LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestras Condiciones de uso y nuestra Política de privacidad para más información.
LinkedIn emplea cookies para mejorar la funcionalidad y el rendimiento de nuestro sitio web, así como para ofrecer publicidad relevante. Si continúas navegando por ese sitio web, aceptas el uso de cookies. Consulta nuestra Política de privacidad y nuestras Condiciones de uso para más información.
Triangulating Freedom and Leadership Development by Allen Carn firstname.lastname@example.org Program: PhD in Applied Management and Decision Sciences Specialization: Leadership and Organizational ChangeKAM Assessor: Dr. Branford McAllister email@example.com Faculty Mentor: Dr. Duane Tway firstname.lastname@example.org Walden University June 6, 2012
i Abstract BreadthIn comparing and contrasting various leadership development theories, transformationalleadership was supposed to be the pinnacle of leadership development. However, as the leaderdevelops, he or she should never discard process-oriented lessons learned as being a situationalor a transactional leader. Situations and events may require the leader to react in an appropriatemanner that is either situational or transactional. Furthermore, a transformational leader does nottransform societies to fit his or her personal desires at the expense of its citizens. It is atransformational leader‟s moral responsibility to transform a society by enacting a vision ofpositive social change. He or she completes this life goal by transforming those in their personalsphere of influence to aspire to the highest levels of moral development. In addition, the process-oriented moral leader provides the constituent the necessary freedom and opportunity to learnand choose.
ii Abstract DepthThe focal point of the depth was to review leadership theories in current scholarly literature thatcould enhance the premise of process-oriented moral leadership. The literature included variousleadership theories, but the focus was on situational, contingency, transactional, andtransformational. The examination of the various leadership theory encapsulated in the literatureincluded the key concepts found in process-oriented moral leadership. These concepts included:the driving force of change, competition, and positive social change. Because of this analysis, theconcept of process-oriented moral leadership is enhanced in terms of looking for opportunitiesand avoiding threats that help leaders achieve their primary purpose, serving and inspiring thosethey lead to be more than they thought capable.
iii Abstract ApplicationIn an effort to triangulate freedom, equal opportunity, and positive social change concerningleadership development, three iconic leaders provided invaluable information to assist potentialprocess-oriented moral leaders in implementing their version of leadership development andorganizational change. In his self-proclaimed arrogance, Alinsky provided a method to developorganizers and leaders through continual societal upheaval. Iacocca announced that everyone hasleadership potential; it just takes a mentor, knowledge, and hard work to develop his ninecharacteristics of a good leader. This mentoring belief is similar to King‟s belief in the unlimitedpotential of individuals to achieve the height dimension of life, which includes leadershipdevelopment principles and the concept of interrelatedness. Interrelatedness provides the bestexample why Alinsky and Iacocca believed that leaders were supposed to serve the needs of allindividuals.
v Potential POML Negatives. 73 Amoral Transformational 77 Potential POML Positives. 77 Potential POML Negatives. 80 Moral Transformational 83 Potential POML Positives. 84 Potential POML Negatives. 87Summary 91 Driving Force for Change 91 Competition 96 Positive Social Change 99Conclusion 102Application 107Analysis 110 Leadership Development 111 Morality 115 Leader-Follower Relationship 124 riving Force for Change 128 Competition 134 Positive Social Change 141Conclusion 147
1 Leadership Development: Discovering a Morally Efficient Process to Achieve Positive Social Change Synopsis Process-oriented moral leadership (POML) derived from empowering individualdevelopment concepts that suggest an individual should focus on the journey and not the result.This empowering journey of self-discovery provides the starting point for POML. From thisstarting point, Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed, “to encourage initiative in others, training iscrucial to build self-efficacy and to encourage initiative. Training is one form of preparation:another effective way to prepare is mental stimulation” (pp. 170-171). Mental stimulationrequires a “powerful heuristic strategy for making people confident that they can act when thesituation requires” (p. 171). This strategy in developing others to become POMLs has six basicconcepts that were analogous Kouzes and Posner‟s belief in empowerment leadership. POMLconcepts include leadership development, morality, leader-follower relationship, driving forcefor change, competition, and positive social change. This fundamental leadership developmentstrategy serves as the starting point used to define the concept of POML. This process defines adevelopment path that requires current leaders to relinquish power to empower. However, it alsorequires aspiring leaders to classify and be committed to their core principles. These coreprinciples and ethics serve as the aspiring leader‟s foundation; consequently, the aspiring leadershould never abandon them as they progress in their leadership development process. Finally, asthe individual develops they increase their leadership potential to serve their constituents in amanner that allows them to develop and maximize their potential. In the breadth, the tactic is to focus on the foundational strategic concepts that includeleadership development, morality, and leader-follower relationship. These fundamental concepts
2offer insight on contingency and situational theories, transactional theories, and transformationaltheories. According to Bass (1985) and Burns (1978), leadership development is the engine thatdrives a vision of transformational change. Morality to Kouzes and Posner (2007) is the bedrockof understanding to systematic and efficient change while Burns believed the leader-followerrelationship is the lubrication that sustains a vision. Consequently, a collaborative theory evolvesthat promotes POML as the breadth compares and contrasts various leadership theories. Using this essential POML leadership foundation developed in the breadth, the depth willenhance and sharpen the POML process by analyzing the driving forces for change, competition,and positive social change using current leadership literature. The driving force for change stemsfrom a source generating a need as Bass (1985) alluded to in his theory. More importantly, thisconcept identifies the source of that need, and its use to promote change. Kouzes and Posner(2007) believed that competition is a powerful force that drives win-win solutions while Bennisand Ward-Biederman (1997) believed competition was the key to survival and a win at any costmentality. According to Kouzes and Posner, winning at any cost is antithetical to positive socialchange; furthermore, they believed that leadership development is the key to positive socialchange because it ultimately requires empowerment. It completes the development of one leader,while providing leadership development opportunities for a multitude of other aspiring leaders;as a result, it generates a force multiplying effect for positive social change. In the process ofusing leadership development to generate positive social change, the analysis suggests the leaderhas to protect freedom and other ingredients necessary for leadership development. Ultimately,the leader must do no harm to the mechanisms necessary to leadership development and positivesocial change.
3 In the application, this article ends with an analysis of three iconic leader‟s methods ofleadership development; the iconic leaders were Saul Alinsky, Lee Iacocca, and Dr. MartinLuther King, Jr. The analysis encompasses the positives and negatives of each leader‟sperspective as it concerns the six critical aspects of empowering leadership. The six aspects wereleadership development, morality, leader-follower relationship, driving forces for change,competition, and positive social change. Alinsky‟s (1989) perspective was admittedly efficient inexpressing contradictory claims of social change. Uncaringly, Alinsky sought contradiction asmeans to amass power and hateful zealots. Unlike Alinsky, who was at least consistent in hisbeliefs, Iacocca (2007) was inconsistent in his book that seeks to answer the question where haveall the leaders gone. Iacocca intertwined cronyism with soulful thoughts about mentoring. King(1986) was consistent in his belief in the interrelatedness of the individual and the unlimitedleadership development potential and power that comes with it. With great power comes greatindividual responsibility, which is in line with the POML maxim, first, do no harm, and thenseek positive social change.
4 Breadth AMDS 8512: Classical and Emerging Paradigms of Leadership Introduction In the breadth, the method used to refine a collaborative theory that promotes POMLinvolves comparing and contrasting various leadership theories authored by Bass; Bennis andWard-Biederman; Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi; Burns; Ibbotson; and Kouzes and Posner.The comparison focuses on three foundational elements of POML: they are leadershipdevelopment, morality, and the leader-follower relationship. The POML analysis begins with anexamination of the positive and negatives of contingency, situational, transactional, andtransformational leadership development theories. The analysis includes the methodology ofPOML used to compare and contrast each theory in order to ascertain the effectiveness of each indeveloping holistic leaders. The comparison includes the process of developing a leader, thefundamental morality of the theory, and its perspective on the leader-follower relationship. Thisanalysis focuses on the intrinsic aspects of the leader and his or her direct sphere of influence.Furthermore, this analysis provides the first portion of the answer that advances the notion that aprocess-oriented moral leader is something more than just another transformational theory.Contingency and Situational Leadership As noted by Kouzes and Posner (2007), contingency and situational leadership havemany similarities since both require the leader to adapt to a follower‟s reactions to an externalstimulus. Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi (1985) best explained this notion as they extolled thevirtues of contingent and situational leadership-styles. They believed that one leadership-stylecannot effectively respond to an infinite number of follower responses; consequently, theythought that contingent or situational leadership-style was the prudent choice in leadership
5development. However, there was one main difference between Ibbotson‟s (2008) contingenttheory and Blanchard et al.‟s situational theory. According to Ibbotson, a contingency theoryattempts to assess the follower‟s ingenuity in responding to an external stimulus, whileBlanchard et al. situational theory has a narrower perspective. Situational theory requires theleader and the follower to measure the follower‟s responses to external stimuli. This section willanalyze contingency theory and situational theory simultaneously while determining what eachtheory does or does not do well with respect to the leadership development process, morality,and leader-follower relationship. Potential POML Positives. One of the critical strengths in either contingency or situational leadershipdevelopment is flexibility, as noted by both Ibbotson (2008) and Blanchard et al. (1985).Ibbotson suggested using a creative cross-functional team that had a strong and well-developed leader to harvest spontaneous creativity as the team handled various tasks.From within the team, a leader develops as they became experienced in spotting desiredoutputs from other individuals in the work team. In total, Ibbotson thought the leadershipprofession is a learnable skill. A creative leader‟s capability determines the level ofexpertise in which they create situations to produce the correct or spontaneous result.From Ibbotson‟s perspective, leadership has to be more directive than democratic. On the subject of situational leadership, Blanchard et al. (1985) had a different outlook onleadership development, which contrasted sharply from Ibbotson (2008). Blanchard et al.believed that a leader strives to be more democratic than directive. However, the leader‟sapproach or style with respect to follower depends upon the follower‟s measurable level ofperformance. There are “four leadership styles” within situational leadership theory; the
6leadership styles were “directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating” (p. 31). A leader usesthe appropriate style that matches the level of measurable performance from the follower. As thefollower progresses in understanding while achieving an agreed upon level of output, the leaderswitches his or her style of leadership to match a followers‟ measured output. A leaderdelegating responsibility to the follower is the highest level of achievement. Blanchard et al.believed that a followers‟ ability to achieve a consistent level of performance is the only truemeasure of performance with regard to “competence and commitment” (p. 60). In a diverse culture, Ibbotson‟s (2008) believed that morality is a potent force that derivesfrom the leader‟s ability to “balance power and humility” (p. 10). This position appears to beneutral as it relates to any social moral norm and is dependent upon the leader defining morality.With respect to balancing power and humility, it requires a self-effacing leader knowing he orshe does not have all of the answers. As a result, the leader must be humble and provide his orher followers enough freedom to be unimpeded in expressing an opinion or idea. This requires astrong mutually dependent bond between the leader and the follower that is comparable to anethic of reciprocity. However, it is the leader‟s responsibility to manipulate and then harvest thatopen-minded natural act. Thus, the freedom of expression is dependent on the authoritarianleader‟s level of humility concerning their imposed morality. As with Ibbotson (2008), Blanchard et al. (1985) had a neutral position concerning anysocially set morality. The organization or the leader advocates their interpretation of morality.Whatever the source providing moral guidance, Blanchard et al. believed it is the leader‟sresponsibility to maintain a high level of moral understanding throughout the organization.Consequently, this high level of moral understanding made situational leadership developmenttheory more stringent than Ibbotson‟s creative based contingency theory. Blanchard et al.
7reemphasizes this disciplined approach to morality when stating leaders need to be constantlyevaluating the followers understanding of organizational morality. This means that a concept offairness revolves around organizational and societal rules, ethics, and morals. The follower‟sability to follow them is a part of the overall evaluation. Since the leader evaluates the followerin a continuous manner, the leader‟s leadership style varies as the follower develops competenceand commitment. This also ensures that the follower‟s moral and ethical code adheres to thestandard set by the leader. Since morality was not a priority to Ibbotson (2008), the leader-follower relationship hasto have well-defined roles and boundaries between leader and follower. Having defined roles iscomparable to Blanchard et al.‟s (1985) belief in leader needing to know a follower‟s level ofdevelopment. However, Ibbotson also believed that a leader could take away the boundarieswhen needed. For example, if the leader sets up a brainstorming event that encouragesspontaneity, he or she would temporarily eliminate the boundary between the leader and thefollower. As a result, this newly appointed freedom encourages the follower to react to theleader‟s predetermined stimulus and event boundaries. As the followers react to the stimulus, theleader coaches, mentors, facilitates, or even participates to encourage the continued developmentof the followers. As soon as the event between the leader and follower ends with the harvestingof creative ideas, the boundaries between leader and follower would resurface. The followerwould reassume their previous role. Similarly, Blanchard et al. (1985) had well defined relationship boundaries. UnlikeIbbotson‟s (2008) approach, Blanchard et al. used an approach that focuses on the continuousflow of small victories. This differed significantly from Ibbotson‟s creative bursts ofdevelopment energy. Continuous small victories are a method that promotes positive
8reinforcement, which helps increase the level of confidence and trust between the leader andfollower (Blanchard et al.). Consequently, not only did small victories serve as a continuousapproach to leadership development, they also strengthen the relationship between leader andfollower on a continual basis. Potential POML Negatives. The positive found in Ibbotson‟s (2008) leadership development theory was hisbelief in the level of freedom the leader bestows upon the follower. This freedomprovides the energy for dynamic, creative bursts of ideas while simultaneously providingthe best opportunity for development. However, as soon as the creative burst subsides,the leader falls back into the role of project manager or director, while the followerresumes a more subservient role. Contrastingly, one of Blanchard et al.‟s (1985) strengthswere a series of small victories as the follower developed; however, this concept relegatesthe follower to a need to know basis which means they only know what is necessary tocomplete their assigned tasks. This differed greatly from Ibbotson‟s belief, since seeingthe overall goal is an essential ingredient as the leader shapes the brainstorming event. Blanchard et al. (1985) determined that it was immoral to treat followers the same whenthey are at different levels of development within a status level. The original weakness with thisconcept is the subjectivity of the leader to determine the appropriate level the follower is at in hisor her development. Blanchard et al. tried to use “SMART – Specific, Measurable, Attainable,Relevant, and Trackable” (pp. 89-90) goals to reduce this weakness. The concept ofpersonalizing levels of development contrasts sharply with Ibbotson‟s (2008) belief that leadersshould provide equal treatment to all individuals within a status level. Ibbotson despisedhierarchy. Ironically, Ibbotson offered SMART goals as a means to achieve better performance
9in followers. Bass (1985), on the other hand, thought that SMART goals were just another formof the “carrot or the stick” (p. 130) approach to leadership development. Concerning Bass, heused SMART goals to aid the followers to become better managers of goals rather thandeveloping into leaders. Kouzes and Posner (2007) offered caution when using a reward orpunishment approach when dealing with morality and leadership development. The authorsthought it limited the follower‟s perspective in regards to their hierarchy of needs; consequently,it would impede their development. The primary drawback to Ibbotson‟s (2008) leader-follower relationship as it related tohis contingency theory is his dependence on the power-humility ratio that requires a strongmutually dependent bond. As Burns (1978) noted, the core issue concerning power in the leader-follower relationship is the mission or function of the exchange between the leader and follower.Since Ibbotson was morally neutral, there is little guidance to where the leader could take thefollower. The only firewall to protect the follower is the leader‟s humility. However, Burns re-issued Lord Acton‟s warning about power being a corruptible force. Humility offers little solaceto the follower as the leader has the potential to act as an ambivalent dictator. Blanchard et al.‟sperspective suffers from the same weakness as Ibbotson‟s; the leader-follower relationship is stilldependent upon the leader‟s interpretation of the organizational or community morality. As Bass(1985) declared, a leader could mislead, promote ignorance, or encourage negative activismwithin the follower. Concerning Blanchard et al.‟s and Ibbotson‟s perspective on leadership,there continues to be a fragile link to the greater good.Transactional Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) shared similar views of transactional leadership. They bothbelieve it is an inescapable stepping-stone in the process of a leader evolving into a
10transformational leader. The difference between the two is that Burns believed that transactionalleadership is a part of a linear evolution towards transformational leadership, while Bass had adynamic opinion of transactional leadership. For Bass, leadership development theories such astransactional theory are tools in a toolbox, used as necessary by a transformational leader guidedby experience and knowledge. In some ways, transactional leadership is similar to contingencyor situational leadership, since Bass and Burns both believed that transactional leadership is anagreed upon exchange. Nevertheless, the analysis in the next section will compare Bass andBurns‟ interpretation of that exchange in terms of positive and negatives as they relate to POML.In doing so, it will break down each author‟s theory with respect to the leadership developmentprocess, morality, and the leader-follower relationship. Potential POML Positives. Bass (1985) viewed the exchange between a leader and follower as an assessment ofneeds, with an exchange occurring if both parties met the other‟s negotiated need. Transactionalleadership, in terms of leadership development, is just another exchange. The leader receives anincrease in output while the follower receives tutelage in spotting opportunities, negotiatingskills and a small portion of the leader‟s power or the promise of power in the near future.Dissimilarly, Burns (1978) viewed the exchange as an item for item transference, such as workfor pay. If the leader wants more work, then he or she has to provide greater benefits. For Burns,transactional leadership development occurs when a leader provides insight concerning a worktopic, identifies a follower‟s transactional needs, and helps the follower spot transactional needsin others. This could mean more power for the follower while reducing the leader‟s burden ofwork and responsibility. One of the positives, found in both author‟s leadership developmenttheories, is the simplicity in the item for item exchange using a pseudo market bartering system
11of leadership development. The first step for the follower in leadership development is the act ofbartering to receive greater responsibilities. According to Burns (1978), the level of mutual understanding identifies the terms of theexchange and determines the level of morality. Increasing the level of understanding between thetwo parties makes the exchange between leader and follower more moral. It is imperative that theleader provides as much clarification as possible in a scope of work, instructions on how toperform the work, expected output, and the expected reward after achieving a certain output.Bass (1985) had a slightly different take on transactional morality. He viewed a transactionalleader as an individual that works within the confines of the law or social-moral ethos. Thetransactional leader never transforms or alters the terms of understanding. The moral strength,according to Bass, is the leader or follower being unwilling to alter the terms of the exchangeunless both parties are mutually willing to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. Thedependability in knowing that the leader or follower would not alter this understanding isreassuring to both parties. For both Bass (1985) and Burns (1978), the relationship between leader and follower is ashrewd exchange of needs and desires. The POML positive in this exchange is the level ofcommunication necessary to create a moral and mutually beneficial agreement. The act ofcreating this agreement also breeds confidence in a trusting relationship that has the potential tobe a lasting professional friendship. The exchange of needs offers the opportunity for the leaderand the follower to inject personal observations and opinions. This exchange provides both theleader and follower the opportunity to grow professionally and to learn. The relationship positivefor Bass and Burns, as well as any other leadership theory, occurs when both parties activelycommunicate and exchange information. As the level of open and honest communication
12increases, the level of trust increases with the leader and follower strengthening the bondbetween them. Potential POML Negatives. The agreement in transactional leadership determines the level of development.However, as Bass (1985) asserted, POML negatives occur when “compromise, intrigue,and control” (p. 13) mask a leader‟s hidden agenda. This misdirection of intentionscarried out by the leader would encourage the follower to be ignorant of the harm theyare doing to their own long-term development. At this point, the follower would eitherbecome despondent or learn negative life skills. Another negative that Bass noted occurswhen a leader would set unrealistic goals, setting the follower up to fail instead ofsucceeding. This could destroy the follower‟s confidence in his or her own abilities.Lastly, Bass thought transactional leadership focuses too much on the process and notenough on broad issues that influence the world around them. This meant that leadersshould steer followers away from the process and fundamental issues; instead, followersshould be inspired to focus more on societal issues. In a comparable manner, Burns(1978) thought transactional leadership development is a disservice to the follower sinceit did not inspire the follower to be more than they were capable of negotiating. Burnsnoted that another potential negative occurs when the follower could not present his orher terms in an effective manner. The leader could then determine that the follower isweak, unrefined, or uneducated. He thought the problem is more with the listening skillsof the leader and not the communication skills of the follower. Bass (1985) expressed concern that if the language in the agreement is brief orambiguous, then the rational response by the follower is that the leader is purposely being
13unscrupulous or vague in order to achieve a greater level of control or output. This lackof communication could make an honest leader appear scheming and divisive. However,Bass was just as concerned with a leader being purposefully manipulative by injectingambiguous or confusing language into an agreement. Another concern of Bass‟ occurredwhen a leader would carry out the letter of the agreement while committing unethical actsoutside the social moral norm. This would undermine the development of the follower,organization, or community the leader represents for his or her own personal gain. Burns(1978) had a similar view concerning the moral weakness in transactional leadership.This moral weakness occurs when a leader fails to project trustworthiness, use powercompetently, correctly apply the follower‟s output to the stated goal, or act appropriatelywhen action is necessary. This moral weakness hinders the moral development of thefollower. Both Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) thought that as the morality of the agreementbroke down, the leader-follower relationship would begin to degrade. For Bass, the firstmistake a transactional leader makes is to take punitive action when a follower has anoccurrence where he or she generated less than optimum output. If this occurs, atransactional leader would force the follower to regress downward in Maslow‟s hierarchyof needs. Bass believed that this would only ensure a response that often has unintendedconsequences, which fractures the understanding in the agreement as well as therelationship between leader and follower. Burns had a different take on the leadership-follower relationship, the intended reward for the output given often leads to a breakdownin the relationship. This misunderstanding often leads to a degree of unintended effectsgenerating negative (punitive) fluctuations in the leader‟s use of power, which in turn
14causes the follower to produce nothing more than the minimum requirement.Unfortunately, the leader views this cause and effect response as a loss in output and thecycle would repeat. For Burns, the inability of a transactional to be more proactive thanwhat the status quo requires often causes the transactional leader to be reactionary. As aresult, this generates unnecessary stress upon the leader-follower relationship.Transformational According to Burns (1978), the primary limitation in most leadership theories is theabsence of a transformational perspective that encourages the leader to be an agent of socialchange. The actual social change agent is where the author‟s began to differ; Bass (1985) andBennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) believed that a transformational leader could promotechange that is negative as well as a positive. In this analysis, Bass represented the traditionalperspective while Bennis and Ward-Biederman represented the emerging paradigm in leadershipdevelopment. Meanwhile, Burns, who represented the traditional perspective, agreed withKouzes and Posner (2007), who represented the emerging paradigm, they believed that atransformational leader promotes positive social change. The initial overall premise concerningtransformational leadership is the same between the two groups; a transformational leader isperceptive in understanding the needs and desires of their followers. However, the first groupmade up of Bass, Bennis, and Ward-Biederman believe it is acceptable for a transformationalleader to manipulate their follower‟s needs for selfish reasons. Meanwhile, Burns, Kouzes, andPosner thought a transformational leader is an agent of positive social change and uses theirfollowers‟ needs to gain a greater understanding of the world around them. As a result, the notedauthors had sharp contrasts in their opinions concerning positive social change. Since positivesocial change is a critical function of POML, the next section compares and contrasts all of the
15transformational theoretical perspectives as they relate to POML concepts of leadershipdevelopment process, morality, and leader-follower relationship. Potential POML Positives. According to Bass (1985), a transformational leader intellectually stimulates thecreative desires in followers so that they actively seek leadership development. Bassbelieved transformational leadership is an output and not the process. Consequently, toBass it appears that a transformational leader often emerges in times of tumult andsocietal upheaval. As a transformational leader, the leaders skill at manipulating eventsto hide their selfish desires often determines the level of their success. Bass‟stransformational theory incorporates two concepts. The first was similar to Burns‟ (1978)description of a transformational leader being a change agent. The second differed fromBurns‟ belief that a transformational leader does not have to be a great person to producesocietal change results. Bass thought transformational leaders have to be great men andsolve problems systematically while inspiring their followers to push the limits of societalchange. Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) had a similar belief as Bass; leadershipdevelopment of followers occurs when they enact a leader‟s vision as they dramaticallyalter the boundaries of societal norms. Unlike Bennis and Ward-Biederman, Bass‟version of a transformational leader requires the leader to have a transactional concernabout the leadership development of devout followers while promoting radical socialchange. Development occurs as followers aspire to emulate the leader. Leadershipdevelopment for the followers of the transformational leader requires the leader to seekthem out and cultivate them to challenge the status quo. As the leader demonstrates adesire to know the needs of the followers, it is only a means to achieve some form of
16political or socio-economic power, so the transformational leader could achieve his or herends. Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) had a similar approach where thetransformational leader seeks highly talented change agents with similar beliefs to createa different tomorrow. However, Bennis and Ward-Biederman believed that thetransformational leader has a more participative role, which differed significantly fromBass (1985). This participative role occurs as the leader relinquishes some of his or herpower to the team. This power allows talented individuals to operate freely while tryingto solve some societal issue of considerable importance. As the group of talentedindividuals solves the problem, the leader facilitates internal disagreements and protectsthe talented group from outside interference. This differed greatly from Bass‟s conceptwhile it had some similarities to Kouzes and Posner (2007) belief that a transformationalleader adapts to the needs of his or her followers while serving them. One of thedifferences in Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s concept is that every member in the grouphas to be talented, strong, and assertive. If not, the strongest members in the groupconsume or discount the ideas of lesser team members. Development within the group isoften the result of imagination, intelligence, and determination of the individual. Themeasure of success for the transformational leader comes in their ability to cultivate thegroups‟ creative energy. Leadership development is a case of the survival of fittest forthose strong and intelligent enough to be a visionary creator and inspirational leader. Burns‟ (1978) transformational theory had a different take all together. Leadersand followers have to be rooted in the fundamental belief that there are societalexpectations, and there are responsibilities in achieving those societal expectations. The
17transformational leader‟s reward is to “achieve mutually valued outcomes” (p. xiii). Thisdiffered greatly from Bass‟s (1985) belief that the leader shapes the outcome and theother extreme offered by Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) where the group shapesthe outcome. According to Burns, transformational leaders serve their followers;consequently, transformational leadership development is a variation of that same basicpremise. The leader in this instance mimics Bass‟s belief about surveying the needs of hisor her followers; however, Burns believed that a transformational leader searches for awin-win solution between him or herself and the follower. Societal change to Burns ismutually beneficial to everyone, and the output produces something greater than theGolden Rule. This differed greatly from Bass‟s concept of transformational leader. Forexample, Bass thought Hitler was a transformational leader while Burns thoughtotherwise. Like Burns (1978), Kouzes and Posner (2007) had a positive societal perspectiveto their concept of a transformational leader. Kouzes and Posner believed atransformational leader needs to lead by example, encourage followers to aspire to higherlevels of development, legitimately challenge the status quo, empower those with a desireto improve, and appreciate their efforts because as they win, society wins. Kouzes andPosner believed that anyone has the potential to be a transformational leader. Moreover,leadership is a learnable skill honed by experience and continuing education. It is thetransformational leader‟s responsibility to encourage and empower the follower to bemore than their self-imposed limitations. Through leadership development, societalchange occurs as leaders and followers interact with a community. Kouzes and Posnerhad much the same belief in leadership development as Burns; leadership development is
18a one of the primary responsibilities of the transformational leader. Unfortunately,leadership development is a circuitous process for Bass (1985), as well as Bennis andWard-Biederman (1997), since development only occurs during the act of a leader orgroup achieving some formidable task. As the transformational leader amasses power, heor she needs subordinate leaders to carry out their will. Bass‟s (1985) concept of a transformational leader requires the leader to create amoral code to avoid organizational confusion. However, the moral code is in line with theleader‟s perception of right and wrong, not societal good or evil. For instance, a leaderhas to account for societal norms; to act contrary would undermine the leader‟s ability totransform society. This did not mean the leader agreed with societal norms. He or shechanges them in an incremental manner with followers aspiring to be leaders piloting theway. As with Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997), the concept of a societal greater goodis not a burden for their concept of a transformational leader. Bass‟s moral thoughts weremore in line with the premise that the leader establishes their concept of right and wrong.As soon as the leader installs their version of morality, the leader should not vary asconsistency in thought made the leader and followers more in tune with one another,making them more effective as change agents. Similarly, Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) moral constructs did not have anyconnections to a societys established moral norms. Bennis and Ward-Biederman believed thatsolving the monumental problem provides its own moral clarity. It is society‟s problem todetermine if the results are socially acceptable. To Bennis and Ward-Biederman, great groupsfought “holy wars” (P. 204) or involved in a “crusade” (p. 206) for all ages. Morality within thegroup requires the highest levels of dedication. Dedication to the task requires personal
19sacrifices. As the individual increases their level of dedication to the project, the individualappears to generate a higher moral clarity in the eyes of the transformational leader and teammembers. The fanatical transformational energy generated from these groups alters the consciousof humanity for decades. Kouzes and Posner (2007) believe it is immoral to generate change inspite of the cost. Burns‟ (1978) perception of transformational leadership is something greater than thegreatest achievement by any of Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) transformational greatgroups. According to Burns, he believed that universal moral development requires a leader toserve and work to encourage the development of others. Burns‟ point of view stands in starkcontrast with Bass (1985) while paralleling the beliefs of Kouzes and Posner (2007). Burns wentfurther to state that some theorists fail to understand behavioral motifs of followers and theprimary reasons why some societies prosper. Without a fundamental belief in a moral structurethat makes all individuals equal in opportunity and responsibility, societies flounder and leadersbecome tyrannical. This fundamental moral belief provides the best opportunity for leaders toinspire followers to achieve the highest levels of development. Helping followers achieve the highest levels of development is something Kouzes andPosner (2007) considered when they wrote about a transformational leader needing to establish aset of ethics and values. The transformational leader must lead by example and not deviate fromwhat they preach. The establishment of ethics, morals, and values must be a compilation thefollower and leader‟s moral norms derived from society. As soon as there is an agreement on theethical and moral constructs, the leader needs to embody and promote the agreement. Kouzesand Posners concept of a greater good and win-win relationship philosophy is more similar to
20Burns (1978) than Bass (1985) or Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997). This dissimilarityconcerning morality carried forward in the leader-follower relationship. In Bass‟s (1985) theory of transformational leadership, the leader-follower relationship isa process of the leader listening to and potentially incorporating the follower‟s beliefs to build aworking relationship. This is an inclusive concept that had a similar construct to Burns (1978), aswell as Kouzes and Posner (2007). In doing so, Bass provided the appearance that thetransformational leader is listening and empowers the follower. Consequently, this inspires thefollower to increase his or her output. It is from this understanding that the transformationalleader drew his or her power. As the transformational leader builds this bond with the follower,the connection enables the leader to make holistic societal changes. Similarly, a strong leader-follower relationship was something Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) believed to be necessary for the leader and follower to achieve their separategoals in solving the societal problem. The relationship has to have a strong bond, which issimilar to Bass‟s (1985). However, the relationship between the leader and the group has theleader serving the group‟s needs while protecting it from outside influences. This increases thelevel of empowerment within the group and allows them to solve the most perplexing of societalproblems. Those followers not involved in the transformational group, according to Bennis andWard-Biederman‟s theory, did not have their needs addressed. As a result, the indirect followersare dependent upon the moral makeup and output of both the transformational leader and group.This separation between leader, group, and the rest of society was something Burns (1978) andthe collaborative effort of Kouzes and Posner (2007) discouraged in their theories about thetransformational leader-follower relationships.
21 Burns (1978), as with Kouzes and Posner (2007), believed a transformational leader hasto be very responsive to all stakeholders. This relationship with their followers flows through thedirect group of followers and has a positive impact on society as a whole. This is especially truesince the transformational leader encourages his or her direct followers to create a similarmutually beneficial bond between the followers and other members of society. This act is initself a leadership development activity. In doing so, it was Kouzes and Posner‟s conviction thatthis would promote a generational environment of positive social change that dwarfs any outputcreated by transformational leaders and groups as described by Bass (1985) or Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997). The premise behind Burns, Kouzes, and Posner‟s similar theories is toincrease the level of involvement and empowerment of all people; thereby, making societalresponses to positive change or problems highly dynamic and adaptive to any situation. Potential POML Negatives. The positive found in the theory offered by Bass (1985) is that it is dependent upon adynamic and strong leader understanding the needs of his or her followers. The negative in whathe had offered, when compared to Burns (1978) and Kouzes and Posner (2007), is thatleadership development of followers is truly an afterthought; consequently, it makes positivesocial change difficult from a generational standpoint. Bass did bring to light some “LeadershipDevelopmental Orientation” (pp.84-85) techniques, but the main goal of his belief intransformational leadership is about selfish desires of the leader. The transformation leader usescharisma and rhetoric to align followers to serve his or her needs as they transform anorganization or society. A transformational leader did allow followers limited freedom to searchout and expand as long as the expansion aligned itself with the mission and values of the leader.However, since Hitler was an example of one of Bass‟s transformational leaders, a follower‟s
22unaligned development has potentially dire consequences. Ultimately, a transformational leaderas defined by Bass is more rare than common. Contrastingly, Burns, Kouzes, and Posner createdrobust systems of leadership development that has the potential to make transformationalleadership a standardized approach to societal improvement. As with leadership development, according to Bass (1985), morality is a secular constructbased on rhetoric with minimal ties to societal norms. A true transformational leader may berequired to shape morality to meet his or her needs while attempting to be consistent in theapplication. This paradox of inconsistency helps explain why a transformational leader coulddeclare some social moral norms as immoral and require them to be changed. In addition, thisalso explains why Bass is not overly concerned about a follower‟s higher hierarchal needs, sincenecessity dictates whether a transformational leader needs to alter a follower‟s lower level needsto attain the desired output. Burns, Kouzes, and Posner have a diametrically opposite opinion toBass‟s interpretation of morality and the concept of a Hitler-like transformational leader. The negativity found in Bass‟s (1985) transformational theory as it relates to leader-follower relationship, required the leader to understand the follower‟s needs and desires. In doingso, the leader could manipulate their needs and desires to achieve the leader‟s perceived greatergood. Bass‟s view of the leader-follower relationship, it is cold and calculating. Contrastingly,Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner‟s (2007) believed the relationship is genuine and an invitingwin-win scenario. The win-win scenario occurs when the follower eventually adapts his or hersneeds to match the needs of the transformational leader. A follower bending their wishes anddesires to be in line with the leaders was something that conflicted with Bennis and Ward-Biedermans (1997) concept. Alarmingly, Bass admitted the manipulation of needs and desiresfuels resentment. This resentment allows an up and coming revolutionary leader to harvest the
23angst in order to build his or her power base. Furthermore, the revolutionary leader routinelyrepresents the next change and not a new concept in societal development. As a result, theleader-follower relationship becomes a tool for the revolutionary leader to implement thischange. As with Bass‟s (1985) concept of leadership development, Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) concept of developing leaders as a function of leadership is the exceptionand not the norm. The transformational group has a leader that bestows equality to the groupwhile attempting to solve a problem that has a transformational impact on society. The leaderassembles a group that is talented and self-driven. Since technical prowess provided the reason toassemble the group, each member comes to the group with a different level of leadershipdevelopment and style. The team becomes a creative gathering where dominant leaders withinthe group separate themselves at the expense of others in the group. The dominant leadersprovide guidance to the group while updating the team leader on progress and the group‟s needs.In some of the examples offered by Bennis and Ward-Biederman, if either the team leader or thedominant leaders within the group are unscrupulous, then the group will commit unscrupulousacts. This process of leadership development is the antithesis to the leadership developmentprocesses created by Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner (2007). Since Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) leader development process is absent of anyspecific moral construct, morality is not a priority for the group. In some instances, the absenceof morality is often unavoidable; Bennis and Ward-Biederman used the Manhattan Project andthe development of a nuclear bomb as examples of amoral projects. However, as with the laudedBlack Mountain Experiment, morality was the victim of “anti-institutional” (p. 170) de-evolvement. Leaders encouraged this anti-institutional belief, which warped the perception of
24followers to view shoplifting and other petty crimes as a badge of ingenuity and courage. ToBurns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner (2007), if the lowest common denominator found in amoralbehavior is the best example of societal progress, then the failure of the Black MountainExperiment was inevitable. A constantly changing moral landscape prevented individuals fromworking together. The experiment used a pseudo-institutional construct; however, theexperiment‟s anti-institutional belief system trapped leaders and followers in a self-destructiveloop of lawlessness and anarchy. The leadership-follower relationship as described by Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997)requires both to sacrifice everything, which usually means that the emotionally spent leaders andfollowers depart the project with shattered personal lives. As a reward, the authors believed thatthe satisfaction in completing the task offsets the shattered lives and relationships. In addition,any relationship within the group paled when compared to output of the project. Some trustingrelationships do form within the team; however, the relationships are a by-product of individualalliances made during the teams storming phase. Bass‟s (1985) theory failed to generate trustingleader-follower relationships since they were not one of his primary objectives. Trustingrelationships evolve out of necessity during the leader or group‟s development. As with morality,Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner‟s (2007) theory on transformational leadership had a differenttake on the leader-follower relationship. The strength of their relationship often has positivetransformational outputs for both the leader and the follower. Furthermore, sacrifice is theexception and not the rule. Burns‟s (1978) positive take on transformational leadership development differed greatlyfrom Bass (1985), Bennis, and Ward-Biederman (1997). However, the transformational leader asdescribed by Burns was in a tenuous position. Burns questioned this when he wrote about a
25transformational leader becoming too involved when wanting to relate and understand hisfollowers. This appears to put the leader in a position of micromanaging the follower‟s affairs. Ifso, then the leader could inadvertently stunt the leadership potential of the individual. If theleaders avoids involvement, does the leader neglect follower development duties? Burns offereda small group solution that was similar to Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s; however, the propersolution may require a transformational leader to use situational or contingency techniques assuggested by Bass (1985); Blanchard et al. (1985); and Kouzes and Posner (2007). Differentproblems require different leadership techniques to provide maximum flexibility for thetransformational leader and the development of the follower. Burns (1978) believed that moral-character is a necessary ingredient in the developmentof transformational leader, which conflicts with Burns own thoughts about highly developedtransformational leaders being able to transcend the limits found in the ethic of reciprocity or theGolden Rule. Kouzes and Posner (2007) tendered a word of caution with regard to thoseindividuals thinking they have a level of wisdom that transcends time. To think an individualleader or group of leaders has a grander idea than freedom is the folly of fools, especially as theirhubris assumes they have all of the answers as they micromanage their fellow human beings. Inthe end, they only marginalize their leadership power as they eventually become out of touchwith the needs of their constituents. Making the simple complex has often led to disagreement,the eventual breakdown in the social moral norms, and a loss of freedom within a society. Thiswas one of Kouzes and Posner‟s concerns in a leader shaping morality; he or she could do it atthe long-term detriment of society. Burnss (1978) viewpoint has a fundamental weakness in the leader-follower relationshipthat occurs as the transformational leader works to achieve the highest levels of moral
26development. The weakness occurs as the transformational leader loses focus on the details toleadership development. Burnss perspective of highly developed leader is that he or she oftenoverlooks the little details in life. Contrastingly, Blanchard et al. (1985) pointed out that withinthose details are many of life‟s problems and moments of inspiration. Consequently, if a leaderignores the details it often meant repeating mistakes not knowing the sources of failure. Thisover indulgence concerning macro-level issues is an error duplicated in Bass (1985), Bennis andWard-Biederman‟s (1997) theories. However, Bass did offer the solution of using otherleadership theories such as contingency and situational leadership to offset this weakness. In evaluating weaknesses, Kouzes and Posner (2007) hinted to other leadershipdevelopment techniques; however, they did not define them for what they were. For example,they discussed a concept of “fostering hardiness” (pp. 208 -209). This appeared to be anabbreviated description of Blanchard et al‟s. (1985) concept of situational leadership. Whichreiterated the weakness found in Burn‟s description of transformational leadership development,a good transformational leader has to know when to step in to help a subordinate, to let themstruggle to learn, or leave them alone because they are both competent and confident. If theleader incorrectly assesses the subordinate‟s ability in being competent and confident, leavingthe individual alone may appear as leader ignoring the needs of the subordinate.Transformational leadership theories alone do not address this issue. Kouzes and Posner (2007), as with Burns (1978), believed that a transformational leaderhas to have an established moral foundation in order to communicate a reasonable vision of thefuture. For followers to believe in the communicated vision, followers need historical precedentto help them believe. The weakness in Kouzes and Posner‟s belief that morality is a necessaryingredient in the development of a transformational leader is time and communication. To
27establish a history and lead by example requires an aspiring leader to have time to prove he orshe is capable in delivering their vision. If a situation does not allow the leader enough time toevaluate the aspiring leader effectively, then it becomes a matter communication. As stated byKouzes and Posner, open and honest communication provides the best chance of success.Anything less than open and honest communication will have the follower wondering, if theleader is intentionally deceiving him or her which would separate the follower from the leader‟svision. Kouzes and Posner (2007) also required a strong leader-follower relationship in order forit to be successful. This is analogous to Burns‟ (1978) reference to Maslow‟s hierarchy of needsand where those that achieve in meeting the highest stages of development are often the mostdependent upon those striving to improve. This concept is similar to the weakness noted in theanalysis of Burns‟ theory on transformational leadership development. The weakness, in thisrespect, occurs as the transformational leader or follower becomes too dependent on the other.Kouzes and Posner suggested that the relationship needed a level of independence between theleader and followers in order to avoid groupthink, inefficient replication, and other ruinoushabits. In concluding the comparison and contrast analysis, there were four groups ofcontrastingly different leadership theories analyzed. These four groups provided an assortment ofvarying analysis; however, in aligning an author to a theoretical classification of the leadershiptheory the following systematic breakdown occurred. The reactive leadership development groupconsisted of the theories offered by Blanchard et al. (1985) and Ibbotson (2008). Thetransactional or exchange-based group consists of Bass (1985) and Burns (1978). They proposeexchanges that address the follower‟s lower level needs. The third group was an amoral
28transformational group that sought a leader‟s self-fulfillment this included the analysis of Bassand the controversial theories of Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997). Finally, the fourth groupwas the moral transformational group promoting leadership development. It consisted of Burns(1978) and more recently Kouzes and Posner (2007). The next section will summarize andprovide some concluding analysis concerning the four leadership theories noted in the precedinganalysis. Summary In the final analysis, Kouzes and Posner (2007) presented a picture of moral leadershipthat implied that Hitler (Bass), Mao (Burns), and Lenin (Burns) should not represent the pinnacleof leadership since the deaths of millions occurred when they assumed and then maintainedpower. Were their movements transformational, as Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) pointed out,the answer to all of them was a definitive yes. However, in providing evidence that ends didjustify the means, Bass and Burns would have a difficult time to define their transformations aspositive. Consequently, Kouzes and Posner believed that leadership has to be something morethan wielding power to quench a thirst for monumental change. A portion of the answer resideswithin analyzing three POML concepts; leadership development, morality, and leader-followerrelationships. These three concepts used in the analysis of the noted leadership theories emanatedfrom thoughts espoused by Kouzes and Posner. In addition, they serve as a foundation increating an empowering form of POML. This summary highlights each aspect and provides asynthesized version of important qualities taken from the leadership theories that includesituational, contingency, transactional, and transformational. These essential qualities define thefoundational concepts of POML.Leadership Development
29 One of the most important aspects a leader should consider as they look to the future andserve their followers is the process of leadership development. If anything, leadershipdevelopment serves as a force-multiplier as a leader works to instill his or her vision whilefulfilling the needs of the followers. The key qualities of leadership development start with theleader leading by example. As Kouzes and Posner (2007) noted, with a firm understanding oftheir moral foundational makeup a leader should be an example of honest self-assessments,empower followers to act, and appreciate the efforts of others with humility. As the followerdevelops, the leader must employ excellent communication skills that include being an activelistener as noted by all of the authors in the breadth. When communicating with followers, theleader must identify with the followers needs in a manner that Burns (1978) described asmutually valued outcomes. These leadership qualities offer the follower an example to emulate. The process portion of leadership development includes establishing goals forincremental follower success (Blanchard et al., 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; and Bass, 1985)based on input concerning the needs derived from followers. As Bass noted, this intellectuallystimulates the followers and offers the followers the opportunity for dynamic change and growth.However, this transformation requires a morally repeatable process to provide equal opportunitydespite development being unique to each aspiring leader. For example, in using a morallyrepeatable process, it requires the leader to be flexible, adaptive, and detailed oriented (Ibbotson,2008) in order to accommodate the needs of the individual. This requires the leader to usediverse leadership styles; Blanchard et al. provided four examples. They were “Directive,Coaching, Supporting, and Delegating” (p. 30). Ibbotson (2008, p. 92) and Blanchard et al.(1985, p. 81) all suggested that the leader use a measurable goal oriented process called“SMART” to help the leader to objectively evaluate the follower‟s progress and help the
30follower to understand what it takes to be a leader. In order to make the development processtruly transformational, the leader needs to be positive, help the follower envision their role in theleader‟s vision, and empower the follower to complete his or her portion of this vision. In doingso, as Kouzes and Posner noted, the leader stimulates the follower creatively which offers thefollower the opportunity of dynamic leadership development. Of the key weaknesses noted when reviewing the leadership potential of the four theoriesanalyzed, some of the theories ignore the destruction of leadership potential wrought by someleaders as a follower attempts to improve their current situation. First, if a leader is disingenuouswhile setting false expectations, goals, or targets he or she will destroy their personal integrity(Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; and Kouzes and Posner, 2007). Bass added if a leader is disingenuous,then he or she habitually changes organizational expectations and goals. As a result, the immoralleader warps and hinders the development potential of the aspiring leader while the organizationsuffers constant upheaval. During these periods of turmoil, as Kouzes and Posner explained,Machiavellian power plays begin while aspiring leaders fend for themselves as they attempt tosurvive. Bass believed that the aspiring leader no longer seeks development. This predicamentforces the aspiring leader to develop survivalist skills, which makes them a good leader thatknows how to survive and not a leader that knows how to inspire and promote positive socialchange.Morality As the leader leads by example, he or she develops followers and aspiring leaders. AsBass (1985) and Burns (1978) noted, the process of developing followers requires the leader towork within the confines of organizational or social moral norms. Burns went further by adding,while working within the confines of the social moral norms, the leader morally works to
31increase the level of understanding of the follower, so they may become examples to others.Within the social moral confines, Blanchard et al. (1985) suggested the leader explain anddemonstrate fairness. Fairness requires the consistent application of organizational or socialmorals, ethics, values, rules, and laws. Blanchard et al. continued this thought by adding, ifchange is necessary the change must occur in a systematic manner within the societal structure.Any change that occurs outside the socially accepted moral norms is anarchy inspired by amoraltransformational and revolutionary leaders (Bass). If a leader acts narcissistically or inspiresamoral behavior, Ibbotson (2008) suggested that the leader must self-correct and act withhumility in order to use his or her power judiciously. This judicious use of power falls withinKouzes and Posner (2007) concept of a leader being a humble servant of the people. As a moralservant, he or she works to inspire others, the moral leader works protect the future freedom andopportunity of future generations. To be amoral, Blanchard et al. (1985) cautioned, requires the inconsistent application ofsocial morals, ethics, values, rules, and laws. All of the authors reaffirmed this broad theme. Forinstance, Bass (1985) suggested that some inconsistency occurs because of impropercommunication or failing to communicate to increase understanding. If improper communicationoccurs, the follower may perceive this failure to communicate as impropriety. Burns (1978) wentfurther and wrote that failing to communicate, lead by example, or act in a morally acceptablemanner as the situation dictates exemplified amoral leadership characteristics. Bass expoundedthis last thought when he added that erratic behavior is a result of a secular belief in ethicalrelativism, in which the amoral leader communicates using rhetoric and ambiguity. Some authorspromoted amoral behavior. For example, Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) thought moralitywas an obstruction to creative thought. They condoned and promoted individuals acting in an
32amoral manner. Regardless, for leaders to operate outside the boundaries, Kouzes and Posner(2007) thought this typified a leader‟s arrogance in believing that morals do not apply to them,they only apply to followers. This ruling class mentality is antithetical to process-oriented moralleadership.Leader-Follower Relationship To counter a ruling class mentality, POML requires leaders who are humble and arewilling to create strong and trusting bonds between them and their constituents. Bass (1985) wassuccinct in pointing out that this bond must include open and honest communication. Basscontinued by stating that as the bond grows it cultivates a working inclusive arrangement thatrequires the leader to empower the follower, so he or she may act, learn, and develop into aleader. A part of this trusting relationship requires the leader to encourage spontaneity. AsIbbotson (2008) suggested, one way to encourage spontaneity is to conduct brainstorming or roleplaying events. During these events, the leader collects the actionable ideas to either solve aproblem or use them to build group unity. Blanchard et al. (1985) thought that the leader neededto transform the ideas into tasks in order to provide the best opportunity to generate a series ofsmall victories that would build competence and confidence, which only strengthens the bond oftrust. As implied in the brainstorming event, which Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) alsowrote about, the leader serves the group by providing information and the tools to succeed so thegroup could generate small victories. As Burns (1978) noted, the leader has to maintain a macro-level perspective while aligning the small victories with the larger group goals that ultimately fitwithin his or her vision. In order for the leader to get the follower to believe his or her actionsadd value, the leader educates the follower about the macro-level perspective while explaining
33how the small victories fulfill the leader‟s vision. Kouzes and Posner (2007) thought that themacro-level perspective must include various expected inputs and outputs of all stakeholders. Inthe act, of sharing the vision, the leader mentors, facilitates, coaches, and directs the followers(Blanchard et al., 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 2007). As the leader becomes inclusive to and empowers the followers, Kouzes and Posner(2007) were implicit by requiring the leader to be firm with the equal application of the rules andsocial moral norms. Equal application of the rules protects the group from anarchy and turmoil.Ultimately, the leader protects the group from itself. The act of protecting the group frominternal and external conflict ensures the follower can focus on higher-level needs while buildingtrust and confidence in the leader. The act of protecting the group and the follower, as Bass (1985) injected, requires theleader to include corrective actions. As Kouzes and Posner (2007) cautioned, a leader shouldconduct corrective action to protect rules, moral norms, or use them as a preventive measuresuch as a learning event to thwart future inappropriate actions. However, Bass warned againstany corrective action carried out in an immoderate manner will force the follower to focus ontheir lower level needs; consequently, reducing the follower‟s output and the leader‟s power.Burns offered a similar perspective; he thought reactive or punitive leadership is the carrot or thestick approach to leadership that hinders the leader-follower relationship making it inefficientwith respect to output and growing a power base. The process-oriented moral leader has to beconcerned with rules and corrective actions in order to be morally correct and fair. However,Kouzes and Posner thought that the best way to avoid the need to use punitive action is througheducation. This education must include preventative measures that increase social awareness andinterrelatedness.
34 Growing a power base built on a strong leader-follower relationship has potential pitfallsfor the leader as Ibbotson (2008); Bass (1985); Burns (1978); and Kouzes and Posner (2007)illustrated in their theories. Burns cautioned leaders about the corruptible nature of power.Powers corruptible nature makes Ibbotson‟s self-assessing process based on the power-humilityratio suspect and dependent upon the strength of leader‟s moral character. If the leader weremorally weak, as Burns warned, he or she could manipulate the leader-follower relationship toencourage the follower to carry out activities that were counter intuitive to the social need. When leaders amass power, a follower risks losing their identity as they becomecaptivated by the leader‟s vision. Kouzes and Posner (2007) made this point; furthermore, theythought a loss of self-identity created an environment where systems of hate could develop. Forexample, as Bass (1985), Bennis, and Ward-Biederman (1997) noted those followers within theleader‟s sphere of influence become zealots carrying out acts with a Machiavellian crusadementality. As a result, the leader-follower relationship de-evolves into groupthink and an abusivebi-polar carrot and stick approach to maintain output or group cohesiveness. Any dissentingthought that is contrary to the leader‟s vision requires corrective or punitive action. Sincenegative action identifies individuals left outside of the leader‟s sphere of influence, thesefollowers become targets of abuse. As resentment builds in the targets of abuse, the abused waitfor the next revolutionary leader to save those individuals forced to follow the amoral leader(Bass). In this example, as Bass noted, the leader has destroys incentive in the targeted group.The leader and his or her zealots will reduce the output of followers by forcing them to beconcerned about their lower level needs that include survival. In the final analysis, the leadership development answer found by analyzing positives andnegatives of the four leadership theories provides a synthesized version of leadership
35development that culminates in a developed process-oriented moral leader. This process-orientedmoral leader focuses on the positives found in leadership development, morality, leader-followerrelationship, by finding a mutually beneficial driving force for change, competition, and positivesocial change while avoiding the negatives of each. Simply, the process-oriented moral leaderlooks at the leadership development theories as tools in a toolbox. When used appropriately, theknowledge contained within each theory can inspire followers, depending upon the situation, tobecome force-multipliers as they propagate the concept of positive social change via POML. Positive social change in this analysis is working to inspire dormant and apatheticindividuals to be become societal leaders that protect freedom and opportunity. In doing so, withproper education, future leaders will not have to relearn the lessons of the past, future leaderswill have the opportunity to lead changes necessary for a better tomorrow. Consequently, tomake the change process more efficient, positive social change must occur with some societalunderstanding of right and wrong. As Bass (1985) noted with his examples, social moral normshave to be something greater than laws, for the excessive abuses found within them often lead tosofter versions of tyranny. However, Kouzes and Posner (2007) alluded to societal normsneeding to be adaptable. When societal norms need changed, the change has to occur on asocietal level, so everybody knows the new standard for growth and future leadershipdevelopment. After any necessary changes, Kouzes and Posner believed that when the leader andthe follower works within the re-established social moral norms: they both win when carryingout positive social change. In addition, the community wins as well when apathetic individualsbecome self-leaders. The reality to our development and interrelatedness is that the answers touniversal questions are within all of us.
36 Conclusion After analyzing the POML positives and negatives of different leadership theories, therewere numerous leadership qualities discovered enhancing the concept of POML. POML is aleadership development concept that emphasizes a process-oriented philosophy to producejustifiable results while encouraging moral, positive social change notions of mutual-cooperationand the continual improvement of all stakeholders. Even though, positive social changetransformation is the goal, the compilation of theories used in the analysis does not presume onetheory better or worse as Burns (1978) implied in his conceptual beliefs. Rather each theoryincorporates useful tools that a process-oriented moral leader could use in a manner that Bass(1985), Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997), Ibbotson (2008), and Kouzes and Posner (2007)suggested. This concept of using the correct situational approach in response to a situation wassomething Blanchard et al. (1985) wrote about in their situational leadership theory. A process-oriented moral leader does not transform a society to fit his or her vision orvalues as Bass endorsed; a process-oriented moral leader transforms by getting a group ofindividuals to push their potential and boundaries for the benefit of all stakeholders as Kouzesand Posner proposed. Furthermore, since the realm of the leader is the future, a process-orientedmoral leader must protect freedom and promote individual responsibility. Kouzes and Posnerbelieve it is necessary for leaders to have the freedom to choose and act upon those decisions.Understanding freedoms frailty, the authors also thought leaders have to have a moralfoundation. As a result, leaders need to know societal right from wrong, to understand why it isimportant to take responsibility for any improprieties, and the wisdom to know they are only aninterrelated servant to the greater good of positive social change. The process-oriented moral
37leader works to secure the potential of future leaders, in doing so he or she secures their legacyas a transformational agent of positive social change. In searching for the positives and negatives in the four theories as they relate to theconcept of POML, leadership development, morality, and leader-follower relationship areconsistent with regards to one basic concept. This fundamental concept instructs leaders to bementors of future leaders and prioritize the needs of their people first. A leader uses his or hervision, philosophy, and leadership developmental understanding to augment the developmentalneeds of followers as they develop into leaders. Morality comes into play in understanding rightand wrong, according to Kouzes and Posner (2007) knowing right from wrong provides afoundation to identify positive social change issues, which enables future leaders to endure andovercome obstacles to positive social change. This fundamental concept touches on three othercriteria used to evaluate POML; they were identifying a rationale for change, harnessingcompetitive nature of humanity, and clarifying the concept of positive social change. Inanalyzing current research, the depth will expand the last three criteria concerning the premise ofPOML by providing a point of reference used to compare and contrast current research withother current research and theories established in the breadth.
38 Depth AMDS 8522: Current Research on Leadership Development Annotated BibliographyBarbuto, Jr. J. E. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies; 11, 26-40. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100403. Barbuto‟s (2005) work focused on five hypotheses. The first hypothesis tried to establisha positive relationship between the intrinsic factors of “heteronymous morality, impulsive need,and pre-operational need” (p. 28-29) with charismatic and transformational leadership behaviors.The second hypothesis dealt with contractual or well-defined goals and rewards providing atheorized positive increase in a leader‟s internal motivation. The third hypothesis implied that thepositive relationship between a leader‟s popularity within a community and transactional andcharismatic leadership behaviors. The fourth hypothesis focused in on a leader‟s self-image aspositively related to charismatic and transformational leadership behaviors. The fifth hypothesisdealt with the process on how a leader processed intrinsic goals determined the constructiverelationship to transformational leadership behaviors. Using relatively obvious hypotheses,Barbuto determined that there were testable antecedents that a firm or organization could test forin order to find the right-fit candidate qualities to fill leadership positions. This leadership motivational “profiling” (Barbuto, 2005, p. 37) appeared to be fraughtwith developmental subjectivity and legal ramifications by stereotyping individuals and settingartificial limits. Barbuto appeared to have excluded the possibility of future developmentalepiphanies thereby relegating leaders of today and tomorrow to their current paradigm in bothmotivation and leadership development. Furthermore, the study was very dependent upon
39whether the subjects or future job candidates responded to the questions truthfully and did notoffer what the test person thought was the correct response. In essence, Barbuto‟s study wassimple and transactional in nature; consequently, it was not surprising that he had difficulties inidentifying strong correlations with an antecedent and transformational leadership.Fairhurst, G. T. (2005). Reframing the art of framing: Problems and prospects for leadership. Leadership, 1, 165 doi: 10.1177/1742715005051857. Fairhurst (2005) hoped to provide reasons as to why some leaders were both willing andcapable concerning the concept of framing as a communication tool while other leaders seemedunwilling or incapable. The first reason, offered by Fairhurst, centered on a leader‟s natural,philosophical makeup. Some leaders had a predominant relativistic or essentialist interpretationof events, which hindered their ability to process the dynamic skill of framing conversations. Asdetermined by the author, the focal point of the second reason was the leader‟s ability to use“Message Design Logics” (p. 173). The manner in which a leader communicated consisted ofthree levels, which were expressive, conventional, and rhetorical. Expressive was blunt and tothe point. The conventional level was utilitarian and based upon social upon social norms ofcommunication. The third level of communication was the rhetorical level. It was the ability toshape the exchange of ideas to fit a strategic need. If a leader displayed lower level logic, he orshe was less apt to understand the concept of framing conversation. Fairhurst believed that theskill of framing was teachable; however, the level of understanding was dependent upon theintrinsic abilities of the leader. As a result of an extensive revelation, Fairhurst (2005) identified four impediments to theunderstanding the skill of framing. All four impediments resided within a student‟s informationprocessing paradigm. The four Fairhurst identified were the inexplicable disorders of “arrogance,
40conduit thinking, authenticity concerns, and the absence of a moral framework” (p.175). Mostimportant was the absence of a moral framework, since framing was a tool, it could empower themost virtuous of activities or promote hateful surreptitious activities that destroy the good thatresides in humanity‟s conscious. The absence of a moral framework would allow an amoralleader to use it to promote social change that destroys. Fairhurst was explicit in the importance ofestablishing a moral framework because framing has subcomponents called “metaphor,jargon/catchphrases, contrast, spin, and stories” (p. 168). When used inappropriately, framingcan legitimize the inexplicable and cause social harm using the best of intentions.Gorlorwulu, J. & Rahschulte, T. (2010). Organizational and leadership implications for transformational development. Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies, 27, 199 – 208. doi: 10.1177/0265378810369955. The authors identified five features of Christian based transformational development.First, and most importantly, an individual must know them self as he or she analyzed theiractions in relation to the established moral norm. Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) thought thesecond feature required an individual to seek “positive change” as a leader with regards to thethree dimensions of a complete life, “materially, socially, and spiritually” (p. 202). The thirdfeature described the act of a leader being a servant of the people while focusing on the first twofeatures as being a “steward” (p. 200) for the people. The fourth feature required a totalcommitment from the transformational leader to the concept of transformational development asa life choice while serving the people. The authors‟ perceptions on the fifth feature included theconcept of a calling as it related to transformational leadership. It required a leader to assistindividuals to find their true calling in order to maximize their efforts and be efficientcontributors to their community. The authors believed that change was an integral part of
41leadership; as a result, they believed that their transformational development concept should beincluded for both profit and non-profit business entities. The unfortunate stance that Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) took was to declare thattrue transformational development was a Christian only concept of spirituality. In doing so, theauthors choose to ignore other secular and religious entities in pursuit of the same singularity indevelopment. Furthermore, they took a pessimistic stance concerning the individuals they hopedto help. Instead of improving the condition of poverty by harnessing the abundance of potentialin all individuals, they choose classify their endeavor as reducing poverty through “resourcescarcity” (p. 203) management and organizational efficiency. With that said, many of theirbeliefs were similar to King‟s, especially the notion that a person seeking transformationaldevelopment was on a quest to search for the “wholeness” (p. 201) of life which drew manyparallels to King‟s three dimensions of a complete life.Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of „leadership‟. Human Relations, 58, 1467-1494. doi: 10.1177/0018726705061314. Grint (2005) started the article by dispelling the notion of “context determiningleadership response” (p. 1490), as found in the great man, contingency, and situational theories,since it limited the leader‟s options when resolving the problem in a systematic manner. Grintoffered a different approach that required the leader to be keenly aware of the situation and thecontext in which the problem developed because a problem could either be “wicked, tame, orcritical” (p. 1472-1477). Each problem required a different response by the leader. For example,if the situation were a wicked problem, then the leader would use leadership skills that build aconsensus in order to do root cause analysis and resource delegation. If the problem were a tame,it would require routine managerial skills to resolve the problem. Finally, if the problem were
42critical, it would require a military style commander using coercion as they controlled others toresolve the problem. As a result, an effective leader stayed ahead of the problem by reclassifyingthe context of the problem in order to maximize political gain or lessen the damage to his or herpower base. The article‟s premise focused on the maxim of never letting a good problem go to waste.Ironically, Grint (2005) concedes that leaders routinely lusted for power, corrupted by power,and were unable to admit mistakes. As a solution, he offered an amoral construct that instructed aleader to frame the context of a problem in a manner that mitigated any negative effects andmaximized the positive effects in order to implement a social agenda. Upon taking office, aleader arranges a host of predetermined responses to implement a social agenda that may beintractable or even unwanted by his or her constituents. When a problem occurs, the leaderquickly frames it as wicked, tame, or critical with a matching predetermined response that mayhave nothing to do with resolving the problem that triggered a need for a response. In almostautomatic fashion concerning the manner of appreciative inquiry, bureaucratic managers pick upthe predetermined response and begin implementation. Depending on the initial results, theleader can reclassify the problem in order to deflect blame or to seize maximum power. On thesurface, this amoral construct appeared completely reactionary; however, this changeddramatically as the leader implements a proactive social agenda. The construct is in conflict withmoral leadership. Moral leadership requires a leader to navigate through the tumult of the changeevent, while consuming the least amount of resources in order to achieve a socially agreed uponobjective.
43Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership behaviors and subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 2-14. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100202. Using optimism as a control variable, Harland, Harrison, Jones, and Reiter-Palmon(2005) tested two hypotheses to determine if there were key ingredients a leader needed in orderto improve resilience in their subordinates. The first hypothesis theorized that the “fivetransformational leadership dimensions (attributed charisma, idealized influence, inspirationalmotivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration)” and the transactionaldimension of contingent reward “would be positively associated with resilience” (p. 9). Whilemonitoring the five dimensions and manipulating optimism, inspirational motivation was theonly dimension “not significantly correlated with resilience” (p. 9). As expected, in the secondhypothesis the author controlled optimism with respect to management-by-exception-active,management-by-exception-passive, and laissez-faire dimensions and there was no significantcorrelation with “subordinate resilience” (p. 9). When looking at the study in its totality and theconstant state of change found in current events, which political pundits have portrayed as aharbinger of doom, the results of this study suggested that it would take visionarytransformational leaders to see the good and unlimited potential in their subordinates to navigatethe tumult. Surprisingly, Harland et al. (2005) delved in to a topic that had relatively little researchconducted. In fact, they had to use research from other fields to assemble a definition forresilience that was similar to coping. Concerning both resilience and coping, Harland et al. listedsome protective factors when predicting if an individual would be resilient or not. Interestinglyenough, if a transformational leader could develop and foster these protective factors in their