Organizational Processes and Received Wisdom [1 ed.] 9781623965525, 9781623965518

Citation preview

Organizational Processes and Received Wisdom

A Volume in Research in Organizational Science Series Editor Daniel J. Svyantek, Auburn University

Research in Organizational Science Daniel J. Svyantek, Series Editor A Closer Examination of Applicant Faking Behavior (2006) edited by Mitchell H. Peterson and Richard L. Griffith Refining Familiar Constructs: Alternative Views in OB, HR, and I/O (2007) edited by Daniel J. Svyantek and Elizabeth McChrystal Emerging Themes in International Management of Human Resources (2011) edited by Philip G. Benson Received Wisdom, Kernels of Truth, and Boundary Conditions in Organizational Studies (2013) edited by Daniel J. Svyantek and Kevin T. Mahoney Organizational Processes and Received Wisdom (2014) edited by Daniel J. Svyantek and Kevin T. Mahoney

Organizational Processes and Received Wisdom Edited by

Daniel J. Svyantek Auburn University and

Kevin T. Mahoney South Dakota University

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data CIP data for this book can be found on the Library of Congress website http://www.loc. gov/index.html

ISBNs: Paperback: 978-1-62396-550-1 ISBNs: Hardcover: 978-1-62396-551-8 ISBNs: eBook: 978-1-62396-552-5

Copyright © 2014 IAP–Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, or by photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

Contents Editors Introduction: Organizational Processes and Received Wisdom—A Continuing Look at New Ideas.............................vii Kevin T. Mahoney and Daniel J. Svyantek 1 Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?.........................1 Sharon C. Hoffman 2 The Leader is Leadership................................................................29 James Warn and Michael Cox 3 Can Only Western Leaders Lead?...................................................49 Kurt Takamine 4 A Transformational Leadership and Spiritual Intelligence............ 71 Heather Christ-Lakin and Darlene R. Hess 5 Pygmalion Expectations, Leader Gender, and Subordinate Gender Influence on Performance........................... 101 Carolyn A. Lees-Hotton, Kristin L. Cullen, and Daniel J. Svyantek 6 Motivation and Organizational Transformation: How do Individual Motivation Theories and Emergence of Collective Motivation Factors Influence Organizational Transformation.................................... 127 Jennifer A. Hitchcock and Jacqueline M. Stavros 7 Predictors and Outcomes of Readiness for Change: An Empirical Study in Indonesian Plantation Firm...................... 157 Budi W. Soetjipto and Indra C. Uno



v

vi CONTENTS

8 The “Benefits” of Diversity in the Workplace................................ 191 James A. De León, Christopher T. Huynh, and Brittani E. Plaisance 9 A Longitudinal Study of the Predictors of Contextual Performance................................................................ 213 Julie M. Hetzler, Kristin L. Cullen, L. Allison Jones-Farmer, and Daniel J. Svyantek 10 Situational and Personality Influences on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A CAPS Perspective........................................................................ 241 Jamie L. Winter, Daniel J. Svyantek, Jennifer P. Bott, Kristin L. Cullen, and Brien N. Smith 11 How Knowledge is Received Across Disciplines: A Dynamic Model of Knowledge Flow Among Three Disciplines........................................................................... 263 Melissa L. Cast, Steven M. Elias, and Philip G. Benson 12 Exchange of Tacit Knowledge Within Advance Production With Small Batch Sizes................................................ 279 Anna Malm and Kerstin Johansen 13 The Role of Intuition and Insight in Organizational Decision Making................................................... 311 Jennifer Walinga and Don H. Caplan About the Authors................................................................................... 333

Editors Introduction

ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES AND RECEIVED WISDOM A Continuing Look at New Twists on Old Ideas Kevin T. Mahoney and Daniel J. Svyantek

This volume in the Research in Organizational Sciences is a companion to an earlier volume in this series entitled “Received Wisdom, Kernels of Truth, and Boundary Conditions in Organizational Studies.” We had many good submissions to our original call for papers for Received Wisdom, Kernels of Truth, and Boundary Conditions in Organizational Studies which met the requirements of this call. Our decision was to develop two volumes for the series which dealt with the topic of received wisdom in organizational research. Received wisdom, as noted in the earlier volume, is knowledge imparted to people by others and is based on authority and tenacity as the primary sources of human knowledge. Authority refers to the acceptance of knowledge as truth because of the position and credibility of the knowledge source. Tenacity refers to the continued presentation of a particular bit of information by a source until this bit of information is accepted as true by receivers. Received wisdom is used by individuals in the absence of confirming evidence and may be resistant to disconfirming evidence. The

Organizational Processes and Received Wisdom, pp. vii–xiii Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

vii

viii   K. T. MAHONEY and D. J. SVYANTEK

use of received wisdom is basically equivalent to the “do it because I said so” approach to parenting being applied to scientific issues. However, just as we discover when we begin to experience the world on our own, this approach may lead to issues in both the scientific study of organizations and in the practical application of organizational research. The problem for organizational studies, is that this received wisdom often becomes unquestioned assumptions which guide interpretation of the world and decisions made about the world. Received wisdom, therefore, may lead to organizational practices which provide little or no benefit to the organization and, potentially, negative organizational effects. For example, why do many managers still describe how incentives influence their employees’ work behaviors using Maslow’s need hierarchy? Perhaps, because Maslow’s hierarchy was taught to them in a management class. Managers who rely on received wisdom will continue to use Maslow’s hierarchy, even if available research suggests Maslow’s model isn’t always the most suitable. The chapters in this volume (and the companion volume) seek to establish boundary conditions for important organizational constructs and processes. They illustrate the importance of context for interpreting the received wisdom of organizational science by showing when constructs must be adapted to changing circumstances. The volume begins with five chapters looking at the construct of leadership. Each of these addresses an important aspect of our understanding of leadership and its practice. The first chapter is Hoffman’s “Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?” Hoffman examines the New Leadership School, which she traces to a 1975 national conference on leadership. She notes the New Leadership School focuses on (1) a leader’s vision (2) vision’s impact on followers, and 3) the context, with an emphasis on qualitative research. She identifies House’s (1977) charismatic leadership model and Burns’ (1978) transactional and transforming leadership distinction as emblematic of this approach. Hoffman then examines key leadership publications from each decade of the 20th century preceding the establishment of the New Leadership School, arguing that ideas attributed to the New Leadership School have been present all along. She argues that the new ways of studying leadership of the 1970s were actually dormant theories reinvented by the New Leadership School. This chapter shows the value of understanding the history of research in an area. It also shows that research is bound by the times in which it arises in an almost cyclical process. We replace received wisdom with new received wisdom as generations of organizational researchers replace one other. Warn and Cox’s chapter provides a look at the mythology and folklore of heroic leadership’s effects on organizations and organizational performance. They describe how these myths are perpetuated by the media and

Organizational Processes and Received Wisdom   ix

psychological needs of followers. They note that much of the leadership research is disconnected from the research in organizational science as the behavior of the leader is studied without recognition of organizational factors and the influence of context. Their interpretation of this problem is centered on basic human attributional processes and the need to ascribe causality for an event to some source. Such causal explanations, however, are fraught with error. Takemine’s “Can Only Western Leaders Lead” explores whether individuals from Asian cultures can be successful as leaders, given the misperception he identifies that Eastern leadership approaches are less effective than Western approaches to leadership. Takemine cites research that Asians tend to score well across a variety of cross-cultural leadership dimensions. He concludes that non-Western individuals can lead, and that, in fact, Western scholars and executives would benefit from examining the wisdom of Eastern leadership. This chapter extends the boundary conditions for cross-cultural research in leadership. This chapter is a timely addition to the literature as Asian companies open plants in the USA for the manufacture of automobiles while General Motors opens plants for the manufacture of automobiles in China. Christ Lakin and Hess’s “Transformational Leadership and Spiritual Intelligence” explores whether today’s leaders would benefit from spiritual intelligence, which they define “as the desire to do purposeful work that serves others and be part of a principled community” (p. 4). The authors examine the qualitative and quantitative research on spiritual intelligence. They find a significant positive correlation between transformational leadership and spiritual intelligence in a sample of Army Reservists. ChristLakin and Hess argue that leadership training will be more effective if it includes a spiritual intelligence element. This chapter suggests spiritual intelligence as new leadership approach for developing a positive organizational culture. The authors suggest utilizing spiritual intelligence as a lever to move the organization to a better state for multiple organizational stakeholders. Lees-Hotton, Cullen, and Svyantek’s chapter, “Pygmalion Expectations, Leader Gender, and Subordinate Gender Influence on Performance” looks at the roles played by gender in team performance. This chapter has three primary findings establishing that female leaders are able to facilitate the Pygmalion effect in team settings. First and foremost, female leaders can motivate subordinates, regardless of their gender, to produce simply by expecting more of them. This is consistent with the literature on the Pygmalion effect on male leaders. Second, the effects of leader gender and the Pygmalion effect were moderated by the type of criteria (quantity versus quality) used to measure group performance. It may be that organizations should emphasize gender leadership styles conducive to different

x   K. T. MAHONEY and D. J. SVYANTEK

performance criteria. This helps establish boundary conditions for the investigation of gender and the Pygmalion effect. Finally, female leaders can produce the Pygmalion effect at the group level, even when the subordinates are all male. Women leaders can and do inspire better performance from male subordinates simply by expecting more from them in the same way that men do. The five chapters on leadership are followed by five chapters dealing with other organizational processes including motivation, organizational change, the role of diversity in organizations and organizational citizenship. These chapters all offer insight into the organizational processes they investigate. Hitchcock and Savros introduce the idea of collective motivation in “Motivation and Organizational Transformation: How do Individual Motivation Theories and Emergence of Collective Motivation Factors Influence Organizational Transformation.” They define collective motivation as “the amount of energy members of an organization apply in order to develop a common understanding” (p. 17). They identify five causes of collective motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic factors, organizational identity and values, leadership, individual motivation theory, and rewards. The authors propose that a leader’s understanding of collective motivation will facilitate the organizational transformation process. Therefore, collective motivation is critical for creating a positive organizational culture. Hitchcock and Stavros provide a theoretical argument for enhancing organizational change and transformation. Soetjipto & Uno’s “Predictors and Outcomes of Readiness for Change: An Empirical Study in Indonesian Plantation” explores both the causes and consequences of readiness for change empirically. They examine both elements of the individual (spirituality) and the context (LMX, organizational culture, and external forces) on readiness for change. Additionally, they examine the connection between readiness for change and organizational misbehavior. They find that involvement and LMX impact readiness for change; readiness for change reduces the chance of organizational misbehavior. The authors note that spirituality does not appear to impact readiness for change. However, employees that are involved in the change process and have good relationships with their supervisors will be more ready for change, and will be less likely to engage in organizational misbehavior. Diversity may be impacted by variables such as organizational culture and collective motivation as well. In “The “Benefits” of Diversity in the Workplace,” De León, Huynh and Plaisance explore diversity’s impact on the workplace. They note the difficulty in understanding diversity’s effect, given scholars use different definitions of diversity. They explain the difference between surface-level, racio-ethnic, and deep-level diversity, and

Organizational Processes and Received Wisdom   xi

explore the effects of the presence or absence of each type of diversity. The authors explore the often suggested positive link between diversity and creativity. They suggest that by creating a collective mindset supporting diversity, an organization becomes a safe environment for employees, and will be more likely to realize increases in creativity from diversity. The last two chapters in this section deal with the construct of organizational citizenship (also called contextual performance). These chapters provide insight into how this construct may be better understood and utilized to make a more effective organization. Each of these studies support the general theme of the importance of organizational contextual variables as behavioral guides. First, in “The Longitudinal Study of the Predictors of Contextual Performance,” Hetzler, Cullen, Jones-Farmer and Svyantek examine the stability of, and the predictors of, contextual performance. They find that self-report of contextual performance varied across a semester among college students. In addition they find that only conscientiousness and agreeableness were stable predictors of contextual performance. Other variables such as extroversion, intrinsic motivation, orientation, and perceived similarity were not consistent predictors of contextual performance. Hetzler et al conclude that personality variables are insufficient to predictor contextual performance; situational variables must also be considered. The second chapter further supports the importance of understanding the person-situation interaction. Winter, Svyantek, Bott, Cullen and Smith’s “Situational and Personality Influences on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A CAPS Perspective” applies Yuichi and Shoda’s Cognitive Affective Personality System (CAPS) model in pursuit of the determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The CAPS model focuses on how personality (made up of cognitions and affects) change in accordance with the situational cue; as such it attempts to account for both the person and the situation. The authors examined the relative impact of personality (the Big 5) and the situation (LMX, and both procedural and distributive justice) on OCBs. They found the situational variable LMX as the best overall predictor of OCBs; however both personality (extroversion and agreeableness) and other situational variables (distributive justice) were predictive of some kinds of OCBs. The authors argue that their results support a CAPS perspective: individuals high in personality traits related to OCBS (like conscientiousness), may only engage in OCBs in situations where there is high LMX. Taken together, these two chapters are strong support for the importance of understanding the interactions of person and context for organizational behavior. Improving organizational citizenship requires understanding the interaction between the person and the organization. Changes to person or organizational factors alone are insufficient. Changes to both person

xii   K. T. MAHONEY and D. J. SVYANTEK

and situational factors are necessary for improvements in organizational citizenship. The last three chapters deal with the issue of knowledge in large systems. Two chapters address how information may be transmitted across organizations and generations of workers. The final chapter deals with the use of information by organizational decision makers. Cast, Elias, and Benson’s “How Knowledge is Received Across Disciplines: A Dynamic Model of Knowledge Flow Among Three Disciplines” explores citation patterns across the fields of management, psychology, and sociology. They discuss knowledge flow and then examine it across these three fields, by looking at select individuals (such as top journal editors and top publishers) within each field. They find considerable evidence of cross-fertilization across these three disciplines, and argue that management is the most tolerant of the three disciplines in terms of knowledge flow. They show that boundary conditions for the use of knowledge clearly exist and these conditions may be defined by the collective agreement of people within a discipline. Openness provides a way to counteract the development of received wisdom. In “Exchange of Tacit Knowledge within Advanced Production with Small Batch Sizes,” Malm and Johannsen compare how knowledge is transferred in the wood furniture industry with the manufacturing of a fighter aircraft. They identified acquisition, communication, application, acceptance and assimilation as the critical steps in knowledge transfer. The authors perform case studies of these knowledge transfer process in both industries, based on observations and interviews in both. They identified unique challenges in each case, as well as successes and failures. They conclude that the new generations of workers, MOKLOFs (Mobile Kids with Lots of Friends) pose an interesting challenge for organizations trying to train their employees; MOKLOFs have an unprecedented ability to learn from digital data, but do not necessarily possess the same feel for craftsmanship as their predecessors. Generational differences, therefore, set boundary conditions for the training of workers. What works today will not necessarily work tomorrow: The received wisdom for the development of employees must change as new workers are hired. Finally, in “The Role of Intuition and Insight in Organizational Decision Making,” Walinga and Caplan argue that intuition is a legitimate decisionmaking tool. Intuition aids individuals in making more effective decisions. The authors note that intuition has been defined in many different ways, and this has deterred understanding of its effects in organizational contexts. They define intuition as “a subconscious, rational, cognitive/emotional process based on prior experience and core values” which leads to sudden, clear, confident and satisfying decisions” The authors link insight to intuition, suggesting insight prepares individuals to make effective intuitive decisions.

Organizational Processes and Received Wisdom   xiii

The authors conclude that insight and intuition are important for effective decision making, and are complimentary to rational decision-making processes. This chapter shows that the rational, economic models of decisionmaking do not always hold true; different kinds of decisions call for different decision processes. This Research in Organizational Sciences volume continues the mission of its companion. The 13 papers in this volume all, in some way question received wisdom and present alternatives which expand our understanding of organizational behavior. These chapters each strive to present new ways of understanding organizational constructs, and in so doing reveal how received wisdom does not always lead to best practice in research or application. It is our hope that these chapters illustrate how challenging received wisdom in organizational studies can provide new ways of thinking about organizational processes. These new ways of thinking in turn can provide better understanding of the processes necessary to increase organizational effectiveness. References Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hurt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). London, England: Feffer & Simons.

Chapter 1

REINVENTED LEADERSHIP THEORY OR NEW CONSTRUCTS? Sharon C. Hoffman

Leadership theorists began to question the course research was headed by the 1970s. After analyzing more than three thousand leadership articles and books, Stogdill (1974) concluded that no mutual understanding of leadership existed. In his preface to The Handbook of Leadership (1974), Stogdill wrote, “Four decades of research on leadership have produced a bewildering mass of findings. The endless accumulation of empirical data has not produced an integrated understanding of leadership” (p. vii). His conclusion was considered by some the impetus for moving leadership theory in a new direction. Others felt if nothing else, Stogdill’s findings initiated the discussions surrounding leadership theory disillusionment (Bryman, 1992). In their introduction to Leadership: Where Else Can We Go, editors McCall and Lombardo (1978) also concluded that the number of nonintegrated leadership models was enormous, and much of the research was fragmented, unrealistic, and underwhelming. They speculated Type III errors characterized most research results, solving the wrong problem precisely (p. 3). According to McCall and Lombardo, researchers placed so much importance on the rigor and precision in measuring leadership, this

Organizational Processes and Received Wisdom, pp. 1–27 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

1

2   S. C. HOFFMAN

emphasis on technique was “at the expense of knowing what is going on in a direct, human way” (p. xii). They captured the tone of disgruntlement for the majority of leadership scholars at the time, as voiced at a 1975 national conference on leadership conceived at the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina (McCall & Lombardo, 1978). Leadership scholars’ discontent with theory development centered upon approaches used in leadership studies. Miner (1975) posited that there were challenges in measuring adequately what leaders did, with whom, and where. Leadership studies typically reported what leaders and subordinates said they did, could have done, or should have done but only a few described what they actually did do (McCall & Lombardo, 1978). Some perceived leaders and their followers were embedded in complex organizational systems, and to examine the leadership phenomenon while excluding leadership within the larger context of systems ignored the richness this type of framework provided (McCall & Lombardo, 1978). Miner (1975) summarized best the dilemmas in leadership studies up to that time when he stated, “We simply do not know what we want to know” (p. 198). As a result of the 1975 national leadership conference and subsequent publications such as McCall and Lombardo’s (1978) book, which compiled scholarly thoughts from the conference on leadership theory development, a call for a conceptual framework to identify and to measure what leaders actually did emerged in the field. The message to researchers was to immerse themselves in the context of leading. They were encouraged to study leadership within situations, and then measure what leaders did in those settings so that theory reflected the realities of leadership. From this call to action, a paradigm shift from traditional leadership occurred and a new direction in theory development began. The New Leadership School, as it was known, focused on leadership vision; followers’ emotional responses to leadership vision; leaders of organizations, not in organizations; and qualitative-oriented research (Dubin, 1979; Hunt, 1999). This paradigm shift (Bryman, 1992) moved the then contemporary leadership research from creating a construct and quantitatively measuring its effectiveness to qualitatively questioning successful leaders as to what they did that made them successful and then creating a framework capturing those fundamentals. This changed approach to leadership studies was to observe and analyze the macro- and microcontext of leading, which in turn, would inform theory development. By the end of the 1970s, most traditional leadership researchers began to embrace this new paradigm shift, and the New Leadership School perspective dominated the field. House’s (1977) original charismatic leadership model and Burns’ (1978) introduction of transactional and transforming leadership, later to evolve into transformational leadership (Bass, 1990), are quintessential results of this New Leadership School movement

Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?   3

in theory development. The New Leadership School’s influence continues to prevail in theory development. An argument can be made, based on a review of leadership theory throughout the first 75 years of theory development, that most of the elements identified as missing in the research at the 1975 national conference on leadership (McCall & Lombardo, 1978) were, in reality, present to some degree in theory development all along. Furthermore, the major theoretical components that drove the creation of the New Leadership School were dormant past theoretical constructs in the research. What follows is a brief review of leadership theory development (see Table 2.1) during the 75 years preceding the New Leadership School. In addition, an analysis comparing past leadership theories to the identified missing research as articulated in the 1975 national conference on leadership findings is presented. Table 2.1.  Leadership Theorists and Emphasis Theorist(s)

Construct/Theory Emphasis 1900s: Leadership is innate; leaders are event making; focus is on leader qualities.

Carlyle (1907)

Great Man Theory—born with innate abilities and destiny-type characteristics 1910s: Heredity is the main leadership factor; environment is explored as a possible factor; training is introduced.

Ward (1913)

Widespread leadership only waiting for a favorable environment to emerge

Gavitt (1916)

Training leaders in industry is introduced.

Gowin (1918)

“heredity equipment” or “native capacity” 1920s: The situation as an expansion of the environment is introduced; situation determines important traits needed; led group becomes focus as one aspect of the situation; trait interest is emphasized; context’s importance is introduced.

Hocking (1924)

The demanding situation drives leadership selection.

Bernard (1926)

Train leaders both formally and through experience.

Bowden (1926)

Leaders analyze situation and adjust leadership to the circumstances.

Bingham (1927)

Leadership training is feasible, particularly the “ways of leading.”

Bowman (1927)

Study leadership within contexts for a complete picture.

Cowley (1928)

Study the situation because it determines the trait emphasis. Distinguish between traits individuals posses and traits situations demand (situational traits). (Table continues on next page)

4   S. C. HOFFMAN Table 2.1.  (Continued) Theorist(s) Person (1928)

Construct/Theory Emphasis Situation is important; previous leadership experiences mold leader; the group’s need to be led is important role in leadership selection. 1900s: Leadership is innate; leaders are event making; focus is on leader qualities. 1930s: The importance of situation is strengthened; recognition of different, multiple, and larger contexts is emphasized; appropriate leadership is product of group circumstances.

Davis (1930)

Dynamic achievement – Leader success stimulates further leadership action/success.

Bogardus (1931)

Leadership unevenness – previously successful leadership techniques applied to ill-fitting situations

Westburgh (1931)

Study leadership through qualitative approaches for clearer picture.

Case (1933)

Social situations, personality traits, and context taken together determine leadership.

Smith & Kruger (1933)

Environmental factors enhance and provide development of innate traits; train leaders for specific situations.

Tead (1935)

Leaders possess an array of specific traits.

Page (1935)

Analyze leadership as expression of groups rather than individual leaders.

Whitehead (1936)

Successful leaders are directed by followers’ well-being.

Lewin, Lippett, & White (1939)

Original investigation into style effectiveness and leadership behavior. 1940s: Demise of trait theory; introduction of leader-follower relationship importance; shift from leader traits to leader style and behavior.

Jenkins (1947)

Methodology has not advanced; little progress in establishing leader behavior criteria.

Stogdill (1948)

Trait importance depends on the situation; no traits are sufficient to ensure leadership success in all situations.

Van Dusen (1948)

Group member characteristics and interaction between leader and followers are important factors.

Carter & Nixon (1949)

Different leaders from same groups of people can occur. 1950s: Importance of leader style and behavior continues; adaptation of style to follower needs and situation are important; task orientation in leadership is introduced. (Table continues on next page)

Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?   5 Table 2.1.  (Continued) Theorist

Construct/Theory Emphasis

The Ohio State Studies of Leadership (1950s)

All leadership behavior falls into two categories: initiating structure and consideration. Generalizability and interdisciplinary approach to leadership research are introduced.

Michigan State Studies (1950s)

Focus is on leadership behavior and its impact on small group performance; leader behavior as production-oriented, employeeoriented, and participative leadership, 1960s: Consideration of situation becomes eminent; followers’ perception of leader becomes important; follower needs continue to play a role in theory development.

McGregor (1960)

Theory x and theory y—Leadership is a complex relationship between the leader, the situation, and followers.

Likert (1961)

Four systems of management styles—System 4, participative group, is the most productive, effective, and efficient approach to leading.

Blake & Mouton (1962)

Managerial Grid—concern for production and concern for people with varying degrees.

Fiedler (1964)

Contingency Model—Leadership effectiveness is contingent on how well the leader’s style fits the context—the situation. 1970s: Leader-follower relationship is prominently transactional; continued emphasis on leader behavior and situation.

Evans (1970)

Leader behavior may be connected to follower goals.

House (1971)

Path-Goal Theory—Formal leader and subordinate relationships affect subordinate work motivation and satisfaction.

Vroom & Yetton (1973)

Normative Decision Model—Procedures leaders use in making decisions affect the decision quality and acceptance of decision implementers.

Downtown (1973)

Followers enter into transactions with leaders, an exchange as bargaining agents.

1900s The “Great Man” theory (Carlyle, 1907) is the earliest leadership theory of influence. Its role in leadership theory development was epic. It set the stage for theory progression throughout the 20th century. Carlyle (1907) posited that strong leadership was dependent upon the personal qualities of the leader, not the environment. Men who were great leaders had innate abilities and intellect. They were born with destiny-type characteristics to become men achieving great things. According to Carlyle, the Great Man or hero knew truth, was a visionary, and had a “seeing eye” (Jennings, 1950).

6   S. C. HOFFMAN

Carlyle (1907) believed “the history of the world was the biography of great men” (p. 18). According to Carlyle, history was the result of great men who had significantly influenced their surroundings and succeeding generations. They had the capacity to direct progress in an exacting way that drove historical events. They bent history’s course to their own wills (Burns, 1978). Hook (1943) referred to this capacity, to bend the course of history, as the event-making man. Hook (1943) distinguished between the eventful man and the eventmaking man. The eventful man happened to be involved in a historical circumstance but had minimal impact in determining its course. His qualities did not influence or shape the outcome (Hook, 1943). The eventmaking man, on the other hand, influenced the circumstance to develop on a different course than would have happened had he not taken consequential actions. According to Hook (1943), the event-making man found “the fork in the historical road” (p. 157), but also helped to create it and left a positive imprint upon history. The Great Man theory supported the idea that leaders of consequence were event making, not eventful. Early 20th century America’s culture and times mirrored this Great Man theory. Whatever the source of greatness, some men were making a difference in society. Their ideas became reality. Event-making leaders (Hook, 1943) emerged not only in business, but also in the political arena as well. J. P. Morgan played an important role in defining the country’s industrial direction by establishing a corporation for profit, unprecedented at the time (Evans, 1998). President Teddy Roosevelt grasped the relationship between an expanding economy and the potential to harm the natural environment and the common man. In response to businessmen like Morgan, one of Roosevelt’s priorities was to control industry’s great wealth accumulated at the nation’s expense (Evans, 1998; Reeves, 2000). The turn of the century was a time of monumental entrepreneurship in America as demonstrated in the accomplishments of a few. Some men had visions of what could be, and through their persistence, made those visions happen. Orville and Wilbur Wright, bicycle mechanics, solved the “flying problem” by designing and successfully piloting the first fixed wing aircraft in 1905 (Blanke, 2002). Frederick Taylor’s famous time and motion studies at the Pennsylvania Bethlehem Steel plant to augment productivity were on the cutting of edge of production reengineering (Jennings & Breuster, 1998). Henry Ford extended his success in the auto manufacturing industry and, as a result, was the impetus for three American business revolutions (Magill, 1994): perfecting the first moving assembly line by decreasing assembly time and cutting costs; making the auto affordable for average consumers due to this decrease in expenditures; and offering autoworkers an unheard wage of $5 per day (Knauer, 2007). All of these men’s accomplishments mirrored Carlyle’s (1907) Great Man theory.

Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?   7

1910s During the 1910s, leadership theory continued to embrace the Great Man theory but also began to examine how and what “native capacity” (Gowin, 1918, p. 59) played a factor in leadership selection. Gowin (1918) interviewed prominent contemporary executives to determine the essential needed qualities in a leader for the times. Fredrick Taylor responded with honesty. Hugh Chalmus, founder of the Chalmus Motor Car Company, offered honesty, health, ability, knowledge, initiative, sincerity, and enthusiasm as the necessary ingredients (Gowin, 1918). Gowin (1918) then queried managers, asking them to identify the essential qualities of a business executive. The top three ranked qualities out of 14 items were judgment (reasoning ability), initiative, and integrity. The lowest three ranked qualities were refinement, appearance, and sense of humor (Gowin, 1918). Theorists began to recognize that environment might be another important factor in leadership as they continued to inquire how leaders were different from nonleaders (Gavitt, 1916; Ward, 1913). Focusing on the environment’s role in leadership became part of the answer. For example, Ward (1913) postulated that leadership capacity was widespread among all men and only waiting for a favorable environment to reveal itself. Other major variables influenced the study of leadership during the 1910s. America’s involvement in World War I and industry’s expansion created an urgent need for new methods in identifying, selecting, and training leaders (Petrullo & Bass, 1961). Gavitt (1916) surmised that Germany had been training men to solve military and industrial problems for the last 50 years, yet the United States had done very little in this arena. He proposed training leaders in industry to “survive in the competition with highly developed autocratic methods” (Gavitt, 1916, pp. 18-19). According to Gavitt (1916), it was not good enough to just have an idea and implement it. A system must also be in place with trained leaders with specific skills in scientific management and execution (Gavitt, 1916, p. 19). During the first 2 decades of the 20th century, America experienced tremendous industrial escalation. The country’s commodities and growth tripled (Reeves, 2000). As the nation expanded in complexity, the need to establish and implement infrastructures for this growth became apparent. Technical infrastructures, such as Taylorism (Jennings & Breuster 1998) and Fordism (McCraw, 2000), were put in place to improve efficiency and productivity. A call for leadership to design and implement these types of infrastructures permeated industry dialogue and leadership theory literature (Gavitt, 1916; Petrullo & Bass, 1961).

Discussions also commenced to address personal characteristics of needed leadership. Executives articulated what they saw as necessary leadership, given the times. The two-sided vision of essential leadership at the beginning of the 20th century, a technical practical understanding along with personal attributes, began to surface. The portrayal of required leadership became more complex, as did the landscape in which leadership was needed. Executive practice and the country’s evolving complexity influenced leadership theory development during this era (Gavitt, 1916; Gowin, 1918; Petrullo & Bass, 1961; Ward, 1913). 1920s Two ideas in leadership theory first introduced in the 1910s continued to surface during this decade. Theorists extended the argument that leadership skills can and should be developed through training (Bernard, 1926; Bingham, 1927) and were not solely dependent upon heredity (Cowley, 1928). Theorists also proposed that the situation drove the type of leadership needed (Bowden, 1926; Bowman, 1927; Cowley, 1928; Hocking, 1924; Person, 1928). This point of view built upon and expanded the environment’s role presented in the preceding decade. Bernard (1926) contended that leaders must be trained either formally or through experience, and preferably both. His approach to leadership development training was three-pronged: practicing leadership, utilizing natural abilities, and studying theoretical frameworks. Bingham (1927) also suggested that leadership training was feasible. Planning, organizing, and having foresight could be the focus of leadership training (Bingham, 1927). What Bingham (1927) called the “personal side of leadership” (p. 259), the ways of leading, could also be addressed through practice and forming habits. Focusing on the environment and leadership selection in tandem can be seen in the 1920s theorists’ writings. Hocking (1924) suggested the situation drove leadership selection. He observed that followers chose political leaders to help correct their “bad habits” (p. 630). What the situation demanded, or habits of the led to be corrected, drove their selection of a leader, not the leader’s wishes. Bowden (1926) arrived at a fresh perspective on leadership. He surmised that some leaders analyzed situations and adjusted their leadership to the circumstances, which influenced their success. Bowden contended that leaders adjusted to the circumstances and further suggested, “Character is the result of the habitual delicate adjustments to social situations as they arise” (p. 156). Bowden’s contribution to the ideas of leadership

Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?   9

and the situation presented a slightly different point of view on the play between these two factors. Bowman (1927) urged theorists to stick to the concrete, not just the theories. The concrete Bowman referred to was the analysis of choices leaders made, and he conjectured this analysis would lead to more certain results (p. 317). Bowman also cautioned theorists not to mistake leaders for leadership. He advocated studying leadership situations rather than concentrating on leaders and looking at the circumstances rather than the one designated leader. According to Bowman, analyzing leadership within contexts presented a more complete picture and a clearer representation of leadership dynamics. During the 1920s, some theorists studied leadership through scientific inquiry. Cowley (1928) was one of the first to attempt to demonstrate scientifically that the Great Man theory inadequately explained leadership (Hoffman, 2008). He offered President Teddy Roosevelt’s leadership as an example. Many considered Roosevelt a natural leader, yet he demonstrated few leadership qualities early in his professional career. According to Cowley (1928), Teddy was an example of leading with success in one situation and having that success carry over into other situations. Cowley proposed that so-called natural leaders were simply men who experienced a “habit of leadership” (p. 152), a similarity in situational leading experiences, and prestige. Cowley (1928) also argued that a distinction should be made between traits individuals possessed and traits situations demanded. In order to study leadership, he proposed the situation must also be studied because the situation determined the trait emphasis and referred to this idea as “situational traits” (p. 147). Cowley concluded that leaders and followers were different in the same situations, and that leaders in different situations did not possess the same traits. In support of Cowley’s conclusions, Person (1928) also deduced that most studies did not take into account the environment in which leaders led when he stated, “Perhaps one of the essential characteristics which makes one a leader is one’s understanding of the situation” (p. 11). He presented three major points about leadership: (1) leadership situation played a large part in determining needed leadership qualities and the leader for the situation; (2) leadership qualities were the product of a succession of earlier leadership situations that developed and molded those qualities; and (3) the group’s capacity and need to be led played an important role in the leader selection (p. 11). Person contended the lack of research on these proposed ideas was a missing link in leadership studies.

10   S. C. HOFFMAN

1930s Leadership theory in the 1930s extended constructs introduced earlier in the century. Theorists continued the threads of leadership attributes (Case, 1933; Davis, 1930; Smith & Kruger, 1933; Tead, 1935); leadership situations (Bogardus, 1931; Case, 1933; Davis, 1930; Smith & Kruger, 1933; Westburgh, 1931); and follower emphasis (Case, 1933; Davis, 1930; Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939; Page, 1935; Tead, 1935; Whitehead, 1936) but with clearer and further articulated explanations. The importance of leading within a context was advanced, and a noticeable shift to group importance occurred during this decade. Smith and Kruger (1933) conducted a comprehensive literature review up to and including the early 1930s. They surmised the research did not support the earlier belief that leaders were born, not made. Rather, environmental factors enhanced and provided development of innate traits. The scholars also concluded that society demanded leaders with abilities based on knowledge, skills, and moral character (p. 68). All three were fundamentals for leadership in most situations. In addition, they noted great leaders were previously trained, formally or informally, in their strong skill sets. Smith and Kruger urged planned and coordinated leadership training for specific situations (p. 69). The emphasis on identifying leadership characteristics continued to dominate theory development in the 1930s but with more specificity. According to Tead (1935), leaders possessed a physical and nervous energy that drove their personal stamina. They had a sense of purpose and direction; they were enthusiastic, friendly, warm, decisive, intelligent, and held an inner faith. Leaders acquired technical mastery in their fields. They had the ability to teach others. Followers trusted a leader who had integrity, kept promises, and provided them a sense of safety from harm’s way (pp. 113-114). Davis (1930), as well, offered a list of essential leadership characteristics. Effective leaders showed compassion for the needs of others; had a feeling of oneness with the common group; were willing to pay personal costs for the minority struggle; possessed indomitable will power; and were persistent, courageous, and sincere (p. 873). Davis (1930) introduced an additional concept to leadership theory. Dynamic achievement occurred when successful actions led to further success (p. 13). Successful leadership, Davis summarized, was a combination of all these explanations plus luck (p. 14). What distinguished an effective leader from an adequate one was how the leader made use of opportunities and the coming together of circumstances to be successful. Whitehead (1936) offered a different perspective on leading. He posited a successful leader was directed by factors involved in the followers’

Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?   11

well-being. A leader who had followers’ best interest in mind; enjoyed good health and energy; was enthusiastic; presented an acceptable attitude and manner to all; was directed by a sense of justice; was quick to comprehend and decide; and displayed a firmness of action was most effective (p. 84). As some 1930s theorists were advancing the traits strand in leadership theory and follower importance, others were further discussing and researching leadership situations. Bogardus (1931) contended that leadership could be learned best by studying situations and acquiring skills for those situations. Bogardus (1931) also argued that little or no transfer of leadership existed (p. 166). What really occurred when a leader did well in one situation and then did well in another situation were actually similar factors in both situations, not leadership adaptability. The opposite, leadership unevenness (p. 167), occurred in those situations where the leader applied a technique that fit an earlier situation to another circumstance but resulted in a failed or limited outcome. In those situations, the leader did not take into consideration other factors and assumed a template response would work (p. 169). Westburgh (1931) presented a combination of interacting factors to depict leadership. He suggested that leadership was a kind of successful performance “resulting from the interaction of particular mental abilities, character and affective traits, under particular conditions” (p. 419). He emphasized that this leadership phenomenon operated under specific conditions and was not a generic isolated concept. Leadership and success depended upon the environment, the kinds of relationships, and the combination of abilities, character, and personality traits (p. 420). Westburgh envisioned the best way to study successful leadership, then, was from a qualitative method point of view, not quantitative. A more holistic picture of these factors emerged when a qualitative approach was used. Nafe’s (1930) description of protocol used in his qualitative study of founding leadership in local organizations also captured Westburgh’s idea of qualitative methods. His intent was to discover intermingling factors when he wrote, “The idea back of the question was to keep the leader talking about the formation or leading so that motives and methods might be described” (p. 253). Using a qualitative method, he wanted to determine why and how leaders led group formations. Case (1933) supported Westburgh’s argument of interacting variables. In his portrayal of leadership, Case used a German economic concept, conjuncture, which described the sum total of all elements coming together within an economic situation. In leadership, Case suggested the three elements of social situations (relationships), personality traits, and events (the context) taken together as a conjuncture determined leadership (p. 512).

12   S. C. HOFFMAN

Within the decade, a concentration on the group’s role, rather than the individual leader’s role, in defining leadership emerged. Page’s (1935) study focused on the individual leadership success as determined by the followers and concluded that in all situations of effective leadership, the common denominator was the led. He suggested analyzing leadership as expressions of groups rather than analyzing individual leaders (p. 43). At the end of the 1930s, the results of Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s (1939) series of experimental studies of group life were insignificant, but leadership definitions offered in terms of leader behavioral style were. Their findings eventually were to have a profound impact on future leadership theory. The second study in the series (p. 271) was considered an original investigation into style effectiveness on group productivity. It also led to the discussions of autocratic/directive versus democratic/participative style in leading groups (p. 271). Leadership behavioral style became a research focus in later years, originating from this initial study. 1940s Minimal advancement of leadership theory development occurred at the beginning of the 1940s. Just like America during World War II, theory development went into a “rationing mode.” Only essential activity appeared to have taken place in furthering leadership theory. Van Dusen (1948), along with Carter and Nixon (1949), exemplified typical 1940s leadership research during this time. Van Dusen continued the argument that studies often neglected the led group members and speculated that successful leadership was dependent upon leader techniques and qualities; group member characteristics; and the interaction between the group members and the leader (p. 68). His study hinted of directions that leadership theory was to explore by the next decade and offered a glimpse of future research. Carter and Nixon’s quantitative study concluded that different leaders from the same groups of people can occur, based on the type of task to be accomplished (p. 259). After the U.S. entered World War II, an immediate need to identify potential military leaders became paramount (Petrullo & Bass, 1961). The government scurried to create techniques for valid selection and training of leaders. With no infrastructure in place to explore and study the best techniques, the government needed assistance in this endeavor. A few governmental leadership research groups were in place before the war (Petrullo & Bass, 1961); however, useful results were unavailable in such a brief time. Once the war started, it was not feasible for the government to pursue leadership research.

Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?   13

At the end of World War II, the Office of Naval Research established a panel to make recommendations concerning a human relations program for military personnel (Petrullo & Bass, 1961). The panel recognized a continued need for leadership training and development and recommended that future research in this area must address criteria for good and bad leadership; an analysis of leader characteristics; different leadership types; the leadership process; and group life conditions that ensured leadership development according to MacMillan (as cited in Petrullo & Bass, 1961). During that same period, Jenkins (1947) reviewed leadership studies pertaining to military personnel. He observed that the methodology in leadership studies had not advanced beyond the use of three general techniques: group member nominations for leadership position; survey questionnaires of the characteristics of outstanding persons; and selection testing techniques to identify leaders (p. 75). Jenkins also noted little progress had been made in establishing leadership behavior criteria or a working definition of leadership to isolate traits. Stogdill (1948) followed with his seminal review of all leadership studies, which became a 50-year reflective benchmark of leadership theory and an impetus for the next theory development. He reviewed 124 studies that focused on traits and personal factors associated with leadership to determine if a pattern existed in the preceding 50 years of research. Stogdill concluded that no pattern was present to support the premise that a leader must possess a particular set of traits to be successful. Trait importance was dependent on the situation, and no traits were sufficient to ensure leadership success in all situations (Stogdill, 1948). The leadership trait theory had reached a dead end by the end of the decade, fueled by Stogdill’s (1948) and Jenkins’ (1947) reviews. 1950s The 1950s America saw an increase in population and productivity. The country’s population swelled to 151 million by the early 1950s, a 14% increase from the previous decade (Mayo & Nohria, 2005). For the first time in the nation’s history, white-collared workers outnumbered blue-collared workers (Mayo & Nohria, 2005; Reeves, 2000). Sixty percent of Americans enjoyed a middle class standard of living, compared to 31% in 1928 (Reeves, 2000). By the early 1950s, 13 million new homes were constructed on the outskirts of metro areas (Evans, 1998). At the same time, individual debt almost doubled, from 58.7 billion to 110.6 billion dollars (Patterson, 1996). The 1950s became the decade of consumerism. As Americans demanded an increase in consumer goods during the 1950s, production results became more important for corporate managers.

14   S. C. HOFFMAN

What counted most were profits. Drucker (1954) set the tone for a more task-oriented leadership mindset throughout the country. Innovative production equaled increased corporate revenue, and training teams with strong managers to increase production became the focus. Leadership research in the 1950s reflected this task-oriented behavior focus of leadership in industry. Relationship building was a factor in theory, but did not play as large a role in corporate America of the 1950s. In fact, any relationship building that was emphasized in business was for the good of the corporate profit margin (Drucker, 1954). Reflective of this new American mindset, fresh perspectives in studying leadership were the beginnings of the style approach in 1950s leadership research. Rather than focus on leader personality, as in the trait theory that dominated leadership research the preceding 30 years, the style approach concentrated on what leaders did and how they acted (Bales & Strodtbeck, 1951; Cattell, 1951). If shared leadership traits did not adequately define leadership, then did successful leaders act differently than unsuccessful ones? From this question, two general kinds of leadership styles emerged in the 1950s research, task behaviors and relationship behaviors. This perspective expanded discussions that included how leader behaviors affected subordinates. Leadership research headed in this new direction, and The Ohio State University leadership studies led the way. Ohio State Studies Project A group of scholars at the Ohio State University from a variety of disciplines analyzed how individuals acted when they were leading a group or an organization (Morris & Seeman, 1950). They concluded that all leadership behavior fell into two categories: Initiating Structure and Consideration. Initiating Structure referred to “the degree to which a leader define[d] and structure[d] his own role and those of his subordinates toward goal attainment” (Yukl, 1971, p. 415). Consideration referred to “the degree to which a leader act[ed] in a warm and supportive manner and show[ed] concern and respect for … subordinates” (p. 415). The Ohio State project studied leadership behavior and its effects on individuals, groups, and organizations and examined leadership as a twodimensional phenomenon, Initiating Structure and Consideration. This perspective “led to the formation of a number of modern situational theories” (Schriesheim & Bird, 1979, p. 139), that is, leadership in one situation was not necessarily best in another situation. These modern situational theories further evolved during the 1960s. The project had a lasting effect on leadership research. Many of the outcomes are standard protocol in research today; however, the project’s influence was

Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?   15

monumental. Schriesheim and Bird (1979) offered a perspective on the project’s contributions in conducting research. Prior to World War II, disciplines conducted research in isolation, concentrating on results pertaining to their field of studies. The Ohio State studies initiated an interdisciplinary approach in leadership research (Schriesheim & Bird, 1979), uncommon for the times. What was more groundbreaking was that the multiple-discipline researchers were some of the first to integrate the idea of generalizability across disciplines into research standards. They conducted multisample studies in order to replicate findings (Schriesheim & Bird, 1979). In this way, they could appropriately describe leaders in similar terms across organizational types. This approach was unusual at the time and set a standard for research (Schriesheim & Bird, 1979). Another research technique generated from the Ohio State studies, which is still viable as a research method today, was Flanagan’s (1954) critical incident technique. It grew out of series of studies conducted by the Aviation Psychology Program of the Army Air Forces in World War II. The program’s charge was to develop procedures for the selection and classification of aircrews (Flanagan, 1954, p. 328). From that origin of purpose, a systematic set of procedures was created to collect “direct observations of human behavior … to facilitate their potential usefulness in solving practical problems and developing broad … principles” (Flanagan, 1954, p. 327). Flanagan’s standards for collecting data through the critical incident technique are still widely used in research protocol today. Michigan State Studies At the same time of the Ohio State studies, Michigan State’s Survey Research Center was conducting similar pursuits in leadership research under the direction of Rensis Likert (Bowers & Seashore, 1966). Michigan State’s focus was leadership behavior and its impact on small group performance, an added factor. The group of researchers was attempting to identify relationships among leader behavior, group processes, and group performance measures (Yukl, 2006). Michigan State researchers first conducted field studies in the early 1950s on a variety of leaders (Yukl, 2006, p. 54). They collected information through extensive interviews and questionnaires (Reddin, 1967). They then measured group productivity to determine effective and ineffective managers. Based on research results, the researchers designed a continuum model to articulate part of their findings. On opposite ends of the continuum was Production-Oriented and Employee-Oriented. An effective manager was either production- or employee-centered. These factors paralleled Ohio

16   S. C. HOFFMAN

State’s Initiating Structure and Consideration factors. If an effective leader was production-oriented, the leader accomplished task-oriented functions such as planning, coordinating, and providing assistance with needed resources (Yukl, 2006). An effective leader who was employee-oriented was supportive, helpful, friendly, considerate, appreciative, and empathetic toward subordinates (Northouse, 1997; Yukl, 2006). The continuum of factors suggested one end of the continuum meant less of the factor on the other end; a leader demonstrated either a greater degree of one or the other behavior, not both. However, after more studies were completed, the researchers reconceptualized the two constructs and treated them as two independent variables (Kahn, 1956), just as the Ohio State studies did. Michigan State researchers also introduced a third variable in leadership behavior, Participative Leadership. According to the study’s results, Participative Leadership used more group supervision than individual supervision. An emphasis was placed on group meetings with the manager as the discussion guide, helping the group stay focused on problem solving. During group meetings, shared decision making developed. Improved communication and cooperation within the groups were revealed (Yukl, 2006). 1960s Situational leadership theory, an extension of 1950s leader behavior research, emerged as the dominant emphasis by the late 1960s. Its premise was that situational factors determined the most appropriate leadership. Hersey and Blanchard (1969, p. 27) suggested adding an effectiveness dimension to the Ohio State model. They theorized that successful leaders adapted to followers’ needs and the situation. According to Hersey and Blanchard, leaders who integrated an appropriate style to the situational demands of a specific environment was most effective. Their recommendation linked initially the situation’s importance of the 60s to the leader behavior theories of the 50s. An increased focus on followership also became more evident. McGregor’s (1960) new emphasis on follower satisfaction with work; Likert’s (1961) subordinates’ relationship and communication with management throughout the organization; and Blake and Mouton’s (1962) managerial grid of five leadership styles with followers playing important roles all point to follower importance in theory development during the 1960s. Fiedler’s contingency model (1964) identified the leader-member-relations factor as a driving force in favorable situations. The subtle shift away from leader-focused theory development began to place more emphasis on followers and their roles in effective leadership development. Before

Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?   17

contingency theories took center stage, however, some prominent scholars continued to pursue leadership style research and re-emphasizing the situational factor. Their work bridged the two schools of thought, style and situation, and pointed the way toward a new path in leadership research. McGregor (1960), in his classic The Human Side of Enterprise, emphasized the importance of a leader’s behavior on follower satisfaction. He contended that conventional managers needed to direct and control subordinates since workers inherently disliked work. The average worker preferred direction, avoided responsibilities, had minimal ambition, yet wanted security above all. McGregor referred to these assumptions as the “mediocrity of the masses” (p. 34) and labeled this leadership approach theory x. McGregor offered theory y to counteract the proverbial management approach, theory x. Theory y presented a different perspective on followers and work. Average workers did not inherently dislike work, and some even considered work a source of satisfaction. External control and threat of punishment were not the only avenues to influence workers. Workers sought responsibilities, and the majority had the capacity to be imaginative in addressing organizational challenges. More importantly, leadership was not the personal characteristics of the individual leader, but “a complex relationship among these variables” (McGregor, 1960, p. 182) of leading and following. Expanding McGregor’s (1960) emphasis on the complex relationship between the leader and followers, Likert (1961) investigated leadership from an organizational point of view. He addressed problems of organizing human capacity and resources in business enterprises. Likert supposed that other organizational types, other than business, could successfully apply his theory. He contended that four systems of management existed within organizations, and organizational success depended on the type of management style in place. He argued that the most productive, effective, and efficient organization functioned as a System 4 (Likert, 1961). Likert outlined characteristics of each system in relation to followers. In a System 1 management setting, labeled exploitive authoritative, subordinates did not participate in organizational decision making; were expected to complete the work with no teamwork involved; and fear and threats were used to force their compliance and productivity. An atmosphere of competition and distrust were prevalent among subordinates. Only partial or inaccurate information flowed downward (Likert, 1961). In a System 2 management setting, labeled benevolent authoritative, decisions continued to be made at the top of the organization. Subordinates were motivated through rewards more than fear and threats; manifested a subservient attitude toward managers; overtly accepted organizational goals but often secretly resisted to a moderate degree; and derived little

18   S. C. HOFFMAN

satisfaction from their work. Upward flow of communication was limited to what leadership wanted to hear. Teamwork was discouraged (Likert, 1961). In a System 3 management setting, labeled consultative, subordinates were rewarded and somewhat involved in decision making, but their input was not necessarily adopted; were reasonably cooperative with each other; and sometimes resisted established goals but overtly accepted them. Teamwork was encouraged at times. Most communication was from the top down but some initiative came from lower levels. Somewhat accurate information was communicated throughout the organization (Likert, 1961). In a System 4 management setting, labeled participative group, management had complete confidence in subordinates. Teamwork was the norm, and subordinates, who were members of more than one team, linked teams together. Favorable, cooperative attitudes with mutual trust and confidence permeated the organization. Group participation usually established organizational goals, which subordinates fully accepted because they felt personally responsible for the goals. Decision making was widespread throughout the organization and well integrated. Accurate and complete communication flowed up and down the organization (Likert, 1961). Blake and Mouton (1962) offered an additional perspective on management/leader behavior. They purported that “the science of management” was replacing the “art of management” (p. 29) in industry. According to Blake and Mouton, the science of management was based on the belief that the practice of effective management could be learned through studying a body of systematic behavioral science available through research. Blake and Mouton’s (1962) leader behavior model using the managerial grid construct of Concern for Production and Concern for People paralleled the task and relationship leader behaviors introduced in the 1950s by The Ohio State studies. The researchers continued on this line of research but went one step further by utilizing a grid to demonstrate varying degrees of the constructs Concern for Production and Concern for People. A horizontal axis represented Concern for Production and a vertical axis represented Concern for People. Plotted scores for each axis on the grid illustrated varied leadership styles (Blake & Mouton, 1961). Even with the research findings and theories of scholars like McGregor, Likert, and Blake and Mouton, leadership style theory began losing grace in theory development by the end of 1960s (Wren, 1995), however. The research could not consistently relate leadership styles to important organizational outcomes of group productivity and follower satisfaction (Wren, 1995). Certain leadership behaviors did not always match the production levels measured. Consideration and employee-oriented behavior were generally associated with employee satisfaction but not always (Wren, 1995). Work performance and employee satisfaction were not predictable

Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?   19

with The Ohio State studies, as Korman (1966) concluded from his review of 25 studies that used Initiating Structure and Consideration factors. He found the two factors had no predictive value in terms of effectiveness as situations changed. Korman surmised since situations changed, so must leadership style. His conclusions reinforced the next leadership research path, situational theory, considered a descendent of the Ohio State studies. Fiedler’s contingency theory (1964) presented the type of situational leadership theory proposed in Korman’s conclusions. Fiedler postulated his theory in response to two prevailing research questions at the time, “What personality factors determine whether a particular individual will become a leader? and “What personality traits or attributes determine whether a leader will become effective?” (p. 150). Fiedler discovered that leadership effectiveness was contingent on how well the leader’s style fit the context, or matched the right setting – the situation. Fielder referred to his model as a “leader-match” theory in that it tried to match leaders to appropriate situations (Fiedler & Chemers, 1967). Contingency theory’s most significant idea was that leaders did not have to be effective in all situations. It was unrealistic to expect that level of leadership because it did not exist. The key was to place leaders in optimal situations where they would work best (Hoffman, 2008). 1970s Leadership theory in the early 70s leaned toward a more mechanistic approach to leading (Downtown, 1973; Evans, 1970; House, 1971; Vroom & Yetton, 1973) as theorists suggested deliberate leader actions led to intended consequences. When the opposite occurred, however, when leader actions did not produce the intended outcomes in followers, less than desired consequences occurred. In those instances, the leader was not successful. During the 1970s, a few theorists simultaneously pursued defining leader behavior and its impact on followers, along with the situational factor. Some theorists suggested that leader behavior could determine followers’ perceptions of potential work rewards. According to Evans (1970), leader behavior related to path-goal instrumentality, an individual’s perception of how personal actions or behaviors might be related to personal goals in predictable ways (p. 279). When leader behavior positively interacted with this factor, worker satisfaction was high. Evans proposed that his findings explained the inconsistent conclusions with the Ohio State studies of Initiation of Structure and Consideration’s effect on worker performance and satisfaction. He suggested considering path-goal instrumentality for the worker response as the key (Evan, 1970).

20   S. C. HOFFMAN

House’s path-goal theory (1971) fleshed out Evans’ findings (1970) that leader behavior may be connected to followers’ personal goals, and expanded on the idea. His theory further articulated how formal leader and subordinate relationships affected subordinate work motivation and satisfaction. House’s path-goal theory was founded on an earlier expectancy theory of motivation (House, 1971). Expectancy theory stated that an individual chose behavior to engage in on the basis on the valence (satisfaction) perceived associated with the outcome of the behavior and the probability (expectancy) that the behavior will result in the desired outcome (House, 1971). Subordinates were motivated to work if they thought they could do the job; if they believed personal efforts afforded certain outcomes; and if the result or payoff was worth their efforts (House, 1971). The leader was challenged with matching a more appropriate leadership style that met subordinates’ motivational needs. House (1971) also found correlations between leader behavior and subordinate characteristics. Supportive leadership behavior was most effective when the task was stressful, boring, or dangerous, or when subordinate self-confidence was low and anxiety was high. Directive leadership was most effective when the task was ambiguous and complex or the subordinate was inexperienced or did not understand how to work effectively (House, 1971). House’s path-goal theory contributed to further clarifying and defining situational factors, the roles of followers, and the interplay between them in determining effective leader behavior. Theorists explored the relationship between leadership decision making and the context in which decisions were made. Using the most appropriate leadership decision process for the situation had been a concern in leadership theory since the late 1950s (Yukl, 2006). Vroom and Yetton (1973) provided the normative decision model as one answer to this concern, although their expressed intent was to address effective leadership behavior. They set out to address two questions: “How should leaders behave if they are to be effective?” and “How do they behave?” (p. 197). According to the researchers, the procedures leaders followed in making decisions affected the quality of the decisions and acceptance of those who were expected to implement the decisions. These two factors, decisionmaking procedures and follower acceptance, determined how effective the decision would be after it was implemented (Vroom & Yetton, 1973). A more focused emphasis on engagement between the leader and followers started to emerge in the early 1970s theory development. This more detailed focus seemed to have set the stage for some New Leadership School theories that followed. One case in point was Downtown’s (1973) transactional analysis construct. As a precursor to transformational leadership theory (Burns, 1978) that developed as a result of the New Leadership School, Downtown originally coined the term “transactional.”

Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?   21

He noted that traits followers valued in leadership varied with the situation in which their interactions occurred. In Downtown’s analysis, the leader and follower were bargaining agents trying to maximize tangible or intangible profits. He called this process transactional analysis (Dowtown, 1973). Dowtown emphasized that the follower entered into limited transactions with the leader at first until the leader’s honesty was established. After that, the exchange process persisted if mutual trust occurred between the bargaining agents. The leader’s consistent follow through with results (payoffs) in a timely manner maintained the follower’s trust. Burns (1978) designed his transactional and transforming leadership theory from Downtown’s initial idea of transactional analysis. Theory Development Revisited As a result of the discontent with leadership theory development by the mid-1970s, articulated at the 1975 national conference on leadership, scholars called for modifications in approaches to studying leadership. A call for more qualitative methodologies, a greater focus on leading within complex organizational systems, and an immersion into the varied contexts of leading in order to observe what leaders actually did were the three key outcomes of the conference findings. This paradigm shift in conducting leadership research led to the New Leadership School in theory development (Bryman, 1992; Dubin, 1979; Hunt, 1999), and it encouraged researchers to rediscover the leadership phenomena in refreshing ways. However, another perspective offered here suggests that traces of each call to action prior to the New Leadership School had been in theory development all along, perhaps laid dormant, and merely overlooked. Qualitative Methodologies As early as 1918, Gowin (1918) conducted interviews of prominent executive leaders in identifying needed leader qualities. Westburgh (1931) suggested that the best way to study successful leadership was from a qualitative point of view since leadership and success depended upon a complex interaction among a number of variables. One year earlier than Westburgh’s published findings, Nafe (1930) reported using this methodology to tease out leader methods and motives in his conversations with leaders. Flanagan’s critical incident technique was a new qualitative measurement approach at the time and helped in the selection and classification of aircrews during World War II (Flanagan, 1954). Researchers in the Michigan State studies conducted extensive interviews with a variety of leaders to col-

22   S. C. HOFFMAN

lect information on leader behavior (Reddin, 1967). The practice of using qualitative methods in leadership studies was customary throughout theory development; however, its standing as a viable methodology may have been minimized when the need for precision and rigor in data gathering came to the forefront in leadership research (McCall & Lombardo, 1978). Complex Organizational Systems: Multiple Perspectives McCall and Lombardo (1978) stressed leadership research only focused on leader-group relations, excluding the leader-group-systems relationships (p. 7). They contended that not taking organizational systems into account when studying leadership was a major omission in research. Looking at leading within complex organizational systems is a relatively contemporary perspective, yet traces of this approach, if loosely defined, were evident historically in theory development. Carlyle (1907) suggested history was a result of great men, or leaders, taking event-making actions. Their dynamic leadership, such as J. P. Morgan and Teddy Roosevelt, influenced and re-directed social, political, and economic macrosystems. In early theory development, complex organizational system could be synonymous with the term environment used by theorists of the time. For example, Ward (1913) contended men with leadership potential waited for favorable environments (organizational systems) to appear (opportunities to lead). Westburgh (1931) concluded that leadership and success depended on the environment (organizational system type), along with a number of other variables. Smith and Kruger (1933) suggested that environmental factors (organizational systems) provided contexts for leader development. In the 1960s, leadership theory introduced a more prescribed focus on organizations and systems. Hersey and Blanchard (1969) integrated an appropriate leadership style to the specific environment (organizational system) in describing successful leadership. McGregor’s (1960) theory x and theory y were placed within types of implied organizational systems, and Likert (1961) investigated organizational systems in his theory development process. Leading Within Varied Contexts One of the 1975 leadership conference themes in defining the challenges of leadership research was a fundamental need to study leadership within a range of contexts in order to document the certainties of leading (McCall & Lombardo, 1978). Conference participants were pressed to

Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?   23

study leadership within situations and measure what leaders actually did in those varied settings (McCall & Lombardo, 1978, p. 8). Perhaps this forgotten focus had been lost by researchers even though it was widely prevalent throughout early theory development. Introduced in the 1920s, the idea that the situation or context drove the type of leadership needed dominated the literature. The situation drove leadership selection (Hocking, 1924). Effective leadership adjusted to the circumstances or context (Bowden, 1926). Studying leadership within contexts presented a clearer picture of leadership dynamics (Bowman, 1927). A similarity of situational leading experiences described natural leaders (Cowley, 1928). Cowley (1928) insisted that the situation be studied because it determined what leadership traits were needed, referring to this as situational traits. The situation determined the needed leadership qualities and the leader for the situation, and a succession of earlier leadership situations developed and molded leadership qualities (Person, 1928). An effective leader made use of opportunities and circumstances to be successful (Davis, 1930). Bogardus (1931) encouraged studying situations and developing leadership skills for those situations. Successful leadership performance resulted under particular conditions (Westburgh, 1931). Smith and Kruger (1933) recommended leadership training for specific situations. The combination of social situations, personality traits, and context determined leadership (Case, 1933). Leadership trait importance depended on the situation (Stogdill, 1948). Situational factors determined the most appropriate leadership, such as Fiedler’s contingency theory (1964). Leadership effectiveness was contingent on how well the leader fit the context, according to Fiedler. Successful leaders integrated the most appropriate style to a specific environment (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). Conclusion In leadership theory development, some theories were initially embraced by theorists for a time, then fell by the wayside only to reappear later. Hunt and Dodge (2001) suggested the pendulum model in explaining this phenomenon, “Topics in vogue swing back and forth between extremes” (p. 453). A construct once considered dead sometimes appeared again in the literature. Theorists responded, and the construct suddenly came alive and was the focus of research once again. Rost (1991) offered an alternative perspective on the pendulum model in theory development. He contended that theories never become extinct. Some theories were simply built upon, with elements of the original theory blended into the reframed theory. Other theories fell out of favor, laid dormant, and then reappeared fully intact, often disguised as a ground-

24   S. C. HOFFMAN

breaking construct. Theorists were deceived into thinking a new construct had been discovered, when, in fact, the new construct was a previously established theory in disguise. Rost’s perspective (1991) shed light on the New Leadership School movement’s importance in theory direction. There is no denying that the movement had a tremendous impact on theory development. Transformational leadership theory is an example of its influence. However, the 1975 conference, the impetus for the New Leadership School in theory development, emphasized the study of leadership as it happened in the real world and researchers responded. In reality, theorist all along in theory development had underscored context or the situation as a driving factor in leadership success. Theorist also have utilized, to some degree, qualitative methods and recognized loosely defined systems in which leadership occurred. The evidence suggests that what theorists of the 70s embraced as new ways of studying leadership were past dormant theories reinvented. References Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 41, 485-495. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics (Winter), 19-31. Bernard, L. L. (1926). An introduction to social psychology. New York, NY: Henry Holt. Bingham, W. V. (1927). Leadership. In H. C. Metcalf (Ed.), The psychological foundation of management (pp. 244-260). Chicago: A. W. Shaw. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1962). The developing revolution in management practices. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, 16, 29-52. Blanke, D. (2002). The 1910s. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Bogardus, E. S. (1931). Leadership and social situations. Sociology and Social Research, 16, 164-170. Bowden, A. O. (1926). A study of the personality of student leaders in colleges in the United States. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21, 149-160. Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four factor theory in leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11(2), 238-263. Retrieved from JSTOR database. Bowman, L. E. (1927). Approach to the study of leadership. Journal of Applied Sociology, 11, 315-21. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma & leadership in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Carlyle, T. (1907). On heroes, hero-worship, and the heroic history. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Carter, L. F., & Nixon, M. (1949). An investigation of the relationship between four criteria of leadership ability for three different tasks. Journal of Psychology, 23, 245-261.

Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?   25 Case, C. M. (1933). Leadership and conjuncture. Sociology and Social Research, 17, 510-513. Cattell, R. B. (1951). New concepts for measuring leadership, in terms of group syntality. Human Relations, 4, 161-184. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database. Cowley, W. H. (1928). Three distinctions in the study of leadership. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 23, 144-157. Davis, J. (1930). Contemporary social movements. New York, NY: The Century Company. Downtown, J. V., Jr. (1973). Rebel leadership. New York, NY: Free Press. Drucker, P. (1954). The practice of management. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Dubin, R. (1979). Metaphors of leadership: An overview. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Cross-currents in leadership (pp. 225-238). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Evans, H. (1998). The American century. New York, NY: Alfred Knopf. Evans, M. G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 5, 277-298. Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 149-190). New York, NY: Academic Press. Fiedler, F. E., & Chemers, M. M. (1974). Leadership style and effective management. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358. Gavitt, H. L. (1916). The importance of leadership. Engineering Magazine, 51, 1121. Gowin, E. B. (1918). The selection and training of the business executive. NY: Macmillan. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 23(5), 26-34. Hocking, W. E. (1924, July). Leaders and led. Yale Review, 13, 625-641. Hoffman, S. C. (2008). Credible leadership—in the eyes of the follower: A historical review of leadership theory throughout the twentieth century in the United States. The University of Nebraska—Lincoln). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 301. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.selu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/ docview/304532815?accountid=13772 (304532815) Hook, S. (1943). The hero in history: A study in limitation and possibility. New York, NY: John Day. House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hurt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). London, England: Feffer & Simons. Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: An historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-144. Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (2001). Leadership déjà vu all over again. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 435-458. Jenkins, W. O. (1947). A review of leadership studies with particular reference to military problems. Psychological Bulletin, 44, 54-79.

26   S. C. HOFFMAN Jennings, H. H. (1950). Leadership in isolation. New York, NY: Longmans, Green & Company. Jennings, P., & Brewster, T. (1998). The century. New York, NY: Doubleday. Kahn, R. L. (1956). The prediction of productivity. Journal of Social Issues, 12, 41-49. Knauer, K. (Ed.). (2007). America: An illustrated modern history 1900-2007. Des Moines, IA: Time Books. Korman, A. K. (1966). “Consideration,” “initiating structure,” and organizational criteria—a review. Personnel Psychology: A Journal of Applied Research, 19(4), 349-361. Retrieved from EBSCO Host Research database. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Mayo, J. A., & Nohria, N. (2005). In their time—the greatest business leaders of the twentieth century. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (Eds.) (1978). Leadership: Where else can we go? Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Magill, F. N. (Ed.). (1994). Great events from history II: Business and commerce (Vol. 3). Pasadena, CA: Salem Press. McCraw, T. K. (2000). American business, 1920-2000: How it worked. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Miner, J. B. (1975). The uncertain future of the leadership concept: An overview. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 197-206). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Morris, R. T., & Seeman, M. (1950). The problem of leadership: An interdisciplinary approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 56(2), 149-155. Retrieved on March 22, 2012, from JSTOR database. Nafe, R. W. (1930). A psychological description of leadership. Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 248-266. Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Page, D. P. (1935). Measurement and prediction of leadership. The American Journal of Sociology, 41(1), 31-43. Retrieved from JSTOR database. Patterson, J. T. (1996). Grand expectations: The United States, 1945-75. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Person, H. S. (1928). Leadership as a response to environment. Educational Record, 9 (sup.6), 10-21. Petrullo, L., & Bass, B. M. (1961). Leadership and interpersonal behavior. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Reddin, W. J. (1967). The 3-d management style theory. Training and Development Journal, 21(4), 8-17. Reeves, T. C. (2000). Twentieth-century America: A brief history. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Praeger. Schriesheim, C. A., & Bird, B .J. (1979). Contributions of the Ohio State studies to the field of leadership. Journal of Management, 5(20), 135-145. Retrieved on from EBSCOhost database.

Reinvented Leadership Theory or New Constructs?   27 Smith, L. M., & Krueger, L. M. (1933). A brief summary of literature on leadership. Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University, 9(4). Bloomington, IN: University Office. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York, NY: Free Press. Tead, O. (1935). The art of leadership. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Van Dusen, A. C. (1948). Measuring leadership ability. Personnel Psychology, 1, 6779. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Ward, L. F. (1913). Eugenics, Euthenics, Eudemics. The American Journal of Sociology, 18(5), 737-754. Retrieved from JSTOR database. Westburgh, E. M. (1931). A point of view: Studies in leadership. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 25, 418-423. Whitehead, T. N. (1936). Leadership in a free society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wren, J. T. (Ed.). (1995). The leader’s companion: Insight on leadership throughout the ages. New York, NY: Free Press. Yukl, G. (1971). Toward a behavioral theory of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 414-440. Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Princeton, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chapter 2

The leader is leadership James Warn and Michael Cox

The idea of the individual agency of the organizational leader is a received wisdom and held tenaciously by individuals even in the face of disconfirming evidence. The concept of leader agency is an assumption that is rarely questioned in the “leadership industry” (Elliot, 2000). The popular folklore of leadership links organizational success or failure directly to the actions of a powerful leader. In the business arena this assumption is manifested in accounts of the CEO who can turn around the business, in the political sphere we see it in accounts that attribute political change to the influence of a charismatic leader, or conversely the emergence of a failed state to a despotic ruler. Accounts of the powerful leader tend to focus on the perceived personal qualities of the leader (e.g., dedication) or specific behavioral traits that are somehow are thought to influence the wider organization. Generally there is only limited or no attempt to provide an explanatory framework for the linkage between these personal qualities of the leader, changes in organizational behavior across the organization, and aggregated indicators of company performance that are prized in the business media. The explanations of leadership theorists assume “great, perhaps exaggerated, significance to the agency of leaders” (Gronn & Ribbins, 1996, p. 452). Bligh, Kohles, and Pillai (2011, p. 1059) observe that leadership “remains a favored explanatory category for understanding organizational, political, military, religious, economic and social outcomes.” The popularity of the assumption of the agency of the leader continues in

Organizational Processes and Received Wisdom, pp. 29–48 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

29

30   J. Warn and M. Cox

the face of substantial and enduring disconfirming argument and evidence from a number of academic sources (Meindl, 1990; O’Reilly et al., 2010). Although leadership is important in organizational performance, the impact of any particular leader, such as the CEO, on company performance has been seen to be consistently overrated. Leader Agency Human agency refers to the belief that individuals through reflective thought can make choices and by using willpower and effort devise ways to effect actions that change the world we live in. In the field of psychology, the concept of individual agency is a key mechanism for explaining human behavior. Frie (2008) identifies a Kantian tradition in psychological inquiry that emphasizes the understanding of the individual as an autonomous agent. Agency becomes associated with rational self-mastery and autonomy achieved through reflection and rational decision making. These concepts have been formally addressed in social cognitive theory which views the individual as capable of acting as an agent over him or herself as well as over others (Bandura, 2002). A key component for human agency is selfefficacy, a belief in one’s capacity to exercise control over one’s behavior and external events that affect one’s life (Bandura, 1989). Beliefs about self-efficacy regulate one’s behavior “through cognitive, motivational, affective, and decisional processes” (Bandura, 2002). Leaders through the exercise of agency can positively influence followers’ perceptions of selfefficacy and it is thought that this is a means to increase levels of follower performance (Pillai & Williams, 2004). Leader agency is a dominant assumption in studies of leadership that emphasis the cognitive and behavioral qualities of the leader (Gronn & Ribbins, 1996). Much of the leadership research since the advent of what has been called the scientific approach has concentrated on the qualities, characteristics and behaviors of the leader and the impact on followers (House & Aditya, 1997). In much of the earlier research in the scientific approach, prior to the emergence of the new leadership school of charismatic and transformational theories, the focus was on the direct interaction between the leader and followers rather than more distal impacts at different organizational levels. Two key sets of leader behaviors, Consideration and Initiating Structure, have been studied extensively since the original Ohio State University studies in the 1940s. Leaders displaying consideration will have job relationships characterized by mutual trust, will show respect for subordinates’ ideas and show concern for their feelings. Initiating Structure is characterized by leaders defining and structuring subordinate roles, planning, communicating information, and

The Leader is Leadership   31

scheduling tasks (Kerr & Schriesheim, 1974). Researchers measured the associations between these behaviors and follower satisfaction, morale, and performance criteria. However inconsistent findings over the years prompted criticisms that identified lack of attention to situational variables and reliance on same source measures for perceived leader behavior and performance outcomes (Kerr & Schriesheim, 1974). Despite these criticisms the two concepts of Consideration and Initiating Structure had continuing heuristic value and remained as robust concepts in leadership research (Fleishman, 1998). In a more recent meta-analysis study, Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies, (2004) examined the relationship between these behaviors and a number of leadership criteria. Consideration had significant correlations with follower satisfaction with the leader (0.68), follower motivation (0.36), follower job satisfaction (0.46) and perceived leader effectiveness (0.52). Initiating Structure had somewhat lower but still significant correlations with these same leadership criteria (0.33; 0.40; 0.22; and 0.39 respectively). The correlations with leader job performance were 0.25 for Consideration and 0.24 for Initiating Structure, and for group–organization performance, the correlations were 0.28 and 0.30 respectively. The results of the metaanalysis establish that there are consistent main effects for leader behaviors on group and leader performance across situations and different groups. The correlations tended to be higher in the cross sectional studies and when performance was a same source measure. The nature of the organizational relationship between the leader and followers was not specified in the study and in view of the measures used, it is probably fair to assume that most to the studies investigated direct supervisory relationships. With this context in mind, the concepts of Consideration and Initiating Structure have the most explanatory power in accounting for satisfaction with the leader, follower job satisfaction and perceived leader effectiveness. The correlations with performance measures are much lower. These results suggest that even in the context of direct face-to-face leadership the behavior of the leader has more to do with shaping the nature of the relationship with the follower rather than having an immediate impact on performance. The quality of the leader-follower relationship has been extensively studied in the research literature around leader member exchange (LMX) theory. This approach postulates that the quality of the leader follower relationship develops through a series of successful social changes that result in higher levels of trust, sharing of information and higher levels of employee involvement in work (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The focus of LMX research has been predominantly on the leader’s relationship with particular subordinates and there has been limited exploration of social and contextual factors that impact on quality relationships (Anand, Liden,

32   J. Warn and M. Cox

& Vidyarthi, 2011). LMX theory shifts focus away from assumptions of leader agency to examining the quality of the relationships with followers and associated benefits. However there is recognition in the research literature that there is a need for the LMX concept to be further developed to address organizational level issues (Scandura, 1999). It provides limited insights into understanding linkages between the leader and wider organizational outcomes. Research into contingency approaches to leadership considered how particular leadership behaviors will be more efficacious in influencing followers under different situations. These theories tended to be situated in the context of a direct interaction between the leader and follower. In the contingency approach, the agency of the leader is mediated by the leader’s capacity to correctly analyze the contingent factors in the environment and employ the most appropriate behaviors to influence followers to achieve a defined goal. Research has provided only limited and partial support for the contingency approaches (Northouse, 2013; Thompson & Vecchio, 2009). In other research on influence tactics in a managerial setting, Yukl, Kim, and Falbe (1996) found that the nature of the influence tactic was the key factor in achieving higher levels of commitment from a target person. Consultation, inspirational appeals and rational persuasion were more successful influence tactics than resorting to pressure tactics. More recently the emergence of the charismatic and transformational leadership theories have shifted interest away from contingency factors to examination of the leader behaviors and attributes that promote a number of significant changes in the behavior of followers, such as heightened levels of motivation, high levels identification with the leaders vision and follower satisfaction with the leader (Conger, 1999). Although labeled a new paradigm, the charismatic and transformational theories reassert our perception of the leader as a powerful agent of influence over followers (House & Aditya, 1997). These leaders are regarded as change agents capable of transforming the organizational landscape while at the same time maintaining high levels of employee satisfaction and commitment (Yukl, 1989). The theories share similar constructs, such as vision, inspiration, role modeling, and meaning-making, although they differ to some degree in explain the influence process (Conger, 1999). In the full range model of transformational leadership Bernard Bass identifies four key transformational leadership behaviors as well as a number of transactional leadership behaviors, the most important being contingent reward (Bass & Bass, 2008). In a meta-analysis of 87 studies, Judge and Piccolo (2004) found evidence for relatively high levels of validity for the model. The transformational leadership measures had relatively high correlations with follower satisfaction with leader (0.71), follower job satisfaction (0.58) and follower motivation (0.53) but much lower correlations

The Leader is Leadership   33

with the performance measures of group or organization performance (0.26) and leader job performance (0.27). Also Judge and Piccolo noted that correlations were lower in the longitudinal designs or where there were independent measures of outcome. Slightly higher correlations were found in a study of the relationship between transformational behaviors of senior managers and consolidated unit performance of a large Canadian financial institution (Howell & Avolio, 1993). In summary, research on the transformational-transactional model indicates that the transformation leader behaviors can have pronounced impact on follower satisfaction with the leader and the job but somewhat lower, although non-trivial impacts on the group or organizational level of performance. However the limited support that the evidence for the impact of the leader at the organizational level is not well recognized in academic articles espousing the importance of the senior leaders for delivering a vision and shaping the organizational culture to achieve strategic level outcomes (Ireland & Hitt, 1999). These accounts perpetuate the received wisdom of leader agency at the organizational level of performance. Leader Agency and Organizational Performance House and Aditya (1997) state that much of the leadership literature is situated around examining the direct relationship between leaders and followers and tends to ignore the organizational and culture context. The research into the leader behaviors has attempted to define general sets of behaviors that will enable leader agency across situations and organizations. Two trajectories of research are evident in the organizational literature with respect to the agency of leaders at the organizational level of performance and for the most part they do not inform each other. Nohria and Khurana (2010) describe a virtual leadership divide between research on organizational performance which has uncovered little effect from leadership and the research which has pursued the view that leadership is a “vital force in organizational life” (p. 9). The leadership perspective which assumes the impact of leader agency has been labeled anti-deterministic since it rejects the view of the constraints school of thought that organizational performance is largely determined by the external factors of the environment and the constraints of organizational inertia which limit managerial discretion (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Wasserman, Nohria, & Anand, 2010). The antideterministic perspective is an important assumption in the streams of academic research that considers the association between the qualities and behaviors of the leader, such as transformational behaviors, and aspects of organizational performance (Bass & Avolio, 1994). The key if sometimes unstated hypothesis of this line of research is

34   J. Warn and M. Cox

that the leader through his or her unique endowments is able to exercise control over the environment, or isolate the firm from the vagaries of the environment (Chen & Meindl, 1991) The other trajectory of research on agency in relation to organizational performance has been influenced by new institutional theory (Dimaggio & Powell 1983; Scott, 2001) and resource dependence research (Pfeffer, 1997). The general conclusion from this research area is that leadership is of no substantive importance in explaining organizational performance as there is extremely limited capacity for any individual to impact on organizational performance. At most human agency might have an impact on a specific process, or alter some rules or the distribution or resources. However the exercise of this agency still needs to be understood in the set of choices that is offered by the available social structures and the temporal context (Giddens, 1991; Scott, 2001). The psychological foundations for human agency are processes that almost exclusively occur within the cognition of the individual and emphasize intent, goals and purposeful action. The psychological account provides for an extremely limited account of how the social and cultural context might shape one’s identity and in turn influence the composition of individual reason and the direction of intent. Frie (2008) notes that the concept of human agency is not formulated with any consistency within the discipline of psychology and points our attention to the influence of postmodernist critiques in approaches, such as social constructivism, that examine human agency as being constructed in a cultural and social context. The concept of agency has been of interest in explanations of organizational analysis where it has functioned as a mediator between the constraints of social structure and the unbounded potential of individual choice (Reed, 1988). Agency is enacted as an ongoing relationship with social structures that are maintained and transformed over time. Reed (1988) recognizes the liberating potential of human agency in face of social constraint and this aspect of agency is addressed later in the chapter to explain the persistent attractiveness of leader agency. Reed (1988) also identifies an important concomitant of individual agency as the problem of addressing the moral dilemmas that arise as the individual makes choices that supposedly rational, are still subjective. These moral implications have often been underplayed or ignored in accounts of leadership founded on assumptions of leader agency. Studies attesting to limited explanatory power of the agency of the leader in explaining organizational outcomes have been well reported in the academic literature for over 40 years. In a study of the performance

The Leader is Leadership   35

of 167 companies from 1946 to 1965, Lieberson and O’Connor (1972) reported that effect of leaders was less important than industry and environmental factors in explaining sales, earnings and profit margins. In a study of college and university presidents Cohen and March (1974) concluded that these leaders exercised as much control over organizational outcomes as the driver had control of a skidding car. In a replication of the study by Lieberson and O’Connor, almost a decade later Weiner and Mahoney (1981) examined 193 manufacturing corporations from the period 1956 through to 1974. They found a clear association between the financial strategy of the firm, namely the debt-to-equity ratio, and profitability. Additionally the leadership incumbency of the top manager was found to have a significant association with organizational performance. However, Weiner and Mahoney cautioned about making direct comparisons with the early study due to the differences in the methodological design and the variables that were measured. Meindl, Ehrlich, and Dukerich (1985) found the performance of a firm was closely tied to external factors affecting the whole industry rather than being under the direct, unique control of its top management. In a more recent study, Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin, and Veiga (2008) found an association between the transformational leadership of CEOs and the performance (sales growth) of small to medium enterprises with an average size of 62 employees. These findings indicate that organizational level factors moderate the impacts of leader behaviors and the measures of outcome being utilized. In a study of physicians in medical centers, O’Reilly et al., (2010) found and an association between patient ratings of service level and alignment between leaders across the organizational hierarchy. They also noted that the effects of senior leadership were likely to be moderated by a number of organizational level factors, such as the availability of resources. More generally, Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) have argued that the effects of leaders on organizational performance are much less substantive than the effects of the impact of the industry sector and stable characteristics of the organization. More recently Pfeffer and Sutton (2006) have indicated that leadership action explains less than 10% difference between best and worst organizations (p. 192). Wasserman et al., (2010) report that previous research indicates that the effect of the CEO can explain 14.5% of the variance in profit margins whereas industry effects explain 28.5% of the variance. Pfeffer (1997) suggests that the limited impact of the senior leader is due to a combination of the organizational and sector constraints under which leaders operate and the selection and socialization processes that homogenize the set of behaviors exhibited by these leaders.

36   J. Warn and M. Cox

Dysfunctional Implications of a Belief in Leader Agency Not only is the received wisdom of the powerful agency of the leader a misleading if not inaccurate belief, it also is not a benign belief that can be left unchallenged since it has some potentially damaging consequences. The focus on the elite raises expectations amongst a small group of organizational leaders and can help to distort incentive practices as well as making invisible more distributed leadership practices and phenomena (Sinclair, 2007a). The focus on leader agency encourages a narrow set of interpretations for organizational performance and may deflect attention from a more critical analysis of the factors contributing to poor organizational outcomes (Rosenzweig, 2007). Further the subsequent interpersonal influence that arises from being identified as a charismatic or celebrity CEO may encourage some senior managers to engage in impression management or attempt to manipulate performance cues (Bligh et al., 2011). Self-perceptions of powerful agency can give rise to hubris and the CEO might display overconfidence in decisions that are not sound. Furthermore the CEO might continue to escalate commitment of resources in the belief that he or she can turn around a poor situation (Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004). The attribution processes behind leader agency can also act as a double-edged sword as leaders are blamed for poor performance or organizational failures. Executive behavior can shift from pursuing reliable management practices to resorting to changes that manipulate analyst opinions or avoid releasing information that may risk reputational damage from attribution penalties (Kang, 2008). Overall there is sufficient academic literature to indicate that the impact of leaders on organizational performance is somewhat limited and constrained and that organizational, structural and external factors may account for more of the variation in performance between firms. Furthermore the belief that one individual can control organizational outcomes can have some serious dysfunctional consequences. However this view is certainly not espoused in the popular media and leadership development industry which instead is much more aligned with accounts that promote the power of leader agency and its associated benefits. John Kotter and Warren Bennis are foremost proponent of the view that leadership makes a significant difference to the performance of organizations. He argues that superior leadership is the bottom line difference for winning competitive advantage (Kotter, 1988). Bennis and Nanus (1985, p. 2) argue that leadership is the “pivotal force behind successful organizations” and that successful leaders achieve a deployment of self to be able to empower others in the organization. Another popular management writer is Jim Collins who identifies the importance of a certain type of leader, the level 5 leader, as being responsible for setting up companies for greatness (Collins,

The Leader is Leadership   37

2001). Although Collins (2001) situates the role of the leader within a set of management practices the leader remains crucial in providing the focus and persistence for achieving success. The clear implication is that greatness is largely a matter of personal choice and dependent on the agency exercised by the leader (Rosenzweig, 2007). The leader is very much perceived as the embodiment of leadership. Popular Perceptions of Leader Agency The media appears to play an important role in the promotion of the belief in leader agency particularly amongst the corporate elite. Rosenzweig (2007) notes that media accounts of organizational performance typically focus on the qualities and behaviors of the CEO as the key explanation, with a supporting theme being the role of the organizational culture, but often this is also viewed as a product of the CEO’s leadership. Rosenzweig provides a relevant account in the portrayal of the spectacular business performance in the 1990s of ABB, a Swedish Swiss industrial company. Authors of management books and journalists writing in the financial media provided ongoing explanations for the organizational performance as falling around the themes of the personal dynamism of the CEO, Percy Barnevik, and his capacity to influence an action oriented corporate culture and to manage a complex matrix structure. Barnevik was described as “charismatic, bold and visionary” (p. 47) and was awarded celebrity status as a CEO. The share price peaked at an all time high in mid-2000 but by early 2001 revenues had started to decline sharply. Under pressure from the board Barnevik resigned as CEO later that same year and was followed by a succession of CEOs. The same themes as before were also raised in the media as explanations of the demise. The corporate culture was viewed as giving rise to impulsive and foolish decisions and the organizational matrix was regarded a creating poor coordination and conflict. The leadership of the CEO was paramount in these explanations for the demise. Now Barnevik was described as “arrogant, imperial, and resistant to criticism” (p. 47). However as Rosenzweig points out, it was the same CEO with the same set of personal qualities that has been present a decade earlier and seen as the responsible for the successful performance at ABB. Rosenzweig argues that the media commentary around ABB and accounts in the popular management literature provide a key example of his key thesis, the impact of the halo effect. Explanations of organizational performance emphasizing the agency of the leader represent a form of fundamental attribution error known as the Halo effect. In the management literature, the halo effect arises when an author takes samples of high and low performing companies, and attempts to identify the good

38   J. Warn and M. Cox

leadership behaviors associated with the senior managers of the high performing companies, and conversely seeks to find faults with the leadership behaviors of the mangers in the low performing companies. Management authors support this attribution process through accounts of corporate leaders that actively highlight the leadership qualities of the individual CEO and imply a linkage between personality, leadership qualities and a recent increase of stockholder value. In the period from 1996 to 2000 John Chambers as CEO of CISCO presided over a fivefold increase in market capitalization and later guided CISCO through the fallout of the bursting of the dotcom bubble. Books such as John Chambers and the Cisco Way: Navigating Through Volatility (Waters, 2002) that rate Chambers of as one of the best CEOs in the United States emphasize his personality and leadership qualities in explaining the success of the organization. These perceptions are further reinforced by financial magazines, such as Barrons, that annually publish lists of the world’s best 30 chief executives (Bary, 2011). Recently John Chambers was dropped from the Barrons list because of profit downgrades. Again the leader is being attributed with direct impact on organizational performance, but this time a negative outcome. The media has an important role in constructing the popular images of business leaders since very few people are able to observe a business leader in the organizational setting. Chen and Meindl (1991) argue that as the media focus is primarily on people and individuals the implicit theory of society it reflects assumes that the social process is shaped by leaders. The media celebration of personality elevates the agency of the individual over the environment and when reporting on the world of business reflects the view that individuals determine the fate of organizations. This attribution process can be enhanced if the media is able to report on behaviors that describe something special about the target CEO and distinguish him or her from other CEOs. In this way the media can create celebrity CEOs (Hayward et al., 2004). The public image of the CEO can be a powerful factor in increasing the internal influence of the celebrity CEO in the organization (Ranft, Ferris, & Perryman, 2007). The celebrity CEO is likely to have greater discretion to negotiate more generous and flexible salary and benefit packages. CEOs can also influence market behavior by behaving in certain ways. CEOs who were described in the media as charismatic, visionary or transformational were associated with above industry average increase in stock price for their companies (Flynn & Staw, 2004). The effect of the charismatic CEO were heightened when economic conditions were poor or performance was poor in the industry sector. The influence of the media should not be overdrawn but needs to be placed in a more balanced perspective against the messages and key themes emanating from actors in the “leadership industry” (Elliot, 2000; Kellerman, 2012). The media report and replicate messages about received

The Leader is Leadership   39

wisdoms rather than create them. The development and authentication of the messages about leader agency arise in what is known as the leadership industry. The key actors in the leadership industry are educational institutions, institutes, government agencies funding leadership development programs and management consultancies. The leadership industry is an unwitting but largely self-interested alliance of business schools, MBA graduates, CEOs and media—all of whom have an ongoing mutual and self-interest in the myth of leader agency and control. Business school education is a business in itself and for many universities it is an important source of income. Despite the popularity of these courses, there is a concern that the curriculum being taught has only very little to do with what is important for organizational performance (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). Business schools also emphasize leader agency in their selection of specific case studies that celebrate the successes of powerful CEOs. Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE has become an almost a standard case study in business schools and the case study prepared by Bartlett and Wozny (1999) remains one of the most popular leadership case studies for Harvard Business Publishing. Sinclair (2007a) argues that the emphasis on the power of the CEO and the belief that he or she can control the fortune of the organization is a seductive process that results in the acceptance of the inflated persona of the leader. The underlying and often unacknowledged assumption underpinning this perception of control is the “myth of agency—that by sheer force of will or intention, I could override structural power” (Sinclair, 2007a, p. 79). Subscribing to the myth of agency makes invisible the way in which power might be constructed and reshaped within an organizational context and potentially limits the insights that might be gained in personal reflection. The popularity of the notion of a strong account of leader agency has been related to psychological dependencies of people, especially in times of crisis or threat. The CEO becomes the manifestation of the hero. Accounts of the individual undergoing a distressing experience, which is later seen as the crucible of leadership, also draw upon the hero myth. The popular imagination is reliant on implicit models of leadership that have a heroic bent and direction and emphasis the agency of a particular person (Sinclair, 2007b). The student recruitment messages of management schools also further propagate the belief in the agency of the individual. The MBA cohort is viewed and marketed as the elite; as the incoming captains of industry who will shape the business landscape of the future. In reality, many MBA graduates will enter the management consulting industry rather than run companies. However, as management consultants they continue to participate in the leadership industry and promote business solutions dependent on the belief of the agency of the senior leaders in the organization.

40  J. Warn and M. Cox

Leadership coaching whether provided in business schools or by management consultancies is another manifestation of the belief in leader agency. Coaching with its focus on the individual can reinforce the belied that the leader is special and that he or she can develop the agency to drive the action. Elliot (2000) has queried the extent to which a solid research base underpinned many consultancy efforts in the leadership industry. Kellerman (2012, p. xiv) is highly critical of the benefits of the leadership industry with the claim that it has “not in any major meaningful, measurable way improved the human condition” over the last 40 years. Often leadership development is a component of wider management development programs and it is difficult to identify the specific benefits of leader development courses. Despite its lack of measureable value the leadership industry continues to flourish and promote a narrative around leader-centrism which emphasizes the qualities in being the active and central agent influencing followers. These messages about the agency of leaders are further reflected and reinforced in the marketing broadcasts of the management consultancies (e.g., Management Knowledge Base, n.d.; Insala, 2007). For example, on one company website, leadership is identified as having a five to six fold improvement in business impact and employee retention (Insala, 2007). While some of the private businesses adopt a more research oriented approach to underpin their development programs (e.g., Center for Creative Leadership) the emphasis remains on the interpersonal characteristics of the individual leader to achieve more than expected performance by thinking and acting past boundaries. Why Does the Myth Persist? The myth of leader agency in relation to organizational performance is enduring and widely accepted despite evidence to the contrary. In their influential article, “The Romance of Leadership,” Meindl et al. (1985, p. 79) observed that people in organizational contexts “have developed highly romanticized, heroic views of leadership” which influence their perception of what leaders can do and what they are able to accomplish. This romanticized view is a result of a biased preference for elevating the agency of the leader over other more ambiguous and causally indeterminate factors in explanations of the shaping of organizational events. Over 20 years afterwards little seems to have changed as evidenced by Pfeffer and Sutton (2006, p. 194) posing the question “Why does this irrational faith in the power of potent individual persist?”

The Leader is Leadership   41

One set of attempts to answer the question have tended to frame the issue as the outcome of a process of attribution error. Rosenzweig (2007) believes that the problem is due to a form of flawed thinking, the halo effect, in which people generalize from information about good company performance to making positive attributions about the leadership quality of the CEO. This flawed thinking is perpetuated in the writings of journalists in the business media and popular management writers and further popularized by those in their audiences who subscribe to their views. Meindl et al. (1985) suggest that the attribution of leader agency is an attempt to simplify an ill-structured problem involving many complex and ambiguous variables in relation to company performance. This line of argument would see the belief as a heuristic being relied upon due to the cognitive limitations of the observer or the limited availability of information (Simon, 1991). However it would appear that there is no clearly articulated rival explanation to challenge the belief of leader agency. A non trivial degree of difficulty exists in being able to communicate clearly and succinctly a credible account of the causes of organizational performance that do not depend on the actions of leaders (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). Other writers explore the view that the concept of agency is intrinsically psychologically attractive since it enables people to ascribe human control over events in what would otherwise have to be acknowledged as the vagaries of an unpredictable world (Meindl et al., 1985). Some theorists see this tendency in a positive light as the liberating potential of agency in response to the constraints of social and organizational structures (Reed, 1988). Others identify implications that are more negative in relation to beliefs in the powerful agency of the leader. Gemmill and Oakley (1992, p. 117) argue that facing the “terror of facing feelings of helplessness and powerlessness” in a chaotic world it is almost an act of psychological selfpreservation for followers to place their faith in the agency of a potent leader. Uncomfortable existential truths do not have to be acknowledged or addressed and dysfunctions in the social system can be attributed to the absence of leadership. Alternative Understandings Gemmill and Oakley (1992) argue the dysfunctional consequences arising from a belief in the potency of the leader can be avoided by shifting the power balance in the leadership relationship through a process of dynamic collaboration. Instead of focusing on a designated individual, the leader as savior, the leadership relationship would emerge between individuals collaborating and interacting with each other to “experiment with new

42  J. Warn and M. Cox

forms of intellectual and emotional meaning” (p. 124). This understanding builds on the earlier work by Meindl et al. (1985) who suggest that the greater relevance of leadership to organizational science may not be as a factor for explaining organizational performance but rather at a phenomenological level it serves to explain how organizational actors give meaning to their experiences in the organization. The nature of the power relations and authority structure in an organization means that the senior leaders are privileged with the responsibility, opportunity and resources for making sense of problematic situations and providing meaning to followers (Bryman, 1996; Porter & Nohria, 2010). Recognizing the privileged position of the senior managers in relation to sensemaking is not to say that senior leaders have unfettered autonomy over the creation of interpretations of organizational events and are able to impose those understandings on other organizational actors. Weick (1995) sees sensemaking is a social process that occurs in a social context characterized by sharing of accounts of experiences and discursive interactions between organizational members. Sensemaking is not simply interpretation because it also includes “the ways people generate what they interpret” (p. 13). Together people construct “accounts that allow them to comprehend the world and act collectively” (Maitlis, 2005). Sensegiving and sensemaking are reciprocal sets of activities that enable people to make sense of the world and to formulate action in a manner that is coherent with experience and their personal; and social identities (Bartunek, Krim, Necochea, & Humphries, 1999). The reciprocal relationship between sensemaking and sensegiving in organizational settings occurs due to the ongoing discursive interactions between leaders and followers. At times these interactions can be characterized by high levels of stakeholder engagement and in some cases can be animated, iterative, and with high levels of information flow between stakeholders, and with key concerns being raised and addressed (Maitlis, 2005). Sensemaking might be triggered by the confusion or disorientation associated with an unexpected event but rather than relying solely on a leader to work out what happened people remain active participants in an ongoing process to make retrospective sense of events (Weick, 1995). Although events are open to revision, the accounts of the senior manager still need to be grounded in the ongoing sensemaking of other organizational actors if a collective understanding is to be achieved. Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) investigated the role of the CEO and top management team during a period of strategic change at a large public university. They describe how the CEO engaged in an ongoing process of reciprocal sensemaking and sensegiving to frame a new interpretive scheme and achieve collective understanding and shared meaning. This example highlights important leadership roles of the senior leader as

The Leader is Leadership   43

involving the construction of meaning through discourse, negotiation and symbolic acts. Other researchers have identified the usefulness of narratives in framing issues and for clarifying important values for the organization (Morrill, 2007). People appear to want leaders and continue to believe in the phenomena of leadership. People routinely interact with leaders in the workplace and almost on a daily basis experience instances of senior leadership, albeit through the devices of electronic media. Leadership has phenomenological significance to people’s experiences of organizational life and to echo Meindl et al. (1985), a key purpose of leadership is to be involved in the construction of meaning around what is happening in the workplace. This sensemaking process is likely to be iterative, ongoing and involve a reciprocal exchange of sensegiving between people designated as leaders and followers. This understanding of leadership is similar to the concept of transformational leadership which is described by Burns (1978, p. 20) as relying on a reciprocal interaction where “leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation.” The experience of leadership relates to sets of meanings that are socially constructed between leaders and followers (Meindl, 1995). These meaning making activities provide opportunities for leaders to identify sets of cues that can serve as a point of reference around which the organization and the direction of activity can be framed (Smircich & Morgan, 1982; Weick, 1995). It is through the framing of activity that the activities of meaning making may be connected to organizational performance. Podolny, Khurana, and HillPopper (2005) refer to earlier writings in organization science to identify the important role that the executive leaders of the organization have in creating common understanding of the purpose of the organization and for creating a common system for cooperation. The leader’s contributions to the creation of a shared meaningful experience may serve to mobilize followers and engage them in roles that link resources and activity to organizational tasks. However, the linkage between the meaning making activities of the leader and followers with organizational performance remains unclear. Conclusion Leaders are involved as coparticipants with other actors in the social construction of understandings of leadership in organizational settings that enable meaningful understanding of the actors’ participation in organizational events. The leader is likely to have a privileged role in these interactions due to the authority relationships and structures of power in organizations. The extent to which these meaningful understandings

44  J. Warn and M. Cox

are related to organizational performance is contingent on a range of internal and external factors. The expression of leader agency becomes a shared belief that is socially constructed rather than a causally important factor in determining organizational performance. The shared belief in leader agency may enable more confident perceptions about what can be achieved as a collective and may serve to heighten follower effort and focus. This understanding points to the continued usefulness of the idea of leader agency. However it presents agency as being more constrained, nuanced and distributed within organizational boundaries than the received wisdom of leader agency being a free floating capacity inherent in the personal qualities of the senior leader. Much of the leadership research is disconnected from the research in organizational science as the behavior of the leader is studied without recognition of organizational factors and the influence of context. This divide fosters the continuing focus on the agency of the senior leader as the potent force in organizational performance. In the absence of a clear rival explanation that situates leadership within the organizational context, the popular belief in the agency of the leader is left unchallenged. The research literature is yet to provide models of organizational leadership that that are as intuitively appealing as the image of the powerful, agentic leader. References Anand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Vidyarthi, P. R. (2011). Leader-,enmebr exchange: Recent research findings and prospects for the future. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The Sage handbook of leadership (pp. 311-325). London, England: Sage. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(2), 269-290. Bartlett, C. A., & Wozny, M. (1999). GE’s two-decade transformation: Jack Welch’s leadership. Harvard Business School Case, 399-150. Bartunek, J. M., Krim, R. M., Necochea, R., & Humphries, M. (1999). Sensemaking, sensegiving, and leadership in strategic organizational development. In J. A. Wagner (Ed.), Advances in Qualitative Organizational Research (Vol. 2, pp. 37-71). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bary, A. (2011). 30 Best CEOs. Retrieved from http://online.barrons.com/article/SB 50001424052970204582404576214641280640346.html Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.

The Leader is Leadership   45 Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York, NY: Harper and Row: Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C. and Pillai, R. (2011). Romancing leadership: Past, present, and future. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1058-1077. Bryman, A. (1996). Leadership in organizations. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (276-292). London, England: Sage Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Chen, C. C., & Meindi, J. R. (1991). The construction of leadership images in the popular press. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(4), 521-551. Cohen, M. D. and March, J. G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president. New York: McGraw Hill. Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great why some companies make the leap, and others don’t. New York, NY: Harper Business. Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145-179. DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. Elliott, R. (2000). The leadership industry and using leadership research effectively. Retrieved from http://www.mlq.com.au/Research/Articles/The_Leadership_by_ Ray_Elliott.pdf Fleishman, E. A. (1998). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover: Some post hoc reflections. Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 825-834. Flynn, F. J., & Staw, B. M. (2004). Lend me your wallets: The effect of charismatic leadership on external support for an organization. Strategic Management Journal, 25(4), 309-330. Frie, R. ( 2008). Introduction: The situated nature of psychological agency. In R. Frie (Ed.), Psychological agency: Theory, practice, and culture (pp 1-31). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gemmill, G., & Oakley, J. (1992). Leadership: An alienating social myth? Human Relations, 45(2), 113-129. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge, England: Polity. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433-448. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. Gronn, P., & Ribbins, P. (1996). Leaders in context: Postpositivist approaches to understanding educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(3), 452-473. Hayward, M. L. A., Rindova, V. P., & Pollock, T. G. (2004). Believing one’s own press: The causes and consequences of CEO celebrity. Strategic Management Journal, 25(7), 637-653.

46  J. Warn and M. Cox House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473. Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891–902. Insala. (2007). Leadership development: Current trends. Retrieved from http://www. insala.com/Articles/leadership-development/leadership-developmentcurrent-trends.asp Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (1999). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. The Academy of Management Executive, 13(1), 43-57. Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004).The forgotten ones?: A re-examination of consideration, initiating structure, and leadership effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-51. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. Kang, E. (2008). Director interlocks and spillover effects of reputational penalties from financial reporting fraud. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 537555. Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of Leadership. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Kerr, S., & Schriesheim, C. (1974). Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational criteria -An update of Korman’s 1966 review. Personnel Psychology, 27(4), 555-568. Kotter, J. P. (1988). The leadership factor. New York, NY: Free Press. Lieberson, S., & O’Connor, J. F. (1972). Leadership and organizational performance: A study of large corporations. American Sociological Review, 37(2), 117-130. Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). The impact of transformational CEOs on the performance of small- to medium-sized firms: Does organizational context matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 923-934. Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21-49. Management Knowledge Base. (n.d.). Case study: General Electric’s two-decade transformation under the leadership of Jack Welch. Retrieved from http://www. mbaknol.com/management-case-studies/case-study-general-electrics-twodecade-transformation-under-the-leadership-of-jack-welch/ Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to conventional wisdom. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 159-204). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Meindl, J. R (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329-341. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 78-102. Morrill, R. L. (2007). Strategic leadership: Integrating strategy and leadership in colleges and universities. Westport, CT: Praeger.

The Leader is Leadership   47 Nohria, N., & Khurana, R. (2010). Advancing leadership theory and practice. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp 3-25). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Publishing. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership Theory and Practice (6th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F, Chatman, J. A., Lapiz, M., & Self, W. (2010). How leadership matters: The effects of leaders’ alignment on strategy implementation. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 104-113. Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for Organizational theory: Problems and Prospects. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 78-95. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 144-159. Podolny, J. M., Khurana, R., & Hill-Popper, M. (2005). Revisiting the meaning of leadership. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 1- 36. Porter, M. E., & Nohria, N. (2010). What is leadership: The CEO’s role in large, complex organizations. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp 433-473). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Publishing. Ranft, A. L., Ferris, G. R., & Perryman, A. A. (2007). Dealing with celebrity and accountability in the top job. Human Resource Management, 36(4), 671-682. Reed, M. I. (1988). The problem of human agency in organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 9(1), 33-46. Rosenzweig, P. (2007). Halo Effect and the eight other business delusions that deceive managers. New York, NY: Free Press. Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 25-40. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage. Simon, H. A. (1991). Simon Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning. Organization Science , 2(1), Special Issue: Organizational Learning: Papers in Honor of (and by) James G, pp. 125-134. Sinclair, A. (2007a). Leadership for the disillusioned: Moving beyond myths and heroes to leading that liberates. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Sinclair, A. (2007b). Teaching leadership critically to MBAs: Experiences from heaven and hell. Management Learning, 38(4): 461-475. Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Studies, 18(3), 257-273. Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 837–848.

48  J. Warn and M. Cox Wasserman, N., Nohria, N., & Anand, B. N. (2010). When does leadership matter? The contingent opportunities view of CEO leadership. In N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp. 27-63). Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Publishing. Waters, J. K. (2002). John Chambers and the Cisco way: Navigating through volatility. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage. Weiner, N., & Mahoney, T. A. (1981). A Model of corporate performance as a function of environmental, organizational, and leadership influences. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(3), 453-470. Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial Leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251-289. Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 309-317.

Chapter 3

Can Only Western Leaders Lead? Kurt Takamine

Wisdom is received and perceived in a Westernized, often Americancentric approach. While researchers and investment pundits alike have touted the effective leadership of Asian leadership (with the success of such companies as Toyota, Honda, Samsung, Canon, Hyundai, LG, Sony, and others), very few North American companies are incorporating the best practices of Asiatic leadership wisdom into their business practices (CEO International, 2008; INSEAD Leadership Summit Asia, 2009; Mills, 2005). These global Asian companies are positioned to overtake the world in such areas as automotive, electronics, and technological industries. Is there anything that Westernized companies can learn from Asian leadership approaches? Frankly, there is an ethnocentric belief that “what works over there will not work over here.” And there is some truth to that position. Culture plays an impactful role in international success, as does political influence and ethical beliefs. Workers in Japan are divergent in work ethic, worklife balance, and management-labor union approaches than their counterparts in Detroit. The Asian workers are not necessarily better or worse; they are just different than their contemporaries in America. However, one might suspect that understanding and adopting Asian leadership approaches would prove beneficial to Westernized countries,

Organizational Processes and Received Wisdom, pp. 49–69 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

49

50   K. TAKAMINE

even if these cultural antecedents are summarily dismissed within American industries or universities. Multicultural leadership is still an after-thought in most business and leadership curricula, focusing more on managerial techniques or theories than on true leadership aspects. If Asian leaders are maximizing market share in technology, automotive industries, banking and more, shouldn’t American students, researchers, corporate human resources professionals and executives be scrutinizing Asian business philosophies and strategies to gain a competitive advantage? Leadership, as denoted here, will focus on C-Level leadership (CEO, CIO, COO, etc.) in corporate America. As multicultural companies turn their attention to a global marketplace, business scholars are recognizing that leaders that exhibit an emic (or culturally relevant) approach will provide a competitive advantage over those businesses that adhere to an etic (or culturally neutral) position (Chao-Chuan & Lee, 2008; Hodgetts & Luthans, 2003; Morris, Leung, Ames, & Lickel, 1999). These and other researchers propose that emic Asian leaders have an apparent edge over etic approaches. This chapter will examine the disconnection between the East/West dichotomy through current leadership research in the corporate environment. A brief review of qualitative and quantitative research will provide the context for the discussion, along with a comparison between select Asian leadership and contemporary leadership theories. Synergies between approaches as well as any distinctive regarding cultural aspects will be addressed and discussed. This treatment will hopefully open up new lines of dialog and discourse in raising awareness in the global workplace. Hofstede’s Study on Asian Leadership Studies Past research on Asian countries has focused on China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, or Singapore (Yammarino & Jung, 1998). The preeminent researcher was Geert Hofstede (1980), who noted that Asians typically experience five cultural values: (1) High Power Distance, (2) Collectivism, (3) Masculinity, (4) Uncertainty Avoidance, and (5) Confucian Dynamism. Each value will be briefly defined in the following section. Hofstede’s Five Cultural Values. The first value (not in any particular order) is High Power Distance. This value demonstrates a person’s respect for superiors. There is a clear delineation between ranks of superordinates vis-à-vis subordinates. The second value examines collectivistic versus individualistic societies. In many Western cultures, societies encourage an individualistic approach, and people function independently. In eastern cultures, the social grouping’s goals and preferences (i.e., a work team, a division, or a unit)

Can Only Western Leaders Lead?   51

are emphasized over individual wants and needs. In Japan, an aphorism that is often stated is “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” This signals that conformity and alignment to a societal norm is highly valued. Masculinity measures assertiveness, being confrontational, and aggressive toward others. On the opposite polemic is femininity, which measures submission, support, and care in relationships. Researchers (Shenkar & Zeira, 1992) found that CEOs that could integrate masculine (e.g., assertiveness and performance orientation) and feminine (i.e., relational and empathetic) characteristics were most successful in the overseas markets. One style is not inherently inferior or superior to another style. A combination of these factors appears to be advantageous in many multinational organizations. Asians and Hispanics tend to demonstrate “feminine” attributes, while Europeans and Americans generally exhibit “masculine” traits (Locke, 1992). The fourth value, uncertainty avoidance, identifies “the extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on established social norms, rituals, and procedures to avoid uncertainty … us[ing] rules, structures, and laws to make things predictable and less certain” (Northouse, 2013, p. 306). In Germany and in the Nordic (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) regions, they score high marks on the uncertainty avoidance dimension, indicating that they want structure, clear regulations, and inflexible procedures. There is a certain level of comfort in avoiding uncertainty, allowing one to plan and perform without interference from external or internal. The fifth value, Confucian Dynamism, looks at the Confucian ethic prevalent in the Pacific Rim countries, such as the quest for education, appreciation for inner peace and tranquility, and hard work. The basis of Hofstede’s Asian research finds its roots in Confucianism. Hofstede’s conclusions were drawn from data gathered from “over 116,000 morale surveys from over 88,000 employees from 72 countries” (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006, p. 287). The value of Hofstede’s cultural values framework was his ability to connect multicultural values to “workplace behaviors, attitudes, and other organizational outcomes” (Kirkman et al., 2006, p. 285). His framework was instrumental in helping multinational corporations understand why certain countries were much more effective in work teams while others were more individualistic, why some nations were assertive and others submissive, and why certain people groups were fine with flexible organizations while others needed a clear, immutable organizational chart. Hofstede’s seminal work opened the door to cultural awareness and global leadership. But Hofstede’s taxonomy is not the only system available to the business professional. Another seminal study was conducted by the GLOBE group, and will be described in the next section.

52   K. TAKAMINE

The GLOBE Study One of the ground breaking studies in recent years was the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) research study. In this extensive research project, 62 countries examined the link between leadership and culture, and over 17,000 leaders were interviewed (Chhokar, Brodbeck, & House, 2007; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Moodian, 2009). The aim of the study was to examine the relation between leadership attributes and behaviors, as seen through a cultural lens. The GLOBE study studied 22 leadership attributes, which are summarized as follows (Moodian, 2009, p. 116; Northouse, 2013, p. 322): • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Trustworthy Foresight Positive Just Intelligent Administrative skilled Excellence oriented Win-win problem solver Confidence Builder Effective bargainer Dynamic Motivational Decisive Communicative Coordinator Honest Encouraging Motive arouser Dependable Plans ahead Informed Teambuilder

The GLOBE study utilized elements of Hofstede’s work (collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance), and built upon those dimensions by adding their own (see Table 2.1). The GLOBE study defined cultural clusters (such as Nordic Europe, which is comprised of Denmark,

Can Only Western Leaders Lead?   53

Finland, and Sweden) that share cultural, societal, and often ideological similarities. Likewise, the so-called Confucian Asian countries (i.e., Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, South Korea, & Japan) are results driven, focus on group rather than individual goals, and demonstrate devotion and loyalty to their families (Northouse, 2013). By identifying and examining these cultural clusters, the GLOBE researchers were able to create generalizations across nations and people groups that clustered societal norms. Table 2.1 identifies examples of high and low scoring clusters for each cultural dimension. Table 2.1. Nine Cultural Dimensions Identified by the GLOBE Study Cultural Dimension

Brief Definition

High Score Cluster Example

Low Score Cluster Example

Uncertainty Avoidance

Cultures which value rules, laws, & structures to reduce uncertainty

Nordic Europe (Denmark, Finland, & Sweden)

Middle East (Qatar, Morocco, Egypt, Kuwait, & Turkey)

Power Distance

Differentiating those with or without power, authority, prestige, status, etc.

None noted

Nordic Europe (Denmark, Finland, & Sweden)

Institutional Collectivism

Concerned with group rather than individual goals

Confucian Asia (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, South Korea, & Japan)

Latin Europe (France, Portugal, Spain, French Swiss, Italy, Israel)

In-Group Collectivism

The level of pride, loyalty & cohesiveness in organizations

Southern Asia (Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, & Thailand)

Anglo (Canada, US, Australia, Ireland, England, New Zealand, Anglo South Africa)

Gender Egalitarianism

Measures the level of de-emphasizing gender differences & emphasizing gender equality

Eastern Europe (Greece, Hungary, Albania, Slovenia, Poland, Russia, Georgia, & Kazakhstan)

Middle East (Qatar, Morocco, Egypt, Kuwait, & Turkey)

(Table continues on next page)

54   K. TAKAMINE Table 2.1.  Cultural Dimension

Brief Definition

(Continued) High Score Cluster Example

Low Score Cluster Example

Assertiveness

Emphasizes aggressiveness, assertiveness, & confrontational attributes

Germanic Europe (Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Netherlands)

Nordic Europe (Denmark, Finland, & Sweden)

Future Orientation

Describes the intentions of cultures that plan & invest for the future

Nordic Europe (Denmark, Finland, & Sweden)

Eastern Europe (Greece, Hungary, Albania, Slovenia, Poland, Russia, Georgia, & Kazakhstan)

Performance Orientation

Concerned with rewards for setting & meeting goals

Anglo (Canada, US, Australia, Ireland, England, New Zealand, Anglo South Africa)

Latin America (Ecuador, El Salvador, Colombia, Bolivia, Brazil, Guatemala, Argentina, Costa Rica, Venezuela, & Mexico)

Humane Orientation

Concerned with treatment of others in altruistic, kind, & caring ways

Sub-Sahara Africa (Zimbabwe, Namibia, Zambia, Nigeria, & South Africa)

Germanic Europe (Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Netherlands)

Note:  Based on Northouse (2013, pp. 336-356).

Scholars have noted that Confucian Asian countries tended to be team-oriented, humane oriented, participative, and value-based in their leadership style. Paradoxically, these Asian leaders were also independent, self-protective, and used their status and position to make ultimate decisions without the input of others (Northouse, 2013, pp. 350-351). How do these attributes compare with contemporary leadership approaches (such as servant-leadership, transformational leadership, and exemplary leadership) in the literature? Before delving into the comparisons of the Hofstedean and GLOBE dimensions, a brief explanation of servant-leadership, transformational leadership, and exemplary leadership will occur in the following sections. Servant-Leadership. Robert Greenleaf, an AT&T Vice President, developed an altruistic approach in the 1970s that he named servantleadership. The leader nurtures and cultivates those that s/he works with,

Can Only Western Leaders Lead?   55

helping them to grow as individuals and employees. Greenleaf (1970) explains the concept in this way: The servant leader is servant first…. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead…. The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant— first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and the most difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit or, at least, not be further deprived? (p. 7)

The servant-leader does not resort to positional or formal power, but shares the decision-making authority with those who are being led (Northouse, 2013). The servant-leader’s role is to equip others for success, building effective teams, developing productive operations, and conceptually embracing innovation and creativity. Some of the companies utilizing this leadership approach are Starbucks, AFLAC, Southwest Airlines, Synovus Financial Corporation, The Container Store, and Marriott International (Spears & Lawrence, 2002). Servant-leadership was originally characterized by 10 characteristics: Listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, growth of people, and community building (Spears & Lawrence, 2002). A servant leadership questionnaire (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006) was subsequently developed to quantify servant-leadership attributes, and this instrument categorized these 10 characteristics into five factors: • Altruistic calling: A deep desire to positively meet the felt and actual needs of the follower • Emotional healing: Creating a safe environment which allows a recovery from pain or dysfunction into wholeness • Wisdom: Perceptual awareness and accurate anticipation of current and future events, with the ability to correctly examine and integrate environmental cues • Persuasive mapping: Articulates opportunities and strategic possibilities which benefit the organization, inspiring followers to embrace and participate in the futuristic vision • Organizational stewardship: Leaders hold their companies “in trust,” positively impacting those inside and outside of their organizations.

56   K. TAKAMINE

The servant-leader is called to serve, defined by “a desire to serve and a willingness to sacrifice self-interest for the benefit of others” (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006, p. 300). This unique form of leadership is altruistic at its core, empowering and influencing followers as they serve those around them. The goal is not to serve self, but to serve others. Kouzes and Posner’s Exemplary Leadership. James Kouzes and Barry Posner interviewed over “1,300 middle- and senior-level managers in private and public sector organizations,” asking them to recount their best experiences as leaders (Northouse, 2013, p. 183). Using content analysis, they discovered that there were five practices that were consistent with all exemplary leaders. They are: • Model the Way: Leaders exemplify their personal and organizational values through their behaviors and communication • Inspire a Shared Vision: Leaders not only accurately discern future trends and opportunities, but mobilize their followers to embrace innovative visions • Challenge the Process: Leaders successfully innovate through listening, experimentation, and continuous improvement of ideas, processes, and operations • Enable Others to Act: Leaders collaboration with team members and instill trust in one another for successful organization and interpersonal performance • Encourage the Heart: Leaders celebrate the attainment of performance milestones, recognizing team members in meaningful ways As with servant-leadership, exemplary leadership emphasizes that leadership is relational, that collaboration, inspiration, mitigation, and recognition are critical for creating the high performance organization. As a transformational model, the emphasis is on learning the “best practices” of successful leaders, with a focus on behavioral application. An abbreviated client list includes Nestle, Oracle, FedEx, the General Electric Company, Intel, Microsoft, Northrop Grumman, and Office Dept. Transformational Leadership. Transformational leadership is, ostensibly, one of the most recognized and researched models of the three examined thus far. Like servant-leadership and exemplary leadership, transformational leadership (1) focuses on the interactions between leaders and followers, (2) authenticates the growth and needs of followers, (3) emphasizes a moral responsibility for the entire organization, and (4) positively impacts motivation, performance, and satisfaction among employees (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). The goal of the leader is to empower his or her followers, nurturing them to function in a moral,

Can Only Western Leaders Lead?   57

competent, meaningful workplace. This positive, transformational mindset permeates the entire environment, allowing followers (and their organizations) to reach their maximum potential. Bass (1985) developed Burn’s model into seven factors, which specified four transformational factors, two transactional factors, and one nonleadership factor: • Factor 1: Idealized Influence/Charisma. These leaders are highly moral and ethical, and are deeply respected by subordinates. There is a high level of trust, and a strong sense of mission. • Factor 2: Inspirational Motivation. S/he inspires their people through emotional appeals, encouraging them to perform at extraordinarily high levels in a shared vision. • Factor 3: Intellectual Stimulation. Team members are encouraged to challenge themselves, processes, the organizational precepts, and even the leadership. Innovation, creativity, and/or problem solving are emphasized. • Factor 4: Individualized Consideration. These are leaders who listen carefully to the needs of their followers, providing emotional and practical support in their personal and professional development. • Factor 5: Contingent reward. Positive outcomes of followers are rewarded with a transaction valued by the follower. • Factor 6: Management-by-Exception. This is negative reinforcement through punishment. It can occur instantaneously (known as active management-by-exception) or after-the-fact (passive management-by-exception). • Factor 7: Laissez-Faire. This category describes an absence of leadership, where the leader takes little or no responsibility for organizational dynamics, provides no feedback, and does not help the follower grow. Factors 1-4 are known as the “Transformational 4 I’s,” and collectively make up transformational leadership. Factors 5 and 6 are identified as “transactional leadership” factors and “[the transactional leader] does not individualize the needs of subordinates or focus on their personal development” (Northouse, 2013, p. 181). However, the transactional leader does utilize reward and punishment as the means for changing behavior. The nonleadership (also known as nontransactional or laissez-faire) approach takes a “hands-off ” perspective, doing little more than acting like a figurehead. There is little contact with the employees, and in the rare

58   K. TAKAMINE

case when there is any interaction, there is no meaningful commitment or advocacy for the follower. One of the distinguishing features of transformational leadership is that it recognizes that a leader’s influence occurs at different levels, affecting dyads (one-on-one interactions), teams, organizations, “and even entire cultures” (Northouse, 2013, p. 186; Tammarino & Bass, 1990). While there is growing literature to support the notion that transformational leadership is effective across cultures (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Spreitzer, Xin, & Perttula, 2001), studies need to be conducted to research the linkages (the “how” and “why”) between transformational leadership and Asian cultural effectiveness. Table 2.2 compares the findings of Hofstede and the GLOBE researchers with servant-leadership, Kouzes and Posner’s (2007) Exemplary Leadership, and Burn’s transformational leadership model, demonstrating similarities and differences. As Table 2.2 demonstrates, the Asian leader is aligned with these contemporary leadership models. Through the identified Hofstedean and GLOBE cultural dimensions, Asians in Singapore, Japan, China, Taiwan, and Korea (the so-called Confucian nations) score highly in the dimensions such as power distance, group collectivism, femininity, and performance orientation, for example (refer back to Table 2.2). Since these leadership attributes are integrated with Asian cultural values, Asian executives may have a cultural predisposition to utilize a future orientated, empathetic, and deep listening style with their employees. Advocates of servant-leadership, transformational leadership, exemplary leadership and the like are lobbying for these “new” leadership paradigms to be accepted in the Westernized nations, while leaders in the East may have been culturally predisposed to listen, empathize, be future oriented, and work collaboratively all along. There are several cultural dimensions that Asian leaders excel in. Listening is one of those dimensions. Kouzes and Posner refer to this as encouraging the heart (2007), and Burns describes listening within his individualized consideration concept (Northouse, 2013). One study (Davis, 2009) found that Western leaders tended to prioritize talking, followed by understanding, and minimized listening. Eastern leaders would maximize listening, followed by understanding, and minimize talking. Listening is a critical competency in the servant-leadership model, one which is sometimes deemphasized in Western approaches to team dynamics (Spears & Lawrence, 2002). If one presumes that listening is an integral part of servant-leadership, then one could argue that Asian leaders are contextually predisposed to servant-leadership and transformational leadership.

59 High Scores High Scores High Scores

Intellectual Stimulation Transactional Leadership Individualized Consideration

Challenge the process Model the way Encourage the heart

Foresight, Conceptualization Stewardship Listening, Empathy, Healing

Future Orientation

Confucian Dynamism

Femininity

Future Orientation

Performance Orientation1

Humane Orientation2

Rewards 2Fair, altruistic, generous, and caring

High on Femininity Inspirational Motivation

Inspire a shared vision

Empathy

Femininity

Assertiveness category

1

Unable to determine

Individualized Consideration

Enable others to act

High Scores

Inspirational Motivation

Enable others to act

Building Community

Collectivism

In Group Collectivism Not expressed

High Scores

Inspirational Motivation

Enable others to act

Commitment to the growth of others

Collectivism

Institutional Collectivism

Not expressed

High Scores

Idealized Influence

Not expressed

Not expressed

Power Distance

Power Distance

Gender Egalitarianism

High Scores

Asian Cultural Outcomes on the GLOBE and Hofstede Dimensions

Not expressed

Burn’s Transformational Leadership Model

Challenge the Process

Kouzes and Posner’s Exemplary Leadership

Awareness

Spears’ 10 Servant-Leadership Characteristics

Uncertainty Avoidance

Hofstede’s Five Cultural Values

Uncertainty Avoidance

GLOBE Cultural Dimensions

Table 2.2.  Asian Leadership as Compared With Contemporary Leadership Approaches

60  K. TAKAMINE

Another cultural dimension that was clearly exhibited in both the Hofstede and GLOBE studies was that Confucian Asians held to a collectivistic perspective, where building community and developing team dynamics were highly valued (Chhokar et al., 2007; Dorfman, Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004; Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004). This collectivism approach would resonate with the Millennials in the American workforce, since those employees born between 1982 and 2003 (Wilson & Gerber, 2008) have a propensity for working together in groups or teams. Teamwork and collectivism is one of the five practices of exemplary leadership cited in The Exemplary Leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). The third dimension that emerged in the aforementioned studies was future orientation. In this dimension, individuals could accurately predict trends that were forthcoming. This concept was referred to as foresight and conceptualization in servant-leadership (Spears & Lawrence, 2002), as challenging the process in Kouzes and Posner’s Exemplary Leadership (2007), and as intellectual stimulation in Burns’ transformational leadership model (Northouse, 2013). Here the leader is able to go beyond the day-to-day operations, and utilizes intuition to make wise choices and future oriented decisions. Asians are also more comfortable with investing in long-term results, as compared with Westerners who make quarterby-quarter strategic decisions (Hofstede, 2001). This future orientation perspective allows Asian leaders to synergistically embrace objectivity with flexibility, allowing them to seize opportunities in an uncertain future (Davis, 2009). While Western leaders must acclimate themselves to leadership styles such as servant-leadership, transformational leadership, and other contemporary leadership models, Asian leaders have a cultural and ideological affinity for these approaches. Asian leaders incorporate the inner qualities that organizational scholars are advocating for (Chhokar et al., 2007; Davis, 2009; House et al., 2004; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Moodian, 2009). While the GLOBE Study and Hofstede’s work found that Asian cultural norms in Singapore, Japan, China, Taiwan, and Korea are in harmony with transformational models, one cannot infer that other Asian countries (e.g., Vietnam, Indonesia, or Thailand) hold to similar Asian cultural values. It should also be noted that Asian leadership is not flawless in its ideology and practice. For example, bribery is an oft documented unethical outcome of a collectivistic society that practices in-group collectivism (Lin, 2008). Chinese cultural psychologists (Wang & Zheng, 2005) found that benevolent authoritarianism can unequally favor some employees rather than others, creating the Asian version of the “Old Boys’ Network.” The point is that the cultural aspects that lend Asian leaders toward benevolence, altruism, and humane orientation may also make them susceptible to disparity in equality (due to high power distance and

Can Only Western Leaders Lead?   61

asymmetric reciprocity). Wisdom must be applied in integrating Confucian beliefs with Western leadership, to guard against the dysfunctional aspects of Eastern and Western leadership ideologies. The last topic addresses the question, “If Asians can lead in Toyota, Honda, Samsung, Sony, Hyundai, and other global companies, can Asian Americans lead in America?” The Business Case for Asian American Leadership In an executive panel discussion on executive development at NorthropGrumman (Sy & Takamine, 2006), five Asian American executives stated that 21% of the Northrop-Grumman work force was Asian American, out of approximately 15,000 employees. Yet, there were only five Asian American executives (VP and up) in upper management in that aerospace company. Why is that the case? Are Asian Americans incapable of leading in the United States? Cheng (1997) reported that there were only 0.3% Asian American executives representation in Fortune 500 companies, even though Asian Americans made up almost 10% of the technical workforce nationwide (Tang, 1997). In a more recent study (Desai, 2012), it was reported only two of the CEOs in the Fortune 100 were Americans of Asian descent. With the general population of Asian Americans listed at 5.6% (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2012), it would appear that this minority group is over-represented in the technical workforce up through mid-management levels, but are under-represented in upper management. Part of the disparity may be attributed to cultural differences between Asian American and European American executive expectations. For example, executives in corporate America are expected to act autonomously, be initiators, and have the ability to denounce the status quo (Henderson, 1994; Sorcher, 1985; and Van Velsor & Leslie, 1995). Asian Americans often display Asian cultural values that contrast with Western leadership characteristics, such as a respect for authority, a collectivistic approach (rather than individualistic), and prefer modesty and altruism over success and competition (Barkema & Vermeulen, 1997; Davis, 1997; Triandis, 1995). The cultural disconnect between Asian American leadership and Western corporations are no longer being ignored. At IBM, J. T. “Ted” Childs, former Global VP of Diversity, identified Asian Americans as an underutilized resource in most companies (Sy & Takamine, 2006). Childs, speaking at a human resources seminar, stated that “We have to tear apart the stereotype that Asians can do the technical thing, but they cannot do the executive thing.” To illustrate this dilemma, Childs recounted an executive leadership training session at IBM Europe. Of IBM’s top 10 competitors,

62  K. TAKAMINE

many of those listed were Asian companies. So Childs asked: “Why is it that Asian executives can lead their Asian companies effectively enough to beat us, but they can’t lead us to beat them?” And that question is as pertinent in corporate America now as it was then, if not more so. Then Mr. Childs gave these statistics: Asians Americans make up 4% of the U.S. Population. Those 4% gives IBM 9.2% of its technical workforce. That 9.2% gives you one-third of your Ph.D.’s, and your company leads the corporate patent market for nine consecutive years. That’s value proposition.

The IBM VP continued to make his case. “The U.S. Census tells us that 60% of Asian in the U.S. are not born in the U.S.—an extraordinary competitive link to other countries.” Do Asian Americans Aspire to C-Level Positions? In a study of Fortune 100 companies, Asian American lower and middle managers were asked if they desired to be promoted into C-level positions within their company (Takamine, 2013). Out of 153 respondents, 41.8% stated that they, indeed, aspired to become the company president. As previously stated, there are currently two Asian Americans who are CEOs. What might be the reason that so few Asian Americans make it to the executive suite? The attraction-selection-attrition model (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995) presented the notion that organizations select and attract employees that are similar to themselves, that share homogeneous values, attitudes, and even preferences. This homogeneity creates a unique organizational fit for those workers that “belong” to the majority, and those that do not fit leave the organization (through attrition). Could it be that Asian Americans find they don’t “fit” in an organization, and voluntary leave the company? This might explain why some Asian Americans leave a workplace, but there might be an alternative explanation. Once the 42% of Asian Americans (mentioned above) realize that they will not be promoted, due to a perceived lack of growth opportunities, they leave their jobs. This was the situation for 110 high performing managers in Fortune 200 companies (Takamine & Coleman, 2012). This study found that 63.6% of this technology workforce decided to leave their company due to no growth opportunities, and another 16.4% were exiting because of limited job advancement. What impact might this have on the competitiveness of a company?

Can Only Western Leaders Lead?   63

The “brain drain” for a company could be devastating, in terms of proprietary information, cultural (or emic) understanding of the Asian/Asian American marketplace, and other organizational fit issues. Here is what one study noted regarding this ethnic group: In relation to Asian Americans, the inexorable rise of India and China is forcing the largest companies to rethink the role of their Asian operations and transform their Asian outposts into strategic parts of their corporate decision making. For example, in 2006 IBM moved its chief procurement officer and operations from its New York headquarters to Shenzhen, China. That same year, Cisco relocated its chief globalization officer and a portion of the corporate staff from San Jose, California, to a new dual corporate headquarters in Bangalore, India. These shifts should create opportunities for global companies to attract and retain the very best Asians and Asian American executives who aspire to high corporate roles. It also means that Asian executives in Asia will interact with U.S. corporate organizations as they deal with global strategy, and they will run into the same cultural obstacles that their counterparts already see in the United States. (Racho, 2012, p. 36)

Asian Americans that hold to Confucian values (group collectivism, humility, long term orientation, high power distance, and the like) may share cultural attributes that link them to their Asian forefathers. The depth of cultural antecedents that Asian Americans share with their Asian ancestors undoubtedly depends on a number of factors (generational acculturation, age grouping, social networks, birth location, etc.). As mentioned previously, many westernized leadership theories, such as exemplary leadership, transformational leadership, and servant leadership are consonant with these Confucian beliefs. Asian Americans have displayed behaviors and attitudes related to characteristics of servant-leadership, transformational leadership, and exemplary leadership (e.g., deep listening, empathy, building community, inspirational motivation, etc.), and some of these behaviors have not yet been extinguished (Cheng, 1997; Takamine, 2000). This is not to imply that all Asians and Asian Americans intrinsically are predisposed to these altruistic, transformational approaches, nor does this assert that subsequent, acculturated generations of Asian Americans hold to these cultural beliefs. More research should be conducted to determine the level of acculturation that occurs across generations. But for those companies that can utilize Asian Americans in this new world economy, there is the possibility of greater market relevance with transformative leaders who understand these Eastern cultural nuances.

64  K. TAKAMINE

Conclusion Asian leaders have studied Western leadership and management theories, attended American and European universities, and even incorporated westernized business models into their companies. They have taken the best practices of contemporary leadership theories, and transformed their companies to compete with the West in a variety of industries. And now, organizational scholars around the world are noticing that Japan, China, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and other Pacific Rim nations have equaled or eclipsed American and European companies. It is clear that Eastern leaders can lead as effectively and efficiently as Western leaders. If one assumes that corporations should seriously consider embracing servant-leadership, transformational leadership, and exemplary leadership as effective and efficacious leadership models, and if one considers that Asians and Asian Americans exhibit some or all of these moral, transformative leadership approaches due to their cultural affinity (Racho, 2012; Sy & Takamine, 2006), why are there so few C-Level Asian and/or Asian American executives in corporate America? Some of the reasons have been alluded to in this paper. Asians and Asian Americans may voluntarily depart from their company because they are not a strong organizational fit with their colleagues (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). Some individuals have left their companies for undisclosed reasons (Takamine, 2000). But others (fast-track, mid-level managers) have considered leaving because they felt that there were no growth opportunities for them at their present place of employment (Takamine & Coleman, 2012). This frustration with the organizational system impacts moral stress on employees, which leads to employee fatigue, decreased job satisfaction, and turnover (Detienne, Agle, Phillips, & Ingerson, 2012; Tsai & Shih, 2005). If it is accurate that certain Asians and Asian Americans display Eastern leadership characteristics and attitudes, their behaviors may run counter to the American or European styles of leadership traits. For example, one researcher found that human resource directors consistently scored Asian American management candidates lower than their European American counterparts, because the Asian Americans appeared less assertive, less communicative, more soft-spoken, and more modest than the European American candidates (Cheng, 1997; Takamine, 2000). There was a preference for a Western (rather than an Eastern) approach in this study. Since there is a misperception that Eastern leadership approaches are less effective than Western leadership approaches, Asians are passed over for executive level promotions. This would account for the demographic

Can Only Western Leaders Lead?   65

that only two CEOs are Asian Americans (both born in India). Must Asian, Asian American, and other minority groups acculturate themselves to the dominant culture to be promoted into C-level positions? There is a growing cadre of researchers that are espousing the notion that Eastern leadership literature must integrate the leadership, culture, and theories of Asia from a uniquely Asian perspective, not from a Western lens (Alves, Manz, & Butterfield, 2005; CEO International, 2008; ChaoChuan & Lee, 2008; Chen, 2005; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003). From the Eastern perspective, speaking, self-promotion, aggressiveness, and expeditiousness is over-rated, while listening, modesty, assertiveness, and patience are valued. This attributes are not merely behavioral traits, but emerge out of an Eastern cultural norm, and provides an exciting new venue for cultural leadership studies. One should not make the error that one approach is superior or inferior to the other; in fact, perhaps the resultant finding will be that each perspective can appreciate and learn from each other. It would not be prudent to engage a dialog about cultural aspects of leadership without raising a salient concern. Clearly, in Schneider’s attraction-selection-attrition model, homogeneity supports the premise that people will hire and include employees that fit into an organization, and outsiders do not often “fit” that criterion. There may be bias or misunderstandings that disenfranchise certain individuals. This is not often mentioned in the literature, but there may be prejudice (or misunderstandings) which color perceptions about leadership. Here is what two researchers (Duleep & Sanders, 1992, pp. 429-430) noted about the lack of career advancement opportunities that very few organizational scholars state out loud: High educated men in all Asian groups earn less than comparable whites when occupation and industry are taken into account. Conceivably, extensive formal schooling and particular fields of study enable American-born Asian men to enter high-paying occupations and industries, but within these occupations and industries, Asian men may be underrepresented in higherpaying positions because of discrimination.

As U.S. corporations position themselves for global markets, it would seem prudent for Western scholars and corporate executives to examine the wisdom of Eastern leaders, not just as a fad or an anomaly, but as a viable alternative to a Eurocentric or America-centric approach. At the very least, corporate America should pay close attention to their competitors in the East, so that it can compete on an even playing field.

66  K. TAKAMINE

References Alves, J. C., Manz, C. C., & Butterfield, D. A. (2005). Developing leadership theory in Asia: The role of Chinese philosophy. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 3-27. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449. Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of Servant Leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326. Barkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. (1997). What differences in the cultural backgrounds of partners are detrimental for international joint ventures? Journal of International Business Studies, 28, 845-864. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. CEO International. (2008). Asia-Pacific leadership. Retrieved from http:// drkimglobal.com/asia- pacific-leader.htm. Chao-Chuan, C., & Lee, Y-T. (Eds.). (2008). Leadership and management in China: Philosophies, theories and practices. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Chen, T. T. (2005). A longitudinal test and a qualitative field study of the glass ceiling effect for Asian Americans. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 65(7-B). Cheng, C. (1997). Are Asian-Americans employees a model minority or just a minority? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33(3), 277-290. Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (Eds.). (2001). The emotionally intelligent workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (Eds.). (2007). Culture and leadership across the World: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies of 25 Societies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Davies, A. S. (1997). Handling uncertainty: Do managers in the People’s Republic of China, the US, and the UK differ? Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 121-122. Davis, G. (2009). Exemplary Leaderships of Asian companies. Global Asia, 4(1), 74-84. Desai, V. N. (2012). The mythical rise of Asian Americans. Retrieved from http://www. project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-mythical-rise-of-asian-americans. Detienne, K. B., Agle, B. R., Phillips, J. C., & Ingerson, M-C. (2012). The impact of moral stress compared to other stressors on employee fatigue, job satisfaction, and turnover: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 377-391.

Can Only Western Leaders Lead?   67 Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2004). Leadership and cultural variation: The identification of culturally endorsed leadership profiles. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, V. Gupta, & Associates (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 669-722). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.  Duleep, H. O., & Sanders, S. (1992). Discrimination at the top: American-born Asian and White men. Industrial Relations, 31(3), 416-432. Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership. Henderson, G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the workplace: Issues and strategies. Westpont, CT: Quorum Books. Hodgetts, R. M., & Luthans, F. (2003). International management: Culture, strategies and behavior. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta,V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. INSEAD Leadership Summit Asia. (2009). Building global brands in Asia. Retrieved from http://knowledge.insead.edu/contents/ILSAbranding.cfm Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypothesis and some preliminary findings. Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 525-544. Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 257-265. Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 285-320. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The Exemplary Leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lin, C. C. (2008). Demystifying the chameleonic nature of Chinese leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(4), 303-321. Locke, D.C. (1992). Increasing multicultural understanding: A comprehensive model. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Mills, D. Q. (2005). Asian and American leadership styles: How are they unique? Retrieved from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4869.html Moodian, M. A. (Ed.). (2009). Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, B. (1999). Views from inside and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgment. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 781-796. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

68  K. TAKAMINE Racho, M. O. (2012). Attributes of Asian American senior leaders who have retained their cultural identity and been successful in American corporations (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI Number: 1518865). Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 435-454. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 747-773. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond Individualism/Collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim et al. (eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Shenkar, O., & Zeira, Y. (1992). Role conflict and role ambiguity of chief executive officers in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(1), 55-75. Sorcher, M. (1985). Predicting executive success: What it takes to make it into senior management. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. Spears, L. C., & Lawrence, M. (Eds.). (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant-Leadership for the Twenty-First century. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Spreitzer, G., Xin, K., & Perttula, K. H. (2001). A cultural analysis of effectiveness of transformational leadership. The Center for Effective Organizations. Los Angeles, CA: Marshall School of Business.. Sy, T., & Takamine, K. (2006). Asian American success factors. Climbing the corporate ladder: Success factors for Asian Americans. Unpublished manuscript. Takamine, K. (2000). A profile of current Japanese-American, Chinese-American, and Korean-American lower, middle, and upper level managers in corporate America (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UMI Dissertation Abstracts database. (9962343). Takamine, K. (2001). Asian-Pacific Americans and the Glass Ceiling: How far have they advanced? The Diversity Factor, 9(2), 28-34. Takamine, K. (2002). Servant-Leadership in the real world: Re-capturing our humanity in the workplace. Baltimore, MD: AmErica House Publishers. Takamine, K. (2013). [Percentages of how respondents answered the question, “Do you desire advancement into the executive level positions in your company?”]. Unpublished raw data. Takamine, K., & Coleman, B. (2012). Strategies for retaining Asian-Pacific Americans in the technology sector. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 77(3), 3753, 54. Tang, J. (1997). The Model Minority thesis revisited: (Counter)evidence from the science and engineering fields. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33(3), 291-315.l Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Tsai, M. T., & Shih, C. M. (2005). The influences of organizational and personal ethics on role conflict among marketing managers: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Management, 22(1), 54-61. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2012). The Asian population: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf

Can Only Western Leaders Lead?   69 Van Velsor, E. & Leslie, J. B. (1995). Why executives derail: Perspectives across time and culture. The Academy of Management Executive, IX, 62-72. Wang, F. Y., & Zheng, H. (2005). Chinese cultural psychology. Guang Zhou: Ji Nan University Press. Wilson, M., & Gerber, L. E. (2008). How generational theory can improve teaching: Strategies for working with the “Millennials.” Currents in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 29-44. Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational Leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43(10), 975-995. Yammarino, F. J., & Jung, D. I. (1998). Asian-Americans and leadership: A levels of analysis perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(1), 47-67.

Chapter 4

Transformational Leadership and Spiritual Intelligence Heather Christ-Lakin and Darlene R Hess

Workers play an increasingly important role in the competitive advantage of a company as employment shifts from industrial-focused organizations to knowledge based organizations (Bean & Mills, 2005; Vandermark, 2002). Current emphasis is on development of transformational leaders who inspire workers to adopt new directions and behaviors that take an organization forward (Tucker & Russell, 2004; Von Eck & Verwey, 2007). Although leaders play a critical role in managing organizational change and over $50 billion is spent annually on training leaders of organizations (Raelin, 2004), only 10% of leaders change behavior as a result of training they receive (Georgenson, 1982). Advancement in this area could have significant impact on leadership programs and potentially lead to significant cost savings for business and society. The current emphasis on the development of transformational leadership skills as a way to empower and engage employees is believed to lead to increased quality, service, cost-effectiveness, and output (Armfield, 2005; Avolio, 2007; Conger, 1999; George, 2006; Tipping, 2004). Just as emotional intelligence (EI) has fairly recently emerged as a critical leadership quality (Center for Creative Leadership, 2003; Goleman, 2006;

Organizational Processes and Received Wisdom, pp. 71–99 Copyright © 2014 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

71

72  H. CHRIST-LAKIN and D. R. HESS

Mandell & Pherwani, 2003), spiritual intelligence (SQ) is now emerging as an important leadership competency (Zohar & Marshall, 2000). The relationship between transformational leadership and spiritual intelligence has been unclear. The Problem Due to rapid changes in technology, businesses and governments are moving into unchartered territory (Burke & Ng, 2006; Dundon & Pattakos, 2001; Slabbert & Hattingh, 2006). The ability to adapt and evolve is an advantage (Moss, Dowling, & Callanan, 2009; Viljoen-Terblanche, 2008). An innovative and committed workforce is needed to deal effectively with expansion and rapid change (Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, & McGrath, 2003; Titchen & Manley, 2006). As the responsibility for managing change and creating and maintaining successful business strategies shifts from upper management to knowledge workers, the hierarchy of an organization flattens (Bass, 1999). This shift of responsibility to knowledge workers creates the need for even more adaptability and agility (Burke & Cooper, 2006; Quinn et al., 2003). A new kind of leader is needed to deal effectively with this changing environment (Loughlin & Arnold, 2007; McCormack & Titchen, 2006; Shelton & Darling, 2001). This new environment requires leaders who can energize followers (Jensen & Luthans, 2006; Watson, 2007). Given the shift from industrial focused organizations to knowledge based organizations, emphasis has also shifted to the development of transformational leaders, capable of inspiring workers to adopt new directions and behaviors that can improve adaptability and success for the organization (Bennis, 2007; Mengel, 2005). This new kind of leader understands that workers cannot be viewed as replaceable parts of a machine. The old view of workers as robots (Ashar & Lane-Maher, 2004) ignored the deeper psychological and spiritual aspects of people (Duchon & Plowman, 2005; Pandey & Gupta, 2008b; Zohar & Marshall, 2004). Today’s leaders understand that attention must be directed to the whole person (Sheep, 2006; Vandermark, 2002). Leaders must be comfortable and skilled in working with the emotional, psychological, and spiritual dimensions of life. Leaders must be able to effectively cope with the complexities of rapid advancements and be able to assist others to identify and address emotional and psychological barriers to change (Kotter, 1999; Osborn & Marion, 2009). Transformational leaders who can develop highly involved individuals and teams are needed to guide organizations through times of adjustment

Transformational Leadership and Spiritual Intelligence   73

(Bass, 1999; Vandermark, 2002). Some have regarded transformational leadership as a deficient model that addresses only the behavior and traits of a leader rather than including the motives of the leader resulting in leadership that is not authentic (Fry & Whittington, 2005). Fry and Whittington argued that the exclusion of leader motive departs from Burns’ (1978) original model which very much included human motives. Fry (2005) proposed a model of spiritual leadership. Chopra (2005), a physician and influential author on topics related to spirituality, success, health, and happiness, promoted the idea that spirituality is the missing ingredient needed by leaders. Ashar and Lane-Maher (2004) defined spirituality as the desire for connectedness and wholeness as a result of integrating the inner life with a professional role that centers on serving the greater good. Spirituality involves being an integral part of a principled community. While scholars have been studying the concept of spirituality within the context of the workplace (Giacalone, Jurkiewicz, & Fry, 2005; Quinnine, 2007; Sturm, 2007), spirituality remains a relatively new concept, or a controversial and challenging one, to business professionals (Field, 2004). Leadership scholars struggle with the integration of spirituality into existing leadership theories (Klenke, 2003). Leadership training has not included spiritual intelligence as an added element that could lead to greater effectiveness. The problem is the ineffectiveness that occurs because of the missing element, aligned with the need to understand the relationship that exists between spiritual intelligence and transformational leadership. Transformational leadership skills, used to tackle and decipher dilemmas of importance and consequence to business, without spiritual intelligence, the desire to do purposeful work that serves others and be part of a principled community, does not lead to the greatest amount of success (Amram, 2009; Ashar & Lane-Maher, 2004). Although emotional intelligence improves the effectiveness of leaders (Leban & Zulauf, 2004), additional characteristics are needed. Few studies exist regarding the relationship between spiritual intelligence and transformational leadership. Researchers have discussed the need to incorporate spirituality into leadership theories (Burke, 2006; DeKlerk, 2005; Houston & Sokolow, 2006; Marques, Dhiman, & King, 2005), but little research has involved both transformational leadership and spiritual intelligence. A better understanding of the relationship between spiritual intelligence and transformational leadership is needed to pursue the possibility of incorporating spiritual intelligence as an important element in leadership training. Spiritual intelligence, incorporated into existing leadership training, may address and potentially correct the ineffectiveness of current leadership training practices.

74  H. CHRIST-LAKIN and D. R. HESS

Background Experts have differing thoughts on the role of a leader (Avolio, 2007). Through analysis of trait, behavioral, contingency, and transformational leadership models, one sees the progression of modern-day theory. The degree to which these models evolved varied according to the economic, social, and moral conditions of the time (Wren, 2004). Each era essentially provided a stepping-stone for the development of subsequent models. Vandermark (2002) described three main eras of leadership theories and styles: Era I, the Industrial Age that began at the start of the twentieth century; Era II, which refers to modern leadership models based upon participative workers and teams; and Era III, which is based upon the model of life itself. Industrial Age (Era I) The first era of leadership described by Vandermark had its origins in early leadership styles, such as the dictator and monarch, which were based on autocratic-leadership styles and which incorporated ideas of leaders as being born rather than developed (Wren, 2004). For example, one of the first well-known theories of leadership was based on trait theories. According to trait theories, leaders are born into the position or with the appropriate capabilities to lead (Horner, 1997; Murphy, 2005; Smith & Canger, 2004; Zaccaro, 2007). A related concept is the idea that leaders are born with innate characteristics (Wren, 2004). This theory was highly popular until the 1950s (Murphy, 2005). This idea of leadership is associated with the Industrial Age, in which workers were viewed as replaceable parts similar to a machine. During the Industrial Age, leaders, as a general rule, were expected to distrust employees and to relate to them only with instruction based commands (Wren, 2004). Employees were expected to follow these commands or be replaced. These ideas are isolationist with respect to the rest of the organization or group, as one either leads or follows. During the Industrial Age, the majority of the population was uneducated and workers were trying to meet their basic needs for food, shelter, and clothing (Wren, 2004). As society developed and progressed and a greater percentage of the population acquired a basic education, this method of leadership was perceived by many to be degrading and humiliating with no respect for the individual (Vandermark, 2002). The idea of working according to a servant-master type relationship with its intertwined connotations of slavery and ownership became outdated and is now viewed as an obsolete model of leadership.

Transformational Leadership and Spiritual Intelligence   75

As leadership theory evolved, the focus became more oriented towards relationships with others (Wren, 2004). As economic conditions improved for workers and as workers became more skilled and educated, they were not quite as easy to replace. This situation gave way to new ideas about how best to influence the behavior of employees (Vandermark, 2002). Modern Leadership Models (Era II) Modern leadership models depicted the blending of authority with the ability to influence others. This required a shift of perspective and became the basis for democratic or participative leadership theory that includes active employee involvement (Wren, 2004). This approach to leadership emerged in the 1940s and 1950s (Rost, 1991). The type of relationships that existed between employers and employees were now beginning to be questioned and addressed. Soon thinking began to change as employees became viewed as valuable resources. Leadership was about interdependent relationships with others, and leaders were expected to be effective at controlling or managing employee’s behavior. As ideas about leadership developed regarding the value of the employee, the way was paved for additional theories. Leadership theories such as blended leadership and situational leadership became popular. Blended leadership includes delegation, community, and direction for organization renewal (Collinson & Collinson, 2007). Situational leadership involves using various leadership styles depending on the situation (Vroom & Jago, 2007). The expansion of leadership theory to include ideas of support and empowerment of the employee followed. Contingency leadership theories were developed that include ideas regarding advocacy and coalition building (Bolman & Deal, 1997; Vroom & Jago, 2007). As ideas of give and receive between management and employees grew, the foundation was created for transactional leadership. Transactional leadership is exchange-based leadership, where an individual is compensated upon completion of tasks (Bass & Avolio, 2004; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Transactional leadership continues to be representative of much typical modern management behavior (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004). Transformational Leadership Where previous theories address immediate needs of the worker and the organization, transformational leadership involves leading and motivating

76  H. CHRIST-LAKIN and D. R. HESS

in a way that inspires employees (Murphy, 2005). Transformational leadership has four dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Transformational leaders encourage innovation from their followers and provide inspiration for their followers, which lead to higher levels of performance (Bass & Avolio, 2004; Murphy, 2005). The objective of transformational and innovative leadership is to raise employees’ performance from that of involvement to a new higher level of performance and to use new ideas or models to achieve this increased performance (Boerner, Eisenbeiss, & Griesser, 2007). In this way, the early leadership theories paved the way for transformational and innovative leadership as the next logical step. Transformational leadership has been defined as moving the follower beyond immediate self-interests through idealized influence (charisma), inspiration, intellectual stimulation or individualized consideration. Transformational leadership elevates the follower’s level of maturity and ideals as well as concerns for achievement, self-actualization, and the well-being of others, the organization, and society. (Bass, 1999). Increased quality, service, cost-effectiveness, and output for organizations is the result (Bass, 1999; Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Chatfield, 2006; Chong, 2007; Kouzes & Posner, 2006). From a transformational leadership perspective, the idea is to engage, inspire, and motivate others with a powerful vision that provides guidance or direction for the organization (Conger, 1999; Drucker, 1999; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Liu, 2007). Leadership theories have gone from viewing the employee as a replaceable part, to group involvement, to transactional leadership to transformational leadership (Wren, 2004). As the focus of leadership changed within the context of the evolution of the worker, and as workers have begun to look for something more meaningful and intrinsically rewarding, rather than something simply externally rewarding, other concepts and ideas have been introduced concerning effective leadership (Bush, 2007; Eddy & VanDerLinden, 2006; Goethals, 2005; Lee, 2006). The essence of the theories, previously based on parts of a structure, evolved to a system and an organism and then into theories that involve spirit or the essence of life (Chopra, 2002; Vandermark, 2002). As always, business must stay abreast of these ever-evolving concepts and ideas. Older economic models of organizations seem not as effective as they once were (Neal & Biberman, 2004). As a result, some scholars are now focusing on the role of spirituality and spiritual intelligence in business (Amram, 2007; Amram & Dryer, 2008; Anderson, 2007; Beauregard & O’Leary, 2007; Grant, O’Neil, & Stephens, 2004; Mark, 2006; Posner, Slate, & Boone, 2006; Rossiter, 2006).

Transformational Leadership and Spiritual Intelligence   77

Leadership Based Upon the Model of Life (Era III) Era III leadership includes tapping into the unified mind and oneness, creating a spiritual workplace, and quieting the corporate mind, and utilizes principles from morphic resonance and social fields (Vandermark, 2002). Now leaders have a responsibility to support workers as these workers reach for higher levels of self-actualization. Kindling the spark leading to higher levels of achievement requires emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995; Hackman & Wageman, 2007). Emotional intelligence includes awareness of one’s emotions, and the ability to manage them. Others have begun to discuss the relationship between spirituality and job performance (Duchon & Plowman, 2005; Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2004). For many, the idea that people would be more successful because spirit is promoted makes sense (Bakke, 2005). From a business perspective, people who would otherwise be closed to spirituality might be interested if these ideas can translate to profits and success for the business. An increasing number of leaders believe that success and spirituality are associated (Ashar & Lane-Maher, 2004; Bolman & Deal, 1997; Jurkiewicz & Giacalone, 2004, Purushothaman & Howell, 2007; Swift, 2003; Toney & Oster, 1998). A values-driven leadership model based on emotional intelligence, spiritual intelligence, and management behavioral competencies has been proposed by Mussig (2003). Steingard (2005) proposed a spiritually informed management theory and Sanders, Hopkins, and Geroy (2003) proposed a transcendental theory of leadership comprised of three spiritual dimensions. Geaney (2004) discovered that senior executives view spirituality as a significant factor in their ability to be successful leaders. Fry (2003) proposed a theory of spiritual leadership in which “the purpose of spiritual leadership is to create vision and value congruence across the strategic empowered team and individual levels and ultimately to foster higher levels of organizational commitment and productivity” (p. 693). There is a need for the implementation of skills that bring spirit into leadership roles (Cooper, 2005; Fry, 2008; Fry, Matherly, & Vitucci, 2006; Grant, 2005; Hariprasad, 2006; Hire, 2005; Houston & Cartwright, 2007, Shelton & Darling, 2001). Chopra (2002) discussed the soul of leadership and emphasized the leader as the symbolic soul of the group. Chopra (2002, 2005) focused on the inward journey and how to apply it to the world to enrich and improve lives of people, organizations, and corporations. Wheatley (2002) emphasized the importance of spiritual leadership in the workplace during turbulent and uncertain times. Gill (2003) presented an integrative model for change leadership, which encompasses cognitive, spiritual, emotional, and behavioral elements.

78  H. CHRIST-LAKIN and D. R. HESS

Spiritual Intelligence Quantitative research on the topic of spirituality, as it relates to leadership and to organizations, has been neglected and is needed (Heaton, Schmidt-Wilk, & Travis, 2004; Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin, & Kakabadse, 2002; Neal & Biberman, 2004, Pandey & Gupta, 2008b). Understanding the task and functions of leadership is becoming the single most important factor for leaders. Effective leadership is the most essential element for business survival than managing systems or efficiency audits (Bush, 2007; Korac-Kakabadse et al., 2002; Reitz, Carr, & Blass, 2007). Research on spirituality in organizations is needed especially in the light of recent corporate scandal and unethical business practices (Neal & Biberman, 2004). Research on spiritual intelligence in relationship to transformational leadership is also needed (Tipping, 2004; Wolman, 2001; Zohar, 2005; Zohar & Marshall, 2000, 2004). Gardner (2006a) indicated that a leader needs to have a broader purview than science and technological advances. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the concept of intelligence was couched only in terms of an intelligence quotient (IQ) (Binet, 1909). As scholars studied the concept of intelligence, new theories were born, such as Gardner’s (1983, 1993, 2006b) theory of multiple intelligences. Scholars have continued to study and debate the concept of intelligence from psychological, sociological, medical, and business leadership perspectives (Halama & Strizenec, 2004; Leonard & Biberman, 2007; Selman, Selman, Selman, & Selman, 2005; Skinner & Spurgeon, 2005; Van Hook, 2008). Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, containing eight different kinds of interrelated and interconnected intelligences, has withstood much criticism over a quarter of a century. An influential development in the evolution of the concept of intelligence was Goleman’s (1995, 2000) concept of emotional intelligence (EQ). Emotional intelligence is a combination of Gardner’s intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences. Emotional intelligence includes the abilities to accurately perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth. With the development of ideas in regard to emotional intelligence came a new concept, termed spiritual intelligence. The basis for spiritual intelligence theory partially exists in Gardner’s (1993) theory of multiple intelligences, specifically in Gardner’s concept of existential intelligence. According to Emmons (2000a), spiritual intelligence includes the five core components of existential intelligence, which are: the “capacity to transcend the physical and material, the ability to experience heightened states of consciousness, the ability to sanctify everyday experience, the

Transformational Leadership and Spiritual Intelligence   79

ability to utilize spiritual resources to solve problems, and the capacity to be virtuous” (p. 25). Recent biological brain research has suggested evidence validating a theory of spiritual intelligence (Gallese, 2005; Hamer, 2005; Lazar et. al., 2005; Mark, 2004; Persinger, 1996; Ramachandran, 1999; Singer & Gray, 1995). Scholarly research with regard to spiritual intelligence can be found in business leadership, management, psychology, and medical journals (Emmons, 2000a; George, 2006; Kwilecki, 2000; Mayer, 2000; McMullen, 2003; White, 2006; Zohar, 2005). Zohar and Marshall (2000) proposed a three-factor model of intelligence, which includes the intelligence quotient (IQ), based on the Stanford-Binet test (Roid & Barram, 2004); the emotional intelligence quotient (EQ), grounded in Goleman’s (1995) work; and the spiritual intelligence (SQ). Zohar and Marshall defined spiritual intelligence as The intelligence with which we address and solve problems of meaning and value, the intelligence with which we can place our actions and our lives in a wider, richer, meaning-giving context, the intelligence with which we can assess that one course of action or one life-path is more meaningful than another. (pp. 3-4)

Another leading author on spiritual intelligence is Wolman (2001) who defined spiritual intelligence as “the human capacity to ask ultimate questions about the meaning of life, and to simultaneously experience the seamless connection between each of us and the world in which we live” (pp. 83-84). Vaughn (2002) referred to spiritual intelligence in the context of multiple intelligences and viewed spiritual intelligence as integrating mind and spirit within the work environment. “An integrated view of spiritual intelligence subsumes multiple intelligences and looks at spiritual intelligence in the context of a person’s whole life” (p. 31). George (2006) stated that a deeper (i.e., spiritual) intelligence is needed to help managers and leaders become more effective. Tipping (2004) discussed spiritual intelligence theory and how to apply it to the workplace to increase productivity, raise morale, and prevent conflict in the workplace. Sidle (2007) proposed a framework of the five intelligences of leadership to include action intelligence, intellectual intelligence, intuitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, and spiritual intelligence. The emerging research in this field has been and continues to be somewhat controversial. Some scholars doubted the existence of spiritual intelligence; even Gardner (2000) seemed to be uncertain about the idea of spiritual intelligence. Despite the controversial nature of the topic for some, research regarding spiritual intelligence has continued (Harmer & Fallon, 2007; Vaughn, 2002; Wolman, 2001; Yang & Mao, 2007; Zohar, 2005).

80  H. CHRIST-LAKIN and D. R. HESS

Wild (2008) designed a qualitative study on religious systems and coping tactics of chaplains. The findings from Wild’s research indicated that further study of spiritual intelligence is necessary. Amram (2009) studied the contribution of EQ and SQ to effective leadership of 42 business CEOs and 210 employees. Amram concluded that EQ and SQ contribute to effective leadership. Recommendations for future research include additional quantitative studies on EQ and SQ changing the organizations, locations, demographics and populations. Crichton (2008) conducted a qualitative study on the spiritual intelligence of six corporate leaders and concluded that leaders incorporate spiritual intelligence in business activities to lead successfully, improve manufacturing, and change corporate culture. Areas for future research include quantitative analysis of spiritual intelligence and leaders and additional qualitative studies, Wilson (2008) discovered a weak relationship among variables of leadership including spirituality and organizational performance and recommended further research on spirituality and organizational performance. King (2008) created and validated a Spiritual Intelligence Self-Report Inventory (SISRI) scale and proposed a four factor model of spiritual intelligence. Recommendations for future research included subsequent studies using the SISRI to interpret the proposed model of spiritual intelligence. Truongson (2007) found that United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) leaders use SQ qualities implicitly without full recognition of implementation of the SQ theories. Van der Walt (2006) conducted a descriptive study which proposed a model of spiritually intelligent organizational communication. Flurie (2006) proposed a theoretical framework that indicated a stage between transformational leadership and transcendental leadership, termed inspirational leadership. Further areas for study included inspirational leaders operating in a spiritual dimension and the complexity of inspirational leadership. Adams (2006) posited and proposed an integral, holistic, systemic, and theoretical approach to education that encompasses the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual. Additional areas for research included investigation into the correlation of integral intelligences, physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual. McEachern (2005) looked at inspiration and inspirational leadership in the workplace in terms of how it informs leadership practices and transformational results. Recommendations for future research included studies of emotional and spiritual intelligence for increased individual and organizational effectiveness. Sawyer (2004) looked at transformative learning, development, and spiritual growth in higher education. The conclusion pointed to an interdependence of the intellect, emotions, and spirituality.

Transformational Leadership and Spiritual Intelligence   81

Mull (2004) looked at spiritual intelligence in psychotherapy with grieving clients. Suggestions for further research included a quantitative examination of spiritual intelligence for patterns. Colalillo (2002) looked at awakening creativity and spiritual intelligence within the context of educators’ work. Delaney (2002) proposed the emergent construct of spiritual intelligence as the synergy of science and spirit within the role of healing. Further areas for research included a closer examination of spiritual intelligence and the role in healing. Bowling (1998) examined spirituality based on Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences and defended the concept of spiritual intelligence in terms of Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory. Recommendations for further study included quantitative investigation of spiritual intelligence. Studies of spirituality and spiritual intelligence have been almost entirely qualitative in nature. Only a few quantitative or mixed method studies on spiritual intelligence have been conducted. None of them have addressed business leaders and none have specifically addressed the link between measures of transformational leadership and spiritual intelligence. Quantitative research on the topic of spirituality as it relates to leadership and to organizations has been neglected (Heaton et al., 2004; Korac-Kakabadse et al., 2002; Neal & Biberman, 2004). This research study was undertaken to address the need for quantitative research regarding the relationship between transformational leadership and spiritual intelligence. The purpose of this research study was to determine the nature of the relationship between transformational leadership, as measured by the MLQ-5X, and spiritual intelligence, as measured by the PsychoMatrix Spiritual Inventory (PSI).

Research Questions Three research questions guided the development of the research study. (1) Is there a significant relationship between transformational leadership, as measured by the MLQ-5X, and the seven PSI scores on the PsychoMatrix Spiritual Inventory (PSI)? (2) After controlling for demographic variables, is there a significant relationship between transformational leadership, as measured by the MLQ-5X, and the seven PSI scores on the PsychoMatrix Spiritual Inventory (PSI)? (3) How do demographic variables moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and the seven scores on the PsychoMatrix Spiritual Inventory?

82  H. CHRIST-LAKIN and D. R. HESS

Theoretical Framework Transformational leadership theory has evolved in response to the changes in the workplace necessitating adaptability of both leaders and organizations (Bass, 1999; Tucker & Russell, 2004). Downton (1973) introduced the transformational leadership model in opposition to the transactional leadership model (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Downton’s ideas did not receive much notice until Burns (1978) further developed the transformational leader concept as applied to political leaders. Bass (1985) expanded the notion of transformational leadership to include performance improvement. Transformational leadership shifts the priorities of an organization to changes in leadership orientation and the organizational culture as the way to effect change (Bass & Avolio, 2004; Martin & Ernst, 2005). A transformational leader recognizes worker needs, yet attempts to develop the needs of followers progressively to higher levels of maturity (Bass & Avolio, 2004; Conger, 1999). Transformational leaders empower followers and invite direct worker participation. Transformational leaders encourage, direct, and inspire innovation and creativity, thus facilitating the ability of the organization to adapt to continuous changes (Tucker & Russell, 2004). Transformational leaders create strong relationships within the workforce that can lead to improved job performance and superior organizational performance (Mohamed, Wisnieki, Askar, & Syed, 2004). Spiritual intelligence has been validated in the context of multiple intelligences (Hamer, 2005; Persinger, 1996; Ramachandran, 1999; Singer & Gray, 1995). At the beginning of the 20th century the concept of intelligence referred to intelligence quotient (IQ) (Binet, 1909); As scholars continued to debate and study the concept of intelligence, Gardner (1983, 1993, 2004) proposed the theory of multiple intelligences. Gardner’s model contained eight different kinds of interrelated and interconnected intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and existential. The basis for spiritual intelligence theory partially exists in Gardner’s (1983) existential theory of intelligence. A next step in the evolution of theories about intelligence was Goleman’s (1995) concept of emotional intelligence (EQ). Emotional intelligence is a combination of Gardner’s (1993) intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences. Subsequently, several scholars introduced the concept of spiritual intelligence (Emmons, 2000a, 2000b; Wolman, 2001; Zohar & Marshall, 2000). As noted previously, the basis for spiritual intelligence theory partially exists in Gardner’s (1993) existential theory of intelligence. Zohar (2005) discussed three types of intelligence: IQ (rational intelligence), EQ (emotional intelligence), and SQ (spiritual intelligence). Vaughn (2002) referred to spiritual intelligence in the context of multiple

Transformational Leadership and Spiritual Intelligence   83

intelligences and viewed spiritual intelligence as integrating mind and spirit with the work environment. Recent brain research has suggested evidence giving validity to a theory of spiritual intelligence (Hamer, 2005; Persinger, 1996; Ramachandran, 1999; Singer & Gray, 1995). Important controversies are embedded in discussions of transformational leadership and spiritual intelligence. Experts have debated the best leadership style for decades (Conger, 1999). Critics regard transformational leadership as a deficient model devoid of authenticity for true and lasting change saying that transformational leadership has deviated from the true intent of Burns’ (1978) original theory, no longer includes motives, and does not promote a spiritually based theory of leadership (Fry & Whittington, 2005). Scholars also disagree about the definition of intelligence (Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009; Bowling, 1998) and on the concept of spirituality as intelligence (Dawkins, 2006).

Methodology Participants The population included approximately 400 members of an Armed Forces Reserve Center in the southwest. A convenience sample of 115 study participants was obtained for the study. A correlational design done as survey research was utilized to determine the nature of the relationship between transformational leadership and spiritual intelligence. Instrumentation The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) created by Bass and Avolio (2004) was used to measure the presence of transformational leadership qualities. The 45-item MLQ-5X is a well-known and studied measure of transformational leadership that measures five areas of transformational leadership: idealized attributes, idealized behaviors, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and inspirational motivation (Bass & Avolio, 2004). The PsychoMatrix Spiritual Inventory (PSI) developed by Wolman (2001) was used to measure spiritual intelligence. The PSI is an 80-item questionnaire with scores ranging from 80 to 320. The PSI measures seven factors of spiritual intelligence: divinity, mindfulness, extrasensory perception, community, intellectuality, trauma, and childhood spirituality.

84  H. CHRIST-LAKIN and D. R. HESS

Each of these components could have a potential relationship or link to transformational leadership. Wolman defined spiritual intelligence as “the human capacity to ask ultimate questions about the meaning of life and to simultaneously experience the seamless connection between each of us and the world in which we live” (pp. 83-84). Data Collection and Analysis Data was collected at an Armed Forces Reserve Center. Participants completed two paper-based surveys: the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) and the PsychoMatrix Spiritual Inventory (PSI). Demographic data was analyzed using descriptive statistics including frequency distributions and measures of central tendency. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were conducted for the interval/ratio level variables. Bivariate comparisons were performed using Spearman’s rank correlations. Spearman’s rank correlations and partial correlations were used to determine the relationship between transformational leadership and spiritual intelligence as a whole and the components of spiritual intelligence and transformational leadership. Partial correlations were utilized to determine the relationship between PSI factors and MLQ transformational leadership scores controlling for demographic variables. Results The percentage of men (73%) in the survey greatly exceeded the percentage of women (27%). A majority was between the ages of 20 and 29 (53.9%). A majority had 1-5 years of supervisory experience (60%). A majority had 10 or less years of professional experience (73.9%). Many respondents had completed some college (47%) and several had college degrees (40%). The first research question addressed the relationship between transformational leadership, as measured by MLQ-5X transformational leadership survey, and spiritual intelligence, as measured by the PsychoMatrix Spiritual Inventory (PSI). A Spearman rank-ordered cor3.relation was used to address the hypothesis that the two variables were significantly related (Table 3.1). A significant, positive correlation was found (rs = .40, p < .001). Spiritual intelligence was found to have a significant positive correlation to transformational leadership. Scores on the MLQ-5X were then correlated with each of the 7 PSI factors in the PSI (Table 3.1). Significant correlations were found for each

Transformational Leadership and Spiritual Intelligence   85

of the 7 PSI factors. The single PSI factor of divinity had the strongest correlation (r =.40, p < .001). Intellectuality and extrasensory perception each had the next strongest correlation (r = .35, p