Page Title

Formal vs. Informal Leading: A Comparative Analysis

September 27, 2001 

"Informal leadership has been recognized as an important factor in organizational behavior (Bass, 1990a; Doloff, 1999; Hall, 1986; Han, 1983; Robins & Zirinsky, 1996; Senge, 1996; Sink, 1998, Weiss, 1978; Wheelan, 1996; Whitaker, 1995).  Nevertheless, a search of the literature reveals very little beyond a few references to informal leadership in small groups.  There is very little information available that compares these two processes of leading in leadership research.  In fact, most research is done on formal leaders, those in a 'position' of leadership. 

As a basis of comparison, the author turned to an earlier meta-ethnographic study emphasizing transformation leadership (Pielstick, 1996, 1998) that detailed a comprehensive 'leader profile.'  This profile, later articulated as 'authentic leading' (Pielstick) described leadership in terms of six major themes: shared vision, communication, relationships, community, guidance, and character.

Shared vision emerged as the touchstone theme of authentic leadership.  Vision is the most common distinguishing characteristic identified with leadership overall, and authentic leadership specifically. 

The communication theme focuses on sharing the vision, providing meaning and purpose.  Communication regarding the vision is used to excite, inspire, motivate and unify both followers and leaders.  The communication is a dialog; a two-way sharing that facilitates the process of elevating the moral purpose of the shared vision, building relationships, and shaping the culture of the organization.

The relationships theme reflects the interactive, mutual and shared nature of authentic leadership.  Authentic leadership clearly involves a relationship in which the leaders and followers are fully engaged.

 The community theme represents the shared values and beliefs of the organization.  Some key values identified with authentic leaders are: treating people with dignity and respect, dealing with social injustice, altruism, fairness, justice, liberty, human rights, honesty, integrity and equality.

 Leaders conduct themselves and even communicate through their actions to build relationships and shape culture.  Combined with communication, this is the act of leading.

In addition to the themes that describe the functions and actions of authentic leaders, the meta-ethnography identified a variety of personal characteristics found among these leaders. Although not predictive of one becoming a leader, these characteristics have been identified with authentic leadership and facilitate our understanding of the phenomenon.  It is not likely that any one individual will display all these characteristics.  The single most often referenced characteristic of authentic leaders is self-confidence.  Intelligence is commonly attributed to authentic leaders.  Authentic leaders are personable, exhibiting 'compassion, people orientation, friendliness, and sensitivity to the needs of different constituencies' (Duncan & Harlacher, 1990, p.40). 

A mailing list was purchased from the Center for the Advanced Study of Leadership of the James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership at the University of Maryland for one-time use for this study.  Neither the Center nor the Academy have endorsed this study nor provided any support beyond making the mailing list available.  The list contained approximately 2000 names.  Five hundred were selected at random for a mailing of the survey in the late summer of 1999.  Each recipient was asked to complete two questionnaires, one on a formal leader and one on an informal leader within the same organization.   Ninety-five surveys were returned.

Although the intent was to achieve a match of formal and informal leaders within the same organizations, some respondents completed surveys for only one leader, generally a formal leader.  Consequently, the responses include approximately two formal leaders for each informal leader.  Thirty-nine percent of the leaders were female.  Sixty-four percent of the leaders were employees in education, an unanticipated result of the mailing list used for the survey.

It is very clear that there are important and significant differences between formal and informal leaders.  Informal leaders are perceived by others as showing higher levels of leading than formal leaders overall, as well as in each of the six themes of shared vision, communication, relationships, community, guidance, and character shown to be important to authentic leading independent of formal or informal leading (Pielstick, 196, 1998, 2000).  While some variables are strong for both groups over half of the variables showed a significant difference between the two groups, with informal leaders scoring higher on 'The Leader Profile' than formal leaders, with four notable exceptions: engaging in politicking, having a need for power, using authority, and using fear or coercion. 

While both formal and informal leaders develop shared visions, these initial data suggest that informal leaders are more likely to include a moral and inspiring purpose, provide for the common good, and create meaning.  The shared vision of informal leaders is more likely to be based on shared needs, values and beliefs than the vision of formal leaders.

This sense of inclusiveness also shows in the differences between formal and informal leaders regarding communication.  Informal leaders appear more likely to listen and seek to u understand.  Informal leaders seem more likely to use stories, to inspire, encourage, and motivate, and to weave a higher purpose into the dialogue.

Leaders and followers are engaged in interpersonal relationships.  Informal leaders appear to treat everyone with dignity and respect. Authentic leaders push organizational culture to the level of community.  They seem altruistic, exhibit honest and integrity, and emphasize service above self. To help realize the dream, authentic leaders also provide guidance.  In this regard, informal leaders in this study are more likely to build trust. 

Character is a quality that is often recognized or criticized when it come s to leaders.  In this preliminary investigation, there were a number of qualities that were strong within both groups, including intelligence, self-confidence, commitment, professional expertise, and perseverance.  Nevertheless, there appear to be significant differences.  Among the differences informal leaders tend to be more humble, fair, and altruistic.  They seem to be motivated by a higher purpose.  They seem more likely to have a sense of humor and like to have fun, including encouraging imagination and creativity.

On the other hand informal leaders appear to have less need for power and to be less likely to use fear or coercion.  They also were scored as less likely to use the authority of their position, although by definition of being an informal leader, they would have little or no formal authority available.

The formal authority associated with the positions of formal leaders stands out as an area requiring further research.  This preliminary study shows that informal leaders generally tend to demonstrate more of the qualities often associated with the process of authentic leading.  Additional research is needed to better identify and define those differences, as well as to determine the significance of them to the process of leading.  Furthermore, since the descriptors used in this study were derived from sources describing formal leadership, we need to determine if there are other descriptors that need to be considered that are unique to informal leading that may not have been considered.

Although the sample size and high frequency of educators in this study present limitations for broader generalization of the findings, it is clear that this initial investigation opens the way to additional study of these differences and has potential implications for leadership theory.  In particular, the difference between the process of leading and power wielding needs additional investigation and differentiation.  Readers are invited to join the author in continuation of this research.  Informal leaders demonstrate a higher level of authentic leading, providing lessons from which formal leaders can enhance their own leadership practice (Pielstick, 2000, pp.99-114)."

Reference:  C. Dean Pielstick, (2000).  Formal vs. informal leading: a comparative analysis.  The Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Journal of Leadership Studies is available on loan from the OSU Leadership Center.  A complete listing of all the Leadership Center's resources is available on our website http://leadershipcenter.osu.edu/

Leadership Discoveries is a free monthly e-mail mailing about leadership research.  If you have any colleagues who would like to receive Leadership Discoveries, please have them send an e-mail to flynn.61@osu.edu with the message, Subscribe Leadership Discoveries.

Back to Top >

Created: 2008-02-26, Updated: 2009-02-18