Dimensions of Leadership: Comprehensive Exam Preparation

1. Chuck Sanders Regent University Dimensions of Leadership:Comprehensive Exam Preparation

2. Leadership Behaviors or Styles Leadership vs Management – Selznick, 1957; Rost, 1991 Transformational – Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985, 1990 Transactional – Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985, 1990 Charismatic – House, 1977 Servant – Greenleaf, 1977 Spiritual – Fry, 2003 Situational – Hersey & Blanchard, 1977 Shared – Pearce and Conger, 2003 Leadership in all – Raelin, 2003 Christian Leadership

3. Ciulla, 1998 No One Is A Leader Without Willing Followers

4. Leadership vs Management Without understanding the distinction between management and leadership, one cannot adequately describe the leadership process. Many authors have distinguished between leadership and management (Selznick, 1957; Jacobs, 1970; Zaleznik, 1977; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Graham, 1988). Selznick (1957) defined management as a relationship based on authority, and leadership as a relationship based on influence. Rost (1991) described management as unidirectional authority and leadership as multidirectional relationships. Reicher, Platow and Haslam (2007) considered leadership in terms of the ability to influence what followers actually want to do as opposed to management, which enforces compliance using rewards and punishments.

5. Leadership vs Management - cont Jacobs (1970) argued that management “resides in the relationship between positions in an organization, and derived from consensually validated role expectations for the position incumbents involved.” Leadership was described as an interaction between persons in which one presents information of a sort and in such as manner that the other becomes convinced that this or her outcomes will be improved if he or she behaves in the manner suggested. Yukl (2006) described qualities of a manager as concern for “stability, order, and efficiency whereas leaders value flexibility, innovation, and adaptation.” Doing it right vs doing the right thing

6. Leadership – Burns (1978) • Leadership is a process of morality to the degree that leaders engage with followers on the basis of shared motives and values and goals • on the basis, that is, of the followers ‘true’ needs as well as those of the leaders • Burns (2003) contends that this form of leadership is a dynamic moral relationship that he calls “transforming leadership.” • He contrasts transforming leadership with transactional leadership, which is an exchange of benefits or harms between leaders and followers. • Transforming leadership is concerned with end values, such as liberty, justice, and equality (Ciulla, 1998)

7. Burns and Bass Burns focused on political leaders and the deliberative process in which leaders and followers influence each other, Bass’s work concentrated on business leaders and the psychological influence of leaders on followers. Both fostered research on charismatic leadership (Conger 1989; House, Spangler, and Woycke 1991), which focuses on the emotional impact of a leader’s personality, charm, or grace in inspiring a kind of devotion in followers.

8. Leadership and Ethics • Burns (1978, 2003) argued that there must be an ethical and moral component to leadership. Without an ethical or moral standard it cannot be leadership. • Ciulla (1998) wrote that leadership is a complex moral relationship between people, based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a shared vision of the good. • Ethics, then, lies at the very heart of leadership • Ciulla (1998) wrote about the issue of whether or not Hitler was a leader. If you agree with Burns, that leadership has a moral component which influences others in a positive way, then you must conclude that Hitler was not a leader. He was a masterful mis-leader.

9. History of Leadership Definition – Ciulla, 1998 1920s – the ability to impress the will of the leader on those led and induce obedience, respect, loyalty, and cooperation 1930s – a process in which the activities of many are organized to move in a specific direction by one 1940s – the result of an ability to persuade or direct men, apart from the prestige or power that comes from office or external circumstance 1950s – what leaders do ingroups. Leaders authority is spontaneously accorded by fellow group members 1960s – acts by a person that influence other persons in a shared direction 1970s – in terms of discretionary influence - those leader behaviors under control of the leader which may vary by individual 1980s – simple perspective – to inspire others to undertake some form of purposeful action as determined by the leader 1990s – an influence relationship between leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes

10. Leadership and Ethics - cont In leadership studies, most of the research on ethics concentrates on testing the effectiveness of leaders who have certain moral qualities (Brown and Treviño 2006). In the past few years, philosophers have applied the ethics literature to the social science research from leadership studies (Ciulla 2008; Price 2005).

11. Christian Leadership • Difference between how Jesus demonstrated and encouraged leadership (John 13:1-17) vs. the modern heroic leadership styles commonly seen in companies today (Bradford and Cohen, 1998). • Jesus taught that one who wishes to lead must be a servant first (Servant Leadership). • The heroic leadership perspective was all about the leader being served to achieve the desired goals set by the individual leader. • Christian leadership is focused on the attitude and conduct of the individual, as opposed to the organization they lead. • Delbecg (1999) found that Christian executives were focused more on a calling of service, rather than the job. • Bradford and Cohen (1998) - the problem with the heroic leadership perspective is the assumption that it is the leader who is responsible for determining the right answers and managing.

12. Christian Leadership - cont • A comparison between the Christian perspective from Matthew 5 (Beatitudes) and the notion of shared leadership (Pearce and Conger, 2003) and servantleadership (Greenleaf, 1977) leads to a good model for the role of executives in facilitative and enabling their organizations to effectively deal with complex and dynamic environments. • Shared leadership has been defined as a shared process of enhancing the capability of people to accomplish collective work effectively (Heifetz, 1994). • Jesus did not intend to be the single leader. Instead, he intended for each of his followers to share in the leadership to transform the world. • The Beatitudes describe the leadership attributes required by the followers of Jesus (Winston, 2002). • The first beatitude is about being poor in spirit. Winston explained that this means leaders should be humble and respectful of others. • Other principles derived from the Beatitudes include deep caring for others, being fair, controlled discipline, striving for what is right, being merciful, and encouraging cooperation and communication.

13. Christian Leadership - cont • Lawrence (1987) wrote about seven distinctions of Christian leadership. • Christian leadership is distinctive as to its position. In that Jesus is the only true leader and that a leader must first submit to the Christ, for submission is the key to power. Through Christ, a leader comes to know truth, love and righteousness in his followers. • Character requirements, in that it requires Christian character. This character means congruence between attitude, word, and action. This congruence speaks of integrity and serves as a magnet to draw others to listen and respond to the leadership. • The source of leadership is the Holy Spirit, which provides the capacity to be an effective leader. • Enablement, or empowerment of the Holy Spirit. For only Christian leaders can count on His presence and power to overcome difficult situations and challenges, even in secular settings. This empowerment also provides the strength to resist temptations that would diminish the effectiveness and credibility of the leader (not to mention insult the Lord). This is something that non-Christian leaders cannot claim or know. • Ambition. This is not the self-centered kind seeking more power and authority. Christian ambition is the drive and desire to carry the burdens and responsibilities of leadership to overcome obstacles and attain organizational goals in the name of Christ. • Motivation. Much like ambition, Christian leaders are motivated by love and concern for their fellow members or workers. Christian leadership is earned through service for others before self. • Authority. A Christian leader is a servant leader, and his or her authority is gained through service to those they would lead. In other words, authority is earned. Lawrence, W. (1987). Distinctives of Christian leadership. Bibliotheca Sacra, July-September, 317-329.

14. Transformational Leadership • Burns (1978) noted that transforming leaders sought to appeal to and influence the moral values of the followers and inspire them to reform and revamp their organizations • Bass (1985), inspired by Burns, outlined how a leader can influence the motivation of individual followers and increase their performance • Avolio, Waldman and Yammarino (1991) established the 4 I’s of transformational leadership: • Idealized influence, • Inspirational motivation, • Intellectual stimulation, and • Individualized consideration • Bass and Avolio (1994) outlined ways to develop transformational leaders and improve organizational effectiveness.

15. Transactional Leadership Burns (1978) described transactional leaders as those who lead others in exchange for something of value Bass (1990) argued that transactional leadership could result in mediocre performance as individuals perform at minimum levels, seeking to maximize the rewards for additional work completed

16. Charismatic Leadership Weber (1947) used the term to describe a form of influence based on follower perceptions of leader exceptional qualities House (1977) proposed a theory to explain charismatic leadership in terms of a set of testable propositions involving observable processes rather than folklore and mystique. Conger and Kanungo (1987) proposed a theory of charismatic leadership based on the assumption that charisma is an attributional phenomenon. According to their theory, follower attribution of charismatic qualities to a leader is jointly determined by the leader’s behavior, expertise, and situation. Bennis and Nanus, (1985), Hogan, Raskin, & Fazzini (1990) identified that charismatic CEOs do not predict success of an organization. Also concluded that visionary CEOs do not have a higher propensity for avoiding poor financial outcomes Conger and Kanungo (1998) outlined that charismatic leaders were more effective than non-charismatic leaders Yukl (1999) argued that transformational and charismatic leadership is often considered synonymous when in fact there are many differences between the two behaviors. Yukl argues that the constructs are distinct but overlapping.

17. Charismatic Leadership – cont • Behaviors that explain how a charismatic leader influences the attitudes and behavior of followers: • Articulating an appealing vision • Using strong, expressive forms of communication • Taking personal risks and making self sacrifices • Communicating high expectations • Expressing confidence in followers • Modeling behaviors consistent with the vision • Managing follower impressions of the leader • Building identification with the group or organization • Empowering followers • Bass, Conger & Kanungo, and House all raised concerns for the potential dark side of charisma (manipulation)

18. Servant Leadership – Greenleaf, 1977 • Greenleaf (1977) makes the argument that servant leaders focus on that which is best for their followers. He argued that great leaders are first of all servant leaders. • The role of the leader is to enable the followers to do their jobs, but not just to satisfy whatever requirements have been placed on them by the leader. • Leaders must stand for what is good and right, above financial gain. • The leader is expected to seek the followers gain. The concept is that the follower usually knows best what needs to be done and how, and the leader needs to do whatever they can to support the follower so they can do that. • Harvey (2001) added that the leader’s love should be for the followers, not the organization, since the followers make up the organization. • Patterson (2003) introduced the model of agapao love as the appropriate way to understand servant leadership, where the leader is both humble and altruistic. • Service to followers is the most important responsibility of leaders and the essence of ethical leadership. • A servant leader is focused on the needs of the follower and work to raise them to higher levels of well-being and performance. • The distinction is on leader focus on serving the best interest of the followers as the essential pathway for reaching (organizational) goals.

19. Spiritual Leadership – Fry, 2003 • Fry (2003) argues that spiritual leadership incorporates vision, hope/faith, and altruistic love, workplace spirituality, and spiritual survival to foster higher levels of organizational commitment and productivity. • Employees who work for organizations they consider being spiritual are less fearful, more ethical, and more committed. • Spiritual leadership is comprising the values, attitudes, and behaviors that are necessary to intrinsically motivate one’s self and others so that they have a sense of spiritual survival through calling and membership. • Spiritual leadership entails • creating a vision wherein organization members experience a sense of calling in that their life has meaning and makes a difference; • establishing a social/organizational culture based on altruistic love whereby leaders and followers have genuine care, concern, and appreciation for both self and others, thereby producing a sense of membership and being understood and appreciated. • Spiritual leadership contributes to organizational commitment and productivity

20. Situational or Flexible Leadership – Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (1996) highlighted the importance of leaders and managers being able to adapt to the changing environment and select leadership styles that fit the needs of the organization Kenny and Zaccaro (1983) argued that the number of times an individual is placed in a leadership role adds to their behavioral flexibility Leaders who are behaviorally flexible are more likely to lead organizations that have positive outcomes

21. Shared Leadership – Pearce & Conger, 2003 The key difference with shared leadership is that the influence process is more than just vertical between leader and follower. Instead, leadership is broadly distributed among sets of individuals, to include peers, where leadership is viewed as an activity rather than the attributes of a single individual who fills a position of authority. In this paradigm, leadership is not determined by authority, but instead by an individual’s capacity to influence peers and by the leadership needs of the team at a given moment or situation (Pearce and Conger, 2003). It is recognized that each member brings a unique perspective, knowledge and capability to the team.

22. Empowerment – one key to leadership • Empowerment is one of the themes that emerges from at study of Luke 10:1-20. • The story of the seventy two provides an example that Jesus empowered his disciples (Buzzell, Boa, and Perkins, 1998) when he sent them off to spread the word. • Empowerment plays a central role in leadership studies (Pearce & Conger, 2003). • the backbone of many approaches to organizational change (Howard, 1998) . • “it is the transformational leader who fosters empowered followers.” The empowering leader displays inspirational motivation by striving to point out the importance of an assignment (Bass, 1998) • However, empowerment is not just about the ‘leader’ convincing others to take action. Cuilla (2004) explained that empowerment gives people ‘the confidence, freedom, and resources to act on their own judgments’ to effect change. • While the act of empowerment provides the catalyst to encourage individuals to take action to effect change, the decision to change and take action is still with the individuals. • The seventy two were not forced to spread the word. They chose to do so, after Jesus showed them that they had the ability. • In a sense, the empowerment by Jesus also transferred a sense of leadership to the seventy two.

23. Empowerment – Howard, 1998 • Forms the backbone for many approaches to organizational change (Howard, 1998) • Foundation for TQM, BPR, self-managed teams • Inhibited by too much focus on motivation and too little on psychological mechanisms • Empowerment is thought to be motivating • Many managers resist empowerment in the interest of protecting their own jobs • Empowerment actually gives managers new responsibilities • Empowerment ideal for orgs that need to be faster, more flexible, higher quality, and globalization • Relies more on collaboration and delegation

24. Empowerment benefits – Howard, 1998 • Increased Motivation • Employees have greater sense of job ownership • leads to increased org commitment • Increased willingness to take on new tasks • Encourages Learning by all • Workers with control can better see the relationship between their actions and consequences, develop an understanding of the dynamic properties of systems/processes, and anticipate/avoid/prevent problems • Increased Stress Tolerance • High worker control helps employees avert or become more resistant to stress (Karasek & Theorell, 1990)

25. Empowerment benefits to managers • Howard & Wellins (1994) found that empowering managers experienced the following: • Greater organizational commitment • More job satisfaction • Less role ambiguity • Less role overload • Counter to the early assumptions that empowerment of employees would lead to less power and prestige for managers

26. Leadership in All or Leaderfulness - Raelin Raelin (2003) argued for the need of communities where everyone shares the experience of serving as a leader, not just sequentially, but concurrently and collectively, all at the same time and all together. Raelin described leaderful as not leaderless, but the case where leadership is distributed across all members of the organization. He proposed a mutual model of leadership that incorporates everyone in leadership that transforms leadership from an individual property into a leaderful practice. Leaderful practice does not just merely present a consultative model of follower empowerment where leaders allow followers to participate in their leadership. Each member provides a unique contribution. In Raelin’s model managers are inherently collaborative.

27. Leaderful leadership - cont • Leaderful practice is comprised of what Raelin described as the Four ‘Cs’: • Concurrent, more than one leader at the same time, sharing power; • Collective, many people exercise leadership; • Collaborative, all members contribute to and support decisions made for the benefit of the group; and • Compassionate, managers are committed to the dignity of others, each member of the organization is valued. • Leaderful practice is based on the need for timelyleadership. • It needs to be exercised when and how the situation requires, not when the ‘leader’ is available.

28. Leaderfulness - cont • Raelin (2003) argued that leaderful practice should be exercised at all levels, and distilled readiness characteristics for leaderful practice to four principles that apply across individual, team, and organization: • be sure that leaderful individuals and communities have the necessary resources (financial and information) that will allow them to assume accountability for their empowered decision making • add a learning component to prepare all involved to assume shared responsibility • ensure that there is a commitment to allow leaderful behavior to proceed without taking back control at the first misstep • be selective – leaderful practice should only be accorded to those ready to assume the responsibility • In this new model of organizational leadership, some preparation is required for employees to assume responsibility and demonstrate the capability for leadership in their organization (Raelin, 2003; Pearce and Conger, 2003). • The challenge is how to know if employees are ready to participate in the leadership process. Do they possess the required characteristics or traits to participate in leaderful practice?

29. Culture and Leadership – House et al, 2004 • House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta (2004) conducted a study of cultural differences for leadership of 62 countries • Culture = Shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of members of collectives and are transmitted across generations. • Construct - measured both cultural practices (as is) and cultural values (should be) for: • Power distance:degree to which members of a collective expect power to be distributed equally • Uncertainty Avoidance:extent to which a society, organization, or group relies on social norms, rules and procedures to alleviate unpredictability of future events. • Humane Orientation:degree to which a collective encourages & rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring and kind to others. • Collectivism I:degree to which individuals are integrated into groups within the society. • Collectivism II:degree to which individuals have strong ties to their small immediate groups • Assertiveness:degree to which individuals are assertive, dominant & demanding in their relationships with others. • Gender Egalitarianism:degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality. • Future Orientation:extent to which a collective encourages & rewards future-oriented behaviors such as delaying gratification, planning & investing in the future. • Performance Orientation:degree to which a collective encourages & rewards group members for performance improvement & excellence.

30. Managerial lessons from Globe study • Be aware of your own cultural lens • Understand the others’ culture and history • Avoid making judgments until you understand the situation from both parties’ points of view • Share information about your own cultural lens • Look for similarities across cultures • Use similarities as bridges between the two parties • Show respect and flexibility • Focus on building trust • Be prepared for higher levels of ambiguity • Accept the fact that cross cultural situations are more complex than unicultural situations • Avoid triggering the other person’s cultural immune system (CIS) • If CIS is triggered, disengage • Avoid cultural cruise control • Keep in mind that we are not cultural robots House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman & Gupta (2004)

31. Culture – Hofstede, 2001 • “the survival of mankind will depend to a large extent on the ability of people who think differently to act together” • Hofstede defined culture as follows: Culture consists in patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core consists of traditional ideas and their attached values • In studying values we compare individuals, in studying culture we compare societies • Hofstede is cautious about analyzing culture at multiple levels of analysis

32. Stacey on leadership • Stacey (2007) argued that chaos theory is concerned with the properties of iterative, deterministic, nonlinear mathematical relationships (i.e., algorithms) in which the output of one iteration becomes the input of the next. • He further explained that mathematical models are not reality but simply logical structures. • In reality, human interactions cannot be predicted or determined, which means chaos theory cannot explain organizational dynamics (Stacey, 2007). • Instead of chaos theory, Stacey (2007) proposed a different theory of human interaction in organizations, called complex responsive processes of relating, where organizations are patterns of communicative interaction between interdependent individuals. • This perspective focuses on the interactions and power relating between individuals, without the presumption of control advocated in chaos theory. • Prediction is done by understanding how individuals relate and execute power during interactions with others. • With the element of free choice that God provides each of us, this theory is more appropriate for understanding why individuals do what they do.

33. References Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press. Bradford, D., and Cohen, A. (1998). Power Up: Transforming Organizations Through Shared Leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Brown, M. E., and Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical Leadership: A Review and Future Directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595-616. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming Leadership. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press. Buzzell, S., Boa, K., and Perkins, B. (Eds.) (1998). The Leadership Bible: Leadership Principles from God’s Word. Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation. Ciulla, J. B. (1995). Leadership Ethics: Mapping the Territory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5, 5-28. Ciulla, J. B., (ed.) (1998). Ethics the Heart of Leadership. Westport, CT: Praeger. Ciulla, J. B.. (2004). Ethics and Leadership Effectiveness. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, and R. J. Sternberg (Eds). The Nature of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 302-27. Ciulla, J. B., ed. 2008. Leadership at the Crossroads. Vol. 3, Leadership and the Humanities. Westport, CT: Praeger. Delbecq, A. L. (1999). Christian spirituality and contemporary business. Journal of Organizational Change, 12, 4, 345-349. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

34. References cont Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, VA: Belnap Press of Harvard University Press. Howard, A. (1998). The empowering leader: Unrealized opportunities. In G. Hickman (ed.) Leading Organizations: Perspectives for a New Era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pearce, C. L. & Conger, J. A. (Eds.) (2003). Shared Leadership: Reframing Hows and Whys of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Price, T. L. (2005). Understanding Ethical Failures in Leadership. New York: Cambridge University Press. Raelin, J. A. (2003). Creating Leaderful Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Praeger. Sanders, J.S. (1989), Spiritual Leadership, Moody Press, Chicago Winston, B. (2002). Be A Leader for God’s Sake. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University.