The Biological principle of the concept of leadership in the last couple of decades has taken a rather radical shift with the integration of scientific research to examine the various elements that guide behavioral patterns of leaders. The spectrum of leadership, thus, unlike in earlier days, is a complex phenomenon that forms part of its core dimensions in academia. Consequentially, the emergence of neurological leadership study is by no means strange but rather the result of a series of sophisticated evolutionary techniques that primarily seek to deconstruct the behavioral influences of leadership actions and attitude (Balthazard et al., 2012). In light of this observation, the neuroscience of leadership in the contemporary world, as Dinh et al. (2014) notes, has taken a front seat as organizations seek to harness the contextual principles of leadership approaches. Notably, the result has, from multiple dimensions, inspired a new scientific method of how leadership trainers formulate different training material for top executives. As such, it has become essential for the introduction of the biological dimension, including different factors of biology such as genetics as part of the influential factors, albeit from a cognitive aspect, of the leadership traits that various persons exhibit (Maak, 2013). Central to this new dimension is the role of human biology, specifically genetic, towards how leadership principle evolves in an organization setting.
According to Arvey et al. ( 2014), biology, though previously ignored, plays a fundamental role in the manner in which leadership shift and apply in specific organizations. Interestingly, this new paradigm of leadership studies proposes rather fundamental causal factors such as hormones, evolution, and environmental factors as key attributes that influence the concept (De Neve et al., 2013). More so, hormonal changes in the human body, according to this new perspective, also plays a central role in the way individual understand and apply the various types of leadership approaches such as transformational leadership (Liu et al., 2015). The genetic approach at this point is highly contentious and, in many ways, perceived theoretical because so far, the basis of the scientific evidence has mainly been from the study of animal behavior (Arvey et al., 2013). For example, it asserts that various biological characteristics, such as body-size and dominant behavior, profoundly influence the kind of leadership-follower relationship that develops in an organization (Garrard, 2017). Albeit these differences, there is consensus among scholars that, indeed, human biology is one of the influential factors of overall disparities in the way that particular leadership approaches apply in organizations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
By far, the biology of leadership is still at the early stage; however, the findings of some of the research studies correlate with the pre-existing literature on the influences of specific genetically induced differences such as race or gender. For example, certain racial groups have, for many years, remained dominant in various organizations. The weakness in these arguments is the fact that it overlooks the sociological dimension of leadership that for long supported policies that unfairly suppress the leadership of particular individuals of certain races. For example, in the US, racial subjugation among African Americans until the Obama presidency played a considerable role in the white dominance in the presidency. The interesting hypothesis such as the physiological differences and psychological characteristics created by different genetic compositions, especially among different genders, cannot be ignored (Eva et al., 2019). There is insurmountable scientific that indicate the different psychological composition of the traits as a result of genes (Senior, 2010). Thus without utterly disputing the biology of leadership, it accurate to the hypothesis that there is a need for future research on the concept to provide more conclusive evidence that validates these new dimensions.
The cognitive neuroscience of leadership is a rather complex phenomenon that forms part of the biology of leadership inquiry methodology. For the most part, hormonal differences, either as a result of genetic composition or social conditioning complicate, threaten the adoption of the biological approach (Watkins, 2012). In more finite terms, the separation of genetic influence and the social conditioning influences is blurry. However, research methodology indicating the difference in the chemical composition of the brain makes validates the biological arguments that support the theories asserting its central role in the evolution and application of leadership approaches (Balthazard et al., 2012). Dr. Alan Watkins, Dr. Helen Fisher, and Dr. Robert Piret all agree that the new scope of neuroscience and biological influences despite being a relatively new approach may potentially transform the scientific understanding of how the leadership and genes interrelate. Precisely, they may help to explain the differences in principle of how various leadership approaches, for example, transformational leadership, takes different forms in different geographical regions.
To conclude, various biological factors accurately account for the disparity in the variables of leadership. Thus, into the future, the integration of biology of leadership as a fundamental element of leadership may open new trajectories in the way that contemporary society not only understands leadership but also formulates the ideological principles therein. The models of servant leadership and transformational leadership as the most effective means of governance in organizations in the modern may greatly benefit from this new dimensional perspective. In the view of this paper, the biology of leadership a revolutionary step towards further understanding of the concept of leadership in the manner in which organizations may tap into its potential to inspire transformational progress.
References
Arvey, R. D., Wang, N., Song, Z., & Li, W. (2013). The Biology of Leadership. Oxford Handbooks Online . https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199755615.013.004
Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Thatcher, R. W., & Hannah, S. T. (2012). Differentiating transformational and non-transformational leaders on the basis of neurological imaging. The Leadership Quarterly , 23 (2), 244-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.002
De Neve, J., Mikhaylov, S., Dawes, C. T., Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Born to lead? A twin design and genetic association study of leadership role occupancy. The Leadership Quarterly , 24 (1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.08.001
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly , 25 (1), 36-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., Van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly , 30 (1), 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
Garrard, P. (2017). The Leadership Hubris Epidemic: Biological Roots and Strategies for Prevention . Springer.
Liu, Y., Jing, Y., & Gao, M. (2015). Transformational Leadership: From the Perspective of Neurological Leadership. Open Journal of Leadership , 04 (04), 143-152. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojl.2015.44013
Maak, T. (2013). The Neuroscience of Leadership: Thomas Maak at TEDxESADE . YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvOLbYChYcw
Senior, C. (2010). Towards a biology of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly , 21 (1), 203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.015
Watkins, A. (2012). The Biological Basis of Leadership . YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XIoYKAMqa0
