2. leaders. T/F
Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.
Introduction
Every generation defines and redefines the concept of
leadership as it faces the challenges
of its era. Certainly, some time periods provide more material
and opportunity for reflection
than others. For example, in 1862, as the fractured United States
fought the Civil War, Presi-
dent Abraham Lincoln said, “The dogmas of the quiet past are
inadequate to the stormy pres-
ent. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise
with the occasion. As our case is
new, so we must think anew and act anew” (as cited in Woolley
& Peters, 2015).
Part of Lincoln’s legacy stemmed from his ability to “think and
act anew.” While the issues
facing our globalized world significantly differ compared to the
1800s, some themes remain
the same: When it comes to issues like CSR and sustainability,
it seems necessary for brave
people to think and act anew. This chapter examines how the
next generation of leaders can
begin this process. If society is to face new problems in a novel
way, completing such tasks is
not easy, but it is essential.
The first nine chapters of this text illustrated the difficult and
specific problems of build-
ing socially responsible and sustainable organizations. The
opportunity to make the future
dramatically different from the past—and the present—presents
4. queens (or other monarchs) were entitled to the positions they
held (in some cases such posi-
tions were considered to be appointed, or at least approved, by a
deity). Typically, in monar-
chies positions of power are transferred based on lineage. The
average person has little access
to the monarchs; rather, he or she has to contribute significantly
to the well-being of more
powerful people. In monarchies, leadership historically came
from “an outside source, the
power of the original source of delegation or control—divine,
delegated, hereditary, or raw
force” (Miller, 2004, p.110). In other words, leadership came as
a divine right but was often
maintained by brute force.
In a world dominated by divine right, lead-
ership was completely self-justified. It was
more about authority and control and less
about collaboration and information. A
king, queen, emperor, sultan, or shogun
each had authority over the local world, and
most sought to expand access to resources
in competition against other kingdoms or
principalities. In other words, it was the role
of the monarch to obtain as many resources
as possible and protect his or her people
from other monarchs who also wanted
to acquire more resources. This changed
as leadership theory evolved and moved
toward a CSR mind-set and generated an
expectation of sustainability.
Great Man Theory
As a result of the historical dominance of certain families and
monarchies, it is not surprising
6. Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle (1840) popularized the great
man theory in the 1840s, add-
ing the belief that heroes influenced history through personal
attributes and divine inspira-
tion. This idea eventually gave way to other, less deterministic
conceptualizations of leader-
ship that are different from modern-day CSR and sustainability
concerns. Still, many people
tend to wait for someone powerful to emerge and lead the
charge to a more socially and envi-
ronmentally friendly future. When people groom themselves to
stand out or wait for others to
dominate, they echo the Western thinking that dominated the
19th century.
Trait Theories
Research on the trait theory of leadership began in the early part
of the 20th century. Trait
theory describes personality traits and attributes of effective
leaders. It stemmed from the
hope that if one could understand what made great people great,
one could screen, select,
and even train others to have those traits. Some trait theories go
so far as to suggest that good
leaders have certain physical attributes, including male gender.
In the trait theory of leader-
ship, scholars sought to understand the physical and personal
characteristics of leaders, but
they were biased by the samples offered by the early 20th
century’s social order—at the time
almost all leaders were White males with access to property and
sources of wealth.
In 1948 one of the first trait theorists, Ralph Stogdill, published
an article in the Journal of
Psychology titled “Personal Factors Associated With
7. Leadership.” Stogdill’s research showed
that leaders’ characteristics included capacity, achievement,
responsibility, participation, and
status. Other trait theories, whether based on research or not,
argued that leaders must have
subjective characteristics like charisma, be smart in specific
ways, and generally be male.
Trait theory maintained that leaders are born but also suggested
that leaders must develop
certain traits to leverage their birth advantages into effective
leadership. Trait theories led to
the suggestion that leaders demonstrate consistent behaviors and
tendencies in certain situa-
tions and popularized the idea that people can enhance their
natural skills and abilities. Trait
theories also opened the door to the democratization of talent
and leadership. Scholars and
philosophers began to argue that leadership traits could be
learned and replicated by differ-
ent people, perhaps even those who are different from the
majority.
Behavioral Theories
As leadership behaviors were identified as a key factor of a
firm’s success, behavioral theory
began to emerge in the 1950s as a way to promote corporate
success. Rather than focusing
on traits intrinsic to an individual, behavioral theories look
outside the leader and focus on
actions or behaviors. One behavioral theorist, Douglas
McGregor (1960), offered a research-
based concept called theory X and theory Y. Theory X leaders
behave as if the workers they
lead are cogs in a machine. They assume workers are lazy and
need motivation from a power-
ful and influential leader. In contrast, theory Y leaders see
9. The next leadership theory to emerge employed concepts related
to sustainability. In 1991
scholar Margaret Wheatley wrote Leadership and the New
Science. The book is a primer for
systems theory and complexity theory in leadership, and it
emphasizes a process theory
of leadership. This theory posits that leadership cannot simply
be observed (think of traits
or behaviors), nor does it flow in one direction, from leader to
follower. Rather, leadership
occurs when leaders apply knowledge and skills to their
interactions with others. Impor-
tantly, process theories view leadership as bidirectional, where
learning flows between
leader and follower; in fact, the very construct of “leader” and
“follower” are less useful and
thus downplayed in process theories. Wheatley (2006)
postulates that leadership should be
viewed through the lens of chaos theory to best understand how
organizations really work—
the result of using such a lens is that leaders will take a systems
view of the organization
and seek to involve as many stakeholders as possible in
decision-making processes. Prior
to Wheatley, other relationship-based mind-sets, including those
put forth by scholars who
discuss servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) or theory Z
leadership (Ouchi, 1981), argued for
a more holistic view of what leadership is and could be, which
brings us closer to a sustain-
ability and pro-CSR model.
A process theory of leadership remains central to those who
embrace the concept of sustain-
ability. It encompasses the idea of traits, in that all leaders must
have certain traits or capaci-
11. Section 10.2Challenges Facing Future Leaders
10.2 Challenges Facing Future Leaders
The previous section described concepts of leadership
developed in and for previous genera-
tions. These notions of leadership were adopted before people
could fully see the importance
of creating socially responsible and sustainable corporations
that can improve gender and
racial equality and other socially responsible behaviors. These
older models of leadership,
while exceptionally helpful, were also very limited. For
example, they tended to be simplistic
and linear and did not embrace complexity and systems. They
tended to be oriented toward
men and privileged classes and did not take into account the
particular characteristics of
women or other socioeconomic groups. The older models
assumed the ever-present need
for an organizational hierarchy and did not imagine new kinds
of organic organizations that
would be less hierarchical and perhaps less permanent. Despite
these significant drawbacks,
theories from previous generations still have some validity.
Vestiges of previous thinking also
continue to dominate corporate and educational culture.
However, older theories of leader-
ship do not point society in the direction of embracing key
contemporary ideas such as waste
reduction, social equality, and environmental responsibility, all
of which matter to many mod-
ern corporate leaders.
Waste Reduction
The rise of the corporation began about 250 years ago, when
12. social interests led to the cre-
ation of hospitals, and political–business interests such as those
of the British East India Com-
pany (Rao, 2011) or the Hudson’s Bay Company became tools
for economic conquest. Accord-
ing to Rao, globalization created the corporation because large-
scale enterprise was needed
to dominate in a world where competition remained unchecked.
In such corporate environ-
ments, leaders were expected to compete and dominate.
Moderation, social responsibility,
and waste reduction were not visible or important to governing
boards or investors.
For example, the Hudson’s Bay Company, one of the oldest
corporations in the world, was
charted by the British to trade with North American natives and
secure a steady supply of
fur. It was also used to politically and economically dominate
North America, at one time
claiming more than 15% of the continent as its “territory.” But
as hunting grounds in the east
were depleted and fur became scarce, the trappers and traders
working for the corporation
moved west to find new territories. There was no leadership or
discussion of topics such as
conservation, waste reduction, care for the environment, or even
care for the native people
who supplied the fur (Carlos & Lewis, 1993). The Hudson’s Bay
Company was essentially an
instrument of political and social dominance in a political
rivalry first between British and
French factions and later between British and American
factions. It represents an early and
dominant influence on subsequent market behaviors of many
American businesses.
14. Similarly, labor relations and workers’ rights are permanent
leadership challenges. Corpora-
tions have a long and deep history of challenging what is now
regarded as workers’ right to
organize in a labor union. In 1894 presidential candidate
Eugene Debs worked to unionize
the Pullman railroad car company in Chicago. The local workers
were convinced to strike, and
other rail workers’ unions also went on strike in support of their
colleagues in Chicago. By
summer, more than 125,000 workers were on strike, shutting
down the ever-important rail
system in the United States. There were riots, clashes, and an
eventual resolution, but more
than 60 people died and more than $80 million in damages was
caused in an effort to deny
workers the right to organize (Papke, 1999).
Gender inequity is another permanent leadership challenge. One
hundred years ago, women
did not generally participate as corporate employees. In World
War II many women took
over factory positions held by men who were called into
combat. By the 1950s women were
not just on the floor of the factories but in their boardrooms. By
the 1970s the wage equity
debate was raging, and it continues today. Achieving gender
equity and creating appropriate
work environments for people of all gender identities are an
ongoing challenge for corporate
leaders.
Research has found that corporate leaders rate CSR and
sustainability as important leader-
ship concerns (Bonini & Gorner, 2011). However, it is
extremely complex to manage each of
16. Colleague, collaborator
Systems thinker
Scale: Loyal to local
Zoom in
Global citizen
Zoom out
Critical skills: Expert
Impose
Emotionally intelligent
Empathy
Lead by: Control
Sole problem solver
Collaboration
Problem clarifier; joint problem solver
Communication: Top down
Dialectic
Transparent
Dialogic
Ethics: Bigger is better Leaner is better
Environment: Exploit
Polluter
Explore
Steward
Organize by: Hierarchy
17. Geography
Information flow
Virtual proximity
Learning is: A prerequisite
A luxury
A cost
An ongoing process
A necessity
An investment
Source: Hammond, S. and Christensen, L. (2016). “The New
Generation Leader [unpublished paper].” Reprinted with
permission.
Systems Thinker
This entire text emphasizes the value of systems thinking. Here,
we specifically emphasize
that next-generation leaders cannot skip developing this mind-
set. For decades, the opposite
of systems thinking—a mind-set called scientific
reductionism—was considered the way lead-
ers could solve most problems. Reductionism was based on the
philosophy of René Descartes
and Isaac Newton. It was popularized by other scientists as they
explored an ever-smaller
universe looking for miniscule molecules, atoms, or quarks to
explain physics and life experi-
ences. Scientific reductionism requires the searcher to zoom in;
to take a detailed and particu-
lar look at the physical world’s building blocks and events—or
in business, a closer look at the
building blocks of organizational successes or failures.
19. ment, the environment, individuals, the community, and other
entities under the principles of
complex systems. Energy and materials flow into a complex
system. These are processed and
flow out of the system through boundaries that define the
system. However, those boundaries
are always problematic. For example, it can be challenging for
an employee to know the exact
boundary between work and social life. For a company, it can
be difficult to know the bound-
ary between the corporation and the community. The truth is
that our social lives are tied up
at work and are part of a community. In other words, every
system is part of a larger one, and
it is often difficult to distinguish the boundaries between the
two. Helping define, protect,
and clarify boundaries may be one job for future leaders who
support colleagues in creating
a socially responsible and sustainable world.
Features of systems thinking that next-generation leaders will
need to consider include the
following:
• Systems function with lots of information. In business,
raw materials are useless
unless one knows how to turn the raw product into something
more valuable. Accord-
ingly, systems thinkers spend considerable time talking about
learning organizations.
New knowledge is essential to keep a system alive (Senge,
1990).
• Systems also seek equilibrium. Certain patterns are visible
in the behavior of any
system, but patterns are subject to interpretation and are often
20. unclear. Also, some
amount of randomness or chaos influences the behavior of every
system. This makes
challenges of leadership particularly difficult, because while the
leader is trying to
bring equilibrium to the system, he or she cannot fully take into
account the patterns
that influence it; nor can he or she or account for random
events.
• Systems are composed of many parts. A leader who adopts
a systems theory per-
spective understands that the system has many parts that
interact through rela-
tionships. Corporate systems are nested inside other systems
with which they
overlap. Over time, systems change, as do inputs, processes,
and the ability to
provide a value-added output. Some of those changes are out of
the leader’s control
(Skyttner, 2006).
How does being a systems thinker make a next-generation
leader different from the leaders
of the past? Good advice has emerged from Colonel George E.
Reed, the director of Command
and Leadership Studies at the U.S. Army War College. When
contemplating how tomorrow’s
leaders can adopt and apply systems thinking, he suggests the
following:
Focus on the purpose of the system.
Identify patterns and use feedback loops to understand the
dynamics of systems.
Consider the whole rather than the components.
Consider the present, but don’t focus too much on short-term
22. The types of key stakeholders.
The relationship between key stakeholders.
The relationship between key stakeholders and critical
processes.
Critical process in the form of inputs, processes, and outputs.
The system’s relationship with the broader environment.
Step 5: List all critical relationships and processes. Ask:
How can the corporation’s leader better manage key
relationships?
How can critical processes improve?
How is the corporation impacting the environment?
Global Citizen
Becoming an active and effective systems thinker means
considering factors beyond one’s
own neighborhood, corporation, or immediate work
environment. One has to look at the
broader communities and ecosystems in which these elements
reside. For most, this means
becoming a global citizen. Doing so does not mean giving up
citizenship in one’s own local
community, nor does it mean abandoning any kind of nationalist
or patriotic spirit. Being
a global citizen means taking responsibility for problems that
require local and potentially
global solutions. A global citizen understands the needs of the
whole and considers those
when making personal decisions and directing groups, teams,
and organizations.
This sometimes means considering linkages between problems
far away and behaviors at
home. A classic example comes from the apparel industry.
Consider the deadliest garment
23. factory disaster in history, which occurred in Bangladesh in
2013. More than 1,000 work-
ers died and 2,500 were injured when owners pressured workers
to assemble garments in
a decrepit building that collapsed during peak hours (Butler,
2013). A global citizen takes
the time to consider the connection between wealthy, developed
countries creating demand
for new and inexpensive apparel and the pressures placed on
low-income garment factory
…