In John Godfrey Saxe’s 1872 poem, “The Blind Men and the
Elephant,” he whimsically describes six blind men encountering an elephant and
their feeble attempts to describe the beast in totality when they have each
only touched a single part. The parable
highlights that one’s personal or subjective experience can be true, but still
not accurately account for the real truth or other influences beyond their own
limited view. Beyond this, Saxe end’s his poem by highlighting that the men
“rail on in utter ignorance of what each other mean, and prate about an
Elephant Not one of them has seen!” (1872).
Not only does each men believe that what he experienced in touching the
elephant is absolutely true but he is so adamant about his truth that he argues
loudly with his peers. All the men were
touching the elephant at the same moment in time but each of them experienced
it differently and thus interpreted the animal as being something that it
wasn’t, i.e. fan, rope, wall, spear, tree, or snake.
Saxe’s poem is very applicable to the study of leadership as
many scholars and business executives have differing views on what is required
to be an effective leader. Peter
Northouse provides a summary of the major theories in his book, Leadership:
Theory and Practice (2013.) The trait
theory presumes that leaders are born with certain traits that make them
effective and powerful leaders.
Unfortunately, supporters of this theory have failed to provide a definitive
list of the exact combination required for exemplary leaders.
The skills approach focuses on the leader and their technical,
human relations, and conceptual acumen. Advantages of this approach are that it
focuses on the leader and “places learned skills at the center of effective leadership
performance” (Northouse, 71).
Regrettably, the skills theory is weak in its ability to be used
predictively.
Style theorists believe that it is not who leaders are but what
they do that makes them effective. “It
suggests that leaders [engage] in two primary types of behaviors: task and
relationship” (Northouse, 95). Similar
to the previous theories, there are weaknesses with the style approach. Researchers have been unable to identify a
universal set of behaviors that consistently predict leadership results.
Finally, Northouse describes situational leadership as a “model
that suggests to leaders how they should behave based on the demands of a
particular situation” (119). There are many positives to this approach as it is
practical and easy to apply. However,
there is not a strong body of empirical evidence to support situational
leadership theory resulting in ambiguity about its applicability.
When looked at independently, the leadership theories described
above all make credible and accurate points. However, they often contradict one
another and do not account for the unique influences and dynamic circumstances
that leaders encounter daily. From this,
I believe it is easy to see the parallels in modern leadership theory and
Saxe’s poem, “The Blind Men and the Elephant.”
In order
to truly understand the elephant, you must combine each man’s individual
experience and knowledge in order to form a concept of the whole. It is only through looking at the leadership
theories collectively that we can start to gain a clear understanding that
unique combinations of certain traits and skills utilized in specific
circumstances with a given type of employee in a given situation will yield
effective leadership. A single theory will never be an accurate predictive indicator
of a candidate or employee’s ability to lead just as one blind man cannot
accurately identify that he is encountering an elephant and not a wall or
snake. We must utilize the theories
collaboratively as helpful predictors and not waste time arguing as to which is
“right” as all are indubitably wrong when examined independently.
