Leadership & Management Evolution

Michael C. Pickett
<mpickett@usc.edu>

Abstract

Three distinct polarizations of management and leadership research was found to fit into the following categories: descriptive, proscriptive and, prescriptive.

The descriptive ideology includes aspects pertaining to the qualitative nature of a discipline. In other words, characterizations that may either be illustrative, expressive or interpretive.

The proscriptive ideology is exclusive or restrictive in nature; in other words, by choosing one leadership style or theoretical foundation to follow, one does not choose the remaining choices. The prescriptive ideology adds situational factors to the application of theory

An argument is made for restructuring management and leadership thought. In other words, organizational behaviors are adapted to the desired outcomes, based on individual organizational norms and mores. It is in this capacity that each individual organization will "fit" their management and leadership needs to their desired outcomes.

Background

Extensive research has been conducted in leadership (Bass, 1990; Hersey & Blanchard, 1988; Senge 1990; Senge, et al, 1994; Wheatley, 1994), business ethics and social responsibility (Carroll, 1996), to mention only a few.

While conducting a search of the relevant literature in general, the researcher discovered that it revealed a philosophical and scholarly character. Upon reflection, the researcher realized three distinct polarizations. It is not the intention of the researcher to marginalize scholarly work but only to seek to provide a philosophical basis from which to begin a discourse in the analysis required to operationalize a model for ethical leadership.

To provide a structural foundation with which to begin this study, the aforementioned research can be categorized into descriptive, proscriptive and, prescriptive ideologies.

The researcher's purpose for providing this structural foundation is to develop an understanding of how current research has evolved and to argue for the need to expand scholarly thinking regarding the application of theories in organizations. This expanded thinking will incorporate the notion of praxis in the practical application of theory. Praxis comes from the Greek word "prassein", to pass through. Taken more practically to mean an exercise or practice of an art, science or skill. In essence, the praxis of ethical leadership will include a skillful synthesis and application of many leadership, management and ethical theories. In this regard the leader becomes a scholar-practitioner. A requisite of a scholar-practitioner is an epistemological integration of theory and practice. In other words, the researcher argues that one cannot effectively apply theory void of understanding.

The examples that follow are not intended to be all-inclusive, but only a flavoring of the trend of relevant research.

Descriptive Ideology

The descriptive ideology includes aspects pertaining to the qualitative nature of a discipline. In other words, characterizations that may either be illustrative, expressive or interpretive.

An illustrative characterization is a description that serves as a representation of a general theory. Examples of this ideology are the trait and great-man leadership theories.

Bass (1990) in his seminal text, Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership, found early leadership studies focused on a descriptive approach. Included within the research were the great-man and trait theories. These early leadership theories differentiated superior qualities, traits, differing degrees of intelligence, moral force and heredity.

In contrast, the researcher found the notion of descriptive ideology in the field of ethics extremely limited. This is a reasonable finding since ethics is grounded in relational terms, i.e., ethics is essentially reflective conduct. However, a descriptive, ethics-related discussion can be traced to Plato's dialog in Meno (Jowett, 1995).

Expressive or interpretive descriptive ideologies articulate clear distinctions among theories. An example of this ideology is found in the research presented by Rokeach (1973) in values.

Highly related to ethics is Rokeach's (1973) seminal work The Nature of Human Values in which Rokeach (1973, pp. 325-26) states that the theoretical implications of the descriptive studies in human values that have been accomplished provide the:

1)    conceptual distinctiveness of terminal and instrumental values

2)    conceptual place of values in the behavioral sciences

3)    role that social institutions play in instilling and maintaining human values, and

4)    validity of conflicting theories of personality development and of Maslow's hierarchical theory of motivation.

Additionally, important contemporary social psychological theoretical implications are mentioned in regard to "...attitudes, short-term change, persuasion, and consistency between cognitive elements" (Rokeach, 1973, p. 326). These implications raise questions for future research in the behavioral sciences, social institutions, personality development and theories of change.

Proscriptive Ideology

The proscriptive ideology is not intended to imply necessarily negative theoretical connotations in the areas of leadership and ethics. The proscriptive ideology is exclusive or restrictive in nature; in other words, by choosing one leadership style or theoretical foundation to follow, one does not choose the remaining choices. A visual representation of this ideology, taken from elementary probability theory, is that of a Venn diagram in which there is a single circle labeled "A". The area within the circle is "A" the area outside of the circle is "not A". McGregor (Bass, 1990) provides a practical example to demonstrate this phenomenon. By identifying oneself as a Theory Y manager, one is excluded, through an individual, cognitive choice, not to identify oneself as a Theory X manager.

Various management schools of thought are identified within this ideology such as the philosophy of Taylor's scientific management (Wrege & Greenwood, 1991), Fayol's identified qualities of a manager (Wren, 1994, p. 183):

1. Physical qualities: health, vigor, address.
2. Mental qualities: ability to understand and learn, judgment, mental vigor, and adaptability.
3. Moral qualities: energy, firmness, willingness to accept responsibility, initiative, loyalty, tact, dignity.
4. General education: general acquaintance with matters not belonging exclusively to the functions performed.
5. Special knowledge: that peculiar to the function, be it technical, commercial, financial, managerial and so on.
6. Experience: knowledge arising from the work proper, the recollection of lessons a person has derived from things.

The proscriptive ideology provides a critical link in our growth in understanding and theory development. This link enables a cognitive, evolutionary phase in which research is transformed from a descriptive view, which is based on qualitative properties, to the situatedness of the prescriptive ideology, or that which is a reality-based application of theoretical constructs (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. The theoretical construct and relationships of the tripartite ideologies include descriptive, proscriptive and prescriptive theory. Descriptive theory is based upon observation. Proscriptive theory results from an evolution consisting of cognitive deconstruction, reconstruction and universal application of the qualitative descriptive theory. Prescription results from the acknowledgment and perspective that theoretical application is situation specific.

Proscription, as represented in Figure 1, demonstrates the subtleties of human nature that leads us to deconstruct what we can describe, define, or recognize qualitatively in order to reconstruct these qualities in such a way that provides a transformation into a notion that is applied universally. To explain this phenomenon further, let us assume that good leaders are found to have the qualities of dependability, initiative and adaptability. From a proscriptive ideology, to be a good leader one must be dependable, adaptable and initiating.

Some examples that demonstrate the proscriptive ideology are McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y, Blake and Moutons' Managerial Grid, Bernard's executive functions (Wren, 1994), and the philosophy of deontological ethics.

McGregor (Bass, 1990; Wren, 1994) developed two types of leadership thought, Theory X, and Theory Y. A Theory X leadership style is based on the assumption that the leader needs to direct passive, resistant subordinates to meet organizational goals. Whereas, a Theory Y leadership style yields the belief that the subordinates are inherently motivated, enthusiastic and willing to accept responsibility (Bass, 1990).

Similarly, Blake and Mouton (Bass, 1990) theorized a managerial grid in which one axis represents concern for people and the other concern for production. The managerial grid is representative of the leadership school of thought that there is one effective style of leadership.

Lastly, from within the leadership and management examples, Chester Barnard's (Wren, 1994) functions of the executive provide a framework in which proscribe the successful performance of duties.

An ethics-related proscriptive example is argued from a deontological perspective. Kant's categorical imperative reasons that one should act as if the maxim from which you act were to be as though you will a universal law (Kant, 1790).

Viewing universal application of theory through critical, reflective analysis we see the inherent disconnect between perceived reality and proscription. An example of this concept is illustrated by a Theory X manager, or one that views employees as needing to be directed. Managing employees that are self-directed and autonomous from within a Theory X managerial perception may not be effective. Hence, the prescriptive ideology provides a natural cognitive migration that enables useful and practical application of theoretical concepts that are situation specific (See Figure 1).

Prescriptive Ideology

The prescriptive ideology adds situational factors to the application of theory (See Figure 1). In contrast to proscriptive theory, which applies one universal theory to all, prescriptive theory is individualized and context specific. The examples that follow demonstrate that situational components are not necessarily environmentally oriented and that situational context may even apply to individual psychological components.

Hersey and Blanchard's (1988; Bass, 1990) situational leadership argues that a leader's behavior is dependent on the follower's willingness and maturity level. Similar to Hersey and Blanchard's focus the individual, Fiedler's (Bass, 1990) contingency theory identifies a leader's effectiveness from within a context of task-oriented versus relations-oriented depending on the particular circumstances of a situation to include task structure, group relations and level of leader power. Whereas, House's path-goal theory uses goal clarification in combination with competence levels of followers and environmental forces (Bass, 1990). Lastly, group considerations were proposed by Yukl's (1989) multiple linkage model. Yukl's (1989) model considered subordinate's effort, skill, leader's role, resources available and the group's cohesiveness in any particular situation to determine leader behavior.

From the psychological perspective, Maslow (Bass, 1990) posited a theory of eupsychian management. Eupsychian management identified the need for management to develop "...subordinate's self-esteem and psychological health and emphasized the need for self-actualization so that everyone would have the opportunity to become what he or she had the capacity to become" (p. 44). According to this theory:

...the unconscious and the depths of personality have to be probed in the search for enlightened management. On the basis of these probes, different leaders will be chosen for different situations.

Many ethical theoretical positions exist in this ideology. However, to name a few, utilitarianism determines the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the goodness or badness of the perceived consequences. In contrast, the ethical egoist seek that which is in their own self-interest, while the relativist's view considers moralities relevant to individual societies.

Discussion

Understanding the behavioral nature of our propensity to categorize and compartmentalize ideas helps us focus on the overall philosophical underpinnings surrounding the nature of leadership and management theory. Describing and mentioning a small sampling of the last centuries' major works is not acted upon in haste with intent to marginalize great thinkers' work. In contrast, the focus of this paper is to highlight the achievements of the last century and develop a greater understanding of the evolution of the various schools of thought and how they might apply to the development of an additional school of thought, that of ethical leadership. The researcher believes, based on years of organizational observations, the managerial and leadership capabilities that exist in today's organizations are in need of a restructuring, not just another face lift.

By "face lift" I refer to the "flavor-of-the-month" new management crazes that typically sweep through organizations; identified by heightened awareness by the HR and training departments; that result in employee cynicism, management's half-hearted attempts and overall decreasing satisfaction with the work environment.

By restructuring management and leadership thought, the very philosophical essence of theory application changes. In other words, management and leadership behavior is based on outcomes assessment; meaning that organizational behaviors are adapted to the desired outcomes, based on individual organizational norms and mores. It is in this capacity that each individual organization will "fit" their management and leadership needs to their desired outcomes.

Why a Tripartite Ideology?

This journey to find a model for the praxis of ethical leadership may be likened to the start of many journeys. A path, while clear and intuitive to one, may not appear as a clear path to another as all of our individual passions lead us down different paths. However, while the goal in this journey is openly stated, this short introductory section provides a background that this researcher uses to establish a need for the development of a model for the praxis of ethical leadership in organizations.

References

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications. (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Carroll, A.B. (1996). Business & society: ethics and stakeholder management. (3rd ed.). Cincinnati: Southwestern College Publishing.

Jowett, B. (1995). Available. ONLINE: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/critias.sum.html

Kant, I. (1790). Translated by W. Hastie. Available. ONLINE: http://www.knuten.liu.se/~bjoch509/works/kant/cr_judgement.txt

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.

Yukl, G.A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wren, D.A. (1994). The evolution of management thought. 4^th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader responses to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.

Page Viewed:   / Created: September 2001 / Updated: Thursday, 6 September 2001