This lecture explores leadership from two intertwined perspectives, though addressed separately: Can leadership be purchased, or is it created through shared meaning? Organizational communication scholars and psychologists have developed varying interpretations of leadership. Psychological thought guided this inquiry for “many years” by framing leadership as stemming from charismatic traits inherent in one’s psyche, where communication played only a minor role in the leader’s natural gifts (Lamb, 2024c).
However, a shift occurred as communication scholars moved away from linear, trait-based perspectives toward multidimensional cognitive frameworks. This new approach focuses on the relational processes involved in leadership rather than simply the internal traits of a leader (Lamb, 2024c). Organizational communication scholars, in particular, have found value in exploring leadership through relational dynamics
This essay critiques leadership as a construct, focusing on adaptability, interoperability, and transformational approaches. It emphasizes how leadership is co-authored and socially constructed through relational processes within its environment. The focus is on the “distinctive manner” in which leaders achieve goals, rather than on the innate qualities they may possess.
Discussion
As noted in the assignment instructions, “leadership styles have come under considerable criticism” (Lamb, 2024f). Trait and style theorists commonly define leadership as the “process guiding individuals, groups, and entire organizations in establishing goals and sustaining action to support those goals” (Lamb, 2024a). From an organizational communication perspective, leadership theory emphasizes relational dynamics (Miller & Barbour, 2020, pp. 185–187).
Trait theory sees leadership as an inherent quality, manifested through specific traits such as intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability (Miller & Barbour, 2020, p. 186; Northouse, 1997). Organizations applying trait theory may use personality assessments to identify candidates with the “right combination of characteristics” for leadership (Miller & Barbour, 2020, p. 186). However, this approach faces criticism.
Trethewey (1999) explored how discourse can marginalize women within organizations, revealing the suppressive nature of leadership norms (Donahue, 2024). Women, striving to meet both masculine and feminine leadership expectations, face a “balancing act that is unfair if not impossible to achieve” (Lamb, 2024e).
Conversely, style theorists view leadership through behavioral patterns. Leaders’ effectiveness is measured by their particular leadership style, categorized into contingency, transformational, and discursive leadership approaches (Lamb, 2024e; Miller & Barbour, 2020, p. 186). Transformational leadership, in particular, focuses on building relationships through meaningful interactions and modeling desired values (Miller & Barbour, 2020, p. 188). This approach marks a shift from trait-based views to relational frameworks.
Transformational leadership emphasizes an exchange between leaders and followers, building relationships to inspire change (Miller & Barbour, 2020, p. 187; Lamb, 2024d). However, it still overlooks the fluid dynamics and interoperability of communication in leadership. Leadership often reflects intentional actions by leaders and the discourse between leaders and followers, underscoring the idea that “everything is in a process of change” and leadership involves the “purposeful exercise of influence” (Lamb, 2024b).
Patty Sanchez offers further insight into transformational leadership, advocating empathy as a core component of effective leadership (Sanchez, 2018). In an interview with Sanchez, our professor explored the tension between transactional and transformational leadership in empowering organizational change.
Transactional leadership involves a give-and-take relationship between leaders and followers, with a focus on stability, performance metrics, and corrective actions (Miller & Barbour, 2020, p. 187). This framework prioritizes task completion and reward systems. In contrast, transformational leadership thrives in dynamic environments where change is constant. Communication efforts under transformational leadership emphasize relationship-building, involvement, and shared goals.
Effective leadership aligns with Sanchez’s belief that empathy is critical in navigating organizational change. Leaders must foster inclusion, set clear expectations, and ensure employees are motivated to achieve shared goals: “If you are a company leader hoping to undertake a successful organizational change, you need to make sure your team is onboard and motivated to help make it happen” (Sanchez, 2018, p. 3).
This collaborative approach underscores the value of shared meaning in leadership. Discursive leadership, which emphasizes social connectivity through communication, offers the most promising framework. Leaders using this style foster shared meaning through intentional, strategic communication, often through storytelling or regular engagement with their teams. As noted, “This view of leadership… replaces simplified concepts of leaders using tools of communication to influence followers” and instead emphasizes the persuasive power of intentional communicative practices (Miller, 2020, p. 191; as cited in Lamb, 2024d).
Discursive leadership enhances empathy, a key component identified by Sanchez, and shifts leadership away from rigid trait-based frameworks. This style promotes a collaborative environment, where communication nurtures innovation and shared vision through stories and motivational messaging. Leaders become co-creators of change, inspiring others to join them on their journey.
Conclusion
Organizations operate within diverse environments, some marked by low reactivity to change and others driven by continuous transformation. In stable environments, transactional leadership may prove effective, while transformational leadership excels in dynamic settings. Discursive leadership, however, emerges as the most effective model, fostering shared meaning and relational satisfaction that advance organizational goals (Men, 2014, p. 264).
As Sanchez argues, empathy is essential for successful leadership. Leaders must ensure employees feel included in decision-making processes and communicate both their personal aspirations and shared goals with empathy. Ultimately, “leadership is only a utility of title when leader’s followers agree to follow.”
References
Donahue, C. (2024). DONAHUE_CHRISTOPHER_Journal6.
Lamb, M. (2024a). L10 Leadership: . https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2315367/pages/l10-leadership?module_item_id=40142965
Lamb, M. (2024b). L10 Leadership and Change as an Act of Communication. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2315367/pages/l10-leadership-and-change-as-an-act-of-communication?module_item_id=40142973
Lamb, M. (2024c). L10 Overview: Leadership. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2315367/pages/l10-overview?module_item_id=40142963
Lamb, M. (2024d). L10 Theories and Leadership Styles. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2315367/pages/l10-theories-and-leadership-styles?module_item_id=40142969
Lamb, M. (2024e). L10 Traits Approaches. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2315367/pages/l10-traits-approaches?module_item_id=40142967
Lamb, M. (2024f). L11 Journal Series: Organizational Change and Leadership. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2315367/assignments/15590728?module_item_id=40142990
Men, L. R. (2014). Strategic Internal Communication: Transformational Leadership, Communication Channels, and Employee Satisfaction. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 264–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914524536
Miller, K., & Barbour, J. (2020). Organizational Communication: Approaches and Processes. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/reader/books/9781305142718/
Sanchez, P. (2018). The Secret to Leading Organizational Change Is Empathy. https://hbr.org/2018/12/the-secret-to-leading-organizational-change-is-empathy