Primary Field Comprehensive Examination
Organization Behavior and Development
By: Susan Duffy
White Paper, 2004
Question #3
Leadership
Scholarly studies on the phenomenon of leadership yield diverse theoretical approaches that
conceptualize leadership as a trait, a set of behaviors, a political perspective, or a humanistic
viewpoint. Examine and compare each of these bodies of literature and create a summary for
use in teaching leadership theory to university students. Also examine the current practice of
leadership assessment activities. Include a review of psychometric instruments, feedback
processes, and leadership development programs. Conclude the analysis with a discussion of
gender as it relates to leadership.
Contents
Section
Page
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………
4
Part I: Theoretical Approaches to Leadership ………………..………………..
5
Leadership as a Trait…………………………….,.....……………............
Leadership as a Set of Behaviors..………..…………....................
Ohio State Studies ……………..………………………………….
Michigan University Studies …..…………………………………
Blake and Mouton …………..…………………………………….
5
9
9
10
11
Leadership as Behavior in Context ………………………………………
Situational leadership ……………………………………………..
Contingency Theory ……………………………………………….
Path Goal Theory ………………………………………………… .
13
14
15
17
Leadership as a Political Perspective …………………………………….
Charismatic Leadership …………………………………………..
Transformational Leadership ……………………………………
20
20
21
Leadership as a Humanistic Point of View ……………………………...
Participative Leadership …………………………………………
System 4 ……………………………………………………………
Theory X and Theory Y …………………………………………..
Servant Leadership ……………………………………………….
26
26
27
29
31
Summary of Leadership Approaches ……………………………………
32
Part II: Leadership Literature for Use in Teaching ……………………………
33
Emotional Intelligence …………………………………………………….
33
Sample Pedagogy Design ………………………………………………….
35
Part III: Leadership Assessment Activities ……………………………………..
36
Leadership Development Programs ………..…………………………….
27
Psychometric Instrument Review..………………………………………..
Meyers Briggs Type Indicator……………………………………..
Fundamental Interpersonal Orientation Index ..…………………
Campbell Leadership Index ………………………………………
Leadership Practices Inventory …………………………………..
40
41
42
44
45
2
Contents
Section
Page
Feedback Processes ……………………………………………………….
46
Part IV: Leadership and Gender ………………………………. ….……………
50
Leadership: Gender and Representation ………………………………..
51
Leadership Styles and Gender ……………………………………………
53
Gender-Bias as a Function of Organizational Structure and Culture …
55
Women-Focused Leadership Development ………………………………
55
The Female Void: Another Perspective …………………………………..
57
Summary and Concluding Remarks………………………………………………
58
Appendix A .…………………………………………………………………………..
61
Appendix B …………………………………………………………………………..
62
References ……………………………………………………………………………
63
3
Contents
Figures and Tables
Page
Figure 1: Path-Goal Leadership ………………………………….…………………
18
Table 1: Studies of Leadership Traits and Characteristics ….……………………..
8
Table 2: Leadership Theory and Emotional Intelligence Competencies …………..
34
Table 3: Methods, Tools and Processes in Leadership Development ………………
39
4
Introduction
To organization and management scholars, the last one hundred years might well be
considered the century of leadership. Beginning in the early 1990s the first systematic
attempts to explain leadership began with the infamous great man theories. Later, the focus
shifted from leadership traits, to leadership behaviors and from there moved to the context of
leaders, followers and the interaction between the two. By the middle of the century,
thousands of studies were produced leading renowned leadership scholar and practitioner,
Warren Bennis (1959), to describe the construct as perhaps the most written about, yet least
understood topic in the behavioral sciences. Despite the plethora of studies, research
continued ad infinitum for the next four decades. At present, a search of the term
“leadership” in the ABI Inform database yields 397 peer reviewed scholarly journal articles
published within the last twelve months alone. This burgeoning body of knowledge is built
on personal, behavioral, contextual, and philosophical underpinnings.
This paper begins with an examination and comparison of the diverse theoretical
approaches that conceptualize the phenomenon of leadership. Literature that examines
leadership as a trait, a set of behaviors, a political perspective, or a humanistic viewpoint is
reviewed. A summary of these bodies of literature for use in teaching university students
follows. The paper continues with an investigation of leadership assessment activities
including a review of psychometric instruments, feedback process and leadership
development programs. A discussion of gender as it relates to leadership concludes the
analysis.
5
Part I: Theoretical Approaches to Leadership
Leadership as a Trait
Based on the belief that leaders were born not made, trait theory (Bernard, 1926)
focused on the innate qualities and characteristics of social, political and military leaders
(Northouse, 2001). The objective of the research was to empirically determine what
physical, personality or mental traits differentiated leaders from those who followed them.
The thinking was that if these characteristics could be identified, successful leaders could be
quickly assessed and put into positions of leadership (Horner, 1997). While no definitive set
of traits was found, the studies did offer insight into how individual traits contribute to
leadership. In an early review of trait theory, Stodgill (1948) examined 124 studies and
concluded that no specific traits were consistently associated with leadership across research
studies. However, he did identify the following set of personal characteristics in which
leaders were different from average individuals:







intelligence,
alertness,
insight,
responsibility,
initiative,
persistence, and
self confidence
Stodgill also found that leadership was not solely based on traits; instead, it was
situation dependent. Someone who functioned as a leader in one situation may not be able to
fulfill that role in another. A second survey study by Stodgill (1974) examined 163 trait
studies published between 1948 and 1970, and found the following ten characteristics to be
positively associated with leadership:
6










Drive for responsibility and task completion;
Vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals;
Venturesomeness and originality in pursuit of goals;
Drive to exercise initiative in social situations;
Self confidence and sense of personal identity;
Willingness to accept consequences of decision and action;
Readiness to absorb personal stress;
Willingness to tolerate frustration and delay;
Ability to influence other people’s behaviors; and,
Capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand.
Other studies of trait research continued throughout the century. Mann (1959) studied
1400 findings on personality and leadership in small groups and suggested that personality
traits could be used to discriminate leaders from non-leaders. Those personality traits strong
in leaders included: intelligence, masculinity, adjustment, dominance, extroversion and
conservatism. Lord, DeVader and Alliger (1986) reassessed Mann’s findings in a meta
analysis and found that the personality traits of intelligence, masculinity and dominance were
significantly related to how individuals perceived leaders. And, Kirkpatrick and Locke
(1991) used a qualitative synthesis of earlier research to find that leaders differ from nonleaders on six traits: drive, the desire to lead, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, cognitive
ability, and knowledge of the business. The researchers reported that “It is unequivocally
clear that leaders are not like other people” (1991, p. 59); however, they also concluded that
traits are not always hard-wired at birth. Individuals can be born with these traits, learn
them, or both. See Table 1: Studies of Leadership Traits and Characteristics, page 7, for a
summary of study findings regarding traits associated with leadership (Northouse, 2001).
7
Table 1: Studies of Leadership Traits and Characteristics
Stodgill
Mann
Stodgill
1948
1958
1974
Intelligence
Alertness
Insight
Responsibility
Self-confidence
Initiative
Persistence
Sociability
Lord,
DeVader,
and Alliger
1986
Intelligence
Masculinity
Dominance
Adjustment
Extroversion
Conservatism
Achievement
Intelligence
Persistence
Masculinity
Insight
Dominance
Initiative
Self-confidence
Responsibility
Cooperativeness
Tolerance
Influence
Sociability
Source: Leadership: Theory and practice, Northouse, 2001, p. 18.
Kirkpatrick and
Locke
1991
Drive
Motivation
Integrity
Confidence
Cognitive ability
Task knowledge
In Leadership: Theory and Practice, Northouse (2001) points out that a breadth of
traits have been found to be associated with leadership. Several traits are found in multiple
studies, while others are identified in only one or two. The most common leadership traits
found in the research are described below (Northouse, 2001):

Intelligence: strong verbal ability; perceptual ability and reasoning. Research indicates
that leader’s IQ should not be too different from followers or difficulties in
communication may occur.

Self Confidence: ability to be certain about one’s competencies and skills; includes selfesteem; self-assurance and belief one can make a difference. Leadership involves
influence and self-confidence assures leader that attempts to influence are appropriate.

Determination: desire to get the job done: initiative, persistence, dominance and drive.
Leader displays a willingness to assert self; is proactive; and has a capacity to persevere
when confronted with obstacles.

Integrity: honesty and trustworthiness; adheres to a strong set of principles and takes
responsibility for action; inspires confidence because can be trusted to do what says; and
is loyal and dependable. Integrity makes a leader worthy of trust.
8

Sociability: inclination to seek pleasant social relationships; sensitive to others’ needs
and concerned for their well-being. Leader has good interpersonal skills and cooperative
relationships with followers.
Trait theory, by definition, focuses exclusively on the leader with no regard to the
situation or the follower. This contradicts Stodgill’s earliest trait study findings that
indicated that leadership is primarily determined by situational factors. Leadership, according
to Stodgill, was active rather than passive and was born out of the working relationship with
group members. This reconceptualization of leadership as a relationship between people in
social situations began a new stream of theory building focused on leadership behavior.
Leadership as a Set of Behaviors
Ohio State Studies
Based on findings that situation mattered (Stodgill, 1948), two pioneering efforts
began which attempted to identify how leaders acted when leading in a group or
organization. The first of these efforts, known as The Ohio State Studies, was built around
1800 items describing leadership behavior. These items were reduced to 150 questions
regarding what appeared to be good examples of leadership behavior (Yukl, 2002). The
Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), administered to people in
education, military and industry (Hemphill & Coons, 1957), indicated that employees
perceive their superior’s behavior around two essential activities: how leaders organize tasks,
labeled “initiation of structure” and how leaders nurture them, labeled “consideration.”
Initiation of structure behaviors included organizing work, giving structure to work context,
defining role responsibilities and scheduling work activities. Consideration behaviors were
essentially relationship behaviors such as building camaraderie, offering respect, developing
trust, and liking between leaders and followers.
9
Initiating structure and consideration behaviors were considered on two distinct
continua; leaders could be high or low on either. Follow on research examined which style
was most appropriate for a particular situation. Results indicated that different behaviors
were more effective in different situations. Other studies focused on how leaders could
optimally mix behaviors (Northouse, 2001). In the decades that followed, modified versions
of the LBDQ have been used in hundreds of studies on leadership effectiveness; the results
have been weak and inconsistent (Bass, 1990).
University of Michigan Studies
Around the same time that Ohio State researchers were studying leadership behavior,
the University of Michigan Studies were also underway to identify the relationships among
leader behavior, group process and group performance (Cartwright & Zander, 1960; Katz &
Kahn, 1951; Likert, 1961). Like the Ohio State results, researchers found specific types of
behaviors that differentiated effective from ineffective leaders. “Production orientation”
described behaviors related to the technical and production aspects of a job. In this
orientation leaders viewed workers as a means to getting a job done (Bowers & Seashore,
1966). This orientation parallels “initiating structure” behaviors identified in the Ohio State
Studies. “Employee orientation” described behaviors of leaders who use a strong human
relations approach. This orientation values subordinates as both workers and human beings,
values individuality, and makes explicit efforts to give special attention to personal needs
(Bowers & Seashore, 1966). Employee orientation parallels “consideration” behaviors
identified in the Ohio State Studies.
Initially, the University of Michigan leadership studies were seen as opposing ends of
single continuum; orientation toward one set of behaviors meant less orientation toward the
10
other. Over time, the constructs were reconceptualized to be independent orientations;
leaders could be oriented to both production and employees at the same time. A multitude of
studies were conducted in the 1950s and 1960s from both Ohio and Michigan on how leaders
could best combine behaviors to maximize their impact on the satisfaction and performance
of followers. Researchers were looking for a universal theory of leadership to explain
effectiveness for every situation. Findings were contradictory, unclear, and inconclusive
(Yukl, 2002).
Blake and Mouton
Building on the two-factor model of leadership behavior developed at Ohio State and
the University of Michigan, Blake and Mouton developed the “Managerial Grid.” The grid,
which first appeared 1964, was refined and revised over two decades and is currently
published as “The Leadership Grid ®: Concern for Results (Blake & McCanse, 1991; Blake
& Mouton, 1964, 1978, 1985). The model was designed to explain how leaders help
organizations reach objectives through the two factors of “concern for results”(originally
labeled concern for “production”) and “concern for people.” “Concern for results” like the
Ohio State “initiating structure” and the University of Michigan “production orientation,”
describes behaviors related to organizational tasks such as paying attention to policy
decisions, developing new products, managing process issues, and organizing workload and
sales volume. The behaviors can include whatever an organization is seeking to accomplish.
The grid’s “concern for people” is similar to “consideration” and “employee orientation” and
focuses on how the leader attends to people in organizations who are trying to achieve its
objectives. Behaviors include building commitment and trust, promoting personal worth of
11
employees, providing good working conditions, maintaining a fair salary structure, and
promoting good social relations.
The Grid model is drawn as two intersecting axes. The nine point horizontal axis
represents the leader’s concern for production or results; the nine point vertical axis
represents the leader’s concern for people. Depending on which behaviors were exhibited
most frequently, leaders could be placed along each of the two continua. A summary of the
Blake and Mouton model of managerial behavior descriptive categories follows.

(9-1) Authority-Compliance. There is a heavy emphasis on task and job requirements;
people are tools to get the job done; leader is seen as controlling, demanding, hard
driving and overpowering.

(1,9) Country Club: Leader exhibits a low concern for task accomplishment combined
with a high concern for interpersonal relationships. Production is de-emphasized while
people’s feelings and attitudes are central. Leader tries to create a positive climate by
being agreeable, eager to help, comforting and uncontroversial.

(1,1) Impoverished Management: Leader is unconcerned with talk and interpersonal
relationships. He or she goes through the motions, acting uninvolved and withdrawn,
indifferent, noncommittal, resigned, and apathetic.

(5,5) Middle of the Road Management: Compromising leaders have an intermediate
concern for the both task and the people who do the task. These leaders find balance
between taking people into account and emphasizing work requirements and tend to give
up some push for production and some attention to employees’ needs. Described as
expedient, these leaders prefer middle ground, tend to soft pedals disagreements, and
swallow convictions in the interest of progress.

(9,9) Team Management: Leader emphasizes tasks and interpersonal relationships. He
or she promotes a high degree of participation and teamwork that satisfies an employee’s
needs to be involved with his or her work. The team management leader stimulates
participation; acts determined; gets issues into the open; makes priorities clear; follows
through; behaves open-mindedly; and enjoys working.
Blake and Mouton created training programs to develop 9,9 leaders. Twenty years of
research failed to confirm that high, high behavior results in high performance outcomes
(Sashkin, 2004).
12
The two-factor leadership behavior research from Ohio State, the University of
Michigan Studies, and Blake, Mouton and later Adams McCanse, were not intended as a set
of prescriptions for leadership behavior; instead each served as a framework to describe and
assess leadership behavior through a task and relationship dimension. The research
encouraged leaders to see that their actions occurred on both a task and relationship level
with different situations calling for emphasis of one or the other orientation. All three of
these research efforts served to broaden the scope of leadership research beyond traits of
individuals. The simplicity of the two-factor models provide a useful heuristic of a complex
phenomenon. While a wide range of studies validate and give credence to basic tenets of the
behavioral style approach (Northouse, 2001), research has not adequately shown how
leaders’ styles are associated with performance outcomes (Bryman, 1992; Yukl, 2002). And,
although results imply that the most effective leadership style is high in both people and task
related behaviors, a full range of research findings provides only limited support for this
universal “high-high” style (Yukl, 2002).
Leadership as Behaviors in Context
The situational or contingency approach to leadership examines the interaction
between the leader’s traits, the leader’s behaviors and the context within which the leader
functions. Contingency theories assume that the effect of one variable on leadership is
contingent on other variables (Horner, 1997). A major insight at the time, this approach to
leadership opened the door for the possibility that leadership could be different in every
situation (Saal & Knight, 1988). A summary of three widely known contingency theories is
provided below.
13
Situational Leadership.
Situational leadership is composed of both a directive and supportive dimension that
the leader must apply appropriately in a given situation. This approach assumes that skills
and motivation vary over time, and suggests that leaders change their degree of directive or
supportive behavior to meet the changing needs of subordinates (Blanchard, 1985;
Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985). SLII has two components: leadership style and
development of subordinates. “Leadership style” refers to the behavior pattern of an
individual who attempts to influence others. “Development of subordinates” refers to the
competence and commitment of subordinates.
o Leadership Style

Directive behaviors: clarify, often with one-way communication, what is to be
done, how it is to be done, and who is responsible to do it. Behaviors includes
assisting group members to accomplish objectives by giving directions;
establishing goals and methods of evaluation, setting time lines, defining goals,
and showing how goals can be achieved.

Supportive behaviors: help group members feel comfortable about themselves,
their coworkers and the situation. Behaviors involve two-way communication and
responses that show social and emotional support; examples include: asking for
input, problem solving, praising, sharing information about self, and listening.

S1:Directing: high directive/low supportive. Communication is focused
on goal achievement. Leader gives instructions and supervises carefully.

S2: Coaching: high directive/high supportive. Communication is focused
on goal achievement and employees’ socioemotional needs. Leader gives
encouragement and solicits input.

S3: Supporting: high supportive/low directive. Leader does not focus
exclusively on goals but uses supportive behaviors that bring out the
employees skills around tasks to be accomplished. Leader listens, praises,
asks for input, and gives feedback.

S4: Delegating: low supportive/low directive. Leader offers less task
input and less support facilitating employees’ confidence in relation to the
task. Leader lessens involvement in planning, control of details and goal
14
clarification. After agreeing on the final objective, the leader lets the
employee take responsibility to complete the task.
o Development of Subordinates

Competence and commitment: competence describes the subordinate’s mastery of
skills required to complete a specific task; commitment describes to what level the
subordinate has developed a positive attitude toward the task. Employees move
backward and forward along a developmental continuum that represents their
relative competence and commitment.

Development level: refers to the degree to which subordinates have the
competence and commitment necessary to accomplish tasks. For leaders to be
effective, it is essential to diagnose where the subordinate is along the
developmental continuum and adapt their leadership style so that they directly
match their style to development level of the subordinate.
The Situational Leadership approach has some prescriptive value in that it tells
leaders what they should and should not do in different contexts (Northouse, 2001). The
approach is also easy to understand and apply to diverse organizational settings. While the
approach is commonly used in the practitioner community, the theoretical basis for the
approach is questionable (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997; Graeff, 1997). Only a few studies
have been conducted to determine if it is a valid approach to improving performance. There
is lack of a theoretical underpinning for the conceptualization of “commitment” and
subordinate development levels and, the application to groups is not addressed (Northouse,
2001).
Contingency Theory
This “leader match theory” suggests that leadership effectiveness is contingent on
matching a leader’s style to the right organizational setting. Feidler (1967) and colleagues
studied styles of many different leaders who worked in different contexts, assessed which
leaders’ styles were effective, and made empirically grounded generalizations about which
15
styles of leadership were best or worst for a given organizational context. Feidler developed
the Least Preferred Co-Worker” (LPC) scale to measure leader styles based on their
motivational hierarchy. Leaders who score high on the scale are considered relationship
motivated; leaders who score low on the scale are considered task motivated.
o Leadership Style. Highly task-motivated leaders are focused on getting a job done and
see the least preferred coworker in a negative light because that person gets in the way of
them accomplishing their objectives. In contrast, highly relationship-motivated leaders
see the least preferred coworker in a more positive light because getting along with
people is the primary need motivation. The LPC scales measures a respondent’s style by
assessing the degree to which the respondent sees another person getting in the way of his
or her own goal accomplishment (Northouse, 2001).
o Leadership Setting. Once a leader’s style is determined, the appropriate leadership
setting can be assessed. Contingency theory suggests that situations can be characterized
by assessing three factors.

Leader-member relations: refer to group atmosphere and the degree of
confidence, loyalty, and attraction that followers feel for their leader.

Task structure: refers to the degree to which tasks are clear and spelled out; higher
structure gives more control to the leaders, vague tasks lesson leader’s control and
influence.

Position power: refers to the amount of authority a leader has to reward or to
punish followers. Position power is strong if a leader has the authority to hire and
fire, or give raises in rank or pay. It is weak if the leaders does not.
Together, these three factors determine the favorableness of various situations in
organizations. “Most favorable” situations have good leader-follower relations, defined
tasks, and strong leader position power. “Least favorable” have poor leader-follower
relations, unstructured tasks and weak leader position power; “moderately favorable” falls in
between these two extremes. The theory posits that certain styles will be effective in certain
situations: individuals who are task motivated (low LPC score) will be effective in both very
favorable and very unfavorable situations. Individuals who are relationship motivated (high
16
LPC) will be effective in moderately favorable situations. Leadership effectiveness in a
given organizational context is predicted by measuring a leader’s LPC score and the three
situational variables. If a leader’s style matches the appropriate category in the model, the
leader will be effective, if the style doesn’t match, the leader will not be effective.
This theory emphasizes that leaders will not be effective in all situations; the
relationship between the leader’s style and the demands of the situation becomes the
predictive variable for the probability of success. Grounded in research, the theory has been
found to be both valid and reliable (Northouse, 2001) and is useful for developing leadership
profiles. The theory does not explain why individuals with certain leadership styles are more
effective in some situations than others. It also does not seem valid on the surface and does
not correlate well with other standard leadership measures (Fiedler, 1993). Perhaps the most
limiting aspect of the theory is that it is difficult to administer due to the required assessments
of leadership style and three situational contexts.
Path-Goal Theory
In Path-Goal Theory (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974) effective
leaders support subordinates by filling in “what is missing” in their environment and helping
them compensate for deficiencies in their abilities. The fundamental assumption of PathGoal leadership is derived from expectancy theory which posits that subordinates will be
motivated if they think they are capable of performing their work, if they believe their efforts
will result in certain outcomes, and if they believe that payoffs for doing their work are worth
their while (Vroom, 1964). The theory explains how leaders help subordinates along a path
to goal accomplishment by selecting specific behaviors that are best suited to subordinates
needs and to the situation in which subordinates are working. By choosing appropriate
17
styles, leaders increase subordinates expectations for success and satisfaction (Northouse,
2001), see Figure 1: Path-Goal Leadership, below.
Figure 1: Path-Goal Leadership
Path-Goal Leadership
Subordinates → path→ Obstacle → path → Goals/Productivity
Effective Leader:
Defines goals
Clarifies path
Removes obstacles
 Provides support
Source: Adapted from Leadership: Theory and Practice, Northouse, 2001.
Path Goal theory suggests that different leader behaviors have varying impact on
subordinate motivation and that motivation is contingent on subordinate characteristics
and characteristics of a given task. A summary of the components of Path-Goal Theory
follows.
o Leader behaviors: vary among all four styles and should be adapted to different
subordinates in different situations.

Directive leadership: is similar to the “task” or “production” orientation in
the two factor leadership behavior models and the “telling” style in situational
leadership. The leader gives instructions about the task including
expectations, how it is to be done, and the time line for completion. Standards
for performance, as well as rules of behavior, are clear.

Supportive leadership: resembles “consideration” or employee orientation of
the two factor approaches. Supportive leaders are friendly and approachable
18
as they attend to the well-being and human needs of employees. They treat
subordinates as equals and give them respect for their status.

Participative leadership: invites subordinates to share in decision-making.
Leaders consult with subordinates to obtain ideas and opinions, and integrate
suggestions into decisions regarding how to proceed.

Achievement Oriented leadership: challenges subordinates to perform work at
the highest level possible. Achievement-oriented leaders establish high
standard of excellence and seek continuous improvement. They show a high
degree of confidence in subordinate’s ability to accomplish challenging goals.
o Subordinate characteristics: determine how a leader’s behavior may be interpreted
by subordinates in a given work context. Researcher have focused on the following
needs:

Needs for affiliation: subordinates prefer supportive leadership because
friendly and concerned leadership is source of satisfaction.

Preferences for structure: subordinates prefer directive leadership to provide
psychological structure and task clarity particularly when those who are
dogmatic have to work in uncertain situations.

Desires for control: subordinates with an internal control prefer participative
leadership that allows them to feel in charge of their work and be integral to
decision-making process. Subordinates with an external locus of control prefer
directive as it parallels their feelings that outside forces control their
circumstances.

Other subordinate characteristics relate to the perception of ability: as a
subordinate’s perception of ability and competence goes up, the need for
directive leadership goes down. When tasks are ambiguous, achievement
oriented leadership, which challenges and sets high standards, raises
employees’ confidence that effective performance is attainable.
o Task Characteristics: include the design of specific duties, the formal authority
system of the organization and the primary work group of the subordinates.
When the work situation provides clearly structured tasks, strong group norms
and established authority, leader behaviors are not needed to clarify goals or
coach subordinates.
Path-Goal theory emphasizes the relationship between a leader’s style and the
characteristics of both the subordinates and the work setting. This approach is different from
situational leadership, with suggests that the leader’s behaviors adapt to the developmental
19
levels of subordinates and contingency theory, which emphasizes a match between the
leaders style and specific context variables. Path-Goal was one of the first theories to move
beyond the two-factor focus of task and relationships to offer four distinct varieties of
leadership. The model is practical in that it describes specific ways that leaders assist
subordinates along a path to achieving organizational objectives. The model is complex
making interpretation difficult. Perhaps because of this, Path-Goal has not been adapted for
practical use in management training (Northouse, 2001).
Leadership as a Political Perspective
Charismatic Leadership
Charismatic leadership subsumes many of the important aspects of trait, behavior and
contingency theories. Max Weber’s (1947) analysis of charisma describes a leader with
exceptional personal qualities, who emerges during a time of social crisis, with a vision that
provides a solution to the crisis through a radical break with the past, and attracts a set of
followers who come to believe in that vision because they attribute powers beyond the
ordinary experience to that leader. Charismatic leadership relies on a set of personal traits
and a style of behavior that people find compelling. The contingency involved is that the
social group to which the leader appeals perceives itself in a crisis. The charismatic leader’s
success depends on followers who attribute exceptional qualities and success to the leader.
What makes charismatic leadership pertinent is the leader’s radical vision. It is this vision,
whether in an incumbent leader or an emerging leader that becomes the ideological
foundation of the future.
In 1976, House published a theory of charismatic leadership. He described the
charismatic leader as a person with a strong desire to influence others, who is self confident,
20
and has a strong sense of his or her own moral values. According to House, charismatic
leaders demonstrate specific behaviors, not the least of which is to serve as role models for
the beliefs and values they want followers to adopt. Charismatic leaders appear competent to
followers as they articulate ideological goals and communicate high expectations; they
inspire a sense of self-efficacy in those who look to them. The effects of such leadership
behaviors result in an unquestioning acceptance of the leader, a trust in the leader’s beliefs,
expression of warmth and obedience toward the leader, emotional involvement with the
leader’s goals, heightened goals for the followers, and follower confidence in achieving the
shared goal. Consistent with Weber, House’s charismatic effects are more likely to occur in
contexts in which followers feel distress, because in stressful situations followers look to
leaders to deliver them from their difficulties. In 1993 a revision to the theory added that
charismatic leadership transforms followers’ self-concepts and serves to link the identity of
followers to the collective identity of the organization (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).
Transformational Leadership
Although the term “transformational leadership” was coined by Downton in 1973, the
approach emerged as an important contribution to leadership theory through the classic book,
Leadership, by political sociologist, James MacGregor Burns in 1978. The approach
describes a wide range of activities that include very specific attempts to influence on a oneon-one basis, to very broad attempts to influence whole organizations and cultures. Unlike
transactional leadership which is based on economic transactions between leaders and
followers, transformation leadership involves what Weber called non-economic sources of
authority (Sashkin, 2004). In transformational leadership individuals engage with each other
to create connections that raise the level of motivation and morality in both leaders and
21
followers. Transformational leadership “looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to
satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower. The result…is a relationship
of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert
leaders into moral agents” (Burns, 1978, p. 4). Although the transformational leader plays a
pivotal role in precipitating change, followers and leaders are united in the transformation
process.
Northouse (2001) offers a process description of how transformational leaders
initiate, develop and carry out significant changes in organizations. The leader empowers
followers and nurtures them to change; he or she attempts to raise their consciousness and get
them to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of others. As change agents, the leader
creates a vision that emerges from the collective interests of individuals and units of the
organization. This vision serves as a conceptual map for the future. Transformational leaders
are able to nurture discordant views and create change out of uncertainty. In such they act as
social architects by making clear emerging values and norms and interpreting shared
meaning for followers.
Bass (1985) expanded and refined the works of House and Burns through the
development of an assessment tool, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The
MLQ research proved that transformational leadership and transactional leadership were two
separate and distinct dimensions, yet not opposite ends of a bipolar dimension, much like
task and relationship are independent behavior dimensions (Bass, 1985). The MLQ measures
transformational leadership factors as well as transactional leadership factors and nonleadership factors (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994). These contrasting factors are
described below:
22
Transformational Leadership Factors

Charisma or idealized influence: leader acts as strong role model for followers;
followers identify with and want to be like leader; leader can be counted on to “do the
right thing” and is deeply respected and trusted by followers. Leader provides a
vision and a sense of mission.

Inspirational motivation: leader communicates high expectations to followers and
inspires commitment to a shared organizational vision. Symbols and emotional
appeals are employed to focus group members’ efforts to achieve outcomes beyond
their own self-interests.

Intellectual stimulation: leader stimulates followers to be creative and innovative
while challenging their own and the leader’s beliefs. Leader supports followers to
creatively manage organizational challenges while promoting practical thinking and
independent problem solving.

Individualized consideration: leader provides a supportive climate of attentive
listening to the needs of followers. Leader acts as coach and advisor and may delegate
as a means to challenge followers.
Transactional Leadership Factors

Contingent reward: exchange process between leaders and followers in which
follower effort is exchanged for specified awards. Agreement exists regarding action
and pay off.

Management by exception: involves corrective criticism, negative feedback, and
negative reinforcement. In the active form, the leader watches for mistakes and then
takes corrective action. In the passive form the leaders intervenes only after
substandard performance occurs.
Bass also addressed the absence of leadership. The laissez-faire “nonleadership factor”
describes leaders who take a hands-off approach to subordinates, in effect abdicating
responsibility by delaying decisions, avoiding feedback and making limited effort to help
followers satisfy their needs.
“Transformational leadership,” while referred to above in the singular, actually
represents multiple streams of research. These streams share the foundational assumption
that personal characteristics, behaviors and context come together in a way that moves
23
followers to accomplish more than expected and to become motivated to transcend their own
self-interests for the good of the group or the organization (Bass & Avolio, 1990a). Sashkin
(2004) synthesized the transformational leadership work of Bass, Bennis and Nanus (1985),
Kouzes and Posner (1987), Jaques (Jaques & Clements, 1991), McClelland (McClelland,
1975, 1985; McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982), House (1976) and others to come up with
Visionary Leadership Theory. He distills the common tenets of the theories to four
behavioral dimensions, three personal characteristics and contextual factors as outlined
below:
Behavioral Dimensions
1. Communication leadership: focusing attention of others on key issues, particularly
the most important aspects of the leader’s vision.
2. Credible leadership: establishing trust by taking actions that are consistent both over
time and with what the leader says.
3. Caring leadership: demonstrating respect and concern for people.
4. Creative leadership: empowering followers by allowing them to accept challenges,
taking on and owning a new project.
Personal characteristics
1. Self-Confidence: self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) or internal control: the belief that one
can controls one’s own fate.
2. Need for power: getting things done in organizations requires power and influence;
equally important is the way the need for power is manifested (House, 1976;
McClelland & Burnham, 1976)
3. Vision: the ability to first mentally and then behaviorally construct the future.
24
Sashkin notes that these personal characteristics are different from trait theory. Rather
than being something people are born with, these characteristics can to some degree be
developed (Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003).
Contextual Factors
1. Organizational Culture. Rather than the traditional approach of adapting leadership
style or behavior to a situation, Sashkin posits that transformational leaders construct or
transform situations by constructing cultures that foster effective management.
2. Environments of Progress: Effective cultures are created by inculcating the belief that
followers can affect and control their environments and instilling values of achievement,
teamwork, and other shared beliefs that serve as mechanisms of self-sustaining progress
(Sashkin & Sashkin, 2003).
Transformation leadership is widely researched. A meta-analysis of 39 studies (Lowe,
Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996) found that transformation leaders are perceived to be
better and more effective leaders in both high and lower level positions in public and private
settings. This outcome fits with the intuitive appeal of the transformational approach which
shows the leader out front and in charge, a concept consistent with the popular paradigm of
leadership (Northouse, 2001). Transformation leadership moves beyond the individual and
the situation to describe an active process between leader and follower. The approach does
not offer a defined set of assumptions about how to act like those found in contingency
approaches, rather it provides a general way of thinking about leadership and emphasizes
ideals, inspirations, innovations and individual concerns (Northouse, 2001).
While hundreds of conceptual articles, dissertations and empirical studies have been
written on the approach, it is still considered by some to be lacking in conceptual clarity due
to overlapping and difficult to define parameters (Northouse, 2001). It has been labeled as
elitist and antidemocratic because the leader directly controls change by establishing a vision
25
and advocating a new direction (Avolio, 1999). Brymann (1992) believes it treats leadership
as a personality trait or personal predisposition rather than behavior that can be taught.
Despite these perceived weaknesses, many leadership-training programs use transformational
leadership assessment instruments and the approach is used extensively in organization
vision development activities. The multiple models of transformational leadership provide a
wide range of factors upon which aspiring leaders can focus and potentially develop.
Leadership as a Humanistic Viewpoint
Participative Leadership
Participative leadership, in which leaders encourage and facilitate participation in
important decisions, grew out of the pioneering work of Kurt Lewin (1943). During a World
War II project aimed at reducing the consumption of rationed foods, Lewin found that
participants who were given the opportunity to determine their own course of action, changed
their behavior significantly more than those who were told how to behave by an “expert.”
The findings indicated that people who participate in problem analysis and solution creation
are more likely to modify their behavior and carry out decisions (Weisbord, 1987).
According to Yukl (2002), most theorists acknowledge that leaders engage in
decision procedures that range along a continuum from high influence to no influence on
others. These decisions procedures have been labeled as follows: 1) autocratic: leader
makes decision alone; 2) consultation: leader asks for opinions and ideas, then makes
decision alone; 3) joint decision: leader discusses issues and makes decisions together with
others; and, 4) delegation: leader gives individuals or group the authority to make decisions.
Participative leadership involves the intentional act of delegating decision power to
26
subordinates and thereby empowering them to determine organizational process and
outcomes. The potential benefits of participative leadership are outlined below (Yukl, 2002):

Decision quality: Participants add information and knowledge that the leader lacks.
Cooperation depends on how much the participants trust the leader.

Decision acceptance: People who have considerable influence in making a decision tend
to identify with it and perceive it to be their decision; feelings of ownership may increase
motivation to implement (Lewin, 1943).

Satisfaction with decision process: Procedural justice (Earley & Lind, 1987) research
indicates that the opportunity to express opinions (voice) before a decision is made is
beneficial regardless of the amount of actual influence over the final decision (choice).
Participants perceive that they are being treated with dignity and respect if they are given
a chance to express an opinion about a decision that will affect them.

Development of participant skills: Partaking in complex decision-making can result in
the development of more skills and confidence by participant. This development depends
on involvement with diagnosing, generating solutions, evaluation alternatives, and
planning implementation.
Participative leadership, also known as power sharing and democratic leadership, has
been the focus of extensive social science research. Laboratory experiments, field
experiments, and qualitative case studies have examined the effectiveness of participative
leadership usually using the criteria of subordinate satisfaction and performance. Over 40
years of research has yielded inconclusive results (Yukl, 2002). Methodological problems
may be at the root of these inconsistencies due to difficulties in measuring participation; the
confounding effects of simultaneous organizational interventions, the Hawthorne effect, and
multiple definitions of participation used from study to study; inconsistent outcome criteria;
and situational variables.
System 4
Rensis Likert, spent most of his life devoted to understanding participation and its
effects on organizational performance. Likert’s System 4 framework (1961) listed specific
27
organizational operating characteristics, directly related to leadership including: motivational
forces; communication processes; interaction-influence processes; decision-making
processes; goal setting and ordering processes; control processes; and performance
characteristics. The model organized these characteristics along a four-level continuum that
described the organization system as exploitive authoritative; benevolent authoritative;
consultative; and participative. At the lowest level of influence, exploitive authoritative,
employees do not participate at all in important decisions regarding the organization. At the
highest level, participative, employees at all levels are empowered to communicate, solve
problems and work collectively to achieve organizational objectives. Likert’s participative
work systems were built on three fundamental concepts.

Integrating principle: employees want experiences that support and contribute to their
overall sense of importance and self worth;

Principle of supportive relationships: organizational systems should be designed so that
employees experience interactions and relationships within the organization in light of
their own backgrounds, values and expectations, as supportive and as integral to building
their sense of personal worth and importance. Each employee must feel that he or she
own tasks and contributes to organizational objectives.

Highly effective groups: the most functional way to encourage individual contributions
is through properly led group process. Effective group leaders need technical and
managerial skills and have the philosophy and ability to create and operate interaction
influence systems.
In participative organizations, all employees are an integral part of the work system
and make meaningful contributions to organizational progress. Likert used the term
“employee centered leadership” to describe a set of behaviors exhibited by individuals in
formal authority that resulted in high producing organizations. This form of leadership
allowed employees to set their own pace for work production; provided general, helpful and
non-punitive supervision; applied minimal pressure for work performance; and was
28
perceived by employees as organized and supportive. Likert also shifted organizational
evaluation from end-result variables of sales, profits, and market value to “intervening
variables” of work force loyalty, skills, motivation, capacity for effective interaction, and
decision-making (1961).
While the general principles of participative leadership, system wide communication
and the effective use of groups are used widely in organizations, Likert’s System 4 has all but
disappeared from organizational vernacular. This may be in part due in part the theoretical
assumption that all individuals are motivated by the similar need for membership in a
cohesive group and the opportunity to participate in decision making. Or, to the more general
criticism that there is no one-best-way to organize and lead; organization structure must be
designed based on the specific task and human inputs involved (Lorsch, 1987). Criticisms
notwithstanding, the general philosophy of participative organizational cultures is a
cornerstone of many successful ventures.
Theory X and Theory Y
In The Human Side of Enterprise (1960), Douglas McGregor set forth a theory that
leaders base their management approach on assumptions about human motivation that induce
the behavior they predict. These assumptions were classified as Theory X and Theory Y.
Theory X assumes that people dislike work and must be “coerced, controlled, directed, and
threatened” to produce (McGregor, 1960, p.34); that the average human prefers to be
directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has little ambition, and wants security above all else.
Theory X positions the leader as the controlling force behind subordinate behavior: positive
performance comes about only as a net result of leadership’s effective application of rewards
and punishment. In contrast, Theory Y assumes that people see work as a natural part of life
29
and under the right conditions are motivated and self directed to use their innate ingenuity
and creativity to produce; commitment comes from rewards based on satisfying people’s
needs for status, recognition and growth; and that generally, much talent and intellect of
subordinates is under-utilized.
Theory Y represents an integration of knowledge from various fields that made it
possible to form new generalizations about leadership (Weisbord, 1987). McGregor’s theory
about man and his relationship to work was influenced by Lewin (1943): people are more
committed to implement action steps they help to plan; Maslow (1943): based on the
hierarchy of needs, as security and safety needs are met, people require more intangible
reward such as status, recognition, and responsibility to perform their best work; and,
Herzberg (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959): job satisfiers of pay, benefits and
working conditions do not motivate, these elements only dissatisfy if inadequate. Motivators
of recognition, achievement, and responsibility, must be built into the work itself. In that
sense, McGregor proposed that leaders are responsible for creating a climate of motivation.
McGregor conceptualized climate as the “. . . day-by-day behavior of the immediate superior
and of other significant people in the managerial organization” (1960, p. 133). McGregor
believed that managers created the climate in which subordinates worked by what they did,
how they did it, how competent they were, and how they made things happen through
upward influence in the organization (Reichers & Schneider, 1990).
The Human Side of Enterprise had a great impact on the field of management and
organization development. It provides clear practical directions for applying the theory in a
variety of settings. The book touched thousands of managers and a new 25th anniversary
printing is currently available (www.amazon.com). However, Theory X and Theory Y
30
leadership is not without critics. Fundamentally the theory suggests that managers should
examine their own assumptions as they relate to human nature and managing people and
change those assumptions to improve working conditions and organizational performance.
This approach of changing attitudes to change behaviors, if possible, may not be practical
and is not conclusively supported by social psychology research (Aronson, 1995). The
theory base for the research is weak as McGregor does not use original research; some of the
research upon which the theory is built has still not been confirmed; and, empirical studies on
Theory X and Theory Y have failed to support it (Organ & Bateman, 1991).
Servant Leadership
Servant leaders (Greenleaf, 1977) are people who put other’s needs, aspirations and
interests above their own. Servant leadership rests on the deliberate choice to service others
with the chief motivation to serve first and lead second. According to Greenleaf, servant
leaders seek to transform their followers to grow, learn, and become more autonomous
making them more likely to become servants themselves. The approach emphasizes empathy,
listening and unconditional acceptance of others. The concept is similar to transformational
leadership (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002); however, it exceeds the transformational leadership
model in that it recognizes the leader’s social responsibilities to serve those people who are
marginalized by a system; and it is dedicated to followers’ needs and interests, as opposed to
those of the leader or the organization. The leader uses less institutional power and less
control, while shifting authority to those who are being led (Northouse, 2001). Servant
leaders view themselves as stewards (De Pree, 1989) and are willing to be accountable for
the well-being of the larger community by operating in the service of those around them. As
31
stewards, servants regard followers as people who have been entrusted to them to be elevated
to their better selves and to be what they are capable of becoming (Block, 1993).
Since the publication of Greenleaf’s work, the service principle has been emphasized
in the leadership literature. Northouse (2002) points out that Block (1993), Covey (1990)
Kouzes and Posner (1995) and others maintain that tending to others is an essential
component of moral leadership. This literature points to the critical issue of ethics in
leadership and creates a basis for leadership development in this area.
Summary of Leadership Approaches
Trait theories began with identifying the internal qualities of great persons, including
personality as well as physical and mental characteristics. Research in the “leaders are born
not made” paradigm eventually shifted from innate personal characteristics to examining
behaviors of effective leaders. The leader-centered studies that identified the need to consider
both people and task in leadership activities ignored context and soon gave way to research
that included the impact of the situation and the interaction between leader, follower and
environment. The importance of focusing on the motivations and needs of humans was at the
core of humanistic approaches and political approaches described the power of
transformation that results when captivating individuals inspire followers to transcend
individual interests to accomplish organizational objectives. In recent years there has been a
resurgence of interest regarding how traits, behaviors, context, and social adeptness converge
to create an effective leader. The Emotional Intelligence literature (Goleman, 1995, 1998,
2000) subsumes each of the theories described above and serves as a contemporary and
accessible model through which to summarize leadership literature for university students
32
Part II: Leadership Literature for Use in Teaching
Leadership theory has evolved dramatically over the last one hundred years with as
many as 65 classification systems developed to define its dimensions (Fleishman et al.,
1991). One way to introduce the leadership literature to university students is to examine the
evolution of the construct using a more modern-day leadership approach. This section begins
with a brief description of emotional intelligence (EI) that is followed by a summary of the
relationship between EI and the four leadership approaches examined in this paper. It
concludes with a sample leadership pedagogy design.
Emotional Intelligence
Effective leadership is the result of using technical skills, cognitive abilities, and
emotional intelligence-based leadership styles (Goleman, 2000). Emotional Intelligence
(Goleman, 1995, 1998, 2000) is the ability to manage self and relationships effectively and is
built on four essential capabilities each with its own set of corresponding competencies. See
Appendix A: Emotional Intelligence Capabilities and Competencies. For best results these
competencies of self awareness, self-management, social awareness and social skill are used
seamlessly and in different measure depending on the organizational issue at hand (Goleman,
2000).
Emotional intelligence, as a leadership approach combines many of the principles of
leadership set forth in the extensive body of literature produced in the last hundred years.
Trait theories indicate that intellect, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability
may differentiate leaders from non-leaders. Behavioral approaches point out that effective
leaders have an orientation toward both the task (structure, production) and the humans
engaged in achieving the task (consideration, people). Contingency and situational
33
approaches shift the focus from leader to context and emphasize that diverse situations and
subordinates may be best served by tailored leadership styles. Political perspectives on
leadership depict charismatic individuals confident of a new vision and capable of inspiring
others to adopt it as their own, while humanistic approaches emphasize the importance of
understanding subordinates’ needs regarding motivation, personal growth and participation.
An examination of the emotional intelligence capabilities indicates that each of these areas of
leadership is included in the construct: the personal characteristics of self-awareness; the
behaviors of self-management; the adaptability and sensitivity of social awareness; and the
social skill to influence, develop and inspire people toward a new vision. See Table 2:
Leadership Theory and Emotional Intelligence Competencies, below.
Table 2: Leadership Theory and Emotional Intelligence Competencies
Leadership Theory
Traits or
Personal
Characteristics
Innate or learned
Set of
Behaviors
People, task,
situation
Political
Perspective
Humanistic
Viewpoint
Emotional Intelligence Competencies




















Emotional self- awareness: Ability to recognize and understand your emotions and drives
as well as recognize their impact on performance and relationships.
Accurate self assessment: realistic evaluation of your strengths and limitations
Self-confidence: a strong and positive sense of self worth
Self control: Ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and emotions; the propensity to
suspend judgment-to think before acting
Trustworthiness: consistent display of honesty and integrity
Conscientiousness: ability to manage yourself and your responsibilities
Communication: skill at listening and at sending clear convincing and well tuned messages
Adaptability: skill at adjusting to changing situations and overcoming obstacles
Achievement orientation: the drive to meet an internal standard of excellence
Initiative: the readiness to seize opportunities
Conflict management: ability to de-escalate disagreements and orchestrate resolutions
Service orientation: Ability to recognize and meet customers’ needs
Visionary leadership: ability to take charge and inspire with a compelling vision
Influence: ability to wield a range of persuasive tactics
Organizational awareness: the ability to read the currents of organizational life, build
decision networks, and navigate politics
Change catalyst: proficiency in initiating new ideas and leading people in a new direction
Empathy: skill at sensing other people’s emotions, understanding their perspective, and
taking an active interest in their concerns
Building bonds: proficiency at cultivating and maintaining a web of relationships
Teamwork and collaboration: competence at promoting cooperation and building teams
Developing others: bolstering the abilities of others through feedback and guidance
Source: Adapted from Goleman, 1998, 2000.
34
Goleman, and colleagues at the consulting firm Hay/McBer, conducted a random
sample of 3871 executives and found that emotional intelligence can be linked to commonly
recognized leadership philosophies and behaviors which impact organizational climate and
performance (Goleman, 2000). See Appendix B: Emotional Intelligence and Leadership
Philosophy and Behavior.
Sample Pedagogy Design
Any summary of leadership theory for use in a university classroom will likely be
limited and should begin with a discussion of content boundaries. The construct of leadership
can be introduced with a brief historical summary of the evolution of leadership theory from
trait approaches in the early 1900s to the transformational and EI-based leadership
approaches of the current day. For the ten-session pedagogy design developed here, the
discussion is limited to the theoretical approaches outlined above which include leadership
conceptualized as individual traits; a set of behaviors; a political perspective; and a
humanistic viewpoint. Each two-hour section of the leadership theory module includes three
of the four following design components:

General description of the leadership approach. Students read an overview of the
approach from this paper to prepare for general content presentation by instructor.
Key aspects of approach are discussed. Beginning with the second approach,
discussion is also facilitated regarding the similarities and differences between current
approach and previously presented approaches.

Focused discussion of selected studies. Students will be divided into groups, each
responsible for reading different studies. Full articles may be recommended by
instructor or summaries may be used from a required text such as Leadership: Theory
and Practice (Northouse, 2001). Groups will discuss and debate key issues of each
study as well as research strengths and weaknesses.

Self-assessment instrument. Students will complete and discuss a self-assessment
instrument relevant to the leadership approach under study.
35

A laboratory experience or guest lecture. Sessions are designed to emphasize one
of six modes of learning (Akin, 1987): emulation of a mentor: imitating or identifying
with a figure perceived as a mentor; role learning: imitating, deliberately and
selectively, a model of competent role performance; learning through doing: learning
from the success and failures of one’s own actions; learning by validation: learning
by comparing one’s own naïve theory of leadership with the theory at hand; learning
of concepts: learning through novel material presented by experts on the subject; and
personal growth: learning by discovering through feedback areas of dysfunctional
behavior of which one is not aware.
In addition to the components above, students are required to develop a leadership portfolio.
Weekly entry consists of students’ description of the theory in action in their own lives or a
current example of the theory in action as seen in media such as television, film, or print.
Assessments, assignments and other class materials are also collected in the portfolio. This
collection is used for preparation of the final presentation and is turned in as a course
deliverable.
Session
Session
Session
Session
Session
Session
Session
Session
Session
Session
1: Early trait theories
2: Behavior theories I/Leader focus
3: Behavior theories II/Context focus
4: Political perspective
5: Humanistic viewpoint
6: Emotional Intelligence I: Overview and relation to other theories
7: Emotional Intelligence II: EI in action
8: Self assessment workshop: review of weekly results and action plans
9: Contemporary leader analysis: 3-5 page paper which examines a
contemporary leader through the lens of course content.
10: Final presentations: Self as leader: strengths, weaknesses and personal
development plan.
Part III: Leadership Assessment Activities
In order to position themselves for sustainable growth and productivity, organizations
have long invested in the development of future leaders. Program activities vary widely and
may include in-house training sessions, off-site meetings, matriculation in nationally
recognized leadership programs (for example: The Center for Creative Leadership), and
36
working with a mentor or coach. Psychometric instruments and feedback processes are often
used as part of the overall leadership development strategy. The next section begins with an
overview of leadership development programs. A brief review of several psychometric
instruments is then presented. The section concludes with a general summary of feedback
processes.
Leadership Development Programs
As indicated by the plethora of research on the subject, technical knowledge is not the
panacea for effective leadership. Yet the time-honored method of learning a technical
specialty then transitioning into leadership is still common in many organizations.
Unfortunately this process often create individuals who are ill prepared to contribute to the
strategic objectives of the business. Organizations have learned that improving leadership
capacity requires a well thought-out and rigorous plan to invest in and develop leaders. The
fastest way to improve leadership capacity is to recruit talented and experienced leaders from
the labor market. While this eliminates the expense and operational burden of creating an
internal leadership development program, it may have negative consequences such as
demoralizing employees who were “passed over” and decreasing productivity as the new
leader gets familiar with the organization (Pernick, 2001). The alternative approach to
leadership development is to build rather than buy talent. Building a leadership program
eliminates the aforementioned negative consequences and offers the advantages of
indoctrinating emerging leaders in the organization’s culture and giving the organization
control over the supply of leaders skilled to address strategic challenges.
With leadership development programs, like leaders themselves, there is no “one size
fits all.” Each organization must evaluate its own culture and develop a program that is
37
consistent with its own value system. Creating a leadership development program as a
separate initiative and then throwing participants back into environment that doesn’t support
those values is counter productive. Thus, leadership development is both a product and a
shaper of organizational culture (Pernick, 2001). Cacioppe (1998) offers a five-step model
based on the work of Vicere (1997) which includes the following organization-level
activities:
1. Articulate strategic imperatives: determine and define the strategic objectives
essential to the organizational survival, success and growth.
2. Set objectives for development: clearly define the objectives of the leadership
development program and the specific knowledge and skills that should be developed
by the end of the program.
3. Identify appropriate methods: internal and external experts determine the content,
method, and schedule of the program.
4. Select providers and determine specific learning program.
5. Evaluate program delivery and effectiveness.
Pernick (2001) describes the participant-level tasks of leadership development
programs as beginning with creating program selection criteria. Criteria are usually an
amalgam of business unit goals along with personal characteristics outlined in leadership
theory such as intellect, psychological fit, self-confidence and purpose. Leadership
competencies within the organization are then defined. Candidates are evaluated, selected,
and assessed regarding existing leadership skills in relation to competency criteria.
Psychometric instruments, feedback processes, and performance appraisals may be used to
assess participants. These data are analyzed, packaged, and fed back to the participant and
used to develop individual action plans.
38
Based on participant need, a range of developmental activities may be offered which
typically include technical skills, conceptual development and interpersonal aptitude.
Successful programs include deliberate time-bound steps that may include classroom
training, rotational assignments, committee work, or directed readings. Learning is selfdirected with participants taking the primary responsibility for their own action plan. Formal
evaluations of the participants occur at regular intervals. Pernick emphasizes that leaders
should be developed in context as much as possible and that learning should attend to the
need for leaders to function in transactional and team environments. Finally, the return on
investment for both the individual and the organization should be assessed. For a list of
methods and processes frequently used in leadership development programs, see Table 3:
Methods, Tools and Processes in Leadership Development, below.
Table 3: Methods, Tools and Processes in Leadership Development
Contributing to strategic
business direction
Building leadership, team
and interpersonal skills
Self Development
Competency development
Project work
360 degree feedback
Strategic team projects:
Problem-solving team
exercises
Coaching
Job rotation
Leadership models
Group feedback
Leaders develop leaders
Role plays
Health appraisals
Business game simulations
Interpersonal skill development Personality questionnaires
Case studies
Strategic planning sessions
and future searches
Learning journals
Source: Adapted from Cacioppe, 1998.
39
Leadership development programs develop the whole person, not just the skills
related to work (Pernick, 2001). Most people have the opportunity to lead at work, so
leadership development programs can be positioned as organization-wide capacity building.
To do this effectively, organizations must be prepared to adequately fund and staff efforts.
Organizational symbols such as award ceremonies are important as is explicit intolerance of
poor leaders: participants who are incapable or unwilling to improve despite organizational
support should be removed. Those who participate in leadership development in the role of
coach or mentor should also be rewarded. Finally, leadership development should address
the needs of younger leaders and older leaders differently. The former may progress best
using an individual development plan and the latter through broadened educational and
experiential opportunities (Pernick, 2001).
Psychometric Instrument Review
Psychometric instruments are frequently used as part of a comprehensive leadership
development program. In 1976, Pfeiffer and Heslin conducted a survey of the 75 most widely
used training instruments; today an internet search on the same subject area yields hundreds
of thousands of hits. Instruments vary in complexity and approach and are typically chosen
based on the objectives of a given development program. Some theoretically grounded
instruments, such as the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) or the Fundamental
Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO), have been the subject of empirical research for
decades. Research articles, dissertations, and position papers have been authored to support
their validity and reliability. Other research contradicts such findings. Regardless of the
continuing debate, the instruments offer data for analysis, discussion and reflection. Due to
the complex nature of the data collected, instruments such as MBTI and FIRO are designed
40
to be administered and analyzed by trained facilitators who have obtained formal certification
to use them. Less sophisticated assessments are available in textbooks, popular press
publications, and more frequently online, and offer users opportunities to examine selfreported data about their leadership behaviors, tendencies and styles. Below is a brief
description of four psychometric instruments commonly used in leadership development
programs.
The Meyers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
The MBTI is the most widely used personality inventory in the world (Assessment
Instruments). It is designed to make the theory of psychological types described by Carl
Jung (1971), as interpreted by Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs, understandable and useful
in people’s lives (Meyers & McCaulley, 1985). The foundation of the theory is that
seemingly random variation in behavior is actually consistent and orderly and is due to
differences in the way people prefer to use their perception: i.e., become aware of things,
people, ideas; and their judgment: i.e., draw conclusions about what has been perceived.
These systematic differences result in corresponding differences in reactions, interests,
values, motivations, skills and interests (Meyers & McCaulley, 1985). The MBTI provides
data on four separate indices that direct the use of perception and judgment.

E-I Extroversion-Introversion: affects choices to direct perception judgment mainly
on the outer world of people and objects (E) or the inner world of concepts and ideas
(I).

S-N Sensing perception-Intuitive perception: affects choices regarding which kind
of perception is primarily relied upon. Sensing perception reports observable facts
through the five senses; intuitive perception reports relationships, meanings and
possibilities that have been developed beyond the reach of the conscious mind.

T-F Thinking judgment-Feeling judgment: affects choices regarding what kind of
judgment to trust when making a decision. Thinking judgment makes impersonal
41
decisions based on logical consequences; feeling judgment makes decisions based on
personal or social values.

J-P Judgment-Perception: affects choices whether to deal with the outer world in
the judging attitude (T-F) or in the perceiving attitude (S-N).
Combinations of the above preferences result in 16 “personality types.” Each type
has a dominant process and a second auxiliary process. Theory predicts that people may
develop greater skill in the processes that they prefer to use within the attitudes that they
prefer to use them. For leadership development purposes, the MBTI offers insight into the
diversity of process and attitude types represented in any organization; a basic understanding
of how these preferences may influence communication and interpersonal interaction; and an
opportunity to become aware of and develop ones less preferred modes of perceiving and
judging. The MBTI creators emphasize that the indices are indicators of direction of
preferences, not as scales for measurement; that individual assessment of type is always more
important than that which is determined by the instrument; and that type should never be
used to definitively label any individual.
Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO B)
The Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) theory and the
measurement instrument FIRO B (now FIRO Element B) were first introduced to the social
psychology community in 1958 (Schutz). Since that time the theory and the instruments have
been revised and expanded. FIRO instruments are now available to measure new aspects of
the theory including feelings, self, work relations, close relations, parental relationships, and
organizational climate (Thompson, 2000). FIRO theory focuses on three major levels:
behaviors, feelings and self-concept (Thompson, 2000). FIRO B (B stands for “behavior”)
describes three dimensions of interpersonal behavior: inclusion, control and openness.
42
According to the theory, the dimensions listed below are fundamental to all social organisms,
individuals, small groups or organizations.

Inclusion deals with achieving the desired level of contact with people; whether one
wants to be “in” or “out” of a particular group, spend time with others, or spend time
alone.

Control deals with achieving the desired amount of control over people; whether one
wants to make decisions for and be in charge of others: superordinate; or be
controlled by others: subordinate.

Openness (formerly Affection) deals with achieving the desired amount of openness
in relationships; whether one wants to share personal feelings or keep things
impersonal and businesslike.
FIRO B measures these dimensions from two perspectives:
1. Expressed behavior: behavior one feels most comfortable showing.
2. Wanted behavior: behavior one wants to be shown by others.
The fit between two people is determined by the expressed and wanted-scores of
each. Some combinations of the three primary needs produce compatibility and others
produce incompatibility. Groups characterized by high compatibility among members’
preferences are likely to be more content, productive and efficient. Aspiring leaders can use
these data to gain insight into their own expressed and wanted behaviors as well as their
potential compatibility with superiors and subordinates. Schutz emphasizes that these scores
are not terminal, they can and do change as individuals develop. The scores derive their
meaning primarily from each person’s interpretation, not from statistics and are meant to be
starting points for exploration and growth rather than definitive. Later versions of the FIRO
theory also emphasize that the behavioral aspects of the theory measured first by FIRO B and
now by Element B are only the tip of the iceberg. Schutz posits that the most important parts
of the theory are the underlying causes of the behavior which are measured by the less known
43
instruments of Element F: Feelings and Element S: Self. These instruments are gradually
gaining acceptance and being used within leadership development programs.
Campbell Leadership Index (CLI)
The Campbell Leadership Index (CLI) was developed by David Campbell, Senior
Fellow, at the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina. The instrument
is now used extensively in both the public and private sector. The CLI is based upon the
foundational assumption that effective leadership requires an accurate perception of how the
leader is viewed by others. The instrument quantifies the perceptions of the individual leader
and the perceptions of selected observers such as subordinates or peers and then highlights
the differences between a leader’s self-perception and observer ratings. Results can also be
grouped according to observer type allowing leaders to see how different groups such as
superiors, coworkers and direct reports perceive them. The CLI measures 21 dimensions of
leadership organized within five major orientations as listed below:

Leadership
o Ambitious: determined to make progress, likes to compete
o Daring: willing to try new experiences, risk oriented
o Dynamic: takes care, inspires others, seen as a leader
o Enterprising: works well with the complexities of change
o Experienced: has a good background
o Original: sees the world differently, has many new ideas
o Persuasiveness: articulate and persuasive in influencing others

Energy-Affability
o Affectionate: acts close, warm, and nurturing
o Considerate: thoughtful, willing to work with others
o Empowering: motivates others and helps them to achieve
o Entertaining: clever and amusing, enjoys people
o Friendly: pleasant to be around, smiles easily

Dependability
o Credible: open and honest, inspires trust
o Organized: plans ahead and follows through
o Productive: uses time and resources well
44
o Thrifty: uses and manages money wisely

Resilience
o Calm: has an unhurried, unruffled manner
o Flexible: easily adjusts to changes
o Optimistic: positive, handles personal challenges well
o Trusting: trusts and believes in others
Summary results from the instrument indicate the leader’s lowest observed score; the
largest discrepancies with observers lower than self; highest observer scores; and largest
discrepancies with observers higher than self. The CLI is used in leadership development
programs in several ways. By highlighting dimensions of leadership that may need
improvement, it can be the foundation of a personal action plan. It may also stimulate
feedback between leaders and team members, thus increasing mutual understanding and
cohesiveness within the group. Finally, it has been used as an objective standardized method
for identifying candidates for leadership positions by comparing profiles of selected
individuals with profiles of effective leaders within that organization.
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
The LPI, also known as the Kouzes-Posner Model, consists of thirty behavioral
statements that describe the five fundamental practices and strategies of exemplary
leadership listed here:
1. Challenging the process: searching for opportunities, experimenting and risk taking;
2. Inspiring a shared vision: envisioning the future, enlisting others;
3. Enabling others to act: fostering collaboration, strengthening others;
4. Modeling the way: setting the example, achieving small wins; and,
5. Encouraging the heart: recognizing individual contributions, celebrating team
accomplishments (Kouzes & Posner, 1987, 1995, 1997).
45
According to Kouzes and Posner, who have gathered more than 3000 cases and
100,000 surveys to develop this instrument, the five practices account for more than 70
percent of the behaviors described in their empirical studies. The instrument requires selfassessment as well as assessment from an “observer” who must be in a position to directly
observe the leader’s behavior. A ten point Likert scale measures how often each leadership
behavior is used. These data are the basis of a leadership education process that offers valid
and reliable feedback to participants regarding their current leadership practices; identifies
strengths and opportunities for improvement; and outlines specific ways to improve their
leadership practices. The results are used to make plans of action for continuing leadership
development. Although grounded in extensive research, the LPI does not require formal
training to administer. It is available for purchase with a facilitators guide, workshop design
template and support materials.
Whether pencil and paper or online, the actual instrument used in leadership
assessment activities is only part of the process. How the data are fed back to each participant
is equally relevant. The following paragraphs describe the general principles of giving and
receiving feedback and present a summary of two feedback processes commonly used in
organizations.
Feedback Process
Feedback answers the question ‘How am I doing” (Bell & Zemke, 1992). When
managed well, the feedback process answers questions, sets expectations, reduces uncertainty
and encourages desired leadership behavior (Caproni, 2001). As part of a leadership
development process, formal feedback processes, such as performance reviews and
assessments instrument, combine with informal feedback processes, the day-to-day dialogue
46
between individuals, to offer aspiring leaders data upon which to reflect and act. Like
generic leadership assessment instruments, guidelines for giving effective feedback can be
found in most management texts. While not universal, there are some general features of
effective feedback (Smith, 1987); several examples are listed below:

Be specific and descriptive. Sufficient detail must be included to assist the aspiring
leader to understand the issue at hand, his or her current behavior and the alternative
behaviors available.

Put information in context. The purpose of the feedback and how it fits into the
broader organizational goals should be clarified.

Assure that delivery is well timed. Feedback is most useful when the recipient is
ready to hear it; when a request for feedback is solicited; or as soon as possible after a
triggering event.

Offer feedback in an appropriate setting. Generally, constructive feedback is offered
in private and praising feedback in public; however, individual and cultural
differences should be taken into account.

Focus on key issues under the receiver’s control. Feedback should address items that
the receiver can do something about and only one or two issues at a time.

Check that the receiver has understood the feedback as intended.

Give time to react.

Encourage the receiver to check the accuracy of the feedback with others.

End on an encouraging note.

Schedule a follow up session.
Kouzes and Posner (1997) offer the following ground rules for feedback :

Acknowledge aloud that it is difficult to give honest feedback.

Avoid personal attacks.

Focus on specific behaviors-not attitudes, characterizations or personalities.

Connect behaviors to results.
47

Avoid hearsay, accusations and exaggerations.

Provide information that is constructive.

Include positive as well as negative feedback.
Receiving feedback is an integral element of leadership development, yet it is often
not actively pursued. Fears of drawing attention to weaknesses or looking insecure or
incompetent are common (Ashford & Northcraft, 1992). Ashford and Northcraft agree that
requests for feedback should be managed carefully and suggest that a strategy to avoid
feedback may be warranted when trying something new or risky in order to maintain selfefficacy and allow some level of persistence at tasks. However, feedback is a critical
leadership development opportunity that should be solicited from carefully selected sources
including bosses, peers, subordinates, customers and professional coaches. Barnes (1982)
and Clawson (1989) suggest the following guidelines to maximize the impact of feedback:

Request feedback from people whom you trust will be honest with you.

If the feedback is general, request specific examples of recent behavior.

Avoid defensive reactions; do not make excuses or blame others.

Do not over react (most common to feedback given by a superior) or under react
(most common to feedback given by a subordinate.)

Once feedback is complete, summarize what the speaker said to assure
comprehension.

Explain what steps will be taken to respond; take the necessary action; evaluate the
consequences on behavior and performance; and report back to the feedback giver as
appropriate.

Thank the person for the feedback.
Kouzes and Posner (1997) add the following rules for receiving feedback:

Acknowledge aloud that it is difficult to receive feedback.
48

Approach feedback as a partnership process not a debate.

Focus energy on understanding the behavior being discussed, not on fixing it right
then and there.

Take feedback seriously; take notes.

Seek a balance between positive and negative feedback; if given only negative
information, request positive and vice versa.
Effective leaders must be able to see problems quickly and accurately. This is
important not only in the personal development arena, but in all aspects of management.
Unfortunately, employees are often hesitant to give their boss less than positive information.
In organizational hierarchies, employees are likely to exaggerate good news and minimize
bad news (Fulk & Sirish, 1974in Caproni, 2001). According to Caproni (2001), this may
occur because the leader appears too busy to listen, the employee wants to protect the leader
from bad news, or they may hope that the issue will go away. Leaders encourage the
communication of bad news by being accessible, approachable, and encouraging of
independent thinking and honest feedback.
Leaders must learn to be discreet in their reactions to feedback, keep sources
anonymous and assure that solicited feedback never results in negative consequences for the
person offering it. Two widely used techniques in contemporary organizations are the 360degree feedback process and coaching. 360-degree feedback minimizes the potential pitfalls
of one-source feedback by proactively soliciting data from multiple people at multiple levels
in the leader’s system. Coaching is a one-on-one approach designed to support individual
development. Each approach is summarized below.

360-degree feedback. This feedback process begins with the participant completing
a self-assessment of the key skills and competencies of leadership as defined by the
organization. Five or more people who work directly with the participant including
the participant’s direct manager, one or two peers, and several direct reports also
49
complete the assessment. All data are compiled into a summary report, which
includes a comparison of the self-assessment with the ratings from others. The report
can be used to determine specific skills needed for development and blind spots of the
participant’s behavior as well as to highlight leadership strengths, known and
unknown. For best results, this feedback instrument should be administered with
sensitivity toward anonymity and within a climate of trust. The process is often
combined with a one on one interview with a psychologist or human resource
professional (Cacioppe, 1998).

Coaching. Frequently a one-on one-feedback process, an external professional hired
by the organization or the individual most often carries out formal coaching.
Coaching can focus on a wide range of leadership-related competencies from
interpersonal development to managerial skills such as project management,
budgeting or marketing. A leader may have a team of coaches, each focusing on a
specific area of development. Coaches may also work with a leadership team both
collectively and individually (Cacioppe, 1998). The underlying theoretical approach
used by a coach varies and may include psychodynamic, systems theory, and social
psychology.
Leadership development continues to be a priority for organizations. Building the
capacity for organizational growth and success requires that a steady stream of talented
individuals, who are comfortable with the organizational culture and familiar with strategic
objectives, is available to transact business and effectively harness the energy of human
resources. Leadership development programs, psychometric instrument assessment tools,
and well-designed feedback processes offer individuals the opportunity to build skills,
develop interpersonal competencies, and examine self as they prepare for the challenges of
the future.
Part IV: Leadership and Gender
Much like the construct of leadership, the understanding of gender as it relates to
leadership style continues to evolve. What appears to be certain is the need for organizations
to have a pipeline of capable, strategically skilled candidates in the ready for emerging
leadership roles. What is less certain is why the ranks of leadership in large companies
50
continue to be dominated by males despite a body of literature that indicates females’
tendency toward the explicitly acknowledged effective style of transformational leadership.
This discussion of gender as it relates to leadership is purposefully limited in scope and
focuses on the number of women in leadership roles; some noted differences between male
and female styles of leadership; the function of organizational norms in perpetrating these
differences; and, why, despite equal knowledge and skills, women may continue to be
outnumbered in leadership roles. More substantial analysis on the subject is available from
many authors representing a variety of fields (for examples see Eagly and Karau, Boatwright
and Forrest, Gardiner and Tiggemann, Moss and Kent, and Oakely.)
Leadership: Gender and Representation
The previous review of leadership theory indicates that effective leadership is a
function of orientation to both people and task; that flexibility of style in relationship to
situational variables is important; that engaged, collaborative leaders can inspire collective
achievement toward challenging organizational objectives; and, that the emotional
intelligence competencies of social skill and social awareness are critical to leadership
success. Given this theoretical foundation, one might assume that characteristics more
commonly associated with femininity such as being responsive, co-operative, intuitive and
synthesizing (Capra, 1983) as opposed to masculine characteristics such as being demanding,
aggressive, competitive (Capra, 1983), logical, controlling and dominant (Boydell &
Hammond, 1985) would be prerequisites for recruitment into top leadership roles. However,
due to a complex set of variables that may include biology, perceptions of gender and roles,
socialization patterns and organizational structure, leadership in corporate America remains
the domain of men. According to Catalyst, a leading research and advisory organization that
51
works to advance women in business, in the year 2000 women occupied 15.7 percent of
corporate officer positions and in 2003 held 13.6 percent of board seats. Both of these figures
are slightly higher than in years past; however, the number of women in leadership positions
is small compared to the total number of women in the workforce, which currently stands at
around 50 percent. As Adler states: “About the single most uncontroversial, incontrovertible
statement to make about women in management is that there are very few of them” (1993, as
cited in Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995).
The glass ceiling (Morrison, White, Van Velsor, & CCL, 1987), an oft cited social
model for numerical difference between genders in leadership positions, suggests that
traditional perspectives on leadership center on masculine concepts of authoritarian and taskoriented behavior which prohibit relationship oriented, or feminine, leadership from being
recognized as viable leadership behavior (Oakley, 2000). This phenomenon, along with
patterns of discrimination and stereotypes that favor men as having more leadership
qualifications (Yukl, 2002) may contribute to the perception of what constitutes effective
leadership.
In addition, women face the possibility that masculine leadership behaviors violate
the accepted gender role of females (Eagly & Karau, 2002), Metaphorically, women hit the
ceiling when they reach a point in their careers when they are not recruited or groomed for
higher-level leadership positions. This situation may be further perpetuated because those
who develop the criteria for selection into such positions represent the prevailing paradigm of
masculine leadership (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1995). Directly linking effective leadership styles to
gender is a mistake (Rosener, 1990); both men and women are capable of leading through
52
traditional and non-traditional styles. However, studies indicate that differences in style do
exist.
Leadership Styles and Gender
Results of a study by Rosener (1990) indicated that men describe themselves in
transactional terms relying on a system of reward and punishment to accomplish objectives.
The men also describe a leadership style that draws on power stemming from organizational
positions and formal authority. Women, in contrast, report an aversion to rank-based
behaviors and describe themselves in more transformational terms. The women studied
forego command and control behaviors in favor of participative decision making, power
sharing interactions and activities intentionally aimed at enhancing self worth. This style of
“interactive management” creates loyalty by signaling trust in and respect for subordinates’
ideas and sets examples for others that may enhance communication. It also increases the
odds that a leader will hear about a potential problem earlier than through hierarchy-based
communication systems. Women are more likely than men to ascribe power to interpersonal
skills or personal contacts rather than to organizational structure.
Women also believe that people perform best when they feel good about themselves so
as leaders they attempt to create situations that contribute to that feeling. According to
Rosener, this desire to be supportive and cooperative stems from differences in women’s
socialization and career paths. Up to and even well into the 1960s, the customary role for
women was primarily one of gentle and understanding service provider: wife, mother,
community volunteer, teacher and nurse. While men were expected to be competitive, strong,
tough, decisive and in control, women were allowed to be cooperative, emotional, supportive
and vulnerable. Even when women entered corporate life, they tended to gravitate toward
53
support functions such as human resource management and marketing; a trend that continues
today. In addition, many first work opportunities for women began with community and
volunteer positions where they had to get things done without the concrete rewards of pay
and promotion.
The fact that most women have lacked formal authority over others and control over
resources means that by default they have had to find other ways to accomplish their
work. As it turns out, the behaviors that were natural and/or socially acceptable for
them have been highly successful in at least some managerial settings (Rosener, 1990,
p.26).
Gender diversity in leadership style is also the subject of research by Rigg and
Sparrow (1994) who examined the differences between men and women related to perceived
objectives of a job, overall style of operating, preferred style of decision making, and
interpersonal relations with staff and clients. Both men and women respondents found that
women put emphasis on team management as well as providing a service while men’s
priority is to be entrepreneurial (show vision and package idea for funding) or to work with
numbers. The overall operating style of women was described as people-oriented, working
with and through other people, while men’s style was described as either overtly political,
flamboyant and forceful or, close to policy, practice and tradition. Women were perceived to
make considered decisions based on familiarization which were neither snap judgments nor
hesitant. Men’s decision making was perceived as detached analytical and systematic or,
ponderous, less confidant and rule based.
Generally women’s style of leadership is described as based on a concern for and
understanding of people, seeking to develop them, using that knowledge and insight as a
resource for managing, and adopting a participative approach. Men’s style of leadership is
described as paternalistic and protective, with a tendency to maintain some distance from the
54
team, and in many instances to be directive, authoritative, and to lead through inspiring
confidence through work effort. Given the gender differences at work described here, there
is a challenge for women since attributes traditionally associated with women such as using
intuition rather than linear logic, preferring consensus building to competition, and
encouraging participation rather than giving orders has been regarded as ineffective (Rigg &
Sparrow, 1994). When women act like women, they are often viewed as not leader-like, not
managerial and not professional (Rosener, 1990).
Gender-Bias as a Function of Organizational Structure and Culture
One source of this mismatch between leadership theory that recognizes characteristics
and values traditionally associated with women such as teamwork and consensual forms of
decision-making, and leadership reality that continues to endorse a masculine model, may be
related to organizational structure and culture. Because values and assumptions of those in
power feed into the creation and perpetuation of organizational culture, norms, and practices,
the predominance of men in positions of power can lead to an assumption that this is the way
to do the job. The job description and person specification enshrine the masculine approach
as the normative way to do the job. This would disadvantage anyone with a more feminine
approach (Rigg & Sparrow, 1994). This point is particularly relevant to the leadership
development issues addressed earlier in this paper as it relates to whom specifically in the
organization is developing the selection and development criteria for high potential leaders
and how this might institutionalize gender related bias in the work system.
Women-Focused Leadership Development
Vinnecombe and Singh (2003) suggest that leadership development programs must
go beyond recruitment and criteria issues and focus on content specifically designed for
55
women so that they can gain a clearer understanding of their own skills, styles and personal
goals and pursue senior roles with confidence and enthusiasm. These programs include
content in the following areas:

Importance of organizational politics: women may focus on task accomplishment,
challenge, high standards expertise and attention to detail and fail to see the relevance of
politics. Believing someone will notice their fine work, they miss opportunities to make
themselves visible and promote themselves.

Imposter syndrome: studies indicate a consistent theme of lack of confidence in women
managers. Women fear that their imposter status will be found out and that they will be
revealed as unworthy of the success they have won (Harvey & Katz, 1983).

Gender differences in working styles: based on Myers Briggs research, women and
men often approach the same tasks differently. Women leaders may find that their styles
are not shared by others in similar positions and should be reassured that diversity of
style contributes to better overall performance.

Career anchors: because women are not traditionally socialized to make strong
investments of self in their future careers, they may lack a clear career strategy. Exercises
such as Schein’s Career Anchors (1990) help women understand their past jobs,
motivations and influences as they articulate a path to the future.

Gender stressors: women’s definitions of success are different from men’s and tend to
be related to wanting to do it all and gain approval from everyone around her at work and
at home. Women only leadership training helps women identify stressors related to this
self-concept in a safe environment.

Role models: women role models, mentors and coaches may help women overcome the
actual or perceived limited access to other leaders who can assist through developmental
challenges.
Programs that focus on the needs of women as future leaders may widen the path
along which high potential and talented women move to leadership positions. Combined
with sensitivity to how leadership criteria are developed, and the potential value in expanding
the definition of effective leadership to include a wide range of styles from both men and
women, conventional wisdom might predict that the future for women leaders appears to be
56
brighter. A recent article in FASTCOMPANY magazine (Tischler, 2004) offers a different
perspective on the lack of women at the top.
The Female Leadership Void: Another Perspective
In “Where are the Women?” the question is similar to the research focus of the
previously cited works: why is it that in a time when business schools are graduating
thousands of qualified women, and there is a potential leadership pipeline full of female
talent, are there still so few women in top leadership positions? The article does
acknowledge the continuing challenge of women’s common career path choice of staff jobs
that do not offer direct accountability for profit and loss, and the post 1960 challenge of
balancing work and family that weighs more heavily on women than men. However, the
author suggests that the answer may be simpler: men work harder and compete harder for top
leadership positions. Men are more willing to put work ahead of family and therefore work
longer hours, relocate more often, and demonstrate the fierce competitive edge required of an
all-consuming leadership role.
According to Charles A. O’Reilly of the Stanford Graduate School of Business,
success in a corporation is less a function of gender discrimination than of how hard a person
chooses to compete. Women are equal to male counterparts in education, skill and
experience but more likely to put family over company. At the top ranks, it is winner takes
all and one moment’s hesitation to put the needs of family, relationships or other life goals
ahead of work, changes the odds in favor of the competitor, most likely a male. O’ Reilly’s
longitudinal studies of MBA graduates indicate that women are equally satisfied with their
career choice and happier not competing for power positions if it means they can work less
and have a life. Fewer women in management may be sign of women’s power rather than
57
lack of power; they have learned that they can get their fulfillment in places other than work
and are free of the ego needs driving male colleagues. They can weigh trade-offs and opt for
saner lives (Farrell, 1993).
The questions regarding gender as it relates to leadership far outnumber the answers.
Research will continue on how gender influences leadership style, career opportunities and
organizational culture, practice and performance. As women and other non-traditional
entrants to the labor market continue to change the landscape of organizations, diverse
leadership will be a requisite organizational asset. Research and practice is likely to continue
discovering how and why differences exist, the value of harnessing the energy of this
diversity and the methods of developing the unique talents in all future leaders.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
This paper began with an examination of the diverse theoretical approaches that
conceptualize leadership. A century of research has created a body of knowledge that
examines individual traits, leadership behaviors, the political implications of leadership, and
the need to account for the human element in all organizational systems. Theories have
evolved from the “born or made” debate through the “either-or” behavior approach to the “if
this then that” contingency way of leadership. At present, theory points to a range of
approaches that seem to draw from all of the above to form a complex phenomenon of innate
or learned personal characteristics combined with thoughtful application of behaviors toward
people and tasks that provide climates of participation, inspiration and appreciation for the
diverse personal contributions present in work systems. It is probable that there is no oneway to lead. It is also possible that, like many other aptitudes in life, some people are
58
naturally gifted to perform better than others. However, an understanding of leadership
theory, personal development activities, opportunities to gain leadership experience and
access to support from mentors and coaches will have an impact on leadership competence.
Gender, socialization, technical skill, formal education and even biology may contribute to
the diversity of end results, all of which may be useful in the infinitely complex context of
contemporary organizations.
Future research in leadership will likely continue at the prolific pace of the past.
Rather than discuss the unlimited possibilities for studies that could contribute to
organizations, I will end this paper with two of my personal interests for future research. The
first is in the area of emotional intelligence. In my thinking, this construct subsumes the
most salient aspects of the theories upon which it is built (explicitly stated or otherwise.)
Research on how to use the approach in an educational setting is needed. At present, there is
very little in the way of pedagogy for this purpose. Reliable and valid inventories for selfassessment along with exercises for personal development in each area are needed. Case
studies representing diverse individuals exemplifying EI in action would be useful to
instructors as would be videos that show contemporary leaders in action that are edited for
analysis and instruction. Specific topic areas such as management, leadership, ethics and
diversity can also be highlighted. Finally, methods for educating K-12 on these principles
should be created.
The second area of research interest is related to women leaders. Studies are needed
that describe how the female tendency toward transformational leadership can be recognized,
developed and subsequently embedded into organizational culture. Given the complex
nature of the challenge, this would require extensive planning, investment and support;
59
however, process models may facilitate this onerous process. Case studies that highlight how
this leadership approach is supported through organization structure and culture would also
be useful for MBA level instruction and executive education.
My interest in women leaders goes a step further to entrepreneurial woman leaders,
defined as women who lead their own organizations or those who lead entrepreneurially
within other settings. Theory development is required to define these leaders in terms of
their cognitive approach to recognizing opportunities and their behavioral approach to
creating value under various environmental constraints. Research is also needed on the types
of learning experiences that entrepreneurial leader’s require during different stages of their
lives (K-12, university, and beyond); their careers (pre, early, middle, late stage); and, their
intra or entrepreneurial-ventures (startup, lifestyle, growth, decline). An understanding is
also required to demonstrate how this content may be similar to or different from that needed
by men at the same stage as well as the best methods to deliver the content with thoughtful
regard to differences in male and female brain structure and aptitudes. Finally, successful
models of existing entrepreneurial leadership education are needed that address the
transferability of education content and process to other cultures.
60
Appendix A: Emotional Intelligence Capabilities and Competencies
Capabilities
Self-Awareness

Self confidence

Realistic self-assessment

Self-deprecating sense of
humor
Competencies
Emotional self- awareness: Ability to recognize and understand your emotions and drives as well as
recognize their impact on performance and relationships.
Accurate self assessment: realistic evaluation of your strengths and limitations
Self-confidence: a strong and positive sense of self worth
Self-Management

Trustworthiness and
integrity

Comfort with ambiguity

Openness to change

Strong drive to achieve

Optimism, even in the
face of failure

Organizational
commitment
Self control: Ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and emotions; The propensity to suspend
judgment-to think before acting
Trustworthiness: consistent display of honesty and integrity
Conscientiousness: ability to manage yourself and your responsibilities
Adaptability: skill at adjusting to changing situations and overcoming obstacles
Achievement orientation: the drive to meet an internal standard of excellence
Initiative: the readiness to seize opportunities
Social Awareness

Expertise in building and
retaining talent

Cross-cultural sensitivity

Service to clients and
customer
Empathy: skill at sensing other people’s emotions, understanding their perspective, and taking an active
interest in their concerns
Organizational awareness: the ability to read the currents of organizational life, build decision networks,
and navigate politics
Service orientation: Ability to recognize and meet customers’ needs
Social Skill

Effectiveness in leading
change

Persuasiveness

Expertise in building and
leading teams
Visionary leadership: ability to take charge and inspire with a compelling vision
Influence: ability to wield a range of persuasive tactics
Developing others: propensity to bolster the abilities of others through feedback and guidance
Communication: skill at listening and at sending clear convincing and well tuned messages
Change catalyst: proficiency in initiating new ideas and leading people in a new direction
Conflict management: ability to de-escalate disagreements and orchestrate resolutions
Building bonds: proficiency at cultivating and maintaining a web of relationships
Teamwork and collaboration: competence at promoting cooperation and building teams
Source: Adapted from Goleman, Harvard Business Review, March-April 2000 and
November-December 1998.
61
Appendix B: Emotional Intelligence and Leadership Philosophy and Behavior
Leadership
Style
Leader philosophy and behaviors
Emotional
Intelligence
Use
Coercive
demand immediate compliance; top down decision
making eliminates innovative thinking; constant
direction makes people feel disrespected; sense of
responsibility evaporates and ownership is lost
Drive to achieve,
initiate, self-control
During crisis, kick
start a turnaround, or
with problem
employees
Authoritative
mobilize people toward a vision by making clear how
their work fits into larger picture; people understand
why what they do matters; states the end, but gives
leeway to devise own means; creates environment of
innovation and calculated risk taking
Self-confidence,
empathy, change
catalyst
When new vision or
clear direction is
required
Affiliative
create emotional bonds and builds harmony; values
individuals and their emotions more than tasks and
goals; builds strong emotional bonds then reaps
benefit of fierce loyalty; has positive effect on
communication and trusting environment drives up
flexibility, innovation and risk taking.
Empathy, building
relationships,
communication
Heal rifts in a team or
manage people
during stressful
circumstances
Democratic
build consensus through participation; time spent
getting people’s ideas and buy-in builds trust, respect
and commitment; input in decision making drives up
flexibility and responsibility; listening keeps moral high
and participation in goal setting results in realistic
assessment of what can be accomplished.
Collaboration, team
leadership,
communication
Build buy-in or
consensus, get input
from employees
Pacesetting
expect excellence and self-direction and models
same; obsessive focus to do things better and faster;
poor performers pinpointed and replaced; employees
feel overwhelmed by demands for excellence;
guidelines clear in leader’s head not clear to others;
flexibility and responsibility diminish as employees
struggle to determine what leader wants.
Conscientiousness,
drive to achieve,
initiative
Get results quickly
from highly motivated
and competent team
Coaching
develop people for the future by helping employees
identify own strengths and weaknesses and tie them
to personal and professional objectives; encourage
employees to establish long term development goals
and assist with plan; delegation is cornerstone; willing
to tradeoff short term failure for long term success.
Developing others,
empathy, self
awareness
Help employee
improve performance
or develop long term
strengths
Source: Goldman: Leadership that Gets Results, Harvard Business Review, 2000.
62
References
Akin, J. (1987). Varieties of managerial learning. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 36-48.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995). An investigation of female and male constructs of leadership and
empowerment. Women in Management Review, 10(2), 3-8.
Aronson, E. (1995). The social animal (7th Ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman.
Ashford, S., & Northcraft, G. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize: The role of
impression-management in feedback seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 53, 310-334.
Assessment Instruments. Retrieved 12-30-03, 2003, from
www.fanning.uga.edu/assessments/instruments.htm
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building vital forces in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bandura, T. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barnes, L. B. (1982). Managing interpersonal feedback. Harvard Business Review.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stodgill's handbook of leadership: a survey of theory and
research. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990a). The implications of transactional and transformational
leadership for individual, team and organizational development. Research in
Organizational Change and Development, 4(231-272).
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bell, C., & Zemke, R. (1992). On target feedback. Training (June), 36-44.
Bennis, W. G. (1959). Leadership theory and administrative behavior: The problems of
authority. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 259-301.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York:
Harper & Row.
Bernard, L. L. (1926). An introduction to social psychology. New York: Holt.
Blake, R. R., & McCanse, A. A. (1991). Leadership dilemmas-Grid solutions. Houston, TX:
Gulf Publishing.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1978). The new managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The managerial grid III. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Blanchard, K. H. (1985). SLII: A situational approach to managing people. Escondido, CA:
Blanchard Training and Development.
Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the one minute
manager: Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. New York:
William Morrow.
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: Berrett
Koehler.
Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with fourfactor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 238-263.
63
Boydell, T., & Hammond, V. (1985). Men and women in organisations. Association of
Teachers of Management (Special issue of Management Education and
Development), 16, part 2.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Cacioppe, R. (1998). An integrated model and approach for the design of effective leadership
development programs. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 19(1),
44.
Capra, F. (1983). The turning point. London: Fantana.
Caproni, P. (2001). The practical coach: management skills for everyday life. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1960). Group dynamics research and theory. Evanston, IL:
Row, Peterson.
Clawson, J. (1989). Some principles of giving and receiving feedback. Charlottesville, VA:
Darden Graduate Business School Foundation.
Covey, S. (1990). Principle centered leadership. New York: Fireside.
De Pree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Dell Publishing.
Eagly, A., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598.
Earley, P. C., & Lind, E. A. (1987). Procedural justice and participation in task selection: The
role of control in mediating justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 1148-1160.
Evans, M. G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 227-298.
Farrell, W. (1993). The myth of male power. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Fernandez, C., & Vecchio, R. (1997). Situational leadership theory revisited: A test of an
across-jobs perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 8(1), 67-84.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F. E. (1993). The leadership situation and the black box in contingency theories. In
M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives
and directions (pp. 1-28). New York: Academic Press.
Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., A.L., K., & Hein, M. B.
(1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leadership behavior: A synthesis and
functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245-287.
Fulk, J., & Sirish, M. (1974). Distortion of communication in hierarchical communications.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, November-December,
93-102.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, March-April,
78-90.
Graeff, C. (1997). Evolution of situation leadership theory: A critical review. Leadership
Quarterly, 8(2), 153-170.
Graen, G. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette
(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
64
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power
and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Harvey, J., & Katz, C. (1983). If I am so successful, why do I feel like a fake? The imposter
phenomenon. New York: St. Martins Press.
Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire. In R. M. Stodgill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its
description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business
Research.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd Ed.). New
York: Wiley.
Horner, M. (1997). Leadership theory: past, present and future. Team Performance
Management, 3(4), 270.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16, 321-328.
House, R. J. (1976). A theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, R. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of
Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.
Jaques, E., & Clements, F. (1991). Executive leadership. Arlington, VA: Cason Hall.
Jung, C. G. (1971). The collected works of C.G. Jung (Vol. 6 of The collected works of C.G.
Jung). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (Original work published in 1921).
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1951). Human organization and worker motivation. In L. R. Tripp
(Ed.), Industrial productivity (pp. 146-171). Madison, WI: Industrial Relations
Research Association.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? The Executive, 5,
48-60.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary
things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting
extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1997). Leadership practices inventory-Individual
contributor. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.
Lewin, K. (1943). Forces behind food habits and methods of change. Bulletin of the National
Research Council, 108, 35-65.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation
between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity
generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(402-410).
Lorsch, J. (1987). Introduction to the structural design of organizations. In L. Boone & D.
Bowen (Eds.), The great writings in management and organizational behavior (pp.
203). Boston: Irwin/McGraw Hill.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in
small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.
65
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long term
success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743.
McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business
Review, 54(2), 100-110.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.
Meyers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Morrison, A., White, P., Van Velsor, E., & CCL. (1987). Breaking the glass ceiling.
Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley.
Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Oakley, J. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the
scarcity of female CEOs
Judith G Oakley. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4, Part 2), 321.
Organ, D. W., & Bateman, T. S. (1991). Organizational behavior (4th ed.). Boston: Irwin.
Pernick, R. (2001). Creating a leadership development program: Nine essential tasks. Public
Personnel Management, 30(4), 429-445.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of concepts. In B.
Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rigg, C., & Sparrow, J. (1994). Gender, diversity and working styles. Women in
Management Review, 9(1), 9-16.
Rosener, J. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, November-December, 119125.
Saal, F., & Knight, P. (1988). Industrial/organizational psychology:
Science and practice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Sashkin, M. (2004). Transformational leadership approaches: A review and synthesis. In R. J.
Sternberg, J. Antonakis & A. T. Cianciolo (Eds.), The nature of leadership. Thousand
Oaks: CA: Sage, in press.
Sashkin, M., & Sashkin, M. G. (2003). Leadership that matters. San Francisco: BerettKoehler.
Schutz, W. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional model of interpersonal behavior. New York:
Rinehart.
Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origins, development, and
application in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9(2).
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4(4), 577-594.
Smith, M. S. (1987). Feedback as a performance management technique. Management
Solutions, 32, 20-29.
Stodgill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership. Journal of Psychology,
25, 35-71.
Stodgill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York:
Free Press.
Thompson, H. L. (2000). FIRO Element B: An overview. Retrieved 12-30-03, 2003, from
http://www.hpsys.com/ebinfo.htm
66
Tischler, L. (2004). Where are the women? Fastcompany, February, 52-60.
Vicere, A. (1997). How to design leadership development programs that get results. Paper
presented at the Linkage Inc. 2nd Annual Leadership Development Preconference,
San Francisco, CA.
Vinnicombe, S., & Singh, V. (2003). Women-only management training: An essential part of
women's leadership development. Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 294-306.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (T. Parsons, Trans.).
New York: Free Press.
Weisbord, M. (1987). Productive workplaces. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
67