Group factor in leadership (2)

LAST week we began to look at
the group factor in leadership
and it was pointed out that every definition of leadership recognizes the fact that for us to accept a relationship as leadership by any definition it involves the effect of an individual’s activities on a group of persons. Hence, W.C.H Prentice’s definition of leadership as “The discipline of deliberately exerting special influence within a group to move it towards goals of beneficial permanence that fulfills the group’s real needs” one of the key words being group. Today, we look at one key factor in addressing the group factor which is the need to understand that every group inevitably has its character which is shaped by a number of issues.

Robert Tomasko wrote a book titled “GO FOR GROWTH” in which he likened organizations to individuals based on their character and response patterns. One of the reasons for this is the tendency of everything in nature whether chemicals or living things to seek for equilibrium or a state of balance and where they find this balance in the case of groups it then defines the groups character. Anyone who, therefore, intends to influence a group must have an understanding of the group’s character and its defining perspectives. Often the character of a group is determined by three key things.

The first is the individual make up of the group. It is important to know that every group is first and foremost made up of individuals who, as Henry A. Murray said, “Each of us is in some ways like everybody else; in some ways like somebody else; and in some ways like nobody else.” Therefore, the make up of the group brings together different persons who have diverging and converging characters, gifts and abilities. It is, therefore, these divergences and convergences they can bring to the group at the very best. Which is why you see top coaches in football always looking to find players who bring certain gifts to the team as they know that if they have no finishers, for example, however well they play with no good goal scorer they cannot win the match.

The second thing that determines been together. This affects how the group gels together, its capacity to respond and the predictability of the group. A group that has been together a long time also tends to be a bit fixed and predictable in its response patterns and in the same way can be difficult to adjust to new challenges. The longer a setting exists, the more likely practices become tradition and change can be difficult to implement. Anyone therefore exerting influence or leadership on the group must bear this in mind. Again, we see this in national issues especially in Africa where nations were cobbled together by the colonial masters but have tended to have tentative unity and as in the case of Kenya the rapidity of disintegration of national unity has often taken people by surprise until you realise that as nations go, 50 years is still small or even as in the case of Yugoslavia even a hundred years. In fact it took England close to 300years to create a sense of one nationhood between the Normans and the Saxons.

The third thing that determines the character of the group are the key persons who act as fulcrum of the group. In every group there are usually key persons who determine the character of the group and by looking at them you can have an idea of the group’s dynamics and character. Jack Welch talked about the fact that when he had to influence General Electric in the direction he wanted the company to go, he had to look for characters within the organisation who by buying in would change the dynamics. The only challenge is that these persons are not always obvious unless you know how to recognise them.

It is important to recognise the character of the group because a leader who fails to understand his group is likely to end up missing his objectives and thereby result in failed leadership.

At the last African Cup of Nations the failure of the Nigerian team to beat Ghana was largely due to that fact. We had a coach who was not aware that Nigerian teams have always played better when attacking, something, I believe, to do with our national psyche. Whenthe Ghanaian team went one man down instead of him to order our boys into the attack mode, he asked them to calm the game down, an unnatural state for them which resulted in a loss of concentration leading to a Ghanaian victory. For leadership to be effectively exerted on a group there must