Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

There are various approaches to the study of leadership. Some studies are normative in that they suggest in what ways leadership can be good or bad. They are normative not just in the sense that some leaders succeed in their aims and some fail, but also in that some leaders provide what their followers want and some do not, thus making good leadership an aspect of the welfare function of the group. Some studies concentrate upon psychological characteristics or traits. Others focus upon contextualized accounts of leadership that specify the types of issues leaders face and the structures in which they operate. Some approaches are situational in the sense that they draw attention to the facts that leaders emerge in certain circumstances and that leadership can be considered a niche that has to be filled. Other approaches borrow from both structural accounts of the situations and circumstances within which leaders emerge and accounts that examine personal characteristics, suggesting that the two factors interact. Such studies suggest that what makes a good leader might be contingent or a matter of luck rather than something inherent in a person, yet they do not deny that there are important personal characteristics in leaders.

Normative Approaches

Leadership is important because it helps groups to coordinate and solve collective action dilemmas. In any group of people, issues will arise over which there might be underlying agreement but disagreement over details or tactics. Leaders can fill the coordination role that ensures that agreements are made and kept. Leaders thus help secure an agreement and then police that agreement: they ensure that everyone knows what role he or she should play and carries it out. Having the coordination and policing function fulfilled is not only important in itself, but also assures everyone that everyone else is doing their bit for the good of the group. Leaders can fulfill this function more or less well. We can study all sorts of organizations and groups of people to see how well run they are, whether activities are coordinated or disparate, and whether the organization efficiently achieves its aim or fails miserably. Either way, the leadership niche is filled by the person recognized as the leader (e.g., the boss, the CEO, or the president). But there is another normative concern about leadership that is orthogonal to this aspect: the manner in which the coordination takes place.

There might be better and worse ways of achieving these coordination and policing functions. Some leaders might inspire followers to want to carry out their roles. Others might do it through incentives, both positive and negative: extra payments are made to those who work well, and sanctions employed against those who do not. Leaders might be liked and respected or feared and distrusted. We can see that this dimension is orthogonal, because a feared and distrusted leader might ensure that coordination does take place, that the organization does succeed, and, for example, that the firm makes big profits. In some studies, however, leaders who are feared and distrusted are not considered good leaders even if they achieve the aims of the organization in other senses. Here, generating admiration is an intrinsic quality of leadership.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading