Christine G. Springer, Ph.D.
Director
UNLV Executive Master of Science in Crisis and Emergency Management
September 2007 News

Leadership has been described as one of civilization's "preeminent preoccupations” with its literary roots in the historical writings of such notables as Plutarch, Aristotle, Plato, Machiavelli, Lao Tse, and more recently, those of Carlyle, Hegel and Ghandhi. Leadership writings in Western nations began toward the end of the nineteenth century and vary widely in focus and content, ranging from scholarly erudition to blatant utilitarianism. It has been said that, while almost everyone talks about leadership, thus far no one has satisfactorily defined it. As is true with art, many argue, while we cannot accurately define good (or bad) leadership, we know it when we see it. Historian J.M. Burns (1978) has said that "leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth."

Emergency Managers are among those who not only observe, but also participate, in important acts of leadership on a daily basis. Their challenge is that of adopting a leadership model—or models, that will allow for effective participation in this "growth industry," one that is dedicated to the management of natural, technical and manmade catastrophes. Present and future EM leaders will face the daunting prospect of developing and training staff members who can implement these emerging operational concepts as part of their mission—protecting the nation from harm.  They need to consider whether traits, behaviors, situations or results drive leaders to step up in crises.

One could characterize modern study of leadership as falling into a number of "eras" beginning with the Trait Era which dominated the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries. The belief that leaders are "born" rather than "made" characterized the thinking of those writing during that time.   As a result of weak and inconsistent findings by various researchers it was concluded that, while traits play a role in determining leadership effectiveness and demonstrated ability, these traits do not define their success or effectiveness.

At the beginning of World War II (1941) researchers, responding to military requirements to identify and train leaders for combat service- the famous "ninety day wonders"-turned their attention to the study of observable leadership behaviors. The Behavior Era, which placed primary emphasis upon "what effective leaders do" resulted in the development of a substantial body of leadership theory. The ideas and methodology developed during the Behavior Era made a major contribution to the study of leadership, which continues at present.

However, behaviorists gave little, if any, attention to major situational elements found within the leadership environment. This stimulated the development, during the 1960's, of a new line of inquiry focused not only upon leader characteristics, but also those of followers, and upon the nature of the work itself-- the tasks to be performed in organizational settings and crisis situations. This line of inquiry characterized the Contingency Era in leadership, one that is also continues to be prominent today.

By the 1980's further changes in the paradigm were needed. The assumption that leaders must unfailingly take charge and provide ongoing direction to staff members was no longer tenable. Proponents of the new scholarly inquiry called Results-Oriented Leadership argued that effective team leaders do not necessarily need to practice close control of staff member activities. Rather, they argued, the effective leader provides an overall vision and broad structure for organizational operations, provides needed resources, offers psychological and technical support, and lets employees assume a large measure of responsibility for planning and implementing the work of the unit. These ideas have become prominent in current literature on leadership.

Results-Oriented leaders need to demonstrate flexibility in approach and an ability to play multiple organizational roles as a way of enhancing and maintaining work group creativity. They allow the natural creativity of followers to be expressed in work-related activities. Not all "budding leaders" personify this approach. Most have been trained to "take charge". To date, relatively few organizations in this country have embraced the Results Oriented model, probably as a result of entrenched ideas about leadership; discomfort on the part of leaders in making what appears to be a radical philosophical and operational shift; and fear of the consequences of delegation related to their own accountability and responsibility. 

Regardless of the model adopted, it is clear that in crisis situations the Nation needs as many competent leaders as possible, all working toward the common goal of “Securing the Homeland.”