Leadership - One size doesn't fit all

The discourse surrounding leadership often involves attempts to distil the concept into models, characteristic traits, and other quantifiable elements, likely with the aim of making leadership qualities and capabilities more universally attainable. Leadership, as a field of study, is vast, with an extensive body of literature dedicated to the topic, surpassing many other areas of inquiry. Professional management courses frequently emphasise leadership qualities and methodologies, yet one might question whether the existing theories warrant more rigorous scrutiny.

Drawing from personal experience in the British Army, I found the leadership model and its codified documentation particularly impressive. This prompted me to undertake an extensive research programme to explore its nature, methods, and broader relevance. My interest in this area remains strong, and I continue to follow developments from the Army Leadership Centre with great interest.

During the course of my research, I encountered challenges to some of my pre-existing beliefs. While this brief reflection does not allow for a detailed review, I will attempt to summarise some key insights, with the possibility of providing further analysis in subsequent discussions.

At the outset, it is crucial to recognise that leadership is inherently a social phenomenon; thus, any study of leadership must include the observation of follower behaviour. Although this might seem self-evident, it is important to remember that the act of garnering followers is not inherently positive or negative—it is simply a reality of leadership. Additionally, it is important to consider that individuals follow leaders for a variety of reasons, each with unique needs and desires. Lastly, we must exercise caution in selecting our subject matter when examining the leadership phenomenon. This is because there is a common tendency to analyse leadership qualities retrospectively through the lens of perceived success. We often study prominent leaders based on their achievements, yet we seldom examine those who have failed. This focus on outcomes can limit our understanding of what motivated people to follow a particular leader, thereby narrowing the scope of our analysis.

It is also important to consider that individuals exist within a broader society and adopt social standards that are native to their environment. As a result, the traits and behaviours of a leader are often nuanced according to societal norms related to values and standards. This leads to the concept of legitimacy, which extends beyond moral interpretations of actions to encompass broader implications for decision-making, resilience, and legacy.

Context is another crucial factor to consider. It forms the paradigm within which we observe leadership and is essential for grounding the traits, behaviours, and actions observed. Understanding the context helps us unravel the meaning behind leadership and comprehend why others choose to follow. For instance, we can all recall historical examples of individuals deemed "great wartime leaders," but were these individuals equally effective leaders outside of that context?

Transitional contexts also offer valuable insights. For example, in situations characterised by greater volatility and complexity, the leadership selection process often becomes more reliant on supporting tools. These tools include technology, education, resources, and, perhaps most importantly, processes. This can influence not only how we manage but also the way we lead. All leadership paradigms include methods of communication, direction, and control over followers, and these deserve closer examination. It is evident that the more complex and volatile the context, the greater the discretion and flexibility required in management systems, whereas stability often fosters more bureaucratic management approaches.

Decision-making is often retrospectively evaluated and strongly associated with the perceived success or failure of leaders. However, this retrospective evaluation can obscure a more accurate assessment of the systems and processes employed, as it tends to dissociate the evaluation from the complexities of people, place, and events.

In conclusion, understanding leadership is perhaps more critical in today's ever-changing world than at any other time in history. We must avoid the oversimplification of believing that a one-size-fits-all approach exists or that answers can be found by examining a single organisation’s perceived successes. Instead, we should approach the study of leadership by first understanding the requirements: what we expect a leader to accomplish, whom they will lead, and how they will lead. We must evaluate risk and reward, identify acceptable degrees of setbacks, and determine the necessary level of resilience. All of these factors must be aligned, nuanced, and integrated into strategic development, cultures, communications, and actions.