The term social leadership has been used in a technical sense by researchers for more than fifty years. More recently, it is being used by community organizations and others to describe a much broader perspective on people-centered activities aimed at creating a better world. Beyond this, I would suggest that it has great potential for use within the technical vocabulary of leadership studies, as a framework for constructing and evaluating more comprehensive ways of understanding what it means to lead.
The concept originally arose in the context of developmental psychology and educational theory as the opposite, or perhaps the complement, of task leadership. What this means is that when we work with others, we demonstrate a propensity to get the job done or to make sure others are included. Presumably, personal success depends on the development of capacity in both directions, but our immediate concern is with the social aspect of establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships.
Outside of academia, the term is used in the context of training programs offered by various religious, favorably Christian, organizations to reflect a commitment to creating a healthier, more peaceful and prosperous world with a happier and more fulfilled citizenry. Members dedicate their lives and talents to doing what they can, both for and with others. The inspiration for this mission and the development of a sense of stewardship are found through submission to God.
What I am proposing here is the adoption of the term social leadership within managerial and organizational studies as a way to capture the idea that the leadership process involves more than just the mechanics of achieving goals through task and people management. It must also take into account human values, both ethical and aesthetic.
Ethical values are usually expressed in terms of what we believe to be right or good. For many people, their understanding of good and evil has been provided through their association with formal religious institutions, but this does not have to be the case. Philosophical systems can provide a set of socially compelling standards to which an individual is willing to commit, without requiring a concomitant commitment to some transcendent authority.
Aesthetic values refer to concepts such as harmony and beauty, elements that are essential to our perception and appreciation of the world around us, but which we do not think have any influence on the way we drive or drive. Interestingly, it has become a common saying among those who study leadership, that it is like beauty. You can’t describe it, but you know it when you see it.
Within the business and management context, the concept of social leadership has antecedents in the notions of social marketing and corporate social responsibility. The first concept refers to the use of conventional marketing tools to modify people’s behavior towards a social good, such as increasing physical activity, quitting smoking, or volunteering in the community. The latter term refers to the idea that corporations need to balance their concern for profit with the same concern for the well-being of their customers and employees. This notion has more recently been expanded to include a concern for the well-being of the planet, thus establishing the so-called triple bottom line that combines economic, social, and environmental factors, in the pursuit of sustainability.
I am not presenting social leadership as a new leadership theory. There are too many of those already. Rather, I am suggesting that the term be used to identify a framework within which existing and emerging theories can be analyzed and evaluated for their breadth and as a measure of the extent to which the insights provided by such theories can be implemented in practice.
