Sociology of Leadership Essay Example
Sociology of Leadership Essay Example

Sociology of Leadership Essay Example

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 10 (2476 words)
  • Published: April 8, 2017
  • Type: Research Paper
View Entire Sample
Text preview

Despite the fact that sociology has a long-standing tradition of exploring the relationship between individual and group behavior, its exploration of leadership in formal and informal contexts has been insufficient. While sociological studies conducted from 1935 to the mid-20th century laid a strong foundation, the field has not fully realized its capabilities. As a result, other disciplines such as psychology, communication, and management have taken on the task of conducting extensive theoretical and empirical research on leadership, leaving sociology in a marginalized position.

This article presents an overview of early sociological research on leadership as a social phenomenon and argues for a renewed focus on studying leadership from a sociological perspective. In Section I: Missed Opportunities, the interest in leadership among high school students is examined. A search for "high school student leadership" produces over 100,000 results, i

...

ndicating significant attention to this topic. This interest is also evident among American adolescents. According to Gilgorich (1993), 25% of surveyed high school students believed they were in the top 1% of leaders, while nearly all saw themselves as average or better. Although we may find this youthful confidence amusing, it is likely that many of these teenagers will pursue formal recognition of their leadership skills by taking college leadership courses and having their accomplishments officially recorded on their academic transcripts. Additionally, some students will enroll in these courses for legitimate reasons such as gaining a deeper understanding of their social surroundings and becoming more effective individuals within society.

When it comes to eager learners in the curriculum, they may wonder where to look for guidance. One possible option is management; however, it's important to note that management and leadership

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

are not the same. Management primarily involves tasks such as planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling (Northouse 2007), which are valuable skills but specific to management rather than leadership. For a deeper understanding of complex human behavior in leadership, turning to the social sciences may be more beneficial.

Psychology is an example of a social science with a well-established research tradition focused on exploring and documenting personality traits related to leadership. It's no surprise that psychology also offers courses specifically on the psychology of leadership. However, psychologists themselves recognize that relying solely on trait theory can only provide limited insights.

To truly grasp leadership in a meaningful and satisfying manner, one must consider an individual's actions within a broader social context (e.g., societal norms and expectations).

In their study, Reicher, Platow, and Haslam (2007) discuss the different perspectives on leadership. The definition of "leadership" is widely used but challenging to define. Academic institutions provide extracurricular programs focused on developing "leadership skills" and categorize individuals who aim for these skills as "leaders." At Bryant University, they offer a co-curricular leadership program that culminates in the Established Leader Retreat (ELR), a three-day off-campus retreat held in October.

The ELR program aims to improve leadership skills through a variety of activities such as a scavenger hunt, raft building, and mind over matter exercises. It is believed that these activities are closely related to leadership and have the potential to create leaders. However, the concept of "leader" in this context seems to focus more on a specific set of skills and a psychological mindset rather than being effective in a position, holding an office, or influencing others to achieve common goals. Annie Dillard discussed

this notion of leadership being separate from actual leading in her book An American Childhood.

During the mid-twentieth century in Pittsburgh, the term "leadership" was utilized by the social elite to indirectly allude to social class. However, upon closer examination, it could also be perceived as referencing the "leadership class." Presently, leadership has transformed into a completely commercialized notion. At Bryant University, one can acquire leadership by making a donation of $1,000. Through this contribution, an individual will receive an official leadership designation and a designated parking spot labeled as "Reserved for President's Leadership Council." Conversely, if someone lacks the means to afford $1,000 but still desires to present themselves as a leader, an acceptable contribution of $375 is viable.

By becoming a member of the Leadership Circle at WGBH, Boston's National Public Radio Station, you will instantly gain prestige. Leadership has various interpretations including inborn personality traits, learned skills, styles, power relations, and group processes, resulting in 65 different classification systems attempting to define its dimensions (Fleishman et al. 991). With numerous conflicting perspectives on the fundamental nature of leadership, it begs the question: is a sociological view the right one? Weber acknowledged in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (2009) that there are alternative standpoints for analyzing historical phenomena. Adopting a Weberian mindset, let us now explore early sociological studies on leadership, which made a distinctive impact on this field for two decades.

In Part II of this article, we will explore the pioneering sociological studies on leadership. The following is a survey of early investigations published in prestigious journals, although it is not a comprehensive list. Nevertheless, it reflects the depth of the

sociological approach and the wide range of topics covered in these initial analyses. We will start with David P. Page's study conducted in 1935 that examined leadership measurement and prediction at West Point, a military academy. The cadets' leadership qualities were annually assessed and ranked within their respective classes by peers, group leaders, and commissioned officers who oversaw them during their military training.

The final rankings are a combination of various judgments. The cadets are ranked based on several factors including "bearing and appearance," scholarship, tactics, athletics, and activities. To understand the meaning of leadership at West Point, Page analyzed the records of 1,146 graduates from the classes of 1930, '31,'32, and '33. For the top 10% ranked leaders, correlations were studied between their leadership rankings and standings in other subjects. The strongest correlation was found with "bearing and appearance" (r=.

617). The correlations with tactics, athletics, conduct, and activities were significantly lower, with none reaching statistical significance. Page then analyzed the connection between leadership and bearing among a random sample of the graduating class of 1934. This involved comparing their leadership rank in their senior year with their ranking in the previous years, as well as with their bearing and appearance rankings across all four years. The findings were quite remarkable: there was a strong correlation between leadership in the fourth year and leadership in the third, second, and first years, with a coefficient of .85.

79 and 68 are the values for bearing and appearance respectively. The correlations with bearing and appearance are 87 and 96.

94, and . 95. At West Point, it is evident that "leadership" is equated with "bearing and appearance."

However, the terms "bearing and appearance" at West Point do not relate to an individual's features, but rather to their carriage and physique. Every cadet undergoes an intensive socialization process to develop a strong sense of personal neatness and soldierly carriage.

The socialization process is so intense that it is more important than natural abilities and previous training (Page, 1935). Leadership at West Point is not necessarily based on academic standing, tactical competence, or athleticism, but rather on demeanor (Page, 1935). Page's research reveals three important insights: leadership can be explained, it is primarily a result of socialization, and leaders may receive different ratings in different environments (Page, 1935). Page concludes that effective leadership is determined more by the group than the individual (Page, 1935). After World War II, there was a concerted effort to develop effective leaders in the military and industry (Morris & Seeman).

The Ohio State Leadership Studies at Ohio State University were formed with an interdisciplinary team consisting of psychologist Ralph M. Stodgill and sociologists Richard T. Morris and Melvin Seeman, reflecting the academic interest in this field.

The prevailing assumption that a leader can be identified solely based on holding a leader's office was challenged by Morris and Seeman in 1950. They argued that a more comprehensive definition of a leader should include factors such as influence over group members, designation by the group, or being influential in supporting group goals. Morris and Seeman proposed a paradigm for studying leadership, aiming to understand the relationship between group and individual factors in leader behavior. They believed that developing a causal model based on this paradigm would help test the hypothesis that leader

behavior actually makes a difference. This paradigm poses ten important questions regarding leadership: Who is considered the leader? How is leader behavior defined? How should leader behavior be described and analyzed? What group and individual factors are significant for leader behavior? Why does the leader behave the way they do? What phenomena are associated with specific leader behaviors? What are the outcomes of leader behavior? What factors influence these outcomes? How should the results of leader behavior be evaluated?Reflecting on these ten research questions, it is evident that they are still applicable to the field of sociology of leadership. Additionally, the broad nature of the paradigm allows for analysis at both the micro and mid-range levels. Charles K. Warriner's 1955 study, "Symbolic Interactionism Stakes a Claim," effectively showcased the usefulness of micro-level approaches in leadership studies.

According to Warriner's article "Leadership in the Small Group" (1955), he challenges the simplistic assumptions of leadership as stimulus response that were presented in Whyte's Street Corner Society (1943). Warriner disagrees with Whyte's approach of operationalizing leadership by studying the observable changes in body language and instead emphasizes the continuous nature of interaction and the significance that social actors assign to these actions. By analyzing the actions of leaders in a thorough manner, Warriner suggests that we can gain a deeper understanding of leadership, not just within formal organizations but also within small group dynamics. While Warriner and others see potential for symbolic interactionist theory to contribute to understanding leadership, Talcott Parsons and Robert F.

Parsons, Bales, and Shils (1953) emphasized leadership as an essential aspect of the group. Parsons viewed leaders as fulfilling functions vital for the survival of social

systems. Meanwhile, Bales and Slater (1953) conducted laboratory experiments on small groups, showcasing the tendency for problem-solving groups to separate roles that focus on the task area from those concentrating on the socioemotional aspect.

Leaders develop in association with one or the other of these areas. According to Parsons and Bales, any social system will differentiate four subsystems, each focused on a different problem. The first two problems are in the task area: adaptation and goal attainment. The third and fourth problems are in the socioemotional area: integration and pattern maintenance and tension management. Empirical support for this model came when Amitai Etzioni discovered four types of leaders, each representing a differentiated subsystem (Etzioni 1959). By the end of the decade, researchers had put a distinctly sociological perspective on leadership studies. From Page's understanding that leadership "traits" are actually influenced by socialization processes within a larger normative setting, to Morris and Seeman's comprehensive multi-dimensional model of leadership with implications for causal analysis, from Warriner's belief that leadership is a process of social interaction that can only be understood by considering the meanings held by participants, to Parsons and Bales' grand theory of leadership as a result of differentiating roles based on functional problems, we have a powerful set of conceptual tools to examine leadership as a social process.In conclusion, as mentioned earlier in this brief survey, the investigations discussed here are only a small representation of a wide-ranging sociological research. However, they highlight a potential that has not yet been realized. Furthermore, I invite further exploration in this area.

The study of leadership in sociology from the mid-century to now has produced a wealth of ideas that

are waiting to be further developed. Unfortunately, the discipline has not built upon this foundational work. When military, government, and corporate leaders need solutions to leadership problems, they rarely consult sociology. And when students seek knowledge about leadership dynamics within organizations and how they can cultivate skills and insights to become more effective leaders, they do not typically turn to sociology. Instead, we have allowed the study of leadership to be dominated by other fields that focus more on individual perspectives. However, exploring leadership within its broader social context presents a valuable opportunity that we cannot ignore any longer. The time has come to revive the sociological study of leadership.

This paper serves as an introduction to a problem and encourages further scholarly discussion. The aim is to expand on the limited intellectual history provided here by extensively documenting early contributions to the sociological study of leadership. This involves outlining the analyses, theories, and main trends in sociological thinking that characterized these studies. Additionally, there is significant potential for using sociological insight to investigate the socially constructed nature of leadership. It's important to acknowledge that within the field, there are contemporary scholars who have advanced our understanding of the sociological aspects of leadership. Furthermore, there are individuals who have developed and taught courses specifically focused on this subject.

In conclusion, I extend an invitation to those interested in strengthening the institutional basis for a revitalized application of the sociological imagination to examine leadership within its broader, social context. Please contact me. I eagerly anticipate hearing from you and working together to reclaim the sociological study of leadership through correspondence, conversation, round table discussion, and scholarship.

References

  1. Bales, Robert F.,

and Phillip E. Slater. 1953. "Expressive and Instrumental Groups: Toward a Theory of group Structure." in Socialization and Interaction Process, edited by Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales. Glencoe, Ill.

:

  • The Free Press. Dillard, Annie. 1988. An American Childhood. New York: HarperCollins.
  • Etzioni, Amitai. 1959.

"The Functional Differentiation of Elites in the Kibbutz." American Journal of Sociology 44:488-93.

  • Fleishman, E. A., M. D.
  • Mumford, S. J. Zaccaro, K. Y. Levin, A. L.

    Korotkin, and M. B. Hein. 1991.

    "Taxonomic Effects in the Description of Leader Behavior: A Synthesis and Functional Interpretation." Leadership Quarterly 2:245-287.

  • Gilgorich, Thomas. 1993. How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life: Free Press.
  • Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Morris, Richard T.

    , and Melvin Seeman. 1950. "The Problem of Leadership: An Interdisciplinary Approach." The American Journal of Sociology 56:149-155.

  • Northouse, Peter G. 2007. Leadership: Theory and Practice.
  • Thousand oaks: SAGE Publications. Page, David P. 1935. "Measurement and Prediction of Leadership."

    The American Journal of Sociology 41:31-43.

  • Parsons, Talcott, Robert F. Bales, and Edward A. Shils. 1953.
  • Working Papers in the Theory of Action are published by The Free Press in Glencoe, Illinois. The authors of these papers are Stephen C. Trainor, Donald H. Horner Jr., and David R.

    Segal, in his article "The Enigmatic History of Sociology at the United States Naval Academy" (2008), discusses the role of sociology in the academy. Additionally, Warriner (date unknown) also contributes to this topic.

    1955. "Leadership in the Small Group." The American Journal of Sociology

    60:361-369. Weber, Max. 2009.

  • The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
  • New York: W. W.
  • Norton and Co. Whyte,

    • William Foote. 1943. Street Corner Society.
    • Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Get an explanation on any task
    Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
    New