Jole 2 1

Journal
of
Leadership Education
...is an international, refereed journal that serves scholars and professional

practitioners engaged in leadership education.
...provides a forum for the development of the knowledge base and professional
practice of leadership education world wide.
...is made available through the continued support and efforts of the
membership of the Association of Leadership Educators.
Volume 2, Number 1
Summer 2003
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 2, Issue 1 - Summer2003
The Journal of Leadership Education
The Journal of Leadership Education (JOLE) is the official publication of the

Association of Leadership Educators. The purpose of JOLE is to provide a forum
for development of the knowledge base and practice of leadership education. The
journal is intended to promote a dialogue that engages both academics and
practitioners. Thus, JOLE has a particular interest in applied research and it is the
premise of JOLE that feedback between theory and practice tests both and makes
each better. The journal provides several categories for submittals to promote
diversity of discussion from a variety of authors.
The members and board of the Association of Leadership Educators became

aware of the need for a journal about leadership education in the early 1990s. The
challenge of educating people about leadership is particularly provocative,
complex, and subtle. Other journals with leadership in the title focus primarily on
defining and describing leadership, and journals concerning education seldom
address the subject of leadership. Indeed, one common argument in society is that
leadership is innate (you have it or you don't) and teaching leadership is difficult
and often ineffective. This attitude is expressed, perhaps, in the dearth of
leadership courses on our university campuses.
In this context, JOLE provides a means to test the hypothesis that leadership
education is possible. Our journal sits at the nexus of education theory and
practice and leadership theory and practice, and from this divide, this mountain
pass, there is a need to look "both ways". Whether or not leadership education is a
discipline of its own is unclear, at least at present. If nothing else, by looking both
ways this journal hopes to provide a passageway between two disciplines,
enriching both in the process.
JOLE is an electronic journal open to all, both as writers and readers. The journal
has been conceived as an "on-line" journal that is available on the world-wide
web and is to be self-supporting. To this end, at some time in the future a fee may
be charged for publication. At present, all editorial, Board, and reviewer services
are provided without cost to JOLE or its members by volunteer scholars and
practitioners.
Copyright 2003 by the Association of Leadership Educators.
All rights reserved.
ISSN 1552-9045
ii
Editorial Staff and Reviewers
Editor in Chief
• Christine Townsend, Texas A & M University
Associate Editor
• C. B. Crawford, Fort Hays State University
Editorial Reviewers
• Elizabeth Bolton, University of Florida
• Chester Bowling, Ohio State University
• Barry Boyd, Texas A&M University
• Christie Brungardt, Fort Hays State University
• Curtis L. Brungardt, Fort Hays State University
• Marilyn Corbin, Pennsylvania State University
• Kathryn Cox, Ohio State University
• Ken Culp III, University of Kentucky
• Renee Daugherty, Oklahoma State University
• Garee Earnest, Ohio State University
• Nancy Franz, University of New Hampshire
• Susan M. Fritz, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
• Scott Homan, Purdue University
• Tracy Hoover, Pennsylvania State University
• Nancy Huber, University of Arizona
• Kathleen Kelsey, Oklahoma State University
• Christine Langone, University of Georgia
• Jeri Marxman, University of Illinois
• Jeffery P. Miller, Innovative Leadership Solutions
• Lori Moore, University of Idaho
• Martha Nall, University of Kentucky
• Robin Orr, University of Illinois
• Penny Pennington, Oklahoma State University
• John Ricketts, University of Georgia
• Richard Rohs, University of Georgia
• Mark Russell, Purdue University
• Chris Sieverdes, Clemson University
• Wanda Sykes, North Carolina State University
• Kelleen Stine-Cheyne, Texas A&M University
• Laurie Thorp, Michigan State University
• Jim Ulrich, Antioch University
• Bill Weeks, Oklahoma State University
• Larry Wilson, University of Illinois
• Michael Woods, Michigan State University
• Karen Zotz, North Dakota State University
iii
Table of Contents
Between Great Men and Leadership: William James on the 3

Importance of Individuals
Nathan Harter, Purdue University
Effective Leadership Education: Developing a Core Curriculum for 13

Leadership Studies
Willis M. Watt, Methodist College
The Relationship of Leadership Practices to Culture 27

Penny Pennington, Oklahoma State University
Christine Townsend, Texas A & M University
Richard Cummings, Texas A & M University
Enron’s Ethical Collapse: Lessons for Leadership Educators 45

Craig Johnson, George Fox University
Transformational Leader as Champion and Techie: Implications for 57

Leadership Educators
C.B. Crawford, Fort Hays State University
Lawrence V. Gould, Fort Hays State University
Robert F. Scott, University of Maine at Fort Kent
Submission Guidelines 74
iv
From the Editor’s Clipboard
The context for this issue begins with a thought about where research of and by
leadership educators is now - on the cusp of something great. The editorial staff
of JOLE is proud to be able to offer five articles that attack issues of leadership
education on the center and at the edges, well into the past, but with an eye on the
future. The editorial staff was quite pleased with the breadth of submission for
this issue, offering a wide variety of topics that will be sure to stimulate thinking
for most leadership educators.
Editing this issue, in the absence of our founding Editor Tom Gallagher, was both
a challenge, and most definitely a pleasure. We were fortunate to have over ten
submissions for this issue. Of those, eight were sent to the editorial staff for
review. Five of those articles were recommended for inclusion, all with minor or
substantial changes. I was quite pleased with the vigor and passion of the
reviewers, and hopefully, that attention to quality is evident in the papers that I
present to you here.
A special note of thanks to the reviewers that participated in this last issue. My
appreciation cannot be expressed in this space and your efforts to make this
journal of higher quality cannot be underscored enough. This last review cycle
saw a paring away of individuals that were not interested in reviewing, and a
stabilization of those who want to take a passionate role in that process. My
undying thanks to those who stuck around to help! As always, reviewers with
expertise in leadership education are always welcomed.
It is my sincerest hope that the readership of JOLE find the articles in this issue
both interesting and thought provoking - on the cusp of great thinking. It is in
this spirit that I offer the following issue for the most important review in our
processes at JOLE - the reader.
Respectfully submitted, C. B. Crawford, Interim Editor
Between Great Men and Leadership: William James on the Importance of

Individuals
Professor Harter forces us to look back to an author of legend - William James -

in an effort to clarify what great thoughts were occurring in the late 19th century.
Harter provides great basis from which one might argue that leadership education,
though not formal, happened even then to more participants than one might
imagine. James puts the individual leader at the center of the leadership equation,
a view which may have waned in recent leadership literature. Enjoy this
provocative piece on leaders and change based in an earlier time!
1
Effective Leadership Education: Developing a Core Curriculum for

Leadership Studies
In this piece, Professor Watt provides some interesting perspective on the

curriculum development. Watt submits that the Hosford (1973) model of
curriculum development provides a real foundation from which to build
leadership curriculum. Hosford tightly integrates curriculum, instruction, and
teaching through detailed analysis on eight different areas of concern. This article
is a must-read for those about to undertake curriculum development efforts.
The Relationship of Leadership Practices to Culture
In this article, Professors Pennington, Townsend, and Cummins expose the role of
organizational cultures in the ability to engage Kouzes and Posner's leadership
practices. Clearly there is a strong theoretical foundation, but a very innovative
flair is added when these authors report their findings from recent empirical work
in the area.
Enron's Ethical Collapse: Lessons for Leadership Educators
Professor Johnson provides some very important insight into the role of ethics, a
topic for which his name has become synonymous. Johnson clarifies something
that all leadership educators know, but few feel great about - the ethics of
leadership in a complex society. Johnson provides us with an exceptional lesson
in the unethical acts of the few can impact so many. Johnson remind us all that
ethics is not just a chapter at the end of the book, especially when the implications
of unethical behavior have such deleterious effects on society and the people that
are directly touched.
Transformational Leader as Champion and Techie: Implications for

Leadership Educators
To say that the environment that leadership exists within is speeding up and
becoming more complex is to simply restate that which we already know - it is a
given. Professors Crawford, Gould, and Scott provide some empirical study on
the nature of innovation as it relates to transformational leadership. These authors
purport that technologically innovative leadership emerges in two distinct styles -
the champion and the techie. Each style offers different methods designed to
motivate followers. The implications for leadership educators should be clear
after reviewing this piece - leadership and innovation will necessarily become
more connected as our society becomes more dependent on technological
solutions.
2
Between Great Men and Leadership:

William James on the Importance of Individuals
Nathan Harter
Associate Professor
Department of Organizational Leadership
Purdue University
Greensburg, IN 47240
nharter@purdue.edu
Abstract
In the 1880s, William James argued that individuals do make a difference in
history, and that the study of influential people is a defensible academic pursuit.
The literature on leadership today raises three distinct challenges to his position:
(a) that everyone is a leader, (b) that no one is a leader, and (c) that leadership is
self-leadership. To avoid confusion, educators should look closer at the
arguments, not only for historical reasons. There are sound theoretical,
conceptual, and psychological reasons, for teachers and students alike to look
closer at his argument.
Introduction
Leadership studies rarely look back prior to 1900. For whatever reason, those
remote deliberations seem irrelevant today. An exception has been made for
historical studies of actual leaders, such as Attila the Hun, Abraham Lincoln, and
Jesus. A few prominent writers such as Plato and Machiavelli appear in the
literature, like museum pieces, presented more as curiosities than anything else.
Contemporary writers will use their authority now and then to add a certain
literary gilding, for an apt phrase or a clever quotation.
Closer inspection of prior deliberations reveals they were frequently embroiled in

the very same issues that trouble us today. In many instances, their treatment turns
out to be superior. Few scholars for example exceed Aristotle in rigor and
breadth. Yet, even when there is no appreciable difference in quality, they deserve
credit for having wrestled with the issues before contemporary scholars did.
Perhaps by being reacquainting with their work, people can avoid reinventing the
wheel, as they say, and instead build on their achievements (Wren, 1995; Clemens
& Mayer, 1999).
In trying to build on their work, researchers tend to take for granted the
deliberations that brought them to this moment. Even when people do rely on
earlier work, they frequently take an uncritical view. Scholars see no reason to
3
revisit controversies that have long been settled. They are, in other words,
building on foundations they see no reason to inspect.
As an exercise in reconstructing past deliberations, this paper examines two

companion articles by the American pragmatist William James. These articles
bear on issues of interest to leadership studies today. Bernard Bass (1990) said as
much in his Handbook of Leadership, where he specifically cites James. What
these two old articles were doing, it turns out, was laying the intellectual
groundwork for what would become leadership studies. And in the hands of such
a master, they excel.
The Context for His Remarks

In 1880, William James published a talk he gave to Harvard’s Natural History
Society. Great Men and Their Environment provoked a response that he saw fit to
answer 10 years later in The Importance of Individuals. Together, they defend the
notion that individual human beings can and do make a difference in the course of
history, and that it is “good, right, and salutary” to study those who particularly
stand out. It does not matter whether they are called genius, hero, or leader.
There would have been no reason for him to craft such an argument except in
rebuttal. As it turns out, many writers were casting doubt on the usefulness and
even the legitimacy of such studies. It was in response to their arguments that
James spoke up.
Leadership studies presently takes for granted that individuals can and do make a
difference. We are unlikely to question this, yet the matter remains unsettled. Not
everyone agrees. Even within leadership studies, a number of writers are trying to
get away from the importance of individual initiative, as we shall see. In the
1800s, the importance of individual initiative was hotly contested. Followers of
Marx pointed instead to economic determinants. Followers of Darwin pointed to
biological determinants. Whether Marx or Darwin would have drawn the same
conclusions as their followers is immaterial. Wren (1995) excerpts a passage from
Tolstoy’s War and Peace to the effect that leaders are nothing more than history’s
slaves. Tolstoy is quoted as follows: “In historic events, the so-called great men
are labels giving names to events, and like labels they have but the smallest
connection to the event itself” (p. 59).
Standing lonely in the breach on behalf of the notion that individuals do make a
difference had been Thomas Carlyle. Carlyle was a singularly unsympathetic
champion, born in 1795. According to Bentley (1944, 1957), his particular brand
of hero-worship was subsequently followed by Nietzsche, Wagner, Stefan
George, and D.H. Lawrence. Bentley explicitly connects a century of hero-
worship with the work of William James “above all” (pp. 80 & 158). But “hero-
worship” sounds just as alien to us today as the so-called “great man” theory –
both of which strike the wrong chord with egalitarians, women, and collectivists.
4
For that reason, those labels must be set aside. Nonetheless, the seeds of their
argument have grown into leadership studies, whether scholars claim the
affiliation or not. It is too facile to sneer at hero-worship and the great man theory
and let it go at that.
Another theoretical thread winding its way toward leadership studies is Elite
Theory. Elite theory holds that groups, organizations, societies, and all of history
respond to the influence of a small, but powerful minority. They observed
domination by the qualified few. They held that there will always be an elite. The
elite can be understood as the class of genius, heroism, and leadership, assuming
it is an approved class. Not infrequently, those who developed elite theory held
the concomitant preference for aristocracy. In this tradition, Levine (1995) finds
Italians such as Pareto, Mosca, Gramsci, Michels, and Bobbio. Wren (1995) also
names Americans such as W. E. B. DuBois. The name of William James should
be added to this group.
He stands at the confluence of two intellectual traditions that feed leadership

studies today. One is hero-worship and the other is elite theory. What then did he
argue?
The Argument
One could say that everything taken together contributes to bring about change,
but such a vague and universal statement is distinctly unhelpful (James, 1880,
1884, 1890/1956). What interest most folks are the proximate causes of change.
If someone wants to build a birdhouse, for example, it might help to know about
tools, materials, and design. It would be less helpful to find out how a person ever
acquired an opposable thumb. That fact does make a difference, of course, since
opposable thumbs enable individuals to use woodworking tools, but it is hardly a
difference of any relevance to the immediate need of building a birdhouse. When
asking for advice about the way to build a birdhouse, one does not expect
someone to start explaining that among other things the builder needs two
opposable thumbs. Nor would it be expected that the individual expound on the
wiring of the human nervous system, the evolution of trees, or the conquest of
Gaul. If everything taken together causes change, then nothing else really needs to
be said. How does one build a birdhouse? “In the beginning, God created the
heavens and the earth…” (NIV Bible, Genesis 1:1).
William James began with the fact that people are different. Some possess
noticeable talents and gifts (1880, 1884, 1890/1956). How those differences
originate is a legitimate question, going back through the womb to climate, race,
divine will, and so forth. There are separate questions just as legitimate and for
most purposes more useful. How did the environment affect those who are
different? And, how did those differences affect the environment? These are
questions leadership studies is likely to ask in other ways today. How does one
5
build an organizational culture to encourage and develop leaders? How does one
build an organizational culture in the first place? Scholars want to know how
leaders develop, and they want to know what leaders do. Ultimately, researchers
want to know what leaders can do to increase and improve leadership. All of this
is of interest professionally, and these are the kinds of questions William James
was attempting to justify.
James (1880, 1884, 1890/1956) asserted that change can be attributed “in the
main…to the acts or the example of individuals…” (p. 227). Whatever potential
lies within the group, organization, or society, some individual brings it out,
shapes it, and can be said to have led. He will not have led all by his lonesome, of
course, since other individuals made their contributions along the way.
Nevertheless, there is no reason to reject the idea of leadership just because there
have been multiple leaders, any more than it makes sense to deny the importance
of raindrops when so many are falling. The individual cannot completely
determine change. It is not in the leader’s power to do so. Instead, the leader
works within the context. The leader has to. For one thing, the times are not
always ripe. Leadership then brings together the individual with circumstances.
Both contribute to the form of the event (pp. 229f & 232).
Is this not the position leadership studies has since taken? One textbook on
leadership admits “studying only leaders provides a limited view of the leadership
process” (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 1996, p. 60). Another makes a similar
claim:
Leaders and followers do not act in a vacuum. They are propelled,

constrained, and buffeted by their environment. The effective
leader must understand the nature of the leadership context, and
how it affects the leadership process. Only then can he or she
operate effectively in seeking to achieve the group’s objectives.
(Wren, 1995, p. 243)
Robert Ezra Park, the noted American sociologist, characterized the role
of the leader within his context in a similar fashion.
To the extent that leaders emerge from previously amorphous

crowds, ephemeral and unreflective actions give way to more
stable and permanent forms of organization. The leaders of
emerging social movements or religious organizations impose
social control on the previously unstructured collective behavior of
the crowd, thereby transforming it into an audience.
(cited in Coser, 1971, p. 362)
Bass (1990) asserts that such an approach influenced the theorization about
leadership that has followed since 1948. In short, leaders do make a difference.
We simply want to understand what difference they make.
6
When James (1880, 1884, 1890/1956) found it necessary to supplement his

argument, he agreed that the distinction between leaders and followers is very
slight indeed. He also agreed that a leader is on the whole led more than he leads.
The cumulative effect of all interpersonal influence, throughout society and across
time, makes the leadership episode seem puny by comparison. Nonetheless, he
quotes an acquaintance of his in this way: “There is very little difference between
one man and another; but what little there is, is very important [emphasis
supplied]” (p. 256f).
Nothing prevents the sociologist from studying historical trends and vast
collective movements. That is a perfectly legitimate topic. It is just not the only
topic. James (1880, 1884, 1890/1956) was interested in the micro-phenomenon;
sociologists are interested in the macro-phenomenon. These are not mutually
exclusive. Instead, they are complementary, in what has come to be known as the
hermeneutic circle. For his part, James regarded the disagreement as “merely a
quarrel of emphasis…” (p. 259). In fact, most ordinary folks are interested in
individual differences and in the importance of individuals. Leaders especially
draw attention to themselves, even if only because of their effects. People want to
understand what happens at the micro level.
Much that happens in human society is taken for granted. People tend to ignore
patterns and processes they have seen before. After some time, they become
commonplace. Not so leadership! Leadership occurs at the point where something
new or interesting is taking place. There, the future takes shape. The sociologist’s
trends and movements are, as often as not, formed out of moments of leadership
(James, 1880, 1884, 1890/1956). If not, where then lies causation? Is the
sociologist required also to be a fatalist, as though events depend on no individual
initiative whatsoever? That would be an extreme and unnecessary claim (see The
Dilemma of Determinism at 1880, 1884, 1890/1956, pp. 145-183).
James (1880, 1884, 1890/1956) uses an analogy. A tree’s inner rings bear witness
to its past. Cut the trunk across, and you see its past in the rings. Taken together,
they constitute the bulk of the tree. The tree lives, however, largely at the
perimeter, the exterior, that narrow band of activity where this year it suffers and
grows. Yes, the tree is mostly the product of its past, but each stage along the
way, through that past, was a present. In the present, the outer ring is most alive.
So also, leaders help to determine how the group, organization, or society will
grow tomorrow, just as leaders did previously when it was their turn to make a
difference. With time, the present becomes the past, and whatever it was that the
leaders did will persist only as bulk. By then, new leaders will be doing their
thing, so it matters a great deal what they are doing.
It would seem that the vitality of human societies would be of most interest. That
vitality expresses itself most dramatically in the lives and influence of the genius,
hero, and leader.
7
Challenges to His Argument Within Leadership Studies

Leadership studies today include many voices casting doubt on the position
William James took in the 1800s. They ask us to move away from that paradigm
of the importance of extraordinary individuals. James O’Toole, to cite one
example, wrote in 2001, “Instead of leadership being a solo act, an aria sung by
the CEO, in these organizations it is a shared responsibility, more like a chorus of
diverse voices singing in unison” (O’Toole, 2001, p. 19f). He concluded that “in
many successful companies leadership is treated as an institutional capacity and
not solely as an individual trait [emphasis supplied]” (p. 21). “[These firms] may
have developed the moral equivalent of great, individual leadership” (p. 28).
Wilfred Drath (2001) agrees. He argues that in this day and age we are coming to
view leadership as “the property of a social system. Individual people do not
possess leadership; leadership happens when people participate in collaborative
forms of thought and action” (p. 15). W. F. Foster has been cited for making
similar claims about “leadership as community” (cited in Rost, 1993). Leadership
as an institutional capacity, a property of the social system, a community? What
gives? Daniel Born noticed this trend in 1996:
It has by now become a cliché of current leadership studies to

throw out the notion of the Great Man Theory of Leadership (the
individual being by definition a category of suspicion) and to
substitute it with vaguely beneficent notions of group dynamics.
Hierarchy is out, loosely-coupled organic networks are in. On the
face of it, this decentered, non-hierarchical vision of leadership [is]
a warm fuzzy that empties “leadership” of all its hard, hierarchical,
and lordly overtones….”
(p. 52)
What has fallen into dispute is a deep and widespread paradigm about the
causation of social change. Scholars seem to be reexamining what R. M. MacIver
(1942/1964) referred to as the “role of the precipitant.” The field of leadership
studies presupposes that an individual human being can serve as a precipitant, that
is, as a factor “introduced from the outside, or else [emerging] from within, so
that it evokes a series of repercussions or reactions significantly changing the total
situation…” (p. 423). The object of these studies has been how individuals make
that happen. If this old paradigm is set aside, the paradigm represented by
William James, what then might the new paradigm look like? There are three
dominant alternatives within leadership studies.
This new paradigm might hold that “anyone who wants to help at this time” is a
leader (Wheatley, 2002). In other words, everyone is a leader. Leadership is not
restricted to extraordinary individuals or extraordinary efforts. Leadership takes
place all the time, large and small, in a vast, interconnected series of events. There
is no reason to limit study to that of heroes and great men. In fact, such a
limitation would distort the understanding of social change and discourage
8
ordinary folks from doing their part. McGill and Slocum (1997) note that in the
literature on leadership one tends to read about large problems requiring dramatic
effort by outsized characters and call it leadership. What is really needed, they
argue, are usually little acts by ordinary people. It is called “little leadership.” The
authors concluded that a little leadership offers what followers want and what
their leaders can do. They suggested leadership can be learned. Just as importantly
“little leadership” is exactly the amount and kind of leadership needed in most
organizations.
Along these lines, those who want to lead more effectively are presently being
advised to cultivate the leadership capacity of their followers (Owen, 1999;
McFarland, Senn, & Childress, 1995). Belasco and Stayer (1993) used the
following image to make their point.
What I really wanted in the organization was a group of

responsible, interdependent workers, similar to a flock of geese….
I could see the geese flying in their “V” formation, the leadership
changing frequently, with different geese taking the lead. I saw
every goose being responsible for getting itself to wherever the
gaggle was going, changing roles whenever necessary, alternating
as a leader, a follower, or a scout. And when the task changed, the
geese would be responsible for changing the structure of the group
to accommodate, similar to the geese that fly in a “V” but land in
waves. I could see each goose being a leader.
(p. 18)
To summarize, the first new paradigm envisions more individuals within a

group, organization, or society engaging in large and small leadership
throughout the structure.
Pushed to extremes, this paradigm would hold that everything a person does can
be construed as leadership. “They also serve who stand and wait.” Under this
rubric, leadership is no longer a distinct thing, an object of study in its own right.
How exactly would leadership be taught prescriptively, for those who want to
learn how to do it, when they already are leading in everything they do now? Such
an inclusive understanding of leadership certainly contravenes ordinary usage of
the term. James left room in his 1890 article for the changes brought about under
the first new paradigm, yet he would have rejected the extreme form. From his
point of view, some things are leadership and some are not.
In the alternative, then, a new replacement paradigm might hold that leadership is
an outdated concept altogether. When all is said and done, no one is a leader.
What has been known as leadership is in fact something else, something better
understood as systems thinking, for example, where systems cause their own
behavior (Senge, 1990). “In mastering systems thinking,” Senge writes, “we give
up the assumption that there must be an individual, or individual agent,
9
responsible” (p. 78). Instead, leadership is something of an optical illusion,

namely the misplaced attribution of responsibility onto specific individuals.
These first two alternatives might seem indistinguishable, on the order of saying
that when everyone leads, then no one does. Are they one and same thing? Is it
the same thing to say that everyone leads and that no one leads? Despite a certain
surface plausibility, however, they do remain conceptually distinct. You would
not make the following assertion: When everyone eats, then no one does.
Leadership can arise in a thousand contexts, at multiple levels of any group,
organization, or society, and can change from task to task. The first alternative
paradigm (that everyone can lead) holds that leadership is an activity or event that
means something; it simply expands the number of people doing it. The second
alternative denies that leadership ever happens. It is, instead, a misleading term
for something explained better in other ways. What the first alternative wants to
celebrate here, there, and everywhere, the other alternative denies as even
happening. Rather than empower and encourage, the second alternative tries to
change the object of inquiry and get away from the fantasy that free individuals
make any difference.
Finally, the new paradigm might hold that leadership is something one does by
himself, regardless whether he affects others or not. A leader does not need
followers. He can do it in isolation (Manz & Sims, 1989).
In each of these three paradigms, leadership as a distinctive contribution to the

course of change by extraordinary individuals does not necessarily exist. Each
new paradigm challenges the dominant assumptions about leadership that James
laboriously laid out over a century ago. In subsequent debates, while leadership
studies tries to sort out the scope and purpose of its mission, scholars will have to
return to his arguments and meet them directly. Do individuals make a difference?
If not, then the term “leadership” is useless.
Implications for Educators

There are several concrete implications for leadership education. For one thing,
James occupies an important place in the history of leadership studies, where
hero-worship and elite theory come together. For another, the arguments he made
then are still valid. It is important for educators to recognize the theoretical
foundations of their discipline. For yet another implication, educators can now use
a list to help students compartmentalize four different points of view.
• The dominant point of view: Leaders are distinct and important.

• The first alternative: Everyone is a leader.
• The second alternative: Leadership is meaningless.
• The third alternative: Leadership is something done alone.
10
The four-part list also helps the educator compartmentalize new readings and
keep them straight in her own mind.
In other words, the argument of James has historical, theoretical, and conceptual
implications. There are two more implications of greater importance, in the
opinion of this writer, and they are psychological.
First, James bolsters the morale of educators. Teaching leadership really matters,
because leadership really matters. It is okay to teach it. There is some
psychological advantage to hearing once again why leadership educators do what
they do.
Second, students are likelier to pay attention in class and internalize their lessons
when they understand the significance their lives can have. James reminds us all
that leaders do make a difference. Students of leadership who believe him will go
confidently into the world to make a difference.
References
Bass, B. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York:
Free Press.
Belasco, J., & Stayer, R. (1993). Flight of the buffalo. New York: Warner Books.
Born, D. ‘Leadership studies’: A critical appraisal. In P. Temes (Ed.). (1996).

Teaching leadership (chap. 3). New York: Peter Lang.
Clemens, J., & Mayer, D. (1999). The classic touch. Chicago: Contemporary
Books.
Coser, L. (1971). Masters of sociological thought. Chicago: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.
Drath, W. (2001). The deep blue sea. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hughes, R., Ginnett, R., & Curphy, G. (1996). Leadership (2nd ed.). Chicago:
Irwin.
James, W. (1956). The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy (pp.
145-183, 216-262). New York: Dover. (Original works published 1880, 1884, &
1890)
Levine, D. (1995). Visions of the sociological tradition. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.
11
MacIver, R. M. The role of the precipitant. In A. Etzioni & Etzioni, E. (Eds.).

(1964). Social change (chap. 46). New York: Basic Books. (Original work
published 1942)
Manz, C., & Sims, H., Jr. (1989). Super-Leadership. New York: Berkley Books.
McFarland, L., Senn, L., & Childress, J. Redefining leadership for the next
century. In Wren, T. (Ed.). (1995). The leader’s companion (chap. 58). New
York: Free Press.
McGill, M., & Slocum, J., Jr. (1997). A little leadership, please. Organizational
Dynamics 26.
O’Toole, J. When leadership is an organizational trait. In Wilsey, S., Matusak, L.,

& Cherrey, C. (Eds.). (2001). Building leadership bridges, 2001 (pp. 18-31).
College Park, MD: International Leadership Association.
Owen, H. (1999). The spirit of leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Rost, J. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Wheatley, M. Restoring hope to the future through critical education of leaders. In

Cherrey, C., & Matusak, L. (Eds.). (2002). Building leadership bridges, 2002 (pp.
1-6). College Park, MD: International Leadership Association.
Wren, T. (Ed.). (1995). The leader’s companion. New York: Free Press.
12
Effective Leadership Education: Developing a Core

Curriculum for Leadership Studies
Willis M. Watt, Ph.D.

Director, Division of Professional Studies
Methodist College
5400 Ramsey Street
Fayetteville, NC 28311-1498
wmwatt@methodist.edu
Abstract
Educators must develop leadership studies programs that prepare students to deal
with the reality of a diverse world so they are able to handle constant change as
they lead in the 21st century. The purpose of this paper is to consider a variety of
questions that need to be answered when developing core curricula for college
and university leadership studies programs. The discussion is based many years of
researching, developing, and teaching in this area at state universities as well as at
private liberal arts and Christian colleges. This paper offers a review of the
importance of leadership education, a review of Hosford’s (1973) curriculum
development model, and an examination of three case histories. Hosford (1973)
has developed a model of instructional design that suggests a strong
interrelationship exists between any given curriculum program and the subsequent
teaching involved in the program. Hosford’s model challenges the educator to ask
a variety of questions concerning issues affecting professional, practical, political,
package (i.e., program), organizational, interrelated dynamics, teaching/learning,
and implementation. As illustrated by the three case histories, with attention to
each dimension of curriculum development it is possible to develop meaningful
and successful leadership studies courses and programs at the college and
university levels.
Introduction
Living in the 21st century means needing new technologies to deal with challenges
such as population growth, food supplies, disease, pollution, waste disposal, urban
sprawl, societal unrest, economic crisis, corporate growth, and war. Just as
importantly people need leaders who are skilled in critical thinking,
communicating, and effective leadership. Leaders are needed who are capable of
dealing with family problems, poverty, politics, ethics, interpersonal and
international relations as well as many other problems. Effective leaders are
needed at all levels of our society. Obviously “understanding leadership has
practical importance for all of us” (Hackman & Johnson, 2000, p. 1).
13
Leadership education must not be limited to discussions in classrooms and think

tanks. In 1988 Alvin Toffler (cited in Sawin, 1995) said, “we use the ‘first wave’
to mean the process associated with agriculturalization and the agrarian era; the
‘second wave’ to mean the processes of industrial era; and the ‘third wave’ to
mean the changes forming a new society today” (p. xviii). Effective leadership
education will need to prepare people to deal with the diverse reality present in a
pluralistic world. Leaders must be able to communicate effectively --
interpersonally and organizationally. They need to be able to handle constant
change. They need to understand human perception, physiology, neurology,
psychology, and social behavior. Such individuals need to apply critical thinking,
language, and behavior that are appropriate in a myriad of situations. All in all the
leaders of the 21st century will need to be able to skillfully communicate with
people in order to lead effectively while promoting cooperation and mutual
understanding among diverse people.
The good news is that today there is general agreement that leadership can be
learned. Few people would deny there is a critical need for effective leadership in
human affairs. Certainly a person’s thoughts are shaped by the leaders that
individual comes in contact with daily. And, while leadership behavior may
appear to be subconscious, such learning is not inconsistent with much of human
behavior. People often are not conscious of various aspects of their personalities
and behaviors. Yet, because too little about what constitutes effective leadership
is known, leadership educators must strive to make the subconscious dimensions
of leadership conscious, and thus, at least in theory, enhance the education and
training of effective leaders.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to consider a variety of questions that need to be

answered when developing core curricula for college and university leadership
studies programs. The discussion is based on many years of researching,
developing, and teaching in this area at state universities as well as at private
liberal arts and Christian colleges. This paper offers a review of the importance of
leadership education, a discussion of Hosford’s (1973) model for developing a
core curriculum, and an examination of three case histories involving the
development of leadership studies courses and programs.
Importance of Leadership Education

The 20th century saw an ideological shift in higher education from the belief that
education is a tool of cultural transmission to a more contemporary belief that it
should serve the needs and wants of students (Watt, 1980). This shift is reflected
in increased accessibility to higher education. It supports the importance of
education. College attendance, once only for the well-to-do or rich, is now
considered a right that everyone enjoys. While significant social and racial
14
barriers still exist, higher education is making strides to meet the needs of all
citizens in the United States of America.
For over 2,500 years liberal arts education has reflected a basic philosophy of
what is needed to adequately educate students to fulfill the responsibilities placed
on them (Watt, 1980). Today colleges and universities are involved in preparing
students for a wide variety of professions and occupations. In more recent years
changes within liberal arts education has included a focus on effective leadership
education. Many colleges and universities recognize the importance of including
courses and programs that provide education for developing effective leadership.
Leadership education has experienced many theoretical explanations that have

shifted from one model to another and then back again (Brungardt, 1996
Summer). Brungardt identified five major theories -- “trait, behavioral,
situational, power-influence, and transformational” (p. 82). Crawford, Brungardt,
and Maughan (2000) note that “leadership theorists have struggled with one basic
concept: the definition of leadership” (p. 1).
Brungardt (1996 Summer) points out that “it is important from the outset to
distinguish and define the critical and sometimes confusing terminology” (p. 83).
“Leadership development” deals with almost all forms of growth or stages of
development in the life cycle that promotes a person’s leadership potential. On the
other hand, “leadership education” refers to those learning activities and
educational situations intended to enhance leadership abilities. Unfortunately
throughout history leadership education has been for a select few and not always
available to everyone who can and should benefit from leadership development
programs (Watt, 1995).
Certainly leadership education can and should achieve a number of goals (Wolfe,
1996 Fall). A function of any leadership education program is to promote both
youth and adult leadership as a key component of individual and community
growth. Secondly, such programs should enhance leadership by establishing
relationships for the exchange of ideas, information, and research. Another
dimension of leadership education is to develop an environment that encourages
the translation of leadership theory and research into practice. Leadership
programs should encourage the creation of new educational partnerships. And,
finally, they should provide opportunities for personal and professional
development.
According to Quigley (1996 September), there is a clear need for emergent

leaders who have the capacity for resolving divergent human problems. These
divergent problems require ethically based leaders. In support of this point,
Holkeboer and Hoeksema (1998) assert that “leadership should endorse ethical
principles and embody moral integrity” (p. 5). “Contrary to popular belief, being
ethical makes us more, not less, successful. Being a ‘good’ leader means being
both ethical and effective” (Johnson, 2001, p. 138). Woyach (1993) claims that
15
“anyone can exercise leadership…young or old, assertive or quiet, a man or a

woman” (p. xi). Leadership brings together diverse points of view to achieve
common goals and create shared visions. Watt (1995) advocates that it is possible
to provide students with learning environments that foster the learning and
development of leadership skills.
Wren (cited in Watt, 1995) identified seven considerations in teaching leadership

development. His considerations include:
• Students must be made to feel comfortable with the concept of leadership.
• Students must be able to recognize the various elements of leadership.
• Students need to know about the process of leadership.
• Students ought to have an increased awareness of the practice of leadership.
• Students should have a sense of the purposes of leadership.
• Students should begin to develop an awareness of their individual strengths
and weaknesses as leaders.
• Students need to enhance their skills of analysis along with improving oral
and written communication skills.
In today’s pluralistic and complex world people need to be able to lead effectively
in many different settings. What are needed are not masses of intellectuals, but
women and men educated to feel, to act, and to think. A curriculum that contains
a leadership studies component is better able to provide students with requisite
leadership skills. Students so prepared are better able to explore their world, to
maximize their intellectual capabilities, and to be life-long learners with an ability
to act autonomously. Such people are better able to lead others. Leaders are
needed who are well educated in their fields, yet, possess the capability to lead
effectively at home, play, and work.
Quigley (1996 September) discusses the “leader as learner” (p. 18). He points out
that leaders “must continuously learn the skills of effectiveness to ensure
economic survival in a competitive environment” (p. 18). This recognition of the
importance of effective leadership skills affirms the need to develop appropriate
leadership curricula. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider how educators can
develop worthwhile leadership studies courses and programs.
Curriculum Model
Hosford (1973) has developed a model of instructional design that suggests a
strong interrelationship exists between any given curriculum program and the
subsequent teaching involved in the program. Improving teaching and instruction
in the classroom results in a higher quality of education. It cannot be overlooked,
however, that the better the curriculum program being taught the better the chance
the student will experience a positive learning environment. In Figure 1 Hosford’s
model depicts the relationship needed between curriculum, instruction, and
teaching. Without attention to each dimension there will be inadequacies in
developing any educational program.
16
The Hosford (1973) model for curriculum development is helpful in developing

effective leadership education programs. The model is applicable to meeting the
needs for course and program development at any college or university around the
nation. It addresses national trends on issues related to the development of
leadership studies.
The first dimension identified is “professional considerations.” Curriculum

development must deal with occupational matters. Some questions that need
attention include:
• Will there be a gain in prestige or a loss if the institution is involved in the
program?
• Who will teach the new course/s?
• Will those involved in teaching and administering the program receive
acceptance from their “client/s”?
• Is the program vocational, technical, professional, or liberal arts?
• Are the personnel too overspecialized to effectively handle the program?
• Will their self-concept allow them to function freely in the new program?
• Is there likely to be a fear of failure?
• Are the personnel experienced enough to handle the program?
17
Figure 1. Ideal Relationship Between Curriculum and Instruction
Curriculum
Instruction
Teaching
Adapted from An instructional theory: A beginning (1973) by Philip L. Hosford.
A second dimension involves “practically.” Questions involving practicality

include:
• Is the new program feasible?
• Is the new program cost effective?
• Will it require new materials?
• How much will it cost?
• Is the institution going to have to hire new personnel? How many?
• Will someone else be lost because of the new program within the system?
• How long will the program last?
• Is the new program an improvement?
• Will it improve the educational process for students?
• Will it improve the students’ life experiences?
• Is the program such that it is local enough for those wishing to participate in
it?
• Will there be enough students interested in the program?
• Can the new proposal be effectively and efficiently evaluated?
• Will it require special facilities or will the existing ones suffice for the task?
18
“Political climate” is the third dimension. In the area of polity there are several
issues which must be considered in the development and adoption process of a
new program, including:
• Will the community accept the new plan for teaching their students?
• Will the societal norms allow for instruction in the specific areas covered in
the program?
• What about the religious sanctions within the community that might come in
to play if the new program is adopted?
• What effect will government have on the proposed curricular development —
local, state, and national?
• What about the philosophic value biases that face the new program?
• How will the change be perceived by governing personnel? Administrative
staff? Faculty members? Student body?
The fourth area presented in Hosford’s (1973) model relates to the issue of the
“package.” That is to say, what are the specific considerations about the
curriculum? Some questions concerning this element include:
• Is the program creative enough to allow the students to encounter new
learning experiences in a meaningful way?
• Does the program include experiential, interactive hands-on types of learning
experiences that can enhance the knowledge gained in the classroom?
• Are the students capable of handling this particular series of learning
experiences at this time in their education?
• Are the students likely to be interested in learning the program material?
• Are the overall costs and time spent worth the development and adoption of
the curriculum?
• Does the curriculum provide the students with alternate settings where they
will be challenged to learn?
Fifth, developers must consider “organization.” As the model suggests, a

curriculum program must be able to satisfactorily deal with structural and
institutional considerations if it is to be worthwhile. The questions to be answered
include:
• Does anyone know who is responsible for the program?
• Does the program fit within the institutional philosophy and mission?
• Is the program a consistent activity or is it haphazard and ineffective?
• Can the program fit in and survive the routine administrative maintenance
procedures of the institution?
The sixth consideration deals with the “interrelated dynamics” of the various
concerns in the developmental process. In this discussion these will be referred to
as - “interaction effects.” One must consider the interactions among
administration, curriculum, faculty, governing personnel, and students if new
program development is to be successful. During these negotiations it is essential
for the participants to recognize the interdependence of these diverse items. Each
19
entity must listen to the others’ positions concerning the proposed curriculum.
Approaching the issues with a win-win attitude will result in synergy allowing for
positive outcomes that promote the development process.
The seventh consideration involves instructional theory issues labeled

“teaching/learning considerations.” Questions include:
• Are new teaching strategies required or will the instructional methods
presently in use work in the new program?
• How does the new program fit into the instructional goals and objectives that
have been set down?
• Where will the curriculum program fit in the scope and sequence of the
overall educational offerings at the institution?
• Will the program require further education and training for faculty who teach
in the new program?
• Can the teacher provide alternate settings for learning within the framework of
the program?
• How will the program be evaluated and assessed?
• Will the philosophy and values held by the teacher interfere in the effective
instruction of students?
• How will the instructional supervisor assess student progress and learning?
• Is the teacher likely to be too dependent on someone else for the effective and
efficient completion of her or his task because of the manner in which the
program was implemented?
• Does the experience of the teacher allow for effective instruction?
• Are teachers likely to reject the new program because of professional prestige
image problems - real or perceived?
And, the eighth area of concern is “implementation.” Some of the key questions
requiring answers include:
• Will those involved with the program be able to identify with it?
• Are personnel and students likely to accept the course of study?
• Who is going to make the decision to implement the program?
• How can the decision be enforced without alienating everyone involved?
• Will the proposal remain consistent over an extended period of time?
• Does the program fit the overall curriculum structure at the institution?
• Do those involved in the implementation process have the initiative to see the
program through to its natural conclusion?
• Has an evaluation procedure been clearly established to ensure the program
achieves its goals and objectives within the educational curriculum of the
institution?
In summary, the Hosford (1973) model focuses discussion on a number of

curriculum related questions that must be dealt with in the development and
adoption of leadership studies programs at colleges and universities. Developers
of new courses and curricular programs will find the work is difficult and time
20
consuming, but it is worthwhile when it is done correctly. When developers of

leadership studies respond to these developmental questions, the answers will
likely enhance the development of courses and programs of leadership education
offered by various institutions.
Figure 2. Relationship of Leadership Curriculum Development Factors
Assessment
Leadership
Levels of Studies
Learning Philosophy
Understanding
Goals and
Leadership
Objectives
Leadership Studies: Case Histories of Program Development
The following discussion focuses on five factors that were a part of the creation
and development of three leadership studies programs (refer to Figure 2). These
include (a) levels of learning, (b) understanding leadership, (c) leadership studies
philosophy, (d) goals and objectives, and (e) assessment. These factors were
considered as a result of the writer’s research, teaching, and development of
leadership studies courses and degree programs at state universities as well as
private liberal arts and Christian colleges.
Levels of Learning
In each of the three academic settings, three levels of learning were identified:
comprehension; analysis and synthesis; and, application. Comprehension deals
with the fact that the students should be introduced to theories and concepts
through assigned readings, lectures, and audio-visual materials. Students need to
21
be tested to reinforce their intellectual mastery of course material. Analysis and

synthesis focuses on the expectation that students must be able to demonstrate
they have critically analyzed course materials, thereby enabling them to
synthesize the materials presented in class discussions, oral reports, and written
assignments. Finally, students must be able to effectively apply their
understanding of leadership behavior in a “relatively” safe environment by
participating in structured learning exercises (SLEs) in the classroom.
Understanding Leadership
Understanding leadership is important. In the forward of his book entitled,

Developing the Leader Within You , Maxwell (1993) notes that “leadership is not
an exclusive club for those who were ‘born with it’” (n.p.n.). Understanding
leadership cannot be achieved without recognizing that several factors affect the
way actions and leadership potential is interrelated. Maxwell hints at this
interrelatedness when he points out that those concerned with leadership must
“link the definition of leadership (influence) with the responsibility of leadership
(people development)” (p. 118).
Birnbaum (cited in Watt, 1995) claims that leadership is behavior that influences
others. This is known as “legitimation.” Legitimacy is a matter of interpretation
that depends on the perceptions of those being led. He also stresses the
importance of the concept of “intentions” as an important factor in understanding
leadership. Birnbaum suggests outcomes must in some way reflect the desires of
the leader. Because outcomes are related to human action rather than external
forces or chance, the tendency is to search for a connection between events and
leadership actions. A third dimension identified by Birnbaum is that of
“initiative.” He contends leadership is not “routine.” Leadership involves
interpretation. This means that people expect the leader to respond to situations by
exercising independent judgment and discretion. Thus, leaders must make
choices. Birnbaum correctly identifies another important leadership concept,
“morality.” Manz and Neck (1999) support his point. “We choose what we are
and what we become” (p. 1). Birnbaum (cited in Watt, 1995) claims as individuals
make choices, those very same choices define the moral dimension of the their
leadership because they require value judgments outside the bounds of the rules.
Finally, Birnbaum claims that leaders must be able to motivate and influence
others. Thus, “behavior” is a critical element in understanding leadership. Leaders
must be able to evoke changes in followers’ behaviors by changing followers’
perceptions.
Leadership Studies Philosophy
With this view of learning and of understanding about leadership in mind, it is

possible to set the parameters of the philosophy of leadership courses for
concentrations, minors, and degree programs. The leadership studies programs
22
referred to in these case histories were founded upon the following four
principles.
• Given the complex problems and challenges of today’s world, the need for
leadership is as great as ever before. Effective leadership can make a positive
contribution to a better quality of life at all levels of society.
• Leadership can be taught. It is possible to develop and provide students with a
learning environment that will foster critical leadership skills and capabilities.
• Leadership education is not just for a select few, but rather, all individuals can
and should benefit from leadership development activities.
• It is important to provide a balanced and interdisciplinary approach to
leadership study. The theoretical literature in the field is interdisciplinary in
content and the learning environment should also be interdisciplinary in its
nature.
Goals and Objectives
Responding to the questions created by applying Hosford’s (1973) curriculum

development model to the development of leadership studies courses and
programs, several common goals evolved. It was determined that in order to
develop effective leadership behaviors, students should:
• Develop critical thinking skills.
• Develop increased written communication skills.
• Develop increased oral communication skills, both speaking and listening.
• Develop an understanding of the mental, physical, social, organizational, and
emotional factors affecting individuals.
• Develop the use of strategies that promote productive interaction between
“leaders” and “followers.”
Assessment
Assessment of leadership studies programs is an important matter. It is essential

for verifying that leadership studies programming is effectively accomplishing
what it is intended to accomplish. According to Brungardt and Crawford (1996),
effective assessment furthers the academic discipline of leadership education.
Leadership education should be assessed based on multiple method strategies and
conducted longitudinally as well.
Assessment efforts reflect the fact that the college and university leadership
studies programs mentioned in this paper have grown by leaps and bounds during
the past decade. While each leadership program is unique to its institutional
mission, they have experienced many accomplishments and successes. Indeed
enrollments continue to grow in the various programs.
Such successes are due to a commitment to continuous improvement of these

various leadership programs through regular assessment. There are numerous
considerations that guide effective program assessment, including:
23
• First, the focus, purpose, and direction of the program must be refined,
refocused, and redeveloped over the years on a regular basis.
• Second, consistency between the sections of each course must be ensured.
• Third, the course, concentration, minor and/or degree program objectives and
content must be regularly examined in order to evaluate the potential for new
course methodologies and content.
• Fourth, it must be ensured that the core programming is aligned to deal with
questions within the cognitive, behavioral, and affective domains of learning.
• Fifth, it is a good idea to seek to “grow” the leadership program.
Three Case Histories Concerning Leadership Studies Programs

According to Brungardt (1996 Spring), the leadership studies program at the state
university has grown to over 400 majors. The program has continued to grow in
size over the past several years.
At the private Christian college the mission is to educate, equip, and enrich
leaders. Therefore, college personnel implemented a 10-hour leadership
concentration for all of its bachelor degrees. Following the implementation of the
leadership studies program the college has achieved regional accreditation and its
most recent graduating class is the largest in school history.
The private liberal arts college is offering an interdisciplinary major in

organizational communication and leadership. The program is a 30-hour program
including course work in business, interdisciplinary studies, leadership studies,
mass communication, sociology, and speech communication. The program is
growing. The program appears to have strong potential for increased numbers of
majors in the degree program.
Conclusion
This paper offers a justification for developing effective leadership courses and
programs for training today’s leaders as well as for preparing future leaders in the
21st century. The overview of leadership education literature clearly affirms the
need and value of leadership education. The writer examined the development of
core curricula for leadership studies courses and programs at the college and
university levels. Applying the questions generated by the Hosford (1973) model
for curriculum development, it was found through three case histories that the
issues raised where instrumental in developing effective leadership education
courses and programs. The model addresses important issues concerning
professional, practical, political, package, organization, interrelated dynamics,
teaching/learning, and implementation matters essential in the development of
leadership studies programs.
The discussion of the three case histories involving courses and leadership
programs at a mid-western regional university, a private Christian college in the
24
plains, and an eastern private liberal arts college support the application of
Hosford’s (1973) principles of curriculum development in developing leadership
studies programs. The success of these three programs underscores the
importance of giving proper attention to the educational foundation and
curriculum development model used by an institution wishing to develop and
implement leadership studies courses and programs.
From this examination, the writer suggests there are five essential elements of
successful curriculum development. First, educators need to understand and apply
what they know about students’ levels of learning. Second, it is vital for educators
to have an understanding of leadership. Third, leadership studies courses and
programs ought to be well grounded in an appropriate philosophical foundation.
Fourth, the goals and objectives of any course or program of leadership education
must be clearly stated and understood by teacher and learner alike. Finally,
assessment cannot be underestimated in importance as part of an effort for
continuous improvement of a leadership studies course or program.
The challenge in the decades ahead will be for educators to expand their
leadership studies programs. If the current program is a course, expand to a
concentration of required courses. Should the program be a concentration, then
seek to develop a minor. If it is a minor, go for a major. If it is a major, try to
establish a certificate program. If it is a certificate program then you should
consider expanding it into a bachelor degree program. If it is already a bachelor
degree program, expanding to the next level - a masters degree – makes good
sense. Ultimately, if resources allow and it fits the mission of the college or
university, the institution may want to develop a doctoral program.
Hopefully educators will consider the issues and questions raised in this
discussion in order to provide quality leadership programming for their students.
Effective leadership studies courses and programs will help prepare students to
deal with the reality of a diverse world. We need trained and educated leaders
capable of handling the constant change facing them as leaders in the 21st century.
References
Brungardt, C. (Ed.). (1996 Spring). Leadership studies - year three - program
review. Prepared by the Faculty of Leadership Studies, Fort Hays State
University, Hays, KS. Unpublished document.
Brungardt, C. (1996). The making of leaders: A review of the research in

leadership development and education. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3 (3),
pp. 81-95.
Brungardt, C., & Crawford, C. B. (1996 Winter). A comprehensive approach to

assessing leadership students and programs: Preliminary findings. The Journal of
Leadership Studies, 3 (1), pp. 37-48.
25
Crawford, C. B., Brungardt, C. L., & Maughan, M. (2000). Understanding

leadership: theories & concepts. Longmont, CO: Rocky Mountain Press.
Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2000). Leadership: A communication

perspective (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Holkeboer, R., & Hoeksemsa, T. (1998). A casebook for student leaders. New
York: Houghton Mifflin.
Hosford, P. L. (1973). An instructional theory: A beginning. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, C. E. (2001). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light

or shadow. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Manz, C. C., & Neck C. P. (1999). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering

yourself for personal excellence (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Maxwell, J. C. (1993). Developing the leader within you. Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson.
Quigley, M. E. (1996 September). Leader as learner. Executive Excellence: The

Magazine of Leadership Development, Managerial Effectiveness, and
Organizational Productivity, 13 (9), pp. 18, 19.
Sawin, G. (Ed.). (1995). Thinking & living skills: General semantics for critical
thinking. Concord, CA: International Society for General Semantics.
Watt, W. M. (1995 Winter). Teaching essential behaviors of leadership. The

Journal of Leadership Studies, 2 (1), pp. 149-161.
Watt, W. M. (1980). A curriculum model and a cooperative program of study

involving religion, theatre and the related arts between the state-supported
institutions and the private religious liberal arts colleges of higher education.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Wolfe, B. (Ed.). (1996 Fall). Newsletter: Kansas leadership forum, 1 (3).
Woyach, R. B. (1993). Preparing for leadership: A young adult’s guide to

leadership skills in a global age. Westport, CT: Greenwood
26
The Relationship of Leadership Practices to Culture
Penny Pennington, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK
penninp@okstate.edu
Christine Townsend, Ph.D.

Professor
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX
c-townsend@tamu.edu
Richard Cummins, Ph.D.

Visiting Assistant Professor
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
r-cummins@tamu.edu
Abstract
The relationship of leadership to culture is explored in this study. The study was
designed to determine if significant relationships existed between specific
leadership practices and different cultural profiles. The treatment for this
correlational study consisted of 15 teams with an assigned formal leader for each
team. Significant relationships were found between the variables in 14 of the 20
relationships examined. It was concluded that different leadership practices
resulted in different cultures.
Introduction
In the Winter 2000 issue of The Leadership Quarterly: Yearly Review in
Leadership, Hunt and Dodge argued that leadership research had been “primarily
concerned with relationships between leaders and their immediate followers”
while “the organizational and environmental context in which leadership is
enacted had been almost completely ignored” (p.435). This focus, according to
the authors, on the leader-follower relationship had reached the point of repetition
and thus offered no new insight into the complex nature of leadership. The
authors agreed that it was time to consider leadership in relation to the
environmental context.
Leadership studies are unlikely to be of any additive value until they take
into account organizational variables. If the effects of varying leadership
27
styles are to be unraveled, the research design will need either to hold
organizational variables constant and explore for leadership effects, or to
explore the interaction effects by incorporating organizational variables
and leadership dimensions. Neither of these is likely to occur until
organizational researchers pay greater attention to leadership models and
leadership researchers pay greater attention to organizational models
(Hunt & Dodge, 2000).
With that argument in mind, this study was designed to explore the relationship
between leadership and the environmental context. Specifically, it sought to
examine identifiable leadership practices and their relationship to four distinct
cultural profiles.
Understanding the Relationship Between Leadership and Culture

Edgar Schein (1992) proposed that “the unique function of leadership that
distinguishes it from management and administration is…concern for culture.”
He stated, “leaders create culture” (p. 209). According to Schein, culture
originates when leaders impose “their own values and assumptions on a group”
(p.1). His research showed that leaders of new organizations strongly impacted an
organization’s culture. However, adding complexity to this relationship, leaders
entering organizations in which the culture was already established did not
typically impact the culture in the same way, but rather the established culture
began to define the leadership.
Furthermore, leadership in both new and old organizations “must be guided by a

realistic vision of what kinds of cultures enhance performance” (Kotter & Heskitt,
1993, p. 12). Through an examination of the literature, different cultures were
found to be effective for different organizations, as were different styles of
leadership. Leaders understood that what they did must fit what was appropriate
for the organization. What worked for one organization did not necessarily work
for another.
Leadership must be considered in relation to culture (Schein, 1992; Kotter &

Heskitt, 1993; Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Kouzes & Posner, 1997; Hunt & Dodge,
2000). A review of the scholarly research showed that there was still much to be
learned regarding the relationship between leadership and culture (Brungardt,
1996; Hunt & Dodge, 2000; Lewis, 1996). An understanding of which leadership
practices influenced specific organizational cultures was needed. However, the
review of literature offered hope and showed that it was possible to gather
research toward the understanding between leadership and culture by designing
studies that carefully defined and measured what was meant by both leadership
and culture (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1996).
28
Defining and Measuring Leadership and Culture
In accordance with the literature, this study carefully defined both leadership and
culture, specifically relying upon definitions and tools widely used in practice.
Leadership was defined based upon Kouzes’ and Posner’s (1997) five leadership
practices and measured through the use of the Leadership Practices Inventory
(LPI), also developed by Kouzes and Posner. Furthermore, this study specifically
defined culture based on the research of Cameron and Quinn (1999) and sought to
measure four cultural profiles through the use of the Organizational Cultural
Assessment Instrument (OCAI) developed by Cameron and Quinn.
Kouzes and Posner (1997) believed that each organization was quite different, and
stated “successful companies may have very different values and that the specific
set of values that serves one company may hurt another” (p. 215). Described
through their research were five fundamental practices of successful leaders:
challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act,
modeling the way, and encouraging the heart (refer to Table 1). The researchers
developed the LPI through their exploration into best practices of leadership.
The LPI was designed to measure these five leadership practices.
Table 1. Key Descriptors for Leadership Practices as Defined by Kouzes and

Posner (1997)
Leadership Practices Key Descriptors
Challenging the Seeking out change, growth, innovation; taking

Process risks; learning from mistakes.
Inspiring a Shared Envisioning the future; enlisting others; appealing
Vision to hopes and values.
Enabling Others to Fostering collaboration; building trust; giving
Act power away; offering support.
Modeling the Way Setting the example; promoting consistent
progress; building commitment.
Encouraging the Recognizing individuals; celebrating team
Heart accomplishments.
Cameron and Quinn (1999) studied more than 1000 organizations and found that
there was no ideal culture for a specific type of organization, but rather “each
organization must determine for itself the degree of cultural strength required to
be successful in its environment”(p. 64). Through their research they determined
four cultural profiles: clan, hierarchy, market, and adhocracy (refer to Table 2).
Additionally, Cameron and Quinn developed the OCAI. The OCAI was designed
to identify these four cultures.
29
Table 2. Key Descriptors for Cultural Profiles as Defined by Quinn and

Cameron (1999)
Cultural Profile Key Descriptors
Clan Internal maintenance; flexibility; concern for

people; sensitivity to customers.
Hierarchy Internal maintenance; need for stability and
control.
Market External positioning; need for stability and
control.
Adhocracy External positioning; high degree of flexibility;
individuality.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to develop some clarity about the relationship
between leadership and culture. Specifically, the problems investigated in this
study included the impact of leadership behaviors practiced by assigned leaders
within newly formed collegiate teams and their relation to culture. The goal of the
study was to determine if significant relationships existed between specific
leadership practices as defined by Kouzes and Posner (1997) and different
cultural profiles as defined by Cameron and Quinn (1999).
Methodology
The study followed a correlational design in which post-data were collected. The
independent variables in the study were leadership practices while the dependent
variable was team culture. A purposive sample (Babbie, 1992) was used to collect
data from 85 (N = 85) undergraduate students enrolled in three sections of a
senior capstone course at a major research university. The treatment for this
correlational study (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996) consisted of 15 collegiate teams,
each with four to six members. Additionally, within each team the members
assigned a formal leader.
Two instruments, the LPI and the OCAI, were used to determine if there was a
correlation between leadership practices and team culture in temporary
undergraduate student teams. Based on the purposes of the study and the
dimensions of leadership and culture measured by the instruments, the
relationship between five specific leadership practices and four cultural profiles
were examined.
Post-test data were collected during the last regularly scheduled meeting of the
participants, which occurred on the final class day of a 15-week semester. The
data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS), and
hypotheses were tested using Pearson’s product moment coefficient of correlation
30
(Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975). A confidence interval of alpha
.05 was set a priori.
Findings and Conclusions

Significant relationships were found for each of the five leadership practices and
the clan culture. Each of the relationships was positively correlated. Significant
relationships were, also, found for each of the five leadership practices and the
market culture. However, each of the relationships was negatively correlated.
Additionally, significant relationships were found between the leadership practice,
enabling others to act, and each of the four culture profiles. Finally, similar to the
leadership practice, enabling others to act, significant relationships were found
between the leadership practice, encouraging the heart, and each of the four
culture profiles. In summary, significant relationships were found between the
variables in 14 of the 20 relationships examined in the study. A summary of the
findings is reported in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of Pearson’s Product Moment Correlations Between the

Five LPI Practices and Team Culture (N = 85)
Clan Adhocracy Market Hierarchy

Challenging the Process .298* .165 -.346* .169
.006 .131 .001 .121
Inspiring a Shared .221* .149 -.362* -.147

Vision .042 .174 .001 .179
Enabling Others to Act .364* .258* -.338* -.343*

.001 .017 .002 .001
Modeling the .215* .013 -.320* -.063

Way .048 .904 .003 .565
Encouraging the Heart .319* .227* -.313* -.252*

.003 .037 .004 .020
Note: * indicates a significant relationship at alpha (p) =.05 or less.
Challenging the Process and Culture-Findings
Pearson’s product moment correlational coefficient was used to test hypotheses

related to challenging the process and culture. The SPSS procedure
CORRELATION was used to compare leadership practice and team culture.
Correlations were made between the Leadership Practices Inventory’s scale,
challenging the process, and the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument’s
four culture profiles: clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy.
31
Statistically significant relationships were found between LPI practice-

challenging the process and two of the four culture profiles: clan (r = .298), and
market (r = -.346). The statistically significant relationship between challenging
the process and the clan culture indicated that when team leaders practiced
behaviors defined by challenging the process that the team culture was more
likely to be described by the team members as a culture fitting the clan profile.
The statistically significant relationship between challenging the process and the
market culture indicated that when team leaders did not practice behaviors
defined by challenging the process that the team culture was more likely to be
described by the team members as a culture fitting the market profile.
Challenging the Process and Culture-Conclusions
The findings suggested that there is a positive relationship between the clan
culture and leadership that challenges the process, and a negative relationship
between the market culture and leadership that challenges the process (refer to
Figure 1). In explanation, leaders who challenge the process are committed to
change, innovation, experimentation, and taking risks. Challenging the process is
positively correlated with the clan culture, described by internal maintenance and
having a concern for people and flexibility. Whereas, challenging the process is
negatively correlated with the market culture, described by external maintenance
and having a need for stability and control.
32
Figure 1. Relationship diagram for LPI practice, challenging the process, and
the OCAI culture profiles
Flexibility/
Individuality
Clan Adhocracy
Positive
Relationship
Internal External
Maintenance Maintenance
Hierarchy Market
Negative
Relationship
Control/
Stability
Although the negative relation between the market culture, one in which stability
and control is valued, and challenging the process is expected, the relation
between the clan culture and challenging the process is not. More specifically,
examples in the literature support a positive relationship between challenging the
process and the adhocracy culture.
For example, a former CEO of Ford Motor Co. in seeking to change the culture,
practiced leadership best described by challenging the process towards a culture
best described by adhocracy. Ford Motor Co. trained revolutionaries, change
agents, and leaders based on a leadership philosophy rooted in action
(Hammonds, 2000). Furthermore, Michael Eisner, Disney’s CEO and chairman
since 1984, intentionally created a culture at Disney that involved lots of noise,
provoking, and uninhibited discussion (Wetlaufer, 2000).This type of leadership
challenged the process; however, the resulting culture was an adhocracy, rather
than a clan culture, as the research findings in this study would suggest.
Inspiring a Shared Vision and Culture-Findings
Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient was used to test hypotheses

related to inspiring a shared vision and culture. The SPSS procedure
inspiring a shared vision, and the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument’s
33
Statistically significant relationships were found between LPI practice-inspiring a

shared vision and two of the four culture profiles: clan (r = .221), and market (r =
-.362). The statistically significant relationship between inspiring a shared vision
and the clan culture indicated that when team leaders practiced behaviors defined
by inspiring a shared vision that the team culture was more likely to be described
by the team members as a culture fitting the clan profile. The statistically
significant relationship between inspiring a shared vision and the market culture
indicated that when team leaders did not practice behaviors defined by modeling
the way that the team culture was more likely to be described by the team
members as a culture fitting the market profile
Inspiring a Shared Vision and Culture-Conclusions
The findings suggested that there is a positive relationship between the clan
culture and leadership that inspires a shared vision, and a negative relationship
between the market culture and leadership that inspires a shared vision (refer to
Figure 2). In explanation, leaders who inspire a shared vision are committed to
envisioning the future and involving others in the pursuit of the vision. Inspiring a
shared vision is positively correlated with the clan culture, described by internal
maintenance and having a concern for people and flexibility. Whereas, inspiring a
shared vision is negatively correlated with the market culture, described by
external maintenance and having a need for stability and control.
Both leadership researchers and leadership practitioners have reported the

importance of inspiring a shared vision over the years. In an examination of
Disney, 3M, Southwest Airlines, and Ford Motor, Co., each of the top leaders
recognized the importance of vision. Transformational leadership, a widely
studied model of leadership, has recommended that successful leadership is partly
based on this ability to envision the future and to involve others in the pursuit of
this vision (Bass, 1990). Like numerous researchers, Nwanko and Richardson
(1996) found that visionary, transformational leadership was required for
achieving success. However, similar to this study, transformational leadership was
positively correlated with Cameron’s and Quinn’s supportive (clan) and
innovative (adhocracy) cultures; and, negatively correlated with Cameron’s and
Quinn’s procedural (hierarchical) and goal oriented (market) cultures (Den
Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1996).
34
Figure 2. Relationship diagram for LPI practice, inspiring a shared

vision, and the OCAI culture profiles
Flexibility/
Individuality
Clan Adhocracy
Positive
Relationship
Internal External
Hierarchy Market
Negative
Relationship
Control/
Stability
Enabling Others to Act and Culture-Findings
Pearson’s product moment correlational coefficient was used to test hypotheses

related to enabling others to act and culture. The SPSS procedure
enabling others to act, and the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument’s
Statistically significant relationships were found between LPI practice-enabling

others to act and each of the four culture profiles: clan (r = .364), adhocracy (r =
.258), market (r = -.338), and hierarchy (r = -.343). The statistically significant
relationships between enabling others to act and the clan and adhocracy cultures
indicated that when team leaders practiced behaviors defined by enabling others
to act that the team culture was more likely to be described by the team members
as a culture fitting the clan or adhocracy profile. The statistically significant
relationships between enabling others to act and the market and hierarchy cultures
indicated that when team leaders did not practice behaviors defined by enabling
others to act that the team culture was more likely to be described by the team
members as a culture fitting the market or hierarchy culture profile.
35
Enabling Others to Act and Culture-Conclusions
The findings suggest that there is a positive relationship between leadership that
enables others to act and both the clan and adhocracy cultures, and there is a
negative relationship between leadership that enables others to act and both the
hierarchy and market cultures (refer to Figure 3). In explanation, leaders who
enable others to act are committed to fostering collaboration, building trust,
giving power away, and offering support.
Enabling others to act is positively correlated with the two cultures based on
flexibility and individuality, the clan culture and the adhocracy culture. The clan
culture is also described by internal maintenance whereas the adhocracy culture is
described by external maintenance.
Enabling others to act is negatively correlated with the two cultures based on
control and stability - the hierarchy culture and the market culture. The hierarchy
culture is also described by internal maintenance whereas the market culture is
Figure 3. Relationship diagram for LPI practice, enabling others to act, and the
OCAI culture profiles
Flexibility/
Individuality
Clan Adhocracy
Positive Positive
Relationship Relationship
Internal External
Hierarchy Market
Negative Negative
Control/
Stability
Enabling others to act has been widely studied in recent years. Research has found
that a culture based on a collaborative mind-set, as well as, collaborative process
and structures was required for organizational success (Goldberg, 2000).
Furthermore, high-performance teams required a climate of community, and a
learning culture based on sharing of experience, trust, honesty, and openness led
to a healthier environment (Beech & Crane, 1999). Echoing Beech and Crane,
36
self-managing teams were found to be successful when the environment was

based on equality, trust, and freedom (Banai, Nirenberg, & Menachem, 2000).
Employees at Southwest Airlines agreed, as they “saw themselves as leaders who

made a difference” (Freiberg, 1997, p. 312). They believed that their actions
helped to create the work environment, and that leadership was a relationship
between leaders and collaborators. Attaran & Nguyen (2000) recommended that
moving from the traditional hierarchical work group, self-directed teams required
a climate based on trust, creativity, willingness to listen, and the freedom to
generate ideas without criticism. Lok and Crawford (1999) found that control over
the working environment was strongly related to commitment within the
organization.
Similar to this study, Lok and Crawford (1999) also found that bureaucratic
subculture (hierarchical) was negatively correlated with organizational
commitment and consideration leadership styles were strongly related to
employee commitment within the organization.
Modeling the Way and Culture-Findings

related to modeling the way and culture. The SPSS procedure CORRELATION
was used to compare leadership practice and team culture. Correlations were
made between the Leadership Practices Inventory’s scale, modeling the way, and
the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument’s four culture profiles: clan,
adhocracy, market, and hierarchy.
Statistically significant relationships were found between LPI practice-modeling

the way and two of the four culture profiles: clan (r = .215), and market (r = -
.320). The statistically significant relationship between modeling the way and the
clan culture indicated that when team leaders practiced behaviors defined by
modeling the way that the team culture was more likely to be described by the
team members as a culture fitting the clan profile. The statistically significant
relationship between modeling the way and the market culture indicated that
when team leaders did not practice behaviors defined by modeling the way that
the team culture was more likely to be described by the team members as a
culture fitting the market profile.
37
Modeling the Way and Culture-Conclusions
The findings suggested a positive relationship between the clan culture and
leadership that models the way, and a negative relationship between the market
culture and leadership that models the way (refer to Figure 4). In explanation,
leaders who model the way are committed to setting an example through their
own behavior and to building commitment. Modeling the way is positively
correlated with the clan culture, described by internal maintenance and having a
concern for people and flexibility. Whereas, modeling the way is negatively
correlated with the market culture, described by external maintenance and having
a need for stability and control.
Figure 4. Relationship diagram for LPI practice, modeling the way, and the
Flexibility/
Individuality
Clan Adhocracy
Positive
Relationship
Internal External
Hierarchy Market
Negative
Relationship
Control/
Stability
Beech and Crane (1999) found that leadership of high-performance teams was
from within. The leader took on specific roles within the team as well as
traditional leadership roles. In other words, part of the leader’s role was to model
the way.
The transformational leadership model also agreed, recommending that successful

leadership is partly based on idealized influence or the ability of leaders to act as
strong role models for followers (Bass, 1990). Similar to this study,
transformational leadership was found to be positively correlated with Cameron’s
and Quinn’s supportive (clan) and innovative (adhocracy) cultures and negatively
correlated with Cameron’s and Quinn’s procedural (hierarchical) and goal-
oriented (market) cultures (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1996).
38
Encouraging the Heart and Culture-Findings

related to encouraging the heart and culture. The SPSS procedure
encouraging the heart, and the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument’s
Statistically significant relationships were found between LPI practice-

encouraging the heart and each of the four culture profiles: clan (r = .319),
adhocracy (r = .227), market (r = -.313), and hierarchy (r = -.252). The
statistically significant relationships between encouraging the heart and the clan
and adhocracy cultures indicated that when team leaders practiced behaviors
defined by encouraging the way that the team culture was more likely to be
described by the team members as a culture fitting the clan or adhocracy profile.
The statistically significant relationships between encouraging the heart and the
market and hierarchy cultures indicated that when team leaders did not practice
behaviors defined by modeling the way that the team culture was more likely to
be described by the team members as a culture fitting the market or hierarchy
culture profile.
Encouraging the Heart and Culture-Conclusions
The findings suggest a positive relationship between leadership that encourages

the heart and both the clan and adhocracy cultures, and there is a negative
relationship between leadership that encourages the heart and both the hierarchy
and market cultures (refer to Figure 5). In explanation, leaders who encourage the
heart are committed to recognizing individual contributions and celebrating team
accomplishment.
39
Figure 5. Relationship diagram for LPI practice, encouraging the heart,

and the OCAI culture profiles
Flexibility/
Individuality
Clan Adhocracy
Positive Positive
Internal External
Hierarchy Market
Negative Negative
Control/
Stability
Encouraging the heart is positively correlated with the two cultures based on
flexibility and individuality, the clan culture and the adhocracy culture. The clan
culture is also described by internal maintenance whereas the adhocracy culture is
Encouraging the heart is negatively correlated with the two cultures based on
control and stability, the hierarchy culture and the market culture. The hierarchy
culture is also described by internal maintenance whereas the market culture is
Much of the research between leadership and culture focused specifically on

transformational research and total quality management (TQM) in relation to
culture. In looking at encouraging the heart, it is unclear if encouraging the heart
represents transactional leadership in the form of contingent reward or
transformational leadership; thus, conclusions cannot be drawn based on studies
examining transformational leadership.
Summary of Findings and Conclusions

In summary, significant relationships were found between the variables in 14 of
the 20 relationships examined in this study (refer to Figure 6). Different cultures
were found to result from different leadership practices. Previous research studies
had reached the same conclusion; however, definitive links between specific
leadership practices and cultural profiles had not yet been revealed. This study has
40
revealed links between specific leadership practices and specific cultural profiles
and calls for additional research.
Figure 6. Summary relationship diagram for LPI leadership practices and the
Clan Adhocracy
Positive Relationship with Positive Relationship with
All Five Leadership Practices Enabling Others to Act
& Encouraging the Heart
Hierarchy Market
Negative Relationship with Negative Relationship with
Enabling Others to Act All Five Leadership Practices
& Encouraging the Heart
Recommendations for Further Research

Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, it is recommended that
leadership practices and culture outside the academic environment be examined.
In a study designed to answer if the business world and higher education could
learn from each other, Wolverton and Poch (2000) discovered distinct similarities
between corporate CEOs and academic deans. The study concluded that the two,
the business world and higher education, could learn from each other.
Additionally, this study identified a negative correlation between enabling others

to act and the market and hierarchy cultures. It also found a negative correlation
between encouraging the heart and the market and hierarchy cultures. In response
to these findings, it is recommended that future studies examining the relationship
between leadership and culture use additional tools (beyond the LPI) to measure
leadership in an effort to determine specific leadership practices leading to market
and hierarchy cultures.
As a final recommendation, research toward understanding the relationship

between leadership practices and culture should be continued. It is recommended
that this study be replicated as well as new studies designed with the same
purpose. To be of additive value to the current body of knowledge, leadership
studies must take into account organizational variables (Hunt & Dodge, 2000).
Implications for Leadership Educators

Leadership educators will want to consider the following implications specific to
Kouzes’ and Posner’s Leadership Challenge (1997) and related materials: (1)
teams and organizations seeking to foster a clan culture should consider training
programs based upon the five leadership practices; (2) teams and organizations
seeking to foster an adhocrarcy culture should consider training programs that
41
include enabling others to act and encouraging the heart; (3) teams and
organizations seeking to foster a hierarchy culture should not use training
programs that include enabling others to act and encouraging the heart; and, (4)
teams and organizations seeking to foster a market culture should consider
alternatives to leadership practices as described by Kouzes and Posner when
developing leadership training programs.
Additionally, this study supports training organizational leaders to understand

their role as it relates to culture. They must understand that what they do as a
leader impacts the culture of the team or organization in which they work.
Knowledge of how leadership practices specifically influence culture needs to
become part of the leader’s toolbox.
Cultural change efforts should consider leadership in relation to culture. As

organizations seek change, the relationship between leadership and culture must
be understood. Specifically, leaders must understand that the leader’s influence
over new organizations is typically much stronger than that over existing
organizations. Specific practices influence specific cultures. Leaders must know
what the goal is before determining the process.
Finally, in the development of teams, consideration should be given to the desired

outcomes prior to assigning leadership. Although some leaders can adjust their
style to fit the situation, many require that the situation fit their style. Appropriate
leadership can be selected based upon knowledge of how leadership practices
influence specific cultures, which in turn influences outcomes.
References
Attaran, M., & Nguyen, T. T. (2000). Creating the right structural fit for self-
directed teams. Team Performance Management 6 (1/2), 25-33.
Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Banai, M., Nirenberg, J., & Menachem, M. (2000). Leadership in self-managing

organizations. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 7 (5), 1-17.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of leadership: Theory, research,

& managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Beech, N., & Crane, O. (1999). High performance teams and a climate of
community. Team Performance Management, 5 (3), 87-102.
Brungardt, C. (1996). The making of leaders: A review of the research in

leadership development and education. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 3 (3),
81-95.
42
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational

culture: Based on the competing values framework. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1996). Linking
transformational leadership and organizational culture. The Journal of Leadership
Studies, 3 (4), 68-84.
Freiberg, K., & J. (1997). Nuts!: Southwest Airlines’ crazy recipe for business and
personal success. New York: Broadway Books.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An

introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Goldberg, R. A. (2000). Awake at the wheel: A study on executive team

development, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 21 (5), 225-
234.
Hammonds, K. (2000, April). Grassroots leadership: Ford Motor Co. Fast

Company, 33, 138-152.
Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (2000). Leadership déjà vu all over again. The
Leadership Quarterly Yearly Review of Leadership: An International Journal of
Political, Social, and Behavioral Science 11(4), 435-458.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New
York: The Free Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z.(1997). The leadership challenge: How to keep
getting extraordinary things done in organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lewis, D. (1996). The organizational culture saga-from OD to TQM: A critical

review of the literature, Part 1-Concepts and early trends. Leadership and
Organizational Development Journal, 17 (1), 12-19.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between commitment and
organizational culture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in
organizational change and development. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 20(7), 365-373.
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. H. (1975).
Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
43
Nwankwo, S., & Richardson, B. (1996). Quality management through visionary

leadership. Managing Service Quality, 6 (4), 44-47.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications.
Wetlaufer, S. (2000). Common sense and conflict: An interview with Disney’s

Michael Eisner. Harvard Business Review, 78 (1), 115-124.
Wolverton, M., & Poch, S. (2000). The nexus between academic deans and
corporate CEOs: An opportunity in the making. The Journal of Leadership
Studies, 7 (3), 122-132.
44
Enron’s Ethical Collapse: Lessons

for Leadership Educators
Craig Johnson
Professor of Communication Arts
Department of Communication
George Fox University
414 Meridian St.
Newberg, OR 97132
(503) 554-2610
cjohnson@georgefox.edu
Abstract
Top officials at Enron abused their power and privileges, manipulated
information, engaged in inconsistent treatment of internal and external
constituencies, put their own interests above those of their employees and the
public, and failed to exercise proper oversight or shoulder responsibility for
ethical failings. Followers were all too quick to follow their example. Therefore,
implications for teaching leadership ethics include, educators must: (a) share
some of the blame for what happened at Enron, (b) integrate ethics into the rest of
the curriculum, (c) highlight the responsibilities of both leaders and followers, (d)
address both individual and contextual variables that encourage corruption, (e)
recognize the importance of trust and credibility in the leader-follower
relationship, and (f) hold followers as well as leaders accountable for ethical
misdeeds.
Introduction
Enron’s bankruptcy filing in November 2001 marked the beginning of an
unprecedented wave of corporate scandals. Officials at Tyco, WorldCom,
ImClone, Global Crossing, Adelphia, AOL Time Warner, Quest, and Charter
Communications joined Enron executives as targets of SEC probes, congressional
hearings, stockholder lawsuits, and criminal indictments. Enron’s troubles, which
had been center stage, were soon pushed to the background by subsequent
revelations of corporate wrongdoing.
More recent instances of corporate corruption should not diminish the importance
of Enron as a case study in moral failure. Enron collapsed in large part because of
the unethical practices of its executives. Examining the ethical shortcomings of
Enron’s leaders, as well as the factors that contributed to their misbehaviors, can
provide important insights into how to address the topic of ethics in the leadership
classroom.
45
Moral Failure at the Top
Events leading up to Enron’s bankruptcy have been chronicled in a host of

magazine articles as well as in such books as Anatomy of Greed (Cruver, 2002),
Enron: The Rise and Fall (Fox, 2003), What Went Wrong at Enron (Fusaro &
Miller, 2002), The Enron Collapse (Barresveld, 2002), and Pipe Dreams (Bryce,
2002). The company’s collapse was ultimately triggered by failed investments in
overseas ventures and the unraveling of a series of dubious limited partnerships
called Special Purpose Entities (SPEs). These SPEs , backed by Enron stock and
illegally run by company insiders, were designed to keep debt off the firm’s
balance sheets and helped prop up its share price. However, when the firm’s stock
price began to slide, the company was unable to back its guarantees. In addition to
charges related to shady partnerships, Enron stands accused of:
• borrowing from subsidiaries with no intent to repay the loans (Wilke, 2002,
August 5).
• avoiding federal taxes even though some of its subsidiaries, like Portland
General Electric, collected tax payments from customers (Manning & Hill,
2002).
• contributing to the California energy crisis by manipulating electricity prices
(Fusaro & Miller, 2002; Manning, 2002).
• bribing foreign officials to secure contracts in India, Ghana and other
countries (Wilke, 2002, August 7).
• immediately claiming profits for long term projects that would eventually lose
money (Hill, Chaffin, & Fidler, 2002).
• switching account balances immediately before quarterly reports to boost
apparent earnings (Cruver, 2002).
• manipulating federal energy policy (Duffy, 2002; Duffy & Dickerson, 2002).
• colluding with analysts to project a false image of the firm’s financial health
(Fox, 2003).
Much of the blame for what happened at Enron (nicknamed the “Crooked E” for
its tilted Capital E logo) can be laid at the feet of company founder Kenneth Lay,
his successor Jeffrey Skilling, chief financial officer Andrew Fastow, and
Fastow’s top assistant Michael Kopper. Each failed to meet important ethical
challenges or dilemmas of leadership (Johnson, 2001). Their failures included:
Abuse of Power
Both Lay and Skilling could wield power ruthlessly. The position of vice-chair
was known as the “ejector seat” because so many occupants were removed from
the position when they took issue with Lay or appeared to be a threat to his
power. Skilling, for his part, eliminated corporate rivals and intimidated
subordinates. Abdication of power was also a problem at Enron. At times,
managers did not appear to understand what employees were doing or how the
business (which was literally creating new markets) operated. Board members
also failed to exercise proper oversight and rarely challenged management
46
decisions. Many were selected by CEO Kenneth Lay and did business with the
firm or represented non-profits that received large contributions from Enron
(Associated Press, 2002; Cruver, 2002).
Excess Privilege
Excess typified top management at Enron. Lay, who began life modestly as the
son of a Baptist preacher turned chicken salesman, once told a friend, “I don’t
want to be rich, I want to be world-class rich” (Cruver, 2002, p. 23). At another
point he joked that he had given wife Linda a $2 million decorating budget for a
new home in Houston which she promptly exceeded (Gruley & Smith, 2002). The
couple borrowed $75 million from the firm that they repaid in stock. Linda Lay
fanned the flames of resentment among employees when she broke into tears on
the Today Show to claim that the family was broke. This was despite the fact that
the Lays owned over 20 properties worth over $30 million (Eisenberg, 2002).
During Enron’s heyday, some of the perks filtered down to followers as well.
Workers enjoyed such benefits as lavish Christmas parties, aerobic classes, free
taxi rides, refreshments, and the services of a concierge (Enron excess, 2002; How
Enron let down its employees, 2002).
Deceit
Enron officials manipulated information to protect their interests and to deceive

the public, although the extent of their deception is still to be determined. Both
executives and board members claim that they were unaware of the extent of the
company’s off-the-books partnerships created and operated by Fastow and
Kopper (Eisenberg, 2002). However, both Skilling and Lay were warned that the
company’s accounting tactics were suspect (Duffy, 2002). The Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations, which investigated the company’s downfall,
concluded, “Much that was wrong with Enron was known to the board”
(Associated Press, 2002). Board members specifically waived the conflict of
interest clause in the company’s code of ethics that would have prevented the
formation of the most troublesome special partnerships (Cruver, 2002).
Employees were quick to follow the lead of top company officials. They hid
expenses, claimed nonexistent profits, deceived energy regulators and so on.
Inconsistent Treatment of Internal and External Constituencies
Enron’s relationships with both employees and outsiders were marked by gross
inconsistencies. Average workers were forced to vest their retirement plans in
Enron stock and then, during the crucial period when the stock was in free fall,
were blocked from selling their shares. Top executives, on the other hand, were
able to unload their shares as they wished. Five-hundred officials received
“retention bonuses” totaling $55 million at the same time laid off workers
received only a fraction of the severance pay they had been promised (Barreveld,
2002).
47
Enron treated its friends royally. In particular, the company used political
donations to gain preferential treatment from government agencies. Kenneth Lay
was the top contributor to the Bush campaign and officials made significant
donations to both Democratic and Republican members of the House and Senate.
In return, the company was able to nominate friendly candidates for the Security
Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC). Federal officials intervened with foreign governments to promote Enron
projects, and company representatives played a major role in setting federal
energy policy that favored deregulation of additional energy markets (Fox, 2003).
Anyone perceived as unfriendly to Enron’s interests could expect retribution,
however. In one instance, Lay withdrew an underwriting deal to pressure Merrill
Lynch into firing an analyst who had downgraded Enron stock (Smith &
Raghaven, 2002). Skilling called one analyst an “asshole” when he questioned the
company’s performance during a conference call (Cruver, 2002).
Misplaced and Broken Loyalties
Enron officials put their loyalty to themselves above those of everyone else with a
stake in the company’s fate — stock holders, business partners, rate payers, local
communities, foreign governments, and so on. They also betrayed the trust of
those who worked for them. Employees apparently believed in the company and
in Lay’s optimistic pronouncements. In August 2001, for example, he declared “I
have never felt better about the prospects for the company” (Cruver, 2003, p. 91).
In late September, just weeks before the company collapsed, he encouraged
employees to “talk up the stock” because “the company is fundamentally sound”
(Fox, 2003, p. 252). These exhortations came even as he was unloading his own
shares. The sense of betrayal experienced by Enron employees only added to the
pain of losing their jobs and retirement savings.
Irresponsible Behavior
Enron officials acted irresponsibly by failing to take needed action, failing to

exercise proper oversight, and failing to shoulder responsibility for the ethical
miscues of their organization. CEO Lay downplayed warnings of financial
improprieties and some board members did not understand the numbers or the
company’s operations. Too often company managers left employees to their own
devices, encouraging them to make their numbers by any means possible. After
the collapse, no one stepped forward to accept blame for what happened. Lay and
Fastow claimed Fifth Amendment privileges against self-incrimination when
called before congressional committees; Skilling testified but claimed he had no
knowledge of illegal activity.
The unethical behavior of Enron’s leaders appears to be the product of both

individual and situational factors. Greed was the primary motivator of both
managers and their subordinates at Enron (Cruver, 2002). Optimistic earnings
48
reports, hidden losses and other tactics were all designed to keep the stock price
artificially high. Lofty stock values justified generous salaries and perks, deflected
unwanted scrutiny, and allowed insiders to profit from their stock options. Greed
was not limited to top Enron executives, however. Meeting earnings targets
triggered large bonuses for managers throughout the firm, bonuses that were
sometimes larger than employees’ salaries. Rising stock prices and extravagant
rewards made it easier for followers as well as leaders to overlook shortcomings
in the company’s ethics and business model.
Hubris was also a major character flaw at the Crooked E, a fact reflected in the
company banner that declared: FROM THE WORLD’S LEADING ENERGY
COMPANY — TO THE WORLD’S LEADING COMPANY (Cruver, 2002, p.
3). Skilling, who lacked the social and communication skills of Ken Lay, best
exemplifies the haughty spirit of many Enron officials. At the height of the
California energy crisis he joked that the only difference between the Titanic and
the state of California was that “when the Titanic went down, the lights were on”
(Fusaro & Miller, 2002. p. 122).
Even the so-called “heroes” of the Enron debacle failed to demonstrate enough
virtue to delay or to prevent the company’s collapse. Former company treasurer
Clifford Baxter complained about Fastow’s financial wheeling and dealing, but
then retired without going public with his complaints. Vice-president of corporate
development Sherry Watkins outlined her concerns about the firm’s questionable
financial practices in a letter and in a meeting with Lay (A Hero, 2002). Later she
discussed the same issues with an audit partner at Anderson. While these are
commendable acts, in her letter she recommended quiet clean up of the problems
rather than public disclosure. She stopped short of talking to the press, the SEC
and other outside agencies when her attempts at internal reform failed (Zellner,
2002).
The destructive power of individual greed and pride was magnified by Enron’s
corporate culture that encouraged creativity and risk taking. Employees invented a
host of new commodity products which earned Enron top ranking six straight
years on Fortune magazine’s list of most innovative companies (Fusaro & Miller,
2002). Ken Lay was fond of telling the story of how Enron employees in London
started its on-line trading business (which later carried a quarter of the world’s
energy trades) without the blessing or knowledge of corporate headquarters in
Houston (Stewart, 2001). The cost of freedom, however, was pressure to produce
that created a climate of fear. Enron’s atmosphere was similar to that of an elite
law firm where talented young associates scramble to make partner (Fusaro &
Miller, 2002).
Adding to the stress was the organization’s “rank and yank” evaluation system.
Every six months 15% of all employees were ranked in the lowest category and
then had a few weeks to find another position in the company or be let go
(Cruver, 2002). Workers in the next two higher categories were put on notice that
49
they were in danger of falling into the lowest quadrant during the subsequent
review. This system (a harsher variant of one used at many companies)
encouraged cutthroat competition and silenced dissent. Followers were afraid to
question unethical and or illegal practices for fear of losing their jobs. Instead,
they were rewarded for their unthinking loyalty to their managers (who ranked
their performance) and the company as a whole (Fusaro & Miller, 2002).
Lack of controls, combined with an intense, competitive, results-driven culture

made it easier to ignore the company’s code of ethics which specifically
prohibited conflicts of interest like those found in the SPEs and to seek results at
any cost (Hill, Chaffin, & Fidler, 2002). Anderson auditors signed off on its
questionable financial transactions for fear of losing lucrative auditing and
consulting contracts with Enron.
Enron was also a victim of larger social and cultural factors. Publicly traded firms
in the United States are judged by their quarterly earnings reports. Obsession with
short-term results encourages executives to do whatever they can to meet these
expectations. Enron’s explosive growth took place during the economic boom of
the 90s. All the major stock indices soared and billions were wasted on Internet
start-ups that never had a realistic chance to make a profit. During this period the
Cult of the CEO emerged. Business leaders achieved rock star status, gracing the
covers of national magazines and best selling biographies (Elliott & Schroth,
2002, p. 125). In this heady climate, government regulators and investors felt little
need to study the operations or finances of apparently successful companies led
by business superstars. The recent spate of corporate scandals and the
accompanying market crash may be the penalty that society must pay for the
excesses and inattention of the last decade.

The lessons of Enron extend beyond the accounting and market reforms instituted
in the wake of the scandal. Leadership educators can gain important insights
about how to treat the topic of ethics in the classroom from the moral
shortcomings of Enron’s top executives. The pedagogical implications of Enron
include:
Educators Must Share Some of the Blame
Academics find it easy to distance themselves from the sins of Enron. The college
and university classroom seems a world away from the high flying, gun slinging
mentality of the former energy giant. Few professors can begin to comprehend the
level of privilege and influence enjoyed by the company’s C level executives.
Those who study and teach ethics believe that they would exhibit the virtues that
Lay, Skilling, and Fastow seemed to lack.
50
Disassociating oneself from Enron may be comforting, but this maneuver

conveniently overlooks the fact educators must shoulder at least some of the
blame for the company’s moral failure (Kavanaugh, 2002). As college graduates,
Enron managers undoubtedly enrolled in leadership and ethics courses. Many
were also products of Harvard and other top MBA programs. Followers armed
with bachelor and masters degrees served as willing soldiers in the army of public
relations experts who helped the company maintain its veneer of profitability,
lobby government official, and attack its critics. What Enron’s top leaders, lower
level managers, and front line employees learned in university classrooms was not
enough to prevent ethical tragedy.
Strive for Ethical Integration
Enron is a classic example of a company whose ethical pronouncements were

“decoupled” from the rest of its operations (Weaver, Trevino, & Cochran 1999).
The key values of the company were respect, integrity, communications, and
excellence. Enron also had an extensive code of ethics. Unfortunately, these
values and policies had little impact on how Lay, Skilling, and their underlings
did business. By the time of its collapse in 2001, the company had been
manipulating its books and misleading investors for several years.
Unfortunately, the teaching of ethics, like the practice of ethics at Enron, is

typically decoupled from the rest of the curriculum. Discussions of ethics often
stand alone, limited to a single unit or to one course in the entire leadership
curriculum. Further, the placement of ethical material also diminishes its
importance. Ethics units and text chapters sometimes appear to be an afterthought,
introduced at the end of a course or book and therefore likely to be eliminated if
the professor falls behind during the quarter or semester. To be effective, ethical
considerations should be part of every unit, class, and set of readings.
Highlight Leadership and Followership Duties and Responsibilities
Many students study leadership in hopes of achieving the kind of heroic stature
that, until recently, they saw reflected in press reports about famous business
figures and other prominent leaders. Power, perks, financial security, and
recognition all seem to come with an executive title. Instructors cater to this
motivation when they act as cheerleaders for prominent business leaders like Jack
Welch or Kenneth Lay. They overlook the fact that the same qualities and
strategies so often praised in business and other leadership literature can lead to
disaster. Enron is a case in point. The company’s leaders did many things right
according to the leadership and management literature. Lay and his colleagues
had a clear vision and values, pursued excellence, and fostered an extraordinary
degree of creativity and innovation. Sadly, their vision was unrealistic, their stated
values took back seat to unstated ones (e. g., make the deal at whatever the cost
and generate constant profits and growth), and their drive for innovation led them
into a host of unprofitable markets that even their management team did not
51
completely understand. Followers also lost sight of their personal values as well
as their commitment to society.
Highlighting leadership duties and responsibilities is one way to address selfish

motivation and to demythologize leadership. Altruism, Communitarianism, and
Servant Leadership are three ethical perspectives that drive home this point. Each
of these approaches emphasizes the duties that leaders have both to followers and
to the larger community and can serve as a framework for discussions of
leadership and followership ethics.
• Altruism is a universal value that is particularly important to leaders who, by

virtue of their roles, are to exercise influence on behalf of others. Leaders
cannot articulate the concerns of followers unless they first understand their
needs (Kanungo & Mendoca, 1996). Leaders driven by altruism pursue
organizational goals rather than personal achievement and are more likely to
give power away. Leaders seeking self-benefit focus on personal
achievements, and control followers through coercion and reward.
• Communitarianism emphasizes the need for individual and corporate

responsibility (Etzioni, 1993). Citizens and institutions have obligations to the
larger community. When making decisions, leaders and followers must look
beyond the immediate interests of themselves and their organizations to the
needs of the local community and society as a whole.
• Servant leadership is a model that puts the needs of followers first (Greenleaf,
1977; Spears, 1998). Servant leaders continually ask themselves what would
be best for their constituents and measure their success by the progress of their
followers. Driven by a concern for people, they seek to treat others fairly and
recognize that they hold their positions in stewardship for others.
Address Both Individual and Contextual Variables
Training can help individuals develop sensitivity to moral issues and improve
ethical reasoning skills (Rest, 1993). To prevent future Enrons, faculty must help
current and future leaders and followers equip themselves with the values,
principles, and skills they need to make reasoned moral choices. Nonetheless, an
individual focus does not address organizational forces - group culture, high
forced turnover, reward system - that played a significant role in Enron’s moral
failures. In addition, society’s fixation on short term profits and daily market
moves also increased the pressure to manipulate results and to hide financial bad
news.
Leadership instructors need to help students analyze and respond to contextual

forces that encourage ethical misdeeds. These questions should be considered:
• What organizational controls should be put on innovation?
• How can employees be rewarded in a way that promotes ethical behavior?
52
• What are the dysfunctional consequences of the rank and yank evaluation
system?
• What are reasonable limits on executive compensation?
• What is a corporate board’s role in overseeing the operations of an
organization?
• What should be the composition of a board’s membership?
• How should the performance of companies be judged?
• How can society develop a long-term perspective on financial results?
Recognize the Importance of Credibility
Since Aristotle, scholars have examined the factors that make a source believable
to an audience, an interest based on the strong correlation between credibility and
influence (Hackman & Johnson, 2001, chap. 6). The Enron debacle and
subsequent scandals demonstrate that credibility, specifically trustworthiness, is
more important than ever. Stock values declined nearly 40% from market highs in
July1998 due largely to investors’ loss of confidence in the integrity of publicly
held corporations. Employees are increasingly skeptical as well. A 2002 survey
by the Ethics Resource Center found that 43% of respondents believed that their
bosses fail to model integrity and felt pressure to compromise their own ethical
standards at work (Wee, 2002). Modern technology, which enables the rapid,
worldwide dissemination of information, makes credibility more important now
than in the time of Plato and Aristotle. Leadership faculty need to help students
consider not only how credibility is built and maintained, but also how trust is
destroyed and at what cost to individuals and organizations.
Followers are Also Accountable
Lay, Skilling, Fastow and other high level executives deserve most of the blame
for what went wrong at Enron. It was they who created the company’s culture,
approved dubious partnerships, attacked critics, and, in the end, abandoned
employees while enriching themselves. Nevertheless, followers, ranging from
second tier officials down to receptionists and mailroom clerks, share some of the
blame. Many willingly bought into the get rich quick mentality of the Crooked E.
During the company’s 15 years of rapid growth, few stopped to question the
company’s tactics. They were “bought off” by the generous perks and the thrill of
being part of one of the most sophisticated and innovative companies in the
world. The constant threat of termination undoubtedly convinced others to keep
their doubts to themselves and to support their bosses.
According to Chaleff (1995), courage - the willingness to accept a higher level of

risk - is the most important virtue for organizational followers. Such courage was
sorely lacking at Enron. Few had the courage to challenge authority. Few had the
courage to leave when faced with ethical violations. Apparently no member of the
firm had the courage to bring the misbehavior of Lay and his subordinates to the
attention of the public before the crisis erupted (Cruver, 2002).
53
Unfortunately, cowardice is not limited to Enron. Nearly two-thirds of those who

witness ethical violations in their companies refuse to report them, believing that
reporting problems would not do any good (Chief Executive, 2002). The final
lesson of Enron, then, is that both instructors and students have the responsibility
to confront moral failure whenever and wherever it appears, regardless of whether
they function in a leadership or in a followership role.
Conclusion
In summary, top officials at Enron abused their power and privileges. They
manipulated information while engaging in inconsistent treatment of internal and
external constituencies. These leaders put their own interests above those of their
employees and the public, and failed to exercise proper oversight or shoulder
responsibility for ethical failings. Sadly, the followers were all too quick to follow
their example.
Numerous implications for teaching leadership ethics can be gleaned from the
Eron situation. Educators must share some of the blame for what happened at
Enron. It is important to integrate ethics into the rest of the curriculum.
Leadership educators need to highlight the responsibilities of both leaders and
followers along with addressing both individual and contextual variables that
encourage corruption. The importance of trust and credibility in the leader-
follower relationship must be recognized. And, finally, educators must hold
followers as well as leaders accountable for ethical misdeeds.
References
Associated Press (2002, July 7). Report: Enron board aided collapse. Retrieved
August 8, 2002 from http://www.msnbc.com/news/777112.asp.
Barreveld, D. J. (2002). The Enron collapse: Creative accounting, wrong

economics or criminal acts? San Jose, CA: Writers Club Press.
Bryce, R., (2002). Pipe dreams: Greed, ego, and the death of Enron. New York:
Public Affairs.
Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower. San Francisco: Berett-Koehler.
Chief Executive of San Diego shuttle company assails corporate chicanery.

(2002, July 14). San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved July 16, 2002 from
Newspaper Source.
Cruver, B. (2002). Anatomy of greed: The unshredded truth from an Enron

insider. New York: Carroll & Graf.
54
Duffy, M. (2002, January 28). What did they know and when did they now it?
Time, pp. 16-22.
Duffy, M., & Dickerson, J. F. (2002, February 4). Enron spoils the party. Time,
pp. 18-25.
Eisenberg, D. (2002, February 21). Ignorant & Poor? Time, pp. 37-39.
Elliott, A. L, & Schroth, R. J. (2002). How companies lie: Why Enron is just the
tip of the iceberg. New York: Crown Business.
“Enron’s excess” (2002, March 2). Newsweek. Retrieved August 8, 2002 from
http://www.msnbc.com/news/718379.asp.
Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community: The reinvention of American society.

New York: Touchstone.
Fox, L. (2003). Enron: The rise and fall. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Fusaro, P. C., & Miller, R. M. (2002). What went wrong at Enron. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. New York: Paulist Press.
Gruley, B., & Smith, R. (2002, April 26). Kenneth Lay—disaster? Wall Street
Journal, pp. A1, A5.
Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2001). Leadership: A communication

Perspective. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
“How Enron let down its employees.” BBC News. Retrieved August 8, 2002,
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/17677633.stm.
Hill, A., Chaffin, J., & Fidler, S. (2002, February 3). Enron: Virtual company,
virtual profits. The Financial Times. Retrieved August 8, 2002 from
http://specials.ft.com/enron/FT3648VA9XC.html.
Johnson, C. E. (2001). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light

or shadow. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kanungo, R. N., & Mendoca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kavanaugh, J. F. (2002, February 25). Capitalist conscience. America, p. 17.

Retrieved July 16, 2002 from Academic Search Premiere.
55
Manning, J. (2002, October 18). Former Enron trader pleads guilty. The
Oregonian, pp A1, A11.
Manning, J., & Hill, G. K. (2002, February 3). Enron pockets PGE’s tax
payments. The Oregonian, pp. A1, A7.
Rest, J. R. (1993). Research on moral judgment in college students. In A. Garrod

Approaches to moral development (pp. 201-211). New York:Teachers
College Press.
Smith, R., & Raghavan, A. (2002, July 30). Feds eye Merrill’s Enron deals. The
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 8, 2002 from
http://www.msnbc.com/news/787517.asp.
Spears, L. (1998). Introduction: Tracing the growing impact of servant leadership.

In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership (pp. 1-12). New York: John
Wiley.
Stewart, T. A. (2001, December 5). Two lessons from the Enron Debacle.
Business 2.0. Retrieved August 2, 2002, from
http://www.business2.com/articles/web/0, 1653,35995, 00. html.
Weaver, G. R., Trevino, K. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and

decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments,
external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of
Management Journal 42, 539-552.
Wee, H. (2002, April 4). Corporate ethics: Right makes might. Business Week
Online. Retrieved July 16, 2002, from Academic Search Premier.
Wilke, J. (2002, August 5). Enron criminal probe focuses on alleged corruption
abroad. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1.
Wilke, J. (2002, August 7). Enron loans examined in probe. Wall Street Journal,
p. A2.
Zellner, W. (2002, January 28). A hero—and a smoking-gun letter. Business

Week Online. Retrieved August 8, 2002 from
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_04/b3767702.html.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2002 National

Communication Association convention, New Orleans, LA.
56
Transformational Leader as Champion and Techie:

C. B. Crawford, Ph.D.
Assistant Provost for Quality Management, Fort Hays State University
600 Park Street
Hays, KS 67601
ccrawfor@fhsu.edu
Lawrence V. Gould, Ph.D.

Provost, Fort Hays State University
600 Park Street
Hays, KS 67601
lgould@fhsu.edu
Robert F. Scott, Ph.D.

Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of Maine at Fort Kent
23 University Avenue
Fort Kent, ME 04743
rscott@maine.edu
Abstract
The effects of innovation on leadership abilities have not been widely
investigated. Although diffusion of innovation theory has existed for some time,
there is a need for more research detailing the relationship between innovation
and transformational leadership. In a survey of organizational members (N =
294), innovation was significantly related to all subscales of transformational
leadership. The relationship between innovation and transactional leadership was
generally not significant, and the relationship with laissez-faire leadership was
inverse and significant. Implications emerging from the relationship between
transformational leadership and innovation are discussed, including the distinction
between the champion and “techie” styles of innovation and their basis in
leadership activity.
Introduction
Computerization has changed the way people do their jobs and even the way
people look at work (Kling & Dunlop, 1993). Technological changes have had a
major effect on how business is done and on the managerial utilization of
communication. Today’s organization is different in structure and function due to
the integration of new technology. This study explores the changes in how
57
“champions” and “techies”, as the transformational leaders of this new era, view
innovation, as well as isolate a few implications for leadership education.
Innovation Theory
Research about innovation assumes that technological innovation occurs within a
social context (Goodman, Griffith, & Fenner, 1990; Van de Ven, 1986). New
technologies change the organization because of the way people make sense of
their surroundings (Weick, 1990). Rogers (1983) suggested that innovation is a
communication process about something newer or better. Innovation, like
communication, is not a one-way linear event. Rogers further posited innovation
is relational and dynamic.
Rogers (1983) defined a range of personal behaviors toward innovation based on

a bell-shaped innovation curve. Behavioral categories range from an innovator (at
the highly innovative end) to a laggard (at the low innovation end). Rogers (1986)
explained that diffusion is the process that communicates an innovation over time
among members of a social system. Thus, diffusion of innovation is both a social
and individual activity. He theorized that a small number of people innovate very
quickly. Next, a substantial number of individuals are early adopters. Early
adopters precede the early majority who adopts a little before others in their social
network. The next group, on the other side of the mean, is late adopters. Late
adopters are still ahead of the final classification, the laggard. Laggards are not
interested in integrating new technology. Rogers’ theory helps define the range of
personal behaviors in relation to innovation. His model is an appropriate
foundation for empirical study and gives further basis for the quantification of
personal innovativeness.
Historically, innovation research focused more on the process of adoption. More

recent research has been centered on the social implications of innovation.
Research from authors like Walther (1994), Howell and Higgins (1990a, 1990b,
1990c), and Rice (1987) suggests that the act of innovating has definite social
implications in the personal, organizational, and global context. Given the current
social influence direction of modern leadership, it seems reasonable that
innovation may be related to transformational leadership qualities.
Transformational Leadership Theory

The original formulation of transformational leadership theory comes from Burns
(1978). At the core of transformational leadership is the concept of
transformation, or change of the organization. Tichy and Devanna (1986a) noted
that companies were being asked to make fundamental changes. Transformational
leadership best reflects this change (Bass, 1985).
58
Transformational Leadership Basics
Burns (1978) defined transformational leadership as a process in which “leaders

and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation” (p.
20). A chief element of transformation is the ability to cultivate the needs of the
follower in a follower-centered (person-centered) manner. According to Burns,
focusing on needs makes leaders accountable to the follower. First, Burns
contended that followers are driven by a moral need, the need to champion a
cause, or the need to take a higher moral stance on an issue. People like to feel
that a higher organizational spiritual mission guides their motives. The second
need is a paradoxical drive for consistency and conflict. Transforming leaders
must help followers make sense out of inconsistency. Conflict is necessary to
create alternatives and to make change possible. The process of transformation is
empathy, understanding, insight, and consideration; not manipulation, power
wielding, or coercion.
Tichy and Devanna (1986a) defined transformation best, stating

“Transformational leadership is about change, innovation, and entrepreneurship”
(p. viii). Transformational leadership is a process of micro-level and macro-level
influence (Yukl, 1989). At the macro-level, transformational leaders must take
charge of the social systems and reform the organization by creating an
appropriate power situation. At the micro-level, transformational leaders must
attend to the personalities in the organization to facilitate change at an
interpersonal level. Tichy and Devanna (1986a) assumed that transformational
leaders begin with a social fabric, disrupt that environment, and then recreate the
social fabric to better reflect the overall business climate.
Contemporary Research on Transformational Leadership
According to Bass and Avolio (1994), organizational managers should move

toward more transformational leadership behaviors to facilitate a culture that is
purposeful, interdependent, and beyond self-interest. Leadership style plays a
major role in creating and maintaining the culture. Transforming leadership is
based on interaction and influence, not directive power acts (Barker, 1994).
Leadership is a social process (not linear), ethically constrained, and emerges
from crisis. Leaders are interested in collective results not maximum benefit for
individual gain; collective action for collective relief. Leadership must forgo
emphasizing productivity and performance to embrace a theory of change
centered on human potential, common good, and interaction (Barker, 1994).
According to Howell and Avolio (1995), ethical leaders, while striving for
success, also focus on the individual. Ethical leaders seek to develop followers,
while unethical leaders wish to enslave. DuBrin (1995) contended that
transformational leaders might have charismatic attributes. Transformational
leaders manage by inspiration while other leaders manage by directive. But,
charisma is not a necessary element for transformation. Transactional leaders use
59
contingent rewards and administrative actions to reinforce positive and reform

negative behaviors (Bass, 1985; 1990).
Ray, Ugbah, Brammer, and DeWine (1996) discussed the attributes of maverick
leaders: the crucial characteristic was the ability to make change occur. Maverick
leaders fight the status quo to test the limits of the environment; helping establish
a culture that expects change. Ray et al. (1996) contended that mavericks make
innovation occur through several means: total destruction of the old organization,
introduce new technology, change the physical structure, restructure departments,
or conduct training interventions. Ray et al. concluded that loose-coupled
organizations tended to be more tolerant of innovation and maverick leaders.
Since they create a culture of change, maverick leaders often groom “maverick
apprentices” to take their role as surrogate mavericks when the time comes.
Relationship Between Innovation and Transformational

Leadership
Although much is written about organizational innovation, relatively little
addresses the influence of leadership on the design and implementation of
information technology (Klenke, 1994). Few researchers address the link between
innovation and leadership, and even fewer address the relationship between
transformational leadership and innovation. Tichy and Devanna (1986b) refer to
transformational leaders as change oriented, but they give little attention to the
relationship between new technology and transformational leadership. Contractor
and Eisenberg (1990) argued that people knowledgeable about the communication
network rise faster, but make no mention of the role of innovation and its impact
on leadership.
Schein (1994a, 1994b) indicated that cultures could be assessed on their degree of
innovativeness. Some cultures are built around information technology. Schein
(1994a) hypothesized that organizations innovate to the extent people are
proactive, problem oriented, and desire improvement. These characteristics are
similar to the attributes of transformational leaders (Tichy & Devanna, 1986b).
Schein (1994a) suggested that innovative leaders implement faster under
conditions of groupism, collegial or participation, or even authoritarian methods
of decision-making. Participative leaders use the innovation more appropriately
and sensitively. Schein (1994b) concluded that managers who viewed innovation
as a method of transformation, and were positively focused on information
technology, had more successful transitions.
According to Klenke (1994), information technology and the actions of leaders

create new organizational forms. Leadership is at the center of the interaction
between task demands, people, technology, and organization structure. The
relationship between innovation and leadership is difficult to articulate given the
variety of functional leadership behaviors and the range of information
60
technologies. Technology and leadership have reciprocal effects on each other; a

change in one leads to a change in the other.
Brown (1994) speculated that transformational leadership is needed in an

evolving technological society. Society is moving from controlled change to
accelerated change nearly beyond control. Both attitude and behavior must be the
target of transformational leaders. The primary reason for technological change
failure was fear and the role of transformational leaders was to reform fear into
motivation. He adopted a framework similar to Schein’s (1994a).
Transformational leaders must meet market demands faster and better than before,
given the increasingly interdependent economy.
A very limited body of research has been built addressing the relationship
between innovation and transformational leadership. Howell and Higgins (1990a,
1990b, 1990c) contended that champions of innovation were significantly more
transformational than non-champions. Champions operate in three ways: a
rational method that promotes sound decision making based on organizational
rules and procedures; a participative process, enlisting others’ help to gain
approval and implementation of the innovation; going outside the formal channels
of bureaucratic rules and engaging in a renegade process. Howell and Higgins
(1990c) compiled a list of attributes of champions: high self-confidence,
persistence, energy, risk taking, credible, and winning. They concluded that
champions are found in all organizations and without champions “organizations
may have lots of ideas but few tangible innovations” (p. 36). Their research was
deficient in the methods used in identifying champion status.
Hypothesis and Model Formation

In attempting to understand the fuller relationship between innovation and
leadership one might posit the following hypotheses:
• H1: Innovation will be positively related to person-centered leadership.
• H1a: The technological component of innovation will be positively related to
transformational leadership.
• H1b: The technological component of innovation will not be related to
transactional leadership.
• H1c: The technological component of innovation will not be related to laissez-
faire leadership.
• H1d: The influence component of innovation will be positively related to
transformational leadership.
• H1e: The influence component of innovation will not be related to
transactional leadership.
• H1f: The influence component of innovation will not be related to laissez-faire
leadership.
61
Methods
Subjects
Subjects (N = 294) came from five organizational sources. The organizations have
differing primary missions: an educational organization, medical organization,
manufacturing organization, automobile sales and service organization, and utility
organization. The median age range was 30 to 39. The sample consisted of 167
females (61.9%) and 103 male respondents (38.1%). Nearly 50% of the sample
had some college education. Respondents were asked if they had a computer at
work and home, the number of hours spent using their home and work computer,
and if they had a recent technological innovation in the workplace. In terms of
recent innovation, 161 subjects (60.1%) claimed they recently encountered an
innovation (within the last six months) while 107 subjects (39.6%) did not. Sixty-
eight percent have workplace computers, and 61% have them at home. Seventy
percent used computers more than “rarely” in the workplace while only 50% used
a computer more than “rarely” at home.
Procedure
Organizations with diverse missions were contacted and approval was received
before procedural steps involving subjects were taken. Once contacted,
organizational liaisons were informed about the instrument, confidentiality, and
results of the instrument. They were given a copy of the instruments. Following
the meeting, the liaison contacted the researcher with a timetable for convenient
implementation.
Once the subjects were selected (in those organizations not doing a full sampling)
the survey battery was administered either personally or in small group sessions.
Subjects were informed about the experimental nature of the instrument and
informed consent was acquired from every subject. Training and simple directions
were given for each instrument. Subjects were instructed to answer every question
as completely as possible. Subjects were given ample time to complete the survey.
Upon completion, those subjects that desired were debriefed about the study and
their contribution to the study. Following administration of the instrument battery,
data analysis was performed.
Instrumentation
Two assessment instruments and limited demographic questions were

administered. The first part of the survey battery was the Acceptance of
Technological Innovation instrument reported in the Crawford and Strohkirch
(1996, 1997) studies. This instrument consists of 30 items dealing with the
adoption of innovative technologies as rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Several items were also reverse coded.
Prior research found the measure to be reliable and validity emerged from
62
significant correlation to actual media use. A pilot test of the actual 30-item report
was conducted (N = 100) on an unrelated sample finding a strong level of
reliability as well (α = .93). For the final project (n = 276) the alpha coefficient of
the overall instrument showed it highly reliable (α = .92). The instrument included
two six-item subscales: one for technological orientation and one considering the
ability to influence others about technology. The subscales were also analyzed for
reliability with both the technology subscale (α = .77) and the influence subscale
(α = .75) showing modest reliability. A factor analysis of the 12 items was
performed to check the stability of the factor structure, but the results did not
confirm the expected factor structure. One item from each of the subscales was
dropped based on alpha reliability analysis. The remaining items were loaded on a
second factor analysis, and the results confirmed the factor structure (Eigen values
of 5.06 and 1.00). The reliability of the revised technology subscale was an
improved α = .82, and for the revised influence subscale α = .83.
The second instrument, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

(Version 5-S) created by Bass (1985), is a 70-item survey consisting of four
subscales of transformational leadership acts (charisma, individual consideration,
intellectual stimulation, and inspiration); two subscales of transactional leadership
acts (contingent reward and management by exception); and, one scale measuring
laissez-faire leadership. Subject’s self-reported specific leadership attributes using
five-point Likert scales ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The
MLQ has been found to be very reliable (Howell & Higgins, 1990a) as both a
self-report measure or as a measure of a superior’s performance. In the present
application the MLQ was used as a self-report of transformational, transactional,
and laissez-faire leadership attributes and had an α = .89 reliability score which
was consistent with prior research. Subscale reliabilities ranged from a score of α
= .89 to α = .60. Analysis based on the subscales was deemed appropriate given
the much higher reliabilities generated in prior research.
Results
Tables 1 shows the mean, standard deviation, range, minimum, maximum, and
valid number of responses for the variables emerging from the innovation and
leadership measures.
63
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Innovation and Leadership Scales and

Subscales
Variable Mean St. Dev. Range Min Max
Innovation – Categorical 1.98 .802 2.00 1.00 3.00
Innovation Scale 97.13 15.33 92.00 49.00 141.00
Influence Subscale 17.57 3.41 18.00 7.00 25.00
Technology Subscale 15.77 3.97 20.00 5.00 25.00
Transformational Scale 3.63 .38 2.75 2.20 4.95
Inspiration Subscale 3.21 .47 3.14 1.86 5.00
Charisma Subscale 3.63 .47 3.00 2.00 5.00
Intellectual Stimulation Subscale 3.74 .43 2.80 2.20 5.00
Individual Consideration 3.89 .41 2.90 2.10 5.00

Subscale
Transactional Scale 3.20 .34 2.75 2.10 4.85
Contingent Reward Subscale 3.47 .47 2.90 2.10 5.00
Management by Exception 2.93 .42 3.20 1.60 4.80

Subscale
Laissez-faire Subscale 2.15 .52 3.80 1.10 4.90
Table 2 displays the correlations for the scales and subscales of innovation and
leadership ability.
64
Table 2. Correlation Between Innovation and Leadership Abilities Scales
Leadership Variable Innovation Scale Influence Technology

Subscale Subscale
Transformational Scale * r = 48, p = .001 * r = .55, p = .001 * r = .43, p = .001
Charisma Subscale * r = .34, p = .001 * r = .44, p = .001 * r = .35, p = .001
Individual Consideration * r = .34, p = .001 * r = .42, p = .001 * r = .29, p = .001

Subscale
Intellectual Stimulation * r = .43, p = .001 * r = .46, p = .001 * r = .37, p = .001
Subscale
Inspiration Subscale * r = .36, p = .001 * r = .41, p = .001 * r = .36, p = .001
Transactional Scale r = .11, p = .150 r = .14, p = .055 * r = .16, p = .025
Contingent Reward * r = .30, p = .001 * r = .32, p = .001 * r = .28, p = .001

Subscale
Management by Exception * r = -.15, p = .026 * r = -.14, p = .04 r = -.05, p = .479
Subscale
Laissez-faire Scale *r = -.25, p = .001 * r = -.22, p = .001 * r = -.18, p = .005
* indicates significance at standard criterion level for two-tailed test
The correlation matrix displayed in Table 2 suggests that there is a strong

relationship between transformational leadership (and subscales) and innovation
generally, the technical aspect of innovation, as well as the influence aspect of
innovation. The correlation between the overall transformational leadership scale
and innovation is a highly significant r = .48, for the technology subscale the
correlation is a strong r = .43, and for the technology subscale the correlation is
highly significant with a r = .55 value. All of the correlations were positive
providing support for H1, H1a, and H1d. Furthermore, the relationship between the
transactional leadership scale and innovation can be understood in light of the
correlations listed in Table 2.
Transactional leadership was not related to the overall measure of innovation or

the influence subscale, but was unexpectedly related to the technology subscale.
This finding is further complicated by the fact that the contingent reward factor
was correlated, fairly significantly, to all three innovation variables. Management
by exception was correlated to both the innovation scale as well as the influence
subscale. These findings provided little support for retaining H1b and H1e.
Finally, the relationship between the laissez-faire leadership scale and innovation
was significantly negative as evidenced by the negative correlations ranging from
r = -.25 (p = .001) to r = -.18 (p = .005). These findings provide support for the
assumption that the innovators do not demonstrate a lack of leadership. H1c and
H1f should be retained given these findings.
65
Regression analyses were performed to determine levels of shared variance

between innovation and leadership. The influence and technology subscales were
entered into a regression model to measure their effects on transformational
leadership. The innovation and technology factors of innovation accounted for a
highly significant 30.8% of the variance of transformational leadership (F =
43.75, df = 2, 196; p = .0001). The overall innovation measure was also entered
into a regression model finding that 23% of the variance of transformational
leadership was explained (F = 55.50, df = 1, 188, p = .0001).
In terms of the shared variance with transactional leadership, neither the overall
innovation measure (F = 2.09, ns) or the influence and technology subscales (F =
2.69, ns) were predictive. For laissez-faire leadership, the overall innovation
measure was significantly predictive (F = 14.45; df = 1, 220; p = .0002)
accounting for 6% of the variance of laissez-faire leadership. The influence and
technology subscales were also significantly predictive of laissez-faire leadership
(F = 6.31; df = 2, 231; p = .002) accounting for over 5.2% of the variance of
laissez-faire leadership. The negative correlation indicates that as innovation goes
up, the level of laissez-faire leadership diminishes providing support for H1
(innovation is positively related to transformational leadership abilities). H1a, H1b,
and H1c should be retained given the strong positive relationship between the
technology component and transformational leadership and the lack of positive
relationship with transactional and laissez-faire leadership. Furthermore, H1d, H1e,,
and H1f should also be retained given similar findings. Overall, these results
demonstrate a link between innovation and transformational leadership abilities.
Discussion
The most notable finding regarding innovation centers on the relationship
between innovation and transformational leadership. These results demonstrate a
strong relationship between transformational leadership and innovation. In
addition, the technology and influence subscales were strongly related to
transformational leadership suggesting that transformation has both elements as
well as the gestalt of innovation. Furthermore, transactional leadership was not
significantly related to innovation, though the contingent reward element was
significant across both innovation subscales as well as the overall measure.
Finally, the laissez-faire subscale had a significant negative relationship to
innovation. Among the most striking of the results is that 30% of the variance of
transformational leadership was accounted for by the technology and influence
subscale; 23% was accounted for by the overall innovation measure. For laissez-
faire leadership, 6% of the variance was accounted for by the overall innovation
measure and, 4% by the technology and influence subscales. These findings are
significant and provide a solid basis for further conclusions to be drawn on the
relationship between leadership and innovation.
Prior research has established the link between transformation and champions of
innovation (Howell & Higgins, 1990a, 1990b, 1990c), but little research focused
66
on either the non-champion technocrat or the innovator without an upper-level

organizational title. There is good reason for the relationship between
transformational leadership and innovation. Innovation shares one major
characteristic with transformational leadership - change. The basic concept that
underlies transformational leadership is the ability to change the current -
transcend the present - to achieve a higher plane of leadership. The concept of
transformation is very similar to innovation, although change is largely assumed
in the innovation and technology literature. Innovation is the process of adaptation
to the changing technical environment. This also requires change. Thus, the
relationship between these elements is not accidental or contrived. Innovators at
all levels are interested in change.
The negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership and innovation is also

parsimonious. Laissez-faire leaders, as the opposite of transformational leaders in
Bass’ (1985) definition, are stuck in the status quo. Laissez-faire means literally
“leave it be”, and these leaders resist change as a threat to status quo homeostasis.
Given that innovation seeks to change the current state, it makes sense that there
would be either no relationship or a negative relationship with laissez-faire
leadership. This study found that laissez-faire leadership is negatively associated
with innovation. If managers are laissez-faire then they are not interested in
bringing innovation into the organizational context.
Transactional leadership, which was not significantly associated with innovation

or the two subscales, is the quest for mediocrity through management. A key
element of transactional leadership is the quid pro quo mentality (i.e., if the
workers produce then they will be rewarded, if they do not then rewards will be
less). Transactional leadership produces a less enlightened organization;
members worry about how others can benefit them rather than how they can
benefit the organization and achieve better results. Bass (1985) and Burns (1978)
argued that the transactional state of leadership is immature and should be pushed
aside. Other methods (transformational leadership) produce more effective results.
In this study, there was no link between innovation and transactional leadership as
expected, but there was a correlation with contingent reward, one aspect of
transactional leadership. Contingent reward is strikingly similar to the reward,
punishment, and manipulation influence method isolated by Crawford and
Strohkirch (1997). Innovators use this “less than mature” form of leadership to
elicit action on the part of others. The longer the innovation takes the further
behind the organization will be. Perhaps the perception is that a more direct
method (like contingent reward or reward/punishment /manipulation influence)
will produce results faster. A second alternative is that direct methods are fallback
positions. Perhaps innovators feel pressure to use methods that are proven though
less effective. Whatever the motive, innovators have a “dark side” when it comes
to influencing others. This non-person centered, non-transformational side should
be more thoroughly investigated.
67
Given the strength of correlation between innovation and transformational

leadership, there is ample evidence to suggest that innovation and transformation
share common features. Though not the same, transformational individuals are
likely to also be innovative. This study also provides basis for the conclusion that
many innovators may be highly transformational (champions), but some may not
be, and may still be effective (techies). This finding has serious implications for
modern organizations as innovation and transformation are elements they might
want to encourage. In the computer age, many organizations probably want to
lead the innovation curve, or at least, not be lagging on the innovation cycle.
Transformational leadership should be the path utilized for innovative results. If
organizations want to be on the slower end of the innovation curve, then leaders
that are highly transformational may not fit the culture since they may force
innovation. A similar implication results from the interrelationship between
transactional and laissez-faire leadership and innovation. Given that laissez-faire
leadership and innovation are moderately negatively correlated, then innovative
organizational cultures should avoid laissez-faire leadership. Furthermore, since
transactional leadership was not related to innovation then innovation effects
stemming from transactional leadership have not been sufficiently documented.
Contingent reward behaviors and innovation, however, were moderately
correlated. One may expect innovators to use transformational leadership
behaviors as well as contingent reward behaviors to achieve results.
Application of Current Findings to Innovation Research
First, this research extended the work of innovation researchers like Rogers
(1983, 1986 ) and Giacquinta, Bauer, and Levin (1993), producing needed
empirical evidence that diffusion of innovation is a real phenomenon.
Furthermore, this research contextualized innovation within organizations. Little
empirical organizational research delineates the process of innovation in
organizations, let alone the personal differences that make innovation possible or
unlikely. This research also supports the research of Rice (1987), Fulk (1993), and
Markus, Bikson, El-Shinnawy, and Soe (1992) who suggested that innovation is
a function of the social network. They noted technology is simply interjected, but
the change comes from the adaption to technology. It is important to consider that
innovators use different leadership methods, which implies using different
methods to influence others (Crawford & Strohkirch; 1996, 1997).
A caution seem necessary. First, those “with” advanced leadership skills innovate;
those “without” are relegated to a secondary status in the acquisition and use of
technology. Some are limited by their ability to purchase and use technology.
People who do not see the need for the application of technology for whatever
reason or those who are not able to acquire and hone their leadership skills, suffer.
As a social condition, there must be more discussion over the process of
innovation and how or why people are left out of the innovation process.
68
Profiles of Innovators: “Champions” and “Techies”
The two innovation subscales were included to determine if “people higher in

technological focus” or “more able to influence others about innovation” were
different. When significant findings for the main innovation measure occurred,
they also did for the subscales. The results can potentially support that these are
discrete innovator profile types, and some conclusions regarding each type of
innovator can be advanced.
The champion of innovation, as described by Howell and Higgins (1990a, 1990b,

1990c), is transformational in nature and seeks to innovate through the infusion of
new technology. The champion uses direct means of influence, but is
transformative, not manipulative or transactional. Behaviors of the champion
make this person very similar to the Ray et al. (1996) maverick leader. The
maverick leader seeks to tear down the old structure and rebuild with innovation.
The defining part of mavericks is the ability to innovate and to change the
organization. This research study supports the findings of Howell and Higgins
(1990a, 1990b, 1990c) as well as Ray et al. (1996) in suggesting that champions,
or mavericks, exist. The influence subscale captures the essence of what makes
champions and mavericks successful - influence. These types succeed only
because of the change they promote in an organization. This change or
transformation occurs because the influence innovator has the ability to make
people understand that they can overcome the inertia of the status quo.
The techie innovator, as measured through a subscale of the innovation measure,

was envisioned as a person that understands more about technology than the
average person. Although contemporary wisdom suggests that this personality
type exists, we were not able to detect much difference between the techie and the
innovator. There is a part of the techie innovator that uses the reward, punishment,
and manipulation influence strategies. It should be expected that the techie would
use less person-centered means to influence change. The use of direct means is
not uncommon and has been found before. Whether this direct and impersonal
influence method is an absolute indicator and predictor of being a techie,
unfortunately, is beyond the scope of this research.

Leadership education continues its evolution toward a mainstream liberal art. As
the theoretical base of leadership continues to grow, leadership educators must be
ever mindful of the social events that always mediate the gap between theory and
practice. This study represents one way in which research can give theory more
currency, but the rate of innovation makes any scientific conclusions suspect in
the future. Nonetheless, some basic implications for leadership educators become
obvious.
69
First, the findings here support the basic idea that innovation and transformation
leadership are related – strongly related. The shared variance between
transformational leadership and both the techie innovation and the influence
innovation types (31% shared variance, F = 43.75, df = 2, 196, p = .0001) were
highly significant indicating a very strong convergence between the two variables.
On the other hand, the relationship between transactional leadership and
innovation are not as clear. These conclusions warrant a basic implication: if
leadership educators want to prepare students for the rapidly innovating world
they would be well advised to position a discussion of innovation around the
concept of transformational leadership.
Second, leadership educators must prepare to discuss the effect of innovation on

leadership. As society moves into an era where computerization is ubiquitous, the
ability to innovate is assumed. It is inevitable that innovation will exist in the
modern workplace, and it is equally inevitable that the leadership relationship will
be significantly impacted by rapid innovation. Leadership educators must prepare
students to be able to understand the challenges brought on by rapid innovation
and the changes in relationships (really the people) that will obviously occur when
technology is advanced.
Third, even though much of the process of innovation is influence based, there is
an aspect of innovation that is purely centered around technology. In this study,
some effort to separate the technical aspects and influence aspects was done in an
effort to demonstrate the separateness of the two personality characteristics. The
techie leader must find ways to add value to the modern organization through
more influence, that is, person-centered ways. Given the strong correlation
between the techie type and the use of contingent rewards and punishments,
leadership educators must be vigilant in making sure that effective influence skills
are taught to those in greatest need – the techie. If educators fail in this endeavor,
the ability to manage innovation will be seriously hampered by the inability of
some to move a vision and agenda forward. Innovation, and hence, the modern
organization, will be hurt by this lack of influence ultimately if leadership
educators cannot find ways to help the technically strong become more like their
champion counterparts.
Fourth, given the negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership and

innovation, it seems advisable that leadership educators approach the issue of
supervision of innovative followers very carefully. The laissez-faire indicator, as
measured by the MLQ, focuses specifically on the lack of initiative to lead others
as well as an apathetic approach toward followers. In many organizations, there
may be a real temptation to leave the innovators under conditions of self-
supervision. Given the negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership and
innovation, leaders should perhaps be more direct in their approach otherwise a
lack of direct supervision may be seen as a sign of disinterest and apathy.
70
Finally, leadership educators must recognize the important contribution that the
leader – champion makes in the process of delivering innovation into the
leadership relationship. The champion, though not as technically competent as the
techie leader, plays perhaps a more central role in building a strong vision-based
future for an organization. As such, leadership educators must study this
phenomenon and teach students about the importance of the use of influence in
building a stronger organization. No longer is innovation just the backdrop for
leadership in the future organization, it is now center stage and leadership
educators need to be preparing students to assume leading roles in this new
production.
References
Barker, R. A. (1994). The rethinking of leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies,
1 (2), 46-54.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New

York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning

to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and

organizational culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 17 (3),
541-554.
Brown, A. D. (1994). Transformational leadership in tackling technical change.

Journal of General Management, 19 (4), 1-12.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Contractor, N. S. & Eisenberg, E. M. (1990). Communication networks and new

media in organizations. In J. Fulk and C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and
communication technology. Newbury Park: CA: Sage.
Crawford, C. B., & Strohkirch, C. S. (1996). Cognitive differentiation and

influence tactics of technological innovators: Preliminary findings. A Paper
Presented to the Speech Communication Association - Puerto Rico Annual
Convention, San Juan, PR.
Crawford, C. B.,& Strohkirch, C. S. (1997). Influence tactics and technological

innovation: Technocrats and champions. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4 (2), 43-
54.
DuBrin, A. J. (1995). Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
71
Fulk, J. (1993). Social construction of communication technology. Academy of

Management Journal, 36 (5), 921-950.
Giacquinta, J. B., Bauer, J., & Lewin, J. E. (1993). Beyond technology’s promise:
An examination of children’s educational computing at home. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Goodman, P. S., Griffith, T. L., & Fenner, D. B. (1990). Understanding

technology and the individual in an organizational context. In P. S. Goodman, L.
S. Sproull, and Associates (Eds.), Technology and organizations. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Charismatic leadership: Submission or

liberation? Business Quarterly, 60 (1), 62-70.
Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990a). Champions of technological innovation.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317-341.
Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990b). Champions of change: Identifying,

understanding, and supporting champions of technological innovation.
Organizational Dynamics, 19, 40 - 55.
Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990c). Champions of change. Business

Quarterly, 54 (4), 31-36.
Klenke, K. (1994). Information technologies as drivers of emergent organizational

forms: A leadership perspective. In R. Baskerville, S. Smithson, O. Ngwenyama,
and J.I. DeGross (Eds.) Transforming organizations with information technology.
North Holland: Elsevier Science B. V.
Kling, R., & Dunlop, C. (1993). Controversies about computerization and the
character of white collar worklife. The Information Society, 9, 1-29.
Marcus, M. L., Bikson, T. K., El-Shinnawy, M., & Soe, L. L. (1992). Fragments
of your communication: Email, vmail, and fax. The Information Society, 8, 207-
226.
Ray, R. G., Ugbah, S. D., Brammer, C., & DeWine, S. (1996). Communication
behaviors, innovation, and the maverick leader. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3
(3), 20-30.
Rice, R. E. (1987). Computer-mediated communication and organizational

innovation. Journal of Communication, 37 (4), 65-94.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
72
Rogers, E. M. (1986). Communication technology: The new media in society.

New York: Free Press.
Schein, E. H. (1994a). Innovative cultures and organizations. In T. J. Allen & M.

S .S. Morton (Eds.) Information technologies and the corporation of the 1990s:
Research studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schein, E. H. (1994b). The role of the CEO in the management of change: The
case of information technology. In T. J. Allen & M. S. S. Morton (Eds.)
Information technologies and the corporation of the 1990s: Research studies.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986a). The transformational leader. New

York: John Wiley and Sons.
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986b). The transformational leader. Training

and Development Journal, 40 (7), 27-32.
Van de Ven, A. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation.

Management Science, 32 (5), 590-607.
Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on

relational communication in computer-mediated communication. Human
Communication Research, 20 (4), 473-501.
Weick, K. E. (1990). Technology as equivoque: Sensemaking in new

technologies. In P. S. Goodman, L. S. Sproull, and Associates (Eds.). Technology
and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.
73
JOLE Submission Guidelines
Appropriateness of Topic for JOLE
Articles should relate to both leadership and education, but need not be balanced
in their focus and may emphasize either leadership or education. If you are
uncertain about the appropriateness of your topic please review previous papers
and, if needed, contact the editor. JOLE does not accept submittals published
previously or under review by another journal.
Submitting an Article to JOLE
Papers are received by email only, sent to: leader@tamu.edu. All submittals must
be sent as a Word file with a cover memo indicating authors, affiliation, contact,
and proposed category. The journal solicits articles in four categories:
• Research Feature
• Theoretical Feature
• Application Brief
• Idea Brief or Commentary
Please focus your article on a specific category and indicate with your cover
email. Complete information about the categories is provided at Categories of
Articles.
Review Process
Upon receipt of your paper the editor will send notice of receipt to the contact
author. The editor will review the submittal for suitability for the journal and
specific category. If not suitable the editor will provide guidance for the author. If
suitable, members of the editorial board, or selected guest referees, will review
the submittal.
How to Prepare to Write an Article for JOLE
A proven strategy is to review past issues of JOLE and read articles in the same
category. As JOLE is a new journal and the number of past issues is developing,
authors are encouraged to look at the Journal of Extension www.joe.org which
has similar categories. First time authors are encouraged to closely review, even
outline, other papers to understand the logic and flow of an acceptable paper in
each category.
74
Write for a Professional and Academic Audience
JOLE articles are intended to demonstrate scholarship but are also expected to be
readable and useful to a wide audience, including people who speak English as a
second language. Hence, they must be written clearly without losing their
scholarly value.
For more information visit the JOLE website at: www.fhsu.edu/jole
75

Jole 2 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jole 2 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal

...is an international, refereed journal that serves scholars and professional

The Journal of Leadership Education

The Journal of Leadership Education (JOLE) is the official publication of the

The members and board of the Association of Leadership Educators became

Copyright 2003 by the Association of Leadership Educators.

All rights reserved.

Editorial Staff and Reviewers

Between Great Men and Leadership: William James on the 3

Effective Leadership Education: Developing a Core Curriculum for 13

The Relationship of Leadership Practices to Culture 27

Enron’s Ethical Collapse: Lessons for Leadership Educators 45

Transformational Leader as Champion and Techie: Implications for 57

From the Editor’s Clipboard

Respectfully submitted, C. B. Crawford, Interim Editor

Between Great Men and Leadership: William James on the Importance of

Professor Harter forces us to look back to an author of legend - William James -

Effective Leadership Education: Developing a Core Curriculum for

In this piece, Professor Watt provides some interesting perspective on the

The Relationship of Leadership Practices to Culture

Enron's Ethical Collapse: Lessons for Leadership Educators

Transformational Leader as Champion and Techie: Implications for

Between Great Men and Leadership:

Closer inspection of prior deliberations reveals they were frequently embroiled in

As an exercise in reconstructing past deliberations, this paper examines two

The Context for His Remarks

He stands at the confluence of two intellectual traditions that feed leadership

Leaders and followers do not act in a vacuum. They are propelled,

To the extent that leaders emerge from previously amorphous

When James (1880, 1884, 1890/1956) found it necessary to supplement his

Challenges to His Argument Within Leadership Studies

It has by now become a cliché of current leadership studies to

What I really wanted in the organization was a group of

To summarize, the first new paradigm envisions more individuals within a

responsible” (p. 78). Instead, leadership is something of an optical illusion,

In each of these three paradigms, leadership as a distinctive contribution to the

Implications for Educators

• The dominant point of view: Leaders are distinct and important.

Born, D. ‘Leadership studies’: A critical appraisal. In P. Temes (Ed.). (1996).

Coser, L. (1971). Masters of sociological thought. Chicago: Harcourt Brace

Drath, W. (2001). The deep blue sea. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Levine, D. (1995). Visions of the sociological tradition. Chicago: University of

MacIver, R. M. The role of the precipitant. In A. Etzioni & Etzioni, E. (Eds.).

O’Toole, J. When leadership is an organizational trait. In Wilsey, S., Matusak, L.,

Owen, H. (1999). The spirit of leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Wheatley, M. Restoring hope to the future through critical education of leaders. In

Effective Leadership Education: Developing a Core

Willis M. Watt, Ph.D.

Leadership education must not be limited to discussions in classrooms and think

The purpose of this paper is to consider a variety of questions that need to be

Importance of Leadership Education

Leadership education has experienced many theoretical explanations that have

According to Quigley (1996 September), there is a clear need for emergent

“anyone can exercise leadership…young or old, assertive or quiet, a man or a

Wren (cited in Watt, 1995) identified seven considerations in teaching leadership

The Hosford (1973) model for curriculum development is helpful in developing

The first dimension identified is “professional considerations.” Curriculum

Figure 1. Ideal Relationship Between Curriculum and Instruction

Adapted from An instructional theory: A beginning (1973) by Philip L. Hosford.

A second dimension involves “practically.” Questions involving practicality

Fifth, developers must consider “organization.” As the model suggests, a

The seventh consideration involves instructional theory issues labeled