Session Type: Poster Accepted by MIG(s): Time Allotted: 60 Description: The purpose of this poster is to open up a conversation about the need to distinguish between authority and leadership, using Ronald Heifetz's criteria for classification. We focus on the implications of failing to keep this distinction front and center in the field of leadership and in society as a whole. Abstract: More than 50 years ago leadership scholar Warren Bennis wrote:
"Of all the hazy and confounding areas in social psychology, leadership theory undoubtedly contends for top nomination. And, ironically, probably more has been written and less is known about leadership than about any other topic in the behavioral sciences. Always, it seems, the concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to taunt us again with its slipperiness and complexity. So we have invented an endless proliferation of terms to deal with it: leadership, power, status, authority, rank, prestige, influence, control, manipulation, domination, and so forth, and still the concept is not sufficiently defined" (1959, p. 260).
Instead of framing the field through clear distinctions, it seems that we have overwhelmed the field with an endless list of ill-defined concepts, which at best overlap with each other and at worst are used interchangeably (Bendix, 1967; Pfeffer, 1977). To take just one example from Bennis's complaint about the protean nature of the concept of leadership, the terms "leadership" and "authority" appear to have been used interchangeably in the leadership literature for decades. In a recent publication the notions of leadership and authority continue to be conflated (see Bolton, Brunnermeier & Veldkamp, 2010; Guillen, 2010; Wageman & Hackman, 2010). And while Bendix (1967) made the distinction between leadership and authority in a critique of Max Weber's discussion of charisma in leaders, we have found that the critical difference between the concepts of leadership and authority is more precisely limned in Heifetz's model of Adaptive Leadership (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky 2009).
The origins of this model began to emerge 20 years ago in early writing on leadership when Heifetz took his point of departure from a series of distinctions regarding the different schools of thought in the field of leadership. In collaboration with Sinder (1991a), Heifetz posited that there are four paradigms of leadership: Trait, Situational; Contingency; and Transactional. Acknowledging a debt to the London/Tavistock Insitute of Human Relations, Heifetz and Sinder went further in their distinctions as they began to distinguish between the notions of leadership and authority, which they saw as "overlapping but clearly distinguishable functions, both of which utilize the resources of powers (a product of formal authorization) and influence (a product of informal authorization)" (1991a, p. 5).
As Heifetz et al. (2009) clarify, authority is a role in which the person embodying it is expected to provide services--whether formally or informally. The primary purpose of an authority figure is to provide direction, protection, and order (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 28) while the purpose of one who is attempting to exercise leadership is to disturb the equilibrium of the environment. In the former case, the usual approach to a challenge will be what Heifetz calls "Technical" while in the latter the approach will be "Adaptive." In the Technical approach, one in which the problem is typically clear and the solution is also typically clear (Heifetz, 1994, p. 76) the task is to minimize disequilibrium. When stepping outsize the zone of authority and into the zone of exercising leadership, the agent of change "begin[s] to disappoint expectations and take risks" (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 25). Hence s/he will create or increase a situation of disequilibrium.
Why Does This Matter?
As we have stated above, the leadership field as a whole has failed to provide a clear framework of distinctions. That said, there are some fairly old examples of classifications (e.g., Bendix, 1967), as well as the more recent ones we have cited (ie, Heifetz et al., 2009). Nonetheless, critical distinctions such as the differences between authority and leadership have not been generally incorporated into the field's shared language. And while reasons for this might be explained by lack of agreement in the field, we believe that the consequences result in more than theoretical confusion. Failing to distinguish between authority and leadership leaves domains and structures of power unsurfaced, impeding dialogue. Such obfuscation allows people in positions of authority to eschew discussions *about* their authority and how they use it in a given system, making it more difficult to identify the need for adaptive work to be done within these systems.
Such a combination of circumstances creates inadequate dependencies on authority figures, wherein they are expected to solve problems that are outside their realm of power (ie, adaptive work). Most situations calling for the exercising of leadership require that all those involved take part in framing the problem and developing a solution; therefore placing inordinate expectations on authority figures becomes an inadequate approach.We assert that this state of affairs places the relevancy of this conversation into an ethical realm;if the leadership field fails to distinguish between "leadership" and "authority," we inhibit our capacity to assess the most adequate allocation of expectations and roles in a given challenge. In this way, not having a proper language to facilitate this crucial distinction might disincentivize the development of greater solutions and progress toward a more equitable, just and adaptive equilibrium. This creates a tendency for people to become less empowered to engage proactively in the problems and challenges they experience. Without a language that names and therefore validates this critical distinction, we might increasingly be risking our social capital.
References
Bendix, R. (1967). Reflections on charismatic leadership. *Asian Survey*, Vol. 7 (No. 6), pp. 341-352.
Bennis, W.G. (1959). Leadership theory and administrative behavior: The problem of authority. *Administrative Science Quarterly*. Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 259-301.
Bolton, P., Brunnermeier, M.K., & Veldkamp, L. (2010). Economists' perspectives on leadership. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), *Handbook of leadership theory and practice* (pp. 239-264). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Guillen, M.F. (2010). Classical sociological approaches to the study of leadership. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), *Handbook of leadership theory and practice* (pp. 223-238). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Heifetz, R. (1994). *Leadership without easy answers*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A. & Linsky, M. (2009). *The practice of Adaptive Leadership: The tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world*. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Heifetz, R., & Sinder, R. (1991a). Teaching and assessing leadership courses: Part one. *National Forum, 71* (1), 21. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.
Pfeffer, J. (1977).The ambiguity of leadership.*Academy of Management Review*, January 1977, pp. 104-112.
Wageman, R. & Hackman, J.R. (2010). What makes teams of leaders leadable? In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), *Handbook of leadership theory and practice* (pp. 475-506). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Sarah Chace, Teachers College, Columbia University
Bio: Sarah Chace has worked, consulted, and taught in the field of leadership for the last 10 years. She is currently writing her dissertation on the effects of a leadership program on the practice of a group of urban school superintendents.
Anibel Cerda-Gazmuri, Columbia University
Return to complete program |
