The exchange theory of leadership

There is so much theory about leadership that sometimes we miss the obvious for all the looking. Why is it that good and bad people still have the potential for leadership? Hitler and Churchill had little in common, yet is that not the point? We could argue in favour of integrity, vision, honesty and all kinds of other virtues, but finding them in one not in the other is self-defeating or at least self-neutralising.

Let me explain. Both Hitler and Churchill were great leaders and great communicators, by all standards. They stirred significant followings and uplifted whole nations to their cause. Yet the one was honourable, the other offensive. The one was integrous, the other anything but. The one had a righteous cause, not so the other. The one had a warm, open face, the other had a dark, malignant expression. The one was imposing, the other short and ugly. The one spoke with rhythmic cadences, the other with vitriole and intensity. So what do we make of that? Do the comparisons inform us on how we ought to live, lead or communicate? I think not.

So what common features made them comparably effective? It was a simple reality of human exchange. Their followers exchanged their support for a reciprocal benefit. Hitler offered Germans the hope of restoring lost glories, Churchill was a rallying point for victory.

Is that empiracally sound reasoning? Well, why is it that many bosses lead, with degrees of effectiveness, in spite of themselves. Could it be that they have something to trade - be it a salary, promotion or other priveleges? Why do politicians command their followings - because of their sexy hairstyles or scintillating rhetoric? I think it is because their followers perceive a viable trade to be in the offing.

Many church followers will bring acts of service to influence their positions rather than for the love it. Many workers in the workplace will trade personal sacrifices and after-work socialisation for perceived benefits, with success, whilst the real work-horses remain mere Cindarellas. Heck some would go to hell and back to enhance their lot and all the above would enhance perceptions about the leader in the middle of it all. Yet their followers will as readily defect to another leader if the perceived benefits of their support are diminished.

Enough said for now ... what do you believe? I will explore this theory further, later.

(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.com