Contemplating Leadership - Maureen McLeod & David Pai

Fittingly, the theme of the World Economic Forum held earlier this month for the first time in New York City and away from its winter wonderland home in Davos, Switzerland was Leadership in fragile times. The theme along with the venue change, touted in a Forum press release as a sign of solidarity with the city, serve to highlight the shift in thrust that appears to be occurring as national governments, business and academic leaders as well as individuals contemplate with renewed care the feasibility of globalization and the function of leadership as a means to achieve it.

According to The Economist, the World Economic Forum theme is particularly apt when considered with the economic issues of 2001 and compounded by the horrific terrorist events of September. America has declared war on terrorism, The Economist states, Argentina's financial systems have collapsed, and the world economy is enduring the worst slowdown in a generation. Does all this, as some argue, pose a threat to the liberal international order - that is, to globalization? (2002b, page 65). The weave of globalization and leadership is intricate and complicated and so it would seem natural to select, in these troubled times, leadership as a focal point for a meeting of the world's - leaders. But, if the event was intended, as one would think, to shed light on the elusive traits or criteria identified as necessary and sufficient to achieve effective global leadership, a glance through the Forum website reveals that despite repeated use of the term quite obviously missing is any attempt to define or offer a theoretical foundation for the notion of leadership. Leadership as a term is featured (prominently). It is not defined.

That a pattern for the complex design of international leadership was absent from the World Economic Forum website did not seem surprising to us. Leadership, hotly debated yet poorly understood by individual cultures, becomes infinitely more complicated when considered in a global context. Three significant issues, we believe, impede progress toward an effective definition of leadership. First, we believe that leadership has different meanings to different people, regardless of culture or geography. Second, given the lack of agreement on representations of leadership (roles models and definitions), contemplating a definition of from a multiple cultures perspective increases and perhaps confuses the range of acceptable models of leadership because a wider array of values, beliefs and frameworks must be considered. Finally, should a working definition (or definitions) of leadership be agreed to the functions and/or outputs of leadership have yet to be proven in a scientific sense. Accordingly, while leadership may be a great theme for a conference, we wonder if it exists and whether or not it can truly assist communities and nations to achieve some desired global state.

Before attempting to consider a theoretical framework of leadership, we will discuss briefly our rationale for positioning it as a significant issue of globalization. Apart from its banner position as the theme of the 2002 World Economic Forum, leadership merits as a globalization issue because we contend that consensus on what leadership is, as well as what good international leadership should look like, has not yet been achieved. Certainly in North America perspectives on leadership somewhat align. In the West, to a large degree leadership has become synonymous with decisive strategic action and bold business acumen. American President, George W. Bush, rather effectively represents this leadership view. His January 29th State of the Nation address, scripted like a Rob Reiner movie, made bold statements warning against countries America views as threats to American values. He is bold. He is decisive. He provides good sound bites.

For those of us who have always lived in North America and who have been raised according to goals and priorities of modernity, like it or not, President Bush can serve as an acceptable leadership model. Although he is perhaps less eloquent than the blustery yet respected Sir Winston Churchill, George Bush fits the profile of a Western-defined leader, or leader as strategist. He follows the leadership model of both Churchill and Harry Truman in that he too achieved leadership recognition as a reflection of war. Each of these leaders exhibits similar behaviors and has a comparable history. Each sought unsuccessfully leadership acceptance in pre-war periods. Each was defined by an event meaning that each carved his leadership profile in the days following national crises. Oral articulation using powerful imagery served to confirm each leader's public face and to endear each leader to his people. Each very effectively delivered strongly worded prose intended to project leadership. Note, for example, the crisp, galvanizing language used by each to motivate his nation in time of war:

States like these [Iran, Iraq and North Korea], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world: George W. Bush (The White House, 29 January 2002)

The long night of barbarism will descend, unbroken, even by a star of hope, unless we conquer--as conquer we must--as conquer we shall: Sir Winston Churchill (The History Channel, 19 May 1940)

If there is anything certain today, if there is anything inevitable in the future, it is the will of the people of the world for freedom and for peace: Harry S. Truman (The History Channel, 4 April 1949)

But, is this Western definition of event-based leadership correct? Further, is it possible to suggest that only one view of leadership is needed? Before we contemplate other cultured-based views of leadership, let us first acknowledge that not all North Americans are universally enthusiastic about this particular view of leadership. George Bush was, for example, elected by the narrowest margin in the nation's history suggesting that at least within the US he was initially not considered to be a great leader. As we have noted, similar circumstances were encountered by both Churchill and Truman. Without World War II, some suggest that historians would have depicted Sir Churchill as a troublemaker rather than as a leader. Similarly, without that same war, Truman's presidency might have gone unnoticed. The acknowledgement of each as leader emerged through the occasion of war.

Obscuring further an already indistinct discussion is our acknowledgement that lack of unanimous agreement on the nature of leadership among Western nations, does not mitigate the existence of alternate leadership views which originate in non-Western cultures and nations. As researchers increasingly recognize the influence on all things of culture, race, religion and geography, we are compelled to acknowledge that perspectives of leadership too will be shaped by these factors. So, compounding an already troublesome definitional situation, we find that extending leadership to a global context, with all its various influences, means adding culturally based interpretations of leadership values, beliefs and models. In Constructing Race, Nadine Dolby argues very effectively the problems associated with terms like culture and race in the construction of identity. She suggests that culture and race have become shifting, amorphous elements that shape and are shaped by artifacts(ie. media, merchandise, music, art, etc.) that exist at a global and local level. Like Bourdieu, Dolby suggests that identifies today are constructed much more according to taste than to geography (Dolby, 2001).

The notion of shifting cultural and race boundaries eliminates a template view of anything, including leadership, and creates a foundation upon which different perceptions of leadership (which may be affected by an individual's nationality, race, gender, culture, social experiences and so on) can be considered. For example, a person of Muslim faith who is raised in England is likely to have a different perspective of leadership than a person of Protestant faith raised in Canada. Similarly, person of Muslim faith who is raised in Afghanistan will likely also hold a different view of leadership than either the Muslim from England or the Protestant raised in Canada. However, as the Muslim faith affects more directly the day-to-day lives of its followers, it could be expect that Muslims will be more aligned in their view of leadership, regardless of geography. Although Canada and England are each Commonwealth countries, the religious faith of the Muslim can, in this illustration, is expected to override nationality. However, the boundaries and influence of race, culture, religion and geography can take on a variety of forms making categorization and classification difficult.

This paper addresses principally our third leadership issue, that of attempting to identify a working definition of and/or framework for leadership. We have acknowledged that each nation (or set of allied nations) has views and perspectives of leadership that will differ. We have also recognized that to address effectively globalization issues that we cannot limit our examination to a Western biased leadership view. We must seek instead to incorporate the amorphous influences of race, culture, religion and geography if we are to consider a comprehensive view of leadership. Our third point, and the focus of this paper, explores the diverse origins of leadership research. We use Western organizational theory and leadership research, complemented by historical Eastern philosophy to suggest a broad, international view of leadership. The Western leadership views we consider emerge from cognitive psychology and research on effective organizations. Non-Western views of leadership can be traced to the teachings of Tao Tse Ching. We believe that integrating contributions from both Eastern and Western philosophies will enable us to craft a more rich view of leadership.

The Center for Organizational Effectiveness at the Marshall School of Business is conducting research in a complementary stream. In partnership with the World Economic Forum, its researchers are investigating the role and function of leadership in a global community. Questions about leadership characteristics, behaviors and functions, the impact of transnational teams along with cultural interpretations of transformational leadership are being contemplated as part of an extensive research stream. We concur with this line of investigation and add to this conversation our view of global leadership.

Western perspectives on leadership

As background and because of our personal experience, we look at the Western perspective of leadership, which is centered primarily in military and organizational metaphors. Although few agree on its definition, many cite Western leadership by example. Some believe in the romance of leadership (Meindl, 1987) attributing to individuals (not to processes or systems) remarkable business turnarounds and magnificent military feats. Others believe leadership is a synonym for position power (Pillai, 1998), contending that a person who holds a title (ie. CEO) must be a leader. Some do not believe that leadership exists at all. They prefer to attribute outcomes to the environment and assign organizational (and other types of) success to more tangible strategies such as a strong military or quality products or government regulated industry protection.

Those who accept the notion of leadership may consider it a matter no more complicated than looking good in a suit or being a charming orator. A more serious view of charismatic leadership considers specific personal attributes as defining who has the ability to lead and who does not (Pillai, 1998). Some leaders considered to be charismatic have made great historical contributions (ie. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Sir Winston Churchill), while others have caused immense global pain (ie. Adolph Hilter or Osama bin Laden). Yet none of these competing views lead us to a common understanding of leadership.

While leadership could be represented by a variety of illustrations, we believe true leadership extends beyond simply listing a variety of behaviors, traits and the human examples who appear to reflect the dominant Western view of leadership as tied to an event or a position of authority. We are among those who believe that leadership really does exist in terms of outcomes of the efforts of specific individuals. We believe these efforts are tied to leadership and that some leaders are very capable of achieving great things. We also believe that, while it is tempting and even desirable to work toward to a specific understanding of leadership, neither simple hero attributions nor multiple, and not necessarily complementary, definitions of leadership provide a satisfactory framework. Leadership is not simple and should not be treated as such.

Accordingly, while we situate our discussion primarily on Western leadership research, we draw on the teachings of Lao Tzu (as interpreted in various translations of the Tao Te Ching) to extend organization-based leadership theory to global circumstances. While these teachings are not specific to organizational or political structures, we believe that many elusive leadership qualities are articulated in the translations and that our discussion will be enriched by its inclusion.

Merriam-Webster Online Collegiate Dictionary (www.m-w.com) provides the following definitions:

Leadership is: 1. the office or position of a leader, 2.capacity to lead, 3. the act or an instance of leading, 4. leaders (see below)

A leader is defined as: a person who leads 1. a guide or conductor 2.1 a person who directs a military force or unit 2.2 a person who has commanding authority or influence 3.1 the principal officer of a British political party 3.2 a party member chosen to manage party activities in a legislative body 3.3 such a party member presiding over the whole legislative body when the party constitutes a majority 4.1 conductor 4.2 a first or principal performer of a group

To lead is: 1. to guide on a way especially by going in advance 2. to direct on a course or in a direction

An applied definition of leadership may therefore be considered to be the act of guiding a group along a course of action. We find several elements of this statement intriguing. For instance, is the guide (leader) the only one who knows the course of action? Or, is the guide simply able to articulate the course of action in a manner that prompts others to be guided along? Could any person be put in the guide (leader) position and will others always follow? If not, what characteristics must a person have in order for others to allow themselves to be guided? What situational circumstances must exist in order for a guide to be recognized and for others to acquiesce to that guide's direction? Does this applied definition imply that a guide (leader) must always have a destination? If yes, does the need to have a destination mean that guides only exist when there is a destination to be reached? Is destination another term for crisis meaning that for leadership to exist there must be a precipitating crisis?

In addition, is it proper to attribute leadership to both individual and organizational actions? Individuals, countries, organizations even sports teams are said to demonstrate leadership. Leadership activities following September 11th are well documented. The United States is considered by many to be demonstrating leadership in the war on terrorism (The Economist, 2002a). Microsoft™ has shown leadership in developing an (arguably) efficient computer operating system. Quarterback Doug Flutie's move to San Diego Chargers last season was considered to be a strategy to instill new leadership (NFL.com, 2001). These illustrations of leadership, derived from Western events or initiatives, may be legitimate leadership examples but none bring us closer to understanding its meaning.

Because so very many leadership perspectives exist, we limit our discussion to the two principal themes we find to be particularly relevant to our view of effective leadership in a global context. First, we contemplate leadership in terms of traits and behaviors as set out in the historical teaching of Tao Te Ching. Although this work is considered to be ancient, it continues to influence certain contemporary leadership schools (Covey, 1990). The Tao Te Ching is also important because of its influence on other Eastern philosophies. Zen scholar, Professor D.T. Suzuki, once said: To ask a question about Zen is to ask a question about the Tao (Rosenthal). After looking briefly at an historical view of leadership, through Tao Te Ching, we will shift our lens to business theories to consider the relationship of power, influence and situational leadership. Our hope is to draw a more complete picture of leadership as defined in global terms.

Leadership - an historical perspective

The Tao Te Ching (referred to hereafter as The Tao) is comprised of 81 chapters, organized into groups (which differ according to translation). A number of translations exist, each with different interpretations.1 Although we consulted different translations in the preparation of this overview, we noted that in each version leadership appeared as a prominent and recurring theme. In particular, the specific personal traits and behaviors representative of a sage (which we interpret as a synonym for leader) figure prominently.

Each translation articulates a view of leadership and its embodiment in the sage, a person who through his experience … becomes aware that all things change, and that he who seems to lead, might also, in another situation, follow (Rosenthal). Leadership here has three core elements. First, the sage must understand, know and live The Tao. Second, the sage must accept that leadership is leading and following. Or, leaders neither lead nor follow. Leaders simply do what is natural, and live by the example of The Tao. We see a good sage as representing of leadership traits and behaviors suitable for consideration in an international context. Third, The Tao addresses social life and society by acknowledging that not all people will become sages. Some society members are less rigorous in adhering to The Tao. Sages are offered as guides to those who need leadership.

Although no single chapter addresses the topic of leadership in an organizational sense, The Tao is peppered with references to both leader attributes and leader behaviors. The following passages summarize specific leadership qualities and conduct. Humility, for example, is perhaps best shown in Rosenthal's interpretation of Chapter 59:

By acting with no thought of self-advancement, but with self-restraint, it is possible to lead, and genuinely care for others. This happens by acting virtuously, and leaving nothing to be done.

A foundation virtuous and firm, rooted in receptivity, is a prerequisite of good leadership, and for a life both long and strong. He whose virtue knows no limit, is most fitting to lead.

Humility is a recurring theme, which we believe is aligned with the Western view of integrity. Here we see it articulated in the statement by acting with no thought of self-advancement of leadership, but with self-restraint. This theme is repeated in each of the other translations through admonitions to not seek titles (Rosenthal, Ch 9) and to act without ambition (Merel, 1997, ch 29).

Chapter 67 of The Tao we found in the translations under a variety of headings including The Three Precious Attributes (Rosenthal), Unimportance (Merel), and The Three Treasures (Yutang). Each version featured three characteristics (compassion, restraint, and humility) important to leadership, although each author conveyed a slightly different interpretation. In Merel, we found:

Yet here are three treasures, which I cherish and commend to you; The first is compassion, by which one finds courage. The second is restraint, by which one finds strength. And the third is unimportance, by which one finds influence.

Rosenthal included the following list of leadership characteristics2 :

Just in dealings, competent in management, act[s] without contrived intent, no ulterior motive
Does not rule by force or lead by force, not prideful or boastful, does not act lightly or hastily.

A successful leader's people will, upon the completion of a task, remark we have done it ourselves (Yutang). According to The Tao, the best leader is one who is not seen. The leader will not be physically absent but will enable rather than dictate. Merel may best describe this view of leadership (we would replace sage with leader):

Honest people use no rhetoric; Rhetoric is not honesty. Enlightened people are not cultured; Culture is not enlightenment. Content people are not wealthy; Wealth is not contentment. So the sage does not serve himself; The more he does for others, the more he is satisfied; The more he gives, the more he receives. Nature flourishes at the expense of no one; So the sage benefits all men and contends with none.

While The Tao presents leadership imbedded in the oral testimony of the teachings, we nonetheless believe that the characteristics of the sage provide an accurate representation of Eastern-based leadership views. Eastern leadership, in our understanding, is demonstrated with a subtly unseen in the West. Leadership has an equal strength and power but its expression is less obvious and more patient. This picture of leadership contrasts sharply with the Western of leadership.

Leadership - an organizational perspective

Articulated in a manner infinitely less eloquent than the prose of The Tao, Western views of leadership are central to our argument because Western actors have historically dominated the international stage. Leadership theory in the West proposes that leaders exist in formal and informal organizations. Efforts of leaders in these organizations are often seen in terms of outcomes, although their tactics tend to be discussed in terms of personal attributes and actions. Organization theory and leadership research add to our discussion by considering the relationship between actor and environment. And, while we contend that the leadership traits and behaviors of The Tao contribute to our understanding of the question what is a leader, to form a more complete picture we must also examine how organizational influences shape and mediate leadership.

Our principal interest within the body of Western research is, both, organization and leadership theories. Organizational structure, size and regulatory framework, social networks (within the organization and across interorganizational networks) and individual leader attributes each influence how leadership is both exhibited and interpreted in an organization. The following brief overview of select organizational theories help to characterize how organizational influences mediate leadership.

Structuration theory is Anthony Gidden's gift to social theory. Management Information Systems theorists who find his mutual shaping argument very appealing for application have borrowed liberally his work. We believe structuration theory has equal appeal to conversations about leadership. In essence, structuration theory is about duality. In creating a structure, organizational members create a set of rules and resources, which dictate roles and norms and which become institutionalized through repetition. Even though organizational members initially shape institutions, over time the structures becomes fixed, taking on a forcefulness and rigidity that enables the structures to shape and to guide future action.

Organizational members and work to reinforce a particular social system create structures. Sometimes they also work to control the actions of the very individuals who originally created the structures (Orlikowski, 1991). Giddens defines structure as an abstract notion that does not exist without the interaction of humans (Orlikowski, 1991). In choosing this definition, structure is seen not as a concrete entity with specific boundaries and borders but rather as an amorphous and influenced entity that is made real only through interaction with members of the social system. A variety of intended and unintended consequences result from this interaction.

In the context of leadership, structuration theory reinforces the roles and responsibilities of organizational actors by creating expectations of leadership. How the leader behaves and how others respond is shaped and reinforced by organizational institutions. In an international or global context, structuration theory tells us the leadership behavior will be reinforced by each of the different institutions within which leaders operate. Culture, geography and national organizations shape institutions and also shape the expectations and behaviors of leadership and the organizational members with whom the leaders interact.

Social networks constitute a second significant influence in the expression and interpretation of leadership. Garton, Haythornthwaite and Wellman provide an effective description of social networks in their 1997 paper, Studying online social networks. They define social networks as a set of individuals connected through social or other relationships. They articulate social network analysis as seeking:

… to describe networks of relations as fully as possible, to tease out the prominent patterns in such networks, to trace the flow of information (and other resources) through them, and to discover what effects these relations and networks have on people and organizations. They treat the description of relational patterns as interesting in its own right (ie. is there a core and periphery?) and examine how involvement in such 'social networks' helps to explain the behavior and attitudes of 'network members.' They use a variety of techniques to discover a network's densely knit clusters and to look for similar role relations. (Garton et. al., 1997).

Social networks directly affect leadership because social networks shape how leaders develop and influence the tactics they choose to use in motivating followers. Even the path of leadership development in an organization can be analyzed through a social networks framework. Figure 1 (Garton et. al.) shows the relationships between individuals (a) and groups of individuals (b).

Note: Figure 1 is not included in the online version of this paper.

This theory, more completely than other organizational theories, makes explicit the complex nature of organizations. In particular, because of the centrality of organizational relationships to leadership, in the Western view, social network theory provides a legitimate foundation upon which to consider relationships between leaders and followers and the mediating roles of influence and power.

The research tradition with the strongest bearing on relational concepts of leadership focuses on the relation between networks and leadership. These studies are of two types: 'sociometric' and 'structural.' The former is concerned primarily with relating leadership to the number of affective choices an individual receives, where the latter tends to focus on the link between leadership and the overall pattern or structure of interaction in a group. (Fernandez, 1991)

Weber, Camerer, Rottenstreich and Knez (2001) have contemplated the impact of leadership in relation to organization size. They contend that team size rather than leadership affect the failure or success of a project. Team members, they argue misattribute success or failure to leaders when situational contingencies, over which the leader has no control, may actually determine outcomes. While we consider the design of the experiment from which they obtain their results to be questionable, the authors draw attention to some of the issues associated with situational leadership as well to the challenge of separating leadership from other organizational influences. Rather than suggesting that leadership does not exist, following social network analysis we would suggest the leadership is mediated by, among other things, organization size.

Organizational circumstances (ie. industry stability or volatility, competitive pressures both inside and outside the organization, regulatory framework and so on) will bear upon the way in which leadership is represented. The more people who are members of the network, the more complicated the dynamics of the relationship between not only the leader and followers but among the followers. Contemplating leadership in terms of social networks enables the examination of leader behavior in terms of complex relationships imbedded in an organizational context. And, while this analysis may be difficult to pursue, it is necessary if we are to move toward a view of international leadership.

Consider the President of the United States in terms of leadership and social networks. In a recent study of Presidential leadership persuasion, Smith and Smith (1994) reported:

The breadth and heterogeneity of presidents' interpretive coalitions impinge directly on their latitude to lead, and vice versa...Theoretically, the broader the president's coalition the more latitude the president has to lead. However, sociological and technological changes have made American society more pluralistic and its messages more available ...Once a president has been elected, his latitude to lead is constrained by the heterogeneity of his electoral coalition because each community in that coalition has been primed for disappointment.

Essentially, the president's ability to lead is limited by the various interorganizational social networks that support him. Because of the complicated web of these overlapping social networks, the President is constrained to the point that he loses the ability to be effective. If, because of the negative effect that competing constituencies have on an elected official, the President is unable to perform as a leader, he must then work simply to serve his own interests (that of being reelected or pushing a particular, personal legacy agenda). His leadership becomes contrived which, according to Lao Tsu is inconsistent with good (or true) leadership. Smith and Smith appear to claim from a domestic perspective at least that because of the pluralistic nature of American society, presidents are impotent because they will consistently fail to meet expectations.

Given the dominant role of the United States on the international stage and the dependence (and expectations) of other nations on the American president, the president's ability to respond to constituent demands is of particular interest. Take a recent analysis of British Prime Minister Tony Blair (Economist, 2002c). Its thrust was Prime Minister Blair's unsuccessful struggle to balance the needs of his domestic constituents (the citizens of Great Britain) with the expectations of global constituents (the elected heads of other nations who represent the interests of their respective nations). The article concludes that Prime Minister is not capable of achieving successfully two incompatible agendas and so has chosen to pursue successfully an international program at the expense of a domestic one. International popularity seems to be at odds with domestic success. However, if England falls apart from the inside, is Blair a success? What can England contribute internationally if it has nothing left? Conversely, in the days immediately following September 11, had Blair focused on domestic issues rather than allegiance with the United States, would the global effort to fight terrorism be affected? Can a leader, imbedded in multiple and often-competing social networks achieve successfully a single act of leadership?

Contingency theory supplants early views of theorist's like Taylor and Weber who strongly advocated differing but singular methods of organization structure. Contingency theory of organizations recognizes that organizational structure will be influenced by a number of factors including the function of the firm (ie. government agency, manufacturing firm, health care facility, hospitality industry member, etc.), its size, and location, number of employees and so on. It is based on an open systems view of the organization that, in a fashion complementary to social network analysis, means that the organization must be considered in its relation to its external environment. The framework for contingency theory includes, organization size, external environment and the complexity of its operation. Interdependence between the organization, organizational members and environmental influences are each considered of critical importance.

A contingency approach to leadership, first developed by Frederick Fiedler, sees the successful leader as one who is keenly aware of the forces most relevant to his behaviour at any given time [and] who is able to behave appropriately in the light of these (Jones, 1997). This theory will be developed further in the following section.

Leadership theories

Contemplating leadership is, in some ways, like trying to encapsulate the islands of Hawai'i into one statement. Some will view it as a great place to vacation. Others see it as an excellent place to study the stars. Still others will consider it as a conquered land whose people have been treated unjustly. At once Hawaii is beautiful, tranquil and untouched. It is also overcrowded, spoiled and messy. Is any one perspective correct? No. Each view is correct. And, just as there are several different, yet accurate, views of Hawaii there are different, yet sincere, views of leadership.

In attempting to create a framework to consider the question of international (or global) leadership, we have considered both historical and organizational perspectives. The Tao contains much of the theoretical foundation for the leadership traits and behaviors perspective. Organizational theory informs our discussion by providing a view of organizational influences on leadership actions and outcomes. In this section we will consider briefly leadership theories of power and influence and in particular, we will look at situational leadership theory.

Leadership and power are linked in organizations because so much of our Western ideas of leadership are imbedded in our view of positions of authority. For Westerners, it is very difficult conceptually and practically to separate power from leadership. We noticed in our literature review that a significant portion of leadership research appears to accept implicitly the link between leadership and power. We believe that this assumption detracts from thoughtful study of leadership. Our thesis is derived from the notion that leaders may hold positional power but leaders are not necessarily in senior positions. Further, we contend that not all positional authority figures are leaders. Therefore, we suggest that power and position are linked directly with leadership.

Business and popular press often use leadership terms to describe position power confounding, in our opinion, a true understanding of leadership. This view, which is reinforced in media and movies, routinely depicts authority figures as charismatic leaders (Thompson, 1994). As a result, many individuals look to organizational members with position power for leadership lending credence to the claims of certain researchers (ie. Weber et. al., 2001) who posit that authority figures often cannot fulfill their leadership obligations. We do not believe it is appropriate or possible to assume that to hold a senior manager position is to automatically be considered a leader. Although power and leadership are not completely separate, neither are they synonymous.

According to Fernandez (1991): A common feature of the many definitions [of leadership] is the idea that leadership is understood most clearly as a particular form of power or influence over other actors, grounded in legitimate authority. Whereas bosses may exercise power over subordinates, leaders are distinguished from bosses by other actors' recognition of the legitimacy of their power.

Past studies tended to classify the bases of leaders' power into two sets: personal attributes and environmental situations. Studies that examine personal bases of leadership seek to identify the traits that are associated with the ability to influence others' behavior (ie. personality, training, experiences).

Situational leadership attempts to responds to the question: Which comes first, leadership or crisis? Advocates of situational leadership theory suggest that leaders emerge in response to situations over which they have no control. Harry S. Truman became president when Franklin D. Roosevelt died. Although he was unprepared for his role (he did not even know of the atomic bomb tests) by most accounts Truman responded to the needs of his country as reflected in the requirements of his position and the environmental conditions he faced. Some claim that President Bush modeled his leader behavior after earlier presidents who faced external adversity while in office (The Economist, 2002a). He is seen by some to have drawn his leadership profile in the reflection of the events in September. To this end, he is seen to follow situational leadership theory, a working definition for which is provided below:

In situational studies of leadership, leadership is regarded as contingent on factors outside the potential leader's control. These factors include the attributes of other members of the organization, market stability or turbulence and formal organization structure. (Fernandez, 1991)

Shown below are the five main research approaches that fall under the situational theories heading:

Path-goal theory, which investigates the effect of a leader's behavior on subordinates,
Leader substitutes theory, which contemplates the need for real leaders by musing whether or not subordinates (with appropriate characteristics and working in the right kind of organization) can fulfill a leadership role,
Multiple-linkage model, which most closely resembles a social network theory of leadership by considering the relationship among leaders behaviors, intervening variables and situational variables,
Cognitive resources theory, which explores conditions under which cognitive resources (ie. intelligence or experience) affect group performance, and
Contingency theory of leadership or the least preferred coworker (LPC) contingency theory, which examines the relationship between leaders and organizational members relations from the perspective of position power and task structure (Jones, 1997).

As indicated, most relevant to our discussion is the contingency theory of leadership, first authored by Fred E. Fiedler, which analyzes group performance in terms of interaction between leadership style and situational favorableness. Leadership effectiveness is the result of interaction between the style of the leader and the characteristics of the environment within which the leader works (Jones, 1997).

Leadership style, according to Fiedler, is fixed because it is determined by an individual's personality. Leader styles can be either relationship-oriented or task-oriented. To be effective, leadership style must be matched with the situation. Situational favorableness (or the environmental variable) is the second component of Fiedler's theory and is defined as the degree to which a particular situation enables a leader to influence a group. In Fiedler's theory, three key situational factors are included: leader-member, task structure and position power.

Note: Figure 2 is not included in the online version of this paper.

To this end, using the contingency theory of leadership, we can build a model (Figure 2) of Western leadership by considering the relationship of the leader to his/her members (this is consistent with social network analysis), the task structure (which many consider the event or activity that requires leadership action) and finally, position power (also aligned with social network analysis, which positions the leader within his/her environment according to authority and formal position).

Although we are still contemplating leadership from a largely Western perspective and we are analyzing it specifically within an organizational context, Figure 2 allows us to begin to see the innate complexity of the subject. Each circle represents an active and amorphous influence. Leaders do not simply exert influence over the environment, followers and events. Power is changing and does not remain fixed. All elements affect and influence other elements within the environment. All outcomes are contingent on the strength and influence of environmental elements, including leadership.

We return to the question: in the Western view, which comes first, leadership or crisis? In our view, sufficient evidence has yet to be presented in terms of research and theory. For example, would history have recorded Winston S. Churchill as a great leader without World War II? Perhaps not. Will the war on terrorism be sufficient to provide the current President Bush with a leadership legacy? More work is needed to determine to the extent that leadership is mediated by crisis. As we have seen, some argue that leadership does not exist without the presence of a crisis. We think this view reflects a rather Western bias by focusing on drama and theatrics. We believe instead that attempts to craft a true definition of leadership, and particularly a definition of global leadership, must incorporate both Western event-oriented leadership perspectives along with the Eastern personal behavior-oriented leadership. By incorporating both Western and Eastern elements to create a collective, global definition we suggest that leaders exist (and reside among us) with or without crisis. Further we suggest that the mediating role of crises is to draw our attention to the existence of leadership, rather than to invent (or create) leaders.

Is leadership merely perceived?

According to Richard Barker, if there is no need for change, there is no need for leadership. Management is used to maintain stability (2001, p. 491). We disagree. Although most organizations and nations are driven by a constant need to change, we believe leadership does exist with or without crisis. Leaders - we think - simply become more visible during a crisis. Further, although interpretations of leaders and leader behaviors are shaped by crisis, we suggest that leadership qualities exist (as set out by The Tao) separate from crises although these qualities usually are also mediated by crises. President Bush, referred to disparagingly in the early days of his term is now spoken about in much more respectful terms. Has President Bush changed? Or, has public perception of him changed in light of his response to recent events? Is global perception of President Bush aligned or do citizens of different nations perceive President Bush differently?

We believe there is a key difference between the view leadership created by crisis and the view leadership mediated by crisis. Further, we believe crisis can be interpreted differently depending on perspective, location and experience (ie. culture). This does not mean that we believe crises beget leaders. Rather, we follow The Tao in contemplating visible leadership in two ways. First, we believe that over time, leadership will present itself visiby at varying levels. The Tao suggests effective leaders need not always be visible because they should be reflected in the actions of their followers (Yutang). We concur and suggest that true leadership will be visible when necessary, which does not mean it will be visible always. Second, we concur with The Tao view that leaders do what is right when necessary and this means that leaders may not always be identified as leaders. In fact, until an event or activity requires visible leadership some may not even notice the presence of certain leaders (Muller, 1997).

While some question the existence leadership in general (Barker, 2001), we recognize that industry press, academic researchers, the media and conference organizers have an overwhelming interest in (if not desire for) leadership. Barker's cynically argues motivation as the source of goal-oriented behavior in individuals rather leadership action:

If there is no need for change, there is no need for leadership. Management is used to maintain stability. When individuals understand that they can pursue their own needs by joining the collective movement, this motivates them to adapt their self-interest to shared goals. The 'leader' may only symbolize that adaptation, and not necessarily become the source of it. An individual's commitment to community goals and to structure can only emanate from the individual, not from the individual's boss. The boss may inspire the individual, but no one works hard to make someone else rich (p.491).

Although Barker posits leadership as a fallacy, he does not recognize the nearly global acceptance of (perhaps even need for) leadership. People do choose to follow certain other people, beyond what is required for coordination. Members of most civilized societies believe in the concept of leadership so strongly that for them even the perception of leadership works. Perceived leadership, to us, is a critical component of this paper. For in our opinion, perceived leadership confirms the existence of real leadership and validates its significance to organizations and societies.

Perceived leadership means to us the incorrect attribution of leadership characteristics to individuals who are not leaders. This occurs through a variety of mechanisms, including:

position power is often treated synonymously with leadership. We posit that the two are separate and cannot be treated interchangeably. Misattribution occurs with such attempts.
human or electronic mediation can cause an individual who is not a leader to be considered one, at least temporarily. Mediated communication technologies, in particular, enable easy manipulation of images making possible filtered communication. The result of such trickery is, again, misattribution.

Leadership, in our opinion, is so important that even those who are not leaders at some point will attempt to be viewed as leaders. However, because leadership is real, we believe that over time false leaders will be revealed. According to Weber et. al. leaders without many of the usual organizational symbols and powers associated with leadership are less likely to receive faulty attributions of leadership (2001). Thankfully, we support this statement.

Does culture affect leadership perception?

We think compelling evidence exists to suggest that leadership is real but that it is interpreted differently according to culture, experience, gender and so on. While we were writing this paper, we discussed leadership and role models. Martin Luther King, Jr. was among the leaders we contemplated. Global leadership has been defined in this paper to be the embodiment of both Eastern (personality and behavior) and Western (event-based action) characteristics making, in our opinion, then Dr. King as the perfect model for global leadership.

The American civil rights movement, for example, was clearly a crisis that could define a leader. However, we cannot say that Dr. King was a leader who needed defining through a crisis. Profiles of Dr. King suggest that he was a leader well prior to the American civil rights movement. Although he was internationally recognized as an advocate for non-violent social change, prior achieving notoriety as the leader of the civil rights movement, he was a respected professional of some status. He was educated, earning in 1955 a doctorate degree in theology. Throughout his involvement with the civil rights movement, he faced several leadership challenges (most notably from Malcolm X) and opposition at many levels (from FBI chief, J. Edgar Hoover, to Black Power supporter, Stokely Carmichael). Despite these many threats, Dr. King's balance of Eastern and Western leadership skills attracted hundreds of thousands of followers and led eventually to cause sweeping changes in black civil rights (The History Channel).

Dr. King, we believe, had the capacity to demonstrate leadership qualities in any forum. Perhaps another path would not have afforded his leadership the same degree of visibility but we are confident his leadership would still be evident. Dr. King embodied the characteristics we associate with true, globally oriented leadership. Regardless of position or power or event, Dr. King personified leadership. The role of the civil rights movements for Dr. King, in our opinion was that it helped to shape and reflect Dr. King's strength as a leader and to enable a nation to change.

In 2002, we struggle with the challenges presented by globalization. Leaders that are internationally defined are desperately needed to help nations and communities find a path that leads toward a true global society. Several challenges exist, not the least of which is lack of agreement concerning what constitutes the ideal global society. We contend that a more important challenge (or at least a more immediate challenge) is the need to agree on a common, international definition of leadership. Domestic leaders are the international sculptors who must shape the image of a global society. Building a society with multiple craftspeople will be hard. If international respect for the leaders who serve as craftsmen is missing, the success is not likely.

Critical then is the need to reach agreement on an international definition of leadership. We have argued that to be successful, an international leader must embodied both the strong oratory, media sound bite skills that are tied to the Western view of effective leadership. However, an international leader must also show a measure of personal strength exhibited usually by the strong, quiet and passionate behaviors of Eastern leadership philosophies. Individuals who exemplify these characteristics (like Dr. King, Mahatma Ghadi to name two), will be accepted on the international stage as truly global leaders. International acceptance is critical. Different nations of the world will never allow their futures to be negotiated by individuals whom they do not see as leaders.

Conclusion

We’re trained as businessmen, but we’re being asked to pass judgment on the moral and ethical value of these projects. … As corporate leaders seek to meet the demands of global leadership, they need to listen to the views of those who feel they should not be leaders, several participants said. (World Economic Forum, 2002).3

Though intriguing, leadership has proven to be a multidimensional problem, which cannot be distilled into a simply stated solution. While we feel that this paper has attempted to build an international definition of leadership that reflects both Eastern and Western values as assigned to leadership attributes and behaviors, much more work is needed. Questions of leadership need to be categorized carefully to allow detailed discussions of leadership elements in both a domestic and an international context. Once these simple illustrations of leadership have been created, a composite drawing must then be attempted in order to shape greater understanding of leadership in a global context.

Note: Figure 3 is not included in the online version of this paper.

Despite our call for further work, we believe three conclusions can be drawn from this effort to understand global leadership. First, we feel we have crafted a loose definition of international leadership that is built on the premise that leadership is not synonymous with power. Although false leaders will also undoubtedly attempt to claim a leadership position based on their formal organizational authority, we believe that leadership is too important and too unique to be delivered in counterfeit at length. Over time, these mock leaders will be discovered and will be replaced by genuine leadership. We believe very strongly that organizational members and international citizens, regardless of geographic position or cultural background seek and value true leadership, as defined by The Tao.

Our view of global leadership (Figure 3) illustrates leadership as imbedded in social and organizational networks (in both a business and a national sense). It shows the messy, practical, agenda-ridden environment of organizations and societies. It also includes the important element of influence, which is generated by leadership but not by position power. Although for clarity, we have deliberately kept the drawing simple, this diagram extends the organizational leadership drawing of Figure 2 with the addition of leader behaviors and traits (from The Tao). Most of the external and interorganizational relationships (depicted by the dotted lines) have also been removed although we acknowledge the existence and influence of each.

Second, we believe this paper as confirmed leadership as a central organizational actor. Whether the organization is a family, a sports team, a business or a nation, organizational members seek leadership. If leadership cannot be found, organization members invent (or perhaps accept) pseudo leaders. Some who are not leaders, but who recognize the importance of its function, will seek recognition as leaders. But, these false representatives will not be successful over the long term. Leadership requires specific characteristics and behaviors that cannot be acted but which must be legitimate. Typically, true leaders typically emerge (rather than seek appointment). This fact, augmented by repeated attempts by imposters to seek leadership recognition, we believe confirms leadership as central and necessary to organizations of all types. As shown in our simple diagram, leadership is core. Leadership is also shown to be dynamic within the organization as it mediates and is mediated in the ongoing ebb and flow of organizational dynamics. We contend that organizations, considered in the broadest sense, will not survive over the long term without the presence of legitimate and sincere leadership as set out in our definition of international leadership. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. has been presented as an exemplar of our definition of international leadership.

Finally, we feel that our attempt to define, explain and, to a certain extent, categorize leadership should be taken seriously … but not too seriously. This subject is so broad. It has ramifications at both micro and macro levels prompting us to extend caution to anyone wishing to take our thoughts (and drawings) too literally. Our journey into the study of leadership in an international context has barely begun. We will read more, think more and then write more. For now, we close with two quotes that influence our view of global leadership:

Leaders at all levels and in all situations must pay close attention to situations in which their most effective option is to follow - not because the hierarchy demands that they 'obey,' but because performance requires them to rely on the capacities and insights of other people" (Smith and Smith, 1996, p.200).

Leaders are usually people of vision, effective communicators, effective decision makers, and intelligent; they respond to and value individuals and their dignity; they are committed to service and to obedience to the unenforceable; they have total honesty and integrity; they are kind; and they often see themselves as teachers" (Melendez, 1996, p.293).