However, two researchers of the 1 990s who have had the courage to attempt a
definition intended to encompass all instances of leadership, rather than just suggest necessary elements of a definition, are Bass and Rost. Bass ( 1 990) structures the results of his research into a rather complicated and long-winded definition. His definition reads:
Leadership is an interaction between two or more members of a group that often involves structuring or restructuring of the situation and the perceptions or expectations of the members. Leaders are agents of change - persons whose acts affect other people more than other people's acts affect them. Leadership occurs when one group member modifies the motivation or competencies of others in the group (Bass, 1 990, pp. 1 9-20).
The problem with this definition is that although the statements linked together here could be true of leadership, they could be true of several other phenomena such as domination or bullying. The points within the definition are not irrelevant to leadership, but they do not define leadership in a way that separates it from other concepts. Also, Bass simply proffers this definition as a summary of the best points in the definitions of others. He does not argue for it or explain its logic in any way. He is attempting to present a comprehensive definition, but fails in the perhaps more important task of isolating the crucial factors which must be present for an event or interaction for it to be labelled as leadership.
The second of the two researchers, Rost ( 1 993), offers a relatively simple definition:
"Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect mutual purposes" (p. l 02). Obviously, in this definition, the source of the influence can be either leader or follower and is not unidirectional. Also
the change must be sufficiently significant to be recognised as a change and the change must be aimed at reaching a mutually desired outcome rather than something desired only by the leader who might coerce the followers into helping towards achieving the particular outcome.
Unlike Bass ( 1 990), Rost ( 1 993) does present an argument explaining the logic of the separate parts of his definition. In setting out his argument, he has done the major part of the intellectual work needed to explain leadership, if one agrees with his view. He insists that "the four essential elements in the definition must be present if leadership exists or is occurring" (p. l 02). To give a clearer picture of the process of leadership as it would work in practice according to Rost's definition, I have drawn up a model showing how the elements work together and also showing the cyclic nature of the process which can be deduced from Rost's account, although this is not made explicit.
From Figure 2, the model showing the leadership process (according to Rost's definition, 1 993), it can be seen that leadership starts with the bringing to bear of influence between the leader and followers. In initiating the leadership process, the leader (not necessarily the person with the leadership position) explains the need or possibility of change and convinces followers that it can or must be achieved. Then leaders and followers create change. The change or changes may lead back into another instance of a leader explaining the vision and convincing followers that it can be achieved. The leadership process may cycle around the change loop several times before finally reaching either the desired objective or acceptance that the desired objective cannot be achieved. Then the influence may begin again in a new cycle of leadership.
In this thesis, Rost's definition and the model will be used to clarify the idea of leadership as a process. In this model, leadership as a mutual process has moved beyond dependence on a hero/leader to initiate ideas and solve problems. In this discussion of ideas about leadership theory, I have made the case that the reason for the lack of answers to the 'what is leadership? ' question, is attachment to an old paradigm. The strength of that attachment blinds scholars to their preconceptions about leadership. In other words, unstated assumptions in the way writers and academics are convinced leadership has to be, have prevented them from seeing what
leadership i s. The old paradigm of leadership is built into their understanding of the way leadership works and the old paradigm is the leader as hero.
Figure 2: Model Showing the Leadership Process According to Rost's Definition Leader influences followers Possible change or need for change Leader explains vision and convinces
followers that it can or must be achieved Mutual process support and motivation Efforts to achieve change Leader and followers work towards change Objective achieved or abandoned
"Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect mutual purposes"
(Rost, 1 993, p. 1 02).
Even though the ' new' leadership has introduced the new paradigm of post-heroic leadership, strong traces of the old heroic assumptions linger which prevent many researchers and writers from recognising or adopting the changed attitudes and understandings that post-heroic leadership should bring. Feminist writers have also argued for a move to a post-heroic approach to leadership arguing that the idea of the
hero who can work long hours, perform near-impossible feats and model extreme toughness is a product of the masculinist environment which has developed in organisational cultures. Masculinism in organisations is seen as fostering an unwholesome, unhelpful environment in terms of accommodating to human needs or recognising the social reality that the organisation needs to respond to in the external world. (Fletcher, 2004; Sinclair, 2005; Sinclair & Wilson, 2002).