Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Unmasking Leadership Motivation: A Theoretical Investigation

MA. JIANDRA BIANCA F. DESLATE University of the Philippines, Diliman

Why do people run for positions of leadership in their respective student organizations?
Throughout the course on Political Behavior, Processes, and Movements, the student has
encountered several studies on organizational behavior: studies on why people join organizations,
why they contribute to its cause or not, why they choose to abide by its rules or do otherwise. This
article aims to further the scope of organizational study by investigating the reasons behind the
decision of certain members to run for leadership positions, an act that runs counter to the logic of
rational choice. The author draws from sociological and psychological theories of political
behavior in an attempt to explain this phenomenon.

The theory of rational choice is a actually a cost, in terms of time or money,


popular analytical tool in the academe. and would diminish his net benefits from the
Many social scientists turn to it to help them organization. Why then, do some members
interpret the decisions of individuals and still continue to work for the organization?
groups. According to the theory, a rational Even more, why do some go as far as
actor is value-maximizing, aiming to running for positions of leadership, which
achieve his set goal or objective in the most obviously entail the highest level of
economical way possible. His rational organizational work?
choice, then, would be the action which To answer this puzzling question, the
yields him the highest benefit with the author interviewed officers from various
lowest cost. organizations about their motives for
In the context of organizations, it is running. Their answers formed the basis for
rational for individuals to join it as the the theories of behavior elaborated on
organization makes available collective throughout this article. Most theories are
goods which could not otherwise be borrowed from social scientists in the field
provided through individual, unorganized of sociology, psychology, and political
action. “A common, collective, or public science.
good is here defined as any good such that,
if any person in a group consumes it, it Social Learning Model
cannot feasibly be withheld from the others
in that group,” (Olson, 1971). For example, Used by Lloyd Etheredge to explain
it would be rational for an athlete whose why some students don’t return cafeteria
goal is to play a team sport (like basketball trays, the Social Learning Model
or soccer) to join the varsity team because characterizes an individual as one who
he cannot very well play basketball or constantly seeks rewards and avoids
soccer alone. The game serves as the punishment. Behavior that is rewarded
collective good, which is made available to continues, while behavior that is punished
everyone on the team. stops. Hence, those who run for leadership
However, it does not seem rational positions see it as a reward, while those who
for a member to contribute to organizational avoid it see it as a punishment. Those who
work, as he can continue to enjoy the consider it a punishment are operating on
organization’s collective good regardless of the logic of rational choice, viewing
his effort. Any contribution on his part is leadership as costly since the organizational
benefits are accrued equally both to leaders Leadership could also be born out of
and members alike. On the other hand, those social incentives. Those who run might have
who consider it a reward have more than just willingly done so because they view
economic incentives in mind. This is leadership as a way to be socially accepted
explained further in the subsequent theory. in the organization. On the other hand, they
might have merely succumbed to peer
Selective Incentives pressure, afraid that if they did not give in to
their friends’ requests or demands that they
There is a range of incentives that run, they will be excluded or alienated.
human beings respond to. In Mancur
Olson’s The Logic of Collective Action, he Second Generation Models of Rationality
goes beyond the economic incentives of the
rational choice theory and cites Elinor Ostrom, in an effort to support
psychological and social incentives as traditional rational choice theory with
possible reasons why members contribute to empirical evidence, proposed second
a collective good. These “selective generation models of rationality. These
incentives” can be applied to leadership models are more grounded on human
positions as well. behavior, which Ostrom acknowledged as
Many students want to become “complex and fallible,” and can perhaps
leaders because “it will look good on the better explain the ‘irrational’ choice of
resume” and can give them an upper hand in running for positions of leadership.
job competition, or simply because it makes
them feel important. The prestige that comes Learning Norms
with a title of leadership is a psychological Second generation models of
incentive exclusive to the individual who rationality use ‘norms’ to explain
wins the position. Ordinary members, while human behavior. “By norms, I mean
able to enjoy the organizational benefits that that the individual attaches an
the leaders work extra hard for, do not enjoy internal valuation—positive or
that kind of prestige. negative --- to taking particular types
Another psychological incentive, of action,” (Ostrom, 1997). Since
apart from prestige, is that of agenda-setting. norms are learned in a social milieu,
Although organizations bind all of its it can be theorized that those who
members to certain rules, including its run for positions probably grew up in
leaders, freedom to set the agenda and an environment where leadership
decide on some important matters is still was considered a positive norm, thus
accorded only to those with leadership making them inclined to it. Positive
positions. For example, every student norms are usually perceived with a
organization has an “Executive Committee” ‘warm glow’ while negative ones are
of leaders, who meet regularly to decide on perceived as ‘duty.’ As one
certain issues not covered by the rules. Such interviewee answered, “I feel
decisions would include, for example, what fulfilled whenever I lead, to the point
projects to undertake for the semester or that it makes up for all the things I
how to punish a damaging act of a member. miss out on while doing it.”
The Core Relationships: Reciprocity, PSYCHOANALYTICAL THEORIES
Reputation, and Trust. OF INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS

Reputation So far, the theories presented in this article


have been based on social dynamics. The
Leadership author now delves into the psychology of
leadership—what goes on in the mind of
Trust aspiring leaders even before others respond.

Reciprocity
Hierarchy of needs
One such norm that people learn is
‘reciprocity,’ which creates a mutually
reinforcing relationship with ‘reputation’
and ‘trust’. Reciprocity entails that
individuals react positively to positive
actions and negatively to negative
actions. Simply put, reciprocity is tit-for-
tat strategy.
The author theorizes that aspiring
leaders are part of organizations whose
members share reciprocity norms.
Hence, leaders are assured that their In Abraham Maslow’s paper on “A
initiative to cooperate will be Theory of Human Motivation,” he describes
reciprocated by the members, reducing man as having five levels of needs.
the costs of leadership pertained to by Physiological needs are at the lowest level,
traditional rational choice theory. followed by the need for safety, then for
Reciprocity is born out of trust, trust love or belonging, then for esteem, and at
that one’s effort will be returned by the highest level, the need for self-
others, and that no defections will occur. actualization. Based on this hierarchy,
Trust is defined by Ostrom as the leadership can be classified as a higher need,
“expectation of one person about the specifically at the level of Esteem.
actions of others that affects his own Those with self-esteem needs desire
choice of action.” Those that run for achievement, which they view as a way
positions of leadership have thus gained towards social recognition and personal
a trust-worthy reputation of reciprocity. worth. In this sense, a position of leadership
Members trust them to reciprocate can be seen as an achievement, and becomes
cooperation, and in turn, these leaders desirable to people with low self-esteem.
also trust their members to help them Leadership makes them feel valued and
out. This mutually reinforcing respected by others, thus inducing them to
relationship between reciprocity, trust, work for it.
and reputation (as shown in the diagram
above) creates productive social
exchanges that encourage members to Masochism
want to be leaders.
Perhaps aspiring leaders recognize organization. Such individuals align their
the responsibility of leadership as a happiness with the happiness of others.
punishment, but they actually,
unconsciously, want that punishment. Such Escapism
is the irrational nature of the masochist, who Perhaps the intense level of
derives a perverse thrill, sexual or otherwise, organizational activity that comes with
from acting against his own interests. Thus, positions of leadership is a form of escapism
people who run for leadership positions can for some people. Escapist activity takes on
be viewed as masochists, seeking the many varied forms, but it is characterized
punishment of leadership costs because they solely by the motivation to escape from a
enjoy getting hurt. particular problem or issue. The busy
lifestyle of leading an organization serves as
Sadism a sufficient distraction from a family
The reverse of masochism, sadism problem for example, or any similar issue.
theorizes that individuals enjoy hurting and While others take drugs to escape, or go out
punishing other people. Aspiring leaders, with friends frequently, some may turn to a
then, may be interpreted as wanting to constant supply of org. work for refuge.
punish members, an opportunity made
available to them when they are in a position Game Playing
of power. Those running for positions of
leadership aim to seize such an opportunity The reason behind any member’s
to inflict pain on others. leadership intent can be as simple as him
finding it fun. Many interviewees claimed to
Narcissistic Gratification genuinely like the duties entailed by their
Aspiring leaders may also be specific position of leadership, be it under
described as narcissistic, or having an the scope of Public Relations, Membership
excessive sense of self-importance. This and Administration, or even Financial
attitude leads to attention-seeking behavior, matters. As they always say, “it’s easy to do
manifested in the act of running for a something you like”--- even if it means
position of leadership. A narcissistic doing it all the time for everyone else.
individual views the position as a tool to Leadership is thus a game certain
gain the attention he believes he is entitled individuals enjoy playing.
to. As one interviewee answered, “I didn’t
just want to be any member, I wanted to be Role Theory
the star.” A member’s reason for leadership
can also be as robotic as him seeing the
Altruism position as his appropriate role in the grand
On the other hand, an aspiring leader scheme of things. In society, individuals
can be described as ‘altruistic.’ Altruism is tend to take on different roles to
the ethical doctrine of being concerned for complement one another’s needs, and
the welfare of others, and being motivated to leadership is one such role. Whether or not
do something good for them even without they enjoy it, some people run for leadership
reward. Altruistic people are willing to positions in their respective organizations
shoulder the costs of leadership (pointed out simply because they believe that that’s
by the theory of rational choice) if it means where they ought to be.
it will be for the greater good of the
INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF CONCLUSION
LEADERSHIP
The author set out to investigate the
Since organizations are institutions, different motives of members running for
it would make sense to analyze the positions of leadership in their respective
organizational behavior of running for organizations. Throughout the article,
leadership positions from an institutional theories from the varied disciplines of
point of view. sociology (ex: Social Learning Theory),
psychology (eg: sadomasochism, hierarchy
Systems Theory of needs), and political science (ex: Systems
Theory) provided possible explanations for
Input ---- political system  output this kind of behavior. No one theory
(demands (leaders) (decisions prevails. An individual’s act of running for a
& support) & policies) leadership position may be the result of
several factors, subsumed under several
theories. He may be running for the prestige
(Selective Incentives Theory) and for
Feedback change (Systems Theory) and as a form of
escape from his many problems (Escapism).
According to David Easton’s That no theory is mutually exclusive in
Systems Theory, input (in the form of explaining a human being’s behavior is the
demands and support) from the public are logic of field theory, which characterizes an
turned into outputs (such as decisions and individual as living in a “life space” acting
policies) through the political system. according to a confluence of factors.
Though modeled after the interaction
between state and society, Easton’s theory
can also be applied to organizational
dynamics. Members give their input to their
leaders, who are responsible for delivering
output. Initial outputs influence future inputs
into the system.
Many interviewees talked about
‘change’ as their motive for running. They
believed that being in a position of
leadership makes it easier for them to
initiate change in the organization.
Leadership position, then, can be paralleled
to the political system, which converts
inputs into outputs. Aspiring leaders want
to be part of that system because it gives
them leverage over implementing changes,
as opposed to merely being a member and
staying outside of the system.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen