Ignorant Certainty: Leadership in a Dogmatic Haystack

Abstract

Background: There is no absolute certainty of truth in the social sciences, but some try. On one hand, several researchers argue that we still search for a robust leadership theory – a heuristic Bayesian probabilistic explanation of reality. This view is based on the numerous leadership definitions which suggest the absence of an integrative framework thus producing confusion. On the other hand, many researchers seemingly imply leadership theory is finalised and based on a contemporary broadly agreed upon but limited definition emphasising relationships. Our stance is continuously updating possibilities with new and, in this paper, old but unfashionable research evidence that may clarify. Purpose, design/method/approach: Because concepts make a crucial contribution to theory, we assessed the concept leadership by conducting concept analysis. Findings: The purported consensus leadership definition states relationships or ‘cooperation’ as the fundamental quality of leadership. Research demonstrates that relationships/cooperation are necessary, but an insufficient condition to encapsulate the complete concept of leadership. Many researchers agree that leadership is a solution to the problem of collective effort (cooperation), bringing people together (coordination), and combining their efforts (integration) to promote organisational success – the crux of competitive advantage. This description signifies leadership solves the organising problem, namely, division of labour and integration of effort. Hence, leadership entails more than relationships/cooperation. Coordination galvanises cooperation. Nonetheless, coordination is missing in the purported consensus leadership definition and is often evident in observed poor organisational results. Contribution: We propose an alternative leadership definition from the earliest (‘old’) management literature. Our definition clarifies and remedies the shortcomings of the ignorant certainty asserted in the consensus definition. We believe that we provide an alternative way of thinking about, understanding, explaining, practising, and developing leadership. Consequently, laying the foundation for a unified leadership framework, if not theory, that can guide further refinement and expansion. Limitations: We carefully followed one recognised approach to concept analysis. This approach is useful in advancing debate and stimulating insights in the spirit of ongoing efforts to refine leadership theory. We recommend further calibration studies.