Contemporary Theories of Leadership

Transcription

1 Chapter 6 Contemporary Theories of Leadership Brent J. Goertzen A leader s role is to raise people s aspirations for what they can become and to release their energies so they will try to get there. David Gergen, director Jones of the & Bartlett Center for Learning, Public Leadership, LLC Harvard Kennedy NOT School FOR (from SALE OR DISTRIBUTION O InTroduCTIon The publication in 1978 of Leadership, James MacGregor Burns s Jones bestselling & Bartlett book on political Learning, leadership, LLCmarked Transforming Jones Leadership & Bartlett Learning, LLC a major NOT transition FOR SALE in the development OR DISTRIBUTION of leadership theory. Much of the research in leadership since then has Burns (1978) NOT is credited FOR SALE with revolutionizing OR DISTRIBUTION scholars and practitioners view of leadership. Burns defined been largely influenced by his definition of transforming leadership. Burns was the first to conceptualize transforming leadership as occurring when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders leadership as a social process that involves both leaders Jones and followers & Bartlett raise one Learning, another to LLC higher levels of motivation FOR and SALE morality OR DISTRIBUTION (p. 20). Although initially starting and followers interacting and working together to NOT achieve common interests and mutually defined ends. His theory clearly elevated the significance of followers out separate (and perhaps even unrelated), the purposes and the leader follower relationship in the leadership of both leaders and followers become fused. Leaders play equation. a major role in shaping the relationship with followers. This chapter reviews Burns s transforming leadership theory and subsequent research that emerged as a in evaluating followers motives, NOT FOR anticipating SALE their OR DISTRIBUT Burns believed that leaders are commonly Jones & more Bartlett skillful Learning, LL result of his perspective. Also described are other contemporary leadership theories that emphasize the impor- bases, than the reverse (p. 20). responses to an initiative, and estimating their power tance of the followers role in leadership, such as the Transforming leadership has an elevating effect on postindustrial Jones & paradigm Bartlett of leadership, Learning, leader member LLC both the leader Jones and the & led Bartlett because it Learning, raises the level LLC of exchange NOT FOR (LMX) SALE theory, OR followership, DISTRIBUTION and servant human conduct NOT and FOR interaction. SALE In OR the end, DISTRIBUTION transforming leadership. leadership is a moral process because leaders engage with O TransformIng LeadershIp and TransformaTIonaL LeadershIp 83..

2 84 section 2: Leadership Theory followers based on shared motives, values, and goals. Bass asserted that leaders demonstrating transformational leadership typically engage in several categories of Transforming leadership contrasts with transactional leadership, whereby the leadership relationship is limited behaviors. These behaviors typically enhance follower to the leader s ability to appeal to followers self-interest motivation and performance. for the purpose of an exchange of valued things. According to Bass (1985), transformational leaders Burns asserts that only followers can ultimately are able to achieve three things: (1) make followers aware define their true needs. This implies that followers must of the importance of task outcomes, (2) induce followers maintain freedom of choice between real alternatives. to transcend personal interest for the sake of the team or Transforming leaders operate at the highest stages of organization, and (3) move followers toward higherorder needs. moral development. Burns (1978) asserted that transforming Jones leaders & Bartlett are guided Learning, by near-universal LLC ethical As a result, Jones followers & Bartlett feel more Learning, confidence in LLC the principles NOT FOR of justice SALE such OR as equality DISTRIBUTION of human rights and leader and NOT report FOR feeling SALE greater OR trust, DISTRIBUTION admiration, loyalty, and respect, especially when they are motivated to respect of individual dignity (p. 42). Nonetheless, transforming leadership is grounded in do more than they originally expected. Although numerous dimensions of transformational leader behaviors conflict. Conflict is often compelling, because it galvanizes and Learning, motivates people. LLCLeaders do not shun conflict; Jones have & been Bartlett theorized Learning, and researched, LLC it is commonly Jones & Bartlett NOT FOR SALE they embrace OR DISTRIBUTION it by both shaping and mediating conflict. NOT FOR accepted SALE that transformational OR DISTRIBUTION leader behaviors comprise Leaders are able to discern signs of dissatisfaction among four categories: (1) idealized influence, (2) individualized followers and take the initiative to make connections consideration, (3) inspirational motivation, and (4) intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1997). with followers. The power in transforming leadership comes by recognizing Jones the varying & Bartlett needs and Learning, motives of LLC Transactional leadership behaviors Jones refer & Bartlett to activities Learning, LL potential followers NOT and elevating FOR SALE them to OR transcend DISTRIBUTION personal self-interests. Followers are mobilized by leaders direct reports achieve desired rewards and avoid punish- that help clarify expectations NOT for FOR direct SALE reports, OR help DISTRIBUT ability to appeal to and strengthen those motives through ments, and help facilitate desired outcomes (Avolio & word and action. Bass, 1988). Transactional leader behaviors commonly comprise three Jones categories: & Bartlett (1) contingent Learning, reward, LLC (2) NOT FOR Leadership SALE OR Points DISTRIBUTION to Ponder management NOT by FOR exception active, SALE OR and DISTRIBUTION (3) management by exception passive. Although transformational and transactional leader behaviors are distinct, they are not necessarily mutually Leadership is not magnetic personality that can just as well be a glib tongue. It is not making friends and influencing people; that is flattery. Leadership is lifting a person s vision to higher sights; the raising of a person s performance to a higher standard, the building of a personality beyond its normal limitations. exclusive. Effective leaders, Bass asserted, make use of both types of leadership. Whereas transformational leader behaviors enlist enthusiasm and commitment, Peter F. Drucker (from transactional leadership behaviors achieve compliance with leader requests. Recent versions of transformational and trans actional Transformational Leadership theory include a third category of leadership: laissezfaire. This category represents an absence of effective Bass (1985, 1996) built upon Burns s (1978) original ideas of transforming leadership. He began empirically leadership and describes the type of leader who is passive examining the theory and calling his revised theory or indifferent to direct reports. Taken together, the three transformational leadership. These terms may seem meta-categories (transformational, transactional, and nearly identical. However, there is an important distinction in that, whereas Burns s theory focuses more on ship model (Avolio, 1999; see Table 6-1). laissez-faire) are sometimes called the Full Range Leader- social reform by moral elevation of followers values and Transformational and transactional leadership constitute the most widely researched models of leadership. needs, Bass s transformational leadership focuses more on attaining practical organizational objectives (Yukl They have been extensively studied in many different Jones & Bartlett 2010). Learning, LLC Jones organizational & Bartlett contexts Learning, (e.g., corporations, LLC militaries,..

3 NOT FOR Table SALE 6-1 OR Full DISTRIBUTION Range Leadership Model Transformational leadership ChapTer 6: Contemporary Theories of Leadership 85 Idealized influence Inspirational motivation Intellectual stimulation Individualized consideration Jones & Bartlett Transactional Learning, leadershipllc Contingent reward management by exception active management by exception passive Laissez-faire leadership (nonleadership) Laissez-faire leadership Sources: adapted from Bass (1997) and Northouse (2007). Leaders serve as outstanding role models for their followers. They display conviction, emphasize important personal values, and connect those values with organizational goals and ethical consequences of decisions. Leaders articulate an appealing vision of the future and challenge followers high standards and high expectations. Leaders provide encouragement, optimism, and purpose for what needs to be done. Leaders question old assumptions and stimulate new perspectives and innovative ways of doing things. They encourage followers to think creatively to address current and future challenges. Leaders provide a supportive environment and carefully listen to followers needs. Leaders also advise, teach, or coach their followers with the intention of advancing follower development. Leaders offer followers rewards in exchange for desired efforts. Behaviors in this category revolve around clarifying expectations and exchanging promises. Leaders observe follower behavior and take corrective action when followers deviate from expected performance. Leaders choose not to, or fail to, intervene until a problem becomes serious. In essence, leaders do not intervene until a problem is brought to their attention. Leaders avoid accepting responsibility and delay or even fail to follow up on requests. This type of leader behavior also includes little or no effort to address followers needs. It is essentially an absence of leadership. government agencies, schools, and universities; Lowe, to demonstrate transformational leader behaviors compared to executives holding higher-level positions. In Kroeck, Sivasubramaniam, 1996) and cultures (e.g., the United States, Mexico, China, Japan, Indonesia, and Germany; Bass, 1997). objective measures, such as financial performance (Row- addition, transformational leadership has been related to Transformational leadership is not limited to the old & Heinitz, 2007), sales performance (Yammarino & upper echelons of organizations. Lowe and coauthors Dubinsky, 1994), and percent of goals met (Howell & (1996) examined 23 published and unpublished studies Avolio, 1993). examining transformational and transactional leadership. They found that leaders demonstrating transforma- the effect of transformational leader behaviors on follow- Extensive research has been conducted examining tional leader behaviors were more effective than those ers and organizational outcomes. For example, Organ, only demonstrating transactional leadership. Furthermore, they found that transformational leader behaviors tional leader behaviors effected organizational citizenship Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006) found that transforma- were more common in public organizations compared behaviors among employees. Organizational citizenship to private organizations as perceived by the leaders behaviors are discretionary behaviors that are outside direct reports. The study also reported that leaders at normal in-role job functions. In the aggregate, they Jones & lower Bartlett levels of Learning, organizational LLC hierarchy were more likely Jones promote & effective Bartlett organizational Learning, functioning LLC (Organ,..

4 86 section 2: Leadership Theory O relational LeadershIp 1988). Organ and coauthors (2006) reported that transformational leadership directly influenced employee altruism citizenship behaviors. However, they also Leader member exchange found that transformational leader behaviors directly Original studies of LMX theory asserted that managers affect employees trust in their leader, which in turn also develop differentiated relationships with direct reports enhances employees willingness to engage in other citizenship behaviors, such as sportsmanship, civic vir- managers develop high-quality relationships with only a within their organizations. According to the theory, tue, and conscientiousness. few, high-trust direct reports. Managers reporting highquality relationships (in-groups) characterize the Other studies explained the impact of transformational leader behaviors on organizational outcomes differently. Jones One & study Bartlett found Learning, that transformational LLC leader on one end Jones of a continuum. & Bartlett Low-quality Learning, relationships LLC exchange with high mutual respect, trust, and obligation behaviors NOT FOR directly SALE affect OR employee DISTRIBUTION psychological capital (out-groups), NOT at the FOR other SALE end of OR the spectrum, DISTRIBUTION are characterized by a relatively low degree of mutual respect, (Gooty, Gavin, Johnson, Frazier, & Snow, 2009). Positive psychological capital refers to positive-oriented trust, and obligation (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). human resource strengths and psychological capacities This theory was originally labeled vertical dyad linkage Jones & Bartlett that improve Learning, the workplace LLC (Luthans, 2002). These Jones because & Bartlett it focused Learning, on the reciprocal LLCinfluence of managers and SALE their direct OR reports DISTRIBUTION within vertical dyads whereby NOT FOR SALE capacities OR include DISTRIBUTION the dimensions of hope, self-efficacy, NOT FOR resiliency, and optimism. Psychological capital then one has direct authority over another (Yukl, 2010). increases employees willingness to improve job performance and organizational citizenship behaviors directed establish high-quality relationships. They tend to receive There are tremendous advantages for direct reports who at individuals and the Jones organization & Bartlett (Gooty Learning, al., 2009). LLC more desirable tasks assignments; Jones are delegated & Bartlett greater Learning, LL Bass (1997) reviewed NOT FOR literature SALE that examined OR DISTRIBUTION transformational leadership across cultures. He reported that increases); and receive greater approval and support. authority; receive greater NOT tangible FOR rewards SALE (e.g., OR pay DISTRIBUT although the mean and correlation strength may vary, the Scholars assert that the manager direct report relationship develops in a three-stage process described as a general pattern of the relationships between the transformational Jones leader & dimensions Bartlett Learning, on measured outcomes LLC (e.g., life cycle model Jones (Graen & Bartlett & Uhl-Bien, Learning, 1995). LLC The leader NOT effectiveness, FOR SALE satisfaction, OR DISTRIBUTION and extra effort) is the stranger NOT stage begins FOR SALE when leaders OR DISTRIBUTION and members first same. come together. This relationship is purely contractual in However, there may be cultural contingencies on nature, whereby leaders provide members with what how each of the categories of transformational leader they need, and members perform prescribed work activities. In the acquaintance phase, the second of the life behaviors may be demonstrated. Yokochi (1989) reported that in a collectivist culture, such as Japan, cycle stages, there is an increase in social exchanges. The there is an expectation that leaders will use individualized consideration. There is a mutual moral obligation as leaders and members share greater information on a relationship begins to transcend formal job requirements between leaders and followers. Leaders are expected to personal level, in addition to the work level. The third help employees prepare for a career and counsel them and final phase is described as a mature partnership. about personal problems, and followers reciprocate These exchanges are highly developed and characterized with unquestioning loyalty and obedience. Additionally, Bass (1997) reported on other studies conducted ticipants in such relationships can count on one another by a mutual sense of trust, respect, and obligation. Par- across cultures that asked participants to describe their for loyalty and support. How a dyad advances through prototypical leaders. Avolio and Bass (1990) conducted each of these stages varies. Some dyads may not progress extensive leadership development programs across the past the stranger phase and may maintain only the contractually based relationship. Others may rapidly pro- globe (e.g., Canada, Italy, Israel, Sweden, and Austria) and found that when individuals describe their ideal gress to the partnership phase and achieve the leaders, they commonly express transformational leadership qualities compared to transactional leadership LMX theory is one of the most widely studied leader- tremendous advantages of a mature relationship. Jones & Bartlett qualities. Learning, LLC Jones ship & models. Bartlett Gerstner Learning, and Day LLC (1997) conducted a..

5 ChapTer 6: Contemporary Theories of Leadership review of all published research on LMX and reported People who have studied LMX have sought to assist that high-quality LMX was positively related to such variables as performance ratings, objective performance, all members (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Expanding managers in developing high-quality relationships with satisfaction with supervisor, overall satisfaction, organizational commitment, and role clarity. It was also posi- develop naturally provides two valuable benefits. First, high-quality LMX beyond the typical select few who tively related to organizational citizenship behaviors it increases the perception of fairness among members (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Low-quality LMX and decreases suspicions of favoritism. Second, it proved to be positively related to such variables as role increases the potential for effective leadership and conflict and turnover intentions. expanded organizational capability (p. 229). Realistically, managers still develop differing relationships with There are many factors that influence the development of Jones high-quality & Bartlett LMX. Research Learning, indicates LLC that greater their direct reports. Jones Although & Bartlett theoretical Learning, models propose potential NOT organizational FOR SALE (e.g., OR organizational DISTRIBUTION cul- LLC demographic NOT FOR similarity SALE between OR DISTRIBUTION the manager and direct reports, such as gender (Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986; ture and organizational structure), group (e.g., Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996), personality (Burns, composition and size), and individual (e.g., leadership 1995; Deluga, 1998), and attitudes (Dose, 1999; Steiner, style and employees desire for a high-quality relationship) antecedents & Bartlett to Learning, LMX differentiation LLC and potential Jones & 1988), Bartlett were Learning, positively related LLC to high-quality LMX. Jones NOT FOR Other SALE research OR DISTRIBUTION focused on leader characteristics, such as NOT outcomes FOR SALE (Henderson, OR DISTRIBUTION Liden, Glibkowski, & Chaudhry, attitudes, perceptions, and behavior, in the LMX relationship. For example, leader qualities, such as trust-building these many differen t elements affect the development of 2009), further research is required to understand how behavior (Deluga, 1994) and delegation (Bauer & Green, LMX differentiation. 1996), leader self-efficacy, Jones and optimism & Bartlett (Murphy Learning, & LLCIt is important to note that nearly Jones all & of Bartlett the theory Learning, LL Ensher, 1999) were positively NOT FOR related SALE to LMX OR quality. DISTRIBUTION development and research examining NOT FOR LMX SALE quality has OR DISTRIBUT Additional studies found that member characteristics, been performed with the assumption of hierarchical relationships based on formal authority and reporting struc- such as extraversion (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994), locus of control (Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994), self-efficacy (Murphy tures. Research is beginning to integrate both formally & Ensher, Jones 1999), & Bartlett ingratiation Learning, (Deluga & Perry, LLC1994; structured and Jones informal & relationships. Bartlett Learning, Sparrowe and LLC Wayne, NOT Liden, FOR & SALE Sparrowe, OR 1994), DISTRIBUTION in-role behavior Liden (1997) NOT theorized FOR that SALE leaders OR and members DISTRIBUTION informal social networks affect the quality of LMX. Each is (Basu & Green, 1995), and subordinate performance (Basu & Green, 1995; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993) able to incorporate the other, through introductions and were positively related to LMX quality. Finally, research referrals, to their respective network of trusted contacts. examined the role of situational variables in the development of LMX. Perceived organizational support was posi- to enhance the work-related outcomes of the dyad mem- As result, the added relational resources were theorized tively related to high-quality LMX (Wayne, Shore, & bers. Further, Balkundi, and Kilduff (2005) asserted that Liden, 1997). Unit size was negatively related to highquality LMX (Green et al., 1996). This means that the boundaries will enhance personal benefits and organiza- the range of one s social network across organizational larger the departmental unit, the less likely leaders were tional outcomes. to develop high-quality LMX relationships. Research supports the notion that the breadth of one s informal social network positively affects LMX quality when the other member of the dyad is frequently sought Leadership Points to Ponder for advice (Goodwin, Bowler, & Whittington, 2008). This The single biggest way to impact an organization is to indicates that leaders also recognize the value of members focus Jones leadership & Bartlett development. Learning, There is LLC almost no social networks to the workings of the organization. Additionally, group leaders who were well connected in a limit NOT to the FOR potential SALE of an OR organization DISTRIBUTION that recruits good people, raises them up as leaders and continually develops them. friendship network of their peers at the same level in the organization outperformed their peers who were not as John C. Maxwell The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork (2001, p. 185) highly connected (Mehra, Dixon, Brass, & Robertson, Jones 2006). & This Bartlett was likely Learning, because highly LLC connected leaders 87..

6 88 section 2: Leadership Theory have better and faster access to information, advice and being passive, submissive, and directed. After conducting support (p. 74). an exhaustive review of leadership theory and research, Relational leadership is another emerging view of Rost summarized the industrial paradigm definition of leadership that focuses on processes, not on persons, by leadership as: great men and women with certain preferred traits influencing followers to do what the leaders which leadership is produced and enabled (Uhl-Bien, 2006). Relational leadership theory is defined as a social wish in order to achieve group/organizational goals that influence process through which emergent conditions reflect excellence defined as some kind of higher-order (i.e., evolving social order) and change (i.e., new values, effectiveness (Rost, 1993, p. 180). attitudes, approaches, behaviors, ideologies, etc.) are Rost contrasted the industrial paradigm of leadership with the radically different approach in the postin- constructed and produced (p. 668). It assumes that leadership Jones can & occur Bartlett in any Learning, direction. From LLC this perspective, NOT it FOR is possible SALE to see OR relationships DISTRIBUTION other than those relationship-based NOT FOR and focused SALE on OR the DISTRIBUTION noncoercive interdustrial age, Jones which & characterized Bartlett Learning, leadership LLCas built from hierarchy... and to envision transformational action of leaders and followers who develop common phenomenon where the social change process occurs interests. Based on this perspective, Rost redefined leadership as an influence relationship among leaders and well outside the normal assumptions of command and Jones & Bartlett control (Murrell, Learning, 1997, LLC p. 39). Jones followers & Bartlett who intend Learning, real changes LLC that reflect their NOT FOR SALE Although OR DISTRIBUTION the knowledge gained from these studies NOT FOR mutual SALE purposes OR (Rost, DISTRIBUTION 1993, p. 102). There are four and insights developed from theoretical models proves critical elements that comprise this definition of leadership, and each component is essential in understanding fruitful for leader member relationships in the context of organizations, the understanding of leader member relationships based on informal Jones networks & Bartlett and other Learning, relation- LLC based on influence, (2) leaders Jones and followers & Bartlett are partici- Learning, LL the postindustrial perspective: (1) the relationship is ships that transcend NOT organizations FOR SALE in community-level OR DISTRIBUTION pants in this relationship, (3) NOT leaders FOR and followers SALE intend OR DISTRIBUT leadership initiatives is severely limited. One can draw real changes, and (4) leaders and followers develop inferences from the current LMX literature and other mutual purposes. relational leadership theory, but further research is required Jones to more & Bartlett comprehensively Learning, understand LLC the process NOT of how FOR relationships SALE OR develop DISTRIBUTION and their role in the You must NOT unite FOR your constituents SALE OR around DISTRIBUTION a common Leadership Jones & Bartlett Points to Learning, Ponder LLC leadership process. cause and connect with them as human beings. James Kouzes and Barry Posner (from O Jones & Bartlett post Learning, IndusTrIaL LLC LeadershIp NOT FOR SALE Joseph OR Rost DISTRIBUTION (1993) is credited with shifting scholars focus from what he described as the industrial paradigm of leadership theory to the postindustrial paradigm. The subject A leadership relationship must be based on influence, relationships Based on Influence of leadership did not exist before the 1890s, and the study which is characterized as a process of using persuasion to of leadership has been a predominantly twentieth-century affect other people. Although persuasion is largely composed of rational discourse, it may also include other phenomena (Rost, 1997). Since that time, the basic ideas of leadership, in his view, had not changed much. He aspects of power resources, such as content of the message, purpose, symbolic interaction, perception, and sharply criticized the popular assumptions about leadership at the time, which he described as (1) leadership is motivation. Influence relationships are multidirectional, what great people do, (2) leadership and management are meaning they involve interactions that are vertical, horizontal, diagonal, and circular. This implies that anyone interchangeable, and (3) the terms leadership and leader are synonymous. can be a leader or a follower, because leaders persuade The concept of leadership in the industrial paradigm followers and followers influence leaders. In the postindustrial paradigm, leaders and followers can actually was bound up with what leaders do; the assumption was that no one else mattered. Therefore, followers had nothing to do with switch places. Furthermore, relationships based on influence & are Bartlett inherently Learning, noncoercive. LLC Coercion is antithetical Jones & Bartlett Learning, leadership LLC and were typically perceived as Jones..

7 Leaders and followers are participants Leadership is a social process; therefore, leaders interact with other people. In the postindustrial paradigm, followers Jones are no longer & Bartlett viewed as Learning, the sweaty LLC masses or willing NOT to let FOR other SALE people control OR DISTRIBUTION their lives. Rather, followers must be active participants in the leadership process. Followers may fall anywhere on the continuum of the level of activity, but the important point is their willingness Bartlett to be Learning, involved LLC the process and engage their Jones & NOT FOR power SALE resources OR DISTRIBUTION to influence other people. According to Rost (1993), followers do not do followership. Rather, the interactions between leaders and followers comprise the leadership relationship. This does not mean that leaders and followers are equal in this relationship. Typically, leaders have more influence because they are willing to share (or perhaps even risk) more power resources than followers. However, there may be times when followers exert more influence in the relationship, particularly when they Jones seize & the Bartlett initiative Learning, and drive the LLC purposes in the NOT relationship. FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION participants Intend real Change There are two critical terms in this component of Rost s definition of leadership: intend and real. Intend indicates that leaders and followers are purposeful and desire certain changes in an organization or society. Because persons typically evaluate others intentions by their words and deeds, intention must be demonstrated by action. The word real means that the purposes intended by leaders and followers must be significant and transforming. The postindustrial definition of leadership does not require participants to produce the changes for leadership to occur. Whereas intended changes are in the present and changes actually take place in the future (if at all), Rost s definition focuses more on the leadership process than the actual product or outcomes of the process. A relationship wherein leaders and followers intend real changes but are unsuccessful or ineffective, or achieve only minimum changes, is still leadership (Rost, Jones & 1993, Bartlett p. 116). Learning, LLC ChapTer 6: Contemporary Theories of Leadership to leadership because, according to Rost, it relies on NOT Changes FOR SALE reflect OR mutual DISTRIBUTION Interests authority or a power relationship that is dictatorial. Rost The final component of the postindustrial paradigm of (1993) described dictatorial relationships as using people leadership focuses on mutual purposes. For purposes to as objects, not as persons. As such, dictatorial relationships keep people in subservient roles. Freedom is neces- or only on what the followers want. These mutual pur- be mutual, they cannot rely solely on what leaders want sary in influence relationships. poses emerge only through repeated and numerous interactions between leaders and followers. Rost carefully chooses the term purposes rather than goals because purposes are generally considered broader and more holistic and more closely related to the terms vision or mission. Through noncoercive influence relationships, leaders and followers come to agreement and forge common interests and mutual purposes (Rost, 1997). Proponents of the postindustrial paradigm of leadership also criticize leadership models purporting to view Jones leadership & Bartlett as a social Learning, process, such as LLC theories that focus NOT on FOR the dyadic SALE relationship OR DISTRIBUTION (e.g., LMX) between managers and their direct reports (Barker, 1997). This concept of leadership is founded in the feudal touchstone of citizenship: one s Jones relationship & Bartlett with Learning, LL one s king. This relationship implies NOT several FOR assumptions: (a) that the king deserves allegiance by virtue SALE OR DISTRIBUT of rank, (b) that there is a natural, hierarchical difference in status, intelligence, and ability, (c) and that the subject s Jones role & is to Bartlett serve the Learning, king s wishes. LLC (Barker, NOT 1997, p. FOR 350) SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Barker differentiated leadership as a social relationship and leadership as a social process. He asserted that leadership as a social relationship tends to be contractual Jones in nature & Bartlett based on role Learning, expectations. LLC However, leadership FOR as a SALE social process, OR DISTRIBUTION which includes social relation- NOT ships, is much broader in that it provides flexibility in the creation of new relationships, roles, and expectations where none may have existed. These relationships look far beyond hierarchical, organizational structures to include informal social networks (within and outside an organizational context) and intraorganizational relationships, among other types of relationships not based on formal authority connections. Barker likened the leadership process to a river: Contained by its bed (the culture), it can be said to be flowing in one direction, yet, upon close examination, parts of it flow sideways, in circles, or even backwards relative to the overall direction. It is constantly Jones changing & Bartlett in speed and Learning, strength, and LLC even reshapes its 89..

8 90 section 2: Leadership Theory own container. Under certain conditions, it is very behavior. The first dimension describes the degree to unified in direction and very powerful; under other which followers exercise independent and critical thinking. The second ranks them on a passive active scale. conditions it may be weak or may flow in many directions at once. (Barker, 1997, p. 352) Based on the two dimensions, four categories of followers emerge (Figure 6-1). The postindustrial Jones paradigm & of Bartlett leadership Learning, developed LLC Sheep, according to Kelley, are passive and are generally unwilling to accept responsibility. They typically by Rost and others NOT has tremendous FOR SALE intuitive OR and DISTRIBUTION practical appeal and offers valuable potential for leadership complete tasks given to them but rarely demonstrate initiative beyond those tasks. Yes people are more involved education. Effective leadership curricula ought to include three broad categories: (1) evolution of social change and but are equally unwilling to demonstrate innovation or development, Jones &(2) Bartlett processes Learning, influencing LLC social change, creativity. Alienated Jones followers & Bartlett express Learning, critical and LLC independent thinking NOT FOR but are SALE passive OR in their DISTRIBUTION roles; at some and NOT (3) FOR dynamics SALE of human OR DISTRIBUTION nature in change processes (Rost & Barker, 2000). point, they were turned off. Although they rarely openly Unfortunately, scholars have been slow to embrace oppose the leader, they are often cynical and disgruntled. the postindustrial paradigm of leadership. One recent At the center of the diagram are survivors. They tend to Jones & Bartlett study examined Learning, historical LLC records to describe the context Jones adapt & and Bartlett survive Learning, change well but LLC often live by the slogan better SALE safe OR than DISTRIBUTION sorry. Effective followers, at the NOT FOR SALE and process OR DISTRIBUTION of the Nez Perce leadership council as an NOT FOR exemplar of the paradigm (Humphreys, Ingram, Kernek, upper right quadrant of the diagram, effectively think for & Sadler, 2007). However, few have empirically investigated it to confirm or disprove the veracity of its compo- themselves in carrying out tasks and bring energy and enthusiasm while demonstrating initiative and assertiveness. Four qualities are shared Jones by effective & Bartlett followers: Learning, LL nents. Perhaps this perspective of leadership does not lend itself well to rational, scientific inquiry. If leadership (1) they manage themselves NOT well; (2) FOR they SALE are committed OR DISTRIBUT is defined as a social process (as identified by Barker), to the organization or purpose outside themselves; one must view relationships and their potential creation (3) they build their competence; and (4) they are courageous, credible, and honest. and dissolution as a rather nebulous construct. This causes tremendous challenges for scholars applying the scientific method to not only describe its nature, but also predict potential Independent, NOT FOR Critical SALE Thinking OR DISTRIBUTION antecedents and outcomes. O followership Alienated Followers NOT FOR SALE To raise OR the DISTRIBUTION importance of the role of followers in the leadership process, researchers have proposed several theories that describe Passive the leadership capacities of followers. This is not to minimize the relevance Jones of & leaders, Bartlett but Learning, LLC rather to enhance NOT the understanding FOR SALE of the OR DISTRIBUTION vital role that followers play in the leadership relationship. Sheep Survivors Effective Followers Yes People Active effective Jones followership & Bartlett Learning, LLC Kelley NOT (1988) FOR SALE asserted OR that what DISTRIBUTION differentiated effective from ineffective followers were Dependent, Uncritical Thinking their enthusiasm, intelligence, and self- Source: Kelley (1998). reliant participation. He described a twodimensional Learning, model that LLC explained follower figure 6-1 Jones Follower & Bartlett behavior. Learning, LLC Jones & Bartlett..

9 ChapTer 6: Contemporary Theories of Leadership Effective followers tend to be actively involved in the 3. Courage to challenge: followers who engage in life of the organization. They openly disagree with the potential conflict as they voice their sense of what leader and are not intimidated by hierarchy. Because they is right. Effective followers may risk rejection but demonstrate initiative, they rarely need elaborate supervisory systems. Effective followers display commitment Although courageous followers value organizational nonetheless are willing to stand up for their beliefs. to a cause, product, or idea; however, they temper their harmony, they are willing to confront when loyalties to satisfy organizational needs. individual or organizational activities violate the Effective followers master important knowledge and common purpose or integrity. skills necessary for their organization. These followers 4. Courage to participate in transformation: followers happily take on extra work that stretches their current who are involved in organizational transformation. capacities Jones because & Bartlett they do not Learning, mind chancing LLCfailure. Courageous followers may even serve as champions Further, NOT effective FOR followers SALE OR establish DISTRIBUTION themselves as credible and trustworthy and hold to ethical standards in the discomfort and disequilibrium of the change of organizational change, while still struggling with which they believe. process themselves. Jones 5. Courage & Bartlett to take moral Learning, action: followers LLC who know NOT FOR SALE OR Leadership DISTRIBUTION Points to Ponder NOT FOR when SALE to take OR a stand DISTRIBUTION that is different from that of The signs of outstanding leadership appear primarily their leaders. This dimension of courage may put among the followers. Are the followers reaching their followers at risk because they may refuse a direct potential? Are they learning? Serving? Do they order, may seek to go above the leader s head, or achieve the required results? Do they change with may submit a resignation. Courageous followers are grace? Manage conflict? motivated by a higher purpose and are unwilling to Max De Pree (from Leadership is an Art, 2004) compromise moral principles even in the face of tremendous risk to themselves. Challeff described courageous followers as possessing tremendous Jones power. & Bartlett Granted, Learning, followers do not LLC Courageous Jones followership & Bartlett Learning, LLC Challeff (1995) also asserted that follower is not a synonym for subordinate. Followers are effective stewards However, courageous followers appeal to other sources possess formal NOT power FOR equal SALE to that OR of DISTRIBUTION leaders (1995). for the organization and its resources. Challeff describes of power that are quite different from those of the leader. five dimensions of courage that are essential to effective There is a wide range of followers power: followership: O Jones Power & Bartlett of purpose, Learning, common good LLC 1. Courage to assume responsibility: followers who discover and create new opportunities for themselves. They do not take a paternalistic view of their organization whereby they expect their supervisors to provide for their growth or permission to act. 2. Courage to serve: followers who are willing to work hard and serve their leader and organization. Effective followers display numerous behaviors in this dimension of courageous followership. For instance, followers can help the leader define and communicate the vision of the organization to all levels (Challeff, 2002). Courage to serve can also encompass behaviors intended to conserve the leader s energy by perhaps serving as a buffer and Jones & Bartlett managing Learning, crises on the LLC leader s behalf. NOT OFOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION O Power of knowledge, skills, or resources Power of personal history, record of personal success in the organization O Power of faith in self, integrity, commitment O Power to speak the truth O Power to set a standard that influences others O O O O Power to choose how to react in situations regardless of what is done or threatened Power to follow (or not) Power of relationships and networks Power to communicate through many channels O Power to organize others Jones O Power & Bartlett to withdraw Learning, support LLC 91..

10 92 section 2: Leadership Theory Numerous other conceptual models regarding effective followership have been published in the academic approach to life and work. Put differently, Spears (1995) Servant leadership, in essence, is a philosophic literature and popular press. Baker (2007) reviewed the stated, at its core, servant-leadership is a long-term, various followership models and discovered that they transformational approach to life and work, in essence, a shared four primary themes. First, followers and leaders way of being that has the potential to create positive are roles, not people with inherent characteristics. Most change throughout society (p. 4). Servant leadership is a individuals, regardless of their positions in an organizational structure, have played the roles of both follower tures and is not consistent with short-run profit motives long-term pursuit of the improvement of corporate cul- and leader in their organizations. Second, followers are (Giampetro-Meyer, Brown, Browne, & Kubasek, 1998). active, not passive. This is contrary to popular views that Spears built on Greenleaf s original writing by identifying 10 characteristics Jones & of Bartlett the servant Learning, leader. LLC followers Jones are passive, & Bartlett obedient Learning, sheep. Demonstrating LLC followership NOT FOR requires SALE both OR parties DISTRIBUTION (leaders and followers) to 1. Listening: The deep, heartfelt commitment to be active participants in the leader follower relationship. listening intently to others. Third, followers and leaders share a common purpose. 2. Empathy: Recognizing and accepting people for Common purpose emerges out of an interdependent their special talents, gifts, and unique spirit. Jones & Bartlett leader follower Learning, relationship. LLCParticipants in followership 3. Healing: People may have broken spirits or a NOT FOR SALE remain OR committed DISTRIBUTION to organizational goals. Finally, followership is built on the relational nature of both leaders variety of emotional hurts, thus an essential gift of the servant leader is not only to heal one s self, but and followers. The relationship is a two-way influence also to assist in the healing of others. process. This collaborative partnership values the contributions of both leaders Jones and followers. & Bartlett Learning, LLC 4. Awareness: Refers primarily to self-awareness, which aides and strengthens the servant leader by Howell and Shamir NOT (2005) FOR contended SALE OR that DISTRIBUTION understanding followers is as important as understanding lead- providing an understanding of issues from a welldeveloped sense of ethics and values. ers (p. 110). Yukl (2010) rightly asserted that theories 5. Persuasion: Servant leaders seek to convince rather focusing almost exclusively on leaders or on followers are than coerce and can be thought of as a gentle limiting, Jones especially & Bartlett compared Learning, to more balanced LLC explanations. NOT Nonetheless, FOR SALE followership OR DISTRIBUTION offers useful insights by persuasion by challenging others to think of issues in different perspectives. describing qualities that are important for followers to be 6. Conceptualization: The capacity to dream great effectively engaged in the leadership process. dreams. The servant leader is able to envision the future not only in the context of the individual, Jones & O servant LeadershIp work Bartlett group, or Learning, organization, LLC but also within the NOT FOR context SALE of OR the societal DISTRIBUTION realm. Greenleaf (1977) proposed the concept of servant leadership. For Greenleaf, the primary responsibility of leaders is to provide service to others. Spears (1995) asserted 7. Foresight: The ability that enables servant leaders to glean lessons from the past, within the realities of that the servant leader emphasizes service to others, a the present, and understand potential consequences of future decisions. holistic approach to work, a sense of community, and shared decision making power (pp. 3 4). For the servant leader, taking care of other people s needs takes highest priority. Greenleaf (1977) described a series of 8. Stewardship: The perspective that corporate institutions play a significant and vital role in affecting the greater good of society. questions that serve as a litmus test of the servant leader: 9. Commitment to growth of people: Every individual Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being has an intrinsic worth beyond their contributions as served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, and development of others. workers. Servant leaders seek the holistic growth what is the effect on the least privileged of society; will 10. Building community: The servant leader takes they benefit, or at least, not be further deprived? (pp. advantage of opportunities to create community in Jones & Bartlett 13 14). Learning, LLC Jones & the Bartlett context of Learning, the given work LLC institution...

11 ChapTer 6: Contemporary Theories of Leadership Leadership Points to Ponder serve the good of followers (Graham, 1991). Transformational leaders are typically more concerned with organi- We must be silent before we can listen. zational goals. We must listen before we can learn. Servant leadership, according to Graham (1991), We must learn before we can prepare. restores the moral compass articulated by Burns s (1978) We must prepare before we can serve. perspective of transforming leadership. Burns asserted We must serve before we can lead. that effective (transforming) leaders focus on the ethical William Arthur Ward (from aspirations of both the leader and the led and stress endvalues, such as liberty, justice, and equality. Servant leadership addresses this issue by focusing on the Graham Jones (1991) & Bartlett compared Learning, and contrasted LLCservant leader follower Jones relationship & Bartlett and on the Learning, ideal of service. LLC leadership NOT FOR with other SALE popular OR theories DISTRIBUTION of leadership to Graham (1991) NOT asserted, FOR leaders SALE who OR not DISTRIBUTION only listen to explain the moral gaps in the other leadership theories. subordinates and other stakeholders, but allow themselves to be influenced by what they hear, are more pow- Weberian charismatic authority refers to individuals who gain and maintain their authority by proving their erful than those who rule by fiat (p. 112). Servant Jones & powers Bartlett to be Learning, a divinely inspired LLCmission (Weber, 1978). Jones leadership & Bartlett extends Bass s Learning, (1985, 1988) LLCtheory of transformational FOR SALE leadership OR DISTRIBUTION in two ways: it recognizes the NOT FOR The SALE genuineness OR DISTRIBUTION of charismatic leaders authority rests NOT on how well they provide for the well-being of followers. social responsibility in the call to serve, and it answers Charismatic authority often emerges from periods of tremendous crisis, such as great socioeconomic unrest, not want to? (Graham, 1991). Greenleaf s (1977) claim the question, Why should people grow even if they do when traditional authorities Jones fail to & meet Bartlett people s Learning, needs. that LLCpeople should be served by someone Jones who & Bartlett influences Learning, LL Charismatic leaders offer NOT a divinely FOR SALE inspired OR vision DISTRIBUTION and them to become wiser, freer, and NOT more FOR autonomous SALE is OR to DISTRIBUT perhaps even practical solutions with them in charge say that it is in people s interest to change in those ways (Tucker, 1968). (Graham, 1991, p. 113; Table 6-2). Personal celebrity charisma is a slightly different version of Jones charismatic & Bartlett leadership. Learning, House (1977) LLCasserted ory that possesses Jones nearly & universal Bartlett cultural Learning, appeal. Ser- LLC Servant leadership may be effective leadership the- that NOT it required FOR four SALE personal OR DISTRIBUTION characteristics: dominance, self-confidence, need for influence, and a strong and higher-order values, such as duty and social responvant leaders NOT focus more FOR on SALE humility, OR the DISTRIBUTION needs of others, conviction in the moral righteousness of his or her sibility, than on self-interest. Humane orientation refers beliefs (p. 205). Leaders with personal celebrity charisma commonly occupy higher levels of organizations ingness to sacrifice self-interest to help others (House, to the concern for the welfare of other people and will- with greater visibility. Followers are more likely to attribute the aura of magic to those who are at greater orga- Winston and Ryan (2008) persuasively argue that servant Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). As such, nizational distance because, according to Katz and Kahn leadership is compatible with the humane-oriented culture that resonates with some African (Ubuntu, Haram- (1978), intimacy destroys the illusion. Followers of this type of leader often respond with adulation and emulation, but over time followers become addicted to passiv- (Jewish), and Indian (Hindu) cultures. bee), East Asian (Taoist, Confucianism), Mediterranean ity (Graham, 1991). Unfortunately, servant leadership has limited empirical research to support its effectiveness. Yukl (2010) Transformational leadership incorporated some principles of charismatic leadership theory but added noted that much of the evidence for servant leadership is leader behaviors, such as individualized consideration based on anecdotal accounts and case studies of leaders and intellectual stimulation. These changes in leadership or organizations. Only recently have questionnaires been theory occurred because scholars began to recognize and created (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, value the contributions of followers by recognizing that & Henderson, 2008); however, they are at the early subordinates (often labeled as followers ) were educated stages of development. with the capacity for creativity. However, there is nothing The few empirical studies that have been published Jones & in Bartlett transformational Learning, leadership LLCthat says leaders should Jones suggest & that Bartlett servant Learning, leadership may LLCbe a promising 93..

12 94 section 2: Leadership Theory NOT FOR Table SALE 6-2 Comparison OR DISTRIBUTION of Charismatic Leadership Models weberian Charismatic authority Celebrity-Based Charisma Transformational Leadership servant Leadership Source of charisma Divine gift Personality; social Leader training and skills Humility, spiritual insight distance Situational context Socioeconomic distress of followers Low self-esteem of followers Unilateral (hierarchical) power Relational (mutual) power Nature of charismatic gift Visionary solution to distress Daring; dramatic flair; forcefulness; appealing vision Vision for organization; adept at human resource management Vision and practice of a way of life focused on service Response of followers Consequences of charisma Recognition of genuine divine gift Followers material well-being improved Adulation of and identification with leader Codependent relationship with leader perpetuated Heightened motivation; extra effort Leader or organizational goals met; personal development of followers Emulation of leader s service orientation Autonomy and moral development of followers; enhancement of common good Applicability to work organizations Representative authors and concepts No Yes Yes Yes Tucker; Weber Conger & Kanungo; House; Howell s personalized charisma ; Schiffer Bass & associates; Bradford & Cohen; Howell s socialized charisma Burns s transforming leaders ; Greenleaf Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 107, Graham, Jill W. (1991) Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. reprinted with permission from elsevier. Jones & Bartlett leadership Learning, perspective. Dimensions LLC of servant leadership Jones others & in Bartlett such a way Learning, that leaders LLC and followers raise one NOT FOR SALE are related OR DISTRIBUTION to positive outcomes in job performance, NOT FOR another SALE to higher OR levels DISTRIBUTION of motivation and morality organizational commitment, and community commitment (Liden et al., 2008). In another study, elements of to active participant in the leadership process. Followers (1978, p. 20). This view lifts up the role of the follower servant leadership were positively related to other organizational outcomes, such Jones as extra & Bartlett effort, employee Learning, satis- LLC mutual interests based on common Jones values & and Bartlett needs. Learning, LL are active in that they engage with leaders to develop faction, and organizational NOT FOR effectiveness SALE OR (Barbuto DISTRIBUTION & The work of Bass and others NOT refined FOR Burns s SALE concept OR DISTRIBUT Wheeler, 2006). Nonetheless, further research is required of leadership and differentiated transformational leadership from transactional leadership. Transactional leader- to confirm the effectiveness of servant leadership. ship refers to activities aimed at helping to clarify expectations and desired outcomes. It comprises categories of behaviors, such as contingent reward, manage- O summary ment by exception active, and management by Burns revolutionized the understanding of effective leadership by conceptualizing it as transforming, a condition however, are intended to help instill confidence and exception passive. Transformational leader behaviors, that occurs when one or more persons engage with enthusiasm in followers to rise above (transcend) what..

13 ChapTer 6: Contemporary Theories of Leadership they believe they would normally be capable of doing. own competence, and are credible and honest. Challeff Categories of transformational leader behaviors include (1995) also described the courage that effective followers idealized influence, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation. as displaying the courage to assume responsibility, the must demonstrate. His model depicted effective followers Rost strongly criticized much of the prior leadership courage to serve, the courage to challenge, the courage to theory and scholarship by characterizing it as largely participate in transformation, and the courage to take developed from an industrial paradigm. He asserted that moral action. scholars and practitioners of leadership need to reconceptualize it for the postindustrial age in which we live. model of leadership that describes leaders who are moti- Developed by Greenleaf, servant leadership is a He defined the postindustrial paradigm of leadership as vated primarily by providing service to others and taking an influence Jones relationship & Bartlett among Learning, leaders and LLC followers care of other people s Jones needs & first. Bartlett According Learning, to Greenleaf, LLC who NOT intend FOR real changes SALE that OR reflect DISTRIBUTION their mutual purposes (1993, p. 102). Rost s paradigm comprises four served were likely to become healthier, wiser, freer, the ultimate test NOT of a FOR servant SALE leader is OR whether DISTRIBUTION those being critical elements: (1) leadership is based on influence more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants (Greenleaf, 1977, pp ). Spears asserted that (not coercion or authority); (2) leaders and followers are Jones & people Bartlett in this Learning, relationship; LLC (3) leaders and followers Jones servant & leadership Bartlett requires Learning, service LLC to others, a holistic NOT FOR intend SALE real OR change; DISTRIBUTION and (4) leaders and followers develop NOT approach FOR SALE to work, OR a sense DISTRIBUTION of community, and shared mutual interests. decision making power (1995, pp. 3 4). Spears built on With the elevated status of the important role of followers, several models have sought to explain the specific tics of the servant leader: (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3) Greenleaf s original writing by identifying 10 characteris- roles of followers. According Jones to Kelley & Bartlett (1988), effective Learning, healing, LLC (4) awareness, (5) persuasion, Jones (6) conceptualization, (7) foresight, (8) stewardship, NOT (9) FOR commitment SALE OR to DISTRIBUT & Bartlett Learning, LL followers manage themselves NOT FOR well, are SALE committed OR DISTRIBUTION to the organization or purposes outside themselves, build their growth of people, and (10) building community. 95..

14 Chapter 6 wrap-up O activity 3. Does the leader instill pride in the followers? How does this occur? Transformational Leadership Select a leader you consider to be highly effective. The 4. Are followers Jones more & enthusiastic Bartlett and Learning, eager for the LLC person you select could be from your work or work to NOT be done? FOR Explain. SALE OR DISTRIBUTION organization. 5. Are the followers willing to exert extra effort for Describe the leader. the leader? 1. Explain how the leader is emotionally expressive. 6. Explain how the leader inspires innovative thinking Jones 2. Describe how clearly the leader articulates a vision to & problems. Bartlett Learning, LLC for the future. Leader member relationships 3. Detail how the leader communicates optimism and Ask three employees in your organization (individuals confidence in followers to achieve excellence. who report directly to you) to complete the following 4. Illustrate how the leader displays exceptional survey regarding the quality of LMX (Figure Jones & Bartlett 6-2). Learning, LL conceptual skills in approaching challenges in novel Answer the reflection questions. and unique ways. 1. Describe the highlights of your employees 5. Explain how the leader is able to draw out the best perceptions regarding the LMX quality with you. from the followers. 2. Which specific areas of your relationship with them Describe Jones the & Bartlett reaction of Learning, followers. LLC could be Jones improved? & Bartlett Learning, LLC 1. NOT Elaborate FOR on SALE the followers OR DISTRIBUTION reaction to the leader. 3. What steps NOT can FOR you take SALE to help OR improve DISTRIBUTION the 2. Are followers likely to respect and admire the quality of LMX with your employees during the leader? Explain. next month? 96..

15 NOT FOR SALE affect OR DISTRIBUTION ChapTer 6: Wrap-Up I like my supervisor very much as a person My supervisor is the kind of person I would like to have as a friend My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with Loyalty 4. My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior, even without complete knowledge of the issue Jones in question. & Bartlett Learning, LLC 5. My supervisor would come to my defense if I were attacked by others. 6. My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake. NOT FOR SALE Contribution OR DISTRIBUTION 7. I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my job description I am willing to apply extra effort, beyond those normally required, to meet my supervisor s work goals. 9. I do not mind working my hardest for my supervisor professional respect 10. NOT I am impressed FOR SALE with my OR supervisor s DISTRIBUTION knowledge of his/her job. 11. I respect my supervisor s knowledge of and competence on the job I admire my supervisor s professional skills Calculate a score for each of the four dimensions of LMX quality: strongly agree (6); moderately agree (5); somewhat agree (4); neutral (3); somewhat disagree (2); moderately disagree (1); strongly disagree (0). Consider the subtotal for each of the four dimensions. Affect out of 18 Loyalty out of 18 Contribution out of 18 Professional respect out of 18 Source: adapted from Liden & Maslyn (1998). figure 6-2 LMX MDM Survey...

16 98 section 2: Leadership Theory servant Leadership Bass, B. M. (1997). Does transactional-transformational Watch the following clip from YouTube ( leadership paradigm transcend organizational and.youtube.com/watch?v=bhikrmeac6y) and reflect on national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), Tom Peters perspective of servant leadership. What have you done in the last 24 hours to be of service to those Basu, R., & Green, S. (1995). Subordinate performance, around you? What will you do in the next 24 hours to be leader-subordinate compatibility, and exchange of service to those around you? quality in leader-member dyads: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1986). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Jones & Journal, Bartlett 39(6), Learning, LLC O Jones references & Bartlett Learning, LLC Avolio, NOT B. FOR J. (1999). SALE Full OR leadership DISTRIBUTION development: Building Burns, J. NOT L. Z. FOR (1995). SALE Prediction OR of DISTRIBUTION leader-member the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: exchange quality by Jungian personality type. Dissertation Abstracts International. Sage. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Jones & Bartlett leadership, Learning, charisma LLC and beyond. In J. G. Hunt, Jones & Row Bartlett Publishers. Learning, LLC H. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp ). Lexington, MA: Heath. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). The full range of leadership development: Jones Basic/advanced & Bartlett manuals. Learning, Binghamton, NY: Avolio/Bass NOT and FOR Associates. SALE OR DISTRIBUTION LLC Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), Balkundi, Jones P., & Bartlett Kilduff, M. Learning, (2005). The ties LLC that lead: A NOT social FOR network SALE approach OR DISTRIBUTION to leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organizational Management, 31(3), Barker, R. A. (1997). How can we train leaders if we do not know what leadership is? Human Relations, 50(4), Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance: Beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1988). Evolving perspectives on charismatic leadership. In J. A. Conger, R. N. Kanungo, & Associates (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp ). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. NOT FOR Challeff, SALE I. (1995). OR The DISTRIBUTION courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Challeff, I. (2002). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders (2nd Jones ed). San & Francisco, Bartlett CA: Learning, LL Berrett-Koehler. Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role-making Jones approaches. & Bartlett Organizational Learning, Behavior LLC and Human NOT Performance, FOR SALE 13, OR DISTRIBUTION Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leadermember exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings. Group and Organization Management, 23(2), Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leader-member exchanges. Group and Organization Management, 19(1), Dose, J. J. (1999). The relationship between work values similarity and team-member and leader-member exchange relationships. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 3(1), Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1),

17 ChapTer 6: Wrap-Up Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-unit performance. Journal of review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers Applied Psychology, 78, Giampetro-Meyer, A., Brown, T., Browne, M. N., & in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships Kubasek, N. (1998). Do we really want more leaders and their consequences. Academy of Management in business? Journal of Business Ethics, 17, Review, 30, Goodwin, V. L., Bowler, W. M., & Whittington, J. L. Humphreys, J., Ingram, K., Kernek, C., & Sadler, T. (2008). A social network perspective on LMX relationships: Accounting for the instrumental value of cal examination of post-industrial leadership. Journal (2007). The Nez Perce leadership council: A histori- leader Jones and & follower Bartlett networks. Learning, Journal LLC of Management, 35(4), FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Ilies, R., Nahrgang, NOT FOR J. D., SALE & Morgeson, OR DISTRIBUTION F. P. (2007). of Management Jones History, & 13(2), Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT Gooty, J., Gavin, M., Johnson, P. D., Frazier, M. L., & Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: Snow, D. B. (2009). In the eyes of the beholder: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), Transformational leadership, positive psychological Jones & Bartlett capital, and Learning, performance. LLCJournal of Leadership and Jones Katz, D., & & Bartlett Kahn, R. Learning, L. (1978). The LLC social psychology of NOT FOR SALE Organizational OR DISTRIBUTION Studies, 15(4), NOT FOR organizations SALE OR (2nd DISTRIBUTION ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based & Sons. approach to leadership: Development of leadermember exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over ness Review, 66, Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Busi- 25 years: Applying a Jones multi-level & Bartlett multi-domain Learning, perspective. Leadership NOT Quarterly, FOR 6, SALE OR DISTRIBUTION quality of supervisor-subordinate NOT FOR relations: SALE The role OR DISTRIBUT Kinicki, LLC A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Jones Influences & Bartlett of the Learning, LL Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and 2(2), (1), Green, Jones S. G., Anderson, & Bartlett S. E., Learning, & Shivers, S. LLC L. (1996). Liden, R. C., & Jones Maslyn, J. & M. Bartlett (1998). Multidimensionality of leader member NOT FOR exchange: SALE OR An imperical DISTRIBUTION assess- Learning, LLC NOT Demographic FOR SALE and organizational OR DISTRIBUTION influences on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes. ment through scale development. Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(2), Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A lon- Management, 24: Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, NY: gitudinal study on the early development of leadermember exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, Paulist Books. Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & 78(4), Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multi- Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. Leadership Quarterly, 20, dimensional measure and multi-level assessment. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: Lowe, K. B., Kroeck K. G., & Sivasubramaniam N. (1996). Leadership Quarterly, 19, The cutting edge (pp ). Carbondale, IL: Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the Southern Illinois University Press. House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership and Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. Developing and managing psychological strengths ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Academy of Management Executive, 16, Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B. leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control (2006). The social network ties of group leaders: 99..

18 100 section 2: Leadership Theory implications for group performance and leader reputation. Organization Science, 17(1), NY: John Wiley & Sons. Spears, L. C. (1995). Reflections on leadership. New York, Murphy, P. E. (1999). Character and virtue ethics in Steiner, D. D. (1988). Value perceptions in leaderinternational marketing: An agenda for managers, member exchange. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, researchers and educators. Journal of Business Ethics, , Tucker, R. C. (1968). The theory of charismatic leadership. Daedulus, 97, Murrell, K. L. (1997). Emergent theories of leadership for the next century: Towards relational concepts. Organization Development Journal, 15(3), Exploring the social processes of leadership and Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, Jones Thousand & Oaks, Bartlett CA: Sage Learning, Publications. LLC Wayne, S. J., Jones Liden, R. & C., Bartlett & Sparrowe, Learning, R. T. (1994). LLC Organ, NOT D. FOR (1988). SALE Organizational OR DISTRIBUTION citizenship behavior: The Developing NOT FOR leader-member SALE OR exchanges: DISTRIBUTION The influence of gender and ingratiation. American Behavioral good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Scientist, 37(5), Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived Bartlett organizational Learning, support LLC and leader-member Jones & Bartlett (2006). Learning, Organizational LLC citizenship behaviors: Its nature, Jones & NOT FOR SALE antecedents, OR DISTRIBUTION and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: NOT FOR exchange: SALE OR A social DISTRIBUTION exchange perspective. Academy of Sage Publications. Management Journal, 40(1), Phillips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower Weber, M. (1978). In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. exchange quality: The role of personal and interpersonal attributes. Academy Jones of & Management Bartlett Learning, Journal, 37, LLC Berkeley: University of California Jones Press. & Bartlett Learning, LL Winston, B. E., & Ryan, B. NOT (2008). FOR Servant SALE leadership OR as DISTRIBUT Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the 21st century. New a humane orientation: Using the GLOBE study construct of humane orientation to show that servant York, NY: Praeger. Rost, J. C. (1997). Moving from industrial to relationship: A post-industrial & Bartlett Learning, paradigm of leadership. LLC Jour- Journal of Jones Leadership & Bartlett Studies, 3(2), Learning, LLC leadership is more global than western. International Jones NOT nal FOR of Leadership SALE Studies, OR DISTRIBUTION 4(4), Yammarino, NOT F. J., FOR & Dubinsky, SALE A. OR J. (1994). DISTRIBUTION Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to Rost, J., & Barker, R. A. (2000). Leadership education in colleges: Toward a 21st century paradigm. Journal of determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology, 47, Leadership Studies, 7(1), Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and Yokochi, N. (1989). Leadership styles of Japanese business charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent, executives and managers: Transformational and transactional. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. Leadership Quarterly, 18, States International University, San Diego, CA. Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed). structure in leader-member exchanges. Academy of Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Management Review, 22(2),