ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Online Open Access publishing platform for Management Research

Transcription

1 Online Open Access publishing platform for Management Research Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0 Research Article ISSN Transformational social leadership model - growth of women as social leaders a case study Associate Prefessor,Skyline University Beena@ skylineuniversity.com ABSTRACT Women are considered to be the force that develops and drive the future generation in the smallest organization, which is the family. Decades before women were mostly sticking to the nourishment and development of their children and family alone. But in the last few decades or more we can see more women coming up in the social scenarios and taking up leadership roles that match or even excel that of men in the same roles. This paper gives an insight into two women s life journey of role enlargement and how they stood up for social causes in their own respective countries. The names of those two social leaders are Medha Patker from India and Wangari Muta Maathai from Kenya. The paper would look into the commonalities between these two social leaders. The research is looking into the concept of servant leadership and charismatic leadership which are components of transformational leadership and trying to see the extent to which they are applicable in the lives and work of the two women leaders. Social identity theory and self categorization theory is also analyzed to understand more about influence of these leaders on followers. Study proposes a model for social leadership style. Key words- charismatic leadership, servant leadership, social leadership, self categorization 1. Introduction Women are considered to be the force that develops and drive the future generation in the smallest organization, which is the family. Decades before women were mostly sticking to the nourishment and development of their children and family alone. But in the last two decades or more we can see more women coming up in the social scenarios and taking up leadership roles that match or even excel that of men in the same roles. This paper gives an insight into two women s life journey of role enlargement and how they stood up for social causes in their own respective countries. The names of those two social leaders are Medha Patker from India and Wangari Muta Maathai from Kenya. The paper would look into what are the commonalities between these two social leaders. The paper investigates into the personal, career and social activist role of these two women leaders who stood up for two different types of social causes. There is some similarity between these two social activists. Both have started their social activism to support environment. Wangari Muta Mary Jo Maathai (1 April September 2011) a environmental and social activist had formed Green Belt movement to fight against the 711

2 government decision to build a new government building in a park in Kenya and Medha Patkar is well known for Narmada Bacaho Andolan- which is to protect Narmada. Narmada Bachao Andolan is a social movement consisting of tribal people, adivasis, farmers and and human rights activists to fight against the Sardar Sarovar Dam being built across the Narmada river, Gujarat, India. After their success in these activities they are leading many other social causes for the women and environment in their own respective countries. These leaders are inspiration for the young female educated population in many ways. The study systematically analyses the two women and their growth as social leaders. 2.Research questions What were the basic leadership styles of the two women leaders? What trends of charismatic and servant leadership is evident in these leaders who are social leaders? Can there be a model that can be developed for transformational social leaders? 3. Methodology An exploratory research method using case study was used for the present research. The researcher searched in detail about the two women leaders, their ideologies, their work and accomplishments. The theories of leadership and social and self categorization were reviewed to understand more about the extent to which social leaders will use charismatic and servant leadership philosophies. 3.1 Literature review: social leadership Social leaders are important for the emancipation of any society and for protecting the environment and earth. For decades social leaders have undergone many problems and struggles in their fight for human rights, active environmental action and protection of democracy and women rights. There are different theories related to leadership. Leaders are born is a concept of great man leadership theories. Trait theories propose that leaders will have certain traits and the research on that traits was important in understanding leadership. The behavioral theoriest in leadership focused on the behaviors that can be observed in order to understand leadership. Contingency theorirst said it is the situation that determines different types of leadership depending on leader, follower and the situation. Transactional leadership theory focuses on supervisory ability of leaders in getting things done through followers. Most of the managers are transactional leaders. But our present study focuses on transformational leaders. Transactional Leaders are those who can inspire the followers towards a very important goal which is usually for the best of the followers. Leaders of this style usually have a higher amount of ethical and moral standards. Bass (1995) suggested that there were four different components of transformational leadership. They are intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation and idealized influence. Transformational leaders not only challenge the status quo. They encourage individuals to explore new ways of thinking and doing things. They encourage followers to have open communication with them and focus on supportive relationships. They are inspirational in the sense that they are able to make the followers experience the passion and motivation in the same way that they have. In transformational leadership followers emulate the ideas and morals shared by the leader. 712

3 3.2 Charismatic leadership and servant leadership Charisma is defined as divine or person with exceptionally gifted qualities. The characteristics of charismatic leadership are a strong vision, - a natural inclination of dissatisfaction with the status quo and create a compelling new vision. Strong leadership traits like credibility, ability to inspire, and very strong communication skills. 2. Strong self belief,- they have gone through the phases of turmoil. And successfully overcome their inner conflicts to realise their potential. This self discovery makes them more confident in what they believe in. They take risky endeavours and are courageous in motivating their followers to achieve the same. 3. Activist mindset-their inner conviction and self motivation, and desperation for changes make them self promoting, for their cause and belief. 4. The Charismatic leaders practice high moral values and are ethical in their actions. According to Fiol et al (1999) that charismatic leaders because of their unique relationship with the followers can be powerful agents of social change. Their study was done on 42 speeches of eminent US presidents and theories of other neo-charismatic researchers and have found a process model of charismatic leaders. According to Fiol (1999) charismatic leaders can be powerful social agents and make social changes through the why and how they communicate with their followers. Fiol used Lewin s model of change (1951) to explain how leaders move the followers from existing stage of conventional thinking to not so conventional stage and finally towards the stage of innovation which is a break from the old ideas and ways of doing things. Language of we, us, ours---- are used and higher level of abstraction is used to achieve this. Weber (1947) asserted that charismatic leaders articulate visions based on normal ideological values, offer innovative solutions to major social problems and stand for the non conservative, if not radical change and generally emerge as more successful during times of stress and crisis in the situation or society. They are visionaries, non conservative and are visionaries who call the followers to do self sacrifice and do performance beyond call of duty and usually are able to arouse the followers to values espoused by the leader. Shamir et al (1993) described charismatic leaders as having the power to modify the beliefs and preferences of individuals in order to create a new compatibility between personal and social values. Conger and kanungo (1987) believes that such a change happens through frame realignment. This is in some way connected to social identity and self categorisation concepts developed by Hogg(2001), Followers realign their frames into a new interpretation frame where they reuse their previous relationship with existing socially dominant values. According to Shamir et al (1993) charismatic leaders further increase the self efficacy of the followers by communicating positive evaluation and encouraging them to perform to highest level and shows confidence in followers ability to meet those expectations. Mc Clelland (1972) found in his study that Charismatic leaders have high need for power, low affliation needs, but are high in activity inhibition (saying no to many conservative ideas),which results in pursuing for activities for the good of humanity, and for some socially worthy cause. Sociologist (Eisenhardt, 1968), political scientists (Dow, 1969; Willner, 1984) and organisational behaviour theorists ( Bass, 1985; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; House 1977; Nadler and Tushman, 1990) have described or defined charismatic leaders being people breaking traditional authority and persuading followers to embrace innovative or revolutionary ideas to change the status quo. Servant leaders ( Green leaf, 2002) on the other hand do not use their positional powers and but they try to lead the subordinates from ground level. They try to make the subordinates understand subordinates or followers problems and try to listen and act like negotiators than commanders. They help to develop the subordinates and believe subordinate empowerment is important for the subordinates and organisations. This concept is seen to be 713

4 a long term concept to live and work and hence create a positive value to the society. The term servant leadership is coined by a researcher named Robert K. Greenleaf. His theory is being supported by many other researchers in the field of management like, James Autry, Stephen Covey, Ken Blanchard, Peter Senge, Scott Greenberg, Kent Keith and many. In 1970 Green Leaf an At& T executive coined the term servant leadership a philosophy of leader as people who chose to serve first and then lead the way for the followers. Servant leaders focus on collaboration and ethical use of power and empowerment. Social leaders when viewed from the concept of social identity theory of Michael Hogg ( 2001) seems to categorise themselves at the highest level of abstraction about self,which is they see themselves in the human beings category. (categories in order-self, teams, organisation, human being), This enable them to look at the needs of their followers and themselves from the concept of a human being category and hence focus and strive towards achieving equality and human rights. They empathise with others and the society and would not categorise themselves as just a person belonging to an organisation or a team or just as an individual. Michael Hogg s self categorisation theory is also applicable to social leaders at the highest level of self categorisation which is human being level. According to Michael Hogg when you prototype yourself in one category the members cognitively and behaviourally prototype in that category. The leaders influence become a reality through depersonalised social attraction process that makes the followers agree and comply with the leaders ideas and suggestions. The charismatic personality of the leaders further empowers the leader and further sharpens the leader follower status differential. This helps in uncertainty reduction in groups and power extremism. 3.3 Analysis and Interpretation African woman leader- Wangare Muta Mary Jo Mathai ( ) was a pioneer in her actions from a very early age and she worked in many spheres. After completing her studies in US using a scholarship that she earned through her brilliance and eagerness in acquiring knowledge. She was the first woman to obtain a PhD from East and central Africa. She was educated in Mount Saint Scholastica in US and University of Pittsburgh as well university of Kenya, Nairobi. In the 1970s Mathai formed the Green Belt movement an environmental non government organization focused on planting trees, environmental conservation and protecting womens rights. And also the first women professor of University of Nairobi where she taught vetinary medicine. She worked with voluntary groups in Kenya and came abreast with the problems and struggles of women in rural Kenya. This did create an inner need in her to work for these women in rural areas and that became her Life s cause. She became aware of the rapid degradation of environment on the lives of this rural women and she encouraged them to plant trees to ensure future supply of firewood and to protect vegetation and water supply of rural Kenya. She is also known as Tree mother. The Green Belt Movement (GBM) was founded by Professor Wangari Maathai in In awarding Maathai the Nobel peace prize in 2004, the Nobel Committee said that her "unique forms of action have contributed to drawing attention to political oppression nationally and internationally". The award was given for her contribution towards, sustainable development, democracy and peace. Peace on earth depends on our ability to secure our living environment. Maathai stands at the front of the fight to promote ecologically viable social, economic and cultural development in Kenya and in Africa. She has taken a holistic to sustainable development that embraces democracy, human rights and women's rights in particular. She thinks globally and acts 714

5 locally. Mathaai also served in the ministry as assistant minister in President Mwai kibaki s government from But her refusal to be silent about some political issues saw her politically side lined and she lost her seat after a single term Maathai combines science, social commitment and active politics. More than simply protecting the existing environment, her strategy is to secure and strengthen the very basis for ecologically sustainable development. She founded the Green Belt Movement where, for nearly thirty years, she has mobilized poor women to plant 30 million trees. Her methods have been adopted by other countries as well. We are all witness to how deforestation and forest loss have led to desertification in Africa and threatened many other regions of the world - in Europe too. Protecting forests against desertification is a vital factor in the struggle to strengthen the living environment of our common Earth. Through education, family planning, nutrition and the fight against corruption, the Green Belt Movement has paved the way for development at grass-root level. We believe that Maathai is a strong voice speaking for the best forces in Africa to promote peace and good living conditions. 3.4 Indian woman leader Medha Patker ( till date) : Medha patkar is well known for her social activist role in Narmada Bachao antholan in India. She was born in the year 1954 in Mumbai and she did her MA in social work from Tata Institute of Social Sciences, one of the prestigious schools in Mumbai, India.The cause for which she fought for in the initial years of her social activist role- The Narmada Bachao Andolan is a non governmental organization that was mobilized to save farmers, adivasis against sardar sarovar dam built across river Narmada. She had continued her journey against supporting displaced people in other dam projects in the region. She fought against the world bank for assisting a project that may displace millions of people from their day to day livelihood. For her, development with sustainability is a human civil right that is endowed upon each human being in the world. The Sardar sarovar project is an ambitious project to put up several dams on Narmada river in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra together to send water to Gujurat She got upset after seeing the poor conditions of people who will be further affected by the dam. Unfortunately, for the farmers and adivasis of the Narmada valley the Sardar Sarovar dam has been completed rendering almost all of them homeless and devoid of any occupation. Very little attention has been paid to rehabilitation of these poor people. Currently the Narmada Valley Development project includes a goal of 30 major, 135 medium and 3000 small dams to be built on the Narmada River.Medha Patkar has won several awards for her work in the Narmada Bachao Andolan, such as the Goldman Environment award in 1991 and 1992, the Right Livelyhood award, the Green Ribbon award and the Human Rights Defender s award. Today Medha Patkar continues to fight for the poor, underprivileged villagers, adivasis, and farmers across the country. She was a recipient of Right Livelihood Award (1991), M.A.Thomas National Human Rights Award (1999), Deena Nath Mangeshkar Award, Mahatma Phule Award, Goldman Environment Prize, Green Ribbon Award, Human Rights Defender's Award. 4. Findings 4.1 Leadership Philosophy of the two leaders Both the leaders started from a servant leadership philosophy where they were focusing on how to serve the followers and make them understand about the consequences of 715

6 environmental degradation and governmental actions on their lives. Being social leaders they had to endure so much self sacrifice, but they showed perseverance and did stand up for a vision which they articulated to their followers. They moved from servant leadership to charismatic leadership later on. But the predominant transformational leadership element in both the leaders were servant leadership. It is too early to conclude that all social leaders have a predominance of servant leadership philosophy that helps to move masses along with their ideologies. But this research is definitely a step that can move towards better understanding about the transformational leadership component in social leaders. 4.2 Commonalities of the two leaders They were both protecting environment, educated in prestigious universities,helped the masses who were unaware that their land is being taken away by government and politicians for causes like modernism,both the women were educated to high levels, and could have lived a life of luxury and peace., Both became aware of the need to help the poor and women, and protect the environment for long term sustainability, went through hunger strikes, imprisonment and long terms in jail, but they did not give up, They confronted governments in their own regions to protect the rights of common man and environment, Both of them did their revolts in peaceful and environmental supportive manner, Both Dr. Mathai and Medha Patker received Right livelihood awards and many other awards., Both the leaders were exercising transformational leadership with more of servant leadership than charismatic philosophies. Both the leaders placed themselves at the highest level of self categorization which is human being level.both the leaders could influence and bring their followers to that categorization of themselves where the followers were ready to fast and fight against government and other related agencies for the over all well being of their community and for their livelihood. 5. Conclusion The research on these two women leaders - Wangare Mathaai and Medha Patker - have found that there was a common path that the two leaders followed in their pursue of emancipation of poor from their problems that were created by the society. The two women leaders were fighting against political and government actions that was destroying the land where these common men and women lived for their livelihood and day to day requirements. They made people aware of their rights and stood by them in fighting against the government or political bodies who were destroying the environment and land for the benefits of powerful few in the society. The research looked into the concept of transformational leadership from the angle of social leadership. Transformational leadership has two components. One is the charismatic and other is the stewardship or servant component. The present study would conclude that both the charisma and servant component is required to be a successful transformational social leader who can bring thousands of people out of ignorance and stand and fight for them in the society where urban values are given predominance over human rights for land and living of the poor. But there is a predominance of servant leadership philosophy in both the leaders in gaining support from the masses to guide them through a vision that did not give immediate comfort or benefit to the followers. They categorize their self at the highest level which is human being level. Social leaders still are able to move masses using their servant philosophy which comes through service, self conflict, self categorization and commitment towards a higher categorization of human values. They do not limit themselves to a categorization of 716

7 their own family, friends, career or organization. They seek to grow beyond that and have a high need to take masses to that level to a sense of humanity and humility. Both the followers and the leaders realize that the path is difficult but they move together to reach that path. Examples of Gandhi, Nelson Mandela also show us that servant leadership was predominant in their leadership first and later on their charisma moved millions of people to follow them. Figure 1: New proposed model for Transformational Social leadership 5.1 Suggestions and recommendations for future research Perhaps a more detailed study with more number of social leaders can come out with a general conclusion that social leaders do have servant leadership component more in them to transform and lead the followers to a future dream which is more for sustainability and humanity. Future researchers should study several cases of social leaders to bring a more qualitative and quantitative analysis based on content to develop this model into a theory. 6. References 1. Bass,B. M,(1985), Leadership and Performance. N. Y,: Free Press. 2. Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership. N.Y: Harper and Raw. 3. Conger,J. & Kanungo,R. N. (1987). Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizations. Academy of Management Review. 12 (4), Dow, T. E. (1969) The theory of charisma. Sociology Quarterly 10, pp Eisenstadt, S. N. (1968), Max Weber on Charisma and Institution building. Chicago University. University of Chicagoi press. 6. Fiol, C. M. (1989), A semiotic analysis of corporate language, organizational boundaries and joint venturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, pp Fiol, C. Marlene; Harris Drew; & House, Robert, (1999) Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. The Leadership Quarterly,10(3), pp doi: /S (99) Gambetta D. (1988) Trust. New York. Basil Blackwell. 717

8 9. Gartner W. B. Low M. (1990), Trust as an organizing Trope. Unpublished paper presented at academy of management meeting 10. Goffmann E. (1974), Frame Analysis. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 11. Greeleaf K. R. Servant leadership. A journey into nature of legitimate power and greatness. L. C. Spears editorial Available online (Accessed on February ), 12. Greenleaf, R. K. (2002), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness (25th anniversary ed.), New York: Paulist Press. 13. Hogg, M. (2001) A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychological review. Vol 5. No: House R. J.; Spangler W. D. and Woycke, J (1991), Personality and Charisma in US presidency. A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (3), pp House, R. J. (1977), A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (eds) Leadership: The cutting edge. p Southern Illinois University Press. 16. MedhaPatker Lewin (1951), Field theory in social science. W. Y. Harper. 18. McClelland D. C; Davis W. V.; Kalin R. & Wanner E. (1972), The drinking man; Alchohol and human motivation. New York Press 19. Michael Hogg(2001), A Social Identity theory of leadership. Personality and social psychological review. Sage publications, p Nadler D. A & Tushman M. L. (1990), Beyond Charismatic leader. California management review 32(2), pp Shamir B; House R.J. Arthur M. (1993), The motivational effects of charismatic leadership. A self concept based on theory. Organisation Science 4 (4), pp Snow, D. A; Rochford E. B.; Worden S. K; & Benford R. D(1986) Frame alignment process Micro mobilization and movement participation. American Sociological review 51, pp Wangare Mathaai- Available in accessed on November