In James Burn's seminal work on transformational leadership some 25 years ago, he suggested that "if we know too much about leaders we know far too little about leadership." The question begging to be answered is, so what has changed over the last 25 years?  What more do we know about leadership?   We have in fact tended to think the competencies demonstrated by people recognised as good leaders are the competencies that are intrinsic in good leadership. However, leadership is much more complex than merely transplanting a number of key attributes on some high potential candidate at some leadership course and expecting them to become the next great leader.

In fact, it is vitally important to understand there is no ideal blueprint for all situations and that a number of factors need to be considered in determining what good leadership is. First and foremost one must understand the importance of the context of the situation in which leadership is to be delivered. For simplicity sake, consider a military perspective: is the organisation at peace or at war? The reason I suggest using this simple analogy is that in both cases, a very different leadership style is required. The competencies required to lead an organisation through a stabilizing mode, a merger mode or a crisis mode are all very different. Organisations often make the mistake of thinking that a leader who is successful in one context is going to be successful in another.

Another different but equally important issue to consider is the balance between management and leadership competencies.  Anyone who attended any type of leadership seminar in the late seventies and early eighties remembers the first exercise the participants went through.  Invariably, the facilitator would ask participants to distinguish the differences between managers and leaders. These lists would be discussed and usually agreement was reached that leaders and managers were different. Then, through the mid-eighties and early nineties, perhaps as a result of laziness, the definitions became so blurred that we actually started to suggest leaders and managers were the same.  This in my estimation does the study of leadership a great disservice and in fact is a cop out both for practitioners and leadership theorists.

Although it is not dangerous to suggest that the two are the same, it's certainly not innocuous.  To avoid to defining management and leadership in their separate terms suggests a rather laize-faire attitude towards understanding one of the most complex and critical parts of post-industrial organisational theory. That being said this article does not have the space to do an in-depth analysis of the differences.  But at a very rudimentary level, one suggestion is to look at management as the authority that is granted as a result of position and leadership as the authority granted as a result of influence. It may be safe to say that they are juxtaposed and in fact complimentary, but not necessarily dependent.

Once we agree that leadership and management are two different organisational dimensions, it makes it easier to quantify what leadership is.  If we then understand that leadership success is largely dependent on the context of the current situation, then it will allow us to make some fairly definite determinations about the leadership style required at that particular time. Agreeably, the essence of leadership is very complicated. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to define it.

There have been some serious attempts to define leadership over the last thirty-years, such noted business scholars as Bennis, Blanchard and Peters have all provided some insights into what they believe successful leaders do. Herein lies part of the issue and that is they talk about what successful leaders do rather than what successful leadership is.  My point is not to discount any of the work that these respected business scholars have done, but suggest that we look at a more holistic view of leadership rather than just a regurgitation of another "great man theory. Organisations often make the mistake of thinking that a leader who is successful in one context is going to be successful in another.

I have purposely avoided any comments about trait theory within this article, which may evoke some concern from the industrial psychologists and trait theorists in general.  But I maintain my position that leaders are made, not born.  As a result, there is a chance for many of us to become good leaders.   

Recently the Conference Board of Canada published the research report on Developing Business Leaders for 2010.  The report is definitely worth reading as it looks at what competencies current business leaders and HR practitioners believe leaders will require in the future. The focus of the article highlights four basic roles for leaders in the future: Master Strategist, Change Manager, Relationship Builder and Talent Developer. These themes did not come as a surprise to me, but rather they pointed out the increasing complexity leadership will be required to embody in the future.

In summary, there are some core leadership competencies that probably have remained fairly static over the last fifty years, notably, have a long term vision, be able to execute, be decisive and have the ability to inspire people.  This not an exhaustive list, but I doubt many people would argue they should be included. However, what we see as a result of increased organisational complexity, globalisation, speed and volume of knowledge transfer is an ever- changing or at least increasing landscape of leadership competencies.  This is maybe the true quintessence of what leadership is and that is the ability to evolve and transform as the situation changes. 

You can reach Grant at