A Historical Perspective on Leadership

When a discussion on business leadership arises, people generally tend to think of CEOs of large multi-million dollar companies who have transformed an organization be either taking it to the next level or dramatically saving it from the clutches of near extinction. Textbooks make mention of the great accomplishments of leaders such as Sam Walton (founder of Wal-Mart), Tom Watson (known in the 1980’s for developing the IBM image of success), and Jack Welch (who’s innovative leadership broke the confines of beaurocracy and transformed GE) (Tichy & Cohen, 2003), but fail to discuss the importance of leadership for small business. Little, if any, application of leadership models for the management and growth of a small business is provided in such texts.

The underlying intent of this essay is to research and find leadership models that, either in whole or in part, can be used for the benefit of small business development. Applicable models will be used as a guide for future dissertation research to determine whether they are being currently taught in entrepreneurial programs. Leadership models from the pre-classical, classical, modernism, and post-modernism eras are examined, and it is the purpose of this essay to compare and contrast the models presented herein. The leadership models are introduced via an historical perspective to illustrate how they were developed and their effectiveness for their originating timeframe. Then, they will be compared and contrasted, at which time relationship among models and their respective points of convergence and/or divergence will be discussed. Finally, the more resonant theories will be assessed for their application to today’s small business environment.

Pre-classical Era

In early civilizations, there was no real distinction between leadership and management.

Initially, early man lived with one’s family, and the individuals rested in the authority of either a matriarch or a patriarch. Eventually, man’s group association evolved from a family to a national level, where people relied on their ruler, or king, for authority (Wren, 2005).

It is in this time frame where the autocratic leadership model has its roots. Autocratic leadership, as defined by Weiskittel (1995) “involves the use of commands and expected compliance. The leader is dogmatic and uses power to give or withhold rewards and punishment” (par. 2), which was much in line with the legalist philosophy in ancient China (Wren, 2005).

Not all individuals in the pre-classical era believed that the autocratic system was the best method of leadership, however. Marinoff (2004) argues that:

[T]he three most influential philosophers of the ancient world -- Aristotle, Buddha and Confucius -- taught the ABCs of virtue ethics. Together, they laid the foundation not only for identifying "best practices" of leadership and governance, but also for applying these practices to the daily lives of individuals and organizations” (par. 16).

Aristotle believed that the exercise of any virtue is through the use of reason to solve problems by finding middle ground. Buddha believed that passion can be channeled for the benefit of the greater good. Confucius believed in harmony and (Marinoff, 2004) and “advocated cultivating and improving the moral nature of people to secure cooperation” (Wren, 2005, p. 15).

Another proponent of virtue was Xenophon, who believed that:

· “[G]ood leaders should know their individual followers and their needs” (Hutchinson, 2000, paraphrased by Humphreys, 2003, par. 7).

· “[G]ood morale was essential and it was best accomplished by matching followers’ skill sets and tasks” (Humphreys, 2003, par. 8).

· “[E]nhanced morale and performance were driven by inspirational words or symbols” (Humphreys, 2003, par. 9)

· “[F]ollower motivation was a leadership responsibility” (Humphreys, 2003, par. 10).

Classical Era

During the early part of the middle ages, economies and business philosophies were static (Wren, 2005). No significant developments in leadership theory arose either. Autocratic leadership was the method most commonly prescribed during this time as evidenced through the feudal system. The latter part of the classical era was marked by one of revitalization and reformation. The practices of the Roman Catholic Church were protested, and new denominations arose. As a result, new theological principles and theories developed, and protestant capitalists and managers began applying these new principles to business. The Protestant ethic was born (Wren, 2005).

Associating religious authority with management was not a new principle, though. Autocratic leaders of early civilizations had the responsibility of not just being a governmental authority, but also shared the burden of being a religious authority as well (Wren, 2005). The Protestant reformation, however, broadened the application of religious beliefs into other areas of society, including commerce. As a result of this new way of thinking, managers began implementing a certain work ethic based on their denominational religious beliefs. One can argue that the Protestant ethic is the foundation for the religious leadership model, which entails the application of an individual’s religious values to one’s management and/or leadership style (Toney & Oster, 1998).

The Modern Era

The Protestant reformation was a contributing factor to the onset of the Industrial Revolution (Wren, 2005), which is often known for the rapid growth of manufacturing and processing due to the advancement of technology. What few people realize is that the Industrial Revolution, at least in the beginning of the era, had its share of problems, including managing and training a skilled workforce, motivating employees, and discipline. As a result, entrepreneurs began to develop and study management principles to find ways to resolve these issues.

Leadership was not a distinguished principle during the Industrial Revolution; rather, the focus was on the development of managerial skills and theories, such as staffing, organizing, planning and controlling (Wren, 2005). Nonetheless, early management theorists realized that they could not ignore the human element in managing a workforce, which eventually lead to the study of human behavior in organizations and application of psychology in the workplace. Towards the latter part of the modern era, significant strides have been made in understanding how management can attain desired results through behavior modification with attention to specific areas such as motivation, influence and organizational changes. The studies of the human element not only lead to the development of the field of organizational behavior, but also became the stepping stone for the study of leadership.

Post-modernism

As the Industrial Revolution lead to the technological age, many new business trends came about, including the focus on replacing people with machines, streamlining processes, and real-time reporting. Such organizational change requires a good deal of knowledge of organizational behavior, as well as the ability to lead an organization through change. The study of leadership began to take precedence among management scholars.

Leadership as a concept became more defined, and it slowly began to become distinguished from positional authority. While no solid definition of leadership exists (Weiskittel, 1999), a variety of characteristics set leaders apart from management. Managers plan, organize, staff, control, and solve problems, whereas leaders set directions, align people, motivate and inspire (Kotter, 2003).

A number of models were developed as a result of the study of leadership. As with any other theory, some of the models were proven to be more effective than others during certain eras, while others may have been ahead of their time. Certain models are considered to be obsolete, while a few have lasted the test of time, given a few minor modifications. Three leadership models, of which the foundations were discussed in preceding sections of this essay, are the autocratic, religious and Marinoff’s three-dimensional leadership model (based on the virtues of Aristotle, Buddha and Confucius).

Comparison of Leadership Models

The autocratic leadership model has been in existence since the pre-classical era, and has been the dominant theory through most of the middle ages. Weiskittel (1995) argues that “[t]his style of leadership is becoming obsolete in today’s world” (par. 2). Furthermore, this model can only be applied to those in positional authority, not across varying levels within an organization.

The notion that a leader can be guided by one’s god can be first seen in early civilizations, when rulers, such as divine kings, had governing as well as religious authority. This is not to say that all such leaders in early civilizations ruled with principle, though they were granted divine authority to govern. The religious leadership model takes its true form during the protestant reformation period when business owners applied biblical and denominational teachings to their individual styles of leadership/management. While not a dominant theory, this model is still in use today, not only by Christian small business owners, but CEOs of medium and large corporations as well.

Marinoff’s three-dimensional leadership model (based on the virtues of Aristotle, Buddha and Confucius), much like the other two models discussed above, also has its foundation rooted in the pre-classical age. It was not a dominant model in ancient civilizations, nor is it a leading theory in today’s world, even though some of the principles found within it can be found in other leadership theories, such as the grass-roots, transactional and combat leadership models.

Application to Small Business

Each of the three models has a place in helping small businesses develop leaders. The autocratic leadership model, while obsolete for large organizations, can help a small company of less than three people grow. In such small organizations, it is assumed that the owner really is the leader and that he/she requires others to follow. To a certain extent, the organization must grow according to the direction the owner wants to head in, and the subordinates are required to perform whatever functions are asked of them. This will only take a company so far. Eventually, the owner must begin to trust his/her employees and empower them if the company is to grow further. Hence, the autocratic leadership model is applicable for smaller organizations experiencing initial growth.

From inception, a company should be representative of its ownership, and its philosophies, values and beliefs should mirror that of the management of the entity. This representation is important in all phases of business, including growth and divesture. Leading by virtue is important. This is why the religious and Marinoff’s three-dimensional leadership models are applicable to small businesses.

Summary

The underlying intent of this essay was to research and find leadership models that, either in whole or in part, can be used for the benefit of small business development. Three models were found from the pre-classical, classical, modernism, and post-modernism eras and were compared and contrasted. In addition, each model was assessed for their application to today’s small business environment. While it was found that each model can be applied to small business growth, it was concluded that the autocratic leadership model is of limited use and should not be considered for further research, whereas the religious and Marinoff’s three-dimensional leadership models are applicable to small businesses and should be studied further.

References

Bergmann, H. (1999, October - December). Introducing a grass-roots model of leadership. Strategy & Leadership, 27(6), 15.

Harrison, B. (1999). The nature of leadership: Historical perspectives & the future. Journal of California Law Enforcement, 33(1), 24-30.

Kotter, J. P. (2003) What leaders really do. In Jossey-Bass (Series Ed.) Business Leadership (1^st ed., pp. 29-43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Humphries, J. H. (2003). Xenophon as leadership theorist: an early model of leader behavior and follower work motivation [electronic version]. Academy of Management Procedings D(6).

Marinoff, L. (2004, January). The ancient art of modern leadership. Global Agenda, (2).

Tichy, N. M. & Cohen, E. (2003). Why are leaders important? In Jossey-Bass (Series Ed.) Business Leadership (1^st ed., pp. 4-28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Toney, F. & Oster, M. (1998, Winter). The leader and religious faith. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 135.

Weiskittel, P. (1999, October). The concept of leadership. ANNA Journal, 26(5), 467.

Wren, D. A. (2005). The History of Management Thought (5^th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley