This website will offer limited functionality in this browser. We only support the recent versions of major browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge.
Traditionally, good leadership was interpreted as the ability of exceptional individuals to command respect and inspire action from others. The emphasis was on the individual and their unique talents and those who were being led were passive followers who could not resist the call of their leader. There was a bias towards leaders being white, male, middle-class and/or older, with women, young people, people with a disability, and those from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups often excluded from taking up designated leadership roles (Hafford-Letchfield et al 2014).
Thankfully leadership thinking has moved on considerably in the 21st century. It is now recognised that leadership is a process in which individuals choose to come together around a common goal. Relationships rather than a single person are therefore of core importance, and followers are seen to play an active role. Leadership can be facilitated by those in designated roles, but leaders also emerge in response to the particular challenge faced. Therefore, the leader in one context will be asked to follow the lead of others in a different context. Despite such progress, there is still much to be done in relation to equality of opportunity, with senior positions in business and government still dominated by white men. Research suggests that the potential of women to take up such roles is less favourably evaluated due to stereotypical perspectives, and that many of those in power demonstrate ‘aversive’ racism in which they avoid difficult discussions about inequality thereby continuing with the discriminatory status quo (Ospina and Foldy, 2009; Breslin et al, 2017). An important report from The Staff College (2021) highlights that it is responsibility of all leaders to be inclusive and culturally competent and actively contribute to a fairer workplace:
As uncomfortable as it is for white leaders, it is critical they consider the lived daily experiences of racism their staff have had for years. Black staff have no choice about comfort. This is work where leaders, particularly white leaders, can’t be in the commentary box or on the side lines. You have to be on the pitch, staying out there and leading from the front.
Staff College 2021
Alongside the nature of leadership, another long-running debate has been the difference between leadership and management. Some commentators have argued that leaders and managers have different personality types. For example, Zeleznik in 1977 wrote in the Harvard Business Review that managers have innate leaning towards problem solving, achieving set objectives, minimising risk and working as a process. Leaders on the other hand, have traits which cause them to imagine new purposes, shape new goals, work with high risks, and working as a mission. Others see the difference as being related to skills and purpose rather than personality. Kotter (2013) views management as being concerned with maintaining order and consistency, whilst leadership is about coping with change. Therefore, whilst the skills of managers relate to planning and budgeting, organisation and staffing, and controlling potential problems, those of leaders are establishing direction, communication and coalition building, and motivating and inspiring others. These are sometimes summarised as managers are about ‘doing things right’ whereas leaders are about ‘doing the right thing’.
Another perspective is that it is the problem, not the role that matters. Grint (2010) breaks down problems into three types.
Alongside discussions of the nature of leadership and management has been the development of a bewildering diversity of different models of leadership. Drawing on a particular moral or theoretical perspective, or seeking to respond to a distinct problem, these propose that leading in line with the model will result in a more favourable outcome or experience of leadership. During the programme, we will introduce relevant models relating to the aspect of leadership for strengths-based practice being considered.
The following definitions provide insights as to how leadership has been understood by key thinkers in recent times:
Professions have been an established entity within health and social care in the UK for many centuries. For example, the College of Physicians was set up in London in 1518. Whilst there is no one definition of a ‘professional’, it is generally thought to include the following dimensions:
Being a professional has historically provided a status within a society and guaranteed a decent level of income. Professionals expect to have greater autonomy, discretion and trust in their work than other employees. Joining a professional group involved the adopting of its culture and being socialised into the associated ways of seeing the world and acceptable standards of behaviour. There is an expectation of ‘collegiality’ in which professionals will support and be loyal to others within their professional group. These aspects of professions can create tensions as organisations, particularly public sector ones, generally prefer to have control over what their employees do, how they do these tasks, and how their performance is monitored. They can also create conflicts with governments, particularly if politicians view a profession as not maintaining an acceptable standard of practice or to be resisting a policy initiative due to their own interests.
Many of these issues influence how professions can be led. Expert professionals, i.e., those who have many years of experience and are recognised by colleagues as having a high degree of competence, will often be given a status that enables them to influence the views of others.
Professionals are usually motivated by a strong vocational call, an aspiration to become experts in their field, and to have the autonomy to practice independently alongside more transactional aspects such as financial reward and working conditions. They can also be less receptive to the opinions of those who are not from their professional background and collectively resist a perceived attack on the status and role of their profession. This can be a particular issue within multi-disciplinary settings in which the manager of a team is from a different profession. These unique aspects have led to an interest in how best to enable leadership within professions.
