Contemporary Theories of Leadership: Brent J. Goertzen

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION ChNOT

apter
FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
6
Contemporary Theories
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
of Leadership
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Brent J. Goertzen NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
A leader’s role is to raise people’s aspirations for what they can become and to release their
energies so they will try to get there.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC David Gergen,©director
Jones & Bartlett
of the Center for Learning, LLC
Public Leadership,
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT
Harvard Kennedy FOR
School (fromSALE OR DISTRIBUTION
http://www.leadershipnow.com)
O InTroduCTIon
The publication in 1978 of Leadership, James MacGregor
Burns’s bestselling
© Jones book on political
& Bartlett Learning,leadership,
LLCmarked
O
© Jones
Transforming
TransformIng LeadershIp and
TransformaTIonaL LeadershIp
& Bartlett Learning, LLC
Leadership
a major transition in the development
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION of leadership the- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Burns (1978) is credited with revolutionizing scholars’
ory. Much of the research in leadership since then has
and practitioners’ view of leadership. Burns defined
been largely influenced by his definition of “transform-
transforming leadership as occurring when “one or more
ing leadership.” Burns was the first to conceptualize
persons engage with others in such a way that leaders
leadership as a social process that involves both leaders
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett
and followers Learning,
raise one another toLLC
higher levels of moti-
and followers interacting and working together to
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT vation
FOR andSALE OR DISTRIBUTION
morality” (p. 20). Although initially starting
achieve common interests and mutually defined ends.
His theory clearly elevated the significance of followers out separate (and perhaps even unrelated), the purposes
and the leader–follower relationship in the leadership of both leaders and followers become fused. Leaders play
equation. a major role in shaping the relationship with followers.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning,
This chapter reviews Burns’s transforming leader-
LLC
Burns believed that leaders are© commonly
Jones &more Bartlett
“skillfulLearning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
ship theory and subsequent research that emerged as a
NOT FOR SALE
in evaluating followers’ motives, anticipating their OR DISTRIBUTION
result of his perspective. Also described are other con- responses to an initiative, and estimating their power
temporary leadership theories that emphasize the impor- bases, than the reverse” (p. 20).
tance of the followers’ role in leadership, such as the Transforming leadership has an elevating effect on
© Jones &
postindustrial Bartlett
paradigm Learning,leader–member
of leadership, LLC © Jones
both the leader and the&led
Bartlett
because itLearning, LLC
raises the level of
exchange (LMX) theory, followership, and servant NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
human conduct and interaction. In the end, transforming
leadership. leadership is a moral process because leaders engage with
83
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

84 seCTIon 2: Leadership Theory
followers based on shared motives, values, and goals. Bass asserted that leaders demonstrating transforma-
Transforming leadership contrasts with transactional tional leadership typically engage in several categories of
leadership, whereby the leadership relationship is limited behaviors. These behaviors typically enhance follower
to the leader’s ability to appeal to followers’ self-interest motivation and performance.
for the purpose of an exchange of valued things. According to Bass (1985), transformational leaders
Burns asserts that only followers can ultimately are able to achieve three things: (1) make followers aware
define their true needs. This implies that followers must
of the importance of task outcomes, (2) induce followers
maintain freedom of choice between real alternatives. to transcend personal interest for the sake of the team or
Transforming leaders operate at the highest stages of organization, and (3) move followers toward higher-
moral development. Burns (1978) asserted that trans- order needs.
© Jones
forming & Bartlett
leaders Learning,
are “guided LLC ethical
by near-universal As a © Jones
result, & Bartlett
followers feel moreLearning,
confidence in LLCthe
principles of justice such as equality of human rights and NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
leader and report feeling greater trust, admiration, loy-
respect of individual dignity” (p. 42). alty, and respect, especially when they are motivated to
Nonetheless, transforming leadership is grounded in do more than they originally expected. Although numer-
conflict. Conflict is often compelling, because it galva- ous dimensions of transformational leader behaviors
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
nizes and motivates people. Leaders do not shun conflict; © Jones
have&been
Bartlett Learning,
theorized LLC it is commonly
and researched,
they embrace it by both shaping and mediating conflict. NOT FOR SALE
accepted OR DISTRIBUTION
that transformational leader behaviors comprise
Leaders are able to discern signs of dissatisfaction among four categories: (1) idealized influence, (2) individualized
followers and take the initiative to make connections consideration, (3) inspirational motivation, and (4) intel-
with followers. The power in transforming leadership lectual stimulation (Bass, 1997).
comes by recognizing © Jones & Bartlett
the varying needs and Learning,
motives of LLC Transactional leadership ©behaviors
Jones refer
& Bartlett Learning, LLC
to activities
potential followers NOT FOR SALE
and elevating them to OR DISTRIBUTION
transcend per- that help clarify expectations NOT forFOR
directSALE
reports,OR helpDISTRIBUTION
sonal self-interests. Followers are mobilized by leaders’ direct reports achieve desired rewards and avoid punish-
ability to appeal to and strengthen those motives through ments, and help facilitate desired outcomes (Avolio &
word and action. Bass, 1988). Transactional leader behaviors commonly
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC comprise©three Jones & Bartlett
categories: Learning,
(1) contingent LLC
reward, (2)
Leadership Points
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION to Ponder management NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
by exception—active, and (3) management
Leadership is not magnetic personality that can just by exception—passive.
as well be a glib tongue. It is not “making friends and Although transformational and transactional leader
influencing people;” that is flattery. Leadership is lift- behaviors are distinct, they are not necessarily mutually
ing a person’s vision to higher sights; the raising of a exclusive. Effective leaders, Bass asserted, make use of
person’s performance to a higher standard, the build- both types of leadership. Whereas transformational
ing of a personality beyond its normal limitations.
leader behaviors enlist enthusiasm and commitment,
Peter F. Drucker (from http://thinkexist.com) transactional leadership behaviors achieve compliance
with leader requests.
Recent versions of transformational and transactional
Transformational Leadership theory include a third category of leadership: laissez-
Bass (1985, 1996) built upon Burns’s (1978) original faire. This category represents an absence of effective
ideas of transforming leadership. He began empirically leadership and describes the type of leader who is passive
examining the theory and calling his revised theory or indifferent to direct reports. Taken together, the three
“transformational leadership.” These terms may seem meta-categories (transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire) are sometimes called the Full Range Leader-
nearly identical. However, there is an important distinc-
tion in that, whereas Burns’s theory focuses more on
ship model (Avolio, 1999; see Table 6-1).
social reform by moral elevation of followers’ values and Transformational and transactional leadership con-
needs, Bass’s transformational leadership focuses more stitute the most widely researched models of leadership.
on attaining practical organizational objectives (Yukl They have been extensively studied in many different
© Jones & Bartlett
2010). Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett
organizational Learning,
contexts LLC
(e.g., corporations, militaries,

ChapTer 6: Contemporary Theories of Leadership 85
NOT FOR Table
SALE6-1
ORFull Range Leadership Model
DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Transformational leadership
Idealized influence Leaders serve as outstanding role models for their followers. They display
conviction, emphasize important personal values, and connect those values
with organizational LLC
goals and ethical consequences of© Jones & Bartlett
decisions. Learning, LLC
Inspirational motivation Leaders articulate an appealing vision of the future and challenge followers’ high
standards and high expectations. Leaders provide encouragement, optimism,
and purpose for what needs to be done.
Intellectual stimulation Leaders question old assumptions and stimulate new perspectives and
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLCways of doing things. They©encourage
innovative Jones &followers
Bartlett Learning,
to think creatively LLC
to
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONaddress current and future challenges.
Individualized consideration Leaders provide a supportive environment and carefully listen to followers’
needs. Leaders also advise, teach, or coach their followers with the intention of
advancing follower development.

Transactional leadershipLLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
Contingent reward Leaders offer followers rewards in exchange for desired efforts. Behaviors in this
category revolve around clarifying expectations and exchanging promises.
management by exception—active Leaders observe follower behavior and take corrective action when followers
deviate from expected performance.
management by exception—passive
NOT FOR SALELeadersOR
choose not to, or fail to, intervene until a problem
DISTRIBUTION becomes
NOT FORserious.
SALE In OR DISTRIBUTION
essence, leaders do not intervene until a problem is brought to their attention.
Laissez-faire leadership (nonleadership)

Laissez-faire leadership Leaders avoid accepting responsibility and delay or even fail to follow up on
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLCThis type of leader behavior
requests. © also
Jones & Bartlett
includes Learning,
little or no effort to LLC
address
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION followers’ needs. It is essentially an absence of leadership.
Sources: adapted from Bass (1997) and Northouse (2007).
NOT FOR government
SALE ORagencies, schools, and universities; Lowe,
DISTRIBUTION NOTtoFOR
demonstrate transformational leader behaviors com-
SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Kroeck, Sivasubramaniam, 1996) and cultures (e.g., the pared to executives holding higher-level positions. In
United States, Mexico, China, Japan, Indonesia, and Ger- addition, transformational leadership has been related to
many; Bass, 1997). objective measures, such as financial performance (Row-
Transformational leadership is not limited to the old & Heinitz, 2007), sales performance (Yammarino &
upper echelons of organizations. Lowe and coauthors Dubinsky, 1994), and percent of goals met (Howell &
(1996) examined 23 published and unpublished studies Avolio, 1993).
examining transformational and transactional leader- Extensive research has been conducted examining
ship. They found that leaders demonstrating transforma- the effect of transformational leader behaviors on follow-
tional leader behaviors were more effective than those ers and organizational outcomes. For example, Organ,
only demonstrating transactional leadership. Further-
Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006) found that transforma-
more, they found that transformational leader behaviors
tional leader behaviors effected organizational citizenship
were more common in public organizations compared behaviors among employees. Organizational citizenship
to private organizations as perceived by the leaders’ behaviors are discretionary behaviors that are outside
direct reports. The study also reported that leaders at normal “in-role” job functions. In the aggregate, they
© Jones &lower
Bartlett Learning,
levels of LLC
organizational hierarchy were more likely © Jones
promote & effective
Bartlettorganizational
Learning, functioning
LLC (Organ,

NOT FORreLaTIonaL
1988). Organ and coauthors (2006) reported that trans-
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION O
LeadershIp
formational leadership directly influenced employee
“altruism” citizenship behaviors. However, they also Leader–member exchange
found that transformational leader behaviors directly Original studies of LMX theory asserted that managers
affect employees’ trust in their leader, which in turn also develop differentiated relationships with direct reports
within their organizations. According to the theory,
enhances employees’ willingness to engage in other citi-
zenship behaviors, such as “sportsmanship,” “civic vir-
managers develop high-quality relationships with only a
tue,” and “conscientiousness.” few, high-trust direct reports. Managers reporting high-
Other studies explained the impact of transforma- quality relationships (in-groups) characterize the
tional leader behaviors on organizational outcomes dif- exchange with high mutual respect, trust, and obligation
© Jones
ferently. One&study
Bartlett
found Learning, LLC leader
that transformational on one end © Jones & Bartlett
of a continuum. Learning,
Low-quality LLC
relationships
NOT FOR
behaviors SALE
directly affect OR DISTRIBUTION
employee “psychological capital” NOT
(out-groups), FOR
at the SALE
other end of OR DISTRIBUTION
the spectrum, are char-
(Gooty, Gavin, Johnson, Frazier, & Snow, 2009). Posi- acterized by a relatively low degree of mutual respect,
tive psychological capital refers to positive-oriented trust, and obligation (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975).
human resource strengths and psychological capacities This theory was originally labeled “vertical dyad linkage”
that improve the workplace (Luthans, 2002). These © Jones & Bartlett
because it focused Learning, LLC
on the reciprocal influence of manag-
NOT FOR SALE ORinclude
capacities DISTRIBUTION
the dimensions of hope, self-efficacy, NOT FOR
ers andSALE ORreports
their direct DISTRIBUTION
within vertical dyads whereby
resiliency, and optimism. Psychological capital then one has direct authority over another (Yukl, 2010).
increases employees’ willingness to improve job perfor- There are tremendous advantages for direct reports who
mance and organizational citizenship behaviors directed establish high-quality relationships. They tend to receive
© Jones
at individuals and the & Bartlett
organization (Gooty et Learning,
al., 2009). LLC © Jones
more desirable tasks assignments; & Bartlett
are delegated Learning, LLC
greater
NOT FOR
Bass (1997) reviewed SALE
literature OR DISTRIBUTION
that examined trans- authority; receive greater NOT FOR
tangible SALE
rewards OR
(e.g., payDISTRIBUTION
formational leadership across cultures. He reported that increases); and receive greater approval and support.
although the mean and correlation strength may vary, the Scholars assert that the manager–direct report rela-
general pattern of the relationships between the transfor- tionship develops in a three-stage process described as a
© Jones
mational & dimensions
leader Bartlett Learning, LLC (e.g.,
on measured outcomes “life cycle© model”
Jones(Graen
& Bartlett Learning,
& Uhl-Bien, 1995).LLCThe
leader effectiveness, satisfaction, and extra effort) is the “stranger” NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
stage begins when leaders and members first
same. come together. This relationship is purely contractual in
However, there may be cultural contingencies on nature, whereby leaders provide members with what
how each of the categories of transformational leader they need, and members perform prescribed work activi-
behaviors may be demonstrated. Yokochi (1989) ties. In the “acquaintance” phase, the second of the life
reported that in a collectivist culture, such as Japan, cycle stages, there is an increase in social exchanges. The
there is an expectation that leaders will use individual- relationship begins to transcend formal job requirements
ized consideration. There is a mutual moral obligation as leaders and members share greater information on a
between leaders and followers. Leaders are expected to personal level, in addition to the work level. The third
help employees prepare for a career and counsel them and final phase is described as a “mature partnership.”
about personal problems, and followers reciprocate These exchanges are highly developed and characterized
with unquestioning loyalty and obedience. Addition- by a mutual sense of trust, respect, and obligation. Par-
ally, Bass (1997) reported on other studies conducted ticipants in such relationships can count on one another
across cultures that asked participants to describe their for loyalty and support. How a dyad advances through
prototypical leaders. Avolio and Bass (1990) conducted each of these stages varies. Some dyads may not progress
extensive leadership development programs across the
past the “stranger” phase and may maintain only the con-
globe (e.g., Canada, Italy, Israel, Sweden, and Austria)
tractually based relationship. Others may rapidly pro-
and found that when individuals describe their ideal gress to the “partnership” phase and achieve the
leaders, they commonly express transformational lead- tremendous advantages of a mature relationship.
ership qualities compared to transactional leadership LMX theory is one of the most widely studied leader-
© Jones & Bartlett
qualities. Learning, LLC © Jones
ship&models.
Bartlett Learning,
Gerstner and Day LLC
(1997) conducted a

review of all published research on LMX and reported People who have studied LMX have sought to assist
that high-quality LMX was positively related to such vari- managers in developing high-quality relationships with
ables as performance ratings, objective performance, all members (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Expanding
satisfaction with supervisor, overall satisfaction, organi- high-quality LMX beyond the typical select few who
zational commitment, and role clarity. It was also posi- develop naturally provides two valuable benefits. First,
tively related to organizational citizenship behaviors it increases the perception of fairness among members
(Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Low-quality LMX
and decreases suspicions of favoritism. Second, it
proved to be positively related to such variables as role increases the potential for “effective leadership and
conflict and turnover intentions. expanded organizational capability” (p. 229). Realisti-
There are many factors that influence the develop- cally, managers still develop differing relationships with
ment©ofJones & Bartlett
high-quality Learning,
LMX. Research indicatesLLC
that greater © Jones
their direct reports. & Bartlett
Although Learning,
theoretical models pro-LLC
NOT FOR
demographic SALE
similarity OR DISTRIBUTION
between the manager and direct pose potential NOT FOR SALE
organizational (e.g.,OR DISTRIBUTION
organizational cul-
reports, such as gender (Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986; ture and organizational structure), group (e.g.,
Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996), personality (Burns, composition and size), and individual (e.g., leadership
1995; Deluga, 1998), and attitudes (Dose, 1999; Steiner, style and employees’ desire for a high-quality relation-
© Jones &1988),
Bartlett Learning, LLC
were positively related to high-quality LMX. © Jones & Bartlett
ship) antecedents to Learning, LLC and potential
LMX differentiation
NOT FOR Other
research focused on leader characteristics, such as NOToutcomes
(Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, & Chaudhry,
attitudes, perceptions, and behavior, in the LMX relation- 2009), further research is required to understand how
ship. For example, leader qualities, such as trust-building these many different elements affect the development of
behavior (Deluga, 1994) and delegation (Bauer & Green, LMX differentiation.
© Jones
1996), leader self-efficacy, & Bartlett
and optimism Learning,
(Murphy & LLCIt is important to note that © nearly
Jones all &
of Bartlett
the theory Learning, LLC
NOT FOR
Ensher, 1999) were positively SALE
related ORquality.
to LMX DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR
development and research examining LMX SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
quality has
Additional studies found that member characteristics, been performed with the assumption of hierarchical rela-
such as extraversion (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994), locus of tionships based on formal authority and reporting struc-
control (Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994), self-efficacy (Murphy tures. Research is beginning to integrate both formally
© Jones
& Ensher, & Bartlett
1999), ingratiationLearning, LLC 1994;
(Deluga & Perry, structured and© Jones
informal&relationships.
Bartlett Learning,
Sparrowe and LLC
Wayne, Liden, & Sparrowe, 1994), “in-role” behavior Liden (1997) NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
theorized that leaders’ and members’ infor-
(Basu & Green, 1995), and subordinate performance mal social networks affect the quality of LMX. Each is
(Basu & Green, 1995; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993) able to incorporate the other, through introductions and
were positively related to LMX quality. Finally, research referrals, to their respective network of trusted contacts.
examined the role of situational variables in the develop- As result, the added relational resources were theorized
NOT FOR ment
SALE of LMX. Perceived organizational support was posi-
OR DISTRIBUTION NOTtoFOR
enhance the work-related outcomes of the dyad mem-
tively related to high-quality LMX (Wayne, Shore, & bers. Further, Balkundi, and Kilduff (2005) asserted that
Liden, 1997). Unit size was negatively related to high- the range of one’s social network across organizational
quality LMX (Green et al., 1996). This means that the boundaries will enhance personal benefits and organiza-
larger the departmental unit, the less likely leaders were tional outcomes.
to develop high-quality LMX relationships. Research supports the notion that the breadth of one’s
informal social network positively affects LMX quality
when the other member of the dyad is frequently sought
Leadership Points to Ponder
for advice (Goodwin, Bowler, & Whittington, 2008). This
The single biggest way to impact an organization is to indicates that leaders also recognize the value of members’
© Jones
focus & Bartlett
on leadership Learning,
development. There isLLC
almost no © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
social networks to the workings of the organization. Addi-
NOT
limit FOR
to the SALE
potential OR
of an DISTRIBUTION
organization that recruits NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
tionally, group leaders who were well connected in a
good people, raises them up as leaders and continu-
friendship network of their peers at the same level in the
ally develops them.
organization outperformed their peers who were not as
John C. Maxwell
highly connected (Mehra, Dixon, Brass, & Robertson,
The 17 Indisputable
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LawsLLC
of Teamwork (2001, p. 185) © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
2006). This was likely because highly connected leaders

have “better and faster access to information, advice and being passive, submissive, and directed. After conducting
support” (p. 74). an exhaustive review of leadership theory and research,
Relational leadership is another emerging view of Rost summarized the industrial paradigm definition of
leadership that focuses on processes, not on persons, by leadership as: “great men and women with certain pre-
which “leadership is produced and enabled” (Uhl-Bien, ferred traits influencing followers to do what the leaders
2006). Relational leadership theory is defined as “a social wish in order to achieve group/organizational goals that
influence process through which emergent conditions
reflect excellence defined as some kind of higher-order
(i.e., evolving social order) and change (i.e., new values, effectiveness” (Rost, 1993, p. 180).
attitudes, approaches, behaviors, ideologies, etc.) are Rost contrasted the industrial paradigm of leader-
constructed and produced” (p. 668). It assumes that ship with the radically different approach in the postin-
© Jones
leadership can&occur
Bartlett
in any Learning,
direction. FromLLC
this perspec- dustrial © Jones
age, which& characterized
Bartlett Learning,leadershipLLC as
tive, “it is possible to see relationships other than those NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
relationship-based and focused on the noncoercive inter-
built from hierarchy . . . and to envision transformational action of leaders and followers who develop common
phenomenon where the social change process occurs interests. Based on this perspective, Rost redefined lead-
well outside the normal assumptions of command and ership as “an influence relationship among leaders and
control (Murrell, 1997, p. 39). © Jones & Bartlett
followers Learning,
who intend LLC that reflect their
real changes
NOT FOR SALEAlthough
OR DISTRIBUTION
the knowledge gained from these studies NOT FOR
mutualSALE OR(Rost,
purposes” DISTRIBUTION
1993, p. 102). There are four
and insights developed from theoretical models proves critical elements that comprise this definition of leader-
fruitful for leader–member relationships in the context of ship, and each component is essential in understanding
organizations, the understanding of leader–member rela- the postindustrial perspective: (1) the relationship is
tionships based on © Jones
informal & Bartlett
networks Learning,
and other relation- LLC © Jones
based on influence, (2) leaders & Bartlett
and followers Learning, LLC
are partici-
ships that transcend NOT FOR SALE
organizations OR DISTRIBUTION
in community-level pants in this relationship, (3)NOT FOR
leaders SALE intend
and followers OR DISTRIBUTION
leadership initiatives is severely limited. One can draw real changes, and (4) leaders and followers develop
inferences from the current LMX literature and other mutual purposes.
relational leadership theory, but further research is
© Jones
required & Bartlett
to more Learning,
comprehensively LLC the pro-
understand ©Leadership
Jones & Bartlett
Points toLearning,
Ponder LLC
cess of how relationships develop and their role in the You must NOTuniteFOR SALE ORaround
your constituents DISTRIBUTION
a common
leadership process. cause and connect with them as human beings.
James Kouzes and Barry Posner
(from http://www.youreffectiveleadership.com)
O
posT
© Jones & Bartlett IndusTrIaL
Learning, LLC LeadershIp © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
Joseph Rost (1993)
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION is credited with shifting scholars’ focus
from what he described as the industrial paradigm of lead- relationships Based on Influence
ership theory to the postindustrial paradigm. The subject A leadership relationship must be based on influence,
of leadership did not exist before the 1890s, and the study which is characterized as a process of using persuasion to
of leadership has been a predominantly twentieth-century affect other people. Although persuasion is largely com-
phenomena (Rost, 1997). Since that time, the basic ideas posed of rational discourse, it may also include other
of leadership, in his view, had not changed much. He aspects of “power resources,” such as content of the mes-
sharply criticized the popular assumptions about leader- sage, purpose, symbolic interaction, perception, and
ship at the time, which he described as (1) leadership is motivation. Influence relationships are multidirectional,
what great people do, (2) leadership and management are meaning they involve interactions that are vertical, hori-
interchangeable, and (3) the terms “leadership” and zontal, diagonal, and circular. This implies that anyone
can be a leader or a follower, because leaders persuade
“leader” are synonymous.
The concept of leadership in the industrial paradigm followers and followers influence leaders. In the postin-
was bound up with what leaders do; the assumption was dustrial paradigm, leaders and followers can actually
that no one else mattered. Therefore, followers had noth- switch places. Furthermore, relationships based on influ-
ing to do with leadership and were typically perceived as© Jones
ence&areBartlett
inherentlyLearning,
noncoercive.LLC
Coercion is antithetical

NOTChanges reflectOR
mutual Interests
to leadership because, according to Rost, it relies on
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION FOR SALE DISTRIBUTION
authority or a power relationship that is dictatorial. Rost The final component of the postindustrial paradigm of
(1993) described dictatorial relationships as using people leadership focuses on mutual purposes. For purposes to
as objects, not as persons. As such, dictatorial relation- be mutual, they cannot rely solely on what leaders want
ships keep people in subservient roles. Freedom is neces- or only on what the followers want. These mutual pur-
sary in influence relationships. poses emerge only through repeated and numerous inter-
actions between leaders and followers. Rost carefully
Leaders and followers are participants chooses the term “purposes” rather than “goals” because
Leadership is a social process; therefore, leaders interact purposes are generally considered broader and more
with other people. In the postindustrial paradigm, fol- holistic and more closely related to the terms “vision” or
© Jones
lowers & Bartlett
are no longer viewed as Learning,
“the sweatyLLC masses” or © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
“mission.” Through noncoercive influence relationships,
NOT
willing FOR
to let otherSALE OR DISTRIBUTION
people control their lives. Rather, fol- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
leaders and followers come to agreement and forge com-
lowers must be active participants in the leadership pro- mon interests and mutual purposes (Rost, 1997).
cess. Followers may fall anywhere on the continuum of Proponents of the postindustrial paradigm of leader-
the level of activity, but the important point is their will- ship also criticize leadership models purporting to view
© Jones &ingness
Bartlett
to beLearning,
involved in LLCthe process and engage their © Jones & Bartlett
leadership as a social Learning,
process, such as LLCtheories that focus
NOT FOR power
SALEresources
OR DISTRIBUTION
to influence other people. According to NOTonFOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
the dyadic relationship (e.g., LMX) between managers
Rost (1993), followers do not “do followership.” Rather, and their direct reports (Barker, 1997).
the interactions between leaders and followers comprise
the leadership relationship. This does not mean that lead- This concept of leadership is founded in the feudal
© Jones
ers and followers are equal & BartlettTypically,
in this relationship. Learning, LLCtouchstone of citizenship: one’s © Jones & Bartlett
relationship with Learning, LLC
NOT FOR
leaders have more influence because SALE
they areOR DISTRIBUTION
willing to one’s king. This relationship implies several assump-
share (or perhaps even risk) more power resources than tions: (a) that the king deserves allegiance by virtue
followers. However, there may be times when followers of rank, (b) that there is a natural, hierarchical dif-
exert more influence in the relationship, particularly ference in status, intelligence, and ability, (c) and
when© they
Jones seize&theBartlett
initiative Learning,
and drive the LLCpurposes in that the ©subject’s
Jones role &
is to serve the Learning,
Bartlett king’s wishes. LLC
the NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
relationship. (Barker, NOT
1997, p.FOR
350) SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Barker differentiated leadership as a social relation-

participants Intend real Change ship and leadership as a social process. He asserted that
There are two critical terms in this component of Rost’s
leadership as a social relationship tends to be contractual
definition of leadership: intend and real. “Intend” indi-
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett
in nature based on role Learning,
expectations.LLC However, leader-
NOT FOR cates
SALE that leaders and followers are purposeful and desire
OR DISTRIBUTION NOTship
FOR as aSALE OR DISTRIBUTION
social process, which includes social relation-
certain changes in an organization or society. Because
ships, is much broader in that it provides flexibility in the
persons typically evaluate others’ intentions by their
creation of new relationships, roles, and expectations
words and deeds, intention must be demonstrated by
where none may have existed. These relationships look
action. The word “real” means that the purposes intended
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, far LLC © Jones structures
beyond hierarchical, organizational & Bartlett to Learning, LLC
by leaders and followers must be significant and trans-
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION include informal social networks NOT FOR
(within andSALE
outside OR
an DISTRIBUTION
forming. The postindustrial definition of leadership does
organizational context) and intraorganizational relation-
not require participants to produce the changes for lead-
ships, among other types of relationships not based on
ership to occur. Whereas intended changes are in the
formal authority connections. Barker likened the leader-
present and changes actually take place in the future (if
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC ship process© to Jones
a river: & Bartlett Learning, LLC
at all), Rost’s definition focuses more on the leadership
process than the actual product or outcomes of the pro-
Contained by its bed (the culture), it can be said to be
cess. “A relationship wherein leaders and followers intend flowing in one direction, yet, upon close examination,
real changes but are unsuccessful or ineffective, or parts of it flow sideways, in circles, or even back-
achieve only minimum changes, is still leadership” (Rost, wards relative to the overall direction. It is constantly
© Jones &1993,
p. 116). © Jones & Bartlett
changing Learning,
in speed and strength, andLLC
even reshapes its

own container. Under certain conditions, it is very behavior. The first dimension describes the degree to
unified in direction and very powerful; under other which followers exercise independent and critical think-
conditions it may be weak or may flow in many ing. The second ranks them on a passive–active scale.
directions at once. (Barker, 1997, p. 352) Based on the two dimensions, four categories of followers
emerge (Figure 6-1).
© Jones
The postindustrial paradigm &ofBartlett
leadershipLearning,
developed LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
Sheep, according to Kelley, are passive and are gen-
by Rost and othersNOT FOR SALE
has tremendous ORand
intuitive DISTRIBUTION
practi- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
erally unwilling to accept responsibility. They typically
cal appeal and offers valuable potential for leadership
complete tasks given to them but rarely demonstrate ini-
education. Effective leadership curricula ought to include
tiative beyond those tasks. “Yes” people are more involved
three broad categories: (1) evolution of social change and
but are equally unwilling to demonstrate innovation or
development,
© Jones &(2) processesLearning,
Bartlett influencing LLCsocial change,
creativity.©Alienated
Jonesfollowers
& Bartlett Learning,
express critical andLLC
inde-
and (3) dynamics of human
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION nature in change processes NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
pendent thinking but are passive in their roles; at some
(Rost & Barker, 2000).
point, they were turned off. Although they rarely openly
Unfortunately, scholars have been slow to embrace
oppose the leader, they are often cynical and disgruntled.
the postindustrial paradigm of leadership. One recent
At the center of the diagram are survivors. They tend to
study examined
© Jones & Bartlett historical
Learning, LLCrecords to describe the context© Jones &andBartlett
adapt survive Learning,
change well butLLCoften live by the slo-
and process of
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION the Nez Perce leadership council as an
gan “better safe than sorry.” Effective followers, at the
exemplar of the paradigm (Humphreys, Ingram, Kernek,
upper right quadrant of the diagram, effectively think for
& Sadler, 2007). However, few have empirically investi-
themselves in carrying out tasks and bring energy and
gated it to confirm or disprove the veracity of its compo-
enthusiasm while demonstrating initiative and assertive-
nents. Perhaps this perspective of leadership does not
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones
ness. Four qualities are shared & Bartlett
by effective Learning, LLC
followers:
lend itself well to rational, scientific inquiry. If leadership
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION (1) they manage themselvesNOT FOR
well; (2) they SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
are committed
is defined as a social process (as identified by Barker),
to the organization or purpose outside themselves;
one must view relationships and their potential creation
(3) they build their competence; and (4) they are coura-
and dissolution as a rather nebulous construct. This
geous, credible, and honest.
causes tremendous challenges for scholars
applying the scientific method to not only
describe its nature, but also predict potential
NOT FOR
Independent, SALE
Critical OR DISTRIBUTION
Thinking
antecedents and outcomes.
O
foLLowershIp © JonesAlienated
& Bartlett Learning, Effective
Followers
LLC
Followers
NOT FOR SALE
To raise theDISTRIBUTION
OR importance of the role of follow- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
ers in the leadership process, researchers
have proposed several theories that describe
Passive Survivors Active
the leadership capacities of followers. This is
not to minimize the©relevance
Jonesof&leaders,
Bartlett
but Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT FOR SALE
rather to enhance the understanding of the OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
vital role that followers play in the leadership
relationship.
Sheep “Yes” People
© Jonesfollowership
effective & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT (1988)
Kelley FOR SALE
asserted OR DISTRIBUTION
that what differenti- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
ated effective from ineffective followers were Dependent, Uncritical Thinking
their enthusiasm, intelligence, and self-
Source: Kelley (1998).
reliant participation. He described a two-
dimensional model thatLLCexplained follower figure©6-1 Follower
Jones behavior.Learning, LLC
& Bartlett

Effective followers tend to be actively involved in the 3. Courage to challenge: followers who engage in
life of the organization. They openly disagree with the potential conflict as they voice their sense of what
leader and are not intimidated by hierarchy. Because they is right. Effective followers may risk rejection but
demonstrate initiative, they rarely need elaborate super- nonetheless are willing to stand up for their beliefs.
visory systems. Effective followers display commitment Although courageous followers value organizational
to a cause, product, or idea; however, they temper their harmony, they are willing to confront when
loyalties to satisfy organizational needs.
individual or organizational activities violate the
Effective followers master important knowledge and common purpose or integrity.
skills necessary for their organization. These followers 4. Courage to participate in transformation: followers
happily take on extra work that stretches their current who are involved in organizational transformation.
© Jones
capacities because& Bartlett
they do notLearning, LLCfailure.
mind chancing © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
Courageous followers may even serve as champions
NOTeffective
Further, FOR followers
establish themselves as cred- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
of organizational change, while still struggling with
ible and trustworthy and hold to ethical standards in the discomfort and disequilibrium of the change
which they believe. process themselves.
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC 5. Courage

© Jones to take moral
& Bartlett action: followers
Learning, LLC who know
NOT FOR SALE OR Leadership Points to Ponder
DISTRIBUTION NOT FORwhenSALE
to take OR
a stand that is different from that of
DISTRIBUTION
The signs of outstanding leadership appear primarily their leaders. This dimension of courage may put
among the followers. Are the followers reaching their followers at risk because they may refuse a direct
potential? Are they learning? Serving? Do they order, may seek to go above the leader’s head, or
achieve the required results? Do they change with
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLCmay submit a resignation. © Courageous followers are
Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
grace? Manage conflict? motivated by a higher purpose and are unwilling to
Max De Pree (from Leadership is an Art, 2004) compromise moral principles even in the face of
tremendous risk to themselves.
Challeff described courageous followers as pos-
Courageous
© Jonesfollowership
& Bartlett Learning, LLC sessing tremendous
© Jones power. Granted, Learning,
& Bartlett followers do not
LLC
Challeff (1995) also asserted that “follower” is not a syn- possess formal power equal to that of leaders (1995).
onym for “subordinate.” Followers are effective stewards However, courageous followers appeal to other sources
for the organization and its resources. Challeff describes of power that are quite different from those of the leader.
five dimensions of courage that are essential to effective There is a wide range of followers’ power:
followership: Power
O of purpose, common good
1. Courage to assume responsibility: followers who
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT OFOR SALE
Power OR DISTRIBUTION
of knowledge, skills, or resources
discover and create new opportunities for
themselves. They do not take a paternalistic view of
O Power of personal history, record of personal
their organization whereby they expect their success in the organization
supervisors to provide for their growth or O Power of faith in self, integrity, commitment
permission to act.
LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
O Power to speak the truth
2. Courage to serve: followers who are willing to work O Power to set a standard that influences others
hard and serve their leader and organization.
Effective followers display numerous behaviors in
O Power to choose how to react in situations
this dimension of courageous followership. For regardless of what is done or threatened
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC O © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
Power to follow (or not)
instance, followers can help the leader define and
communicate the vision of the organization to all
O Power of relationships and networks
levels (Challeff, 2002). Courage to serve can also O Power to communicate through many channels
encompass behaviors intended to “conserve the
leader’s energy” by perhaps serving as a buffer and
O Power to organize others
© Jones & Bartlett
managing Learning,
crises on theLLC
leader’s behalf. © Jones & Bartlett
O Power Learning,
to withdraw support LLC

Numerous other conceptual models regarding effec- Servant leadership, in essence, is a philosophic
tive followership have been published in the academic approach to life and work. Put differently, Spears (1995)
literature and popular press. Baker (2007) reviewed the stated, “at its core, servant-leadership is a long-term,
various followership models and discovered that they transformational approach to life and work, in essence, a
shared four primary themes. First, followers and leaders way of being that has the potential to create positive
are roles, not people with inherent characteristics. Most change throughout society” (p. 4). Servant leadership is a
individuals, regardless of their positions in an organiza-
long-term pursuit of the improvement of corporate cul-
tional structure, have played the roles of both follower tures and is not consistent with short-run profit motives
and leader in their organizations. Second, followers are (Giampetro-Meyer, Brown, Browne, & Kubasek, 1998).
active, not passive. This is contrary to popular views that Spears built on Greenleaf’s original writing by iden-
© Jones
followers & Bartlett
are passive, Learning,
obedient LLC
sheep. Demonstrating fol- tifying 10© Jones & of
characteristics Bartlett Learning,
the servant leader. LLC
NOT FOR
lowership SALE
requires both OR DISTRIBUTION
parties (leaders and followers) to NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
1. Listening: The deep, heartfelt commitment to
be active participants in the leader–follower relationship. listening intently to others.
Third, followers and leaders share a common purpose. 2. Empathy: Recognizing and accepting people for
Common purpose emerges out of an interdependent their special talents, gifts, and unique spirit.
leader–follower LLCParticipants in followership
relationship. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
3. Healing: People may have broken spirits or a
NOT FOR SALE
remainOR DISTRIBUTION
committed to organizational goals. Finally, fol- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
variety of emotional hurts, thus an essential gift of
lowership is built on the relational nature of both leaders the servant leader is not only to heal one’s self, but
and followers. The relationship is a two-way influence also to assist in the healing of others.
process. This collaborative partnership values the contri-
4. Awareness: Refers primarily to self-awareness,
© Jones
butions of both leaders & Bartlett Learning, LLC
and followers. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
which aides and strengthens the servant leader by
Howell and ShamirNOT(2005)
FOR contended
SALE OR thatDISTRIBUTION
“under- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
providing an understanding of issues from a well-
standing followers is as important as understanding lead-
developed sense of ethics and values.
ers” (p. 110). Yukl (2010) rightly asserted that theories
5. Persuasion: Servant leaders seek to convince rather
focusing almost exclusively on leaders or on followers are
than coerce and can be thought of as a “gentle
© Jones
limiting, & Bartlett
especially comparedLearning, LLC explana-
to more balanced © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
persuasion” by challenging others to think of issues
tions. Nonetheless, followership offers useful insights by NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
in different perspectives.
describing qualities that are important for followers to be
6. Conceptualization: The capacity to “dream great
effectively engaged in the leadership process.
dreams.” The servant leader is able to envision the
future not only in the context of the individual,
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning,
organization,LLC
O
NOT FOR SALEservanT LeadershIp
OR DISTRIBUTION
work
NOT FORcontext
group, or
SALEof OR DISTRIBUTION
but also within the
the societal realm.
Greenleaf (1977) proposed the concept of servant lead-
ership. For Greenleaf, the primary responsibility of lead- 7. Foresight: The ability that enables servant leaders to
ers is to provide service to others. Spears (1995) asserted glean lessons from the past, within the realities of
that the servant leader emphasizes “service to others, a the present, and understand potential consequences
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC of future decisions. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
holistic approach to work, a sense of community, and
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT that
8. Stewardship: The perspective FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
corporate
shared decision making power” (pp. 3–4). For the ser-
vant leader, taking care of other people’s needs takes institutions play a significant and vital role in
highest priority. Greenleaf (1977) described a series of affecting the greater good of society.
questions that serve as a litmus test of the servant leader: 9. Commitment to growth of people: Every individual
has an intrinsic worth beyond their contributions as
“Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being
workers. Servant leaders seek the holistic growth
served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autono-
mous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, and development of others.
what is the effect on the least privileged of society; will 10. Building community: The servant leader takes
they benefit, or at least, not be further deprived?” (pp. advantage of opportunities to create community in
© Jones & Bartlett
13–14). Learning, LLC © Jones &theBartlett
context of Learning, LLC
the given work institution.

Leadership Points to Ponder serve the good of followers (Graham, 1991). Transforma-
tional leaders are typically more concerned with organi-
We must be silent before we can listen.
zational goals.
We must listen before we can learn. Servant leadership, according to Graham (1991),
We must learn before we can prepare. restores the moral compass articulated by Burns’s (1978)
We must prepare before we can serve. perspective of “transforming leadership.” Burns asserted
that effective (transforming) leaders focus on the ethical
We must serve before we can lead.
William Arthur Ward (from http://thinkexist.com) aspirations of both the leader and the led and stress end-
values, such as liberty, justice, and equality. Servant lead-
ership addresses this issue by focusing on the
© Jones
Graham & Bartlett
(1991) compared Learning, LLCservant
and contrasted leader–follower© Jones & Bartlett
relationship and on theLearning, LLC
ideal of service.
NOT FOR
leadership SALE
with other OR theories
popular DISTRIBUTION
of leadership to Graham (1991) NOT FOR“leaders
asserted, SALEwho ORnotDISTRIBUTION
only listen to
explain the moral gaps in the other leadership theories. subordinates and other stakeholders, but allow them-
“Weberian charismatic authority” refers to individuals selves to be influenced by what they hear, are more pow-
who gain and maintain their authority by proving their erful than those who rule by fiat” (p. 112). Servant
© Jones &powers
to be a divinely inspired mission (Weber, 1978). © Jones & Bartlett
leadership Learning,
extends Bass’s LLCtheory of trans-
(1985, 1988)
NOT FOR The
genuineness of charismatic leaders’ authority rests NOTformational
leadership in two ways: it recognizes the
on how well they provide for the well-being of followers. social responsibility in the call to serve, and it answers
Charismatic authority often emerges from periods of tre- the question, Why should people grow even if they do
mendous crisis, such as great socioeconomic unrest, not want to? (Graham, 1991). Greenleaf’s (1977) claim
© Jones
when traditional authorities fail to&meet
Bartlett
people’sLearning,
needs. LLCpeople should be served by©someone
that Joneswho & Bartlett
influences Learning, LLC
Charismatic leaders offer NOT FOR SALE
a “divinely inspired”OR DISTRIBUTION
vision and them to become wiser, freer, and NOTmoreFOR SALE“isOR
autonomous to DISTRIBUTION
perhaps even practical solutions with them in charge say that it is in people’s interest to change in those ways”
(Tucker, 1968). (Graham, 1991, p. 113; Table 6-2).
Personal celebrity charisma is a slightly different ver- Servant leadership may be effective leadership the-
sion©ofJones & Bartlett
charismatic Learning,
leadership. House (1977)LLC asserted © Jones
ory that possesses nearly&universal
Bartlett Learning,
cultural LLC
appeal. Ser-
thatNOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
it required four personal characteristics: “domi- vant leaders NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
focus more on humility, the needs of others,
nance, self-confidence, need for influence, and a strong and higher-order values, such as duty and social respon-
conviction in the moral righteousness of his or her sibility, than on self-interest. Humane orientation refers
beliefs” (p. 205). Leaders with personal celebrity cha- to the concern for the welfare of other people and will-
risma commonly occupy higher levels of organizations ingness to sacrifice self-interest to help others (House,
NOT FOR with
SALE greater visibility. Followers are more likely to attri-
OR DISTRIBUTION NOTHanges,
FOR SALE Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). As such,
OR DISTRIBUTION
bute the “aura of magic” to those who are at greater orga- Winston and Ryan (2008) persuasively argue that servant
nizational distance because, according to Katz and Kahn leadership is compatible with the humane-oriented cul-
(1978), intimacy destroys the illusion. Followers of this ture that resonates with some African (Ubuntu, Haram-
type of leader often respond with adulation and emula- bee), East Asian (Taoist, Confucianism), Mediterranean
tion, but over time followers become addicted to passiv- (Jewish), and Indian (Hindu) cultures.
ity (Graham, 1991). Unfortunately, servant leadership has limited empir-
Transformational leadership incorporated some ical research to support its effectiveness. Yukl (2010)
principles of charismatic leadership theory but added noted that much of the evidence for servant leadership is
leader behaviors, such as individualized consideration based on anecdotal accounts and case studies of leaders
and intellectual stimulation. These changes in leadership
or organizations. Only recently have questionnaires been
theory occurred because scholars began to recognize and
created (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Liden, Wayne, Zhao,
value the contributions of followers by recognizing that & Henderson, 2008); however, they are at the early
subordinates (often labeled as “followers”) were educated stages of development.
with the capacity for creativity. However, there is nothing The few empirical studies that have been published
© Jones &inBartlett Learning,
transformational LLCthat says leaders should © Jones
leadership suggest&thatBartlett
servantLearning,
leadership mayLLCbe a promising

Table 6-2 Comparison of
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION “Charismatic” Leadership Models
weberian
Charismatic Celebrity-Based Transformational
authority Charisma Leadership servant Leadership
Source of charisma
© Jones & Bartlett
Divine gift
Learning, LLCLeader training and skills ©Humility,
Personality; social
Jonesspiritual
& Bartlett
insight
Learning, LLC
distance NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Situational context Socioeconomic Low self-esteem of Unilateral (hierarchical) Relational (mutual) power
distress of followers followers power
Nature of Visionary solution to Daring; dramatic flair; Vision for organization; Vision and practice of a
© Jones & Bartlett
charismatic gift distress
Learning, LLC
forcefulness;
© Jones & Bartlett
adept at human
Learning, LLC
way of life focused on
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION appealing vision NOT
resource FOR SALEservice
management OR DISTRIBUTION
Response of Recognition of Adulation of and Heightened motivation; Emulation of leader’s
followers genuine divine gift identification with extra effort service orientation
leader
© Jones & Bartlettof Learning,
Consequences LLC
Followers’ material Codependent © Jones & Bartlett
Leader Learning,
or organizational LLC and moral
Autonomy
charisma well-being improved relationship NOT
with FORgoals
SALEmet; OR DISTRIBUTION
personal development of
leader perpetuated development of followers; enhancement
followers of common good
Applicability to work No Yes Yes Yes

organizations © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
Representative NOTWeber
Tucker; FOR SALEConger
OR DISTRIBUTION
& Kanungo; Bass & associates; NOT FOR
Burns’s SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
“transforming
authors and House; Howell’s Bradford & Cohen; leaders”; Greenleaf
concepts “personalized Howell’s “socialized
charisma”; Schiffer charisma”
Leadership ©Quarterly,
Jones 2 (2),&107, Graham, Jill W. (1991) Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. reprinted with permission from
Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
elsevier.
© Jones & Bartlett

leadershipLearning, LLC
perspective. Dimensions © Jones
of servant leadership & in
others Bartlett Learning,
such a way that leadersLLC
and followers raise one
are related to positive outcomes in job performance, NOT FOR SALE
another OR levels
to higher DISTRIBUTION
of motivation and morality”
organizational commitment, and community commit- (1978, p. 20). This view lifts up the role of the follower
ment (Liden et al., 2008). In another study, elements of to active participant in the leadership process. Followers
servant leadership were positively related to other orga- are active in that they engage with leaders to develop
nizational outcomes,
© such as extra
Jones effort, employee
& Bartlett satis- LLC
Learning, mutual interests based on common
© Jones values
& and needs. Learning, LLC
Bartlett
faction, and organizational effectiveness (Barbuto
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION & The work of Bass and others
NOT FOR SALEconcept
refined Burns’s OR DISTRIBUTION
Wheeler, 2006). Nonetheless, further research is required of leadership and differentiated transformational leader-
to confirm the effectiveness of servant leadership. ship from transactional leadership. Transactional leader-
ship refers to activities aimed at helping to clarify
expectations and desired outcomes. It comprises catego-
ONOT summary
FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION ries of behaviors,
NOT FOR such as contingent reward, manage-
ment by exception—active, and management by
Burns revolutionized the understanding of effective lead- exception—passive. Transformational leader behaviors,
ership by conceptualizing it as transforming, a condition however, are intended to help instill confidence and
that occurs when “one or more persons engage with enthusiasm in followers to rise above (transcend) what

they believe they would normally be capable of doing. own competence, and are credible and honest. Challeff
Categories of transformational leader behaviors include (1995) also described the courage that effective followers
idealized influence, individualized consideration, inspi- must demonstrate. His model depicted effective followers
rational motivation, and intellectual stimulation. as displaying the courage to assume responsibility, the
Rost strongly criticized much of the prior leadership courage to serve, the courage to challenge, the courage to
theory and scholarship by characterizing it as largely participate in transformation, and the courage to take
developed from an industrial paradigm. He asserted that moral action.
scholars and practitioners of leadership need to recon- Developed by Greenleaf, servant leadership is a
ceptualize it for the postindustrial age in which we live. model of leadership that describes leaders who are moti-
He defined the postindustrial paradigm of leadership as vated primarily by providing service to others and taking
“an © Jonesrelationship
influence & Bartlett Learning,
among LLC
leaders and followers care of other © Jones
people’s & first.
needs Bartlett Learning,
According LLC
to Greenleaf,
whoNOTintendFOR SALE that
real changes ORreflect
DISTRIBUTION
their mutual pur- NOT
the ultimate test of aFOR
servantSALE
leader isOR DISTRIBUTION
whether those being
poses” (1993, p. 102). Rost’s paradigm comprises four served were likely to “become healthier, wiser, freer,
critical elements: (1) leadership is based on influence more autonomous, more likely themselves to become ser-
(not coercion or authority); (2) leaders and followers are vants” (Greenleaf, 1977, pp. 13–14). Spears asserted that
© Jones &people
in this relationship; (3) leaders and followers © Jones
servant& Bartlettrequires
leadership Learning,
“serviceLLC
to others, a holistic
NOT FOR intend
SALEreal OR DISTRIBUTION
change; and (4) leaders and followers develop NOTapproach
FOR SALE OR
to work, DISTRIBUTION
a sense of community, and shared
mutual interests. decision making power” (1995, pp. 3–4). Spears built on
With the elevated status of the important role of fol- Greenleaf’s original writing by identifying 10 characteris-
lowers, several models have sought to explain the specific tics of the servant leader: (1) listening, (2) empathy, (3)
© Jones
roles of followers. According & Bartlett
to Kelley Learning, healing,
(1988), effective LLC (4) awareness, (5) persuasion,
(6) conceptualiza-
NOT FOR
followers manage themselves SALE
well, are OR DISTRIBUTION
committed to the NOT (9)
tion, (7) foresight, (8) stewardship, FOR SALE OR
commitment to DISTRIBUTION
organization or purposes outside themselves, build their growth of people, and (10) building community.

NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION ChNOT
apter
6
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION wrap-up NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
O aCTIvITy 3. Does the leader instill pride in the followers? How

does this occur?
Transformational Leadership
Select a leader you consider to be highly effective. The
© Jones
4. Are followers more& Bartlettand
enthusiastic Learning, LLC
eager for the
person you select could be from your work or work toNOT FOR
be done? SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Explain.
organization. 5. Are the followers willing to exert extra effort for
Describe the leader. the leader?
1. Explain how the leader is emotionally expressive. 6. Explain how the leader inspires innovative thinking
2. Describe how clearly the leader articulates a vision
© Jonesto&problems.
for the future.
Leader–member relationships
3. Detail how the leader communicates optimism and Ask three employees in your organization (individuals
confidence in followers to achieve excellence. who report directly to you) to complete the following
4. Illustrate how the leader displays exceptional survey regarding the quality of LMX &(F igure 6-2).Learning, LLC
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones Bartlett
conceptual skills in approaching challenges in novel Answer the reflection questions.
and unique ways. 1. Describe the highlights of your employees’
5. Explain how the leader is able to draw out the best perceptions regarding the LMX quality with you.
from the followers. 2. Which specific areas of your relationship with them
© Describe
Jones the reaction of Learning,
& Bartlett followers. LLC could ©
be Jones
improved?& Bartlett Learning, LLC
NOT
1. FORonSALE
Elaborate OR DISTRIBUTION
the followers’ reaction to the leader. NOTcan
3. What steps FOR SALE
you take ORimprove
to help DISTRIBUTION
the
2. Are followers likely to respect and admire the quality of LMX with your employees during the
leader? Explain. next month?
96

ChapTer 6: Wrap-Up 97
NOT FOR SALE
affect OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
1. I like my supervisor very much as a person. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. My supervisor is the kind of person I would like to 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

have as a friend.
3. My supervisor is aNOT
lot of FOR SALE
fun to work with.OR
DISTRIBUTION
0 1 2 3 NOT
4 FOR 5 SALE6 OR DISTRIBUTION
Loyalty
4. My supervisor defends my work actions to a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
superior, even without complete knowledge of the
© Jones
issue & Bartlett Learning, LLC
in question. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
5. My supervisor would come to my defense if I were 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
“attacked” by others.
6. My supervisor would defend me to others in the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

organization if I made an honest mistake.
Contribution
7. I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
what is specified in my job description.
8. I am willing to apply extra effort, beyond those 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

normally required,©toJones
meet my&supervisor’s
Bartlett work
Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
goals. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
9. I do not mind working my hardest for my 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
supervisor.
professional respect
10.NOT
I am impressed
FOR SALE with my
ORsupervisor’s knowledge of
DISTRIBUTION 0 1 2 FOR3 SALE4 OR DISTRIBUTION
NOT 5 6
his/her job.
11. I respect my supervisor’s knowledge of and 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

competence on the job.
12. I admireLearning,
© Jones & Bartlett my supervisor’s professional skills.
LLC 0
© Jones 1 Bartlett
& 2 3
Learning, 4 LLC 5 6
NOT FOR SALE OR
Calculate DISTRIBUTION
a score for each of the four dimensions of LMXNOT FOR
quality: SALE
strongly agreeOR DISTRIBUTION
(6); moderately agree (5);
somewhat agree (4); neutral (3); somewhat disagree (2); moderately disagree (1); strongly disagree (0). Consider
the subtotal for each of the four dimensions.
Affect out of 18
Loyalty out of 18 Learning, LLC
© Jones & Bartlett © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
Contribution out of 18
Professional respect out of 18
Source: adapted from Liden & Maslyn (1998).
figure 6-2 LMX–MDM Survey.


servant
NOT FOR SALE ORLeadership
DISTRIBUTION
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does transactional-transformational
Watch the following clip from YouTube (http://www leadership paradigm transcend organizational and
.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIKRmEaC6Y) and reflect on national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2),
Tom Peters’ perspective of servant leadership. What have 130–139.
you done in the last 24 hours to be of service to those Basu, R., & Green, S. (1995). Subordinate performance,
around you? What will you do in the next 24 hours to be leader-subordinate compatibility, and exchange
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONquality in leader-member NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
dyads: A field study. Jour-
of service to those around you?
nal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 77–92.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1986). Development of
leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Acad-
O
© Jones
referenCes & Bartlett Learning, LLC emy of©Management
Jones &Journal,
Bartlett Learning,
39(6), 1538–1567.LLC
NOT B.
Avolio, FOR SALE
J. (1999). FullOR DISTRIBUTION
leadership development: Building Burns, J. NOT
L. Z. FOR
(1995).SALE OR of
Prediction DISTRIBUTION
leader-member
the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: exchange quality by Jungian personality type. Dis-
Sage. sertation Abstracts International.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper &
leadership, charismaLLC and beyond. In J. G. Hunt, © Jones &RowBartlett Learning, LLC
Publishers.
NOT FOR SALEH.OR DISTRIBUTION
R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim NOT FOR SALE
Challeff, OR The
I. (1995). DISTRIBUTION
courageous follower: Standing up to
(Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 29–50). Lex- and for our leaders. San Francisco, CA:
ington, MA: Heath. Berrett-Koehler.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). The full range of leader- Challeff, I. (2002). The courageous follower: Standing up to
ship development:© Jones & Bartlett
Basic/advanced manuals.Learning,
Bingham- LLC and for our leaders (2nd © Jones
ed). San&Francisco,
BartlettCA:Learning, LLC
NOT and
ton, NY: Avolio/Bass FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONBerrett-Koehler.
Associates. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foun- Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A
dation of a contemporary construct. Journal of Lead- vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within
ership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50–60. formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of
© Jones
Balkundi, P., &
& Bartlett
Kilduff, M.Learning, LLC
(2005). The ties that lead: A © Jonesapproaches.
the role-making & Bartlett Learning,Behavior
Organizational LLC
social network approach to leadership. Leadership and NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Human Performance, 13, 46–78.
Quarterly, 16, 941–961. Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale develop- member exchange and organizational citizenship
ment and construct clarification of servant leader- behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
ship. Group & Organizational Management, 31(3), Psychology, 67, 315–326.
Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality
NOT FOR SALE300–326.
OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Barker, R. A. (1997). How can we train leaders if we do and effectiveness ratings. Group and Organization
not know what leadership is? Human Relations, 50(4), Management, 23(2), 189–216.
343–362. Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordi-
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance: Beyond nate performance and ingratiation in leader-member
expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. exchanges. Group and Organization Management,
Bass, B. M. (1988). Evolving perspectives on charismatic 19(1), 67–86.
leadership. In J. A. Conger, R. N. Kanungo, & Asso- Dose, J. J. (1999). The relationship between work values
ciates (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor similarity and team-member and leader-member
in organizational effectiveness (pp. 40–77). San Fran- exchange relationships. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research and Practice, 3(1), 20–32.
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An
Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical
inquiry into transformational leadership. Alexandria, dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of anteced-
VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral ents, measures and consequences. Journal of Applied
and Social Sciences. Psychology, 71(1), 56–60.

ChapTer 6: Wrap-Up 99
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic and support for innovation: Key predictors of con-
review of leader-member exchange theory: Corre- solidated business-unit performance. Journal of
lates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychol- Applied Psychology, 78, 891–902.
ogy, 82(6), 827–844. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers
Giampetro-Meyer, A., Brown, T., Browne, M. N., & in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships
Kubasek, N. (1998). Do we really want more leaders and their consequences. Academy of Management
in business? Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1727–1736. Review, 30, 96–122.
Goodwin, V. L., Bowler, W. M., & Whittington, J. L. Humphreys, J., Ingram, K., Kernek, C., & Sadler, T.
(2008). A social network perspective on LMX rela- (2007). The Nez Perce leadership council: A histori-
tionships: Accounting for the instrumental value of cal examination of post-industrial leadership. Journal
© Jones
leader and & Bartlett
follower Learning,
networks. Journal LLC
of Manage- © Jones
of Management & 13(2),
History, Bartlett Learning, LLC
135–152.
NOT FOR954–980.
ment, 35(4), SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D.,SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
& Morgeson, F. P. (2007).
Gooty, J., Gavin, M., Johnson, P. D., Frazier, M. L., & Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors:
Snow, D. B. (2009). In the eyes of the beholder: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1),
Transformational leadership, positive psychological 269–277.
capital, and performance. Journal of Leadership and © Jones
Katz, D.,&& Bartlett
Kahn, R.Learning,
L. (1978). The LLC
social psychology of
Organizational Studies, 15(4), 353–367. NOT FOR SALE OR
organizations (2nd DISTRIBUTION
ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based & Sons.
approach to leadership: Development of leader- Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Busi-
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over ness Review, 66, 142–148.
25 years: Applying © aJones & Bartlett
multi-level Learning,
multi-domain per- LLC A. J., & Vecchio, R. P.©(1994).
Kinicki, Jones & Bartlett
Influences of the Learning, LLC
spective. LeadershipNOT FOR6,SALE
Quarterly, 219–247.OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR
quality of supervisor-subordinate SALE
relations: OR DISTRIBUTION
The role
Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant leadership in organiza- of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and
tions: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
2(2), 105–119. 15(1), 75–82.
© Jones
Green, & Bartlett
S. G., Anderson, S. E.,Learning,
& Shivers, S.LLCL. (1996). Liden, R. C.,© & Jones &M.
Maslyn, J. Bartlett Learning, LLC
(1998). Multidimensional-
Demographic and organizational influences on ity of NOT FOR SALE OR imperical
leader–member exchange: An DISTRIBUTION
assess-
leader-member exchange and related work attitudes. ment through scale development. Journal of
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- Management, 24: 43–72.
cesses, 66(2), 203–214. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A lon-
Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, NY: gitudinal study on the early development of leader-
Paulist Books. member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & 78(4), 662–674.
Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multi- Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D.
level review and examination of its antecedents. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multi-
Leadership Quarterly, 20, 517–534. dimensional measure and multi-level assessment.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leader- Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177.
ship. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: Lowe, K. B., Kroeck K. G., & Sivasubramaniam N. (1996).
The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, IL: Effectiveness correlates of transformational and trans-
Southern Illinois University Press. actional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the
House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385–425.
©Gupta,
Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership and
Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior:
organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp.
Developing and managing psychological strengths.
29–48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57–72.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B.
leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control (2006). The social network ties of group leaders:

implications for group performance and leader repu- Spears, L. C. (1995). Reflections on leadership. New York,
tation. Organization Science, 17(1), 64–79. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Murphy, P. E. (1999). Character and virtue ethics in Steiner, D. D. (1988). Value perceptions in leader-
international marketing: An agenda for managers, member exchange. Journal of Social Psychology, 128,
researchers and educators. Journal of Business Ethics, 611–618.
18, 107–124. Tucker, R. C. (1968). The theory of charismatic leader-
NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONship. Daedulus, 97, 731–756.
Murrell, K. L. (1997). Emergent theories of leadership for
the next century: Towards relational concepts. Orga- Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory:
nization Development Journal, 15(3), 35–42. Exploring the social processes of leadership and
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654–676.
© Jones
Thousand&Oaks,
Bartlett Learning,
CA: Sage Publications.LLC Wayne, S.©J.,Jones
Liden, R.& C.,
Bartlett Learning,
& Sparrowe, LLC
R. T. (1994).
NOT D.
Organ, FOR SALE
(1988). OR DISTRIBUTION
Organizational citizenship behavior: The NOT FOR
Developing SALE OR
leader-member DISTRIBUTION
exchanges: The influ-
good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington ence of gender and ingratiation. American Behavioral
Books. Scientist, 37(5), 697–714.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Per-
© Jones & Bartlett
(2006).Learning, LLC
Organizational © Jones &
citizenship behaviors: Its nature, Bartlett
ceived Learning,
organizational supportLLC and leader-member
NOT FOR SALEantecedents,
OR DISTRIBUTION
and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: NOT FORexchange:
A social exchange perspective. Academy of
Sage Publications. Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111.
Phillips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower Weber, M. (1978). In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Econ-
exchange quality: The role of personal and interper- omy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology.
sonal attributes.© Academy
Jonesof&Management
Bartlett Learning,
Journal, 37, LLC Berkeley: University of © JonesPress.
California & Bartlett Learning, LLC
990–1001. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Winston, B. E., & Ryan, B. NOT(2008).FOR SALE
Servant ORasDISTRIBUTION
leadership
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the 21st century. New a humane orientation: Using the GLOBE study con-
York, NY: Praeger. struct of humane orientation to show that servant
Rost, J. C. (1997). Moving from industrial to relation- leadership is more global than western. International
ship: A post-industrial LLC Jour-
paradigm of leadership. © ofJones
Journal & Bartlett
Leadership Learning,
Studies, 3(2), 212–222. LLC
nal of Leadership Studies, 4(4), 3–16. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transforma-
Rost, J., & Barker, R. A. (2000). Leadership education in tional leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to
colleges: Toward a 21st century paradigm. Journal of determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychol-
Leadership Studies, 7(1), 3–12. ogy, 47, 787–811.
Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and Yokochi, N. (1989). Leadership styles of Japanese business
NOT FOR SALEcharismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent,
OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FORexecutives
SALE and ORmanagers: Transformational and trans-
DISTRIBUTION
divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the actional. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United
CKS. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 121–133. States International University, San Diego, CA.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed).
structure in leader-member exchanges. Academy of Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Management Review, 22(2), 522–552.

Contemporary Theories of Leadership: Brent J. Goertzen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contemporary Theories of Leadership: Brent J. Goertzen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contemporary Theories of Leadership: Brent J. Goertzen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC

NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION ChNOT

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning,

Laissez-faire leadership (nonleadership)

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

Barker differentiated leadership as a social relation-

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC 5. Courage

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

Applicability to work No Yes Yes Yes

© Jones & Bartlett

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

O aCTIvITy 3. Does the leader instill pride in the followers? How

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

2. My supervisor is the kind of person I would like to 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. My supervisor would defend me to others in the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8. I am willing to apply extra effort, beyond those 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

11. I respect my supervisor’s knowledge of and 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Source: adapted from Liden & Maslyn (1998).

figure 6-2 LMX–MDM Survey.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION.

You might also like