The Practice of Management and the Idea of Leadership: An Overview of

Theory and Practice

Nancy Campbell March !""#
American corporations dole out an estimated 15 billion dollars per year on
training and consulting for up and coming mangers and leaders. Some target
high performers and potential leaders within the organization. Others believe
that leadership is more about what you do rather than who you are and,
therefore, everyone in the organization is capable of becoming a leader. We
have been arguing and writing about the science and practice of management
since the early 1!!"s, and about leadership for at least #!!! years, all in an
effort to demystify both. $s management, in fact, a practice, an art, or a science%
Are leaders born or made% What do managers actually do% &he argument
continues.
'y #5 years of e(perience as a manager, leader, and consultant, both nationally
and internationally, have helped me to understand the nature of that wor), and
the value it can bring. $ have seen the shift in training and education from a focus
on technical s)ills to interpersonal s)ills. $ have witnessed weary participants
leaving a wee)long manager"s leadership wor)shop, feeling emotionally raw after
confronting personal behaviors that have deterred their progress and
performance as managers and leaders. *orporations are as)ing their leaders to
ta)e personal change seriously + a critical success factor to organizational
change. ,earning leads to more effective action and, therefore, improved
performance - and is no longer an option. 'ore and more of the managers $
interact with are recognizing that the roles of management and leadership are
deep, comple(, and personally challenging, in addition to time consuming and
sometimes emotionally e(haustive. On occasion, some .uestion their role and
their interest in pursuing that role. /eflective .uestions li)e, 01o $ really want to
be a manager%2 and 0Am $ capable of being a good leader%2 are not uncommon.
$t seems reasonable to as) such .uestions, given the scope of wor) that needs
to be done, and the ever-increasing inside pressures from those at the top and
the bottom, and the outside pressures of global competition.
$ will begin my e(ploration of management and leadership by e(amining and
criti.uing classic and current theories of management and leadership, and how
they have impacted and shifted management thin)ing and practice over the last
century. $ will then identify the theories, approaches, and ideas that appear to
have survived the management and leadership debate, and therefore continue to
evolve. 3inally, $ will reflect on my own e(perience and what $ believe will be the
trend for the future of management and leadership.
Management and Leadership $efined
$n the past, we have referred to management and managers .uite separately
from leadership and leaders. &o manage was to plan, organize, direct, and
control + 0a way to reduce chaos in organizations and to ma)e them run more
effectively and efficiently2 45orthouse, #!!6, p. 78. &o lead was to motivate,
inspire, guide and coach - 0a process whereby an individual influences a group
of individuals to achieve a common goal2 45orthouse, ##!6, p. 98. $t is only
recently that we have begun to describe the two roles in con:unction with each
other. 'anagerial leadership describes managers as leaders and leaders as
managers, a combination that compliments and balances the needs of changing
organizations, and a combination that suggests the need for combined models
and multiple framewor)s to strategically and tactically navigate the future before
us. $f management is a process of producing order and stability, and leadership
is a process that produces change and movement, as argued by ;otter, <ennis
and 5anus, $ would argue that there does appear to be an overlap of both roles,
whether at the manager level or *=O level. 0When managers are involved in
influencing a group to meet its goals, they are involved in leadership. When
leaders are involved in planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling, they are
2
involved in management. <oth processes involve influencing a group of
individuals toward goal attainment2 45orthouse, #!!6, p. 1!8.
&he evolution of management and leadership models and framewor)s are wor)s
in progress, and the process of both is becoming more comple(, challenging the
conventional thin)ing and wisdom of the past. We are in search of more
integrated models to serve our thin)ing and actions in the future, and to meet the
increasing needs and ensure the future success of our current and up-and-
coming competent, ethical, leaders.
%&""'%&!(: The )ational*+tr,ct,ral -ramewor.
With the economic surge of the early nineteenth century, and the growth of large-
scale businesses, came the need to manage and lead more efficiently the
administrative and productive capacity of organizations in the pursuit of
capitalistic development. 0Organizations were rationally designed to solve
permanently the conflict between collective needs and individual wants that had
bedeviled social progress since the days of Ancient >reece2 4/eed .uoting
Wolin, 1?1, p. 918. /ational, scientific design offered a way to coordinate,
control, and create order from the chaos of an industrial society deeply altered by
the demand and consumption of new goods and services. &he gurus of the day
included 3. W. &aylor, @. 3ayol, @. Simon, ,. Arwic) and =. <rech, all of whom
advocated the theory of scientific management + 0the organization as a rationally
constructed artifice directed to the solution of collective problems of social order
and administrative management2 4/eed, 1?, p. 958. &he division of labor
served as the foundation of all organizations and their reason for being. @ence,
it was important to manage primarily through a scientific process devoid of any
human emotion, beliefs, or values 4/eed .uoting Waldo, 167, p. 958.
0=pistemological principles and administrative techni.ues translate highly
contestable, normative precepts into universal, ob:ective, immutable, and hence
unchallengeable, scientific laws. &he rational individual is, and must be, an
3
organized and institutionalized individual. @uman beings became raw material
transformed by modern organizational technologies into well-ordered, productive
members of society unli)ely to interfere with the long-term plans of ruling classes
and elites2 4/eed .uoting Simon, 15B, p. 958. >iven the social, political, and
economic status of the day, most wor)ers were probably willing to e(cept this
treatment in order to ensure food on the table and a roof over their head. $n my
e(perience, this rationale is still accepted management practice in some third
world countries li)e $ndia and parts of *hina, although changing rapidly.
3rederic) W. &aylor, in his 111 boo) entitled, 0Crinciples and 'ethods of
Scientific 'anagement2, recognized the inade.uacies of the military model of
authority for large-scale factory productions of the day. &aylor"s scientific
management theory, often referred to as D&aylorism", emphasized a managerial
ideology 0thought to aid employers or their agents in controlling and directing the
activities of wor)ers2 4/eed, 1?, p. 958. &he &aylor Society, and its members,
supported and believed the principle of optimizing production achieved through a
strict division of labor, with each wor)er performing the same tas) the same way,
under strict supervision. =ach tas) was bro)en into to smaller parts, and wor)ers
were trained to get the most from each motion and every second + substantiated
by &aylor"s time-and-motion studies 4<olman, #!!98.
3ayol was more affected by the chaos, disruption, and conflict in organizations
resulting from rapid growth and development. @is principles of organization were
driven by the need to coordinate and control to manage the conflict caused by
Dinformal behavior" 4/eed, 1?8. 0*lassical organization theory is founded on
the underlying belief that an organization provides a principle of structural design
and a practice of operational control which can be rationally determined and
formalized in advance of actual performance2 4/eed, 1?, p. 9?8. @e identified
five basic functions of organization as planning, organizing, coordination,
commanding, and controlling.
4
Simon"s theory of Dbounded rationality" and Dadministrative behavior" sought to
reduce any Dinterpretive wor)" done by individuals within the organization by
providing cognitive processes and formalized rules and operations 4/eed, 1?8.
With detailed policies and procedures in place, wor)ers were encouraged not to
thin), and perform according to standardized processes + a simple e(tension of
the assembly line and devoid of any personal or responsible power.
>erman economist and sociologist 'a( Weber"s structural ideas emphasized the
framewor) of power and domination in the form of patriarchy, rather than
rationality + but still based his ideas on an organizing principle 4<olman, #!!98.
0Catriarchal organizations were dominated by a father figure, an individual with
almost unlimited power. @e could reward, punish, promote, or fire on personal
whim2 4<olman, #!!9, p. 6?8. Similar to &aylor"s theme, Weber identified ma:or
features of his theory as 418 a fi(ed division of labor, 4#8 a hierarchy of offices, 498
a set of rules governing performance, 468 separation of personal from official
property and rights, 458 technical .ualifications 4not family ties or friendship8 for
selecting personnel, and 4?8 employment as primary occupation and long-term
career 4<olman, #!!98. &his Dbureaucratic model" focused on structure and
function and later resurfaced in the 1?!"s.
What the rationality framewor) failed to do was deal with the increasing
comple(ity and dynamic changes rapidly occurring in the wor)place. $n short,
this framewor) was not adaptable or fle(ible enough to respond to rapid change
and ensure the long-term prosperity and sustainability of an organization. &o
avoid conflict seemed not rational, unreasonable, if not ridiculous. What was
referred to in the 1?!"s as a hard version of D&heory E management" 4coercion,
tight controls, threats and punishments if wor)ers do not conform8, proved to be
inade.uate. 0&he usual result is superficial harmony with undercurrents of
apathy and indifference2 4<olman, #!!9, p. 1178. &his Dsic)ness" will result in
behavioral conse.uences such as passivity, hostility, and even sabotage.
5
%&/"'%&("F The 0vol,tion of the 1,man )elations -ramewor.
'ary 3ollett Car)er agreed, and made the point that 0We can never wholly
separate the human from the mechanical sideG<ut you all see every day that
the study of human relations in business and the stuff of operating are bound up
together2 43ollett, 15, p. #B8. $n the 1?!"s a similar point made by 1ouglas
'c>regor supporting self-direction was referred to as D&heory H management" +
0the essential tas) of management is to arrange organizational conditions so that
people can achieve their own goals best by directing their efforts toward
organizational rewards2 4<olman .uoting 'c>regor, 1?!, p. 118. Organicist
thin)ing and those from the human relations school argued that the rationality
framewor) failed to deal with the problems of social integration and maintaining
social order in a more unstable and uncertain world 4/eed, 1?8. 0&he mission
of the organization is not only to supply goods and services, but fellowship as
well2 4/eed .uoting Wolin, 1?1, p. 9B8. A #!!6 survey on retirement by 0&he
=conomist2 notes that longer living retirees will predictably stay in the wor)place
longer, or re-enter the wor)place for that )ind of need + 0stimulus, companionship
and the freedom from worry that a bit of e(tra money can bring.24&he =conomist,
#!!68. 0&he whole thrust of the human relations perspective is a view of social
isolation and conflict as a symptom of social pathology and disease. &he Dgood"
society and the effective organization are defined in relation to their capacity to
facilitate and sustain the socio-psychological reality of spontaneous cooperation
and social stability in the face of economic, political and technological changes
that threaten the integration of the individual and group within the wider
community2 4/eed, 1?, p. 9B8. /ather than management as a set of concrete
rules and tools, management was a function and a role within a larger social unit,
re.uiring a socially s)illed management within an adaptable system, focused on
encouraging emergent processes capable of ensuring some form of stability and
sustainability. 0*hanges in organizational patterns are considered as the result
of cumulative, unplanned, adaptive responses to threats to the e.uilibrium of the
system as a whole. /esponses to problems are thought of as ta)ing the form of
6
crescively developed defense mechanisms and being importantly shaped by
shared values, which are deeply internalized in the members. &he empirical
focus is thus directed to the spontaneously emergent and normatively sanctioned
structures in the organization2 4/eed .uoting >ouldner, 15, p. 9B8. &his
framewor) was about survival and the needs of a changing society at large. $t
was an opportunity to apply the social integration framewor)s of social scientists,
and the general principles of systems theory. 0<y the late 16!"s and early
15!"s, this conception of organizations as social systems geared to the
integrative and survival Dneeds" of the larger societal orders of which they were
constituent elements established itself as the dominant theoretical framewor)
within organization analysis2 4/eed, 1?, p. 9B8.
&hose that argued against the rational model include /oethlisberger and 1ic)son
in their 19 boo) entitled, 0&he 'anagement and the Wor)er2, and the 199 and
165 writings of =lton 'ayo 41998. &hey .uestioned the deeply held
assumption of the rational school of thought + 0that wor)ers had no rights beyond
a paychec)I their duty was to wor) hard and follow orders2 4<olman, #!!9, pp.
119-1168. An outsider and a factual idealist who was not recognized for her
contributions until after her death, was 'ary 3ollett Car)er, a political and social
scientist with years of practical e(perience in social and public affairs. @er focus
was on conflict and power, and how it can be made to wor) for us, rather than
against us. 43ollett, 158. Abraham 'aslow further supported the human
relations framewor) by developing a most influential theory of human needs +
physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness and love needs, esteem
needs, and self-actualization needs. Academics remain s)eptical and argue that
the concept of need is vague, but 'aslow"s theory is still widely accepted among
managers, some who have used these values and beliefs as core elements of
progressive company policy. 4<olman, #!!98.
&he human relations movement, later referred to by ,ee <olman in 176 as the
human resource framewor), argued that organizations e(ist to serve people,
7
rather than people e(isting to serve organizations. &here must be a good fit
between the individual and the system + if the fit is poor, both suffer and if the fit
is good, both benefit 4<olman, #!!98. 3ollett argued, 0Of what then does the
individuality of a man consist% Of his relation to the whole, not 418 of his
apartness nor 4#8 of his difference alone 43ollett, 15, p. #5?8. Where 3ollett
focused on managers and their social system, 'ayo focused on workers and
their social system 43ollett, 158. =ach contributed to the focus on the human
relations perspective in the wor)place, each with a vision of the 0new2
organization, driven by the need to survive.
%&(% 2 %&3(: Mar.et'driven Political and Open +ystems -ramewor.s
As a way of surviving, this era produced concepts and theories integrating some
aspects of both the rational and organistic viewpoint. &he rational framewor)
assumes that behavior is motivated by 0the goal of minimizing mar)et costs and
ma(imizing mar)et returns24/eed, 1?, p. 98. &he organistic viewpoint focuses
on the organization 0as an evolutionary and semi-rational product of spontaneous
and unintended conse.uences2 4/eed .uoting @aye), 1B7, p. 98. /ichard
*yert, an economist, and James >. 'arch, a political scientist, both professors at
*arnegie-'ellon in 1?9, re:ected the traditional economic view of an
organization with the single goal of ma(imizing profits. *yert and 'arch placed
decision-ma)ing and resource allocation at the core of their predictive theory of
organization, viewing organizations as 0coalitions made up of individuals and
subcoalitions2 4<olman, #!!9, p. 118. &heir view implied a political framewor)
with the central idea being, 0goals emerge out of a bargaining process among
coalition members2 4<olman, #!!98. &his includes 0side payments2 to )eep
essential coalition members satisfied, and made more challenging by limited
resources. 3or the manager, these political elements surface the need for the
ability to influence others, and the need for a )een understanding of the
dynamics, distribution, and e(ercise of power + the ability to get things done.
*ompeting goals, scarce resources, new )nowledge, the resulting conflict, and
8
use of power to get what individuals and groups need, describes organizational
politics that continues to be a )ey component of organizational dynamics and one
that can be understood and managed.
&he power framewor), grounded in 'a( Weber"s sociology of domination,
describes the organization 0as an arena of conflicting interests and values
constituted through power struggles2 4/eed, 1?, p. 6!8. &herefore, coalitions
form, individuals with common values, beliefs, and goals, to gain power, whether
by authority, the rational viewpoint, or through ethical influence, the human
relations viewpoint. /egardless of tactic, the aim of mobilizing power is to get
what is needed to get things done. Although power associated with the political
dynamic that is a part of every organization is often viewed as negative, the
manager that ac)nowledges the need to 0be political2 can use that s)ill to
encourage productive dialogue and learning, gain a better understanding of
varying perspectives and points-of-view, and, if persistent, find a reasonable and
politically sound solution to cross-functional problems. 0We have to stop
describing power always in the negative termsF Kas inL it e(cludes, it represses.
$n fact, power producesI it produces reality2 4<olman .uoting 3oucault, 1B5, p.
1#8.
Cart of that reality is what @enry 'intzberg described as the 0challenging and
non-programmed2 wor) of a manager 4'intzberg, 1B8. /ecognizing the need
to align organizational structure with the organization"s mission and the given
environment, 'intzberg 41B designed a five-sector blueprint or organizational
chart to better manage varying missions and environments. &he five sectors
include the operating core of wor)ers, the administrative elements of middle
managers and supervisors that control the operation, the specialists and analysts
described as the technostructure sector who standardize processes and
measure outputs, the support staff who support the wor) of others, and the
strategic ape( where the important decisions about the organization are made
4<olman, #!!98. 3rom this five sector logo, 'intzberg went on to describe five
9
organizational structural configurations, each addressing varying missions and
diverse environments, and each with its own set of management challenges.
$n his 1B publication entitled 0&he 5ature of 'anagerial Wor)2, 'intzberg
addresses those challenges by as)ing the .uestion, 0What do managers do%2
4'intzberg, 1B8. @is wor) produced a set of ten 41!8 basic roles, three of
which are interpersonal roles, three that are informational roles, and four that are
decisional roles. &hese ten roles would aid the manager who 0must design the
wor) of his organization, monitor its internal and e(ternal environment, initiate
change when desirable, and renew stability when faced with a disturbance2
4'intzber, 1B, p. 1?8. <ecause of the variation in a manager"s wor),
'intzberg suggests a 0contingency theory2 + managerial actions based on a
number of variables including the size of the organization, technology in use,
e(ternal environmental factors, and individual needs 4'intzberg, 1B8.
$n 'intzberg"s view there is no science in the :ob of managing + it is an art. $n
fact, he describes the manager as in a )ind of 0loop2 due to the pressures and
comple(ities of the role.
0We find that the manager, particularly at senior levels, is overburdened
with wor). With the increasing comple(ity of modern organizations and
their problems, he is destined to become more so. @e is driven to brevity,
fragmentation, and superficiality in his tas)s, yet he cannot easily delegate
them because of the nature of his information. And he can do little to
increase his available time or significantly enhance his power to manage.
3urthermore, he is driven to focus on that which is current and tangible in
his wor), even though the comple( problems facing many organizations
call for reflection and a far-sighted perspective2 4'intzberg, 1B, p. 1B98.
&his could have been written in #!!6 with one slight but significant change + 0he2
now refers to both 0he2 and 0she2.
'intzberg, along with ;atz and ;ahn at the Aniversity of 'ichigan, and ,awrence
and ,orsch at @arvard, had begun to develop an 0open systems2 model of
organization 4Muinn, #!!98. /obert Muinn"s approach was to view the manager
not only as a rational decision ma)er, but one who had to function in highly
10
unpredictable environments with little time for organizing and planning. 0&hey
are, instead, bombarded by constant stimuli and forced to ma)e rapid decisions2
4Muinn, #!!9, p. 78. &he manager is e(pected to be a 0creative innovator2 and
0politically astute2 + all in an effort to respond faster, compete more efficiently,
and continually adapt to the changing environment. ;ey management s)ills have
become political adaptation, creative problem solving, innovation, and the
management of change + troublesome s)ills in a bureaucratic organization and
critical s)ills in an 0adhocracy2, a self-designing organization.
%&34 2 Today: The 0mergence of Organi5ations as C,lt,res
$n 19, Ceter 1ruc)er, one of the most influential scholars and practitioners in
the field of management, declared the end of capitalism, as we )now itF
03or two hundred and fifty years, from the second half of the eighteenth
*entury on, *apitalism was the dominant social reality. 3or the last
@undred years, 'ar(ism was the dominant social ideology. <oth are
rapidly being superseded by a new and very different society. &he new
society + and it is already here + is a post-capitalist societyG. &he center
of gravity in the post-capitalist society + its structure, its social and
economic dynamics, its social classes, and its social problems + is very
different from the one that dominated the last two hundred and fifty
years2 41ruc)er, 198 + >uru >uide pg #9-6
1ruc)er declared that the )nowledge that would be valued was 0)nowledge that
could be applied systematically and purposefully2 for results + for 1ruc)er, it was
the only meaningful resource and the )ey to personal and economic success
4<oyett and <oyett, 17, p. #8. ,eading in this post-capitalist society, where
)nowledge was the )ey resource, drove theorists and scholars of the day to
tac)le the topic of leadership, and identify the characteristics that ma)e an
effective leader in times li)e these. &he shift was from an emphasis on
management to an emerging interest in leadership.
11
$n the mid-eighties, the notion of culture emerged as an additional facet of
leadership, with =dgar Schein 41#8 publishing 0Organizational *ulture and
,eadership2, enlightening us on the relationship between organizational culture
and leadership. @e defined culture as, 0a pattern of shared basic assumptions
that a group learned as it solved its problems of e(ternal adaptation and
integration, that has wor)ed well enough to be considered valid and therefore to
be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, thin), and feel in
relation to those problems2 + those elements that are 0most stable and least
malleable2 4Schein, 1#, p. 1#8. Anderstanding culture, therefore, became a
way of understanding what goes on inside an organization when different
subcoalitions, subgroups, and varying occupational groups wor) together. $f
leaders and managers are responsible for innovation, learning, and the
management of change, it only seems reasonable that managers and leaders
are able to conceptualize and create a supportive organizational climate + a
culture that is supportive of innovation, learning, and constant change. $t is
Schein"s belief that 0organizational cultures are created in part by leaders, and
one of the most decisive functions of leadership is the creation, the management,
and sometimes even the destruction of culture2 4Schein, 1#, pg 58. @e offers
leaders a process for analyzing culture, building or creating culture, embedding
culture, and managing culture during various stages of growth and development.
Cerhaps Schein"s greatest contribution to the field of organizational culture was
e(panding the concept of the learning organization and the learning leader + the
ability to build the organizations capacity to learn. 0A learning culture must
contain a core shared assumption that the appropriate way for humans to behave
is to be proactive problem solvers and learners2 4Schein, 1#, p. 9?68. &he
leader, therefore, 0attempts to develop a learning organization that will be able to
ma)e its own perpetual diagnosis and self-manage whatever transformations are
needed as the environment changes2 4Schein .uoting <ushe and Shani, 11I
@anna, 177I 'ohrman and *ummings, 17, p. 9?98. <uilding on the thoughts
12
and ideas of 1onald 'ichael 4175,118, &om 'alone 417B8, and Ceter Senge
41!8, Schein describes the learning culture as one thatF
0must assume that the world can be managed, that it is appropriate for
humans to be proactive problem solvers, that reality and truth must be
pragmatically discovered, that human nature is basically good and in any
case mutable, that both individualism and groupism are appropriate, that
both authoritarian and participative systems are appropriate provided they
are based on trust, that the best )ind of time horizon is somewhere
between far and near future, that the best )inds of units of time are
medium-length ones, that accurate and relevant information must be
capable of flowing freely in fully connected networ), that diverse but
connected units are desirable, that both tas) and relationship orientations
of interconnected forces in which multiple causation and over-
determination are more li)ely than linear or simple causes2 4Schien, 1#,
p 9B98.
Although $ have seen organizations functioning in varying degrees of what is
described as a learning organization, $ have yet to e(perience or witness the
complete transformation of an American corporation to a culture of true learning.
$ have, however, witnessed the transformation of a small number of leaders to
one of learning leadersI leaders who have the following abilities, as defined by
Schein 41#8F
Cerception and insight, relative to both the organization and self
'otivation to unfreeze their own organization, enlist aid out of concern for
the organization above and beyond self, and communicate dedication and
commitment to the group, beyond self-interest
=motional strength to absorb the an(iety created by the change, and be
supportive to the organization through the transition
&he s)ill to change cultural assumptions, selling new visions and concepts
&he s)ill to create involvement and participation
&he s)ill to learn a new culture, possibly a year or more.
Schein summarizes by stating that, 0$f the leaders of today want to create
organizational cultures that will themselves be more amenable to learning, they
will have to set the e(ample by becoming learners themselves and involving
others in the learning process2 4Schein, 1#, p. 9#8.
13
>eert @ofstede was a pioneer on the study of the impact of national culture on
the wor)place 4<olman, #!!98. @e argued that current management practices
and theories 0are inevitably culture-bound2 4<olman .uoting @ofstede, 176. p.
#68. &he assumption made by both scholars and managers was that what
wor)ed in America"s wor)place would wor) anywhere. $ have been fortunate to
have the opportunity to facilitate manager leadership wor)shops for a AS
company in Asia, with a participant group largely made up of Asians + we )now,
wal)ing in, that a foundational piece of the wor)shop is the discussion and
sharing of cultural differences and accepted management and leadership
practices within the nationalities present in the group, and within a multi-national
company. &he managers are from diverse bac)grounds and cultures, and they
)now that often, management practices used in the AS simply will not wor) in, for
e(ample, *hina. @ofstede recognized this as he surveyed wor)ers and
managers in forty countries and twenty languages employed by a large AS
multinational company. @e identified four dimensions that separated national
culturesF 418 Cower distance, or the measure of power ine.uality between
bosses and subordinates, as high or low, 4#8 Ancertainty avoidance, or the level
of comfort or discomfort with uncertainty and ambiguity, 498 $ndividualism, or the
importance of the individual versus the collective group, and 468 'asculinity-
femininity, high or low, as where men feel strong pressures for career success
and there are few women in high-level positions, or the opposite as low in
masculinity in countries such as 1enmar) or 5orway 4@ofestede, 1768.
@ofstede stresses the importance of a manager becoming bicultural outside his
or her home country, in order to be effective and successful abroad.
Cractical applications of @ofstede"s wor) include leadership training and
development, providing an understanding of how leadership practices may differ
from culture to culture, and how global leaders can be developed. 0Croviding
learners with various models of leadership as obtained through a study of the
dimensions and other sources will allow for sophistication in how leadership is
both e(emplified and accepted. 0>ood leadership behavior in one culture may
14
be considered rather poor behavior in another2 4<ing, #!!6, p. 798. Other
applications include how to better communicate across geographic and
institutional boundaries, leading and participating on global teams, and
developing global competencies such as business practices, leveraging :oint
ventures, negotiating, and managing change initiatives.
Ceter >. 5orthouse, in his #!!6 publication 0,eadershipF &heory and Cractice2,
presents a multitude of current approaches and theories applicable to the
practice of management and leadership. @is e(amples and case studies
demonstrate applicability in real-life organizations. &he &able below summarizes
these approaches, including their strengths and wea)nesses.
&able 1
Leadership
Approach
$escription 6ey
Theorists
+trengths 7ea.nesses
&rait Approach $dentifies leadership traits
or characteristics
essential to effective
leadershipI focuses on
leader not followers
Stogdill,
'ann,
,ord,
;ir)patric)
and ,oc)e
$s intuitively appealing,
well researched,
focuses on role of
leader, provides us with
assessment material
,ist of traits is endless,
does not consider
situation, highly
sub:ective
determination of what is
0most important2, not
useful for training up
and coming leaders
S)ills Approach 3ocuses on s)ills and
abilities rather than
personality characteristics
+ technical, human, and
conceptual competencies
;atz,
'umford,
Naccaro,
@arding,
Jacobs,
3leishman,
Hammarino
Suggests that many
individuals have the
potential for leadership,
stresses importance of
developing specific
leadership s)ills,
presents multi-faceted
picture of leadership,
and useful in leadership
education
&oo broad in scope as
is addresses more than
:ust leadership, does
not e(plain how
variations in a particular
s)ill affects
performance, claims
not to be a trait model
but includes individual
attributes which are
trait-li)e, and s)ills
approach was
developed using a large
sample of military
personnel
Style Approach 3ocuses on what leaders
do and how they behave
+ actions of leaders
toward subordinates in
Stodgill,
<la)e and
'outon,
Ohio and
=(panded our
understanding of
leadership by
researching what
/esearch does not lin)
style with performance
outcome, failed to
identify a universal style
15
various situationsI two
styles or behaviors are
tas) behaviors and
relationship behaviorsI
,eadership <ehavior
1escription Muestionnaire
and 'anagement >rid
developed to describe
how leaders reach their
purposes + concern for
production and concern
for people + prescriptive
rather than descriptive
'ichigan
studies
leaders do in various
situations,
substantiated by a
multitude of studies
offering a viable
approach to the
leadership process, )ey
to being an effective
leader is balancing tas)
and relationship, and
prescriptive
that could be effective
in every situation, and
implies most effective
style as high tas), high
relationship + this
remains .uestionable
and unclear
16
Situational
Approach
<ased on different
situations re.uiring
different )inds of
leadershipI leader must
adapt style to the
demands and different
situationsI effective
leaders recognize the
need to change the
degree to which they are
directive 4tas)8 or
supportive 4relationship8
to meet changing needs
of subordinates
@ersey and
<lanchard
Accepted and used by
practitioners as a
credible model for
training up and coming
leaders, practical and
easy to use and
understand,
prescriptive value, and
emphasizes the
concept of leader
fle(ibility
,ac) of strong body of
research, four levels of
subordinate
development
ambiguous and without
theoretical basis,
concern with how
subordinate
commitment is
composed + not clear
how confidence and
motivation combine to
define commitment,
studies fail to support
the prescriptions
suggested in the model,
did not correlate
education, e(perience,
age, etc. with how they
influence leader-
subordinate
prescriptions of the
model, more research
needed to e(plain how
leaders can adapt their
styles simultaneously to
the development levels
of individual group
member and the whole
group, and
.uestionnaire appears
biased in forced
response to .uestions
in favor of model
*ontingency
&heory
*oncerned with both
styles and situations and
referred to as leader-
match theoryI leaders
effectiveness depends on
how well the leader"s
style fits the conte(tI
leadership styles are
described as tas)
motivated or relationship
motivatedI situations are
characterized by
assessing leader-member
relations, tas) structure,
and position powerI
suggests that certain
styles will be effective in
certain situations
3iedler Supported by much
empirical research,
shifts emphasis from
leader to leadership
conte(t and the lin)
between the two,
predictive and useful in
predicting type of
leadership that will be
most effective in certain
situations, does not
demand that the leader
fit every situation, and
provides data on
leaders" styles that
could help develop
leadership profiles
Anclear as to why
certain leadership
styles are more
effective in some
situations than other,
some .uestion of
validity of ,C* scale,
instructions on the ,C*
scale are not clear,
cumbersome and to
use in real-world
settings and comple(,
and fails to e(plain what
organizations should do
when there is a
mismatch between the
leader and situation.
17
Cath->oal
&heory
@ow leaders motivate
subordinates to
accomplish goalsI the lin)
between the leader"s style
and the motivational
needs of the subordinate
within the wor) settingI
leader can choose from
directive, supportive,
participative, and
achievement-oriented
behaviors to impact
subordinates motivation
=vans,
@ouse,
1essler,
'itchell
3irst situational-
contingency theory of
leadership to e(plain
how tas) and
subordinate
characteristics affect
the impact of leadership
on subordinate
performance, uni.uely
designed to )eep us
as)ing, 0@ow can $
motivate subordinates
to feel that they have
the ability to do the
wor)%2, and practical in
that it reminds leaders
to guide and coach
subordinates along a
path to achieve a goal
1ifficult to use and
comple(, claims of
theory are tentative
because of partial
support for empirical
research studies, fails
to describe how a
leader can employ
various styles directly to
help subordinates feel
competent and trusted,
and path-goal theory
could create a
dependent relation
between leader and
subordinate failing to
recognize the full
abilities of the
subordinate
,eader-'ember
=(change
&heory 4,'E8
3ocuses on the .uality of
e(changes between
leaders and membersI
high-.uality e(changes
produce less turnover,
more positive
performance, greater
organizational
commitment, better
attitudes, greater
participation, and can be
used for 0leadership
ma)ing2I three phases of
e(change are stranger
phase, ac.uaintance
phase and partner phaseI
both describes and
prescribes leadership
1ansereau,
>raen,
@aga,
*ashman,
Ahl-<ien
Strong descriptive in
that it describes wor)
units in terms of those
who contribute more
and those who
contribute less, only
theory that ma)es the
concept of the dyadic
relationship the core of
the leadership process,
directs our attention to
the importance of
effective
communication, and
well-researched to
support how ,'E is
related to positive
organizational
outcomes
*onflict with value of
fairness by dividing the
wor) unit into two
groupsF in-group and
out-group + gives the
appearance of
discrimination, support
the development of
privileged groups in the
wor)place although
,'E suggests that
members of the out-
group are free to
become members of
the in-group + .uestion
is how one gains
accessI needs further
development, and few
empirical studies
regarding the
measurement of leader-
member e(changes
18
&ransformationa
l ,eadership
1istinguishes between
two types of leadershipF
transactional and
transformationalI
transactional is the bul) of
the models whereas
transformational refers to
the process that raises
the level of motivation
and ethics in both the
leader and the followerI
tries to help follower
reach their fullest
potential, raises their
hopes and in the process
changes himselfOherself
<urns,
1ownton,
<ryman,
,owe and
>ardner,
<ass,
@ouse,
<ennis and
5anus,
&ichy and
1ePanna
Widely researched from
many different
perspectives, intuitively
appealing in that leader
provides vision, treats
leadership as a process
between leaders and
followers, e(pands
picture of leadership by
moving beyond
transactional elements,
strong emphasis on
needs and values of
followers, and strong
evidence that is an
effective form of
leadership
&oo broad, lac)s
conceptual clarity,
.uestions around how
transformational
leadership is measured,
some claim this model
treats leadership as a
personality trait or
someone with special
.ualities which ma)es it
difficult to teach, can be
perceived as elitist and
anti-democratic as
leader acts
independently as
heroes, based largely
on .ualitative data
collected from leaders
at the top of
organizations
.uestioning its use with
lower-level leaders, and
it may have a tendency
to be abused if the
leadership is not
challenged on values
and vision
&eam
,eadership
&wo functions of
leadershipF tas)
behaviors and
maintenance behaviors,
i.e. team performance
and team development,
with both an internal and
e(ternal focusI most
current research
discusses teams with
single-leadership vs. and
shared leadership
Corter and
<eyerlein,
$lgen et al,
Naccaro,
,arson and
,a3asto,
@ac)man,
3ocuses on real-life
organizational wor) in
helping them stay
competitive and
effective, guide to help
leaders design and
maintain effective
teams, recognizes
changing roles of
leaders and followers,
and helps in selecting
team leaders who are
up to the tas)
5ot completely tested
or supported, comple(
model in nature that
does not provide
practical approach or
address issues of
shared leadership or
usual situations, and
difficult to teach and
develop s)ills
19
Csychodynamic
Approach
,eaders are more
effective when they have
insight into their own
ma)eup and can gain a
better understanding of
their needs,
predispositions, and
emotionsI they are also
more effective when they
have insight into the
same elements of their
subordinatesI focuses
more on learned and
deep-seated emotional
responses that one may
not be aware of + and not
able to change, the )ey
being acceptance of
these .uir)s and the
.uir)s of others
3reud,
Jung,
Nalezni)
/esults in a better
understanding of the
relationship between
leader and follower,
applicable cross-
culturally and e(hibits a
universality,
emphasizes the need
for insight into self and
encourages the pursuit
of personal growth and
development, and
ultimately results in the
leader becoming a
teacher and counselor
as well as carrying out
traditional leadership
role
<ias is toward abnormal
or dysfunctional being,
highly sub:ective,
research is clinical in
nature and often
culturally biased by
psychologists, lac)ing
inclusion of diverse
cultures and
populations, does not
ta)e into account
organizational factors,
and is not adaptive to
training in the
classroom
*ontingency theory is a reoccurring theme, transformational leadership is a hot
topic and one that sells plenty of boo)s, team leadership is proving to be a critical
s)ill for those managing across boundaries, and the psychodynamic approach
seems to be a 0given2 for anyone that intends to grow and develop as a leader.
Other current themes and issues currently affecting organizations and leadership
are women and leadership and ethical leadership. We have determined that
there is no doubt women can be leaders. /esearch suggests that although men
and women e(hibit similar behaviors, women leaders tend to be more
participative than autocratic, which ironically suits the needs of #1
st
century global
organizations. &he .uestion, in my mind, that remains unanswered, is why so
few women leaders reach the top. =(planations range from lac) of management
or line e(perience to not being in management long enough to support natural
career progression. Organizational barriers such as higher standards of
performance re.uired for women, inhospitable corporate culture, homophily,
limited level of challenge, gender pre:udice, and lac) of mentor relationships and
informal networ)s - all of which have been studied + all contribute to the
20
problem. Cersonal barriers such as family obligations and lac) of political savvy
also affect the status of women leaders in organizations. As a result, some
women leaders leave corporate life and start their own businesses + $ believe
there is a growing trend of women leaving high level positions after wor)ing so
hard to get there, because of what they see happening to men holding those
highest of positions. &hey declare, 0it"s :ust not worth it2, and they leave to
recreate a new )ind of life.
&he =nron scandal opened the floodgates to a ree(amination of ethical
leadership and what that means. =thical leadership can be defined simply as
0what leaders do and who leaders are2 45orthouse, #!!9,8. 0&he choices that
leaders ma)e and how they respond in a given circumstance are informed and
directed by their ethics2 45orthouse, #!!9, p. 9!#8. =thical theories can be
classified as theories about leaders" conduct of character, and their degree of
self-interest vs. their concern for others. 0$n short, ethics is central to leadership
because of the nature of the process of influence, the need to engage followers
to accomplish mutual goals, and the impact leaders have on establishing the
organization"s values2 45orthouse, #!!#, p. 9!98. /onald @eifetz 4168 based
his wor) on emphasizing how leaders can help followers use conflict
constructively to effect ethical change. /obert >reenleaf 41B!8 approached
ethics and leadership by describing servant leadership, arguing that by nature a
person was a servant, and it was inherent that a servant leader focus on the
needs of the follower, help them become more )nowledgeable and capable, and
eventually become servants themselves. /obert 'c>regor <urns 41B78
described transformational leadership as the responsibility of the leader to
engage with the follower and help them reconcile their personal struggles and
conflicting values, eventually raising the level of ethics and morality in both the
leader and the follower. &he common thread pulled through all three approaches
is the relationship between the leader and the follower - 0$ have read countless
times about what ma)es an effective leader. Words li)e motivational, challenging
and inspirational are thrown around a lot. So are theories ranging from the need
21
for emotional intelligence to principles of innovation and resilience. <ut there is a
simpler way to :udge who ma)es a great leaderF the number of people who would
follow him or her out the door2 4@ymowitz, #!!68.
Leadership and Management: 7hat is Timeless and +,stainable
Achieving organizational effectiveness in a highly dynamic, comple( environment
challenges each of the above models and framewor)s. $t is at this :uncture that
scholars and practitioners have begun searching for multiple models in a single
framewor), one that might provide a more contingent, universal view of
leadership.
0<y the mid-1!"s it had become clear that no one model was sufficient to guide
a manager and that it was in fact necessary to see each of the four models
4rational, internal process, human relations, and open systems8 as elements of a
larger model2 4Muinn, #!!9, p. 118. /obert Muinn refers to the integration of
these four models as the 0competing values framewor)2 4Muinn, #!!98, shown
below in &able #.
Table !: *ompeting Palues 3ramewor) 4/obert Muinn, #!!98
$ntegration of
3our 'odels
1,man
)elations
Internal
Process
)ational
8oal 9999
Open
+ystems
*riteria for
=ffectiveness
*ommitment, morale,
participation, openness
1ocumentation,
information
Croductivity,
accomplishment,
$nnovation,
adaptation, growth,
22
management,
stability
direction, goal
clarity
resource
ac.uisition
3le(ibility or
*ontrol
3le(ible *ontrol *ontrol 3le(ible
$nternal or
=(ternal
$nternal focus $nternal focus =(ternal focus =(ternal focus
*ompetencies
or /oles
'entor and 3acilitator 'onitor and
*oordinator
Croducer and
1irector
$nnovator and
<ro)er
&here are eight values that operate in the competing values framewor), each
value complementing the one ne(t to it and directly contrasting with the one
directly opposite it, as shown in &able 9 below.
Table /: =ight values in the competing values framewor)

QQQQ

Muinn argues that a managerial leader, a person with 0high cognitive comple(ity2,
must meet three challenges in order to increase their effectiveness as a leader,
and by meeting these challenges a leader is able to increase their behavioral
comple(ity. &hose three challenges areF 418 &o appreciate both the values and
wea)nesses of each of the four models, 4#8 &o ac.uire and use the
competencies associated with each of the four models, and 498 &o dynamically
integrate the competencies from each of the models with the managerial
23
&oward
decentralization,
differentiation
&oward
development of
human resources
&oward
maintenance of the
system
&oward
consolidation,
continuity
&oward
centralization,
integration
&oward
ma(imization of
output
&oward competitive
position of system
&oward
e(pansion,
change
situations that we encounter 4Muinn, #!!9, p. 168. &o increase one"s 0behavioral
comple(ity2 4@ooi:berg and Muinn, 1#8 is 0to reflect the capacity to draw on and
use competencies and behaviors from the different models, building on the
notion of cognitive comple(ity defined as 0the ability to act out a cognitively
comple( strategy by playing multiple, even competing, roles in a highly integrated
and complementary way2 4Muinn, #!!9, p. 158. &his )ind of thin)ing only
supports the increasing comple(ity of the notion of managerial leadership and the
increasingly high demands of the role.
Caul ,awrence and 5itin 5ohria 4#!!#8, two @arvard researchers, bring together
ideas from a diversity of fields through what they claim as a Duniversal theory of
four drives" + the drive to ac.uire, the drive to bond, the drive to learn, and the
drive to defend. According to ,awrence and 5ohria, these drives, located in the
limbic area of the brain, provide the motives that drive our decision guides.
0&hese drives serve to energize and partially steer human reasoning and
decision ma)ing 4cognitive8, perceiving 4the senses8, remembering
4representation8 and acting 4s)ill sets and motor centers8 in individuals. A
growing body of evidence from comple(ity theory suggests that even a few such
fundamental drives, in dynamic interaction with each other and with other parts of
the brain, can generate the very comple( behavior that characterizes everyday
life 4,awrence and 5ohria, #!!#, pg 6-5!8. &he responsibility of leadership,
seen through the four drive theory lens, means helping others to fulfill their
ac.uiring drives, fulfill their bonding drives, fulfill their learning drives and help
others defend their accomplishments and 0rally the organization to fight the
enemy outside2 4,awrence and 5ohria, #!!#8. &he role of leadership then
becomes a continual process of negotiating and renegotiating multiple drive
contracts with it"s organizational members. 0Any firm that establishes social
contracts that provide all participants with good opportunities to fulfill their drives
will, in all li)elihood, grow to dominate its industry2 4,awrence and 5ohria, #!!#,
p. #5B8. Atopia% Cerhaps, yet what better way to engage the emotions, s)ills,
24
and intelligence of people in service of an organization + and build loyalty, hard
to come by these days.
$f loyalty is hard to come by, so to are integrity, professionalism, and innovation.
Ceter 1ruc)er wrote the 0Cractice of 'anagement2 in 156, as timeless in views
and principles of management, as those management views of 'ary Car)er
3ollett in the 1#!"s and 9!"s. 1ruc)er continually refers to the need for integrity,
professionalism and innovation in the practice of management, particularly in
times of adversity + these times. 0Adversity is the test of leadership,2 said
Eenophon #5!! years ago in the D;yropaedia" + 0still the best boo) on leadership
4ne(t to the =pistles of St. Caul82 4Nahra .uoting 1ruc)er, 156, p.118.
0$t"s easy to loo) good in a boomG&he only thing new is that the last
boom considerably increased the temptation to fa)e the boo)s + the
e(clusive emphasis on .uarterly figures, the overemphasis on the stoc)
price, the well-meant but idiotic belief that e(ecutives should have ma:or
sta)es in the company, the stoc) options 4which $ have always considered
and open invitation to mismanagement8, and so on2 4Nahra .uoting
1ruc)er, 156, p.118
@e ma)es the additional point that integrity and professionalism are as much
about the discipline and science of management as they are about the art of
leadership. According to 1ruc)er, 0managers define what the organization is
about through their actions and deeds2, while leadership 0gives the organization
meaning, defines and nurtures its central values, creates a sense of mission, and
builds the systems and processes that lead to successful performance2
4Wittmeyer .uoting 1ruc)er, 156, p. 168. 'anagers" actions and deeds reflect
the values of the organization through the decision they ma)e, the people they
hire, the people they fire, and how they pursue their goals. $n the long run, the
integrity of management reflects the ethics and morals of the organization.
>iven the changing face of management and leadership, 1ruc)er believed, and
still believes, that )nowledge wasOis the only meaningful resource and the )ey to
personal and economic success. 0$t is becoming increasingly difficult for any one
25
person to be the e(pert on all aspects of the wor) that needs to be done, and this
is true in a wide variety of conte(ts ranging from the /R1 lab to the e(ecutive
suite2 4Cearce, #!!6, p. 6B8. As a result, traditional models of leadership are in
.uestion, and some believe that the future of leadership is in the ability to
promote shared leadership in a team-based environment. &eam-based
)nowledge wor) is the result of organizations responding to the e(ternal
pressures of a more competitive global environment + and an 0increased need
for a more fle(ible wor)force, a reduction in organizational response time, and full
utilization of organizational )nowledge, which can in part be achieved through the
synergies of team-based )nowledge wor)2 4Cearce, #!!6, p. 6B8. So, as we
typically thin) of leadership as one person influencing a group of followers, or a
single person leading a team, the .uestion is being as)ed, 0is it possible and
desirable for teams of )nowledge wor)ers to contribute to the leadership process
with what is termed as shared leadership%2 4Cearce, #!!6, p. 678. 'embers of a
team become mutually accountable for a shared purpose and goals, and are
therefore fully engaged in the leadership of the teamG2and are not hesitant to
influence and guide their fellow team members in an effort to ma(imize the
potential of the team as a whole.2 4Cearce, #!!6, p. 678. <ecause shared
leadership is a more comple( and time-consuming process, it becomes
situational and should be used only for certain types of )nowledge wor) + wor)
that is interdependent, creative, and comple( 4Cearce, #!!68. &he senior leader
still retains a critical role. &hat role, the role of vertical leadership, is one of
designer, e(ternal manager, trainer, coach, sometimes transactional, sometimes
transformational, and often a role of filling a void when one appears 4Cearce,
#!!68. &his, in my mind, re.uires varying degrees of ego and humility,
depending on the needs of the team. 0&he issue is not vertical leadership or
shared leadership. /ather, the issues areF 418 when is leadership most
appropriately shared% 4#8 @ow does one develop shared leadership% 498 @ow
does one utilize both vertical and shared leadership to leverage the capabilities
of )nowledge wor)ers%2 4Cearce, #!!6, p. 558. >iven the new nature of our
wor), is this the preferred model of leadership%
26
1eveloping leaders is a current, critical focus and concern of organizations +
managers" as coaches and mentors is, in effect, recognition of the need for
building systems that encourage and produce new leaders to ensure
organizational survival 41ruc)er, 1568. 0&he manager is the dynamic, life-giving
element in every businessGin a competitive economy, above all, the .uality and
performance of the managers determine the success of a businessI indeed they
determine its survival.2 4Wittmeyer .uoting 1ruc)er, 156, p. 1?8. $t is in this way,
organizations and their leadership create value for both shareholders, and
society.
Concl,sions: -,t,re Trends and Practices
&hroughout my reading, and given the nature of my wor) and past e(periences
as a manager and director, $ find two themes of managerial leadership that
continually emergeF transactional and transformational. 5ot transactional or
transformational, but a combination and integration of the two approaches. $t
seems that the attempts over the last twenty-five years have been attempts to
integrate models by choosing the most substantiated pieces of each and
producing yet another more simplified, practical model of management and
leadership, some successful, some not. $t does not, however, seem practical for
the managerOleader practitioner to )eep multiple models and multiple roles in
their head. &he comple(ity of the sub:ect is overwhelming from a practitioner"s
standpoint. $t does seem practical to identify and pull the strengths from several,
and 0practice what they preach2 in an effort to find what wor)s for the individual.
3rom a conceptual level, $ gravitate toward a model of leadership and
management that thin)s in terms of Dtransactional" and Dtransformational". &able
6 is a synthesis of the models and framewor)s $ have described, given their
transactional or transformational nature.
27
Table #: Leadership and Management as Transactional and
Transformational
Transactional Transformational
Models /ational, $nternal Crocess,
Structure, Cower, ;nowledge
@uman /elations, Open
Systems, Symbolic
Approaches
and Theories
&rait approach
S)ills approach
Style approach
Situational approach
*ontingency theory
Cath-goal theory
,eader-'ember e(change
theory
&eam leadership
3our drive theory
&ransformational ,eadership
&eam leadership
Shared leadership
Csychodynamic approach
=thical leadership
Woman and leadership
3our drive theory
)ole of
Manager and
Leader
Clanner
Organizer
*ontroller
'onitor
Pisionary
$nnovator
$nfluencer
'entor
28
*oordinator
Croducer
1irector
3acilitator
*oach and >uide
'oral, =thical ,eader
Ob:ective A process that reduces chaos
and produces order and stability
Accomplishes mission
1efines the organization through
actions and deeds
A process that encourages
chaos 4challenges status .uo8
and produces change and
movement
*reates a vision
>ives the organization meaning
while defining and nurturing its
core values
Overlap of
Management
and
Leadership
>ets things done, i.e.
accomplishes goals through
people + influences
Clans, organizes, builds systems
to encourage successful
performance
$ntegrity, professionalism, and
innovation reflect values of the
organization and influence
actions
>ets things done, i.e.
accomplishes goals through
people + influences
Clans, organizes, builds systems
to encourage successful
performance
$ntegrity, professionalism, and
innovation reflect values of the
organization and influence
actions
C,lt,re 3osters closed culture, a
mechanistic structure, rigid
systems and procedures + a
defense-li)e strategy 4pg #998
3ocused on survival ability
3osters an open culture, an
organic structure with fle(ible
systems and procedures + a
protector-li)e strategy 4pg #998
3ocused on sustainability
At certain times, organizations thrive and prosper under transactional leadership,
and at other times they need transformational leadership, particularly in times of
rapid change 4Pera and *rossan, #!!6, p. ##?8. <ased on a more contingent
view of leadership, 0An ideal strategic leader would be able to identify + and
e(ercise + the leadership behaviors appropriate for the circumstances2 4Pera and
*rossan, #!!6, p. ##?8.
0&here is evidence that leaders may possess both transactional and
transformational behaviors. /ecent research has suggested that
transformational leadership builds on transactional leadership and, in
particular, on contingent reward behaviors 4Avolio et al, 1 .uoted by pg
##B8. Shamir 4158, for e(ample, notes that by consistently honoring
transactional agreements, *=Os build trust, dependability, and an image
of consistency among organizational members. &hese can contribute to
the high levels of trust and respect associated with transformational
leaders. $n addition, a leader may e(cel at transformational behaviors but
may choose transactional behaviors when neededI this is Muinn"s 41778
concept of a Dmaster manager"2 4Pera and *rossan, #!!6, p. ##B8.
29
'intzberg 41B8 suggested a contingency theory in light of the variation of a
manager"s wor), including the size of the organization, technology in use,
e(ternal environmental factors, and individual needs. Although somewhat
conceptual in nature, the adaptive nature of this )ind of leadership approach
lends itself to differing conditions and constant changes present in organizations
today. Houng organizations respond favorably to transformational leadership,
mature organizations to transactional leadership, and those in a decline or
renewal stage need a transformational leader. $t also recognizes the importance
of the psychodynamic approach to leadership + the importance of being more
self-aware and more insightful about oneself and ones capabilities + articulated
as a facet of Demotional intelligence" by 1aniel >oleman 4178. $t is also possible
that as one gains a greater recognition and acceptance of ones strengths and
wea)nesses, there is greater appeal to the concept of shared leadership within
both leadership teams, and the organization.
*an this approach be practiced% $ am currently wor)ing with a hospital leader
and leadership team in the midst of enormous change and facing increasingly
demanding economic conditions. &he board hired a transformational leader with
a strong transactional style. @is first two years were spent building a high level of
trust by using his transactional s)ills and style. @is first challenge was
s.uelching the entry of a nurses union to the hospital. $n the third year he
became a learner, pushing the accepted boundaries of a stable, yet stagnant,
culture, and influencing the organization and its members for the need for change
+ now. &he culture is changing. 5ew hires fit the mold of transformational
leadership primarily, with the fall bac) of transactional leadership. &hose who
could not move from transactional to transformation have 0deselected2 + they
have been forced out or have resigned of their own accord. Cerformance goals
are articulated and followed as bonus plan has been implemented - a more
contingent reward system to encourage new behaviors and performance.
,earning is emerging as a renewed core value, to support continued learning and
new ways of thin)ing about problems. &he *=O is becoming a learning leader,
30
and a trusted, well-respected one at that, both inside the organization, and
outside in the community. $ believe $ am witnessing a leadership approach that
blends transactional and transformational leadership, and one, when in practice,
is wor)ing.
'ore good news is that, according to <ass 4175, 178 0transactional and
transformational leadership behaviors can be learned through training programs2
4Pera and *rossan, #!!6, p. #9?8, which may ma)e it additionally appealing to
practitioners. $ndividuals can develop both leadership behaviors and can have a
positive impact on both organizational learning and therefore, organizational
performance. A blending of the two approaches is further supported by Jim
*ollins" 0,evel 5 ,eadership2, as defined in his #!!1 boo) 0>ood to >reat2 + a
blending of genius and personal humility and professional will. ,evel 5 leaders
recognize the need for inspirational motivation, personal attention to followers,
innovation and the freedom to be innovative + a culture of discipline that
encourages genius, supports freedom and e(pects responsibility. ,evel 5
leaders also recognize the need to 0confront the brutal facts2 and focus on
performance, and the importance of producing results. &hese factors directly
reflect the effectiveness and success of a leader.
Are transactional and transformational s)ills and abilities necessary for all levels
of leadership% >iven the nature of their role, frontline supervisors and lower level
managers should be focused on developing the competencies re.uired for both
their current role and their future role as leaders in the organization. 'id-level
managers, however, are currently being as)ed to both manage and lead. $n
future, they will be as)ed to fill the shoes of senior leadership and should
therefore be open to the notion of transformational leadership styles, including
the importance of ethical influence in an environment where old problems must
be thought of in a new way.
31
At the end of the day, $ turn, once again, to Pictor 3ran)el 4158. @e states, 0in
the final analysis it becomes clear that the sort of person the prisoner became
was the result of an inner decision, and not the result of camp influences alone.
3undamentally, therefore, any man can, even under such circumstances, decide
what shall become of him + mentally and spiritually2 43ran)el, 15, p. B58. $
believe this thought also applies philosophically to leadership. &o become a
leader is an inner decision, a choosing of an attitude or stance that models ones
beliefs and values in an active way, through our deeds and conduct, in the
interest of ma)ing things better and serving life rather than life serving us. $ have
heard a favorite leader of mine refer to leadership as 0a calling2 + perhaps a
higher calling. $t"s intelligence, it"s hard wor), and it"s a )een understanding and
appreciation of human nature and human beings + a set of technical
competencies and a set of emotional competencies, diverse enough and fle(ible
enough to move with the changing tide and control our own destinies.
;ibliography
Bing, John W. (2004, February). o!"#e$e%" &on"e'uen(e") *he i+,a(# o! hi" -or.
an$ on (on"u/#ing an$ bu"ine"" ,ra(#i(e"0. *he 1(a$e+y o! 2anage+en# 34e(u#i5e.
Briar(/i!! 2anor) February 2004. 6o/.18, 7o. 1) ,,. 80887.
Bo/+an, 9ee :., an$ ;ea/, *erren(e 3. (2003). <e!ra+ing =rgani>a#ion") 1r#i"#ry,
&hoi(e, an$ 9ea$er"hi,. ?an Fran(i"(o) Jo""ey8Ba"" @ub/i"her".
Boye##, Jo"e,h, an$ Boye##, Ji++ie (1998). *he :uru :ui$e. 7e- Aor.) John Wi/ey
an$ ?on", Bn(.
&o//in", Ji+ (2001). :oo$ #o :rea#) Why ?o+e &o+,anie" 2a.e #he 9ea,Can$
=#her" ;on%#. 7e- Aor.) ar,er&o//in" @ub/i"her".
Fo//e##, 2ary @ar.er (1995). @ro,he# o! 2ange+en#. Bo"#on. ar5ar$ Bu"ine""
?(hoo/ @re"".
Fran./, 6i.#or 3. (1959, 1962, 1984, 1992). 2an%" ?ear(h !or 2eaning. Bo"#on)
Bea(on @re"".
:o/e+an, ;anie/ (1998). Wor.ing -i#h 3+o#iona/ Bn#e//igen(e. 7e- Aor.) Ban#a+
Boo.".
32
y+o-i#>, &aro/ (2004). *he Be"# 9ea$er" a5e 3+,/oyee" Who Wou/$ Fo//o-
*he+ 1ny-here0. *he Wa// ?#ree# Journa/. 2004, February 10) B1.
9a-ren(e, @au/ <., an$ 7ohria, 7i#in (2002). ;ri5en) o- u+an 7a#ure ?ha,e"
=ur &hoi(e". ?an Fran(i"(o) Jo""ey8Ba"" @ub/i"her".
2in#>berg, . (1973). *he 7a#ure o! 2anageria/ Wor.. 7e- Aor.) ar,er D <o-.
7or#hou"e, @e#er :. (2003). 9ea$er"hi,) *heory an$ @ra(#i(e. *hou"an$ =a.", &1)
?age @ub/i(a#ion".
@ear(e, &raig 9. (2004). *he Fu#ure o! 9ea$er"hi,) &o+bining 6er#i(a/ an$ ?hare$
9ea$er"hi, #o *ran"!or+ Eno-/e$ge Wor.0. *he 1(a$e+y o! 2anage+en#
34e(u#i5e, Briar(/i!! 2anor) Feb 2003. 6o/. 18, B"". 1F ,,. 47857.
Guinn, <ober# 3. (2002). Be(o+ing a 2a"#er 2anager) 1 &o+,e#en(y Fra+e-or..
Wi/ey *e4# Boo.".
<ee$, 2i(hae/ (1996). =rgani>a#iona/ *heori>ing) 1 i"#ori(a//y &on#e"#e$ *errain.
Bn ?#e-ar# <. &/egg, &yn#hia ar$y, an$ Wa/#er <. 7or$ (3$"), an$boo. o!
=rgani>a#iona/ ?#u$ie" (,,. 31856). *hou"an$ =a.", &1) ?age @ub/i(a#ion".
?(hein, 3$gar . (1992). =rgani>a#iona/ &u/#ure an$ 9ea$er"hi,. ?an Fran(i"(o)
Jo""ey8Ba"" @ub/i"her".
?ur5ey on <e#ire+en#. (2004, 2ar(h 27). *he 3(ono+i"#, 6o/. 370, 7o. 8368.
6era, ;u"ya, an$ &ro""an, 2ary (2004). ?#ra#egi( 9ea$er"hi, an$ =rgani>a#iona/
9earning0. *he 1(a$e+y o! 2anage+en# 34e(u#i5e, Briar(/i!! 2anor) 1,ri/ 2004.
6o/. 29, B"". 2F ,,.2228240.
Wi##+eyer, &aro/ (2003). The Practice of Management: Timeless Views and
Principles. *he 1(a$e+y o! 2anage+en# 34e(u#i5e, Briar(/i!! 2anor) 1ug 2003.
6o/. 17, B"". 3F ,,.13815.
Hahra, ?ha.er 1. (2003). The Practice of Management: Reflections on Peter F.
Druckers Landmark ook. *he 1(a$e+y o! 2anage+en# 34e(u#i5e, Briar(/i!!
2anor) 1ug 2003. 6o/. 17, B"". 3F ,.16.


33
34