I wish there was a single theory, there's been attempts to make a grand theory of leadership, but to this point, there does not exist a grand theory. The reason I've included all of these theories is that each one seems to offer some very unique elements of the leadership process. Kurt Levine once said there's nothing more practical than a very good theory. That's really what the idea is behind The Black Book, which I wrote, which is there's many good theories of leadership and each of them offer essential elements to help make one a more effective leader. The Black Book includes a whole series of theories of leadership that follow a chronological prospective and most of the theories are based on substantive social science research. Unlike a book like Maxwell's, which people buy on the newstand, which is based on anecdotal ideas and is basically a set of aphorisms, all of which are very nice, I enjoy looking at some of those myself. The theories on leadership explain more about how the process works, and the hope is that if you understand the process, then you're able to practice leadership more effectively. I've learned several things, I think. Number one, there remains a strong interest in leadership. When I first wrote this book, in 1996, it came out, there were programs in leadership, but they weren't extensive throughout the country. Now, there's as many as 100 doctoral programs in leadership, so curriculum in leadership has grown exponentially. As has research in leadership, people remain very interested in trait research. People find it fascinating that certain traits would make one a leader. I tend to downplay this theory and tend to give it less credence, in the public, there's an interest in it. During the last presidential election, the candidates were all analyzed relative to their traits. People in the public still think it's traits that are pretty predictive of making one a leader. I come from the side that it's a learned process and while one may have certain traits and another person may have another, it's the notion of learning about leadership and adapting to those new learnings that makes one more effective in the leadership process. Another thing that I've noticed is that as I write about theories of leadership, they are effective to explain leadership in schools, leadership in healthcare situations, leadership in social work, leadership in team sports. But the theories don't apply as directly to the big leadership concepts such as being President of the United States. I think the public likes to think of leadership as what we learn from the Hitler, and the Trump, and the Obama's of the world. While I like to analyze their leadership and try to understand it, the theories of leadership in my book tend to apply more to leaders who are like you and me in situations where we have to engage in trying to help a group meet its goal. People have asked me many times, Peter, so you've written a book with 16 leadership theories, what do you think about leadership? After having heard that question many, many times, I decided to answer it by writing another book, and so I have a book that tries to answer the question what are my learnings about leadership? In that book, I set out the things that are important if you're called to be a leader, if you're it and what I argue is that you need to learn to bring the outgroup in. You need to have a vision, you need to be able to create a constructive climate. All of those things, you need to find a way to build cohesiveness and these are the essential learning practical points out of The Black Book. I've taught leadership for 25 years, and when students come into my classroom, I think many of them have the notion that I'm going to help them become a leader. While I think that's important, I approach leadership from a different perspective, I am not engaged in trying to make leaders. While that may sound very surprising from an author of a leadership book, I do believe strongly that it is important to understand the theories and the underpinnings of leadership, and through that process, one can draw on those understandings when one is in a leadership position. I think in emphasizing the idea of making one a leader or talking about leadership as a leader-centric process, one falls into the trap of emphasizing traits or thinking there's some magical way for people to become leaders. I see leadership as a process that all of us can engage in at all ages, and the key is to understand how to relate to people, and how to help people move toward a common goal in an effective way. Should leaders be well versed in leadership theory? Without question, my answer is, yes. In fact, it's the only thing emphasize on in my leadership. I don't think there's anything in the theories of leadership that wouldn't help a leader who's in a administrative position learn new ideas how to become more effective in doing what they try to do. I should tell you a story, a number of years ago, I was a cross country coach in Ann Arbor, Michigan for five years. When I started coaching cross country, it was in middle school, and I did it because my kids were at that age, but I started coaching cross country, and when I started there were five runners, and when I finished there were 50. But what I found out in coaching cross country was, it is really a leadership process, I needed to have a vision for the team. I needed to create special relationships with each one of the runners. I needed to listen to the problems of the runners, I needed to set goals. I needed to create community and probably most of all, I needed to create a cohesive place where people could have fun running and also learn to excel. The case studies in my book and case studies in general on leadership are a wonderful way to bring theoretical concepts into practice, I think one of the reasons my book has been well received and people seemed to like it is because of the case studies. The case studies have a way of providing a situation where students, or the reader of the book can take the ideas of the theory and put it in the case to see how the case works. They aren't case studies that are intended to be solved so much as case studies that are intended to be analyzed by using leadership concepts. The reason the case studies are important is they help the reader of the book understand the ideas in the theory. When I first wrote this book, there was a theory on contingency theory and it has three case studies in the chapter and people seemed to understand contingency theory better as a result of doing the case studies. I have a good recollection of the use of one of my case studies. I was asked to give a Friday afternoon visiting lecture at a university in Michigan and my guess was that the students would all be out drinking because it was a 4:00 class and there wouldn't be anyone there. When I got there, it was completely filled and what I did was, I took one of the case studies out of the chapter on leader member exchange theory and we role-played the case study and It was absolutely outstanding. This was many years ago and I can still remember the effectiveness of the students playing the role in the case. So role-playing the case was really a wonderful way to learn leader member exchange theory. The way I approach leadership and my writing about leadership, groups play an essential role. In many ways, a leader needs to be able to understand the dynamics of the people and the group that she or he is working with. I have a phrase I use about groups that's so very true, I think and it is, by the group are you sickened, by the group are you healed. While that sounds contradictory, what I'm really trying to say is that in the group, people feel a sense of self, they feel confirmed, when the group is working. When the group is struggling, going to the group can be very difficult for an individual, and sickening. When a group if functioning well, and the leader has helped to make effective norms, someone comes to the group and feels buoyed by it, feels healed by it. I think we think of the classic AA groups where, what a wonderful place to go and healing exists because by the group are you healed. But the group can also be sickening. The role of the leader in this whole process is to help people feel included. I think that's one concept I stress in my classes more than any other, and that is to try to bring everyone in, even those who feel disadvantaged, those who feel they've been left out, those who feel disconfirmed. True leaders are effective at taking even the most distant members of the group and help bring them in to be a part of the group. The goal of leadership, even on the large scale level, is to listen to the group that is a disenfranchised group, and to help that group feel included with others. The important thing for leaders is to try to build community, to try to bring everyone in. To try to help each individual feel like they're a part of the group and unique, but not so much a part of a group that they lose their identity. This is the essence of diversity and inclusion as well. An effective leader looks at her group or looks at his group, and tries to allow each member, each individual, to be a complete member of the group. Not assimilated to the group norms only, but to be unique in the group, to have their own identity. Much of this work was done by Schutz, the social psychologist in the 1950s. But his idea of inclusion is still very, very prevalent and important in explaining diversity today. His idea was all of us have interpersonal needs, and they are needs for inclusion, control, and affection. But that first need, the need for inclusion, is our need to be a part of others, to be with them, to be connected, but not to be so connected that we lose a sense of who we are. We want to come in with our values and our ideas and our ethnic backgrounds and our faiths and we want them recognized, but we don't want to lose them, yet we want to be included. That idea of inclusion is central to understanding how we should be practicing diversity. Diversity has changed over the last 50 years. Initially, in the 60s and 70s, there was a strong emphasis on diversity because there was racial injustice, and there were inequities. Those still exist today, but the emphasis in diversity moved in the 80s and 90s, to the notion that there were advantages for companies, schools, organizations, to have diversity because it gave them outcome advantages. Not only does diversity reduce discrimination and unfairness, but it also has advantages for companies. Since 2000, there's been an interest in diversity that takes the approach of trying to include everyone because our organization is richer when we have all of those different dimensions. Millennials, for example, are strong on this, they like to include others, not just because it's fair and just or because it has vantages for the company. They like to include others in the larger group because it has value to them and the group is stronger and more unique when there's fairness and equity and when there's diversity of opinions and backgrounds. The emphasis in recent years is to try to use the principles of inclusion and approach diversity in that way. Now it's one thing to emphasize that leaders ought to be diverse, it's another thing to argue that understanding diversity and using inclusion is actually a part of the leadership process. That's really the goal, is to get leaders to understand it isn't just about, while very, very important that we need equity and fairness, but that to be an effective leader, you need to understand diversity and incorporate everyone in the leadership process. My definition of leadership is that it's a process where an individual brings a group of others toward a common goal or influences them toward a common goal. In order to do that, it is essential that the leader brings in everyone to meet the common goal.
