The concept of leader and leadership
Much have been said and discussed about the concept of leader and leadership. For example, there are terms and concepts advocated by many researchers, such as charismatic leadership (Wright, 1996); organizational leadership (Katz & Kahn, 1978); ethical leadership (Fluker, 1998:11); heroic model of leadership (Badaracco, 1994); altruistic leadership (Ismail, 1999); servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970); educative leadership (Ibrahim, 1996); value-based leadership (Kuczmarski & Kuczmarski, 1995); transactional leadership (Burns, 1977); transformational leadership (Burns, 1977); political leadership (Bolman & Deal, (1991); and many more.
Likewise, many generalisations are drawn from various sources.
Whether the generalisations are taken from books on psychology, business administration and so on, which are sometimes platitudinous, the definitions, conceptualizations and generalisations had nevertheless provided points of departure for anyone to think analytically about leadership. Apparently, there is not one definition that can be accepted as a precise definition in describing leadership. Considering the fact that the term leadership has been used not only to characterize individual skills – but also used interchangeably with some other terms such as situations, power, authority in relations to institutions, groups, and also managerial skills – leadership, then, is often confused and misunderstood by many. A manager, for example, is often misunderstood when he is referred to as a leader simply because a manager, by virtue of its position and post, has its own subordinates and posesses some degree of power and authority granted by the institution.
It is at this point that some researchers distinguish between a manager and a leader in terms of their roles and responsibilities. In one perspective, leaders are looked as inspiring visionaries, always concerned about substance, while managers are considered as planners who have concerns with processes (Zaleznik, 1977). Bennis (1989) on the other hand, suggested some distinctions between a manager and a leader, of which he felt that,
1. Managers administer, leaders innovate.
2. Managers ask how and when, leaders ask what and why.
3. Managers focus on systems, leaders focus on people.
4. Managers do things right, leaders do the right things.
5. Managers maintain, leaders develop.
6. Managers rely on control, leaders inspire trust.
7. Managers have a short-term perspective, leaders - longer-term perspective.
8. Managers accept the status-quo, leaders challenge the status-quo.
9. Managers have an eye on the bottom line, leaders have an eye on the horizon.
10. Managers imitate, leaders originate.
11. Managers emulate the classic good soldier, leaders are their own person.
12. Managers copy, leaders show originality.
It has already been pointed out by many researchers that during its early stages – 1940s and 1950s – the study of leadership was made to believe that leadership was all about the general qualities, character or traits that should be present in individual’s personality. As such, writers and researcher such as Stogdill (1948), Mann (1959), Kouzes & Posner (1987), Adair (1984), and Gardner (1989) have all carried out surveys and reported that leaders, in general, appear to have personality traits or characteristics that are somewhat different from followers.
Perhaps perceptions of some Malay politicans and partisan regarding leadership concept is worth considered, as narrated in the following example.
Shortly after the UMNO split in 1987, the general sentiment of some Malays partisan as reported by mainstream newspapers – were reported to be quite critical of how idealistic their leaders attributes should be. As Milne & Mauzy (1999:4) observed, the sentiment was that,
“The leader must fight for the Malay cause, should not be sombong, should have tokoh (style), and preferably, should be of aristocratic birth.”
Some other desirable traits or features were also mentioned, such as tradition, harmony, and peaceful succession, while disapproval of impatience and ambition was expressed (Milne & Mauzy, 1999:4).
The general conceptualisation of leadership as perceived by researchers and practitioners is that leadership is understood as a social influence process through which one individual exerts influence, intentionally, over others to structure the behaviours and relationships within a group or organisation (Yukl, 1981). It is described as a dynamic process in a group whereby one individual influences the others to help achieve group tasks. Further, researchers believe that if matters involving leadership are closely observed, there are always three elements or variables emerge on the surface, i.e. (1) the leader qualities of character or personality; (2) the situation; and (3) the group or followers’ needs and values (Adair, 1984:26; Cole, 1990:215).
