CHAPTER 1
Evolutionary (Natural) Science Versus Social Science
The concept of ignorant leadership is the honest understanding that leaders cannot know everything in the organization. According to Stacey (2001), leaders cannot know everything even if they devote to lifelong learning in a given organization. Furthermore, different combinations of situational elements, forces, and conditions continue to create continuums in leadership, learning, and behaviors that make it difficult for leaders to grasp the complex theories and learning in organizations (Senge 1990). Leadership is concept heavy. A leader who cannot generate multiple ideas and multiple solutions is limited in knowledge. Admitting a limitation of knowledge and ideas is not ignorance; it is astute knowledge. It helps the leader to remove three mental blocks — failure to see, failure to move, and failure to cross the finish line — of gaining new knowledge and implementing new ideas (Black and Gregerson 2014).
Chapter 1 develops a framework for conceptualizing research on a new concept of ignorant leadership and examines the reasons many organizational leaders are ignorant of what they do. The author has presented these thoughts at the peer-reviewed conferences of the Association of Politics and Life Sciences (APLS), of which he is a member in good standing. Research presentations at this conference are evolutionarily inclined. However, the author, through literature and research, observed that leadership concepts in evolutionary sciences are similar to present-day social science concepts of leadership. This study expands both concepts and makes a case against fragmented leadership models and theories.
The Case against Fragmented Leadership Models and Theories
Leadership study permeates biology and politics (sometimes referred to as "biopolitics") and speaks to many linkages between the life sciences and the study of political, business, community, nonprofit, or religious leadership. Policy implications emerging from the life sciences and political and biological influences, as well as from community and religious institutions, create complexity and fragmentation in leadership studies. Admitting to situational inclinations of leadership studies, it is academically thoughtful to point out that there are irreconcilable leadership theories that are difficult to characterize and comprehend (Hogg 2001; Northouse 2010). Multiple definitions of leadership, each written from a different viewpoint and with different emphasis (Chan 2005), and different expectations from different leaders in global leadership studies (Bird 2008; Zaccaro 2007), create a perceived fragmentation. Moreover, most leadership theories are too vague and shallow to support empirical research (Northouse 2010). In some cases, there is inadequate understanding of what differentiates good leaders from bad leaders (Harshman and Harshman 2008).
In a transformational leadership study, Bass and Avolio (1994) argued that transformational leaders build leader-follower relationships based on mutual encouragement characterized by the leader's personality, inspiration, and intellectual motivation to transform not only situations but also followers. A different charismatic leadership study (Rowold and Heinitz 2007) found that leaders and followers develop unique relationships based directly on the leader's personality, oft en in the face of a lack of proven skills or any meaningful experience.
The missing piece in the studies cited above is how to prove a skill or meaningful experience of a leader's influence on followers to an evolutionary scientist (van Vugt 2011). Other researchers, such as Hogg (2001), argued that there is difficulty in developing a leadership selection process or even predicting a successful and effective leader with substantial accuracy based on any of the numerous and separate leadership theories. The problem appears even more complicated by the complex nature of direct and indirect leadership roles and behavioral or relational expectations of the different leadership concepts.
In what appears to be a response to Hogg's assertion, Solansky (2008) opined that even if an efficient process could be used to select effective leaders, the dynamics of leadership situations might render the selection invalid. On the other hand, Bird (2011) argued that there is not a single, best way to lead but that leadership remains situational in both local and global contexts. Bird's (2011) positionality notwithstanding, it is important for leadership researchers and practitioners to develop an integrated and coherent common understanding of leadership for effective organizational learning and practices (Burns 1978). Of course, the differences are quite understandable, considering the complexity of human behavior and many unmeasured variables in leadership models. However, the differences also confuse not only scholars and practitioners but also the ordinary person on the street, who passionately wants to understand leadership. From this argumentative standpoint, the status quo is wrong.
Why the Status Quo Is Wrong
Contrasting lists of essential traits that cast doubt on the empirical status of trait theories (Bass and Bass 2008), behavioral studies focus on the "external" behavior of leaders rather than "internal" traits, beliefs, and motives (Northouse 2010). Most leadership findings are survey data and not replicable experiments (Hazy, Goldstein, and Lichtenstein 2007). Furthermore, inadequate understanding of the following — the whats and whys of leaders' behavior, inadequate knowledge of what essential behaviors comprise leadership, and inadequate frameworks of how researchers and practitioners differentiate between formal and informal relationships of leaders and followers (Burns 1978) — thereby make the status quo wrong.
According to Latour (2000), there appears to be a misunderstanding about what it means to provide a social explanation of a piece of science. Latour (2000) further argued that the social sciences imitate the natural sciences in a way that renders them unable to profit from the type of objectivity found in the natural sciences. Thus, the meaning of "social" and of "science" should be reconfigured before the definition of what a social science is and what it can do in the leadership arena is considered (Latour 2000). This author disagrees with Latour (2000) that only the natural scientist is "in the know" of producing solid, objective, and verifiable knowledge of social phenomena. It appears that both natural scientists and social scientists are either ignorant of each other's philosophical commitments or do not want to accept each other's worldview.
Even though this study admits that neither of the approaches is superior to the other, reconciling the two approaches could reunite leadership theories and break them into simple concepts for easy understanding.
Weber on Natural Science and Social Science
Weber (1946) rejected the contention that the cognitive aims of the natural and the social sciences were basically the same. According to Weber, it is impossible to make legitimate generalizations, because human actions are not subject to the regularities that govern the world of nature. Weber (1947) further argued that the method of science — whether subject matter, things, or people — always precedes abstraction and generalization. Thus, Weber (1947) took the stand that people, in contrast to things, could be understood not only in external manifestations of behavior but also in the underlying motivations. According to Weber (1947), differences between the natural sciences and the social sciences arise from differences in the cognitive intentions of the researcher. Thus, the natural scientist is primarily interested in those aspects of natural events that can be formulated in terms of abstract laws, while the social scientist may wish to search for such lawful abstract generalizations in human behavior (Weber 1947). Therefore, making value judgments of which approach is "better" seems a futile effort. However, an integrated approach to reconcile the two methods could make leadership studies stimulating while creating a common understanding among leadership practitioners.
Fundamental Premise
If we continue to use current fragmented leadership models and theories, we are not likely to solve the challenge of leadership soon.
Think Links
According to Carter, Bishop, and Kravits (2012), a think link (also known as a mind map) is a visual form of note-taking that encourages flexible thinking. The visual design makes the connections easy to see as well as shape the visualized pictures beyond words. Carter et al. (2012) explained that to create a think link, one should start by circling or boxing a topic in the middle of a sheet of paper. Next, a line is drawn from the topic to write the name of one major idea at the end of the line. The major idea is circled. Specific facts related to the main idea are linked with dotted lines. The process is continued, connecting thoughts to one another with circles, lines, and words to make meaning. Think link also supports reflection and recollection of information.
This study proposes leadership studies to be think links connecting the different natural and social scientific thoughts with circles, lines, and words for an integrated study. Though challenging, think links could present a clearer understanding of leadership studies and practices to the layperson. The unconnected leadership ideas continue to present a distorted visualized picture of what leadership is about. A tree with trunk, branches, and roots as a central concept appears clearer than another tree presented in a fragmented concept. Admittedly, leadership concepts could be difficult to construct as a think link. However, as emphasized earlier, scholars' and practitioners' honest attempts toward linking natural-science concepts with social-science theories on leadership could create better understanding in learning of the subject.
Research Shortfall: Reasons for Leadership Gaps
According to Johnson (2007), a leader's self-confidence could lead to self-ignorance. Self-ignorance might lead to trustworthiness issues with followers. A leader who is not trustworthy could become assertive and intolerant and still lose the respect of followers. The tolerant leader may be indecisive and unconvincing because of a lack of knowledge in the subject under discussion. The decisive one might not communicate clearly because of a lack of communication skills. Leaders who communicate clearly might also not listen if they lack active listening skills (Spears 2002). Leaders who listen might not inspire followers, because they might not be able offer wise solutions (Sternberg 2008). The inspiring leaders might not be good relationship builders because they lack emotional intelligence (Goleman 1997).
Furthermore, good relationship builders could be unethical, because they have little knowledge about ethical values and theories (Price 2006). Ethical leaders could be inauthentic, because they lack spiritual propriety or their spiritual life is private and separate from their espoused public behavior (Boa 2001; Lambert 2009). Authentic leaders might not respect diversity, because they have no idea what "diversity" means in a complex, globalized world of leadership (Bird and Osland 2004).
Therefore, again, if leadership researchers, scholars, and practitioners continue to use fragmented leadership theories and models in leadership studies, it is not likely to solve the challenge of leadership soon, because of the visibly interpretation gaps between life science and social science (Harshman and Harshman 2008; Vogt and Ahuja 2011).
Closing the Gap: Life Science and Social Science
In an organizational-system theory, Daft (2009) contended that environmental context and design are part of leadership. Goldstein and Lichtenstein (2007) also found that abilities play important roles in leadership. Harshman and Harshman (2008) also argued that not every leadership experience is developmental. However, van Vugt and Ahuja (2011) conceptualized that many leadership experiences lead to personal and developmental skills. Interest seems to be a driving force that pulls leaders and followers in when completing a given assignment or executing a task effectively in an experiential situation (van Vugt and Ahuja 2011). Thus, interest could be a prime force of creativity or energy in developing personal leadership skills and style to close the natural and social leadership gap.
Moreover, a leader's personality style could depend on how he or she interacts naturally and easily with others (Goldstein and Lichtenstein 2007). Therefore, families and environments in which an individual interacts naturally could also play an influencing role in the individual's understanding of work values and worldviews of both the natural and social sciences (Goldstein and Lichtenstein 2007; Harshman and Harshman 2008). The knowledge and understanding could bridge the ignorance gap of each of the sciences. The gap appears wider when evolutionary thoughts and sociological concepts of leadership, in their unique ways, try to make sense in a quest of understanding leadership skills, traits, relationships, and values in modern societies. Little is known, for instance, of a life science theory of evolutionary leadership in contemporary organizational leadership (van Vugt 2011). Therefore, a critical look at an evolutionary path of leadership could throw more light on the need for an integrated approach in understanding leadership through the filters of natural-science and social-science leadership experiences. This path must be threaded with no personal bias or parochial interest, but rather with an open mind to deal with the fundamental topic of this study, the conscious or unconscious ignorance of the other side of the scientific viewpoint.
Evolutionary Path of Leadership
Evolutionary theory conceptualizes how the role of food sharing may have seeded the beginning of leadership and policymaking by teaching apes and humans how to forge alliances and coalitions (van Vugt 2011). This means leadership and followership arose in human species in response to survival and reproductive challenges (Van Vugt and Ahuja 2011). According to Kellerman (2004), the Great Man Theory and subsequent leadership theory replacements (such as transformational leadership, transactional leadership, authentic leadership, ethical leadership, situational leadership, steward leadership, servant leadership, charismatic leadership, and so forth) only highlighted good leadership and ignored bad leadership.
Van Vugt and Ahuja (2011) seemed to support Kellerman's 2004 assertion by conceptualizing that bad leadership is explained via a mismatch hypothesis or chasm between humans' slowly evolving brains and rapidly evolving culture. Thus, evolutionary researchers argue that the prescriptive formula to fight bad leadership is to align human leadership with biological anchorage, because only human leadership and biological anchorages could explain the what and why of leaders (van Vugt and Ahuja 2011). However, this assertion faces numerous challenges.
Challenges of the Evolutionary Path of Leadership
There are many unexplained fundamental details in the evolutionary path of understanding leadership as posited by van Vugt and Ahuja (2011):
(a) Ancient nomadic survival through hunting is not identical to modern flourishing cities of economic and social activities.
(b) The power of modern technology, information, communication, and transportation makes modern leadership more complex than ancient leadership.
(c) There is conflicting knowledge of social behaviors of apes and early hominids.
(d) Some evolutionary theory languages could be described by social-scientist theorists as "over the top."
(e) Many business scholars and professionals are unfamiliar with knowledge of life science's thought processes of evolutionary leadership, which might lead to hostility of biological explanations of the social leadership phenomenon.
(f) Empirical evidence to confirm or disconfirm either a good-natured or bad-natured hypothesis remains elusive in evolutionary studies.
(g) Debate on the degree of evolutionary continuity or discontinuity between apes and Pleistocene hunter-gatherer forbears is not clear.
(h) Genetics and life experiences alone do not program leaders to lead (Goldstein and Lichtenstein 2007; van Vugt and Ahuja 2011).
Making Sense of Natural- and Social-Science Experiences
It appears that the future of making sense in leadership studies rests in integrating natural- and social-scientific theories into an all-inclusive leadership study (Burns 1978; Bailey and Axerold 2001). A reconciled approach could appeal to both sides of the sciences.
Fortunately, leadership is not an issue of "the only tool one has is a hammer," in which every situation is treated as a nail (Harshman and Harshman 2008). If leadership theorists have more tools in natural and social sciences, why not accept, appreciate, adjust, and adapt to each appropriate concept in an integrated approach embedded in complex adaptive systems of leadership (Sargut and McGrath 2011)?
