What is the motive? Why should we care?
Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman,
Obama, Paul, Perry, Romney, Santorum... these names top the publicized list of twenty-two
declared candidates for President of the United States. One of the names
missing, to date a "potential candidate,” former Governor Palin recently
stated during a rally in Iowa, “Our challenge is not just to replace Obama in
2012, but the real challenge is who and what will we replace him with?” This is
a very good question. The issue for this article is not about a particular
candidate, party, or affiliation, nor is it about replacing President Obama or
not as Palin suggests. The focus is on the “what” of her question, specifically,
what do we know about a leader’s motive as it pertains to leadership? Why is
motive important for leadership style?
“Leadership is a process whereby an
individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” as observed
by Peter Northouse in his book, Leadership
Theory and Practice. There are two bodies of actors within that definition--the
individual who influences, and the individuals being influenced. There is a
relationship based on “consent.” Read again these words from The United States’
Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Why do citizens
need to understand the motive of those desiring to lead? Because understanding
a potential leader’s motive will enable the governed to intelligently consent
to that leadership. Because understanding the leader’s motive provides
visibility into the leader’s heart, allowing us to see the motive that causes
the person to act. Additionally, knowing the motive highlights whether the
goals are indeed common. Matthew 6:21 states, “For where your treasure is,
there your heart will be also.” In this context, we may use “motive” and
“motivation” as synonymous. In the English language, we sometimes apply a
deeper level to “motivation,” as the thing that drives a person to want to do a
certain thing. On the other hand, we often use “motive” in the negative, as in
“an ulterior motive”. However, for the purposes of this article, we will not
distinguish between the two, treating them equally.
Bruce Winston, Dean of the School
of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship at Regent University, believes that a
leader’s motive provides an indication of the leadership style used. He offers
personal pronoun metaphors to help us recall the four types of motives and the
leadership styles they represent: 1) “Me” motive – charismatic leadership style
(excitement created by envisioning, understanding through empathy, empowering
followers); 2) “We” motive – transformational leadership style (idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, individual consideration, intellectual
stimulation); 3) “thee” motive – servant leadership style (listening, empathy,
healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship,
commitment to the growth of others, building community); 4) “I” motive –
transactional leadership style (get things done, trading rewards or punishment
for performance). Those styles reflect ways to influence others, and
influencing others implies power. Leaders have power, “just power,” as the
Declarations state. According to Northouse, leaders have power “when they have
the ability to affect others’ beliefs, attitudes, and courses of action.” He
cites two personal bases of power: referent power (followers like leader) and
expert power (followers perceive the leader is competent); and three position
bases of power: legitimate power (formal job authority), reward power (leader
can provide rewards to followers), and coercive power (leader can penalize or
punish follower). Within the last US presidential cycle, there were clear
evidences of attempts to establish both the personal and position bases of
power as the candidates campaigned. This is likely to continue. Candidates seek
to convince (influence) potential followers (voters) that they are likeable,
and that they are competent as they seek the legitimate (“just”) power of
President. Likewise in this last cycle we saw clear reward power employed via
“redistribution of wealth” dialogue.
Dr. Alynna Lyon penned an article
titled “Moral Motives and Policy Actions:
The Case Study of Dag Hammarskjöld
at the United Nations”. Within that case study, she concludes, “regardless
of whether an administrator blatantly reveals a particular ethical framework or
moral persuasion, these personal components are instrumental and interactive
with the organization’s operational culture.” This conclusion supports the
present discussion about motive and the resultant leadership style employed.
Mr. Hammarskjöld was the second United Nations secretary-general
(1953-1961). From the study, Swedish culture shaped Hammarskjöld’s
moral code, with a firm commitment to neutrality, that being purity and
integrity, not detachment. His spiritual life, grounded in Swedish Lutheranism
held numerous guidelines for ethical behavior. In his case, “service and
self-sacrifice were the first stratum of his ethical code.” Lyon states that so
rooted was his inner code, one only needs to examine the circumstances
surrounding his death. He died in a plane crash during a peace mission in the
Republic of Congo while attempting to negotiate a cease-fire between Congo
forces and non-combatant United Nations forces. Among the documents found with
his body were “copies of the United Nations Charter, the New Testament, and the
Book of Psalms.” In 1997, Dag Hammarskjöld’s memory was honored by a United
Nations Security Council resolution, establishing a Dag Hammarskjöld Medal as a
posthumous award to members of peacekeeping operations "as a tribute to
the sacrifice of those who have lost their life as a result of service in
peacekeeping operations under the operational control and authority of the
United Nations." Mr. Hammarskjöld had a “thee” motive, which supported his
servant leadership style, evidenced on the global stage.
As this nation begins an admittedly
lengthy Presidential election cycle, should we not take the opportunity to
address the “what” question that Palin put forward? Answers to that question
will lead us to an understanding of the potential leader’s motive. An
understanding of the leader’s motive will provide illumination as to the
leadership style they will employ, which also will illuminate how they view
power. From a national standpoint, does it matter whether the leader of our
nation employs a “me,” “we,” “thee,” or “it” focus? As the nation wrestles with
mounting debt, high unemployment and an uncertain global stage, these are
questions well worth answering as we look toward the next century.
