The Classic Ontology of Leadership

Abstract

This chapter argues that leadership can be viewed from more than one perspective. Leadership is conceptualized both as the concept that denotes an individual or a group of individuals whose authority has been accepted by others and, a process in which the set goals, plans and tasks are realized through exerting influence on one’s followers and their behaviour. The chapter describes three types of theoretical approaches according to the classic ontology of leadership: (1) leader-focused based on leadership traits, skills and styles, (2) follower-focused based on information processing, social constructivism paradigm and implicit leadership theories, and (3) situation-focused centered on the impact of the situation on leadership and its manifestations).

Perspectives of Leadership

Leadership can be viewed from more than one perspective.

Leadership is primarily a concept that denotes an individual or a group of individuals whose authority has been accepted by others. It is also a process in which the set goals, plans and tasks are realised through exerting influence on one’s followers and their behaviour. It may be viewed as a relation between two persons or as a multilateral relation in hierarchies and networks that connect people. Finally, leadership is the connection between collective intentionality, collective action and the desired outcomes: it exists as a guiding, integrative and coordinating mechanism of common action in the collective.

Firstly, we can define it as a process by which one actor influences others in a group, organisation or several organisations and social settings, to make them understand and accept the tasks that need to be performed and the way they need to be performed, as well as a process by which individual and collective efforts are directed towards the accomplishment of common goals (Yukl, 2006).

The ability to influence others is a key element of the leadership process (Bass, 1981), in which an individual involves a group of people to accomplish common objectives (Northouse, 2015).

This understanding of the concept underlines the importance of the leader’s actual and desirable traits, the collection of knowledge and skills that they need to perfect, and the leadership style they need to adapt to the members of the collective and to the specific characteristics of the situation and the job at hand.

Leaders appear in a collective depending on how well they match the collective’s identity, or how similar they are to the group prototype, as underlined by the social identity theory (Hogg, 2001; as cited in Northouse, 2010).

The leader’s role is to properly inspire and motivate the members of the collective to make the collective action as successful as possible. The quality of their leadership depends on their ability to achieve unity, willing participation, and maximum engagement of everyone involved, along with adequate coordination of the activities required to perform the set task.

Secondly, leadership can be understood as a social process involving iterative exchange processes between several individuals (Lord & Dinh, 2014: 161) who take on (and release) the leading roles over the course of time in both formal and informal relationships (Yammarino et al., 2012: 382).

According to this view, social interaction and transaction relations are the quintessence of the dynamic leadership process, understood as an essential attribute of the collective, which manifests differently depending on the situation.

In many cases, leaders and followers switch places depending on the context, goals, and competences required. There are also examples of collective coordination of courses of action and activities that give leadership a very impersonal dimension in some circumstances.

Different perspectives on leadership can lead to conceptual confusion. Whether leadership is linked to a person’s distinctive ability, or to the exchange process between the members in a collective, is a question without an unambiguous answer. This should not concern us, however, if we choose to rely on the old Latin proverb omnis definicio periculosa est. Or, as eminent writer Borges put it nicely: Very often, we make the mistake of thinking that we do not know something just because we are unable to define it… It could be argued that we can only define something when we know nothing about it.

Recognising the basic relations in the classical ontic triad—leader, follower, task—is the first step in understanding leadership.

We can recognise leadership in the relation between entity A, which assumes and displays leadership (leader), and entity B, which accepts leadership (follower), or in a multiple relation in which a leader A (or a group of leaders A₁, A₂, … A_m) have multiple followers at the same time (B, C, D, E, …, N). Furthermore, leadership aims to ensure successful performance of a task. This requires clear objectives, along with focused action that will lead to the desired outcomes.

The characteristics of the situation (the context) determine how roles are assumed, and how the relations between the concerned social actors are manifested. The interaction between leaders, followers and situations (Hollander, 1978) is one of the possible definitions of leadership. It is therefore beneficial to observe leadership through the prism of the specific characteristics of its environment.

The classic ontology identifies the following elements and relations that can be used to explain the phenomenon of leadership: (1) specific nature of the situation in which the need for leadership appears (collective and environment), (2) authority and other characteristics of the leader, (3) acceptance of authority by the members of the collective (feeling of connectedness or obedience), (4) the leader’s influence on the follower (direct and indirect influence mechanisms), (5) connection and alignment of goals in order to perform a task and achieve the best possible outcomes in a given situation (Fig. 1.1).

Fig. 1.1

A Classical view of leadership

A number of research and theoretical approaches that are based on the classic ontology of leadership have been developed over the past 80 years. Depending on their primary focus, we can group them into research efforts and conceptual efforts: (1) leader-focused (approaches based on leadership traits, skills and styles), (2) follower-focused (approach based on information processing, social constructivism paradigm and implicit leadership theories), and (3) situation-focused (approaches centred on the impact of the situation on leadership and its manifestations).

First and foremost, we can view leadership from the perspective of the leader: their inherent traits and learned and acquired skills, or behaviour patterns, manifested in interactions with others in and outside of the collective.

Approaches based on leaders’ traits assume that some leaders possess certain qualities, characteristics and attributes that make them more efficient than others (Bryman, 1986; Stogdill, 1948, 1974). Leaders are born rather than created, and the success of leadership is explained by the possession of special traits that distinguish leaders from “ordinary” people. Or, as the great writer Goethe wrote: A great person attracts great people and knows how to hold them together.

This school of thought is called the great man theory or, more often, the trait theory, with an emphasis on identifying the people who are destined to assume leader positions at all levels in the society, and exploring the important traits and attributes that successful leaders possess or should possess (examples include Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Zaccaro et al., 2004; Zaccaro, 2007; Malakyan, 2015).

Talent is the key aspect of leadership. As the renowned management author Peter F. Drucker stressed in The Practice Management in 1954: Leadership is of the utmost importance. Indeed there is no substitute for it (…) But leadership cannot be created or promoted. It cannot be taught or learned (p. 156).

Stogdill (1974) identifies ten key leadership traits: (1) drive for responsibility and task completion, (2) vigour and persistence in pursuit of goals, (3) risk taking and originality in problem solving, (4) drive to exercise initiative in social situations, (5) self-confidence and sense of personal identity, (6) willingness to accept consequences of decision and action, (7) readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, (8) willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, (9) ability to influence other people’s behaviour, and (10) capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand.

In Northouse’s opinion (2010: 19–21), the best leaders have the following five most important traits: (1) intellectual capabilities, a combination of verbal, perceptual, and reasoning capabilities, (2) self-confidence, reflected in self-respect, self-assuredness, and strong conviction that one has the capacity to attain goals, (3) determination in action, (4) integrity, including honesty and the trust one inspires, and (5) sociability, or the inclination to seek and build social relationships in which everyone will feel comfortable.

It is obvious there is no universally accepted list of leader traits.

Unlike the trait-based approaches, which differentiate between individuals based on their innate traits, skill-based approaches assume that leadership can be learned and perfected over time.

Katz (1955) argues that leaders need technical and interpersonal skills, as well as the skill of abstract thinking. Similarly, Mumford et al. (2000) underline three important capabilities that leaders can improve: the skills that allow them to creatively solve new and challenging problems, the skills of social judgment (the ability to understand people and social systems), the knowledge that allows analytic and synthetic thinking, and the development of strategies of appropriate action in complex situations. The outcome of leadership (how well the leader performed their task) is a direct result of these skills.

The leadership skills that are required differ depending on the size and type of the collective, the environment and the situation, the level of hierarchy, and a number of other factors. For example, leaders at the strategic level of large organisations need well-developed strategic thinking skills and the ability to understand the big picture, as well as the skill of networking and building relationships with a number of interest groups in and outside of the organisation, whereas the leaders of smaller units in an organisation need sufficient technical knowledge to act adequately within the given framework, the ability to solve current operating problems, and adeptness at social relations that exist within smaller groups.

Over time, people can perfect their leadership skills and make considerable headway in developing and utilising their leadership potentials. Leadership grows into a discipline that can be learned through experience and lifelong pursuit of new knowledge. Rather than a trait possessed by “a select few” who happened to have been born with distinctive attributes, leadership is a set of skills that are used in working with people, decision-making, and performing collective tasks. Anyone who wants to learn and is persistent enough in their ambitions can hone and bolster their leadership capabilities over time.

In the words of the great US President John F. Kennedy, leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.¹ This perspective emphasises that leaders can be made through experience, learning and determined self-work (Fig. 1.2).

Fig. 1.2

“The Leadership Triangle”—Leader’s perspective

Moreover, observing leaders in different situations can help us understand leadership, which is recognised in the set of visible and comparable activities undertaken by leaders in relation to (1) the members of the collective and (2) the task at hand. Instead of analysing innate traits and skills that can be further developed, the focus is on answering the question what the leaders actually do when interacting with the members of the collective.

A number of theoretical conceptualisations touch upon this subject, including, inter alia, McGregor’s X and Y theories (1960), the influential dichotomy of autocratic and democratic leadership, Blake and Mouton’s (1964, 1985)² leadership grid and Mintzberg’s managerial roles (1973).

Value-based leadership theories are similar to the above-mentioned behavioural models. They are based on identifying a particular way of leading, or leadership style, which comprises collective values, behaviour types, and the form of interaction between the leader and the followers. The conceptualisations of transactional and transformational leadership are widespread (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1981), and so are charismatic leadership (House, 1976; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Zaleznik, 2009), authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005) and servant leadership models (Greenleaf, 1970; Greenleaf & Spears, 2002; Bennis, 2002; Blanchard & Hodges, 2003).

The presented models point to patterns that are used to recognise specific characteristics of leadership depending on assumed values, different task characteristics, and types of interpersonal relations. These patterns are usually referred to as “leadership styles”: simplified representations and descriptions of leaders’ actions that usually include conflicting behaviour attributes to highlight the available leadership modes.

Ethical aspects of leadership are also important, with a view to the negative historical examples of leaders whose actions had devastating consequences, as well as the existence of several moral dilemmas regarding the decisions of leaders and their actions in different circumstances.

The behavioural complexity theory (Denison et al., 1995), which suggests that leaders are forced to deal with paradoxes and contradictions while taking on multiple, often competing leadership roles, is also worth mentioning here.

Furthermore, leadership is impossible to understand without analysing the complexity of the interactions between the leaders, the followers and the context, and the nature of their interrelations. The suitability and effectiveness of leadership depend on the conditions and the situation. Different situations and task structures require different leadership styles, making the pursuit of “ideal” leader traits, or the best leadership style, fundamentally wrong: the successfulness of leadership is unquestionably determined by the situation.

Situational leadership theories follow the premise that there is no ideal, universally acceptable leadership style. Not all styles are successful in all circumstances. Leadership is contingent on factors such as the followers’ traits, abilities and behaviours,³ the preferred leadership style, available resources, support and coordination, and so on (Crossan et al., 2008).

The following are the most important situational approaches: (1) Fiedler’s contingency model (1967, 1995), which positions leadership styles depending on three characteristics of the situation: leader-member relations, task structure, and leader’s position power; (2) the path-goal theory, which underlines the relation between the leadership style and the traits of the collective members, or the choice of style that best suits the members’ motivational needs (House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974); (3) situational leadership described as the situational framework connecting leadership styles with the followers’ maturity level, which is based on the presumption that the leadership style must be adapted to the ability and preparedness of the collective members to perform the task (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993).

Such approaches accentuate the need to adapt leadership to the environment, task structure, and the followers’ traits. If we accept the criterion of efficiency as the rational framework, leadership should be continually aligned with the requirements and the forces in the environment in order to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Moreover, we can view leadership from the angle of the followers, or members of the collective, who are ready to accept another person’s leadership.

The leadership model based on information processing (Lord & Maher, 1991) and the implicit leadership theories (Phillips & Lord, 1982) are examples of follower-centred leadership theories.

Also, behavioural connections between leaders and followers can be observed as products of the followers’ special social and mental constructs (Meindl, 1995). Leadership emerges when followers arrange their experiences in the key categories related to leadership, and interpret their relationship with another person as a “leader-follower” relationship. It emerges when individual, group and organisation processes drive individuals to (1) recognise themselves as followers and (2) commit to the identity, intentions, and symbolism of another person.

In the process of social construction of followers, this person embodies the leader; their ideological perspectives, ambitions and objectives are accepted; and a constellation of relations is established where the followers’ actions are aligned with the leaders’ intentions. It should be noted that social constructivism is based on the assumption that people together create their environment, with the entirety of its social, cultural and psychological formations (Berger & Luckmann, 1992: 72). Entity X can therefore be considered a “social construct” if it is a product of deliberate human activity (Kukla, 2000: 3).

Reality is not an objectivity to be discovered: rather, the environment of leadership is a product of social action and creation of meanings beyond the objective world.

The context in which leadership is built depends on the traits and the cognition of future followers, their intragroup relations, intraorganizational and interorganizational settings, and the situation in which the need for leadership is reflected.

Leaders thus emerge as the products of the social interactions and mental systems of individuals who are ready to accept someone else’s authority. In this sense, leaders are the “products” of their future followers even before these followers have actually started following the leader whom they have thus “created.”

In addition to the three discourses centred on the leader, follower and situation, the opinion that the essence of leadership lies in the relation born out of the interaction of social actors is also widespread in the academic community.

An analysis of the connection between the leader and the followers can definitely improve the understanding of the phenomenon of leadership in modern organisations.

The extremely influential leader-member exchange theory (LMX theory), focused on exploring the unique relationship between the members of the collective who assume leader roles and the followers, as well as on the quality of the exchange related to the collective and the consequences of the collective action (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991, 1995), is an important example of this view.

This theory understands leadership as the process of interaction between the leader and the followers. In the early stages of development of the LMX theory, special attention had been focused on vertical relations in two types of relationships: (1) relationships in one’s own group, including the development of mutual trust and respect, and the assumption of commitments and additional responsibilities; and (2) the relationships in the external group, in which actors are brought together by defined organisational roles and formal communication (Northouse, 2010: 152–154).⁴

Naturally, relationships are better in one’s own group, where followers are prepared to do more for their leader and vice versa, unlike the external group, where followers have no interest in strengthening their connections and becoming more involved in the performance of the task.

Regardless of the type of their connection, if the relationship of exchange between the leader and the members of the collective is good and successful, the followers feel better and achieve better results, which contributes to the well-being of everyone involved. For this reason, the focus must be on continual improvement of the relations and communication with everyone involved in the realisation of set goals: high quality of mutual exchange is linked to positive organisational outcomes.

The LMX theory helps us better understand shared, distributed, and collective leadership. Rather than analyse the traits, skills and behaviours of the person who has authority, this theory observes and explores the quality of relationships between the actors involved, taking into account the character of the relationship and its duration (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Avolio et al., 2009).

For instance, positions and relations in the “leader-follower” dyad can alternate, depending on the required knowledge, tasks to be performed, and situational influences, as a result of the relationship dynamics between the actors in the organisation. Leadership can be seen as emerging or changing, depending on constellations (Uhl-Bien, 2006), as postulated by the relational leadership theory. The same actor can thus be a leader one moment, and a follower the next, depending on the situation that calls for action (Hunt, 2004).⁵

In any case, leadership is a relational construct: a leader’s competence lies in their capacity to develop and manage relationships in organisations (Fletcher, 2007: 348; Carmeli et al., 2011).

Authority

The classic ontology of leadership is based on two important categories: (1) the readiness of the members of the collective to accept someone’s authority; and (2) the ability to influence others in order to motivate them to perform a task.

As we have stressed before, the manifestation of leadership is the result of social actors’ efforts to build temporary or permanent relations while performing collective actions. Leadership rests on accepting authority, recognising the purposefulness of the relationship that has been established, and developing influence to achieve the desired outcomes. Assumption of leader and follower roles emerges as a structural dimension, and the relations between the members of the collective indicate how leadership is manifested. The essence of the leadership process is defined by situational and relational dynamics: the positions of the actors, and their actions, depend on changes in their interrelations and the structure of the task, as well as on contextual factors.

Leadership need not be based on formal positions in a hierarchical structure: the important thing is the authority, recognised by others, and the art of persuading people to voluntarily and enthusiastically contribute to the fulfilment of the common purpose and set goals. You don’t have to hold a position in order to be a leader, said entrepreneur and industrialist Henry Ford a hundred years ago.

Authority is the power to influence others, and as such is the primary prerequisite for the assumption of a leader role.

Authority is the power to manage people and assets without direct use of physical force, or the power to command others based on one’s own reputation and dignity,⁶ or the ability of a person, role, service or state to give actual or seeming legitimacy to the actions performed and orders issued on its behalf.⁷ In addition, authority refers to the recognised ability and quality of an entity (person, group, institution) that is capable of influencing individuals to ensure their obedience in the attainment of an objective.⁸

Chester I. Barnard (1938/1950), one of the best-known researchers of management in the early days of development of this discipline, defined authority as an inverse relation, or the preparedness to submit that occurs in a social entity that has been exposed to the influence of another social entity.

In other words, a person accepts authority for as long as they allow their behaviour to be controlled by someone else’s decisions without independently questioning their substance.

Fig. 1.3 conceptualises Barnard’s view of authority with two variables: tolerance for control, and payoff of obedience to authority.

Fig. 1.3

Authority and tolerance for control

The function of tolerance is expressed as a measure of the followers’ perception of their own burden and sacrifice that results from accepting the control of the person who demonstrates authority. Tolerance for control decreases as the perceived burden and sacrifice increase, and vice versa. A high level of tolerance is usually associated with low levels of authority. In the figure, this function is shown inversely, in the form of “intolerance.”

The payoff function shows the followers’ perception of the benefits they obtain by accepting another person’s authority. The assumption is that, at every level of authority, the follower evaluates the profitability of starting a relationship with a wielder of authority, and its effects.

In Barnard’s opinion, as the authority of one person increases, the payoff of starting a relationship with them decreases for others, and the level of intolerance for the exhibited control increases at the same time.

Authority is not boundless. There is always an authority “acceptance zone”, outside of which the follower will deny the leader their obedience and submission (Barnard, 1938/1950; Simon, 1997).⁹ The relationship between the persons in the hypothetical situation shown in the Fig. 1.3 can only exist, ceteris paribus, if the level of authority is lower than the level marked “x.” A demonstration of stronger authority (higher than “x”) undermines the possibility of establishing such a relationship between two social actors.

The authority relationship only exists in a situation in which both parties exhibit identifiable behaviour patterns. One party has to express a request and a clear expectation of its fulfilment, and the other has to act to fulfil it.

The relationship between the two parties is not unchangeable: at one moment, the two actors can be in a relationship in which authority is manifested, and in the next they can end it, depending on the situations they find themselves in over time (Simon, 1997: 179).

The behaviour of the followers is an important determinant of authority. The request does not have to be expressly voiced in all instances and in every kind of relationship: the follower’s actions can be guided by their own perceptions of the behaviour that the authority wielder would expect in a given situation. In this case, authority is manifested in the possible review of the follower’s actions after their completion, and in the likely reaction to the follower’s mistake (Simon, 1997: 182). The mere implication of review and corrective action strengthens the leader’s authority.

There are differences between formal (position-related) and informal authority, as much as they share the same substance. Formal authority is related to the position a person occupies in the organisation and the person’s rights derived from this position. Quinn (1980) understands it as a delegated right to use the power of legitimation. Organisations usually present their structures by a drawing of formal authority and responsibility chains, or vertical command lines that together form the chart known as the organigram (organigramme in French).

Informal authority, on the other hand, is not anchored in position or hierarchy, but depends solely on reputation, authenticity, and human, moral, intellectual, professional and other traits reinforcing one’s potential for influencing other people. Others readily accept the authority of the individual who has the above traits, and thus create a space where they can realise their leadership. Martin Luther King, Jr. is an excellent example of authority resulting from distinctive characteristics and determination to put noble ideas to work. His charismatic, yet inclusive leadership, based on the advocation of civil disobedience and nonviolence, defined the Human Rights Movement in the USA in the 1950s and 1960s.¹⁰

In contrast, a decisionist leader does not need true virtues that inspire loyalty in his followers. Such a leader only requires servility, which can stem from indoctrination, or from imposed rules.¹¹ Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin offered no explanations for their monstrous actions, simply stating their will, which almost everyone in their communities accepted unconditionally and without question (with or without fear, but mostly with approval), even though it had been perfectly clear that they constituted the worst aberrations in the history of mankind.

There are many examples of markedly autocratic leaders wielding unquestionable authority, in whose behaviour evil is an unhealthy illusion of the only “rightness” possible in following their will, rather than a substitution element. In such situations, Barnard’s variables of tolerance for control and profitability of the “leader-follower” relationship have no relevance as measures of authority. The leader’s immense power only superficially conceals the inanity, futility and misery of such a community, which is languishing in absolute subservience. The collective becomes the opposite of its own definition: a mere extension of the person of the leader.

In conclusion, both formal and informal authority are a part of personality and the inner being, or the collective traits that the influence over others stems from, rather than a futile institutional trait derived from a position of power. An individual can have legitimation power, for instance, but have no ability to wield it to influence others. Or, one can have the authority of profession or reputation, but show no desire to use it in the collective.

Influence

Leadership is impossible to understand without the category of authority, and the preparedness of the members of the collective to follow the instructions or frameworks provided by an individual (or a group, or an entire organisation) who plays the leader role. Authority gives the leader the room they need to influence the followers. This influence is used to exert control over the behaviour of others in order to realise ideas and formulated plans.¹²

The leadership process results in the subordination or devotion of the followers, who willingly accept and obey the leader’s commands, follow their guidelines, and adjust their behaviour to the leader’s expectations.

Two types of social influence that lead to subordination are known in social psychology: (1) normative influence, referring to people’s efforts to remain in an organised group and avoid excommunication or marginalisation, which makes them willing to follow another person; and (2) informational influence, well-suited to uncertain, unclear and complex situations, which the individual does not understand well enough, and needs additional explanations and information from other persons in order to understand the context (Aronson et al., 2005).

Subordination is achieved through: (1) obedience of the followers, whose submission is the result of fear of sanctions, or the expected reward for compliance, (2) identification with the leader, and (3) internalisation that occurs when intrinsic personal values inspire obedience in followers (Tyler et al., 1990).

Complaisance can be much greater if the followers, in addition to the above factors, have a strong emotional connection with the leader in form of devotion and fascinated commitment. It is not enough to conquer, Voltaire noted, a leader must also know how to seduce. The leader’s success lies in changing and adjusting the followers’ beliefs so that they accept the leader’s personality and proclaimed intents.

Yukl (2008: 5) compares rational and emotional aspects of influence. The rational interpretation of influence is associated with the understanding of the need for cooperation in the pursuit of common goals because it leads to mutual benefit. However, extraordinary successes and accomplishments of some collectives can be explained by the emotional side of influence as well. In this vein, Yukl stresses that leaders inspire followers to voluntarily sacrifice their own egotistical interests for a higher purpose. Soldiers, for instance, risk their lives to complete an important mission, or to protect their fellow-fighters.

The area of desirable action for followers is shaped by the leader’s aspirations and intentions. Bringing out the best in people and uniting them around a common purpose and common goals is a challenge all leaders face (Svensson & Wood, 2006).

Leaders purposefully realise their intentions through the activities of others. This is only possible if they set clear and easily understandable expectations, achieve an enviable level of integration in the collective, and raise the followers’ level of preparedness to participate in common undertakings.

Leadership is not a typical power game, as its classic definition, based on authority and influence over others, would have us believe. All leaders have access to sources of power, but as Gea (2016: 363) underlines, not all power-wielders are leaders, and not all have to be.

Successful leaders inspire actional commitment in the members of the collective to the accomplishment of the collective mission and formulated guidelines. Their ability to influence others results in synergy action and in the desired changes that characterise efficient collective action. Indifferent acquiescence and apathetic compliance are hardly associated with a leader’s efficient influence over his follower.

Individual vs. Collective Leadership

Leadership can appear in two variants: the case when an individual, usually occupying the top of the organisational pyramid, assumes the role of dominant leader, with significant impact on the mission and development trajectory of the organisation, or the case when the leadership role is distributed horizontally and/or vertically among multiple members of the organisation.

In the first case, leaders have a recognisable and unequivocal position in the organisation and their words resonate the loudest when it comes to direction of action and visioning of a desirable future. Organisation is the long arm of the leader’s intentions: the ideas and the aspirations are the result of the leader’s own thinking and planning.

Normally, leaders of this type are observed in the light of their autocratic tendencies and their taking of full leadership responsibility. This may, but does not necessarily have to be the case. Leaders can include other organisational members in the management processes, to a greater or lesser extent; they can do this in the form of consultancy or delegating of some of the authority, or through members’ direct participation in the decision-making process.

Individual leadership results in significantly lower costs of negotiation and implementation than it is the case with collective leadership (Kriger & Zhovtobryukh, 2013: 421).

Powerful leaders are better at what they do if they lead business-minded, low-complexity and/or small-size organisations in an environment that is not too complex or turbulent. Besides, overcoming crisis situations also requires leadership to be in the hands of a single individual who can make quick and radical decisions without hesitation or much procrastination.

There are situations when greater environmental complexity creates problems due to greater demands for information (and consequently larger costs of information) and due to the need for a broader spectrum of knowledge on the part of the leader. In large and complex organisations, the coordination demands and the need to coordinate increase proportionately to its size and complexity.

The “lone ranger” type of leader has a hard time coping with the challenges presented by such situations: the complexity of the issues, problems and possibilities increases exponentially as one moves from the bottom to the top of the organisational ladder (House & Aditya, 1997).

The enduring question is whether a single leader can even have the capacity to fully lead and manage all the elements involved in such situations.

In most organisations, sooner or later, the function of leadership gets divided among members with managerial authority. Leadership emerges as a collective activity where important decisions are made and the future of the organisation monitored jointly.

Collective leadership encompasses a greater or smaller number of individuals who assume greater or lesser responsibility in managing the collective or the network. Responsibility and power of collective leadership can be symmetrical or asymmetrical, depending on the positions and sources of power accessible to individuals within the group that assumes leadership.

Collective leadership is a complex phenomenon. It is the result of interrelations of individuals who have stable and clearly assigned roles, or individuals who swap leadership roles in formal and informal relations (Yammarino et al., 2012). It can be defined as a dynamic leadership process in which a defined leader, or set of leaders, selectively utilize skills and expertise within a network, effectively distributing elements of the leadership role as the situation or problem at hand requires (Friedrich et al., 2009: 933).

Notion of interchanging leadership is similar to the construct of “collective leadership” as it was used by Friedrich et al. (2011) when they examined the processes that take place in teams.

This kind of leadership can be understood as the collective action that emerges from multiple mutually dependent entities interacting with one another, creating a relationship network that emerges and changes over time (Cullen-Lester & Yammarino, 2016). A detailed analysis of interactions between organisational actors can help understand collective behaviour.

Collective leadership is associated with the concept of shared leadership, but the two have different meanings. Collective leadership as a concept has a wider meaning and encompasses different forms of leadership, involving multiple individuals in different ways, whereas shared leadership is a construct associated with a team or group of people and it has the characteristics of horizontal leadership (Fig. 1.4).

Fig. 1.4

Individual and collective leadership

The roots of shared leadership date back to the Roman Empire, when a group of individuals shared their power via the Senate.

According to one of the definitions, shared leadership is a dynamic and interactive process of exerting influence among individuals in a group with the aim of leading one another toward achieving the group’s or the organisation’s goals, or both (Pearce & Conger, 2003). According to others, it is a group property that results in distribution of leadership influence among multiple members (Carson et al., 2007) or in other words, a phenomenon of mutual influence and shared responsibility of members of a group whereby they lead one another to achievement of the defined goals (Wang et al., 2014). Shared leadership can also be observed from a different perspective: as the way different individuals enact the roles of leader and followers at different points in time (Lord et al., 2017).

The logic behind shared leadership lies in optimisation of the leadership function in order to arrive at the best possible solutions to the problems and challenges that the organisation is faced with. Instead of relying on a single leader, members develop lateral relationships and assume joint leadership of the group, collective or entire organisation. Shared leadership relies on dispersion of leadership: persons in the team complement their strengths and skills, learn from one another, and make decisions in the common interest.

Ideal conditions for spontaneous or controlled development of shared leadership are found in a cohesive environment imprinted with the integrating shared purpose of the group members, their mutually accepted clear objectives, strong inter-group and organisational support, and a climate where every member’s voice can be heard and everyone’s contribution is recognised and valued (Carson et al., 2007).

There are views that this type of leadership increases participation and information-sharing, has a positive impact on group performance, and supports the processes of easier integration of the collective; some research even shows that shared leadership has a positive impact on team performance (Ensley et al., 2006).

Shared leadership can be presented as the opposite of vertical leadership, which is based on the relation of formal authority of a single leader on the one side, and members accepting their position as followers on the other. It can be understood as horizontal leadership where leadership functions and impacts of group members interchange depending on the demands of the situation (Zhu et al., 2018).

Collective and shared leadership can increase the organisation’s administrative and managerial costs. Existence of multiple leaders in an organisation can lead to significant bargaining costs depending on the different objectives and differential power held by the leaders in the collective (Cyert & March, 1963; Kriger & Zhovtobryukh, 2013). This problem can be solved by agreeing on objectives in a clearly defined vision, by creating and accepting shared organisational values that will bring together and embolden members of collective leadership to act in their common interest.

Furthermore, one must not forget that any attempt to analyse collective and shared leadership is inevitably accompanied by a veritable galimatias. There are numerous different and often overlapping definitions that could eliminate all precision from observing this phenomenon. It gets all the more confusing if we include interchanging and distributed leadership in the analysis.

There are also some other issues involved. Kriger and Zhovtobryukh (2013: 415) listed three groups of limitations when it comes to current research in distributed, shared and collective leadership. Firstly, research is usually focused on teams, whereas leadership is indisputably a multi-level phenomenon. Secondly, their propositions are based on a positive correlation between distribution of leadership and performance irrespective of the context and turbulence in the environment or internal complexity. Thirdly, although it has been noticed that vertical and dispersed leadership can exist simultaneously, these are observed and analysed in studies as discrete phenomena.

Finally, mention should also be made of an interesting, albeit controversial, idea of a complete vertical and horizontal expansion of leadership in order to ensure equal influence of all stakeholders across all organisational levels. Such post-modernist concept of the collective, referred to as holographic leadership (Denis et al., 2001), has at its core direct and equal involvement of everyone in leadership processes and arrangements. Instead of conforming or attempting to find a consensus, holographic leadership is about enabling the exploration of diversity in order to improve leadership practices.

Interchanging Leadership Roles

Where there is stable leadership, the roles are clear and positions are invariably fixed, irrespective of the type of leadership structure involved. Leaders are easily identifiable and their position is unequivocal: all organisational actors recognise and follow them. They are constantly expected to manage processes, take on the tasks connected with mobilising staff and integrating the collective, as well as other tasks required by their position.

On the other hand, interchanging leadership exists where there is no clearly defined and invariable distribution of leadership roles within the organisation. It can be defined as a continual mutual influence process in which leadership is swapped between individuals having the key knowledge, skills and abilities required for a specific area that the team is faced with (Pearce & Conger, 2003). Consequently, leadership and followership should be perceived as dynamically interchangeable behavioural functions toward reciprocal interpersonal relationships between situational (non-static) leaders and followers in social group settings (Malakyan, 2015: 238).

The hypothetical example provided in Fig 1.5 shows the relation between two organisational actors involving the swapping of roles. In situation A, Actor 1 assumes the role and tasks of the leader, does everything it takes, and includes Actor 2 in the performance of the relevant tasks and obligations. In time, the roles reverse—situation B occurs, where leadership is assumed by Actor 2 and Actor 1 takes over the role of the follower. In other words, leadership is the dynamic inter-relational function based on role-focused and interchangeable process of “leadship” and “followship” in organizations and groups.

Fig. 1.5

Interchanging leadership

Interchanging leadership implies organisational leaders continually swapping their roles depending on their knowledge of the problem, context and challenges. The leader and follower functions frequently alternate and swap: different actors assume the leadership functions in different situations, depending on the demands and characteristics imposed by the current situation (Copland, 2003). Dynamic changes in roles depend on the types of problems at hand; a position of leadership is temporarily assumed by members with the most experience, knowledge and information required for solving a burning issue, strategic or functional challenge. The question of who leads and who follows becomes pointless in this context, especially if one thinks in the long term.