HOME | CONTACT US

Call 817.945.6850

Defining Leadership: Art or Science (or Both)?

Is there one true definition of the subject of leadership? Is the topic of leadership an art or science? These are all complex questions that leave scholars and business professionals providing conflicting opinions and definitions.

Perhaps there are varying definitions of the practice of leadership, simply because leadership style and action varies considerably from person to person.  One definition of leadership is, “The process by which an agent induces a subordinate to behave in a desired manner (Hughes, Ginnett,& Curphy, 2012).”

I believe most individuals in the workforce have experienced this method of leadership.  This form of leadership seems to lack the visionary aspect, and instead, focuses on day-to-day outcomes.

Leadership is not something that is reserved only for the workforce.  The definition of leadership, which states, “Directing and coordinating the work of group members,” resonates with me as a safety and HR professional as well as a college professor.   Teaching adult learners through group work and projects are standard curriculum.  Each group needs an individual who can envision the result and can coordinate specific tasks for each student to achieve the desired outcome.

A student recently came to me worried about a PowerPoint project she had due within a group of four other students.  Each student had completed a designated number of slides, but each styled their slides differently, and the presentation lacked fluidity.  The group would have been wise to appoint someone to envision the appearance of the presentation before the creation of slides.  A leader would have been highly useful in this situation.

The definition of leadership that stands out most in my current working situation is, “An interpersonal relation in which others comply because they want to, not because they have to.”   When considering the most appropriate definition of leadership found in many of the textbooks from which I teach, I would say that some of the definitions provided could also apply to a manager.  Managers can maintain and control.  However, leaders inspire and form a long-term vision (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012, p. 8).

The most applicable definition would be, “The process of influencing an organized group toward accomplishing its goals (p. 4).”  This definition brings to mind Martin Luther King, Jr. This dynamic man was able to influence an organized group to create action through the civil rights movement. He was, indeed, an influential leader and visionary.

Leadership is often argued as either an art or science.  However, author Charles Palus finds that it can be both. Although science and art are often considered opposite from one another, according to Palus, they hold many similarities.  Both are passionate.  Even though one may not find science a passion, scientists would certainly consider themselves passionate about what they are trying to accomplish.  Therefore, a leader may have the precision of a scientist, as well as the passion of both the scientist and artist.  The potter may argue that there is also precision to be found in the art of pottery (Palus, 2005).

The course textbook indicates that one may not be an expert on the science of leadership to be an effective leader.  Still, understanding the science may improve a natural leader.  By considering Palus’s arguments, as well as the course text, I find it important to note the harmony that can be found in practicing both the art and science of leadership.  A passionate leader is weak without knowledge, just as a knowledgeable leader will be weak without passion for his or her cause.

 

Dr. David W. Guess | Executive VP | Safety & Human Resources, Usher Transport, Inc.

NATMI Academic Advisory Board Chairman

 

References

Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., & Curphy, G.J. (2012). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of Experience(7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Palus, C. (2005). The Art and Science of Leadership. Issues & Observations, 25. Retrieved from

http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/publications/lia/LIA25_1ArtScience.pdf

AASHTO Journal: At Least a Dozen States Consider Possible 2015 Increases in Motor Fuel Taxes

Officials in more than a dozen states are talking about possibly increasing taxes on gasoline and other motor fuels to help cover funding shortfalls for transportation infrastructure, reports a group that tracks tax developments across the country.

Carl Davis, a senior policy analyst at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, wrote in a Jan. 29 Tax Justice Blog article that “when it comes to paying for infrastructure, the gasoline tax is the single most important source of revenue collected at both the state and federal levels. As a result, funding large scale improvements, or maintenance, to transportation networks usually means that the gas tax rate has to go up.”

He said six states enacted fuel tax increases or reforms in 2013, and two more in 2014. For 2015, he said governors or legislators in 12 more are “seriously considering gas tax increases.”

Those are, Davis said: Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Washington state.

The list could be longer still. “We’re also hearing gas tax talk from legislators in Montana and Nebraska, task forces in Louisiana, research groups in Oklahoma and media in states such as Colorado and Wisconsin,” Davis added. Although he repeatedly wrote only of gas tax increases, states are usually considering plans that also increase fees on diesel and other types of fuel, plus registration fees.

Besides his list, AASHTO Journal has been reporting that officials in yet more states are considering ways to boost their transportation revenue. In at least two more – Kentucky and North Carolina – officials are discussing how to revamp their percentage-based fuel tax laws to ward off big declines in receipts due to the past year’s plunge in pump prices.

Some governors are also telling Congress that no matter what they do at the state level to increase their own transportation revenue, states still need a stronger and more reliable federal program to help catch up to a long list of backlogged projects to replace aging infrastructure or add capacity for growing populations.

In Georgia, for instance, he noted House Speaker David Ralston said a gas tax increase was possible this year and some lawmakers introduced a bill to do so. Gov. Nathan Deal has not formally proposed one, but Davis wrote the governor “has been dropping hints that he’s open to the idea.”

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter has not proposed hiking fuel taxes, but “he has supported increases in the past, and there is rampant speculation that a gas tax hike could be floated soon,” the article said. Likewise, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, Washington’s Jay Inslee and Chris Christie of New Jersey – among others – have not proposed one, but the analyst in each case pointed to indicators that such revenue measures may emerge.

The report also counted the December action in Michigan’s legislature, which passed a series of tax increases with a strong push by the governor but will put them before voters to approve or reject in May.

It noted that Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton and Senate leaders proposed adding a wholesale tax to fuel, and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley proposed hiking fuel taxes if combined with an income tax cut and reform of the state transportation department. South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard also proposed a gas tax increase, and Utah’s Gary Herbert has said “now is the time” to raise Utah’s gas tax, Davis reported.

Article appears courtesy of the AASHTO Journal – 2/6/15