire group. Deep-level diversity is most commonly studied in regard to organizational behavior. In an organization where there are multiple leaders—working either at the same level or in a hierarchy—deep-level diversity is a desirable trait.

The study of deep-level traits reveals that both a lack of deep-level diversity and its presence can be productive. For one, a study in American Psychologist explains that “deep-level similarity (for example, in values, goal orientations, and personality) consistently predicts positive workplace outcomes…” (Klein & Mo, 2010, p. 933). While this speaks to a desire for similarity rather than diversity, it does highlight the importance of deep-level traits. It also suggests that leaders with deep-level traits similar to their followers may be more productive as a team. Additionally, the American Psychologist report suggested that surface-level diversity is not an obstacle. However, differences in deep-level traits can be desirable as well.

The desirability of deep-level traits comes from the idea that an environment should be well-rounded. An effective leader will use their deep-level traits to their advantage. In a professional environment, they can use their values and lifestyles to relate to and motivate their employees in a direct manner. The ability to connect with employees on that deeper level can lead to higher employee satisfaction which contributes to a more stable work environment. This is only one trait of an effective leader.

The ability to listen is central to leadership. Leading does not entail giving orders without feedback or input. In a case study on listening leadership, Stillion, Southard, and Wolvin (2009) discussed President Carter’s leadership. As stated in the article, “[The] Carter administration viewed its communication strategy as the cornerstone to increase the American people's trust in the government… To that end. Carter promised fireside chats, town meetings, call-in radio programs, and press conferences” (p. 141). This demonstrated the variety of ways in which leaders can actively listen to the ones they are leading. While most leaders are not leading the country, these concepts are still vital to leadership.

Effective leaders in all environments encourage feedback from the individuals they are leading. They also utilize that feedback to refine their own leadership style. This creates a cohesive environment in which everyone feels free to contribute, so they will. If everyone involved feels that their contributions will be considered, leaders can get the best information and effort and ultimately create the most successful environment possible.

Some concepts of effective leadership come from established scholarly models. One such model is the Leadership Challenge model. Marie D. Wisner, et al. (2011) of Bethel University explains, “The Leadership Challenge model purports that leadership effectiveness is related to self-awareness and relationships with others…” (p. 354). Wisner outlines five common ways in which leaders use this model to be effective: (1) set an example, (2) motivate with a shared vision, (3) challenge the process, (4) allow and encourage others to contribute, (5) appeal to the heart (Wisner, 2011, p. 355). This model is similar to transformational leadership in that it focuses on collaboration and influencing followers.

Transformational leadership is effective because it is very persuasive. It also has longer lasting effects. Instead of only inspiring people to meet a single goal, transformational leadership allows leaders to inspire their followers to continue to grow for the better of the project or organization. Appealing to the heart allows leaders to bring their followers emotions into play. In an informal (social) environment, a leader may convince her friends to volunteer with an organization she runs by telling a heartwarming story about the people who the organization helps. This would be an example of “appealing to the heart,” as outlined above. Effective leaders utilize this model to influence their followers in any environment to help, be productive, or do their best.

Some personality traits are more likely to lead high-level leaders in corporations to utilize transformational leadership. Personality can be a good indicator of leadership effectiveness because it has been proven that people with similar personalities tend to work well together. While too much similarity can lead to a limited perspective, some similarity causes people to feel comfortable.

Within organizations, personality similarity may facilitate social integration among members…reduce role conflict and ambiguity…increase the likelihood that coworkers will interpret the actions of others and environmental stimuli in a similar… and foster trust between leaders and members. (Giberson, Resick, & Dickson, 2005, p. 1002)

One report in the Journal of Applied Psychology suggested that CEOs with high core self-evaluation (CSE) were most likely to engage in transformational leadership (Resick, Whitman, Weingarden, & Hiller, 2009, p. 1364). CSEs refer to the evaluations people make of themselves, their success and failures, and their environment (Resick et al., 2009, p. 1367). High CSEs allow leaders to reflect on themselves and their leadership styles to be ever-improving. This cycle of act-reflect-improve is a way that effective leaders can stay effective even as the environment changes. CEOs who exhibited narcissistic traits were less likely to engage in transformational leadership. In short, narcissistic individuals believe that they are already as grand as they can be. These leaders tend to focus on transactional leadership instead (Resick et al., 2009, p. 1364). While transactional leadership can be effective, it has been proven that transformational leadership provides more success in a wider range of environments (Moss, Ritossa, & Ngu, 2006, p. 94).

CSEs are related to the concept of emotional intelligence (EI), another indicator of an effective leader. Individuals with high emotional intelligence are capable of deciphering the emotions of others as well as understanding themselves at a deeper level. When it comes to the emotions of others, leaders with high EI will be able to easily utilize transformational theory concepts. Leaders with lower EI will have a harder time using transformational leadership which could lead them to choose less effective styles instead.

There are an endless amount of personality traits, values, experiences, theories, and concepts that contribute to effective leadership. Effective leadership is the ability to utilize these traits, etc, to influence other people to contribute to the best of their abilities. Effective leaders are the foundation of successful environments—professional or otherwise. The analysis of effective leadership and how it contributes to a successful environmental is vital for anyone striving to accomplish something. Depending on the environment, that something could be passing a class, completing a project for work, winning an election, or simply rallying enough friends for a good cause. No matter what the ultimate outcome, it is clear that effective leadership involves understanding followers, listening and adjusting for their contributions, and constantly bettering oneself as a leader.

References

Denehy, J. (2008). Leadership characteristics. Journal of School Nursing (Allen Press Publishing Services Inc.), 24(3), 107-110. doi:10.1177/1059840512341234

Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2005). Embedding leader characteristics: An examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1002-1010. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.1002

Ilies, R., Gerhardt, M. W., & Le, H. (2004). Individual differences in leadership emergence: Integrating meta-analytic findings and behavioral genetics estimates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(3), 207-219. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.00275.x

Kaiser, R. B., & Overfield, D. V. (2010). The leadership value chain. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 13(3), 164-183. doi:10.1080/10887156.2010.500261

Klein, K. M., & Mo, W. (2010). Deep-level diversity and leadership. American Psychologist, 65(9), 932-934. doi:10.1037/a0021355

Moss, S., Ritossa, D., & Ngu, S. (2006). The effect of follower regulatory focus and extraversion on leadership behavior: the role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Individual Differences, 27(2), 93-107. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.27.2.93

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Johnson, J. F., Diana, M., Gilbert, J. A., & Threlfall, K. (2000). Patterns of leader characteristics: Implications for performance and development. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 115-133. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00045-4

Printy, S. M., & Marks, H. M. (2006). Shared leadership for teacher and student learning. Theory Into Practice, 45(2), 125-132. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4502_4

Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-side and the dark-side of ceo personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1365-1381. doi:10.1037/a0016238

Roch, C. H. (2005). The dual roots of opinion leadership. Journal of Politics, 67(1), 110-131. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00310.x

Schyns, B., & Hansbrough, T. (2008). Why the brewery ran out of beer: The attribution of mistakes in a leadership context. Social Psychology, 39(3), 197-203. doi:10.1027/1864- 9335.39.3.197

Sczesny, S., Spreemann, S., & Stahlberg, D. (2006). Masculine = competent? physical appearance and sex as sources of gender-stereotypic attributions. Swiss Journal of Psychology / Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Psychologie / Revue Suisse De Psychologie, 65(1), 15-23. doi:10.1024/1421-0185.65.1.15

Stillion Southard, B. F., & Wolvin, A. D. (2009). Jimmy carter: A case study in listening leadership. International Journal of Listening, 23(2), 141-152. doi:10.1080/10904010903014467

Sullivan, K. T., & McDonald, D. K. (2011). Leadership principles and performance measurement in facilities management: A case study. Leadership & Management in Engineering, 11(4), 302-309. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000139

Wisner, M. D. (2011). Psychological strengths as predictors of effective student leadership. Christian Higher Education, 10(3/4), 353-375. doi:10.1080/15363759.2011.576223.