International Journal of Leadership

International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 8 Iss. 2, 2014
© 2014 School of Business & Leadership, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
WHY THE POSITIONAL LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVE
HINDERS THE ABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONS TO DEAL
WITH COMPLEX AND DYNAMIC SITUATIONS
Charles G. Sanders
Spring Arbor University, USA
The 21st century competitive global environment is dynamic, complex, and multi-cultural, and
necessitates a more rapid response to changes to survive (Rost, 1991). The most effective
approach for dealing with this is to involve employees in the various leadership processes for the
organization (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Raelin, 2003). However, the leadership role described is
not the common view of leadership based on authority. Rather, the required leadership is based
on everyday influence processes by anyone in the organization derived from knowledge and the
recognition for the need for a specific change. This paper shows how the perpetuated perspective
of leadership as something reserved for persons of authority actually inhibits the very
organization behaviors called for by the complex and dynamic situations in which they work.
Leadership has been studied and debated for a number of years with many attempts to define
what it means and how leadership theory should be developed and used in organizations. An
extensive examination of leadership literature (Bass, 1990; Burns, 1978, 1998, 2003; Day,
Harrison, & Halpin, 2009; Goethals & Sorenson, 2006; Greenleaf, 1977; Harter, 2006; Heifetz,
1994; Hickman, 1998; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; Hollander, 1992; House & Aditya, 1997;
Jacobs, 1970; Locke, 1991; McCrimmon, 2006; Murrell, 1997; Northouse, 2004; Pearce &
Conger, 2003; Raelin, 2003; Rost, 1991; Selznik, 1957; Stogdill, 1948, 1974; Uhl-Bein, 2006;
Yukl, 2006) leads to two conclusions: (a) the predominant leadership perspective is based on
authority positions with associated assumptions about appropriate leadership traits,
characteristics, and behaviors and (b) everyday individual leadership behaviors in organizations
have not been adequately addressed in the literature, and little is commonly understood about the
factors that encourage and facilitate the leadership behaviors that support organizational
effectiveness (Heifetz, 1994), particularly in complex and dynamic work environments.
Sanders/ INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 137
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 8 Iss. 2, 2014
© 2014 School of Business & Leadership, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Nature of the 21st Century Work Environment
The 21st century competitive global environment is dynamic, complex, and multicultural, and
necessitates a more rapid organizational response to changes to survive (Rost, 1991). Many
organizations currently operate in an environment where time is a critical resource (Brue et al.,
2001; Butler, 1995; Stalk & Hout, 1990). More and more, organizations are challenged to change
what they do and how they do it at a rapid rate in order to remain relevant and effective in the
dynamic and uncertain world (Eisenhardt & Sull, 2001; Hannan & Freeman, 1984). This rapid
rate of change and high uncertainty are well beyond the abilities of the individual manager to
effectively deal with them and know what appropriate actions are required at any given time
(Cashman, 2008; Childs & McGrath, 2001; Davis & Blass, 2006; Kaiser & Kaplan, 2007;
Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000; McCrimmon, 2006; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Senge, 1990).
Therefore, organizations operating in this environment require proactive involvement of
employees in decisions previously reserved for executives and managers. As organizations
increasingly face dynamic and complex situations, there is an increasing need for individuals not
in positions of authority to be involved in decision making, solving problems, and acting on
opportunities. Many organizations are distributing the essential leadership functions among
different members of the team or organization (Yukl, 2006).
Specific Organizational Behaviors Required for the 21st Century
There are certain behaviors common to organizations successfully navigating the
dynamic and complex terrain of the 21st century work environment. While this may not be an
exhaustive list, and success is not guaranteed if these are pursued, there is ample evidence that
traditional approaches to organization structure, planning, decision making, and problem solving
are not sufficient to survive and thrive.
Adaptability, Flexibility and Agility
Turbulent environments have long been regarded as compelling organizations to deal
with uncertainty more proactively (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Stacey, 2001), to exploit change
as an opportunity (Drucker, 1999) and to evolve their business processes and management
philosophies frequently (Stalk, 1988; Eisenhardt, 1989; Strader et al., 1998; Senge & Carstedt,
2001). However, organizations often have difficulty changing strategy and structure (adapting)
quickly enough for keeping pace with the demands of uncertainty and change (Hannan &
Freeman, 1984; Eisenhardt & Sull, 2001).
Organizational agility has been defined as the ‘the successful exploitation of competitive
bases (speed, flexibility, innovation pro-activity, quality and profitability) through the integration
of reconfigurable resources and best practices in a knowledge-rich environment to provide
customer-driven products and services in a fast changing market environment’ (Yusuf et al.,
1999, p. 37). At the heart of the agility concept is speed and flexibility.
Brue et al. (2001) found that agile workforces have been claimed to capitalize on skills by
proactively innovating their skill base just ahead of need. They argued that organizations need to
scan their environment and interpret its dynamics continuously with a view to anticipating future
skill requirements.
Sanders/ INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 138
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 8 Iss. 2, 2014
© 2014 School of Business & Leadership, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
Collaboration, inside and outside the organization, are key to enabling agility, as well as
empowerment and autonomy in decision making (Goldman & Nagel, 1993; Kidd, 1994; Van
Oyen et al., 2001). Decentralization of decision making between mostly autonomous
organizations have been found to facilitate speedy coordination and action (Gunasekaran, 1998).
Brue et al. (2001) identified several principal attributes of agile workers, as listed below:
• Responsiveness to changing customer needs
• Responsiveness to changing environment conditions
• Speed of developing new skills and competencies
• Speed of innovating management skills
• Effectiveness of cooperating across functional boundaries
• Ease of moving between projects
• Employee empowerment for independent decision making
While the need for agility and flexibility is generally not disputed, the positional
leadership perspective creates a culture and paradigm where managers are expected to be the
driving force behind the necessary changes (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). As previously
discussed, managers are routinely late in recognizing the need for change. In many cases, most
employees know the truth about certain issues and problems within the organization yet dare not
speak that truth to their bosses. This is exacerbated by a ‘don’t rock the boat’ mentality, or
intolerance for dissent or questioning. Upward flow of information is filtered or discouraged,
based on several factors: manager fear of negative feedback or manager implicit beliefs. In
dynamic and complex environments, the employees closest to the work are the first to recognize
the need for change, but are generally precluded or discouraged from voicing their views and
exhibiting the very leadership behavior required of the situation (Morrison & Milliken).
Fostering Innovation
In addition to adaptability and agility, organizations dealing with complex and dynamic
situations consistently perform better if they are able to foster and sustain innovation (Gundling,
2000). As Thomas Watson Jr. of IBM stated: “If an organization is to meet the challenges of a
changing world, it must be prepared to change everything about itself except its basic beliefs as it
moves through corporate life. The only sacred cow in an organization should be its basic
philosophy of doing business” (Collins & Porras, 1994, p. 81) Indeed, the drive for progress is
never satisfied with the status quo, even when the status quo is working well. It is an internal
force that does not wait for the external world to indicate when it is time to change (Gundling,
2000).
Gundling (2000) argued that what is most consistently critical to the creation of value for
commercial enterprises is innovation. Innovation occurs most often and is sustained in an
environment where employees are empowered and encouraged to act on their own initiative.
Innovation cannot be directed or managed. It occurs when and if employees are provided the
freedom to follow an idea or hunch. According to Gundling, the company 3M emphasize sharing
ideas and technologies to generate unexpected discoveries or realizations. Employees are
encouraged to seek out input and perspectives from completely different parts of the company.
Substance of 3M vision is based on the deep-rooted idea that one person with a bright idea and
the willingness to work hard enough, can make a difference.
Sanders/ INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 139
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 8 Iss. 2, 2014
© 2014 School of Business & Leadership, Regent University
ISSN 1554-3145
The successful innovative companies create the environment where innovation can and
does occur repeatedly over many years. Kanter, Kao, and Wiersema (1997) stated there are three
major components of innovation; invention (getting ideas), development (turning ideas into
reality), and getting the product on market and making it a huge success. A striking asp

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Jurnal internasional studi kepemimpinan, Vol. 8 Iss. 2, 2014© 2014 Sekolah Bisnis & Kepemimpinan, Bupati UniversityISSN 1554-3145MENGAPA PERSPEKTIF POSISI KEPEMIMPINANMENGHALANGI KEMAMPUAN ORGANISASI UNTUK MENANGANIDENGAN SITUASI YANG KOMPLEKS DAN DINAMISCharles G. SandersMusim semi Arbor University, Amerika SerikatLingkungan global kompetitif abad ke-21 dinamis, kompleks dan multi-budaya, danmemerlukan respon lebih cepat untuk perubahan untuk bertahan hidup (Rost, 1991). Yang paling efektifpendekatan untuk menangani ini adalah untuk melibatkan karyawan di berbagai proses kepemimpinan untukorganisasi (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Raelin, 2003). Namun, peran kepemimpinan yang dijelaskan adalahbukan pandangan umum kepemimpinan berdasarkan otoritas. Sebaliknya, kepemimpinan diperlukan didasarkansehari-hari pengaruh proses oleh siapa saja dalam organisasi berasal dari pengetahuan danpengakuan untuk kebutuhan untuk perubahan tertentu. Makalah ini menunjukkan bagaimana diabadikan perspektifkepemimpinan sebagai sesuatu yang diperuntukkan bagi orang-orang dari otoritas benar-benar menghambat sangatperilaku organisasi disebut oleh rumit dan dinamis situasi di mana mereka bekerja.Kepemimpinan telah dipelajari dan diperdebatkan selama beberapa tahun dengan banyak upaya untuk mendefinisikanapa artinya dan bagaimana teori kepemimpinan harus dikembangkan dan digunakan dalam organisasi. Anluas pemeriksaan kepemimpinan Sastra (Bass, 1990; Burns, 1978, 1998, 2003; Hari,Harrison, & Halpin, 2009; Goethals & Sorenson, 2006; Greenleaf, 1977; Harter, 2006; Heifetz,1994; Hickman, 1998; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; Hollander, 1992; House & Aditya, 1997;Jacobs, 1970; Locke, 1991; McCrimmon, 2006; Murrell, 1997; Northouse, 2004; Pearce &Conger, 2003; Raelin, 2003; Rost, 1991; Selznik, 1957; Stogdill, 1948, 1974; Uhl-Bein, 2006;Yukl, 2006) leads to two conclusions: (a) the predominant leadership perspective is based onauthority positions with associated assumptions about appropriate leadership traits,characteristics, and behaviors and (b) everyday individual leadership behaviors in organizationshave not been adequately addressed in the literature, and little is commonly understood about thefactors that encourage and facilitate the leadership behaviors that support organizationaleffectiveness (Heifetz, 1994), particularly in complex and dynamic work environments.Sanders/ INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 137International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 8 Iss. 2, 2014© 2014 School of Business & Leadership, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145Nature of the 21st Century Work EnvironmentThe 21st century competitive global environment is dynamic, complex, and multicultural, andnecessitates a more rapid organizational response to changes to survive (Rost, 1991). Manyorganizations currently operate in an environment where time is a critical resource (Brue et al.,2001; Butler, 1995; Stalk & Hout, 1990). More and more, organizations are challenged to changewhat they do and how they do it at a rapid rate in order to remain relevant and effective in thedynamic and uncertain world (Eisenhardt & Sull, 2001; Hannan & Freeman, 1984). This rapidrate of change and high uncertainty are well beyond the abilities of the individual manager toeffectively deal with them and know what appropriate actions are required at any given time(Cashman, 2008; Childs & McGrath, 2001; Davis & Blass, 2006; Kaiser & Kaplan, 2007;Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000; McCrimmon, 2006; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Senge, 1990).Therefore, organizations operating in this environment require proactive involvement ofemployees in decisions previously reserved for executives and managers. As organizationsincreasingly face dynamic and complex situations, there is an increasing need for individuals notin positions of authority to be involved in decision making, solving problems, and acting onopportunities. Many organizations are distributing the essential leadership functions amongdifferent members of the team or organization (Yukl, 2006).Specific Organizational Behaviors Required for the 21st CenturyThere are certain behaviors common to organizations successfully navigating thedynamic and complex terrain of the 21st century work environment. While this may not be anexhaustive list, and success is not guaranteed if these are pursued, there is ample evidence thattraditional approaches to organization structure, planning, decision making, and problem solvingare not sufficient to survive and thrive.Adaptability, Flexibility and AgilityTurbulent environments have long been regarded as compelling organizations to dealwith uncertainty more proactively (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Stacey, 2001), to exploit changeas an opportunity (Drucker, 1999) and to evolve their business processes and managementphilosophies frequently (Stalk, 1988; Eisenhardt, 1989; Strader et al., 1998; Senge & Carstedt,2001). However, organizations often have difficulty changing strategy and structure (adapting)quickly enough for keeping pace with the demands of uncertainty and change (Hannan &Freeman, 1984; Eisenhardt & Sull, 2001).Organizational agility has been defined as the ‘the successful exploitation of competitivebases (speed, flexibility, innovation pro-activity, quality and profitability) through the integrationof reconfigurable resources and best practices in a knowledge-rich environment to providecustomer-driven products and services in a fast changing market environment’ (Yusuf et al.,1999, p. 37). At the heart of the agility concept is speed and flexibility.Brue et al. (2001) found that agile workforces have been claimed to capitalize on skills byproactively innovating their skill base just ahead of need. They argued that organizations need toscan their environment and interpret its dynamics continuously with a view to anticipating futureskill requirements.Sanders/ INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 138International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 8 Iss. 2, 2014© 2014 School of Business & Leadership, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145Collaboration, inside and outside the organization, are key to enabling agility, as well asempowerment and autonomy in decision making (Goldman & Nagel, 1993; Kidd, 1994; VanOyen et al., 2001). Decentralization of decision making between mostly autonomousorganizations have been found to facilitate speedy coordination and action (Gunasekaran, 1998).Brue et al. (2001) identified several principal attributes of agile workers, as listed below:• Responsiveness to changing customer needs• Responsiveness to changing environment conditions• Speed of developing new skills and competencies• Speed of innovating management skills• Effectiveness of cooperating across functional boundaries• Ease of moving between projects• Employee empowerment for independent decision makingWhile the need for agility and flexibility is generally not disputed, the positionalleadership perspective creates a culture and paradigm where managers are expected to be thedriving force behind the necessary changes (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). As previouslydiscussed, managers are routinely late in recognizing the need for change. In many cases, mostemployees know the truth about certain issues and problems within the organization yet dare notspeak that truth to their bosses. This is exacerbated by a ‘don’t rock the boat’ mentality, orintolerance for dissent or questioning. Upward flow of information is filtered or discouraged,based on several factors: manager fear of negative feedback or manager implicit beliefs. Indynamic and complex environments, the employees closest to the work are the first to recognizethe need for change, but are generally precluded or discouraged from voicing their views andexhibiting the very leadership behavior required of the situation (Morrison & Milliken).Fostering InnovationIn addition to adaptability and agility, organizations dealing with complex and dynamicsituations consistently perform better if they are able to foster and sustain innovation (Gundling,2000). As Thomas Watson Jr. of IBM stated: “If an organization is to meet the challenges of achanging world, it must be prepared to change everything about itself except its basic beliefs as itmoves through corporate life. The only sacred cow in an organization should be its basicphilosophy of doing business” (Collins & Porras, 1994, p. 81) Indeed, the drive for progress isnever satisfied with the status quo, even when the status quo is working well. It is an internalforce that does not wait for the external world to indicate when it is time to change (Gundling,2000).Gundling (2000) argued that what is most consistently critical to the creation of value forcommercial enterprises is innovation. Innovation occurs most often and is sustained in anenvironment where employees are empowered and encouraged to act on their own initiative.Innovation cannot be directed or managed. It occurs when and if employees are provided thefreedom to follow an idea or hunch. According to Gundling, the company 3M emphasize sharingideas and technologies to generate unexpected discoveries or realizations. Employees areencouraged to seek out input and perspectives from completely different parts of the company.Substance of 3M vision is based on the deep-rooted idea that one person with a bright idea andthe willingness to work hard enough, can make a difference.Sanders/ INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 139International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 8 Iss. 2, 2014© 2014 School of Business & Leadership, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145The successful innovative companies create the environment where innovation can anddoes occur repeatedly over many years. Kanter, Kao, and Wiersema (1997) stated there are threemajor components of innovation; invention (getting ideas), development (turning ideas intoreality), and getting the product on market and making it a huge success. A striking asp