Organizations are often compared
to living organisms (Morgan, 2006). In nature, there are many examples of group
organizations that demonstrate leadership patterns: herds, bands, families,
mobs, colonies, prides, gaggles, flocks, schools,etc. Survival of a species is
often based on the type of leadership nature has established for a particular
species in a particular environment at a particular time or season.
Horses and geese seem to be at
opposite ends from one another with lemmings falling somewhere in between in
relation to the leadership needed for the survival of the species
. Each species has similarities to the
other, and yet each species is distinctly different. A number of species have
established leadership that ranges from a strong patriarchal system of complete
domination by one leader to a shared stewardship of multiple leaders within the
system in which each species lives.
Horses have four hooves, fur,
and are led by a strong dominant patriarch, the stallion. Lemmings are earth
bound, small, furry rodents with no real apparent leader which could be either
a weak patriarch or a weak stewardship. Geese are flight engineers, feathered,
and operate with a stewardship of a shared leadership style during migration.
Stallions lead herds of wild
horses, predominantly mares, fillies, and colts. Stallions find food, water, and shelter for
the herd. The stallion provides the leadership while the herd forages for food
and water in a harsh or plentiful environment. When necessary, the stallion
provides the leadership while the herd forages for life sustaining nourishment. When necessary, the stallion provides
protection from predators.
Young colts developing into
stallions within the band often skirmish and practice battle skills with other
colts in the herd. On separate occasions one of these colts will eventually confront
the leader in a battle for control of the band. The youngsters are either
successful in this violent and brutal confrontation to take over the leadership
position, or the colts are forced to leave the herd. The young stallions exiled
from the original herd begin to take mares from other bands in order to develop
their own individual bands. The cycle of
patriarchy continues with each new herd established (Wikipedia, 2007).
Public schools seem to compare
in many ways to this nature model of leadership. It is primarily a patriarchal style of “I”,
“I”, “I”. Furthermore, this theory seems to be strongly connected to the belief
that “I” have been chosen to lead this band and everyone will do as “I” direct.
Because “I” am the strongest and most powerful, everyone will follow without
question from the administration down through the classroom teacher and his or
her students.
Many other organizations follow
this model of leadership. Workers are expected to be task oriented and do what
working subordinates are supposed to do. The “I” leadership allows for little
independent, creative, or critical thinking (Morgan, 2006).
Tasks are often bogged down in a
hierarchy of who to contact for the correct procedure or information. No one
individual wants to accept responsibility because of the possible fallout by
providing a wrong direction or answer. Immediate action or service to others is
restricted by this method of managing (Pfeffer, 1994).
Many leaders in a patriarchal
form of management do not permit deviations from the norm. Deviations from what
is expected are perceived as a negative trait or undesirable traits. In this
manner, patriarchal leaders actually prevent service to their employees and to
their eventual clients or customers (Block, 1993).
Geese flock together with no
apparent leader although the leader may be an older goose or gander. Yet, when
nature dictates it is time to migrate by the decreasing sunlight, dropping
temperatures and declining food source, one goose (or gander) will take to the
skies. Another and another goose will follow until the entire flock is aloft. Eventually,
the original flock is joined by other flocks in a monumental gathering of
thousands flying southward to a renewed source of food and warmer weather for
all.
The other geese in the flock do not question,
but every goose will follow the leader. The geese form themselves in a “V”
formation. During the southward journey, which encompasses many days and
hardships, a single goose takes the point and leads toward the southern goal
slightly ahead of a goose on either side of its wing tips, left and right. Flying
in this pattern, the leader is continuously breaking the air flow for all the
geese following in the flock. Eventually, tiring from this continuous battle
against air resistance, the lead is relinquished to one of the geese located at
the wing tip either right or left. The previous leader falls into line behind
the new leader. This shift of leadership continues throughout the long flight
as the entire flock continues to steadily make progress toward the warmer
climate and the winter nesting ground. Young fledglings learn from the mature
geese and will eventually assume the lead in later flights.
The organization of geese during this
migration is an example of stewardship at its epitome. The leadership position
of guiding the entire flock is continuously shared by each and every member
flying in the “V” formation. The geese share the leadership position in order
to conserve strength and focus for the good of the entire flock. The geese have
a shared trust among the flock with dire consequences of accountability linked
to the flock’s survival based on individual performance, knowledge, and
exercise of power and authority.
Block strongly advocates the
stewardship model of leadership. The switching of the lead goose during
migration demonstrates the willingness of each goose to be accountable for the
safety of the following flock without the use of control or manipulation. Each
lead goose is providing a crucial service to those following. Each goose has no
apparent thought of reward other than reaching the goal for the entire flock of
a warmer climate, food, and rest.
Organizations founded on a true
stewardship from the most menial position to the highest could be an ideal
place to work. However, much thought, insight and preparation would have to precede
such a venture. As humans, individuals have been born with, developed
positions, or have created myths that would influence the incorporation of a
‘true’ stewardship from the family outward to society’s organizations. To be a
successful stewardship organization, people working there would have to choose
to become a servant leader of others. The workers would have to choose to be
responsible for themselves and others as equals. Would it not be a wonderful
world if everyone would work together for the good of all at all times like the
flock of geese?
Lemmings, based on information
from Wikipedia, are recorded as stampeding to death over a cliff or dying in a
mass drowning during migrations.
Lemmings really die because of
the lack of leadership. Lemmings are small fur covered rodents living in North America. Lemmings are prolific in reproduction, as
are most rodents. When inhabitants of a particular habitat reach critical
conditions of overpopulation and a decreasing food supply, a migration begins.
The migration may begin with only
one leader and one follower. As these two lemmings progress, the pair is joined
by other lemmings because of some inherent instinct. This somewhat larger group
of lemmings in turn is joined by others until the group eventually becomes an
enormous mass of lemmings marching to a new food source and habitat.
During the march, if the mass
comes upon a river, the lemmings following those in the lead will enter the
water in such proportions that the lemmings actually drown the preceding
lemmings. If by chance the lemmings encounter a cliff, the mass of lemmings
following closely to one another will actually force the leaders at the forefront
over the cliff. Wave after wave of lemmings follow one another over the cliff.
The deaths are not an intentional mass suicide, but a suicide caused by the
force behind the migration of such an enormous gathering of lemmings moving as
one toward a goal. Lack of leadership led to the demise of the lemmings.
Lemmings have a leader. The one
lemming who initially began to seek a new food source for itself and its first
follower became the leader of the migration. At this time, this one lemming is
the patriarchal leader. As the march continues, the original leader turns into
a weak patriarch to be overcome by the sheer number of followers.
The march of the lemmings could
also be related to a stewardship because everyone has the shared responsibility
of marching to the goal of a new environment of plenty. The group is a weak
stewardship in that each lemming does not accept a shared responsibility for
all, but one lemming may be a caretaker for a small group with in the mass. Every
lemming, eventually, looks out only for itself and pushes any lemming in front
of itself out of the way with dire consequences for the lemmings in front.
The two styles of leadership,
patriarchy and stewardship, for comparison seem to be at opposing ends. The
former accepts the responsibility for everyone subordinate to the lead
position. Every client under the patriarch’s care and direction expects to be
taken care of physically and emotionally. The latter, stewardship, places the
responsibility for every client back to the individual’s responsibility for
service to self and others. The individual shares responsibility for his own
care and direction. One leader does not accept the role of being responsible
for everyone else.
The leader cannot abdicate the
role of leader (Block. 1993), but a stewardship leader is not crucial in the
same manner as the position of the patriarchal leader. Most styles of
leadership are somewhere in between the two extremes (Clark. 1998) and may
contain elements of a weak patriarch or weak stewardship.
Patriarch is a long established
pattern of male dominance (Morgan. 2006). Historically, patriarchy is a
leadership style passed from descendant to descendant in a ruling family. More patriarchal cultures exist and have
existed since recorded history than any other type of documented leadership
style according to Wikipedia. Patriarchal societies have a dominate individual as
the leader of subordinates. This type of leadership is widely accepted because
of the traditional organization of the family with the father as the head of
the family (Morgan. 2006).
A single individual is in charge
of all the innovative or lack of innovative changes made throughout the organization. Subordinates have the responsibility to
fulfill all of the procedures necessary to ensure the incorporation of the set
rules the patriarch demands or establishes for either regulation or production.
The patriarch in return is obligated to take care of the needs of the
subordinates.
People working in a patriarchal
type of system are expected to be very task oriented. The workers are to perform as directed. When a product fails or an issue arises, the
focus is on “who” is to blame rather than “what” is to blame. Working under a patriarchal type of
leadership style may be perceived as extremely punitive and stressful (Pfeffer,
1994).
What is there in the human
psyche that creates this need to dominate another so evident in both animal and
human species? What is the force or forces that seem to be innately connected
to all species that create a position of leadership? Is a specific leadership
style a necessity for the continuation of the survival of a species or for a
particular way of life? As one
progresses throughout childhood there appears a dominant position and a
subordinate position at differing times, situations, and ages. Humans carry
this need for position and leadership from their personal space to family
space, and to society through work and community organizations.
All leadership positions require at least two or more
individuals. All leadership positions will ultimately lose strength and
position. All leadership positions will eventually fail or fall by the wayside
for one reason or another, either death or rite of passage (Doob.1983). All
leadership is measured in how well those following define and determine the
success or lack of success provided by the leader. Successful leadership is
also measured in the trust placed in the communication of the leader with the
followers (Clark. 1998).
The essence or charismatic quality of leadership within an
individual cannot be viewed under a microscope or captured in a bottle. When
one analyzes leaders, most leaders arrive at the leadership position because of
personality traits, crisis of some nature, or personal choice. Leaders may
arise from a combination of one or more of these situations. However, emerging
leadership is not bound by just these three possibilities.
Once an individual has assumed the leadership position, it
is up to the individual based on all his prior experiences and his knowledge as
to how he will choose to lead. The choice will fall somewhere between a strong
patriarchy style or a strong stewardship style.
Examples of these styles are Bobby Knight, often referred to
as “The General”, head coach of Texas Tech University
and Mike Krzyewski, known as “Coach K”, at Duke University.
These two men have been recognized as the two most successful college
basketball coaches in the United
States. The question arises about the
differences in their leadership approach, “Is it better to be loved or feared?”
(Silverthorne, 1997, p. 1). These two coaches demonstrate, to most fans,
extremely different leadership styles. The General uses a strong patriarch
method and Coach K incorporates a stewardship method. Comparing the win-loss
records of these two very different coaching approaches there is little
differences in the results.
One coach, Knight, has been fired because he was seen with
his hands clutching his player’s neck.
Knight was also filmed throwing a chair at a referee. One could say
Knight was chosen because of a crisis. Although it could be said, being in a
crisis is typical for Knight because of his leadership style. Knight demands
drill, drill, and discipline. Knight is
very much the strong patriarch.
Krzyewski, on the other hand has a very different leadership
style. Coach K has elected to turn down numerous professional and collegiate
coaching positions and has chosen to stay at Duke. For Krzyewski, “It’s about
the heart, it’s about family, it’s about seeing the good in people and bringing
the most out of them.” (Silverthorne. 1997, p. 1). Krzyewski believes it is
best to avoid a managerial style that is primarily built around rewards and
punishments. Coach K was a student player under The General during his college
basketball playing years. Krzyewski would be considered a stewardship leader to
his players.
Fans watching both of these coaches immediately form perceptions of each leader and are prepared to
justify the reasons behind the choices. Yet, each coach has been very
successful. Each coach is held in high
regard by his players.
What each of these individuals has experienced in his past
undoubtedly influenced his approach to the future. What each coach
fundamentally believes about others affects the way each has chosen to lead. Individual
beliefs strongly affect whether one chooses to lead others with fear or love. However,
it is the opinion of this author, one can always change as long as one is alive
and willing to change.
It is a fact that as the human body ages everything physically
undergoes a change. Can it not also be recognized that leadership styles
throughout life, because of maturity or experience, may also change? Leaders do
not go unscathed by the decisions they have made. Learning results from failure
as much as from success. It also cannot be strictly stated that one leadership
style is better for all the people all the time (Pfeffer. 1997). One may choose
to lead primarily by strength as a young leader or in an emergency (patriarch).
As time or a crisis pass an organization may require the same individual to
change to a shared responsibility (steward).
Patriarchy has within its organization specific patterns of
expected individual behavior. Patterns
are not bad. Repetition of some tasks is necessary in order to acquire specific
skills and to provide adeptness at handling those tasks. The only way some
skills can be learned is through practice, practice, practice. In this manner,
one also learns to discipline oneself.
Being forced to comply with these expectations forces individuals and
workers to do things they would not ordinarily choose to do. Application of
repetition, drills, and discipline is necessary in order to win games and just
as necessary to carry out certain procedures in work systems.
Stewardship may also require the incorporation of repetition,
drills and discipline. However, the practice, practice, practice differs in
that it is a chosen course not a demanded course. Stewardship is task oriented
with a specific goal for the good of all involved. Team members, athletes, or
workers, are motivated individually to learn and to work for everyone’s mutual
success.
One would automatically expect Krzyewski’s players to
respect and love Coach K more than Knight’s players love The General. However,
Knight is not hated nor feared by his players.
Knight’s players love and respect him. Each coach was successful in his
own realm with his own selected team members. Each of them had the right approach
to his unique organization. Each man knew himself, his players, and his unique
situation.
Therefore, can it be stated that for every age and situation
there is a needed or required leadership style that fits the individual need of
the group (Pfeffer. 1998)? Being an
effective leader requires one to know one’s self inside and out. Leaders are to
be as aware as humanly possible of the forces that shaped the ideals and goals
from birth within themselves. Leaders are to know that the style of leadership
one chooses is exercised from within as an extension of prior experiences as
well as determined by the situation confronting one. Growing and learning
requires adapting to an ever changing leadership requirement. One cannot be
effective if one remains static (Silverthorne. 1997).
If one has always been a stallion, there has been and there
is no need to grow. Confronting the elder and vanquishing him provides a new
leadership in the band of wild horses. Being the lead lemming, if it does not
get out of the way, it will plunge or drown to its death. Assuming the lead for
the flock of geese flying southward, if one does not yield, fatigue will kill.
Leadership is a demanding responsibility. In one manner or another, species
survival and an organization’s survival depend on it.
A selected or specific style of leadership in nature seems
necessary for the survival of a very particular species and way of life. If the
method of leading were to change for a particular species, death and extinction
could be an extreme end result. In order
to be successful, there exists a leader or organization leadership to provide
focus and accountability. The method or mode for leadership varies within the
requirements for each organization and culture. Horses need one type of
leadership; lemmings another type of leadership; and geese yet another type of
leadership to survive. One cannot say one style of leadership is to be
preferred over the other. Each species, however, exercises varying degrees of
leadership style used through the course of life. Horses do not fight every day
for dominance. Lemmings are not searching daily for new habitats. Geese do not
migrate daily. The needs of the group will determine the type of leadership at
a given time.
Depending on the influences surrounding an individual, the
age of the individual, and the individuals in one’s organization or culture, a
leadership method emerges. The leader’s outcomes will ultimately determine if
the leadership is either successful or unsuccessful. Subordinates, depending on their past
influences, their ages, and their organizations, make the ultimate
determination of how their leader is perceived, successful or unsuccessful. It
seems this is true regardless of the method, patriarchal or stewardship, being
used. Judgment seems to ultimately depend on the subordinates perceptions of
the leader.
In conclusion, it is the theory and belief of this author on
this particular day and at this particular moment of time, the need or
necessity arising determines the leadership style required for a particular
situation or organization. The obtained results coming from the leader’s
directions or instructions validate or invalidate the decisions implemented. Finally,
the subordinates will ultimately determine and define the success of the leader
and his method. If the decision rested within the author’s realm, stewardship
would be the choice of leadership desired. Within stewardship the freedom is
given to develop and serve in the manner which acts in the best interests of
all. Accountability and responsibility is equally shared.
References
Block, P.
(1993).
Stewardship, choosing service over self interest. San
Francisco,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers
Clark, D. (1998). “Concepts of leadership”, Retrieved October
17, 2007.
