[This post emerged from a 25-minute-long audio recording about my understanding of leadership types. I used the TurboScribe platform for a verbatim transcript of the audio and Claude AI for a plain copyedit to remove redundancies and grammatical slips in the oral text. It was a simple personal experiment (in fact, a pastime) about how an unprepared articulation of a common yet complex concept reads in scripts after minimal edits.]
What I’m writing here may benefit those aspiring to leadership, since it requires a comprehensive understanding of different leadership types. I will not go into the details of leadership theories, as I do not personally adhere to any theory that does not align with my cultural setting in Nepal. I am particularly impressed by Keith Grint’s categorization, which I present here in my own words.
Grint identifies leadership in four categories, based on the competence of the individual in relation to the position of leadership, and on how people view that position, whether individually or collectively. The first category is leadership as person. This is the conventional view of leadership, in which leadership is identified through the personality and character of an individual prepared to lead, someone possessing the human traits that increase the capacity to lead people and accomplish the goals of leadership.
Anyone adhering to this idea of leadership must prepare through high-level training, cultivate superior intelligence, and develop the capacity to deal with people across a range of emotional situations. It is thus a matter of personality, ethos, and the several intelligences that diversify one’s capacity to understand people and the world. Leadership as person, then, involves someone who is both effective and affective — firm in decision-making yet flexible enough to adapt their actions to the needs and expectations of others.
The second category treats leadership as position. In many cases there is a single position of leader, which brings with it the responsibility of devolving other responsibilities to different units. This category has more to do with the structure of the organization or team being led, and with the placement of that position — whether in a vertical structure, with the leader at the top and other positions arranged in layers beneath, or in a radial structure, with the leader at the center and various branches surrounding that position. In either case, the position calls for literacy and competence in communicating and representing views across these units, along with a comprehensive understanding of how the system functions and how its various branches and entities are connected to the central position.
The third category is leadership as process. This does not require a particular individual trait or biographical background, nor skill in defining the position; rather, it requires the ability to internalize the constitution of the organization. By constitution I mean the code of conduct, policies, guidelines, targets, timelines, and strategic schedules of the organization or team. This requires the competence to understand the overall functioning and scope of the team, as well as its members’ ethical involvement in defining and achieving goals. A person with this competence leads not only the process of the organization but also the individuals who lead its various sections. In other words, a person who sees leadership as process must internalize the organization’s policies, guidelines, and constitution.
The fourth category treats leadership as result — an extension of the process category, in the sense of process culminating in outcomes. People focused on leadership as results tend to be less compromising than those focused on position or process. Adhering strictly to process can prolong the time required to achieve results, since making everything policy-oriented and rule-based, and documenting and approving every procedure through a higher authority, introduces bureaucratic steps. A person committed to process may then feel constrained by such delays or by the malfunction of a particular unit within the organization. A person committed to results, however, may override these bottlenecks. In achieving the speed that results require, a results-oriented focus can impress many people, benefit customers or clients, and accelerate the operations of the organization or team. But a person who adheres to leadership as results must also be aware of the risk of mediocrity in the results themselves, in the process, and in the execution of their own role, if the sole aim is to reach the target as quickly as possible. A leader who can internalize all four aspects, and foreground each strategically according to the situation, is likely to be the most capable and dependable.
I would not advise focusing on one aspect to the exclusion of others, or adhering to it as a fixed rule for an entire leadership journey. I would instead recommend a flexible, strategic transition between the aspects. For example, in dealing with certain people, credibility or ethos matters, and here one might assume the aspect of leadership as person. When the focus is on institutional memory and on organizing or reorganizing the institutional mechanism, one might instead draw on leadership as position. This is because without that position, and the credibility and authority it carries, certain things cannot be executed. In periods requiring close observation of and adherence to institutional norms and standards, and when people need to be educated in the institution’s history and bottom lines, one takes the stance of someone who can educate, execute, and formulate policy amendments that keep people from being derailed in their work. At such a point, one can take up leadership as process, since process is essential to how people begin. Once they have gained experience and assimilated the norms of the team or organization, and are in a position to mentor others with their expertise, the role may shift toward leadership as result.
When the task is to accelerate people’s work and engagement, motivate them, and at times create challenges around targets and competition with other organizations, one takes the stance of someone driven by results. In fact, results are what strengthen, motivate, and, more often than not, regulate people’s actions. A leader who can move flexibly and strategically between these aspects, according to the needs of the team and organization, is the most reliable, and in that sense the most successful and result-oriented leader.
Anyone aspiring to a leadership position should examine all four aspects and consider whether they have understood the full scope of the role and reflect on the training, experience, and education they have already gained. They should also check their familiarity with codes of ethics, the constitution, and policy guidelines; and consider whether, as an aspiring leader, they have studied the institution’s history and institutional memory, taken account of what the organization or team has already achieved, and can give people a sense of ownership over that work.
This typology forms the kind of education and training that aspiring to leadership requires of any individual. I am aware of these realities, and for the most part I keep them in mind as my priorities when circumstances or choice lead me to shift places, roles, or connections with people. In this sense, I consider myself moderately trained and moderately educated in the requirements of leadership.
Another aspect I consider is leadership in terms of performance. Here I distinguish performing leadership, performance leadership, and performative leadership. Performing leaders are those focused on their individual responsibilities as people in a position of leadership, with a clear concern for results. They assume that people are equally aware of and literate about their own responsibilities, and that these people function autonomously, such as coming to work and carrying out their roles whether or not the leader has given any signal or specific terms of reference. Such leaders expect everyone to be self-directed, independent, and capable of deciding their own focus intelligently. Performing leaders are focused on their own actions and operations, and on the consequences of those actions, which are largely ethical and institutionally bound. Performing leaders focus on making sure their own actions are correct and in place and expect capable people to fulfill their own duties and learn from the model the leader has created.
The second type, performance leaders, are careful to bring people along with them as they move toward a result. They see themselves not only as leaders and forerunners but also as responsible for bringing as many people forward with them as possible. They take a participatory approach, encouraging people to take on their own responsibilities and paths, while communicating constantly and supervising and monitoring everyone’s actions. They do not lead alone; they lead the process and ensure that everyone is on board.
The third type, performative leaders, represents a more ambiguous concept. Performative leaders can display a theatrical attitude: they work to remain visible and active, and at times dramatize the impression that everything is going well and that everyone believes in their capacity. This can involve a degree of craving for publicity and vitality, and a tendency to inflate small achievements into major consequences for the organization or team. Such leaders remain visibly busy and active, and press others to do the same. In this frenzy of activism across the whole team, they can overlook the fact that the pace does not always match individual readiness, or the well-being of those involved.
Performative leaders are also said to be prone to avoidance. When they must make difficult decisions, such as penalizing someone or issuing a warning, they may shy away for fear of losing recognition or identity, unwilling to risk their personal standing for the sake of the community or organization. One advantage of performative leaders, however, is their ability to serve as models — active, outgoing, and skilled at public relations. Such leaders can attract external support, mobilizing well-wishers and partners to generate resources. The fact is because of their credibility and visibility, they are noticed by outside actors and partners and can readily generate resources and build the brand identity of the team or organization they lead.
This often comes at the cost of people’s well-being, and of their attitude toward their work. Performative leadership, thus, has both strengths and weaknesses, and most organizations may be best served by a combination of performing and performance leaders, since together these two approaches reduce negativity and pessimism and increase people’s willingness to participate. Performative leaders, however, are more likely to exclude slower participants, and sometimes critics, who would rather engage strategically than take part in a theatrical performance staged by the leader.
In conclusion, I have discussed two categorizations of leadership. The first recognizes leadership as person, position, process, and result. The second concerns the value of performance in leadership: performing leadership, performance leadership, and performative leadership. The purpose is for people to understand these sometimes distinct, sometimes overlapping roles and to become better educated about them. I emphasize this aspect of education: reflecting on your own capacity to take on one of these roles, and then testing whether it can be implemented or practiced in your own setting.