Introduction
Statesmanship is a grounded and excellently balanced model of leadership that has originated in politics throughout the development of the art of diplomacy. Current politicians have regarded the statesmanship approach as outdated and even dead for the needs of modern politics. Despite these cynical statements, its principles of striving for the general good and embodying the fundamental laws of the body represents secure statesmanship’s relevancy in modern organizational culture. This paper aims to provide a comprehensible overview of the concept of statesmanship, both historically and at the current times. It discusses the links that exist between individual leadership, often represented by statesmanship in the past, and organizational leadership. Finally, it examines the influence the statesmanship model has on modern organizational communication and its best practices.
Statesmanship Model Overview
Statesmanship is a leadership framework, an approach to governing and inspiring others by embodying a set of designated ideas and principles. It is, or at least was for the majority of its existence, indivisible from the figure of a statesman: the charismatic leader who has a clear vision of the desired path in front of them (Overeem & Bakker, 2016). Engaging in persuasion, coercion, and leading by example, a statesman ensures that their vision is achieved by obtaining a persistent following.
Statesmanship is distinguished from other, more ordinary forms of leadership by the presumption of moral excellence and justice. It is implied that a statesman would not be able to achieve the same results by application of brute force and relying on their political and personal skills (Overeem & Bakker, 2016). The virtues expected of someone who exercises statesmanship cannot be fully based on spirituality and character but rather need to have a practical positive impact on the decisions a statesman makes. Courage, trustworthiness, and the ability to stick to one’s promises are deemed the core virtues of the statesmanship approach.
With the passage of time, the model became applicable not only to the governing process but to the other areas where inspired leadership is needed. CEOs of the major companies of today already possess political power as it is, and statesmanship instructs them to exercise this power wisely. When in agreement with the statesmanship model, organizational leaders maintain their companies in as fair and mutually beneficial a relationship with the environment as possible. It ensures sensible resource management, respect towards the employees of the firm, and, perhaps most importantly, orientation toward the greater good (Overeem & Bakker, 2016). Overall, the statesmanship model in organizational leadership is one of the key ways a firm could realize its potential to benefit society at large.
Interpersonal and Organizational Leadership
However, in order for the principles outlined above to be applicable to the leadership in an organization, they need to undergo several adjustments. These changes are related to the differences that exist between interpersonal and organizational leadership. As one might understand from the previous section, the original statesmanship is mostly locked on the one key figure of the central leader. Although not described as dominating, this approach to leadership elevates one person above their environment and subordinates. Such positioning is, generally speaking, not applicable to the state of organizational management and leadership today.
Interpersonal leadership is characterized by its emphasis on inspiring other people and motivating them to be their best selves, often via personal example. It not only relies but is dependent on the leader’s charisma and ability to compel their audience (Fischer, 2010). The idea of the rewarding purpose is sufficient within the interpersonal leadership framework, as it is frequently exercised outside of the more structured environments. Interpersonal leadership is less concerned with details and intermediate stages when working towards the outlined grandiose goals in question. Once again, it can be frequently found in politics and public speaking, where the areas that require inspiring others and the areas of management of current affairs are separated.
Organizational leadership, on the contrary, is heavily dependent on a leader’s ability to set up realistic intermediate goals in accordance with the financial interests of an organization. The ability to motivate the individuals involved remains relevant to the process but often takes a step back when compared to emerging management issues (Cao et al., 2015). In the organizational approach to leadership, leaders set up strategic goals and establish bite-sized steps and checklists to guarantee the goals are achieved in time. Structural consistency is crucial within the organizational approach to leadership, as it affects the course the business is adopting for itself for a specified period of time. It is important to specify that attention to individuals’ potential cannot be disregarded in this type of leadership. However, the understanding of said potential becomes less broad as organizational leaders pay attention to the ways in which a team member can contribute to the firm’s overall efficiency.
By extension, when applied to organizational leadership, the statesmanship approach evolves and becomes more business-focused. It contextualizes the role of values in an organization’s overall prosperity, which is particularly applicable to public organizations (Ritz et al., 2014). Namely, the ideals of statesmanship have the potential to affect and shape employee behavior, thus aiding the management team in the implementation of best practices. Research has shown that the higher employees’ opinions on the impact they have on the overall results, the more likely they are to demonstrate top-class performance on a consistent basis (Ritz et al., 2014). As mentioned earlier, the understanding of one’s behavior as influential and important for the overall goal is one of the key pillars of statesmanship.
A potential major obstacle to implementing the statesmanship framework in organizational leadership is related to the lack of a one-person-flagship approach in modern leadership practices. Most organizations have moved away from being fully shaped and controlled by one person, and thus the figure of an inspiring statesman may seem out of place (Denhardt et al., 2014). To this critique, one might reply that the ideals of integrity, wise leadership, and orientation to the greater good can be separated from a singular person since statesmanship continues to evolve (Susanto et al., 2020). Alternatively, one might refer to the cases where despite the presence of plural leadership in actions and decisions, a singular ideological and image leader was still present. The Apple technological company and its famous co-founder Steve Jobs would be one illustrative example of the latter case.
It is also important to emphasize that moral responsibility and personal integrity are required of effective leaders in both approaches. According to studies, best practices and a positive approach to communication with subordinates have had a great positive impact on the trust levels employees have for their management (Asencio & Mujkic, 2016). No matter the angle of one’s leadership and the particular needs of an organization that often rapidly evolve over time, the values of statesmanship maintain their relevance. Arguably, they now have a more important place in leadership practices than ever, with the public attention shifting to sustainability politics and employment laws. The conversation around ways in which businesses might benefit their local communities will continue to occur, and companies should adjust their leadership style to benefit from this discussion.
How the Evolution of Statesmanship Model shapes Organizational Communication
Organizational communication is one of the most difficult areas of organizational management and culture to analyze, as it remains, perhaps, the fastest evolving one. The rapid digital transformation of the management world has substantially changed the typical channels the workplace communication is conducted by. Organizational communication can be narrowed down as the message exchange between the involved individuals in a specific environment, setting, or structure that facilitates their achievement of the common aims (Kapucu, 2006). It is then further divided and diversified on the basis of formality, applicable channels, and levels of sensitivity and informational protection. To explain its relationship with the statesmanship model and its values, it is necessary to first understand the extent of its importance to organizational efficiency and the reasons behind this importance.
In many ways, organizational communication is a pillar of internal balance that allows organizational leadership to occur. It helps the persons involved in the organizational process to carry out their tasks associated with the production process or services provision and coordinate these tasks on a larger scale (Andersen & Jacobsen, 2016). Furthermore, it is essential for the development of any and all interpersonal relationships within an organization that remain the keys to the employees’ satisfaction and engagement in the workplace (DuHadway et al., 2018). With its importance explained, it is no surprise that organizational communication remains one of the top areas for the application of best practices when a company decides to practice them.
As stated earlier, modern best practices in organizational management can be easily linked to the outlined statesmanship values. Both ensure the orientation to the common and the greater good while working on the current goal and suggest that these aims can be interpreted as complementary to each other. It is important to remember that efficiency and ethics go hand in hand in many aspects of the modern corporate culture. Such principles as transparency, honesty, and consistency are both essential to the upholding of moral integrity and greatly beneficial to the overall levels of organizational prosperity.
Conclusion
To summarize, statesmanship remains relevant in modern organizational leadership and communication, perhaps even more relevant than ever before. Its rejection of brute force, somewhat revolutionary at the time of its origin in political science, is now a requirement in any leadership scene. Despite its initial emphasis on interpersonal leadership, the statesmanship framework absolutely has a place in the organizational context if somewhat adjusted for its specific needs.
Moreover, for many modern businesses, the consistency in their values and the adoption of sustainable and ethical practices secure a substantial competitive advantage. As modern consumption becomes more and more informed, customers make their choices based not only on the quality of the firm’s product or service but on the ways in which it was sourced to them. Thus, a company’s production methods and employment policies are way more likely to become a dealbreaker today than it was even a decade ago. Thus, the ideals of integrity and the greater good are not only ethical but profitable for modern organizational leaders to adopt.
References
Andersen, S., & Jakobsen, M. (2016). Policy positions of bureaucrats at the front lines: Are they susceptible to strategic communication? Public Administration Review, 77(1), 57-66. Web.
Asencio, H., & Mujkic, E. (2016). Leadership behaviors and trust in leaders: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Government. Public Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 156-179. Web.
Cao, Y., Bunger, A., Hoffman, J., & Robertson, H. (2015). Change communication strategies in public child welfare organizations: Engaging the front line. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40(1), 37-50. Web.
Denhardt R., Vinzant Denhardt J. & Blanc T. (2014). Leadership and management skills in public organizations”, Public Administration: An Action Orientation. Cengage Learning.
DuHadway, S., Carnovale, S., & Kannan, V. (2018). Organizational communication and individual behavior: Implications for supply chain risk management. Journal Of Supply Chain Management, 54(4), 3-19. Web.
Fischer, K. (2010). A biblical-covenantal perspective on organizational behavior & leadership. In Faculty Publications and Presentations. 523. Web.
Kapucu, N. (2006). Interagency communication networks during emergencies. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(2), 207-225. Web.
Overeem, P., & Bakker, F. (2016). Statesmanship beyond the modern state. Perspectives On Political Science, 48(1), 46-55. Web.
Ritz, A., Giauque, D., Varone, F., & Anderfuhren-Biget, S. (2014). From leadership to citizenship behavior in public organizations. Review Of Public Personnel Administration, 34(2), 128-152. Web.
Susanto, R., Syofyan, H., & Rachmadtullah, R. (2020). Measurement of professional performance: statesmanship, entrepreneurship and innovation. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 1st Padjadjaran Communication Conference Series, PCCS 2019, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. Web.