Leadership Is Both An Art And Science!
Leadership is both an Art and Science. What makes leadership both and Art and Science. Traditional leadership as a science is embedded in the trait theory and behavioral only school of thoughts, which became a ground of propagating racial genetic superiority concepts of humanity and leadership, still in use today. In the past, Hitler of Germany vs., Jews, Slovenia vs., Serbs, Arabs vs., Black Africans vs., White Africans, White American vs., Black Americans, Chinese vs., Vietnamese, Philippine people vs., Thailand, and the list could go on and on. In each group eyes and jaded lens, all born without the leadership traits could not become leaders. This school while appearing rigid and out of touch with current reality is in fact current reality for holders of this “tacit”, mental model of leadership based in racial identity superiority. Leadership is and has been defined by many authors as an art, focusing on the leader’s abilities to coerce, develop, visions of impossibilities, charismatic and motivational, story tellers, and adventures of entrepreneurial dreams defying real time reality, crosses all racial and ethnics groups. The theoretical constructs all have one thing in common; leadership is about people being moved to accomplish a common goal or objective. Classical leadership theories includes; a) Harrington Emerson writings on leaders and their roles, In this treatise leadership is an intuitively centered well where the head and the heart are in agreement, even when there are no facts, data, and or empirical scholarly evidence to support the decision(s) being made. To paraphrase Fink (2009) who wrote; that leadership development must be a priority for the organizational leaders, and leaders must be found in the ranks of the organization, identified in the organization for future leadership roles. In the future the leaders must remove themselves from supporting a replica of their self-imposed self –centered ego needs. This is not to say that effective leaders are driven by their self-centered ego needs; however, the intuitive leader(s) have honed their interpersonal and experiential knowledges, through and with experiences. Narcissism inherent in a dysfunctional and immature character development is not the strong suites of the intuitive leaders who are leading the new global economies. In fact the smaller leaders makes themselves, through relinquishing the traditional organizational constructs of controlling, planning, guiding and organizing to teams; the greater the probabilities of effective functional buy in from the teams, being guided by the leader. Franckeiss (2010) “The best leaders recognise [sic] the importance of human capital, and of investing in it not just money, but time and energy too to allow it to fulfill [sic] its potential and ambitions.” (para.10). No abdication of authority by the leader is the onus of the argument here. The leadership mental model is intuitively drawing into the processes, the central components to make effective decisions, to address the linear hierarchical needs, and function of the organization survival in crisis, and non-crisis oriented scenarios. The autocratic model while appearing to have no value in the emerging societies can actually be of use in a critical mass incident situations, where command and directions are given to support the actions of the players in the crisis. Are leaders leading organizations into chaos, or developing knowledge based learning organizations. The questions of what leader’s roles are in overall organizational performance and or sustainability is still out. Secondly, what implications, and meaning do the current held theories play in fact, in the day to day operation of leadership, and leadership application and theories?