Your assessment results show that you have the characteristics of these types of leaders:
• Ambassador – your score is 12 points out of 25
• Advocate – your score is 14 out of 25
• People Mover – your score is 14 out of 25
• Truth-Seeker – your score 11 out of 25
• Creative builder – your score is 13 out of 25
• Experienced guide – your score is 18 out of 25
See the sections below for more detail on your natural roles and some suggestions for next steps.
Ambassadors instinctively know how to handle a variety of situations with grace. They tend to be the
people diffusing nasty situations. The ones getting involved in conflicts on behalf of broad
constituencies, as opposed for their own benefit. They are apt to be persistent in a gentle way -- to be
persuasive and at the same time respectful.
An Ambassador, for example, might be someone who can introduce a whole host of peopleassessment and development frameworks with the result that employees understand and accept the
new order easily.
Advocates instinctively act as the spokesperson in a group. They tend to be articulate, rational, logical,
and persuasive. They also tend to be relentless (in the positive sense of the word), championing ideas
or strategic positions. Advocates tend to use both linear and non-linear approaches when they argue a
Top managers who are natural Ambassadors may do very well at navigating through rough waters.
But for Advocates, being in rough waters is part of the reason they revel in their work. (Many
Advocates tend to see things in black and white only. Advocates very often need Ambassadors on their
senior management teams -- to help them temper their messages and persuade employees to “buy
into” their decisions.)
Think: Talent-spotter, career-builder, motivator, someone with parental, nurturing qualities. People
Movers instinctively take the lead in building teams. They’re also instinctive mentors. They generally
have large contact lists; they are always introducing new people to new ideas and new paths. They’re
also generally mindful of their employees’ lives outside of work; they view performance through the
larger lens of potential.
There is a certain “holiday card joy” that comes with being a People Mover; when people continue to
update you on their progress because they know you’ll care, even if you have nothing in common with
them and are effectively out of touch with them, you know you’re a People Mover.
Think: fairness, good judgment, equalizer, level-headed, process-oriented, scrupulous neutrality,
objectivity is the high standard. This is the only role for which there is a “prerequisite;” Truth-Seekers
are unfailingly competent in their field; their competence is unquestioned.
Truth-Seekers instinctively level the playing field for those in need. They also help people understand
new rules and policies. They act to preserve the integrity of processes. They try to identify the rootcause issues, or pivotal issues. They also step in to ensure the just and fair outcome if the process has
failed to yield the same.
Successful individuals in the Human Resources function are generally natural Truth-Seekers. TruthSeekers also tend to gravitate towards line-manager positions.
These individuals are visionaries and entrepreneurs – they are happiest and most driven at the start of
things. They instinctively: see new opportunities for new products, new companies; spot niche
markets; take ideas and make them real. They’re also often “serial entrepreneurs” over time, even if
they remain in one leadership post.
Creative Builders instinctively understand that building is not necessarily about invention, but about
process of making an invention real. Builders are constantly energized by new ideas, yet they have
the staying power to see them through to fruition.
The issue is rarely simply the idea; builders aren’t “Hey Dave, what’s your latest scheme?” people.
Builders are fascinated with implementation. Real estate developers are often “builders” in this way
(beyond the obvious connection); they feel most rewarded when a project gets underway, or is newly
Builders sometimes get into trouble if they remain in one place for too long. There are case studies,
too numerous to mention, of entrepreneurs whose legacies are negative because they became
enmeshed in the day-to-day operations of the companies they created, and didn’t know when it was
time to leave. Builders can successfully remain in a single leadership position only if they figure out
how to feed their own need for new projects.
Here’s an equation to try on yourself if you identify with the role of builder:
Strength of belief in end result + Ability to tolerate the process = Creative Builder
The term “Experienced Guide” conjures up an image of someone very old and wrinkled, with the
experience that comes with age. That’s not incorrect, but Experienced Guides don’t have to be old, or
necessarily experienced. What they do have to have is an ability to listen, and to put themselves in
others’ shoes. They have a way of helping people think through their own problems; they are natural
therapists. Often, they are seemingly bottomless wells of information on a diverse range of topics.
These are the people who can always be counted on to supply the right quotation or the right
They are not necessarily mediators, yet the experienced guide is often the person who finds him or
herself “in the middle,” with people on both sides of a conflict seeking advice. When a corporate
meeting has been particularly stressful or fraught with conflict, the “post-meeting, closed-door
meeting” often takes place in the Wise One’s office.
Remember the “family lawyer” of old? The person, outside of the family, who knew (and kept) all the
family secrets, and was often sought for advice? The experienced guide role naturally lends itself
today to the position of minister, counselor, trusted advisor.
Renato Tagiuri, emeritus professor at the Harvard Business School, noted that natural “experienced
guides” are often found one level down from the top in organizations. They get their greatest
satisfaction helping others get through the day and helping others see the bigger picture. They
Your Next Steps
Your natural role will give you a broad indication of the types of legacies you are building as a leader.
With that natural (or "default") role in mind, ask yourself: In what way is my leadership affecting the
people who work with and for me? How do I affect the way they work, the way they think, the way
they approach a task at work? How does my natural style affect their style?
Try asking these questions in a "broad strokes" kind of way, and then go back and ask them again,
with particular situations in mind. Last week's round of performance reviews, for instance, or the most
recent staff meeting. How does the way in which you approach things change or steer the way in
which others behave? What might you try to accentuate, by a degree or two, to help you build the
kind of leadership legacy you would like to? What might you delegate a bit more, or seek other's input
(again by a degree or two)?
An enhanced understanding of your own natural orientation at work can help you calibrate your
leadership, and the dynamics of your organization, more effectively.
Thank you for taking The Leadership Legacy Assessment.
REFERANCE: Nahavandi, A. (2015). The Art of Leadership (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Upper Saddle
After studying this chapter, you will be able to:
Define leadership and leadership effectiveness.
Discuss the major obstacles to effective leadership.
Compare and contrast leadership and management.
List the roles and functions of leaders and managers.
Explain the changes in organizations and how they affect leaders.
Summarize the debate over the role and impact of leadership in organizations.
The Leadership Question
Some leaders are focused on getting things done while others put taking care of their followers
first. Some look at the big picture, and others hone in on the details. Is one approach better than
the other? Which one do you prefer?
Who is a leader? When are leaders effective? These age-old questions appear simple, but their
answers have kept philosophers, social scientists, scholars from many disciplines, and business
practitioners busy for many years. We recognize bad leadership. Bad leaders are dishonest, selfcentered, arrogant, disorganized, and uncommunicative. However, being honest, selfless,
organized and communicative are necessary, but not sufficient to be a good leader. This chapter
defines leadership and its many aspects, roles, and functions.
We recognize effective leaders when we work with them or observe them. However, leadership
is a complex process, and there are many different definitions of leadership and leadership
Who Is a Leader?
Dictionaries define leading as “guiding and directing on a course” and as “serving as a channel.”
A leader is someone with commanding authority or influence. Researchers have developed many
working definitions of leadership. Although these definitions share several elements, they each
consider different aspects of leadership. Some define leadership as an integral part of the group
process (Green, 2002; Krech and Crutchfield, 1948). Others define it primarily as an influence
process (Bass, 1960; Cartwright, 1965; Katz and Kahn, 1966). Still others see leadership as the
initiation of structure (Homans, 1950) and the instrument of goal achievement. Several even
consider leaders to be servants of their followers (Greenleaf, 1998). Despite the differences, the
various definitions of leadership share four common elements:
First, leadership is a group and social phenomenon; there can be no leaders without
followers. Leadership is about others.
Second, leadership necessarily involves interpersonal influence or persuasion. Leaders
move others toward goals and actions.
Third, leadership is goal directed and action oriented; leaders play an active role in
groups and organizations. They use influence to guide others through a certain course of
action or toward the achievement of certain goals.
Fourth, the presence of leaders assumes some form of hierarchy within a group. In some
cases, the hierarchy is formal and well defined, with the leader at the top; in other cases,
it is informal and flexible.
Combining these four elements, we can define a leader as any person who influences individuals
and groups within an organization, helps them establish goals, and guides them toward
achievement of those goals, thereby allowing them to be effective. Being a leader is about
getting things done for, through, and with others. Notice that the definition does not include a
formal title and does not define leadership in terms of certain traits or personal characteristics.
Neither is necessary to leadership.
This broad and general definition includes those who have formal leadership titles and many who
do not. For Jonas Falk, CEO of OrganicLife, a start-up company that provide nutritious school
lunches, leadership is taking “an average team of individuals and transform(ing) them into
superstars” (Mielach, 2012). For consultant Kendra Coleman, leadership is about taking a stand
(Mielach, 2012). Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, considers empowerment to be an essential
part of leadership (Kruse, 2013). For the CEO of the Container Store, “leadership and
communication are the same thing. Communication is leadership” (Bryant, 2010). In all these
examples, the leader moves followers to action and helps them achieve goals, but each focuses
on a different element that constitutes leadership.
When Is a Leader Effective?
What does it mean to be an effective leader? As is the case with the definition of leadership,
effectiveness can be defined in various ways. Some researchers, such as Fred Fiedler, whose
Contingency Model is discussed in Chapter 3, define leadership effectiveness in terms of group
performance. According to this view, leaders are effective when their group performs well. Other
models—for example, Robert House’s Path-Goal Theory presented in Chapter 3 —consider
follower satisfaction as a primary factor in determining leadership effectiveness; leaders are
effective when their followers are satisfied. Still others, namely researchers working on the
transformational and visionary leadership models described in Chapters 6 and 9, define
effectiveness as the successful implementation of change in an organization.
The definitions of leadership effectiveness are as diverse as the definitions of organizational
effectiveness. The choice of a certain definition depends mostly on the point of view of the
person trying to determine effectiveness and on the constituents who are being considered. For
cardiologist Stephen Oesterle, senior vice president for medicine and technology at Medtronic,
one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of medical devices and pacemakers, restoring lives is
both a personal and an organizational goal (Tuggle, 2007). Barbara Waugh, a 1960s civil rights
and antidiscrimination activist and once personnel director and worldwide change manager of
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories (often known as the “World’s Best Industrial Research
Laboratory”—WBIRL), defines effectiveness as finding a story that is worth living: “You decide
what you want your life to be about and go after it” (Marshall, 2009: 3). John Hickenlooper,
Colorado governor and former mayor of Denver, focuses on an inclusive style, cooperation,
aligning people’s self-interest, and getting buy-in from the people who are affected by his
decisions (Goldsmith, 2008).
Effectiveness versus Success
Clearly, no one way best defines what it means to be an effective leader. Fred Luthans (1989)
proposes an interesting twist on the concept of leadership effectiveness by distinguishing
between effective and successful managers. According to Luthans, effective managers are those
with satisfied and productive employees, whereas successful managers are those who are
promoted quickly. After studying a group of managers, Luthans suggests that successful
managers and effective managers engage in different types of activities. Whereas effective
managers spend their time communicating with subordinates, managing conflict, and training,
developing, and motivating employees, the primary focus of successful managers is not on
employees. Instead, they concentrate on networking activities such as interacting with outsiders,
socializing, and politicking.
The internal and external activities that effective and successful managers undertake are
important to allowing leaders to achieve their goals. Luthans, however, finds that only 10 percent
of the managers in his study are effective and successful. The results of his study present some
grave implications for how we might measure our leaders’ effectiveness and reward them. To
encourage and reward performance, organizations need to reward the leadership activities that
will lead to effectiveness rather than those that lead to quick promotion. If an organization cannot
achieve balance, it quickly might find itself with flashy but incompetent leaders who reached the
top primarily through networking rather than through taking care of their employees and
achieving goals. Barbara Waugh, mentioned earlier, considers the focus on what she calls the
“vocal visionary” at the expense of the “quiet implementer” one of the reasons many
organizations do not achieve their full potential (Marshall, 2009). Joe Torre, the famed Los
Angeles Dodgers baseball coach, believes that solid, quiet, and steady managers who do not brag
are the ones who get things done (Hollon, 2009).
Ideally, any definition of leadership effectiveness should consider all the different roles and
functions that a leader performs. Few organizations, however, perform such a thorough analysis,
and they often fall back on simplistic measures. For example, stockholders and financial analysts
consider the CEO of a company to be effective if company stock prices keep increasing,
regardless of how satisfied the company’s employees are. Politicians are effective if the polls
indicate their popularity is high and if they are reelected. A football coach is effective when his
team is winning. Students’ scores on standardized tests determine a school principal’s
effectiveness. In all cases, the factors that make the leader effective are highly complex and
Consider the challenge faced by the executives of the New York Times, one of the world’s most
respected newspapers. In 2002, the paper won a record seven Pulitzer prizes, a clear measure of
success. A year later, however, the same executive editor team that had led the company in that
success was forced to step down because of plagiarism scandals (Bennis, 2003). The executive
team’s hierarchical structure, autocratic leadership style, and an organizational culture that
focused on winning and hustling were partly blamed for the scandals (McGregor, 2005). By one
measure, the Times was highly effective; by another, it failed a basic tenet of the journalistic
profession. Politics further provide examples of the complexity of defining leadership
effectiveness. Consider former U.S. president Clinton, who, despite being impeached in the U.S.
Senate, maintained his popularity at the polls in 1998 and 1999; many voters continued to
consider him effective. Hugo Chavez, the late president of Venezuela, was adored by his
supporters for his advocacy for the poor and despised by his opponents for his dictatorial style.
Whether any of these leaders is considered effective or not depends on one’s perspective.
General Motors’ recent troubles further illustrate the need for a broad definition of effectiveness.
An Integrative Definition
The common thread in all these examples of effectiveness is the focus on outcome. To judge
their effectiveness, we look at the results of what leaders accomplish. Process issues, such as
employee satisfaction, are important but are rarely the primary indicator of effectiveness. Nancy
McKintry, CEO of Wolters Kluwer, an information services company, states, “At the end of the
day, no matter how much somebody respects your intellect or your capabilities or how much
they like you, in the end it is all about results in the business context” (Bryant, 2009a). The
executive editorial team at the New York Times delivered the awards despite creating a difficult
and sometimes hostile culture. Voters in the United States liked President Clinton because the
economy flourished under his administration. Hugo Chavez survived many challenges because
he pointed to specific accomplishments.
One way to take a broad view of effectiveness is to consider leaders effective when their group is
successful in maintaining internal stability and external adaptability while achieving goals.
Overall, leaders are effective when their followers achieve their goals, can function well
together, and can adapt to changing demands from external forces. The definition of leadership
effectiveness, therefore, contains three elements:
1. Goal achievement, which includes meeting financial goals, producing quality products or
services, addressing the needs of customers, and so forth
2. Smooth internal processes, including group cohesion, follower satisfaction, and efficient
3. External adaptability, which refers to a group’s ability to change and evolve successfully
The Leadership Question—Revisited
So focusing on the task, on people, on the b ...
Purchase answer to see full