The Romance Lives On - Contemporary Issues Surrounding the Romance of Leadership - Article Example

Critique of “The Romance Lives On: Contemporary Issues Surrounding the Romance of Leadership” This paper is an extensive critique of the research proposal and methods of data collection as it relates to the article “The Romance Lives On: Contemporary Issues Surrounding the Romance of Leadership.” First, the paper will examine and critique the goal of the study, then analyze and describe the methods of data collection employed. The major points involve a variety of components that will need to be examined: the overall role of the follower; how credit or blame is determined regarding the leader’s responsibility; the various antecedents for the romance of leadership; the question of perception vs. reality; the characteristics and views regarding the role of charisma; and the various dynamics of individual vs. team performances. This paper will address each of these unique components and analyze their respective research trends. Finally, the paper will address the limitations of and any improvements regarding the assessment of the above topic and discuss goals for future research. Keywords: romance of leadership, follower, James R. Meindl Critique of “The Romance Lives On: Contemporary Issues Surrounding the Romance of Leadership” There have been numerous studies conducted over the years related to the romance of leadership. As a result, there is greater insight into the role of leaders in management, government and other organizations, as well as the influence of followers in this dynamic. A leading researcher in this field was James R. Meindl; an examination of the romance of leadership would not be complete without recognizing his multiple contributions. The goal of this study is to discuss the legacy of Meindl, the contributing research work of other scholars and the questions and limitations of their methods and conclusions. To define the romance of leadership in its simplest form, one can determine that it addresses the glorification of people in leadership roles. This occurs because of a need to make sense of the complex components found in organizational systems. The level of reverence is even more evident when the levels of performance are either very high or very low, displaying the tendency of people to irrationally attribute these outcomes to the performance of the organization’s leaders. Not only are leaders responsible for the great successes, but they are also held directly accountable for the negative outcomes. Leaders are given almost mythological status, romanticized by their followers as great controllers determining success or failure. This power allows the follower to feel some level of security that they are being lead by competent, controlling hands. Any research addressing the romance of leadership must also take into account the beliefs and thought processes of the follower. Also, research has continually focused on the role of more outside factors, such as the media and the particular social position of the participants. A critique of the goal of this study must address the various attempts to expand on the previous findings and formulate any suggestions and means of facing the various types of limitations. The major points to examine involve a variety of components: the role of the follower; how credit or blame is determined regarding the leader’s responsibility; the various antecedents for the romance of leadership; the question of perception vs. reality; the characteristics of charisma; and the dynamics of individual vs. team performances. These are all important goals of any analytical study and work to better understand and expand on the overall conclusions. This paper will address each of these components and analyze their respective research trends. Scholars have continually expanded upon Meindl’s belief that any reports from followers regarding the romance of leadership should be cautiously examined. In fact, a follower’s input says more about the follower than any insight they could offer regarding their views of a leader. Some research trends, however, continue to separate the follower from the leader, when this relationship should be seen as more intertwined and complex. Meindl believed that a more radical follower-centric approach to research was needed in order to balance the abundance of leader-centric findings. It is clear that more research is required to further examine the role of the follower. Research tells us that followers tend to hold their leaders responsible for performance failures, as the leveling of blame rises within the hierarchy of the organization. Often times, individuals are the focus of blame, as opposed to any responsibility directed at groups. However, further research is needed to clarify these findings. Perhaps there are other defining factors such as the varying types of leaders and the facets of leader-follower distance. Again, the relationship of leader and follower should be seen as a more complex and interlaced dynamic. There are a variety of antecedents that can influence whether a follower romanticizes their leader: age; gender; occupation; and their level of control within the organization. The current research, however, lacks further clarification and should work to expand on these characteristics and influences. The unique personality traits of the follower should be observed and examined, as a logical result of the important place of the follower in the romance of leadership research. Another valuable factor would be the way in which the follower views a company’s level of crisis. The data needs to clarify whether the problem is seen as situational or chronic. There has been a great deal of research done examining the issue of perception vs. reality as it relates to the role of leaders; the results, however, have been mixed and contradictory. For example, one study will state particular findings that do not support the data of a similar study. These issues with confusing and unsubstantiated conclusions likely mean that the right questions are not being asked. The researcher must address the more complex and specific aspects of perception vs. reality, perhaps defining the level of study in a more concrete way. To reiterate the previous point, research must take into account the complexities inherent in human relationships and belief systems. Meindl was skeptical of the role of charisma as a defining component of the romance of leadership research. The view that the particular leader is charismatic is primarily a result of the follower’s perspective; therefore it must be discounted as a true judgment call regarding the success or failure of the leader. A charismatic leader can play a variety of roles within an organization, both positive and negative. While charisma can help a leader if he or she is trying to gain funding or recruit top employees, for example, the idealized, unrealistic view of a leader can also cause their crash from a high pedestal to be both swift and serious. As Meindl believed, results that address the presence of charisma should be discounted and seen as a factor related to the mindset of the follower. There is little surprise that the varying dynamics within an organization can determine its success or failure. With the factors of the romance of leadership in place, the performance of the individual within the structure can take one of two avenues: the individual works hard to meet the high expectations he has in turn placed on the leader, feeling his success will reflect upon the leader as well; or, because so much power and mystique has been placed upon the leader, the individual may feel his efforts will not matter within the larger workings of the organization. As the article states, more research needs to be done to address these finer components and clarify the nuances of the role of the follower. When compared to the importance of the individual, the role of the group is perhaps a neglected component of the romance of leadership research. While by simply working under the same leader can by default label an individual part of a group, the shared social identity within the group defines its cohesiveness. As a result, members of the group may hold varying views regarding the standing of their leader. The opposite may also be present: The group may develop over time a shared construct that supports the foundations of the romance of leadership. These findings make it clear that a strong cohesive team can enhance performance levels and increase communication and success regarding their various undertakings. Is there evidence of a ‘romance of teams?’ Research has found that people assume that teams are more likely to succeed at their given task, even when presented with evidence that disproves this point. Meindl would disagree that this avenue of study is comparable to the romance of leadership. While leadership is based upon attribution theory and how people attempt to make sense of organization structures, the romance of teams is a more simplistic concept. Discussion For over twenty years, various studies and intense academic research have attempted to define and expand on the romance of leadership. The data has helped to understand and improve the workings of an organization and gauged its level of success. There is a definitive need, however, for further studies to examine less defined aspects and improved clarifications of the current data. This paper examines the present quality of conclusions and limitations of this evidence, as presented in the article “The Romance Lives On: Contemporary Issues Surrounding the Romance of Leadership.” There is a myriad of influences that can dictate the quality of data: personality traits and characteristic of the participants; the situational and contextual components present; the phenomenon of charisma; and the social distance that helps define the leader-follower relationship. To address any limitations, future research needs to account for the intricacies of these factors and explore other influences that may play a more defining role in the follower-leader relationship. Other questions should address the various domains of leadership and perhaps focus on the ways in which a follower interacts with a leader, whether through actual contact or the image of the leader the follower has formulated in his mind. Also, does the romance of leadership necessitate a lessening of the contributions of the follower? In conclusion, the romance of leadership research has allowed for a great deal of further understanding regarding the dynamics of leadership. More research is required, however, that will encourage more positive outcomes, such as a more effective evaluation of leader, team and individual performances and a strengthening of the relationship between leader and follower. As the research addresses the many aspects of leadership and organizational bonds, greater efficiency and success will be the result. References Bligh, Michelle C., & Schyns, Birgit. (2007). The romance lives on: Contemporary issues surrounding the romance of leadership. Leadership, 3(3), (pp.343-360). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Read More