83
Chapter
6
Contemporary Theories
of Leadership
Brent J. Goertzen
A leader’s role is to raise people’s aspirations for what they can become and to release their
energies so they will try to get there.
David Gergen, director of the Center for Public Leadership,
Harvard Kennedy School (from http://www.leadershipnow.com)
O InTroduCTIon
The publication in 1978 of Leadership, James MacGregor
Burns’s bestselling book on political leadership, marked
a major transition in the development of leadership theory.
Much of the research in leadership since then has
been largely influenced by his definition of “transforming
leadership.” Burns was the first to conceptualize
leadership as a social process that involves both leaders
and followers interacting and working together to
achieve common interests and mutually defined ends.
His theory clearly elevated the significance of followers
and the leader–follower relationship in the leadership
equation.
This chapter reviews Burns’s transforming leadership
theory and subsequent research that emerged as a
result of his perspective. Also described are other contemporary
leadership theories that emphasize the importance
of the followers’ role in leadership, such as the
postindustrial paradigm of leadership, leader–member
exchange (LMX) theory, followership, and servant
leadership.
OTransformIng LeadershIp and
TransformaTIonaL LeadershIp
Transforming Leadership
Burns (1978) is credited with revolutionizing scholars’
and practitioners’ view of leadership. Burns defined
transforming leadership as occurring when “one or more
persons engage with others in such a way that leaders
and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation
and morality” (p. 20). Although initially starting
out separate (and perhaps even unrelated), the purposes
of both leaders and followers become fused. Leaders play
a major role in shaping the relationship with followers.
Burns believed that leaders are commonly more “skillful
in evaluating followers’ motives, anticipating their
responses to an initiative, and estimating their power
bases, than the reverse” (p. 20).
Transforming leadership has an elevating effect on
both the leader and the led because it raises the level of
human conduct and interaction. In the end, transforming
leadership is a moral process because leaders engage with
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
84 seCTIon 2: Leadership Theory
followers based on shared motives, values, and goals.
Transforming leadership contrasts with transactional
leadership, whereby the leadership relationship is limited
to the leader’s ability to appeal to followers’ self-interest
for the purpose of an exchange of valued things.
Burns asserts that only followers can ultimately
define their true needs. This implies that followers must
maintain freedom of choice between real alternatives.
Transforming leaders operate at the highest stages of
moral development. Burns (1978) asserted that transforming
leaders are “guided by near-universal ethical
principles of justice such as equality of human rights and
respect of individual dignity” (p. 42).
Nonetheless, transforming leadership is grounded in
conflict. Conflict is often compelling, because it galvanizes
and motivates people. Leaders do not shun conflict;
they embrace it by both shaping and mediating conflict.
Leaders are able to discern signs of dissatisfaction among
followers and take the initiative to make connections
with followers. The power in transforming leadership
comes by recognizing the varying needs and motives of
potential followers and elevating them to transcend personal
self-interests. Followers are mobilized by leaders’
ability to appeal to and strengthen those motives through
word and action.
Leadership Points to Ponder
Leadership is not magnetic personality that can just
as well be a glib tongue. It is not “making friends and
influencing people;” that is flattery. Leadership is lifting
a person’s vision to higher sights; the raising of a
person’s performance to a higher standard, the building
of a personality beyond its normal limitations.
Peter F. Drucker (from http://thinkexist.com)
Transformational Leadership
Bass (1985, 1996) built upon Burns’s (1978) original
ideas of transforming leadership. He began empirically
examining the theory and calling his revised theory
“transformational leadership.” These terms may seem
nearly identical. However, there is an important distinction
in that, whereas Burns’s theory focuses more on
social reform by moral elevation of followers’ values and
needs, Bass’s transformational leadership focuses more
on attaining practical organizational objectives (Yukl
2010).
Bass asserted that leaders demonstrating transformational
leadership typically engage in several categories of
behaviors. These behaviors typically enhance follower
motivation and performance.
According to Bass (1985), transformational leaders
are able to achieve three things: (1) make followers aware
of the importance of task outcomes, (2) induce followers
to transcend personal interest for the sake of the team or
organization, and (3) move followers toward higherorder
needs.
As a result, followers feel more confidence in the
leader and report feeling greater trust, admiration, loyalty,
and respect, especially when they are motivated to
do more than they originally expected. Although numerous
dimensions of transformational leader behaviors
have been theorized and researched, it is commonly
accepted that transformational leader behaviors comprise
four categories: (1) idealized influence, (2) individualized
consideration, (3) inspirational motivation, and (4) intellectual
stimulation (Bass, 1997).
Transactional leadership behaviors refer to activities
that help clarify expectations for direct reports, help
direct reports achieve desired rewards and avoid punishments,
and help facilitate desired outcomes (Avolio &
Bass, 1988). Transactional leader behaviors commonly
comprise three categories: (1) contingent reward, (2)
management by exception—active, and (3) management
by exception—passive.
Although transformational and transactional leader
behaviors are distinct, they are not necessarily mutually
exclusive. Effective leaders, Bass asserted, make use of
both types of leadership. Whereas transformational
leader behaviors enlist enthusiasm and commitment,
transactional leadership behaviors achieve compliance
with leader requests.
Recent versions of transformational and transactional
theory include a third category of leadership: laissezfaire.
This category represents an absence of effective
leadership and describes the type of leader who is passive
or indifferent to direct reports. Taken together, the three
meta-categories (transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire) are sometimes called the Full Range Leadership
model (Avolio, 1999; see Table 6-1).
Transformational and transactional leadership constitute
the most widely researched models of leadership.
They have been extensively studied in many different
organizational contexts (e.g., corporations, militaries,
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
85ChapTer 6: Contemporary Theories of Leadership
government agencies, schools, and universities; Lowe,
Kroeck, Sivasubramaniam, 1996) and cultures (e.g., the
United States, Mexico, China, Japan, Indonesia, and Germany;
Bass, 1997).
Transformational leadership is not limited to the
upper echelons of organizations. Lowe and coauthors
(1996) examined 23 published and unpublished studies
examining transformational and transactional leadership.
They found that leaders demonstrating transformational
leader behaviors were more effective than those
only demonstrating transactional leadership. Furthermore,
they found that transformational leader behaviors
were more common in public organizations compared
to private organizations as perceived by the leaders’
direct reports. The study also reported that leaders at
lower levels of organizational hierarchy were more likely
to demonstrate transformational leader behaviors compared
to executives holding higher-level positions. In
addition, transformational leadership has been related to
objective measures, such as financial performance (Rowold
& Heinitz, 2007), sales performance (Yammarino &
Dubinsky, 1994), and percent of goals met (Howell &
Avolio, 1993).
Extensive research has been conducted examining
the effect of transformational leader behaviors on followers
and organizational outcomes. For example, Organ,
Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006) found that transformational
leader behaviors effected organizational citizenship
behaviors among employees. Organizational citizenship
behaviors are discretionary behaviors that are outside
normal “in-role” job functions. In the aggregate, they
promote effective organizational functioning (Organ,
Table 6-1 Full Range Leadership Model
Transformational leadership
Idealized influence Leaders serve as outstanding role models for their followers. They display
conviction, emphasize important personal values, and connect those values
with organizational goals and ethical consequences of decisions.
Inspirational motivation Leaders articulate an appealing vision of the future and challenge followers’ high
standards and high expectations. Leaders provide encouragement, optimism,
and purpose for what needs to be done.
Intellectual stimulation Leaders question old assumptions and stimulate new perspectives and
innovative ways of doing things. They encourage followers to think creatively
to address current and future challenges.
Individualized consideration Leaders provide a supportive environment and carefully listen to followers’
needs. Leaders also advise, teach, or coach their followers with the intention of
advancing follower development.
Transactional leadership
Contingent reward Leaders offer followers rewards in exchange for desired efforts. Behaviors in this
category revolve around clarifying expectations and exchanging promises.
management by exception—active Leaders observe follower behavior and take corrective action when followers
deviate from expected performance.
management by exception—passive Leaders choose not to, or fail to, intervene until a problem becomes serious. In
essence, leaders do not intervene until a problem is brought to their attention.
Laissez-faire leadership (nonleadership)
Laissez-faire leadership Leaders avoid accepting responsibility and delay or even fail to follow up on
requests. This type of leader behavior also includes little or no effort to
address followers’ needs. It is essentially an absence of leadership.
Sources: adapted from Bass (1997) and Northouse (2007).
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
86 seCTIon 2: Leadership Theory
1988). Organ and coauthors (2006) reported that transformational
leadership directly influenced employee
“altruism” citizenship behaviors. However, they also
found that transformational leader behaviors directly
affect employees’ trust in their leader, which in turn also
enhances employees’ willingness to engage in other citizenship
behaviors, such as “sportsmanship,” “civic virtue,”
and “conscientiousness.”
Other studies explained the impact of transformational
leader behaviors on organizational outcomes differently.
One study found that transformational leader
behaviors directly affect employee “psychological capital”
(Gooty, Gavin, Johnson, Frazier, & Snow, 2009). Positive
psychological capital refers to positive-oriented
human resource strengths and psychological capacities
that improve the workplace (Luthans, 2002). These
capacities include the dimensions of hope, self-efficacy,
resiliency, and optimism. Psychological capital then
increases employees’ willingness to improve job performance
and organizational citizenship behaviors directed
at individuals and the organization (Gooty et al., 2009).
Bass (1997) reviewed literature that examined transformational
leadership across cultures. He reported that
although the mean and correlation strength may vary, the
general pattern of the relationships between the transformational
leader dimensions on measured outcomes (e.g.,
leader effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort) is the
same.
However, there may be cultural contingencies on
how each of the categories of transformational leader
behaviors may be demonstrated. Yokochi (1989)
reported that in a collectivist culture, such as Japan,
there is an expectation that leaders will use individualized
consideration. There is a mutual moral obligation
between leaders and followers. Leaders are expected to
help employees prepare for a career and counsel them
about personal problems, and followers reciprocate
with unquestioning loyalty and obedience. Additionally,
Bass (1997) reported on other studies conducted
across cultures that asked participants to describe their
prototypical leaders. Avolio and Bass (1990) conducted
extensive leadership development programs across the
globe (e.g., Canada, Italy, Israel, Sweden, and Austria)
and found that when individuals describe their ideal
leaders, they commonly express transformational leadership
qualities compared to transactional leadership
qualities.
O reLaTIonaL LeadershIp
Leader–member exchange
Original studies of LMX theory asserted that managers
develop differentiated relationships with direct reports
within their organizations. According to the theory,
managers develop high-quality relationships with only a
few, high-trust direct reports. Managers reporting highquality
relationships (in-groups) characterize the
exchange with high mutual respect, trust, and obligation
on one end of a continuum. Low-quality relationships
(out-groups), at the other end of the spectrum, are characterized
by a relatively low degree of mutual respect,
trust, and obligation (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975).
This theory was originally labeled “vertical dyad linkage”
because it focused on the reciprocal influence of managers
and their direct reports within vertical dyads whereby
one has direct authority over another (Yukl, 2010).
There are tremendous advantages for direct reports who
establish high-quality relationships. They tend to receive
more desirable tasks assignments; are delegated greater
authority; receive greater tangible rewards (e.g., pay
increases); and receive greater approval and support.
Scholars assert that the manager–direct report relationship
develops in a three-stage process described as a
“life cycle model” (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The
“stranger” stage begins when leaders and members first
come together. This relationship is purely contractual in
nature, whereby leaders provide members with what
they need, and members perform prescribed work activities.
In the “acquaintance” phase, the second of the life
cycle stages, there is an increase in social exchanges. The
relationship begins to transcend formal job requirements
as leaders and members share greater information on a
personal level, in addition to the work level. The third
and final phase is described as a “mature partnership.”
These exchanges are highly developed and characterized
by a mutual sense of trust, respect, and obligation. Participants
in such relationships can count on one another
for loyalty and support. How a dyad advances through
each of these stages varies. Some dyads may not progress
past the “stranger” phase and may maintain only the contractually
based relationship. Others may rapidly progress
to the “partnership” phase and achieve the
tremendous advantages of a mature relationship.
LMX theory is one of the most widely studied leadership
models. Gerstner and Day (1997) conducted a
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
87ChapTer 6: Contemporary Theories of Leadership
review of all published research on LMX and reported
that high-quality LMX was positively related to such variables
as performance ratings, objective performance,
satisfaction with supervisor, overall satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and role clarity. It was also positively
related to organizational citizenship behaviors
(Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Low-quality LMX
proved to be positively related to such variables as role
conflict and turnover intentions.
There are many factors that influence the development
of high-quality LMX. Research indicates that greater
demographic similarity between the manager and direct
reports, such as gender (Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986;
Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996), personality (Burns,
1995; Deluga, 1998), and attitudes (Dose, 1999; Steiner,
1988), were positively related to high-quality LMX.
Other research focused on leader characteristics, such as
attitudes, perceptions, and behavior, in the LMX relationship.
For example, leader qualities, such as trust-building
behavior (Deluga, 1994) and delegation (Bauer & Green,
1996), leader self-efficacy, and optimism (Murphy &
Ensher, 1999) were positively related to LMX quality.
Additional studies found that member characteristics,
such as extraversion (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994), locus of
control (Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994), self-efficacy (Murphy
& Ensher, 1999), ingratiation (Deluga & Perry, 1994;
Wayne, Liden, & Sparrowe, 1994), “in-role” behavior
(Basu & Green, 1995), and subordinate performance
(Basu & Green, 1995; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993)
were positively related to LMX quality. Finally, research
examined the role of situational variables in the development
of LMX. Perceived organizational support was positively
related to high-quality LMX (Wayne, Shore, &
Liden, 1997). Unit size was negatively related to highquality
LMX (Green et al., 1996). This means that the
larger the departmental unit, the less likely leaders were
to develop high-quality LMX relationships.
Leadership Points to Ponder
The single biggest way to impact an organization is to
focus on leadership development. There is almost no
limit to the potential of an organization that recruits
good people, raises them up as leaders and continually
develops them.
John C. Maxwell
The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork (2001, p. 185)
People who have studied LMX have sought to assist
managers in developing high-quality relationships with
all members (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Expanding
high-quality LMX beyond the typical select few who
develop naturally provides two valuable benefits. First,
it increases the perception of fairness among members
and decreases suspicions of favoritism. Second, it
increases the potential for “effective leadership and
expanded organizational capability” (p. 229). Realistically,
managers still develop differing relationships with
their direct reports. Although theoretical models propose
potential organizational (e.g., organizational culture
and organizational structure), group (e.g.,
composition and size), and individual (e.g., leadership
style and employees’ desire for a high-quality relationship)
antecedents to LMX differentiation and potential
outcomes (Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, & Chaudhry,
2009), further research is required to understand how
these many different elements affect the development of
LMX differentiation.
It is important to note that nearly all of the theory
development and research examining LMX quality has
been performed with the assumption of hierarchical relationships
based on formal authority and reporting structures.
Research is beginning to integrate both formally
structured and informal relationships. Sparrowe and
Liden (1997) theorized that leaders’ and members’ informal
social networks affect the quality of LMX. Each is
able to incorporate the other, through introductions and
referrals, to their respective network of trusted contacts.
As result, the added relational resources were theorized
to enhance the work-related outcomes of the dyad members.
Further, Balkundi, and Kilduff (2005) asserted that
the range of one’s social network across organizational
boundaries will enhance personal benefits and organizational
outcomes.
Research supports the notion that the breadth of one’s
informal social network positively affects LMX quality
when the other member of the dyad is frequently sought
for advice (Goodwin, Bowler, & Whittington, 2008). This
indicates that leaders also recognize the value of members’
social networks to the workings of the organization. Additionally,
group leaders who were well connected in a
friendship network of their peers at the same level in the
organization outperformed their peers who were not as
highly connected (Mehra, Dixon, Brass, & Robertson,
2006). This was likely because highly connected leaders
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
88 seCTIon 2: Leadership Theory
have “better and faster access to information, advice and
support” (p. 74).
Relational leadership is another emerging view of
leadership that focuses on processes, not on persons, by
which “leadership is produced and enabled” (Uhl-Bien,
2006). Relational leadership theory is defined as “a social
influence process through which emergent conditions
(i.e., evolving social order) and change (i.e., new values,
attitudes, approaches, behaviors, ideologies, etc.) are
constructed and produced” (p. 668). It assumes that
leadership can occur in any direction. From this perspective,
“it is possible to see relationships other than those
built from hierarchy . . . and to envision transformational
phenomenon where the social change process occurs
well outside the normal assumptions of command and
control (Murrell, 1997, p. 39).
Although the knowledge gained from these studies
and insights developed from theoretical models proves
fruitful for leader–member relationships in the context of
organizations, the understanding of leader–member relationships
based on informal networks and other relationships
that transcend organizations in community-level
leadership initiatives is severely limited. One can draw
inferences from the current LMX literature and other
relational leadership theory, but further research is
required to more comprehensively understand the process
of how relationships develop and their role in the
leadership process.
O posT IndusTrIaL LeadershIp
Joseph Rost (1993) is credited with shifting scholars’ focus
from what he described as the industrial paradigm of leadership
theory to the postindustrial paradigm. The subject
of leadership did not exist before the 1890s, and the study
of leadership has been a predominantly twentieth-century
phenomena (Rost, 1997). Since that time, the basic ideas
of leadership, in his view, had not changed much. He
sharply criticized the popular assumptions about leadership
at the time, which he described as (1) leadership is
what great people do, (2) leadership and management are
interchangeable, and (3) the terms “leadership” and
“leader” are synonymous.
The concept of leadership in the industrial paradigm
was bound up with what leaders do; the assumption was
that no one else mattered. Therefore, followers had nothing
to do with leadership and were typically perceived as
being passive, submissive, and directed. After conducting
an exhaustive review of leadership theory and research,
Rost summarized the industrial paradigm definition of
leadership as: “great men and women with certain preferred
traits influencing followers to do what the leaders
wish in order to achieve group/organizational goals that
reflect excellence defined as some kind of higher-order
effectiveness” (Rost, 1993, p. 180).
Rost contrasted the industrial paradigm of leadership
with the radically different approach in the postindustrial
age, which characterized leadership as
relationship-based and focused on the noncoercive interaction
of leaders and followers who develop common
interests. Based on this perspective, Rost redefined leadership
as “an influence relationship among leaders and
followers who intend real changes that reflect their
mutual purposes” (Rost, 1993, p. 102). There are four
critical elements that comprise this definition of leadership,
and each component is essential in understanding
the postindustrial perspective: (1) the relationship is
based on influence, (2) leaders and followers are participants
in this relationship, (3) leaders and followers intend
real changes, and (4) leaders and followers develop
mutual purposes.
Leadership Points to Ponder
You must unite your constituents around a common
cause and connect with them as human beings.
James Kouzes and Barry Posner
(from http://www.youreffectiveleadership.com)
relationships Based on Influence
A leadership relationship must be based on influence,
which is characterized as a process of using persuasion to
affect other people. Although persuasion is largely composed
of rational discourse, it may also include other
aspects of “power resources,” such as content of the message,
purpose, symbolic interaction, perception, and
motivation. Influence relationships are multidirectional,
meaning they involve interactions that are vertical, horizontal,
diagonal, and circular. This implies that anyone
can be a leader or a follower, because leaders persuade
followers and followers influence leaders. In the postindustrial
paradigm, leaders and followers can actually
switch places. Furthermore, relationships based on influence
are inherently noncoercive. Coercion is antithetical
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
89ChapTer 6: Contemporary Theories of Leadership
to leadership because, according to Rost, it relies on
authority or a power relationship that is dictatorial. Rost
(1993) described dictatorial relationships as using people
as objects, not as persons. As such, dictatorial relationships
keep people in subservient roles. Freedom is necessary
in influence relationships.
Leaders and followers are participants
Leadership is a social process; therefore, leaders interact
with other people. In the postindustrial paradigm, followers
are no longer viewed as “the sweaty masses” or
willing to let other people control their lives. Rather, followers
must be active participants in the leadership process.
Followers may fall anywhere on the continuum of
the level of activity, but the important point is their willingness
to be involved in the process and engage their
power resources to influence other people. According to
Rost (1993), followers do not “do followership.” Rather,
the interactions between leaders and followers comprise
the leadership relationship. This does not mean that leaders
and followers are equal in this relationship. Typically,
leaders have more influence because they are willing to
share (or perhaps even risk) more power resources than
followers. However, there may be times when followers
exert more influence in the relationship, particularly
when they seize the initiative and drive the purposes in
the relationship.
participants Intend real Change
There are two critical terms in this component of Rost’s
definition of leadership: intend and real. “Intend” indicates
that leaders and followers are purposeful and desire
certain changes in an organization or society. Because
persons typically evaluate others’ intentions by their
words and deeds, intention must be demonstrated by
action. The word “real” means that the purposes intended
by leaders and followers must be significant and transforming.
The postindustrial definition of leadership does
not require participants to produce the changes for leadership
to occur. Whereas intended changes are in the
present and changes actually take place in the future (if
at all), Rost’s definition focuses more on the leadership
process than the actual product or outcomes of the process.
“A relationship wherein leaders and followers intend
real changes but are unsuccessful or ineffective, or
achieve only minimum changes, is still leadership” (Rost,
1993, p. 116).
Changes reflect mutual Interests
The final component of the postindustrial paradigm of
leadership focuses on mutual purposes. For purposes to
be mutual, they cannot rely solely on what leaders want
or only on what the followers want. These mutual purposes
emerge only through repeated and numerous interactions
between leaders and followers. Rost carefully
chooses the term “purposes” rather than “goals” because
purposes are generally considered broader and more
holistic and more closely related to the terms “vision” or
“mission.” Through noncoercive influence relationships,
leaders and followers come to agreement and forge common
interests and mutual purposes (Rost, 1997).
Proponents of the postindustrial paradigm of leadership
also criticize leadership models purporting to view
leadership as a social process, such as theories that focus
on the dyadic relationship (e.g., LMX) between managers
and their direct reports (Barker, 1997).
This concept of leadership is founded in the feudal
touchstone of citizenship: one’s relationship with
one’s king. This relationship implies several assumptions:
(a) that the king deserves allegiance by virtue
of rank, (b) that there is a natural, hierarchical difference
in status, intelligence, and ability, (c) and
that the subject’s role is to serve the king’s wishes.
(Barker, 1997, p. 350)
Barker differentiated leadership as a social relationship
and leadership as a social process. He asserted that
leadership as a social relationship tends to be contractual
in nature based on role expectations. However, leadership
as a social process, which includes social relationships,
is much broader in that it provides flexibility in the
creation of new relationships, roles, and expectations
where none may have existed. These relationships look
far beyond hierarchical, organizational structures to
include informal social networks (within and outside an
organizational context) and intraorganizational relationships,
among other types of relationships not based on
formal authority connections. Barker likened the leadership
process to a river:
Contained by its bed (the culture), it can be said to be
flowing in one direction, yet, upon close examination,
parts of it flow sideways, in circles, or even backwards
relative to the overall direction. It is constantly
changing in speed and strength, and even reshapes its
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
90 seCTIon 2: Leadership Theory
own container. Under certain conditions, it is very
unified in direction and very powerful; under other
conditions it may be weak or may flow in many
directions at once. (Barker, 1997, p. 352)
The postindustrial paradigm of leadership developed
by Rost and others has tremendous intuitive and practical
appeal and offers valuable potential for leadership
education. Effective leadership curricula ought to include
three broad categories: (1) evolution of social change and
development, (2) processes influencing social change,
and (3) dynamics of human nature in change processes
(Rost & Barker, 2000).
Unfortunately, scholars have been slow to embrace
the postindustrial paradigm of leadership. One recent
study examined historical records to describe the context
and process of the Nez Perce leadership council as an
exemplar of the paradigm (Humphreys, Ingram, Kernek,
& Sadler, 2007). However, few have empirically investigated
it to confirm or disprove the veracity of its components.
Perhaps this perspective of leadership does not
lend itself well to rational, scientific inquiry. If leadership
is defined as a social process (as identified by Barker),
one must view relationships and their potential creation
and dissolution as a rather nebulous construct. This
causes tremendous challenges for scholars
applying the scientific method to not only
describe its nature, but also predict potential
antecedents and outcomes.
O foLLowershIp
To raise the importance of the role of followers
in the leadership process, researchers
have proposed several theories that describe
the leadership capacities of followers. This is
not to minimize the relevance of leaders, but
rather to enhance the understanding of the
vital role that followers play in the leadership
relationship.
effective followership
Kelley (1988) asserted that what differentiated
effective from ineffective followers were
their enthusiasm, intelligence, and selfreliant
participation. He described a twodimensional
model that explained follower
behavior. The first dimension describes the degree to
which followers exercise independent and critical thinking.
The second ranks them on a passive–active scale.
Based on the two dimensions, four categories of followers
emerge (Figure 6-1).
Sheep, according to Kelley, are passive and are generally
unwilling to accept responsibility. They typically
complete tasks given to them but rarely demonstrate initiative
beyond those tasks. “Yes” people are more involved
but are equally unwilling to demonstrate innovation or
creativity. Alienated followers express critical and independent
thinking but are passive in their roles; at some
point, they were turned off. Although they rarely openly
oppose the leader, they are often cynical and disgruntled.
At the center of the diagram are survivors. They tend to
adapt and survive change well but often live by the slogan
“better safe than sorry.” Effective followers, at the
upper right quadrant of the diagram, effectively think for
themselves in carrying out tasks and bring energy and
enthusiasm while demonstrating initiative and assertiveness.
Four qualities are shared by effective followers:
(1) they manage themselves well; (2) they are committed
to the organization or purpose outside themselves;
(3) they build their competence; and (4) they are courageous,
credible, and honest.
Independent, Critical Thinking
Dependent, Uncritical Thinking
Passive Active
Alienated
Followers
Effective
Followers
Sheep “Yes” People
Survivors
Source: Kelley (1998).
figure 6-1 Follower behavior.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
91ChapTer 6: Contemporary Theories of Leadership
Effective followers tend to be actively involved in the
life of the organization. They openly disagree with the
leader and are not intimidated by hierarchy. Because they
demonstrate initiative, they rarely need elaborate supervisory
systems. Effective followers display commitment
to a cause, product, or idea; however, they temper their
loyalties to satisfy organizational needs.
Effective followers master important knowledge and
skills necessary for their organization. These followers
happily take on extra work that stretches their current
capacities because they do not mind chancing failure.
Further, effective followers establish themselves as credible
and trustworthy and hold to ethical standards in
which they believe.
Leadership Points to Ponder
The signs of outstanding leadership appear primarily
among the followers. Are the followers reaching their
potential? Are they learning? Serving? Do they
achieve the required results? Do they change with
grace? Manage conflict?
Max De Pree (from Leadership is an Art, 2004)
Courageous followership
Challeff (1995) also asserted that “follower” is not a synonym
for “subordinate.” Followers are effective stewards
for the organization and its resources. Challeff describes
five dimensions of courage that are essential to effective
followership:
1. Courage to assume responsibility: followers who
discover and create new opportunities for
themselves. They do not take a paternalistic view of
their organization whereby they expect their
supervisors to provide for their growth or
permission to act.
2. Courage to serve: followers who are willing to work
hard and serve their leader and organization.
Effective followers display numerous behaviors in
this dimension of courageous followership. For
instance, followers can help the leader define and
communicate the vision of the organization to all
levels (Challeff, 2002). Courage to serve can also
encompass behaviors intended to “conserve the
leader’s energy” by perhaps serving as a buffer and
managing crises on the leader’s behalf.
3. Courage to challenge: followers who engage in
potential conflict as they voice their sense of what
is right. Effective followers may risk rejection but
nonetheless are willing to stand up for their beliefs.
Although courageous followers value organizational
harmony, they are willing to confront when
individual or organizational activities violate the
common purpose or integrity.
4. Courage to participate in transformation: followers
who are involved in organizational transformation.
Courageous followers may even serve as champions
of organizational change, while still struggling with
the discomfort and disequilibrium of the change
process themselves.
5. Courage to take moral action: followers who know
when to take a stand that is different from that of
their leaders. This dimension of courage may put
followers at risk because they may refuse a direct
order, may seek to go above the leader’s head, or
may submit a resignation. Courageous followers are
motivated by a higher purpose and are unwilling to
compromise moral principles even in the face of
tremendous risk to themselves.
Challeff described courageous followers as possessing
tremendous power. Granted, followers do not
possess formal power equal to that of leaders (1995).
However, courageous followers appeal to other sources
of power that are quite different from those of the leader.
There is a wide range of followers’ power:
O Power of purpose, common good
O Power of knowledge, skills, or resources
O Power of personal history, record of personal
success in the organization
O Power of faith in self, integrity, commitment
O Power to speak the truth
O Power to set a standard that influences others
O Power to choose how to react in situations
regardless of what is done or threatened
O Power to follow (or not)
O Power of relationships and networks
O Power to communicate through many channels
O Power to organize others
O Power to withdraw support
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
92 seCTIon 2: Leadership Theory
Numerous other conceptual models regarding effective
followership have been published in the academic
literature and popular press. Baker (2007) reviewed the
various followership models and discovered that they
shared four primary themes. First, followers and leaders
are roles, not people with inherent characteristics. Most
individuals, regardless of their positions in an organizational
structure, have played the roles of both follower
and leader in their organizations. Second, followers are
active, not passive. This is contrary to popular views that
followers are passive, obedient sheep. Demonstrating followership
requires both parties (leaders and followers) to
be active participants in the leader–follower relationship.
Third, followers and leaders share a common purpose.
Common purpose emerges out of an interdependent
leader–follower relationship. Participants in followership
remain committed to organizational goals. Finally, followership
is built on the relational nature of both leaders
and followers. The relationship is a two-way influence
process. This collaborative partnership values the contributions
of both leaders and followers.
Howell and Shamir (2005) contended that “understanding
followers is as important as understanding leaders”
(p. 110). Yukl (2010) rightly asserted that theories
focusing almost exclusively on leaders or on followers are
limiting, especially compared to more balanced explanations.
Nonetheless, followership offers useful insights by
describing qualities that are important for followers to be
effectively engaged in the leadership process.
O servanT LeadershIp
Greenleaf (1977) proposed the concept of servant leadership.
For Greenleaf, the primary responsibility of leaders
is to provide service to others. Spears (1995) asserted
that the servant leader emphasizes “service to others, a
holistic approach to work, a sense of community, and
shared decision making power” (pp. 3–4). For the servant
leader, taking care of other people’s needs takes
highest priority. Greenleaf (1977) described a series of
questions that serve as a litmus test of the servant leader:
“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 of society; will
they benefit, or at least, not be further deprived?” (pp.
13–14).
Servant leadership, in essence, is a philosophic
approach to life and work. Put differently, Spears (1995)
stated, “at its core, servant-leadership is a long-term,
transformational approach to life and work, in essence, a
way of being that has the potential to create positive
change throughout society” (p. 4). Servant leadership is a
long-term pursuit of the improvement of corporate cultures
and is not consistent with short-run profit motives
(Giampetro-Meyer, Brown, Browne, & Kubasek, 1998).
Spears built on Greenleaf’s original writing by identifying
10 characteristics of the servant leader.
1. Listening: The deep, heartfelt commitment to
listening intently to others.
2. Empathy: Recognizing and accepting people for
their special talents, gifts, and unique spirit.
3. Healing: People may have broken spirits or a
variety of emotional hurts, thus an essential gift of
the servant leader is not only to heal one’s self, but
also to assist in the healing of others.
4. Awareness: Refers primarily to self-awareness,
which aides and strengthens the servant leader by
providing an understanding of issues from a welldeveloped
sense of ethics and values.
5. Persuasion: Servant leaders seek to convince rather
than coerce and can be thought of as a “gentle
persuasion” by challenging others to think of issues
in different perspectives.
6. Conceptualization: The capacity to “dream great
dreams.” The servant leader is able to envision the
future not only in the context of the individual,
work group, or organization, but also within the
context of the societal realm.
7. Foresight: The ability that enables servant leaders to
glean lessons from the past, within the realities of
the present, and understand potential consequences
of future decisions.
8. Stewardship: The perspective that corporate
institutions play a significant and vital role in
affecting the greater good of society.
9. Commitment to growth of people: Every individual
has an intrinsic worth beyond their contributions as
workers. Servant leaders seek the holistic growth
and development of others.
10. Building community: The servant leader takes
advantage of opportunities to create community in
the context of the given work institution.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
93ChapTer 6: Contemporary Theories of Leadership
Leadership Points to Ponder
We must be silent before we can listen.
We must listen before we can learn.
We must learn before we can prepare.
We must prepare before we can serve.
We must serve before we can lead.
William Arthur Ward (from http://thinkexist.com)
Graham (1991) compared and contrasted servant
leadership with other popular theories of leadership to
explain the moral gaps in the other leadership theories.
“Weberian charismatic authority” refers to individuals
who gain and maintain their authority by proving their
powers to be a divinely inspired mission (Weber, 1978).
The genuineness of charismatic leaders’ authority rests
on how well they provide for the well-being of followers.
Charismatic authority often emerges from periods of tremendous
crisis, such as great socioeconomic unrest,
when traditional authorities fail to meet people’s needs.
Charismatic leaders offer a “divinely inspired” vision and
perhaps even practical solutions with them in charge
(Tucker, 1968).
Personal celebrity charisma is a slightly different version
of charismatic leadership. House (1977) asserted
that it required four personal characteristics: “dominance,
self-confidence, need for influence, and a strong
conviction in the moral righteousness of his or her
beliefs” (p. 205). Leaders with personal celebrity charisma
commonly occupy higher levels of organizations
with greater visibility. Followers are more likely to attribute
the “aura of magic” to those who are at greater organizational
distance because, according to Katz and Kahn
(1978), intimacy destroys the illusion. Followers of this
type of leader often respond with adulation and emulation,
but over time followers become addicted to passivity
(Graham, 1991).
Transformational leadership incorporated some
principles of charismatic leadership theory but added
leader behaviors, such as individualized consideration
and intellectual stimulation. These changes in leadership
theory occurred because scholars began to recognize and
value the contributions of followers by recognizing that
subordinates (often labeled as “followers”) were educated
with the capacity for creativity. However, there is nothing
in transformational leadership that says leaders should
serve the good of followers (Graham, 1991). Transformational
leaders are typically more concerned with organizational
goals.
Servant leadership, according to Graham (1991),
restores the moral compass articulated by Burns’s (1978)
perspective of “transforming leadership.” Burns asserted
that effective (transforming) leaders focus on the ethical
aspirations of both the leader and the led and stress endvalues,
such as liberty, justice, and equality. Servant leadership
addresses this issue by focusing on the
leader–follower relationship and on the ideal of service.
Graham (1991) asserted, “leaders who not only listen to
subordinates and other stakeholders, but allow themselves
to be influenced by what they hear, are more powerful
than those who rule by fiat” (p. 112). Servant
leadership extends Bass’s (1985, 1988) theory of transformational
leadership in two ways: it recognizes the
social responsibility in the call to serve, and it answers
the question, Why should people grow even if they do
not want to? (Graham, 1991). Greenleaf’s (1977) claim
that people should be served by someone who influences
them to become wiser, freer, and more autonomous “is to
say that it is in people’s interest to change in those ways”
(Graham, 1991, p. 113; Table 6-2).
Servant leadership may be effective leadership theory
that possesses nearly universal cultural appeal. Servant
leaders focus more on humility, the needs of others,
and higher-order values, such as duty and social responsibility,
than on self-interest. Humane orientation refers
to the concern for the welfare of other people and willingness
to sacrifice self-interest to help others (House,
Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). As such,
Winston and Ryan (2008) persuasively argue that servant
leadership is compatible with the humane-oriented culture
that resonates with some African (Ubuntu, Harambee),
East Asian (Taoist, Confucianism), Mediterranean
(Jewish), and Indian (Hindu) cultures.
Unfortunately, servant leadership has limited empirical
research to support its effectiveness. Yukl (2010)
noted that much of the evidence for servant leadership is
based on anecdotal accounts and case studies of leaders
or organizations. Only recently have questionnaires been
created (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Liden, Wayne, Zhao,
& Henderson, 2008); however, they are at the early
stages of development.
The few empirical studies that have been published
suggest that servant leadership may be a promising
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
94 seCTIon 2: Leadership Theory
leadership perspective. Dimensions of servant leadership
are related to positive outcomes in job performance,
organizational commitment, and community commitment
(Liden et al., 2008). In another study, elements of
servant leadership were positively related to other organizational
outcomes, such as extra effort, employee satisfaction,
and organizational effectiveness (Barbuto &
Wheeler, 2006). Nonetheless, further research is required
to confirm the effectiveness of servant leadership.
O summary
Burns revolutionized the understanding of effective leadership
by conceptualizing it as transforming, a condition
that occurs when “one or more persons engage with
others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one
another to higher levels of motivation and morality”
(1978, p. 20). This view lifts up the role of the follower
to active participant in the leadership process. Followers
are active in that they engage with leaders to develop
mutual interests based on common values and needs.
The work of Bass and others refined Burns’s concept
of leadership and differentiated transformational leadership
from transactional leadership. Transactional leadership
refers to activities aimed at helping to clarify
expectations and desired outcomes. It comprises categories
of behaviors, such as contingent reward, management
by exception—active, and management by
exception—passive. Transformational leader behaviors,
however, are intended to help instill confidence and
enthusiasm in followers to rise above (transcend) what
Table 6-2 Comparison of “Charismatic” Leadership Models
weberian
Charismatic
authority
Celebrity-Based
Charisma
Transformational
Leadership servant Leadership
Source of charisma Divine gift Personality; social
distance
Leader training and skills Humility, spiritual insight
Situational context Socioeconomic
distress of followers
Low self-esteem of
followers
Unilateral (hierarchical)
power
Relational (mutual) power
Nature of
charismatic gift
Visionary solution to
distress
Daring; dramatic flair;
forcefulness;
appealing vision
Vision for organization;
adept at human
resource management
Vision and practice of a
way of life focused on
service
Response of
followers
Recognition of
genuine divine gift
Adulation of and
identification with
leader
Heightened motivation;
extra effort
Emulation of leader’s
service orientation
Consequences of
charisma
Followers’ material
well-being improved
Codependent
relationship with
leader perpetuated
Leader or organizational
goals met; personal
development of
followers
Autonomy and moral
development of
followers; enhancement
of common good
Applicability to work
organizations
No Yes Yes Yes
Representative
authors and
concepts
Tucker; Weber Conger & Kanungo;
House; Howell’s
“personalized
charisma”; Schiffer
Bass & associates;
Bradford & Cohen;
Howell’s “socialized
charisma”
Burns’s “transforming
leaders”; Greenleaf
Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 107, Graham, Jill W. (1991) Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. reprinted with permission from
elsevier.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
95ChapTer 6: Contemporary Theories of Leadership
they believe they would normally be capable of doing.
Categories of transformational leader behaviors include
idealized influence, individualized consideration, inspirational
motivation, and intellectual stimulation.
Rost strongly criticized much of the prior leadership
theory and scholarship by characterizing it as largely
developed from an industrial paradigm. He asserted that
scholars and practitioners of leadership need to reconceptualize
it for the postindustrial age in which we live.
He defined the postindustrial paradigm of leadership as
“an influence relationship among leaders and followers
who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes”
(1993, p. 102). Rost’s paradigm comprises four
critical elements: (1) leadership is based on influence
(not coercion or authority); (2) leaders and followers are
people in this relationship; (3) leaders and followers
intend real change; and (4) leaders and followers develop
mutual interests.
With the elevated status of the important role of followers,
several models have sought to explain the specific
roles of followers. According to Kelley (1988), effective
followers manage themselves well, are committed to the
organization or purposes outside themselves, build their
own competence, and are credible and honest. Challeff
(1995) also described the courage that effective followers
must demonstrate. His model depicted effective followers
as displaying the courage to assume responsibility, the
courage to serve, the courage to challenge, the courage to
participate in transformation, and the courage to take
moral action.
Developed by Greenleaf, servant leadership is a
model of leadership that describes leaders who are motivated
primarily by providing service to others and taking
care of other people’s needs first. According to Greenleaf,
the ultimate test of a servant leader is whether those being
served were likely to “become healthier, wiser, freer,
more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants”
(Greenleaf, 1977, pp. 13–14). Spears asserted that
servant leadership requires “service to others, a holistic
approach to work, a sense of community, and shared
decision making power” (1995, pp. 3–4). Spears built on
Greenleaf’s original writing by identifying 10 characteristics
of the servant leader: (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3)
healing, (4) awareness, (5) persuasion, (6) conceptualization,
(7) foresight, (8) stewardship, (9) commitment to
growth of people, and (10) building community.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
96
O aCTIvITy
Transformational Leadership
Select a leader you consider to be highly effective. The
person you select could be from your work or
organization.
Describe the leader.
1. Explain how the leader is emotionally expressive.
2. Describe how clearly the leader articulates a vision
for the future.
3. Detail how the leader communicates optimism and
confidence in followers to achieve excellence.
4. Illustrate how the leader displays exceptional
conceptual skills in approaching challenges in novel
and unique ways.
5. Explain how the leader is able to draw out the best
from the followers.
Describe the reaction of followers.
1. Elaborate on the followers’ reaction to the leader.
2. Are followers likely to respect and admire the
leader? Explain.
3. Does the leader instill pride in the followers? How
does this occur?
4. Are followers more enthusiastic and eager for the
work to be done? Explain.
5. Are the followers willing to exert extra effort for
the leader?
6. Explain how the leader inspires innovative thinking
to problems.
Leader–member relationships
Ask three employees in your organization (individuals
who report directly to you) to complete the following
survey regarding the quality of LMX (Figure 6-2).
Answer the reflection questions.
1. Describe the highlights of your employees’
perceptions regarding the LMX quality with you.
2. Which specific areas of your relationship with them
could be improved?
3. What steps can you take to help improve the
quality of LMX with your employees during the
next month?
Chapter
6
wrap-up
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
97ChapTer 6: Wrap-Up
affect
1. I like my supervisor very much as a person. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. My supervisor is the kind of person I would like to
have as a friend.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Loyalty
4. My supervisor defends my work actions to a
superior, even without complete knowledge of the
issue in question.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. My supervisor would come to my defense if I were
“attacked” by others.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. My supervisor would defend me to others in the
organization if I made an honest mistake.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Contribution
7. I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond
what is specified in my job description.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
8. I am willing to apply extra effort, beyond those
normally required, to meet my supervisor’s work
goals.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. I do not mind working my hardest for my
supervisor.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
professional respect
10. I am impressed with my supervisor’s knowledge of
his/her job.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. I respect my supervisor’s knowledge of and
competence on the job.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. I admire my supervisor’s professional skills. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Calculate a score for each of the four dimensions of LMX quality: strongly agree (6); moderately agree (5);
somewhat agree (4); neutral (3); somewhat disagree (2); moderately disagree (1); strongly disagree (0). Consider
the subtotal for each of the four dimensions.
Affect out of 18
Loyalty out of 18
Contribution out of 18
Professional respect out of 18
Source: adapted from Liden & Maslyn (1998).
figure 6-2 LMX–MDM Survey.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
98 seCTIon 2: Leadership Theory
servant Leadership
Watch the following clip from YouTube (http://www
.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIKRmEaC6Y) and reflect on
Tom Peters’ perspective of servant leadership. What have
you done in the last 24 hours to be of service to those
around you? What will you do in the next 24 hours to be
of service to those around you?
O referenCes
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building
the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational
leadership, charisma and beyond. In J. G. Hunt,
H. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim
(Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 29–50). Lexington,
MA: Heath.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). The full range of leadership
development: Basic/advanced manuals. Binghamton,
NY: Avolio/Bass and Associates.
Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation
of a contemporary construct. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50–60.
Balkundi, P., & Kilduff, M. (2005). The ties that lead: A
social network approach to leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 941–961.
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development
and construct clarification of servant leadership.
Group & Organizational Management, 31(3),
300–326.
Barker, R. A. (1997). How can we train leaders if we do
not know what leadership is? Human Relations, 50(4),
343–362.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance: Beyond
expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1988). Evolving perspectives on charismatic
leadership. In J. A. Conger, R. N. Kanungo, & Associates
(Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor
in organizational effectiveness (pp. 40–77). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An
inquiry into transformational leadership. Alexandria,
VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral
and Social Sciences.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does transactional-transformational
leadership paradigm transcend organizational and
national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2),
130–139.
Basu, R., & Green, S. (1995). Subordinate performance,
leader-subordinate compatibility, and exchange
quality in leader-member dyads: A field study. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 77–92.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1986). Development of
leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy
of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538–1567.
Burns, J. L. Z. (1995). Prediction of leader-member
exchange quality by Jungian personality type. Dissertation
Abstracts International.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper &
Row Publishers.
Challeff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to
and for our leaders. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Challeff, I. (2002). The courageous follower: Standing up to
and for our leaders (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A
vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within
formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of
the role-making approaches. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.
Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leadermember
exchange and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 67, 315–326.
Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality
and effectiveness ratings. Group and Organization
Management, 23(2), 189–216.
Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate
performance and ingratiation in leader-member
exchanges. Group and Organization Management,
19(1), 67–86.
Dose, J. J. (1999). The relationship between work values
similarity and team-member and leader-member
exchange relationships. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research and Practice, 3(1), 20–32.
Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical
dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents,
measures and consequences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71(1), 56–60.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
99ChapTer 6: Wrap-Up
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic
review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates
and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82(6), 827–844.
Giampetro-Meyer, A., Brown, T., Browne, M. N., &
Kubasek, N. (1998). Do we really want more leaders
in business? Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1727–1736.
Goodwin, V. L., Bowler, W. M., & Whittington, J. L.
(2008). A social network perspective on LMX relationships:
Accounting for the instrumental value of
leader and follower networks. Journal of Management,
35(4), 954–980.
Gooty, J., Gavin, M., Johnson, P. D., Frazier, M. L., &
Snow, D. B. (2009). In the eyes of the beholder:
Transformational leadership, positive psychological
capital, and performance. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 15(4), 353–367.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based
approach to leadership: Development of leadermember
exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over
25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective.
Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations:
Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly,
2(2), 105–119.
Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996).
Demographic and organizational influences on
leader-member exchange and related work attitudes.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
66(2), 203–214.
Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, NY:
Paulist Books.
Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., &
Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel
review and examination of its antecedents.
Leadership Quarterly, 20, 517–534.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership.
In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership:
The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., &
Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership and
organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp.
29–48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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, 891–902.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers
in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships
and their consequences. Academy of Management
Review, 30, 96–122.
Humphreys, J., Ingram, K., Kernek, C., & Sadler, T.
(2007). The Nez Perce leadership council: A historical
examination of post-industrial leadership. Journal
of Management History, 13(2), 135–152.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007).
Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1),
269–277.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of
organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley
& Sons.
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business
Review, 66, 142–148.
Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influences of the
quality of supervisor-subordinate relations: The role
of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and
locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
15(1), 75–82.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality
of leader–member exchange: An imperical assessment
through scale development. Journal of
Management, 24: 43–72.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal
study on the early development of leadermember
exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(4), 662–674.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D.
(2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional
measure and multi-level assessment.
Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck K. G., & Sivasubramaniam N. (1996).
Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analytic review of the
MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385–425.
Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior:
Developing and managing psychological strengths.
Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57–72.
Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B.
(2006). The social network ties of group leaders:
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
implications for group performance and leader reputation.
Organization Science, 17(1), 64–79.
Murphy, P. E. (1999). Character and virtue ethics in
international marketing: An agenda for managers,
researchers and educators. Journal of Business Ethics,
18, 107–124.
Murrell, K. L. (1997). Emergent theories of leadership for
the next century: Towards relational concepts. Organization
Development Journal, 15(3), 35–42.
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Organ, D. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The
good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B.
(2006). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Its nature,
antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Phillips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower
exchange quality: The role of personal and interpersonal
attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
990–1001.
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the 21st century. New
York, NY: Praeger.
Rost, J. C. (1997). Moving from industrial to relationship:
A post-industrial paradigm of leadership. Journal
of Leadership Studies, 4(4), 3–16.
Rost, J., & Barker, R. A. (2000). Leadership education in
colleges: Toward a 21st century paradigm. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 7(1), 3–12.
Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and
charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent,
divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the
CKS. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 121–133.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and
structure in leader-member exchanges. Academy of
Management Review, 22(2), 522–552.
Spears, L. C. (1995). Reflections on leadership. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Steiner, D. D. (1988). Value perceptions in leadermember
exchange. Journal of Social Psychology, 128,
611–618.
Tucker, R. C. (1968). The theory of charismatic leadership.
Daedulus, 97, 731–756.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory:
Exploring the social processes of leadership and
organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654–676.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Sparrowe, R. T. (1994).
Developing leader-member exchanges: The influence
of gender and ingratiation. American Behavioral
Scientist, 37(5), 697–714.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived
organizational support and leader-member
exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111.
Weber, M. (1978). In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy
and society: An outline of interpretive sociology.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Winston, B. E., & Ryan, B. (2008). Servant leadership as
a humane orientation: Using the GLOBE study construct
of humane orientation to show that servant
leadership is more global than western. International
Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 212–222.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational
leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to
determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology,
47, 787–811.
Yokochi, N. (1989). Leadership styles of Japanese business
executives and managers: Transformational and transactional.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United
States International University, San Diego, CA.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
100 seCTIon 2: Leadership Theory
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION