Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies http://jlo.sagepub.com/

Leadership Development in the New Millennium

Joseph C. Rost
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 1993 1: 91
DOI: 10.1177/107179199300100109

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/1/1/91

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Midwest Academy of Management

Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Nov 1, 1993

What is This?

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

 7’he JournaCof

Leadership
Studies

Leadership Development
in the New Millennium

Joseph C. Rost
University of San Diego

Executive Summary
The students and practitioners who attend our leadership classes and our
professional development seminars now will be doing most of their leadership
in the 21st century. They need to understand the concept of leadership that will
operate in the 21st century. They need to be able to practice a new paradigm
of leadership that will operate in the 21st century, not the old paradigm of
leadership that has dominated the 20th century. The author looks at pst models
of leader development programs and future models of leadership development
programs in an effort to demonstrate the difference between the two paradigms
of leadership.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

 ..
Introductory Remarks ~~~ .. ,
In the past 50-75 years, leadership development has been synonymous with
developing leaders. As a result, a great deal of emphasis has been placed
.

on such things as personality characteristics, traits, styles, and desired leader

behaviors. To a lesser extent, there has been some emphasis on skills or
competencies that leaders ought to have, principally organizing and
facilitating skills. These skills reflect an understanding of leadership as good
management, the industrial paradigm of leadership. In contrast, Hoskings
and Morley (1988), who take a different, more modern approach to the subject
of skills and leadership suggest that decision- and policy-making skills are
those that leaders need most.
The mainstream, industrial approaches to leadership and to leader
development have a number of deficiencies built into them. Let me suggest
a few by raising some questions.
’
&dquo;

1. Why do leadership scholars and practitioners concentrate all of their

’

attention on leaders when considering leadership development? Are lead-

&dquo;

..
ers the only people who do leadership? What about the the followers,
people who collaborate with leaders? Don’t they deserve any develop-
ment ? Don’t they count?
2. The emphasis on personality characteristics and traits leads to these
questions: Who determines what characteristics and traits are desirable?
How do people know what traits leaders should have? Even if we assume
.. , that we know what personality characteristics leaders should have, can
,
.
leaders authentically taken on these characteristics without dramatically
&dquo;
-

changing their personalities and questioning their basic assumptions?

.

3. Leadership styles are pervasive in the literature and how people talk
about leadership. Leaders are told to vary their leadership styles depending
on the situation, and so these styles are switched on and off much as we
switch electricity on and off when we enter and leave dark rooms. Again,
is that an authentic approach to development or a manipulative approach?

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

 93

How do leaders know what style is best for each situation they encounter?
Are the different models of situational leadership contradictory? Is style
determinative in the course of human behavior? Has history been changed
because certain leaders took on a certain style rather than another? Do
significant decisions and policies get made in our governments and in our
corporations because the leaders therein adopt a certain style rather than
.. another? For instance, how does one explain this very common leadership
’

scenario: Some leaders in a state legislature (or substitute any other large
<’&dquo; organization) had an autocratic style while other leaders had a democratic
’.
&dquo;~&dquo;‘
style, but they were all on the winning side of a controversial issue and they
were all
dealing with the same situation?
4. The behavioral approach to leader development is as problematic. Do
leadership scholars and practitioners know how leaders should behave
when they do leadership? Can we evaluate certain behaviors as desirable
or effective and others as ineffective? Can we prescribe a list of behaviors
as acceptable for leaders and others as unacceptable? Do we want our
.,
leaders to act in political correct ways? How does the view that certain
leader behaviors are effective square with the notions of diversity that are
°
.

now on the human developmental agenda?

The Facts, Please!

.

.. ..
~~

&dquo;There is a These questions pose critical problems to anyone interested in serious and
authentic leadership development. So, let’s discuss these approaches to
great deal of
leader development, but in reverse order. What follows are some
criticism ahead conclusions I have developed over the years from what I have observed,
so prepare
read, researched, and studied. There is a great deal of criticism ahead so
yourself... &dquo; prepare yourself for a highly critical analysis of our developmental programs
and strategies for leaders.

’
Leader Behaviors
The facts are that leaders lead by using a wide variety of behaviors. Studies
of the behaviors of political, business, education, public, student, health, and
nonprofit leaders show an incredible diversity of successful behaviors. Some
of those behaviors are contrary to the dictates of common wisdom or common
sense, intuitive beliefs, and politically correctness. Some of those behaviors
do not correspond to the white male model of leader behavior that dominates
our leader development programs. The facts are that there is no known list
of leader behaviors that we can teach people in order to develop leaders.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

94

Covey’s Seven Habits ofHighIyEffective People (1989) is a good example

of a currently popular approach to leader development through the use of
certain prescribed behaviors. While the word leader is not in the title of the
&dquo;The ’Seven book, the word is used liberally throughout the text. Even though Covey
Habits’ book is makes a reasonably convincing case for his seven habits, one doesn’t have
to look very far for any number of leaders who do not demonstrate three, four,
more of a guide
five, six or seven of those habits and are still effective leaders. Besides, the
for human effective people who practice these seven habits may not actually be leaders?
development, A large number of them, maybe even a majority, may be followers, managers,
not leader employees, officials, or citizens who have not engaged in leadership. Thus,
development. &dquo; it seems more reasonable to suggest that the Seven Habits book is more of
a guide for human development, not leader development. Is leader
development the same as human development? Covey’s title is accurate.
These seven habits are for effective people, not effective leaders.
Bennis and Nanus’s (1985) four strategies (behaviors) have also been very
popular but they are as problematic. The required behaviors (visioning,
communication, trust, and learning) are so general that they are essentially
meaningless. These behaviors are open to an incredible number of ways to
put them into practice. And again, how do we know that the 90 people
interviewed by Bennis and Nanus were actually leaders? Bennis and Nanus
say they are, but they don’t tell us, their readers, the criteria they used to
determine that the interviewees were actually leaders.
Kouzes and Posner’s (1987) equally popular book instructs leaders to employ
five general behaviors. The authors then give two specific behaviors for each
of the five (a total of ten specific behaviors. While the &dquo;Ten Commandments
of Leadership&dquo; (p. 13) give the leader a great deal more specific instructions
than do other more global behavioral components, the list suffers from the
same problems that rule ethnics encounters in an age of increasing

complexity and ambiguity, not only about doing the right thing but doing
things right. The common experience of human beings in organizations tells
us that there are many leaders in these organizations (public and private)
who do not put all or any of these ten behaviors to work when they exercise
leadership. The research base of the behavioral imperatives is highly
questionable since it included the managers that Kouzes and Posner enticed
to take their seminars. There is no guarantee that the majority of these
managers were actually leaders. , .,
All of these lists (and a couple dozen others that could be cited) suffer from
the same inherent problems. The lists are so general as to be meaningless
or the lists are so specific as to be impossible to put into practice in the
countless episodes of leadership any leader encounters in her/his career. In
the end, the lists are wish lists as to how leaders are supposed to be, not a
description of how leaders really are. The behavioral approach to leadership
development is fraught with significant conceptual and practical problems.
This approach to leader development has little or no validity, and most

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

 95

universities have given up on it totally. Only cookbook authors and

questionable seminar presenters continue to entice their publics into
believing that this simplistic approach to leader development actually
develops leaders who do real leadership.

Leader Styles
The styles approach to leader development is even more charlatan than the
behavioral approach. By their very nature, styles are surface oriented,
shallow, unauthentic, manipulative, and nondevelopmental. Styles are the
very antithesis of everything for which real leader development stands. No
one seriously interested in developing human beings as leaders can possibly
believe that leaders should be taught or trained to change their styles when
they are involved in different situations according to some prescriptive model
that is based on pop psychology at best or on statistically analyzed
questionnaires at worse. The idea that varying styles with different situations
is a mature, deeply human, and civilized approach to leader development is
ludicrous on the face of the issue.
The facts that styles don’t count for much in the course of human affairs,
are
especially when transformational change is involved.
The facts are that styles and situational models of leadership are based on
&dquo;Situational very sloppy research.
models of The facts are that even if one accepts the quantitative research upon which
leadership are this approach is based as valid, the style models in effect state that if the
based on leader follow the behavioral prescriptions of the model, they may be
.

very sloppy successful 66% of the time and they may fail 33% of the time, all other things
research&dquo; being equal. I’m not sure that I would want to adhere to such a model to
exercise leadership.
The facts are that the styles models are mostly about management and
administration and have very little to do with leadership. The subjects used
in the research studies of these models have been managers and
administrators, not leaders. The researchers assume that all managers and
administrators are leaders, an assumption that is patently false based again
on consistent human experience in organizations.

Personality Characteristics and Traits

This approach to leader

development was thoroughly debunked as early as
1948 in a famous article by Stogdill, but the traits approach simply won’t go
away. In fact, it has made quite a comeback in the 1980s by a group of

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

96

leadership writers and practitioners who preach excellence and quality in

organizations. -

Stogdill concluded that the hundreds of trait-oriented research studies didn’t

amount to much because after all the studies were compared and analyzed,
the analysis was unable to state which traits, if any, leaders must have to
engage in leadership. The most we can get from the trait approach is that
leaders need a bit of intelligence, they must have some physical stamina, and
some psychological balance would help but is evidently not necessary.

In a more recent study, Kouzes and Posner (1985) questioned 2,615

managers on the &dquo;characteristics of successful leaders&dquo; and only one
(honesty) received a 83% approval rating from the respondents. Two were
selected by 60+% of the respondents, one 58%, and the rest of the traits were
selected by less than 50% of the respondents. That kind of wide-ranging
response is typical of trait research and it justifies the debunking it has
&dquo;Without some received from leadership scholars. Without some firm guidance on which
firm guidance traits are needed by a leader, a model of leader development is impossible.
One cannot design a meaningful trait-oriented program of leader
on which traits
development without a clear, consistent, and nearly universal list of traits on
are needed by a which to base the training.
leader, a model Some trait approaches to leader development would suggest that educators
of leader
(especially) in schools and colleges develop budding leaders through
development is programs for the gifted. These approaches are not only contrary to universal
impossible&dquo; human experience, but they are, in my view, ill conceived and elitist--a view
of leadership that we should certainly want to avoid in the new millennium. I
know of no research that supports the view that giftedness--however that
might be defined--is a trait or personality characteristic necessary for
leadership. Nor am I aware of any research that would support putting all or
most of our leadership development eggs in the gifted basket with a view that
this approach will produce the biggest bang for the buck, the best leaders for
our organizations, communities, and society. The histories of these
organizations and our society are replete with many examples of nongifted
leaders who have been very successful by any standard of comparison. Such
easily accessible knowledge of lived experience and the egalitarian values
of our culture, now and in the future, do not bode well for any attempt to
’7n the end... the connect giftedness with leadership.
facts are that
the traits approach In the end and despite the spate of trait cookbooks published in the 1980s,
the facts are that the traits approach to leader development is simplistic,
to leader
unreliable, and unproductive as a firm foundation upon which to construct
development is training and development activities for leaders. The traits approach is
simplistic, hopelessness optimistic but, unfortunately at the same time, definitely
unreliable, and unrealistic. Traits is the happy face approach to leader development, and it
has had much effect
as on course of human affairs as Hallmark cards and
unproductive&dquo; face stickers.
happy

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

 97

What Do We Do?
The number one problem with leadership development during the 20th
century is that it--leadership development--has been equated with leader
development. That is so because leadership has been understood as being
that which the leader does. Leadership is synonymous with the leader.
When leadership is equated with the leader, it is logical to put all of our
developmental eggs in the leader basket. That is what we have done in the
20th century. Leadership development equals leader development.
The second big problem with leadership development during the 20th century
is that leadership has been understood as good management. Why is the
industrial paradigm of leadership good management? Because the idea of
good management expresses what the people writing and practicing
leadership thought leadership was. In a century when management and
managers have been the quintessential force driving the industrial revolution,
the essential meaning of leadership quite naturally became good
management. Good here means effective. It does not refer to moral
goodness.
While many people wrote and spoke of leadership as synonymous with
management, what they were really saying was that the leader is a good
manager and that leadership is good management. There is no such thing
in the industrial paradigm as bad leadership. Leadership is always good.
&dquo;... what they were And
good basically means effective. The great man theory of leadership was
really saying was about great managers who did great things, not just any manager who did
that the leader ordinary things. The group theory of leadership was about managers who
is were able to facilitate groups well, not managers whose groups were
a good manager ineffective. The trait theory of leadership was about managers who had
and that
desirable traits and used those traits to get the job done well, not to get the
leadership is job done poorly or only half way. The behavioral theory of leadership was
good about managers who put certain behaviors to work in managing organizations
management&dquo; so that the organization was effective and efficient, not behaviors that allowed
the organization to be ineffective and inefficient. Contingency/SituationalI
theories of leadership were about managers who varied their behaviors in
clearly defined ways so as to motivate employees to achieve stated goals
that produced good results, not to achieve goals that produced unwanted or
poor results. Finally, the excellence theory of leadership was about
managers who did the right things to achieve excellence in organizations, not
managers who just did things right.
A more elaborate statement of the industrial paradigm of leadership is this:
&dquo;Leadership is great men and women with certain preferred traits influencing
followers to do what the leaders wish in order to achieve group/organizational
goals that reflect excellence defined as some kind of higher-level
effectiveness&dquo; (Rost,1991, p. 180). Heifetz and Sinder came up with a similar
synthesis in this sentence: &dquo;Leadership is again defined as having a vision,
or agenda of one’s own, coupled with the ability to articulate one’s message,

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

98

gain support through transactional means, and bring one’s own goals to
..
&dquo;Leadership fruition&dquo; (1988, p. 180).2
development As a result of our understanding of leadership as good management,
has been much leadership development has been much the same as management
the same as development, but with a much stronger effectiveness dimension. In large
management part, thereofhas been very little differenceand between our concepts, models, and
those of leadership development.
development, practices management development
but with a Anyone who wants to investigate the matter can see this sameness in the
much stronger graduate programs of leadership, administration, and management in
in the seminars and workshops that purport to do leadership and
effectiveness universities,
management training, in the management and leadership textbooks, in the
.&dquo; ’:’
dimension&dquo;
undergraduate leadership and management programs, and in the leadership
and management training and development programs sponsored by college
student life professionals and high school student council advisors. The
goals of these programs are to prepare students to organize and manage the
various programs and events sponsored by the student associations and
councils. The leadership retreats, seminars and workshops are substantively
the same as management retreats, seminars, and workshops. The
purposes, attitudes, traits, and skills taught in these training and development
exercises are summed up in the two words: good management.
If we are going to make an impact on the quality, effectiveness, and results
of leadership development in the 21 st century, we have to confront head on
these two problems: (1 ) the problem of equating leadership with the leader,
and (2) the confusion caused by understanding leadership as good
management. Fortunately, the solution to both problems is the same so we
THE don’t have to concentrate on two solutions. However, the bad news is that
~’&dquo; the solution is difficult, it will take a lot of hard work, it will demand new
BAD
attitudes and background assumptions, and it will require trainers and
NEWS »» developers to redesign most of what they are now doing in the name of
leadership development.
The solution is the total transformation of our concept of leadership. We must
reconstruct our definition of leadership. We must shift our paradigm of
leadership from an industrial concept of leadership to a postindustrial concept
of leadership. We must give up that old, comfortable paradigm of leadership
and engage in the construction of a new paradigm of leadership.
I have begun that process in my book, Leadership for the Twenty-First
Century. In that book, I articulated an understanding of leadership that
moves us out of the industrial paradigm and into the postindustrial paradigm
of the new millennium. _

The postindustrial paradigm of leadership is encapsulated in a new definition

of leadership. This new definition is deliberately constructed so that it is
consistent with what many futurists and forward-looking commentators

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

 99

believe are the core values of the new overarching paradigm of the new
millennium. ’

The definition is this: Leadership is an influence relationship among

leaders and their collaborators who intend real changes that reflect their
mutual purposes.
This definition of leadership includes four essential elements. All four of these
elements are essential, meaning that all four must be present if any
relationship is to be called leadership. Scholars and practitioners should be
able to use these four elements to distinguish leadership from other human
relationships, especially the relationship called management or governance.
1. The relationship is based on influence. If leadership is conceived as
an influence relationship, then two things follow. It is multidirectional
because influence can go any which way, not just from the top down. And
it is noncoercive because the relationship would .turn into an authority,
power, or dictatorial relationship if coercive behaviors were used to influ-
ence. Influence means using persuasion to have an impact on other people.
However, persuasion must not be limited to just rational discourse.
2. Leaders and their collaborators are the actors in this relationship.
If leadership is what the relationship is, then both the collaborators and
leaders are all doing leadership. There is no such thing as followership.
That is not to say that all actors in the relationship are equal in influence as
that idealic circumstance can almost never be the case. When there are
multiple actors, the influence patterns of these people are inherently un-
equal. Obviously, some relationships will be flatter than others. All leader-
ship relationships need not look (or be) the same.
3. Leaders and their collaborators intend real changes. intend means
that the changes the leaders and their collaborators promote are purposeful
(not happenstance). intend means that the leaders and their collaborators
&dquo;1 am trying do not have to produce changes to do leadership, only intend them and then
to define act on that intention. The intention is in the present, the changes are in the
leadership, not future. Real means that the changes are substantive and transforming.
describe what Pseudo changes do not qualify for a relationship to be called leadership.
.

good or Please do not misunderstand me. I am trying to define leadership, not

effective describe what good or effective leadership is. A definition must be con-
structed in the present tense so that it can be used as a criterion to decide
< C’, <.
leadership if some process is leadership or, alteratively, something else. A description
/s&dquo;
w

~ ~

of good or effective leadership must of necessity be in the past tense since

any evaluation must be made of (1) whether or not the changes actually
happened, (2) whether the leaders and collaborators were responsible for
the changes and (3) whether the changes were beneficial or not. I am not
suggesting that success or effectiveness are unimportant. Rather I am
suggesting that they are not inherently necessary for leadership to have
taken place. Contrary to the good management school of leadership, I

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

100

leadership does happen when leaders and collaborators at

believe that
’

tempt change but fail. ’ ,

4. The changes the leaders and their collaborators intend reflect their
mutual purposes. The changes must not only reflect what the leaders want
but what the collaborators want. As a result, the mutual purposes become
the common enterprise of the leaders and their collaborators because the
purposes are forged in the noncoercive, influence relationship.
From these essential elements, we can see that leadership is an influence
relationship wherein leaders and their collaborators influence one another
&dquo;Leadership is about real changes that reflect their mutual purposes. Leaders compete with
an influence other leaders for collaborators. The collaborators develop a relationship with
leaders of their own choosing, not necessarily those who have authority over
relationship&dquo; them. Leaders and their collaborators may change places. There may be a
number of leadership relationships in one organization, and the same people
are not necessarily the leaders in these different relationships.

The intended changes reflect the purpose or vision that leaders and
collaborators have for an organization. That purpose is usually not static but
is constantly changing as leaders and their collaborators come and go, as
the influence process works its effects on both leaders and collaborators, and
as circumstances, environment, and wants and needs impact on the
leadership relationship and the organization.
This concept of leadership is a real paradigm shift if it is taken seriously.
To see how radically different the postindustrial paradigm of leadership is
from the industrial one, study Figure 1 which contrasts the traditional,
industrial paradigm of leadership with the emerging, postindustrial one.

Figure 1. Two contrasting paradigms.

From Rost and Smith, 1992, p.195, but revised.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014
 101

The five contrasting characteristics in Figure 1 show that leadership in the

1990s is shaping up to be:
. A process entirely distinct from management,
. A process in which other people than managers can be and are leaders;
. A relationship which focuses on the interactions of both leaders and
collaborators instead of focusing on only the traits and behaviors of the
leaders;
. A relationship that aims at mutual purposes rather than the wishes of
the leaders;
. A process in which people intend real changes as opposed to a process
in which they achieve any organizational (or group) goals; and
.

. A relationship in which only influence behaviors are acceptable rather

than one wherein all legitimate behaviors (authority and other forms of
coercion included) are acceptable.

Leadership Development in the 21st Century

.

If leadership is viewed as an interactive influence process of change, then all

of the old training and development models based on leadership as good
management must be reconstructed to accommodate the new paradigm of
leadership. If leadership is a relationship of leaders and collaborators
intending significant changes that reflect their mutual purposes, then all of
the old training and development models based on leadership as specific
traits or behaviors of leaders must be reconstructed to accommodate the
new paradigm of leadership.
&dquo;Scholars,
trainers and Scholars, trainers and developers, and practitioners must rethink their old
developers, and assumptions about leader development. The training and development
programs (for instance, high school and college courses and programs,
practitioners student life leadership programs, seminars and workshops for professional
must rethink their people, and programs designed by leadership centers) that have been
old assumptions offered in the past are no longer sufficient to develop leaders and
about leader collaborators for the 21st century. Instead ofleader development, we need
4~ development&dquo; to think aboutleadership development. Under the new paradigm, leadership
I

and leader are not the same. Leadership is not what the leader does but
what the leaders and collaborators do together to change organizations. As
such, the development of leaders is inadequate and counterproductive. We
have to develop people who want to engage in leadership as collaborators
or leaders or both (since leaders and collaborators will change places
frequently in the new paradigm); people who want to work collaboratively with
other people to change organizations, communities, and our society; people
who want to work in teams to institute change that reflects the mutual

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

102

purposes of the team members. Leader development promotes the &dquo;Lone

.

Ranger&dquo; or &dquo;John Wayne&dquo; view of leadership, variants on the great

man/woman theory of leadership that has regained a lot of popularity in the
1980s. Leadership development promotes a view of leadership that
proclaims: &dquo;We are all in this together as these changes are our mutual
.

purposes,&dquo; a completely new understanding of leadership that is emerging

as the new definition of leadership in the 1990s as we approach the new
millennium. Training and development programs based on the new paradigm
are much more difficult to design and execute than those popular for the last
50 years in which the objective was to train a leader to be a good manager.
’

These conclusions mean, at the very least, that scholars, trainers and
developers, and practitioners must make a number of changes in our
leadership development programs. Our job is to create meaningful
leadership development programs that articulate a postindustrial paradigm
of leadership so that students and practitioners can imbibe a new
understanding of leadership rather than the old, so that they can put the
postindustrial paradigm of leadership to work in their organizations,
..
r
communities and our society. What follows are some practical suggestions
as to how to construct and deliver leadership development programs.

1. Stop concentrating on the leader.

.

The first step is very basic and must be phrased as a negative statement.
Nothing else says it strong enough. If we don’t get rid of the basic
’
assumption that leadership is what the leader does, all else is for naught.
How do we stop focusing on the leader?
o Get rid of the emphasis on leader traits and personality characteristics.
,
Traits are not how leadership is done.
· Get rid of the lists of leader behaviors. There is no list of behaviors
’
... available that is valid. Leader behaviors are not only idiosyncratic and
,.... _
suited only to certain individuals, they are not even half of what goes
.... into a leadership relationship.
._ · Get rid of all tests or inventories for leaders. They are obsolete and
_
, useless as a leadership development technique. First of all, we don’t
.
, .,
know how to test leaders for either identification purposes or to help
..’, .. them be better leaders. Second, tests focus on the individual when we
,
,
should be focusing on the relationship of a group of people.
’ . Get rid of the notion that we have to develop leaders. We should admit
.
.

honestly that we don’t know how to develop leaders. We may never

> .
,

.. . know how to develop leaders! A more productive approach is to learn

. how to develop people to do leadership. If we concentrate on leader-
ship instead of leaders, we may be surprised at the progress we can
make in developing people to do leadership.
2. Conceive of leadership as an episodic affair.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

 103

Leadership is
that takes place during a specific change
a relationship
process. As a result, any time people do leadership, they are involved in a
process that is bounded by time, subject matter, specific leaders and
collaborators engaged in the process, place, and context (for instance,
casual relationships, problems, circumstances, organizational history and
’
’

&dquo;Leadership
~ ’

is
an episode culture, and the environment outside the organization.) Leadership is an
in people’s lives&dquo; episode in people’s lives. They experience leadership as an episodic affair,
a stream of activities that happen when people intend a specific and real
change for their group or organization. Leadership is not what happens
eight to ten hours a day on the job every day. People don’t do leadership
day in and day out, every minute and hour they are at work. They do
leadership episodically--ten minutes here, a half hour there, fifteen minutes
now and two hours later.

If this is how people really experience leadership, that is, in the reality of
their daily lives, then we must design leadership development programs that
reflect this reality, not some mythic reality that has great men and women
~
exuding leadership in their very being and are on their leadership platform
every waking moment of their lives. Here are some suggestions.
~ Don’t train people to think of leadership as good management so that
’7f ~/?/s
&dquo;//’ this is
/s ~70~
how everything good manager does is leadership.
a
~ Get rid of the notion that leadership is only what works, that leadership
people really is always a successful process, that leadership is high performance:
experience achieving goals, being number one or being on top, producing a better
leadership... then product or service, and making a higher profit. These are all corollaries
we must design of the idea that people do leadership all day long.
leadership ~ Train people to think about the process that leadership is. In that
development training, people must learn to analyze what is going on in the process
&dquo;.
and how they can impact on the process. For example, the trainer could
.
.

programs that , train the people to use Bolman and Deal’s (1990) four frames (struc-
reflect this
tural, human resource, political and symbolic) to make sense of the
realit y process and suggest different ways to influence it.
w Train people to think of leadership as a specific relationship of people
planning a mutually agreeable, real change. Relationships have spe-
.

cific people in them who have various stakes and resources in that
relationship and who act upon those stakes using the resources at their
-.

disposal. Using that understanding, the trainer may want to train people
how to build the relationship and strengthen it.
w Have people list the leadership relationships in which they have been
.

’
participating during a 12 or 24 month period. Have them draw timelines
of these episodes of leadership to show how long they lasted and how
many overlapped. The trainer could continue the exercise by focusing
.. on the people involved in the different relationships, the various proc-
, esses used in the different relationships, and the person’s specific
’

involvement in the relationships (listing times and activities.) .

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

104

3. Train people to use influence.

In Rost (1991), I define influence as &dquo;the process of using persuasion to
have an impact on other people in a relationship&dquo; (p. 105). I add:
Persuasion, as Neustadt (1980) has so cogently reminded us,
&dquo;amounts to more than the charm of reasoned argument&dquo; (p. 27).
Along with rational discourse, influence as persuasion involves
reputation, prestige, personality, purpose, status, content of the
message, interpersonal and group skills, give-and-take behaviors,
authority or lack of it, symbolic interaction, perceptions, motivation,
gender, race, religion, and choices, among countless other things. I
call these things power resources. Influence does not come out of thin
air. It comes from people using these power resources to persuade
(p. 105).
Some suggestions regarding training people to use influence in leadership
relationships are as follows:
o Train
people to be persuasive by using;
» Rational strategies

» Political analysis

» Metaphors

» Myths and rituals

o Train
people to use persuasion by appealing to:
» Emotional attachments
» The higher ground--ethical and moral stands
’

» Friendship, connectedness, relationships

» Communitarian ideas, the commons, public good, organizational
cultures
o Train people to use persuasion by writing persuasive letters, memos,
positions papers, proposals, and so on.
o Train people to use persuasion by giving persuasive speeches, video
presentations, short talks, and by using group dynamics.
. Train people to use power resources to influence.
» Gain access to the decision-making process by using position.

» Collect information to influence others.

..

’
’

» Devote time and talent to problem solving. .

» Use financial resources to help influence others.

» Develop a reputation to build on trust and credibility.

» Develop connections and friendships.

» Build relationship across the organization.

» Enlist the aid of others to influence people one might not be able to
reach.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

 105

. Train people to influence by using strategies that encourage multi- -

directionality of the process.

» Listen intently to others, especially those lower on the hierarchical
ladder.
» Bring people who are passive into the process.
» Encourage active involvement rather than just being present
.
» Welcome a mix of ideas and new points of view that add new
,
dimensions to the influence process.
» Make other people feel that they are
important to the process
’

» Structure the feedback process to get ideas from different people,

departments, and areas.

I

4. Develop people to work within noncoercive relationships.

Thinking of leadership as a relationship is quite a powerful technique to help

reconstruct one’s understanding of leadership. Thinking of leadership as a
noncoercive relationship is awesome in its ability to reconstruct one’s
understanding of leadership. Leadership as a noncoercive relationship
directly contradicts the essential nature of leadership as good management
as management (good or bad) is essentially a coercive process since it
involves the use of authority.
&dquo;Management
Noncoercive means that the people in the relationship are able to respond
(good or bad)
I

is essentially yes or no to an attempt to influence them. Influence by its very nature is

noncoercive since the essence of persuasion is the ability of the people
a coercive
being persuaded to accept or reject the attempt to influence them.
process since
Some suggestions about developing people to build noncoercive relation-
it involves
ships are as follows: ..

the use of
. Train people to base the leadership relationship on mutual influence,
authority&dquo; not authority or power. &dquo;Authority is a contractual (written, spoken, or
implied) relationship wherein people accept superordinate or subordi-
nate responsibilities in an organization. Power is a relationship wherein
certain people control other people by rewards and/or punishments&dquo;
(Rost, 1991, p. 106). ,

.
» Do collaborative activities.

» Seek mutually beneficial outcomes.

.
» Forsake competition inside the relationship.

. » Develop trust.

» Encourage others to be leaders.

» Take turns.
» Develop a culture of openness and honesty.
» Help one another.
» Have fun--enjoy the relationship.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

106

» Develop commonalities by working on the commons.

.
Help people build relationships around a sense of purpose instead of
other more utilitarian objectives. ’

» Define the mission of the relationship so that it reflects mutual

purpose.
» Talk about purposes often.
» Build a culture in the relationship that promotes purposes.

» Relate the activities of the people in the relationship to the purposes.

» Focus the policy-making process on the purposes.

» Create rituals that reinforce the purposes.

Train people to create relationships by having them help people to:

’

» Become unstuck.

» Get out of the authority mode.

» Become active rather than remain passive.

» Work around the bureaucracy and its limitations. -

» Deal with conflict and stress. -

» Become creative in doing leadership.

» Be positive and productive a bout the intended changes.

» Be proud of what they have accomplished in the leadership relation-

ship.
» Develop themselves.

» Help others.

5. Help people understand the nature of real--that is, transformative-

-chanae.
Our background assumptions about organizational development are almost
always in favor of the status quo or, at the very most, incremental changes.
As a result, the resistance to significant change is deeper than most people
in organization want to believe. Moreover, real change in organizations is
more complex and messy than the people in those organizations want to
change in
&dquo;... real believe. Some scholars have applied chaos and quantum theories to
organizations is modern organizations, and the applications show much more fluidity and
more complex ambiguity than the clockwork, mechanical, piecemeal, linear, quantitative
and messy than world of Newton, Weber, and Taylor would have us believe (Wheatley,
the people in 1993).
those Real change is going to become more pervasive as we move to the
organizations postindustrial paradigm. A society with millions of people does not adopt a
new macro paradigm without lots of transformative change. As a result,
want to
trainers and developers must help leaders and their collaborators under-
believe&dquo;
stand the reality of such change. There is much to say on this subject, but
I can only scratch the surface. Here are some suggestions.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

 107

~ Real change is almost always political Try as we might to incorpo-

rate some rational decision-making process--for instance, total quality
management, system analysis, strategic planning, etc.--into the change
process, the real thing going on in the high majority of transformative
change processes is politics. Real leaders and collaborators cannot
ignore the politics of real change. They use, it, embrace it, develop it,
change the nature of the political process, and make it work for them.
w Real change is long term. People who want to institute transformative
change are those who are in the relationship for the long term. Leaders
and collaborators must be willing to persist and must know that at the
outset.
~ Real change has tremendous symbolic implications, both positive
and negative. Leaders and collaborators must learn to deal with the
symbolic aspects of the transformative changes they propose.
~ Real change takes place, for the most part, among large groups
of people; yet all of our change models are based on individual and
. small group change processes. Leaders and collaborators must learn
.. to facilitate large groups of people to institute transformative changes.
Scholars and reflective practitioners must collaborate in developing
new large group change models to help us make sense out of this new
and important aspect of leadership.
6. Reconstruct people’s basic world view about life toward a collabo
rative orientation.
This dictum is a tall order, of course, and it is clearly not a one shot deal.
But we must begin to realize that our background assumptions about life
are basically self-interested and competitive. The industrial paradigm has
socialized us to believe that this is the way life is. My view is that we have
to begin to question these basic assumptions and create doubts in people’s
minds that life is forever thus.
-

. .
,, r

&dquo;We must begin Self-interest is built into our system of politics and, as a result, into our basic
to realize that notions of how decisions and policies are made--collectively and individu-
1,
our background ally. Competition is at the heart of our capitalistic system ever since Adam
.

assumptions Smith enculturated us into the benefits of competition, and we have bought
about life are into the view lock, stock and barrel. Self-interest and competition have been
’

incorporated into the three most popular ethical systems--utilitarianism,

basically social contract and relativism--so even our approaches to ethics have been
self-interested
co-opted by the industrial paradigm.
and competitive&dquo;
Real, transformative change may entail giving up on the industrial paradigm
of capitalism, politics, and ethics as we have come to know and practice
them in the 20th century and replace them with postindustrial paradigms of
capitalism, politics, and ethics for the 21 st century. ,- .

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

108

Leadership is going to be much more collaborative in the new millennium

&dquo;Leadership leadership development programs must teach people how to think
so our

is and be collaborative in leadership relationships. While I have touched on

going to be this point earlier in discussing how we can teach people to use influence
much more
and build noncoercive relationships, I want to emphasize here the skills
collaborative in leaders and collaborators need to come to some agreement on the changes
the new they intend to propose--in short, how to develop mutual purposes. Some
millennium&dquo; suggestions on developing mutual purposes follow.
· We need to
develop collaborative decision-making and policy-making
models as most, if not all, of our present models emphasize self-inter-
est, competition and conflict. Trainers and developers might construct
~’_ ,’
simulations that allow leaders and collaborators to experiment with
:~ collaborative decision making and policy making.
.
Majority rule has served us well for two centuries, but it has clearly
become counterproductive in making decisions about transformative
.
changes. Majority rule allows--even encourages--people to be self-in-
terested, competitive and situational in their ethics. Thus, we need
different alternatives in making decisions that emphasize consensus
and collaboration. Again trainers and developers can use case studies
and simulations that allow people to innovate with new and different
ways of coming to a decision.
. How do
people achieve mutual purposes? The honest answer is: We
don’t know. So, if this whole approach to leadership is going to work,
we have to find out. Again, trainers and developers will have to
experiment with new ways of achieving mutual purposes. For the
present, we might think about:
» Promoting the commons.
’
’

’ » Taking a communitarian approach.

» Discussing the public interest in making policies.
&dquo;
&dquo;, ,
’

» Asking hard ethical questions about present practices and proposed

.

changes. ’
» Empowering people to collaborate.

» Developing a sense of community.

» Holding meetings the expressed objective of which is to develop a

, .., common purpose.

&dquo;B,’

, ,: .. » Encourage consensus, cooperation, and collaboration; discourage

...
compromise, competition and conflict.
» Encourage public interest activities; discourage self-interest activi-
~

ties.
» Engaging in team building exercises.
,
» Insisting on open communication and honesty.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

 109

.
» Getting collaborators (rather than leaders) to proactively raise is
sues.
’

Creating expectation that foster collaboration.

’ .

’ .- ’,

r ’

..

Concluding Remarks v~~ ~ :.

, ...

Leadership is hard. To use influence only is hard; to promote real change is

hard; to collaborate is hard; to achieve mutual purposes is hard. Changing
paradigms is hard. The whole thing is fraught with immense difficulties.
’
Designing and implementing leadership development programs that truly
deal with the nature of leadership as it will be defined in the 21 st century is
hard. Including collaborators is hard; avoiding cookbook recipes is hard; not
emphasizing leader traits, styles and behaviors is hard; creating practical
models of the new paradigm of leadership is hard, teaching the new models
is hard. The whole enterprise is fraught with tremendous difficulties.
.

But the students and practitioners who attend our classes and the
professional development seminars will be doing most of their leadership in
.
the 21 st century. They need to understand a concept of leadership that will
operate in the 21st century, not a concept of leadership that has dominated
the 20th century. They need to be able to practice a new paradigm of
leadership that will operate in the 21st century, not the old paradigm of
.’ leadership that has dominated the 20th century. They need to have the skills
necessary to do postindustrial leadership, not the skills that enabled them to
do industrial leadership. They need leadership development programs that
will work for them in the new millennium.
Ihope that I have engaged the readers in a critical and thoughtful analysis of
past models of leader development programs and future models of leadership
development programs. My hope is that some readers may join me in making
this future a reality, beginning now in the 1990s.

Notes

1I now use the word followers when I write about leadership in the industrial paradigm. I
use the word collaborators when I write about leadership in the postindustrial paradigm.
This is a change from Rost (1991) in whichI use the word followers all the time. The reason
for the change is the unanimous feedback I received from numerous professionals through-
out the nation (including the graduate students in my classes) that followers as a concept is
unacceptable in the new paradigm and no amount of reconstruction is going to salvage the
word. I have had no difficulties agreeing with the conclusion; the problem was to find a word
to replace the concept of followers as I firmly do not believe that everyone is gong to be a
leader in the new millennium. After trying several alternative words, I settled on the word
collaborators because it seemed to have the right denotative and connotative meanings.
In other words, collaborators as a concept fits the language and values of the postindustrial

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014

110

paradigm and so its usage should not be a problem to those who want to articulate a new
paradigm of leadership.
In quoting Heifetz and Sinder,
2 I do not want to imply that they approved of this definition.
In fact,
they were highly critical of it and proposed a different understanding of leadership:
"Leadership is mobilizing the group’s resources to face, define, and resolve its problems"
(p.195)
.

,
;

REFERENCES
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Neustad, R.(1960/1980). Presidential
The strategies for taking charge. New York: power (2nd ed.) New York: Wiley & Sons.
Harper & Row. (Originaly published in 1960).
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (1991). Re- Rost, J.C. (1991). Leadership for the
framing organizations. San Francisco: twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.
Jossey-Bass. Rost, J.C. & Smith A. (1992). Leadership:
Covey, S. R. ( 1989). The seven habits of A postindustrial approach. European Man-
highly effective people. New York: Simon & agement Journal, 10(2), 193-201.
Schuster.
Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors as-
Heifetz, R.A., & Sinder, R.M. (1988). Po- sociated with leadership: A survey of the litera-
litical leadership: Managing the public’s prob- ture. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
lem solving. In R.B. Reich (Ed.) The power (Reprintedin Bass, B.M. (1981). Stogdill’s
of public ideas (pp. 179-203). Cambridge, handbook of leadership [rev. ed.]. New
MA: Ballinger. York: The Free Press.)
Hosking, D.M., & Morely, I.E. (1988). The Wheatly, M.J. (1993). Leadership and
skills of leadership. In J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-
H.P. Dachler, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Koehler Publishers.
Emerging leadership vistas (pp.89-106).
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1987). The
leadership challenge. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Editor’s Note:

Joseph C. Rost, Ph. D. is a Professor of Leadership and Administration at the University of

San Diego. Previously he was a high school teacher and school administrator in several mid-
west cities. He received his doctoral degree in educational administration from the University
of Wisconsin-Madison in 1973. He is the author of Leadership for the Twenty-First Cen-
tury, as well as numerous articles and research papers on leadership, politics and ethics. He
has consulted with both public and private organizations and gives speeches on leadership
at major conventions and seminars to audiences of various professions.

Dr. Rost is also Associate Editor of the Journal of Leadership Studies.

Correspondence concerning this article may be directed to Dr. Joseph C. Rost, 6424 Celia
Vista Drive, San Diego, CA 92115-6805.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 3, 2014