180 ◆ Estructura de hormigón

In English the term ‘leadership’, being used since 1800, is considered a sophisticated concept. However, according to Stogdill (1974) the Oxford English Dictionary in 1933 notes that the first signs of the word ‘leader’ are from the year 1300. Earlier than that the words ‘chief’, ‘king’, ‘head of state’, ‘princes’, ‘military commander’ or ‘proconsul’ were commonly used and had, from the societal viewpoint, the same kind of meaning as the word ‘leader’ (Stogdill 1974: 7, Yukl 1989a: 3, Bass 1990: 11, Rost 1991: 37–38). Since the concept of leadership has been used to describe a person, in general a man who acts with other people and makes them follow him and his orders, it has been theorized, defined, conceptualized, described, typified and characterized innumerable times during centuries. In 1990 Bass comments that “there are almost as many different

definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept” (Bass 1990: 11). In this respect Alvesson & Sveningsson (2003) argue

that because of the variety of different meanings of leadership, it could be made nonexistent. According to their empirical study, managers could not express precisely what their leadership is and how they execute it, and on the other hand, leadership in general has various meanings to different people. Alvesson & Sveningsson (2003) also criticize the scientific research of leadership as a phenomenon because of its unorganized and even chaotic concepts. They underline that the existence of leadership as behavior, meaning, identity and discourse should not be taken for granted but studied critically. Although their strong criticism focuses on the existence of leadership, Alvesson & Sveningsson (2004) speak for the managerial leadership. It could give leadership some backbone and understanding for what the relations in workplaces are. Next leadership is defined and theorized to give a picture of its extensiveness as a discipline.

Defining leadership

In the course of the leadership research the number of definitions has increased and they have been categorized in different ways. Northouse (2004: 2) states that 65 different classification systems have been developed for leadership during the last 50 years. The classification he empathizes comes from Bass (1990: 11–20) who has categorized the definitions of leadership from the organizational viewpoint. According to the classification of Bass (1990: 11–18), leadership is defined

– as a focus of group process – as a personality and its effect – as an art of inducing compliance – as an exercise of influence – as an act of behavior – as a form of persuasion – as a power relation

– as an instrument of goal achievement – as an effect of interaction

– as a differentiated role – as an initiation of structure

– as a combination of elements (Bass 1990: 11–18).

Rost (1991), for his part, examined 587 books, book chapters and journal articles written in the years 1900–1990. His classification involves nine decades of the 20th _{century and he found 221 different definitions of leadership, which he}

analyzed (Rost 1991: 44). Rost admits that his investigation has its limitations and gaps even though it indicates well how research in leadership has increased and developed towards the end of the 20th _{century (Rost 1991: 45). The definitions of}

leadership in the first three decades of the 20th _{century emphasized control and}

centralization of power, and the number of definitions were 16. In the course of the decades different issues affected defining leadership, such as development of trait and group theory, relationships and shared goals. In the 1950s effectiveness in leadership was highlighted for the first time. In the 1970s human interactions, organizational and managerial orientations as well as psychological and ethnic issues affected the development of the definitions of leadership and the number of definitions crew. In the 1980s, however, an explosion of new ideas emerged. The number of definitions increased to 312 and leadership was defined using, for

example, group or organizational goals, management or transformation. The enormous number of definitions of leadership indicates the ambiguous, multiform and intricate development of leadership and its research. What is also noteworthy is that no earlier than in the 1980s did female authors and researchers make an impact on leadership literature and get an opportunity to publish their research. (Rost 1991: 47–95.)

After presenting the definitions of leadership in decades, Rost (1991: 102– 128) introduces his outline of defining leadership. The outline of the definition is:

“Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes.” (Rost 1991: 102).

The definition includes four essential elements with their characteristics: 1) The influence relationship is multidirectional, and the influence behaviors are noncoercive. ‘Multidirectional’ means that influence “flows in all directions and

not just from the top down” (Rost 1991: 107), and ‘noncoercive’, means the

possibility of free discussion with agreements and disagreements. 2) Leaders and followers are the persons in the relationship. Followers’ activity is essential and there is typically more than one leader and must be more than one follower in the relationship. Because leaders exert more influence than followers, the influence patterns of relationship are unequal. 3) Leaders and followers intend real change. ‘Intend’ “means that the changes are purposeful and are in the future” (Rost 1991: 117). ‘Real’ means that the changes the leaders and followers are intending are distinct and genuine. It is also common that leaders and followers have more than one change at the same time and therefore the word ‘change’ is pluralized. 4) Leaders and followers develop mutual purposes. Purposes are emphasized and they should be mutual for both leaders and followers but should differ from goals. Purposes give more space and qualification to reflect in the relationship of leaders and followers as well as of the whole community. With these elements Rost (1991) highlights that for him leadership is transformation. He emphasizes that all four elements should be present if the relationship is called leadership and is distinguished from other relationships. He also argues that with these elements it is easy to analyze if a phenomenon is leadership. (Rost 1991: 102–123.)

Northouse (2004: 3) defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual

influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal”. The important

words in his definition are ‘process’, ‘influence’, ‘group’ and ‘goal’. Process means that either traits and characteristics nor linear events define leadership but it is a transactional and interactive event where leaders affect followers and are

affected by followers. The influence in leadership means how a leader affects followers. Leadership occurs in a group of individuals who have a common purpose. Goals in leadership mean attention to tasks which have to be accomplished. The leader’s duty is to direct individuals to achieve something together to move towards the goals. (Northouse 2004: 3.)

Yukl (2006), for his part, has listed definitions of leadership from 1957 to 1999. He states that “most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption that it

involves a process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person over other people to guide, structure, and facilitate activities and relationships in a group or organization” (Yukl 2006: 3). He also states that several viewpoints to

define leadership exist. One viewpoint is to compare leadership and management and the other is to view leadership as roles of leaders and followers. If leadership is viewed as a social process, the term of an influence process is used. “According

to this view, any member of the social system may exhibit leadership at any time, and there is no clear distinction between leaders and followers.” (Yukl 2006: 4).

Some controversies about the definitions of the influence process of leadership have emerged. One controversy is related to the discussion who exercises influence or what type of influence is exercised, i.e. if the follower is encouraged or controlled, and the outcome, i.e. how effective and ethically right leadership is executed. The other one is focused on the purpose of influence attempts, i.e. who or what is benefited in leadership: the follower, the leader, the organization or all of them. (Yukl 2006: 4–5.) In the third controversy the influence based on reasons or discussed emotions. Yukl (2006) claims, that up to the 1980s the definitions of leadership have emphasized rational and cognitive processes, i.e. “leaders influence followers to believe it is in their best interest to

cooperate in achieving a shared task objective” (Yukl 2006: 5). Since the 1980s

the emotional and value-based aspects have influenced leadership much more than reason and they have produced exceptional achievements in groups and organizations (Yukl 2006).

Salaman (2004) states, that the decade 1985–95 has been a period of great interest of management competences. Since then attention has moved from management to leadership because “leadership is seen as the source of

organizational success and the key determinant of organizational performance, and lack of leadership is blamed for poor performance at business and even national levels” (Salaman 2004: 72). Still Yukl (2006: 5) underlines that “the relative importance of rational and emotional processes, and how they interact, are issues to be resolved by empirical research, and the conceptualization of

leadership should not exclude either type of process”. He also talks about

definitions of direct or indirect leadership. Mainly, the definitions of effective leadership focus on leaders’ direct influence on followers whereas indirect leadership may occur in different occasions, for example issues are transmitted form top management through middle-managers to employees, or formal programs or different MIS have been used to improve, for instance, human resource planning, training and development, compensation and benefits, safety, process and quality improvement, KM and employee empowerment. (Yukl 2006: 7.)

Theorizing leadership

Several theories have been introduced and categorized in leadership literature (Stogdill 1974, Burns 1978, Vroom & Jago 1988, Bass 1990, Rost 1991, Northouse 2004, Yukl 1989a, 2006). Stogdill (1974) introduces the categories of great man, environmental, personal-situational and exchange theories. Burns (1978) talks about transformational and transactional leadership. Yukl (1989a) introduces power-influence, trait, behavioral and situational approaches to leadership theories. Bass (1990) discusses personal and situational, interaction and social, perceptual and cognitive theories as well as theories and models of interactive processes and hybrid explanations. Northouse (2004) introduces trait, skills, style, situational and psychodynamic approaches to leadership theories as well as contingency, path-goal and leader-member exchange theories, and transformational and team leadership. Goethals, Sorenson & Burns (2004b) have several categories, such as trait, behavior, and situational or contingency approaches as well as cognitive and constructivist theories of leadership.

Yukl (2006) compares the leadership theories from the conceptual viewpoint. He introduces four levels which can also be viewed hierarchically. The first level is an intra-individual process, the second level is a dyadic process including the first level, the third level is a group process including levels one and two and the fourth level is an organizational process which covers all the others. Leadership is also studied as a process. In the intra-individual process leadership theories study a person from psychological viewpoint (Lönnqvist 2005) or his/her effectiveness as a leader or a follower. “The dyadic process focuses on the relationship between

a leader and another individual who is usually a follower.” (Yukl 2006: 16). In

the group process two aspects can be found. The first aspect is about the role of leadership in a group task, i.e. how a person performs his/her leadership task in a

group. This includes skills to organize and utilize personnel and to make them committed. Different formal and informal meetings have a key role in the group process. The second aspect focuses on examining why some individuals are more influential than others and what determines who will be chosen to become a leader. “The organizational level of analysis describes leadership as a process

that occurs in a larger open system in which groups are subsystems.” (Yukl 2006:

17). In the organizational process the survival and prosperity are linked to strategic leadership, such as the influence of the environment, the resources, marketing and different regulations. It also includes the efficiency of the transformation process, i.e. how different resources are utilized most effectively.

Yukl (2006: 18–19) also introduces three other bases to compare leadership theories. First, leader- vs. follower-centred theories which emphasize the actions and characteristics of a leader. Secondly, descriptive vs. prescriptive theories, of which descriptive theories depict leadership processes and the leader’s activities and behavior, and prescriptive theories focus on how to become an effective leader. Thirdly, universal vs. contingency theories, of which “a universal theory

describes some aspects of leadership that applies to all types of situations” and “a contingency theory describes an aspect of leadership that applies to some situations but not to others” (Yukl 2006: 19). They both can be either descriptive

or prescriptive.

An overview of the definitions and theories of leadership has been introduced and it is obvious that the number of them is great. The presentation of the definitions indicates the historical development of leadership research and the different categories and classifications of theories show how leadership as a discipline is described. The investigation described above helps to perceive the complexity and multidimensionality of the application area of leadership.