Leadership is impossible to ignore. Talking about motivation in the workplace inevitably means talking about the influence of certain players on the rest of the group. It's about the ability to direct action. It's about the trust they can build with the group, so that it accepts the proposed direction.
If the leader is not the only motivating factor in a company, far from it, he or she is certainly the one most directly responsible for its development.
The problem with such power, of course, is that everyone wants to be the one to define it. And that's how we end up with an insane number of adjectives attached to the status of leader: alpha leader, intuitive leader, situational leader, directive leader, delegation, and so on.
To tell you the truth, I had a lot of fun listing as many leadership "types" as possible in an attempt to synthesize them. It's an amusing exercise, which shows that we often say the same thing on this subject, but always with different words.
From this little game, I have identified the five positions of the leader to the group:
This synthesis is based on no fewer than eight models for a total of 40 "styles".
But even this synthesis creates ambivalence in our understanding of the leader's role. We might wonder whether an "off-field" leader who takes no interest in his team is really a leader at all. We may wonder whether a leader who organizes and checks his team's work is not more of a manager...
In the same way, a "leader" can be both in front of his team on certain subjects he's passionate about and out of the spotlight on others for which he has less affinity. He may want to be part of the team when certain techniques he has mastered need to be applied and be behind the scenes, managing when he is dominated by outside pressure.
All this adds to the lack of coherence in the too numerous definitions of a leader.
And that's why it's high time we made sure we're discussing the same thing when discussing leadership.
For starters, leadership is seen as a talent, whereas a so-called leader may not have one. In reality, there are de facto leaders and de jure leaders.
The de jure leader is a person who has received his or her status from the company organization. He is a leader by function and sometimes in an honorary capacity. But in his actions, he may have no leadership at all.
On the other hand, the de facto leader is elected by his peers and teams. He is recognized as a leader by the trust he inspires through his choices and skills. And that's where he'll have to develop a behavioral strategy to keep his place for as long as necessary.
So it's important to distinguish between leadership talent and the title of leader.
As far as leadership is concerned, it can be summed up as follows:
A person's ability to influence and unite a group to achieve a common goal, in a relationship of mutual trust. Antonin Gaunand[1]
This definition is exactly where leadership makes the difference for a manager.
Moreover, this definition has nothing to do with morality, right or wrong.
There are and have been great leaders who have led their communities to great success and remarkable victories, just as there are those who have led them to their downfall.
There are political leaders, opinion leaders, and sports team leaders. Leadership cannot be bought or decreed. Leadership is built on the context, culture, and personality of the person who plays the role vis-à-vis his or her audience.
It's very interesting to observe the extent to which a great leader (no feminine form for this word), recognized for his or her leadership qualities in one company, can find himself or herself incompetent and incapable in another. As his leadership skills are not universal, it may turn out that he lacks the ones he needs in this new situation.
Another great quality of a leader is adapting to the group and its context rather than imposing a model recycled from experience.
Jean-Michel Plane (2015) proposes the following definition of leadership:
Leadership can be defined as a process of orientation and decisive influence by a person on the action of a human group to implement a policy and achieve a certain number of more or less precise objectives. This complex process manifests itself through the ability to mobilize and unite individuals and/or groups around a collective action[2]
So, we're far from Machiavelli's idea that a good leader should be feared rather than loved. However, in 1513, the concept of leadership was not established in the same environment as it is today.
I've already told you about Mary Parker Follett, who, long before anyone else, proposed a "win-win" position for managers and their staff. It was she who proposed the idea of shared leadership. She advocated spreading shared power throughout the entire organizational structure by establishing a genuine system for distributing responsibilities.
She also envisages that the leader can be born in each individual, depending on the context and the challenge. She distinguishes between the subordination acquired by the manager and the trust acquired by the leader.
This trust would also be a key element in Lewin's conclusions on leadership.
More recently, Mintzberg has highlighted "growing up" skills:
Growth competencies (often overlooked) refer to the ability to learn and to question oneself (unlearning certain routines in particular)[3]
As we can see, the leader can have many roles secondary to leading his or her team. That's probably why there are so many adjectives.
What's certain is that it's not enough for him to motivate his collaborators, stimulate the group, and inspire it. He must also mobilize them, moving them from enthusiasm to action.
[1] http://www.antonin-gaunand.com/leadership/une-definition-du-leadership-influencer-et-federer/
[2] Plane, Jean-Michel. Théories du leadership : Modèles classiques et contemporains (Management - Ressources humaines) (French Edition) (p. 2) Dunod
[3] Plane, Jean-Michel. Théories du leadership : Modèles classiques et contemporains (Management - Ressources humaines) (French Edition) (p. 5). Dunod.