[Published
in Dhaka Courier on 21 August 2014]
Can a
police officer
be a leader leading to statesman? It’s a billion dollar question indeed. But
unfolding reality is that, yes, it is possible because of the very definition
of statesmanship, which is the end point of leadership. From these standpoints,
this article is a milestone. In fact, this was authored and presented by the
writer as guest speaker at the Police Staff College Bangladesh, Mirpur, Dhaka, on
20 August 2014. Participants included ASP (Probationers).
Anatomically
speaking,,
the topic is composed of two areas of understanding one dealing with ‘Basis of Leadership’ and other dealing
with on ‘Leadership in Management’ and,
therefore, focus shall be made accordingly.
Basis of
Leadership
Where the number is one,
question of seed of disagreement is irrelevant and, therefore, leadership is
ineffectual; where the number is two, question of embryo of disagreement is
relevant and, therefore, leadership may be required marginally; but where the
number is three, four, five or more, origin of disagreement is significantly
important and, therefore, question of leadership is unavoidable resultantly.
And from this emanates axiomatically and inductively that the roots of
leadership lie not in the singularity, but in the plurality
wherefrom starts the very music of taking a lead of few or many. Leadership,
hence, under various circumstances, presupposes followers, supporters or
sub-ordinates in a corresponding mood and mode.
Therefore,
the first and foremost basis of leadership is digit/number that must be more
than one at least and a leader is a person whom other persons follow; i.e. a
person who dares to say “I will go come with me” and where people follow this
call. A leader in this sense might be a boss in a typical workplace hierarchy,
a leader within an organization of volunteers, a teacher at a university, a
speaker or an author who has influenced people through his/her ideas, et
cetera. There are lots of definitions of leadership but my understanding is:
“The only test of leadership is that somebody follows voluntarily or recklessly
or indifferently under the circumstances, approving or not”.
Institutions, researchers,
think-tanks, academics and so on are on in full swing to devise and add more
and more approaches, models and theories on leadership. Advantageously
enough, all the theories on leadership in politics and statecrafts till the
date have been grouped and placed under eight heads i.e.
Great Man Theories, Trait Theories, Contingency Theories, Situational Theories,
Behavioral Theories, Participative Theories,
Management Theories and Relationship Theories.
Basis of all these, from the old days to this era of science and technology,
rotates around the fundamental asking that what type of excellence should a
leader be possessed of? Plain and straightforward response is under all the
circumstances a leader shall have to show and prove that he/she is ready to
face the challenges before him, whether the challenges are approving or not.
For him/her befitting knowledge, courage, determination, vision and mission
with required pragmatic approaches and strategies otherwise called Dive to see
it through, respect, love and affection for the followers, power to organize
and motivate the followers, power of understanding, power of digestion, power
of delivery as and when needed, attention-grabbing art of speeches, honesty,
transparency etc are condition
precedents. He/she must be well aware of the landscapes as a whole around
him/her encompassing local, national, regional and international ones. Truly
speaking, a leader in the 21st century must be dynamic and
forward-looking to move with time, space and dimension.
A study by John
French and Bertram Raven in the early 1960’s identified five bases of power,
which they again put under formal and personal power and made an attempt to
show how different types of power affect one’s leadership ability and success
in a leadership role. These include------------
Formal
Power
Coercive: Coercive power is
conveyed through fear of losing one’s job, being demoted, receiving a poor performance
review, having prime projects taken away, etc. This power is gotten through
threatening others. For example, the VP of Sales who threatens sales folks
to meet their goals or get replaced.
Reward: Reward power is
conveyed through rewarding individuals for compliance with one’s wishes. This
may be done through giving bonuses, raises, a promotion, extra time off from
work, etc. For example, the supervisor who provides employees comp time
when they meet an objective she sets for a project.
Legitimate: Legitimate power
comes from having a position of power in an organization, such as being the
boss or a key member of a leadership team. This power comes when employees in
the organization recognize the authority of the individual. For example,
the CEO who determines the overall direction of the company and the resource
needs of the company.
Personal
Power
Expert: Expert power comes
from one’s experiences, skills or knowledge. As we gain experience in
particular areas, and become thought leaders in those areas, we begin to gather
expert power that can be utilized to get others to help us meet our
goals. For example, the Project Manager who is an expert at solving
particularly challenging problems to ensure a project stays on track
.
Referent: Referent power
comes from being trusted and respected. We can gain referent power when
others trust what we do and respect us for how we handle situations. For
example, the Human Resource Associate who is known for ensuring employees are
treated fairly and coming to the rescue of those who are not
In fact, the most respect is
garnered on those who have personal sources of power. There is more respect for
these individuals than for those who have power simply because they are the
boss in the business. It has been shown that when employees in an organization
associate the leadership’s power with expert or referent power, they are more
engaged, more devoted to the organization and their role within it. Employees
are also more willing to go the extra mile to reach organizational goals.
Finally
a focus on statesmanship is also important relevantly as statesmanship is the end
point/climax of leadership. Statesmanship in a broader connotation implies art
of administration going above a fear or favor, self or not, aimed at the
well-being of the organization concerned. A political leader becomes a
statesman when she/he prefers the interests of the nation and the country to
self or group or vested interests and acts accordingly in the face of
challenges from inside and outside his/her party or government, when he/she
sets example as a symbol of sacrifice, honesty and integrity and when he/she is
in a position to rise beyond parochial standing of the party/government
concerned. For any sort of consensus, national, regional or international,
statesmanship is a very big factor. Vision and mission of a leader result in
perfection by a journey to the kingdom of statesmanship. Yes, a police officer
is rightly in a position to set him/her as a statesman provided he/she is
determined to do so. Bangladesh today needs more and more police officers as
leader(s) and statesman (statesmen).
Leadership in Management
There are acute tendencies to blur differences
between Leadership and Management and this very approach has been negated by
the concept ‘Leadership in Management’. Hence, arises the logic ’if management
needs leadership then there exist and continue distinguishing note of
differences between them. From these standpoints, the concept such as ‘Leadership in Management’ has been recognized and well-placed in
the discipline of Management. Essentiality and pre-dominance of leadership with
its vehemence and velocity in management may be well-understood through the
visits of different approaches, which highlight sharp differences between
leadership and management. Few of them may relevantly be placed a follows:
Difference
between a Manager and a Leader: Approach-1
The
biggest difference between leaders and managers is in the way they motivate the
people who follow or work for them. Managers have subordinates, unless their
title is given as a mark of seniority and honorary, while leaders do not. In
terms of approach, a leader sets the direction while a manager plans the
details. Leaders appeal to the heart while managers appeal to the head. A
leader’s energy is passion, and that of the manager is control.
What is the
difference between management and leadership?: Approach-2
Management
makes systems of people and technology work well day after day, week after
week, year after year involving:
Planning
and budgeting;
Organizing
and staffing;
Controlling
and problem solving; and
Taking
complex systems of people and technology and making them run efficiently and
effectively, hour after hour, day after day while
In
fact, there are two parts in the topic one dealing with ‘Basis of Leadership’
and other focusing on ‘Leadership in Management’ and, therefore, focus shall accordingly
be made.
Leadership creates the systems
that managers manage and changes them in fundamental ways to take advantage of
opportunities and to avoid hazards
Creating
vision and strategy
Communicating
and setting direction
Motivating
action
Aligning
people
Creating
systems that managers can manage and transforming them when needed to allow for
growth, evolution, opportunities, and hazard avoidance.[ http://www.kotterinternational.com/our-principles/change-leadership]
In the “The Wall
Street Journal Guide to Management” Alan Murray noted: Approach-3
Leadership
and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same thing. But they are
necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to separate the two is likely
to cause more problems than it solves.
Still,
much ink has been spent delineating the differences. The manager’s job is to
plan, organize and coordinate. The leader’s job is to inspire and motivate.
In his 1989 book “On
Becoming a Leader,” Warren Bennis composed a list of the differences:
Approavh-4
–
The manager administers; the leader innovates.
–
The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.
–
The manager maintains; the leader develops.
–
The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.
–
The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.
–
The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.
–
The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.
–
The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader’s eye is
on the horizon.
–
The manager imitates; the leader originates.
–
The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.
–
The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person.
–
The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.
Consequently,
if one is convinced enough to understand when and how leadership plays its role
in management then the matter is very much settled both theoretically and realistically.
More reality is that a police officer by practicing statesmanship may also
become a statesman in the end.
No comments:
Post a Comment