Triangulating freedom & leadership

Triangulating Freedom and Leadership Development

by

Allen Carn allen.carn@waldenu.edu

Program: PhD in Applied Management and Decision Sciences

Specialization: Leadership and Organizational Change

KAM Assessor: Dr. Branford McAllister branford.mcallister@waldenu.edu

Faculty Mentor: Dr. Duane Tway duane.tway@waldenu.edu

Walden University

June 6, 2012

i

Abstract

Breadth

In comparing and contrasting various leadership development theories, transformational

leadership was supposed to be the pinnacle of leadership development. However, as the leader

develops, he or she should never discard process-oriented lessons learned as being a situational

or a transactional leader. Situations and events may require the leader to react in an appropriate

manner that is either situational or transactional. Furthermore, a transformational leader does not

transform societies to fit his or her personal desires at the expense of its citizens. It is a

transformational leader‟s moral responsibility to transform a society by enacting a vision of

positive social change. He or she completes this life goal by transforming those in their personal

sphere 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 learn

and choose.

ii

Abstract

Depth

The focal point of the depth was to review leadership theories in current scholarly literature that

could enhance the premise of process-oriented moral leadership. The literature included various

leadership theories, but the focus was on situational, contingency, transactional, and

transformational. The examination of the various leadership theory encapsulated in the literature

included 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, the

concept of process-oriented moral leadership is enhanced in terms of looking for opportunities

and avoiding threats that help leaders achieve their primary purpose, serving and inspiring those

they lead to be more than they thought capable.

iii

Abstract

Application

In an effort to triangulate freedom, equal opportunity, and positive social change concerning

leadership development, three iconic leaders provided invaluable information to assist potential

process-oriented moral leaders in implementing their version of leadership development and

organizational change. In his self-proclaimed arrogance, Alinsky provided a method to develop

organizers and leaders through continual societal upheaval. Iacocca announced that everyone has

leadership potential; it just takes a mentor, knowledge, and hard work to develop his nine

characteristics of a good leader. This mentoring belief is similar to King‟s belief in the unlimited

potential of individuals to achieve the height dimension of life, which includes leadership

development principles and the concept of interrelatedness. Interrelatedness provides the best

example why Alinsky and Iacocca believed that leaders were supposed to serve the needs of all

individuals.

iv

Table of Contents
Synopsis 1

Breadth 4

Contingency and Situational Leadership 4

Potential POML Positives. 5

Potential POML Negatives. 8

Transactional 9



Transformational 14



Summary 28

Leadership Development 28

Morality 30

Leader-Follower Relationship 32

Conclusion 36

Annotated Bibliography 38

Literature Review Essay 58

Reaction-Based Premises 60



Exchange Premises 69


v


Amoral Transformational 77



Moral Transformational 83



Summary 91

Driving Force for Change 91

Competition 96

Positive Social Change 99

Conclusion 102

Application 107

Analysis 110

Leadership Development 111

Morality 115

Leader-Follower Relationship 124

riving Force for Change 128

Competition 134

Positive Social Change 141

Conclusion 147

1

Leadership Development: Discovering a Morally Efficient Process to Achieve Positive Social

Change

Synopsis

Process-oriented moral leadership (POML) derived from empowering individual

development 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 this

starting point, Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed, “to encourage initiative in others, training is

crucial 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 stimulation

requires a “powerful heuristic strategy for making people confident that they can act when the

situation requires” (p. 171). This strategy in developing others to become POMLs has six basic

concepts that were analogous Kouzes and Posner‟s belief in empowerment leadership. POML

concepts include leadership development, morality, leader-follower relationship, driving force

for change, competition, and positive social change. This fundamental leadership development

strategy serves as the starting point used to define the concept of POML. This process defines a

development path that requires current leaders to relinquish power to empower. However, it also

requires aspiring leaders to classify and be committed to their core principles. These core

principles and ethics serve as the aspiring leader‟s foundation; consequently, the aspiring leader

should never abandon them as they progress in their leadership development process. Finally, as

the individual develops they increase their leadership potential to serve their constituents in a

manner that allows them to develop and maximize their potential.

In the breadth, the tactic is to focus on the foundational strategic concepts that include

leadership development, morality, and leader-follower relationship. These fundamental concepts

2

offer insight on contingency and situational theories, transactional theories, and transformational

theories. According to Bass (1985) and Burns (1978), leadership development is the engine that

drives a vision of transformational change. Morality to Kouzes and Posner (2007) is the bedrock

of understanding to systematic and efficient change while Burns believed the leader-follower

relationship is the lubrication that sustains a vision. Consequently, a collaborative theory evolves

that promotes POML as the breadth compares and contrasts various leadership theories.

Using this essential POML leadership foundation developed in the breadth, the depth will

enhance 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 stems

from a source generating a need as Bass (1985) alluded to in his theory. More importantly, this

concept 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 Bennis

and Ward-Biederman (1997) believed competition was the key to survival and a win at any cost

mentality. According to Kouzes and Posner, winning at any cost is antithetical to positive social

change; furthermore, they believed that leadership development is the key to positive social

change 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 of

using leadership development to generate positive social change, the analysis suggests the leader

has 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 positive

social change.

3

In the application, this article ends with an analysis of three iconic leader‟s methods of

leadership development; the iconic leaders were Saul Alinsky, Lee Iacocca, and Dr. Martin

Luther King, Jr. The analysis encompasses the positives and negatives of each leader‟s

perspective as it concerns the six critical aspects of empowering leadership. The six aspects were

leadership development, morality, leader-follower relationship, driving forces for change,

competition, and positive social change. Alinsky‟s (1989) perspective was admittedly efficient in

expressing contradictory claims of social change. Uncaringly, Alinsky sought contradiction as

means to amass power and hateful zealots. Unlike Alinsky, who was at least consistent in his

beliefs, Iacocca (2007) was inconsistent in his book that seeks to answer the question where have

all 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 unlimited

leadership development potential and power that comes with it. With great power comes great

individual responsibility, which is in line with the POML maxim, first, do no harm, and then

seek 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 POML

involves comparing and contrasting various leadership theories authored by Bass; Bennis and

Ward-Biederman; Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi; Burns; Ibbotson; and Kouzes and Posner.

The comparison focuses on three foundational elements of POML: they are leadership

development, morality, and the leader-follower relationship. The POML analysis begins with an

examination of the positive and negatives of contingency, situational, transactional, and

transformational leadership development theories. The analysis includes the methodology of

POML used to compare and contrast each theory in order to ascertain the effectiveness of each in

developing holistic leaders. The comparison includes the process of developing a leader, the

fundamental morality of the theory, and its perspective on the leader-follower relationship. This

analysis 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 a

process-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 have

many similarities since both require the leader to adapt to a follower‟s reactions to an external

stimulus. Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi (1985) best explained this notion as they extolled the

virtues of contingent and situational leadership-styles. They believed that one leadership-style

cannot effectively respond to an infinite number of follower responses; consequently, they

thought that contingent or situational leadership-style was the prudent choice in leadership

5

development. However, there was one main difference between Ibbotson‟s (2008) contingent

theory and Blanchard et al.‟s situational theory. According to Ibbotson, a contingency theory

attempts to assess the follower‟s ingenuity in responding to an external stimulus, while

Blanchard et al. situational theory has a narrower perspective. Situational theory requires the

leader and the follower to measure the follower‟s responses to external stimuli. This section will

analyze contingency theory and situational theory simultaneously while determining what each

theory 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 leadership

development 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 desired

outputs from other individuals in the work team. In total, Ibbotson thought the leadership

profession is a learnable skill. A creative leader‟s capability determines the level of

expertise 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 on

leadership development, which contrasted sharply from Ibbotson (2008). Blanchard et al.

believed that a leader strives to be more democratic than directive. However, the leader‟s

approach or style with respect to follower depends upon the follower‟s measurable level of

performance. There are “four leadership styles” within situational leadership theory; the

6

leadership styles were “directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating” (p. 31). A leader uses

the appropriate style that matches the level of measurable performance from the follower. As the

follower progresses in understanding while achieving an agreed upon level of output, the leader

switches his or her style of leadership to match a followers‟ measured output. A leader

delegating 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 true

measure 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 derives

from the leader‟s ability to “balance power and humility” (p. 10). This position appears to be

neutral 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 or

she does not have all of the answers. As a result, the leader must be humble and provide his or

her followers enough freedom to be unimpeded in expressing an opinion or idea. This requires a

strong mutually dependent bond between the leader and the follower that is comparable to an

ethic of reciprocity. However, it is the leader‟s responsibility to manipulate and then harvest that

open-minded natural act. Thus, the freedom of expression is dependent on the authoritarian

leader‟s level of humility concerning their imposed morality.

As with Ibbotson (2008), Blanchard et al. (1985) had a neutral position concerning any

socially 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‟s

responsibility to maintain a high level of moral understanding throughout the organization.

Consequently, this high level of moral understanding made situational leadership development

theory more stringent than Ibbotson‟s creative based contingency theory. Blanchard et al.

7

reemphasizes this disciplined approach to morality when stating leaders need to be constantly

evaluating the follower's understanding of organizational morality. This means that a concept of

fairness revolves around organizational and societal rules, ethics, and morals. The follower‟s

ability to follow them is a part of the overall evaluation. Since the leader evaluates the follower

in a continuous manner, the leader‟s leadership style varies as the follower develops competence

and commitment. This also ensures that the follower‟s moral and ethical code adheres to the

standard set by the leader.

Since morality was not a priority to Ibbotson (2008), the leader-follower relationship has

to have well-defined roles and boundaries between leader and follower. Having defined roles is

comparable to Blanchard et al.‟s (1985) belief in leader needing to know a follower‟s level of

development. However, Ibbotson also believed that a leader could take away the boundaries

when needed. For example, if the leader sets up a brainstorming event that encourages

spontaneity, he or she would temporarily eliminate the boundary between the leader and the

follower. As a result, this newly appointed freedom encourages the follower to react to the

leader‟s predetermined stimulus and event boundaries. As the followers react to the stimulus, the

leader coaches, mentors, facilitates, or even participates to encourage the continued development

of the followers. As soon as the event between the leader and follower ends with the harvesting

of creative ideas, the boundaries between leader and follower would resurface. The follower

would reassume their previous role.

Similarly, Blanchard et al. (1985) had well defined relationship boundaries. Unlike

Ibbotson‟s (2008) approach, Blanchard et al. used an approach that focuses on the continuous

flow of small victories. This differed significantly from Ibbotson‟s creative bursts of

development energy. Continuous small victories are a method that promotes positive

8

reinforcement, which helps increase the level of confidence and trust between the leader and

follower (Blanchard et al.). Consequently, not only did small victories serve as a continuous

approach to leadership development, they also strengthen the relationship between leader and

follower on a continual basis.

Potential POML Negatives.

The positive found in Ibbotson‟s (2008) leadership development theory was his

belief in the level of freedom the leader bestows upon the follower. This freedom

provides the energy for dynamic, creative bursts of ideas while simultaneously providing

the 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 follower

resumes a more subservient role. Contrastingly, one of Blanchard et al.‟s (1985) strengths

were a series of small victories as the follower developed; however, this concept relegates

the follower to a need to know basis which means they only know what is necessary to

complete their assigned tasks. This differed greatly from Ibbotson‟s belief, since seeing

the 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 when

they are at different levels of development within a status level. The original weakness with this

concept is the subjectivity of the leader to determine the appropriate level the follower is at in his

or 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 of

personalizing levels of development contrasts sharply with Ibbotson‟s (2008) belief that leaders

should provide equal treatment to all individuals within a status level. Ibbotson despised

hierarchy. Ironically, Ibbotson offered SMART goals as a means to achieve better performance

9

in followers. Bass (1985), on the other hand, thought that SMART goals were just another form

of the “carrot or the stick” (p. 130) approach to leadership development. Concerning Bass, he

used SMART goals to aid the followers to become better managers of goals rather than

developing into leaders. Kouzes and Posner (2007) offered caution when using a reward or

punishment approach when dealing with morality and leadership development. The authors

thought 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 to

his contingency theory is his dependence on the power-humility ratio that requires a strong

mutually 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 the

follower. 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 solace

to the follower as the leader has the potential to act as an ambivalent dictator. Blanchard et al.‟s

perspective suffers from the same weakness as Ibbotson‟s; the leader-follower relationship is still

dependent upon the leader‟s interpretation of the organizational or community morality. As Bass

(1985) declared, a leader could mislead, promote ignorance, or encourage negative activism

within 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 both

believe it is an inescapable stepping-stone in the process of a leader evolving into a

10

transformational leader. The difference between the two is that Burns believed that transactional

leadership is a part of a linear evolution towards transformational leadership, while Bass had a

dynamic opinion of transactional leadership. For Bass, leadership development theories such as

transactional theory are tools in a toolbox, used as necessary by a transformational leader guided

by experience and knowledge. In some ways, transactional leadership is similar to contingency

or situational leadership, since Bass and Burns both believed that transactional leadership is an

agreed upon exchange. Nevertheless, the analysis in the next section will compare Bass and

Burns‟ 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 development

process, morality, and the leader-follower relationship.


Bass (1985) viewed the exchange between a leader and follower as an assessment of

needs, with an exchange occurring if both parties met the other‟s negotiated need. Transactional

leadership, in terms of leadership development, is just another exchange. The leader receives an

increase in output while the follower receives tutelage in spotting opportunities, negotiating

skills 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 work

for 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 work

topic, identifies a follower‟s transactional needs, and helps the follower spot transactional needs

in others. This could mean more power for the follower while reducing the leader‟s burden of

work and responsibility. One of the positives, found in both author‟s leadership development

theories, is the simplicity in the item for item exchange using a pseudo market bartering system

11

of leadership development. The first step for the follower in leadership development is the act of

bartering to receive greater responsibilities.

According to Burns (1978), the level of mutual understanding identifies the terms of the

exchange and determines the level of morality. Increasing the level of understanding between the

two parties makes the exchange between leader and follower more moral. It is imperative that the

leader provides as much clarification as possible in a scope of work, instructions on how to

perform 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 transactional

leader as an individual that works within the confines of the law or social-moral ethos. The

transactional 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 exchange

unless both parties are mutually willing to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. The

dependability in knowing that the leader or follower would not alter this understanding is

reassuring to both parties.

For both Bass (1985) and Burns (1978), the relationship between leader and follower is a

shrewd exchange of needs and desires. The POML positive in this exchange is the level of

communication necessary to create a moral and mutually beneficial agreement. The act of

creating this agreement also breeds confidence in a trusting relationship that has the potential to

be a lasting professional friendship. The exchange of needs offers the opportunity for the leader

and the follower to inject personal observations and opinions. This exchange provides both the

leader and follower the opportunity to grow professionally and to learn. The relationship positive

for Bass and Burns, as well as any other leadership theory, occurs when both parties actively

communicate and exchange information. As the level of open and honest communication

12

increases, the level of trust increases with the leader and follower strengthening the bond

between them.


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 intentions

carried out by the leader would encourage the follower to be ignorant of the harm they

are doing to their own long-term development. At this point, the follower would either

become despondent or learn negative life skills. Another negative that Bass noted occurs

when a leader would set unrealistic goals, setting the follower up to fail instead of

succeeding. 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 not

enough on broad issues that influence the world around them. This meant that leaders

should steer followers away from the process and fundamental issues; instead, followers

should be inspired to focus more on societal issues. In a comparable manner, Burns

(1978) thought transactional leadership development is a disservice to the follower since

it did not inspire the follower to be more than they were capable of negotiating. Burns

noted that another potential negative occurs when the follower could not present his or

her terms in an effective manner. The leader could then determine that the follower is

weak, unrefined, or uneducated. He thought the problem is more with the listening skills

of the leader and not the communication skills of the follower.

Bass (1985) expressed concern that if the language in the agreement is brief or

ambiguous, then the rational response by the follower is that the leader is purposely being

13

unscrupulous or vague in order to achieve a greater level of control or output. This lack

of communication could make an honest leader appear scheming and divisive. However,

Bass was just as concerned with a leader being purposefully manipulative by injecting

ambiguous or confusing language into an agreement. Another concern of Bass‟ occurred

when a leader would carry out the letter of the agreement while committing unethical acts

outside 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 power

competently, correctly apply the follower‟s output to the stated goal, or act appropriately

when action is necessary. This moral weakness hinders the moral development of the

follower.

Both Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) thought that as the morality of the agreement

broke down, the leader-follower relationship would begin to degrade. For Bass, the first

mistake a transactional leader makes is to take punitive action when a follower has an

occurrence where he or she generated less than optimum output. If this occurs, a

transactional leader would force the follower to regress downward in Maslow‟s hierarchy

of needs. Bass believed that this would only ensure a response that often has unintended

consequences, which fractures the understanding in the agreement as well as the

relationship 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 breakdown

in the relationship. This misunderstanding often leads to a degree of unintended effects

generating negative (punitive) fluctuations in the leader‟s use of power, which in turn

14

causes 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 the

cycle would repeat. For Burns, the inability of a transactional to be more proactive than

what the status quo requires often causes the transactional leader to be reactionary. As a

result, this generates unnecessary stress upon the leader-follower relationship.

Transformational

According to Burns (1978), the primary limitation in most leadership theories is the

absence of a transformational perspective that encourages the leader to be an agent of social

change. The actual social change agent is where the author‟s began to differ; Bass (1985) and

Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) believed that a transformational leader could promote

change that is negative as well as a positive. In this analysis, Bass represented the traditional

perspective while Bennis and Ward-Biederman represented the emerging paradigm in leadership

development. Meanwhile, Burns, who represented the traditional perspective, agreed with

Kouzes and Posner (2007), who represented the emerging paradigm, they believed that a

transformational leader promotes positive social change. The initial overall premise concerning

transformational leadership is the same between the two groups; a transformational leader is

perceptive in understanding the needs and desires of their followers. However, the first group

made up of Bass, Bennis, and Ward-Biederman believe it is acceptable for a transformational

leader to manipulate their follower‟s needs for selfish reasons. Meanwhile, Burns, Kouzes, and

Posner thought a transformational leader is an agent of positive social change and uses their

followers‟ needs to gain a greater understanding of the world around them. As a result, the noted

authors had sharp contrasts in their opinions concerning positive social change. Since positive

social change is a critical function of POML, the next section compares and contrasts all of the

15

transformational theoretical perspectives as they relate to POML concepts of leadership

development process, morality, and leader-follower relationship.


According to Bass (1985), a transformational leader intellectually stimulates the

creative desires in followers so that they actively seek leadership development. Bass

believed transformational leadership is an output and not the process. Consequently, to

Bass it appears that a transformational leader often emerges in times of tumult and

societal upheaval. As a transformational leader, the leader's skill at manipulating events

to hide their selfish desires often determines the level of their success. Bass‟s

transformational theory incorporates two concepts. The first was similar to Burns‟ (1978)

description of a transformational leader being a change agent. The second differed from

Burns‟ belief that a transformational leader does not have to be a great person to produce

societal change results. Bass thought transformational leaders have to be great men and

solve problems systematically while inspiring their followers to push the limits of societal

change. Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) had a similar belief as Bass; leadership

development of followers occurs when they enact a leader‟s vision as they dramatically

alter the boundaries of societal norms. Unlike Bennis and Ward-Biederman, Bass‟

version of a transformational leader requires the leader to have a transactional concern

about the leadership development of devout followers while promoting radical social

change. Development occurs as followers aspire to emulate the leader. Leadership

development for the followers of the transformational leader requires the leader to seek

them out and cultivate them to challenge the status quo. As the leader demonstrates a

desire to know the needs of the followers, it is only a means to achieve some form of

16

political or socio-economic power, so the transformational leader could achieve his or her

ends.

Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) had a similar approach where the

transformational leader seeks highly talented change agents with similar beliefs to create

a different tomorrow. However, Bennis and Ward-Biederman believed that the

transformational leader has a more participative role, which differed significantly from

Bass (1985). This participative role occurs as the leader relinquishes some of his or her

power to the team. This power allows talented individuals to operate freely while trying

to solve some societal issue of considerable importance. As the group of talented

individuals solves the problem, the leader facilitates internal disagreements and protects

the talented group from outside interference. This differed greatly from Bass‟s concept

while it had some similarities to Kouzes and Posner (2007) belief that a transformational

leader adapts to the needs of his or her followers while serving them. One of the

differences in Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s concept is that every member in the group

has to be talented, strong, and assertive. If not, the strongest members in the group

consume or discount the ideas of lesser team members. Development within the group is

often the result of imagination, intelligence, and determination of the individual. The

measure of success for the transformational leader comes in their ability to cultivate the

groups‟ creative energy. Leadership development is a case of the survival of fittest for

those strong and intelligent enough to be a visionary creator and inspirational leader.

Burns‟ (1978) transformational theory had a different take all together. Leaders

and followers have to be rooted in the fundamental belief that there are societal

expectations, and there are responsibilities in achieving those societal expectations. The

17

transformational leader‟s reward is to “achieve mutually valued outcomes” (p. xiii). This

differed greatly from Bass‟s (1985) belief that the leader shapes the outcome and the

other extreme offered by Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) where the group shapes

the outcome. According to Burns, transformational leaders serve their followers;

consequently, transformational leadership development is a variation of that same basic

premise. The leader in this instance mimics Bass‟s belief about surveying the needs of his

or her followers; however, Burns believed that a transformational leader searches for a

win-win solution between him or herself and the follower. Societal change to Burns is

mutually beneficial to everyone, and the output produces something greater than the

Golden Rule. This differed greatly from Bass‟s concept of transformational leader. For

example, Bass thought Hitler was a transformational leader while Burns thought

otherwise.

Like Burns (1978), Kouzes and Posner (2007) had a positive societal perspective

to their concept of a transformational leader. Kouzes and Posner believed a

transformational leader needs to lead by example, encourage followers to aspire to higher

levels of development, legitimately challenge the status quo, empower those with a desire

to improve, and appreciate their efforts because as they win, society wins. Kouzes and

Posner 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 the

transformational leader‟s responsibility to encourage and empower the follower to be

more than their self-imposed limitations. Through leadership development, societal

change occurs as leaders and followers interact with a community. Kouzes and Posner

had much the same belief in leadership development as Burns; leadership development is

18

a one of the primary responsibilities of the transformational leader. Unfortunately,

leadership development is a circuitous process for Bass (1985), as well as Bennis and

Ward-Biederman (1997), since development only occurs during the act of a leader or

group achieving some formidable task. As the transformational leader amasses power, he

or she needs subordinate leaders to carry out their will.

Bass‟s (1985) concept of a transformational leader requires the leader to create a

moral code to avoid organizational confusion. However, the moral code is in line with the

leader‟s perception of right and wrong, not societal good or evil. For instance, a leader

has to account for societal norms; to act contrary would undermine the leader‟s ability to

transform society. This did not mean the leader agreed with societal norms. He or she

changes them in an incremental manner with followers aspiring to be leaders piloting the

way. As with Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997), the concept of a societal greater good

is not a burden for their concept of a transformational leader. Bass‟s moral thoughts were

more 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 as

consistency 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 any

connections to a society's established moral norms. Bennis and Ward-Biederman believed that

solving the monumental problem provides its own moral clarity. It is society‟s problem to

determine if the results are socially acceptable. To Bennis and Ward-Biederman, great groups

fought “holy wars” (P. 204) or involved in a “crusade” (p. 206) for all ages. Morality within the

group requires the highest levels of dedication. Dedication to the task requires personal

19

sacrifices. As the individual increases their level of dedication to the project, the individual

appears to generate a higher moral clarity in the eyes of the transformational leader and team

members. The fanatical transformational energy generated from these groups alters the conscious

of humanity for decades. Kouzes and Posner (2007) believe it is immoral to generate change in

spite of the cost.

Burns‟ (1978) perception of transformational leadership is something greater than the

greatest achievement by any of Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) transformational great

groups. According to Burns, he believed that universal moral development requires a leader to

serve and work to encourage the development of others. Burns‟ point of view stands in stark

contrast with Bass (1985) while paralleling the beliefs of Kouzes and Posner (2007). Burns went

further to state that some theorists fail to understand behavioral motifs of followers and the

primary reasons why some societies prosper. Without a fundamental belief in a moral structure

that makes all individuals equal in opportunity and responsibility, societies flounder and leaders

become tyrannical. This fundamental moral belief provides the best opportunity for leaders to

inspire followers to achieve the highest levels of development.

Helping followers achieve the highest levels of development is something Kouzes and

Posner (2007) considered when they wrote about a transformational leader needing to establish a

set of ethics and values. The transformational leader must lead by example and not deviate from

what they preach. The establishment of ethics, morals, and values must be a compilation the

follower and leader‟s moral norms derived from society. As soon as there is an agreement on the

ethical and moral constructs, the leader needs to embody and promote the agreement. Kouzes

and Posner's concept of a greater good and win-win relationship philosophy is more similar to

20

Burns (1978) than Bass (1985) or Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997). This dissimilarity

concerning morality carried forward in the leader-follower relationship.

In Bass‟s (1985) theory of transformational leadership, the leader-follower relationship is

a process of the leader listening to and potentially incorporating the follower‟s beliefs to build a

working relationship. This is an inclusive concept that had a similar construct to Burns (1978), as

well as Kouzes and Posner (2007). In doing so, Bass provided the appearance that the

transformational leader is listening and empowers the follower. Consequently, this inspires the

follower to increase his or her output. It is from this understanding that the transformational

leader 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 separate

goals in solving the societal problem. The relationship has to have a strong bond, which is

similar to Bass‟s (1985). However, the relationship between the leader and the group has the

leader serving the group‟s needs while protecting it from outside influences. This increases the

level of empowerment within the group and allows them to solve the most perplexing of societal

problems. Those followers not involved in the transformational group, according to Bennis and

Ward-Biederman‟s theory, did not have their needs addressed. As a result, the indirect followers

are 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) and

the collaborative effort of Kouzes and Posner (2007) discouraged in their theories about the

transformational leader-follower relationships.

21

Burns (1978), as with Kouzes and Posner (2007), believed a transformational leader has

to be very responsive to all stakeholders. This relationship with their followers flows through the

direct group of followers and has a positive impact on society as a whole. This is especially true

since the transformational leader encourages his or her direct followers to create a similar

mutually beneficial bond between the followers and other members of society. This act is in

itself a leadership development activity. In doing so, it was Kouzes and Posner‟s conviction that

this would promote a generational environment of positive social change that dwarfs any output

created 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 to

increase the level of involvement and empowerment of all people; thereby, making societal

responses to positive change or problems highly dynamic and adaptive to any situation.


The positive found in the theory offered by Bass (1985) is that it is dependent upon a

dynamic and strong leader understanding the needs of his or her followers. The negative in what

he had offered, when compared to Burns (1978) and Kouzes and Posner (2007), is that

leadership development of followers is truly an afterthought; consequently, it makes positive

social change difficult from a generational standpoint. Bass did bring to light some “Leadership

Developmental Orientation” (pp.84-85) techniques, but the main goal of his belief in

transformational leadership is about selfish desires of the leader. The transformation leader uses

charisma and rhetoric to align followers to serve his or her needs as they transform an

organization or society. A transformational leader did allow followers limited freedom to search

out 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

22

unaligned development has potentially dire consequences. Ultimately, a transformational leader

as defined by Bass is more rare than common. Contrastingly, Burns, Kouzes, and Posner created

robust systems of leadership development that has the potential to make transformational

leadership a standardized approach to societal improvement.

As with leadership development, according to Bass (1985), morality is a secular construct

based on rhetoric with minimal ties to societal norms. A true transformational leader may be

required to shape morality to meet his or her needs while attempting to be consistent in the

application. This paradox of inconsistency helps explain why a transformational leader could

declare some social moral norms as immoral and require them to be changed. In addition, this

also explains why Bass is not overly concerned about a follower‟s higher hierarchal needs, since

necessity dictates whether a transformational leader needs to alter a follower‟s lower level needs

to attain the desired output. Burns, Kouzes, and Posner have a diametrically opposite opinion to

Bass‟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 doing

so, the leader could manipulate their needs and desires to achieve the leader‟s perceived greater

good. 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 inviting

win-win scenario. The win-win scenario occurs when the follower eventually adapts his or hers

needs to match the needs of the transformational leader. A follower bending their wishes and

desires to be in line with the leaders was something that conflicted with Bennis and Ward-

Biederman's (1997) concept. Alarmingly, Bass admitted the manipulation of needs and desires

fuels resentment. This resentment allows an up and coming revolutionary leader to harvest the

23

angst in order to build his or her power base. Furthermore, the revolutionary leader routinely

represents the next change and not a new concept in societal development. As a result, the

leader-follower relationship becomes a tool for the revolutionary leader to implement this

change.

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 exception

and not the norm. The transformational group has a leader that bestows equality to the group

while attempting to solve a problem that has a transformational impact on society. The leader

assembles a group that is talented and self-driven. Since technical prowess provided the reason to

assemble the group, each member comes to the group with a different level of leadership

development and style. The team becomes a creative gathering where dominant leaders within

the group separate themselves at the expense of others in the group. The dominant leaders

provide 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 the

dominant leaders within the group are unscrupulous, then the group will commit unscrupulous

acts. This process of leadership development is the antithesis to the leadership development

processes created by Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner (2007).

Since Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) leader development process is absent of any

specific moral construct, morality is not a priority for the group. In some instances, the absence

of morality is often unavoidable; Bennis and Ward-Biederman used the Manhattan Project and

the development of a nuclear bomb as examples of amoral projects. However, as with the lauded

Black Mountain Experiment, morality was the victim of “anti-institutional” (p. 170) de-

evolvement. Leaders encouraged this anti-institutional belief, which warped the perception of

24

followers to view shoplifting and other petty crimes as a badge of ingenuity and courage. To

Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner (2007), if the lowest common denominator found in amoral

behavior is the best example of societal progress, then the failure of the Black Mountain

Experiment was inevitable. A constantly changing moral landscape prevented individuals from

working together. The experiment used a pseudo-institutional construct; however, the

experiment‟s anti-institutional belief system trapped leaders and followers in a self-destructive

loop 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 and

followers depart the project with shattered personal lives. As a reward, the authors believed that

the 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 trusting

relationships do form within the team; however, the relationships are a by-product of individual

alliances made during the team's storming phase. Bass‟s (1985) theory failed to generate trusting

leader-follower relationships since they were not one of his primary objectives. Trusting

relationships 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 different

take on the leader-follower relationship. The strength of their relationship often has positive

transformational outputs for both the leader and the follower. Furthermore, sacrifice is the

exception and not the rule.

Burns‟s (1978) positive take on transformational leadership development differed greatly

from Bass (1985), Bennis, and Ward-Biederman (1997). However, the transformational leader as

described by Burns was in a tenuous position. Burns questioned this when he wrote about a

25

transformational leader becoming too involved when wanting to relate and understand his

followers. This appears to put the leader in a position of micromanaging the follower‟s affairs. If

so, then the leader could inadvertently stunt the leadership potential of the individual. If the

leaders avoids involvement, does the leader neglect follower development duties? Burns offered

a small group solution that was similar to Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s; however, the proper

solution may require a transformational leader to use situational or contingency techniques as

suggested by Bass (1985); Blanchard et al. (1985); and Kouzes and Posner (2007). Different

problems require different leadership techniques to provide maximum flexibility for the

transformational leader and the development of the follower.

Burns (1978) believed that moral-character is a necessary ingredient in the development

of transformational leader, which conflicts with Burns own thoughts about highly developed

transformational leaders being able to transcend the limits found in the ethic of reciprocity or the

Golden Rule. Kouzes and Posner (2007) tendered a word of caution with regard to those

individuals thinking they have a level of wisdom that transcends time. To think an individual

leader or group of leaders has a grander idea than freedom is the folly of fools, especially as their

hubris assumes they have all of the answers as they micromanage their fellow human beings. In

the end, they only marginalize their leadership power as they eventually become out of touch

with 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. This

was one of Kouzes and Posner‟s concerns in a leader shaping morality; he or she could do it at

the long-term detriment of society.

Burns's (1978) viewpoint has a fundamental weakness in the leader-follower relationship

that occurs as the transformational leader works to achieve the highest levels of moral

26

development. The weakness occurs as the transformational leader loses focus on the details to

leadership development. Burns's perspective of highly developed leader is that he or she often

overlooks the little details in life. Contrastingly, Blanchard et al. (1985) pointed out that within

those details are many of life‟s problems and moments of inspiration. Consequently, if a leader

ignores the details it often meant repeating mistakes not knowing the sources of failure. This

over indulgence concerning macro-level issues is an error duplicated in Bass (1985), Bennis and

Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) theories. However, Bass did offer the solution of using other

leadership theories such as contingency and situational leadership to offset this weakness.

In evaluating weaknesses, Kouzes and Posner (2007) hinted to other leadership

development 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 an

abbreviated description of Blanchard et al‟s. (1985) concept of situational leadership. Which

reiterated 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 them

struggle to learn, or leave them alone because they are both competent and confident. If the

leader incorrectly assesses the subordinate‟s ability in being competent and confident, leaving

the 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 leader

has to have an established moral foundation in order to communicate a reasonable vision of the

future. For followers to believe in the communicated vision, followers need historical precedent

to help them believe. The weakness in Kouzes and Posner‟s belief that morality is a necessary

ingredient in the development of a transformational leader is time and communication. To

27

establish a history and lead by example requires an aspiring leader to have time to prove he or

she is capable in delivering their vision. If a situation does not allow the leader enough time to

evaluate the aspiring leader effectively, then it becomes a matter communication. As stated by

Kouzes 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 the

leader is intentionally deceiving him or her which would separate the follower from the leader‟s

vision.

Kouzes and Posner (2007) also required a strong leader-follower relationship in order for

it to be successful. This is analogous to Burns‟ (1978) reference to Maslow‟s hierarchy of needs

and where those that achieve in meeting the highest stages of development are often the most

dependent upon those striving to improve. This concept is similar to the weakness noted in the

analysis of Burns‟ theory on transformational leadership development. The weakness, in this

respect, 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 the

leader and followers in order to avoid groupthink, inefficient replication, and other ruinous

habits.

In concluding the comparison and contrast analysis, there were four groups of

contrastingly different leadership theories analyzed. These four groups provided an assortment of

varying analysis; however, in aligning an author to a theoretical classification of the leadership

theory the following systematic breakdown occurred. The reactive leadership development group

consisted of the theories offered by Blanchard et al. (1985) and Ibbotson (2008). The

transactional or exchange-based group consists of Bass (1985) and Burns (1978). They propose

exchanges that address the follower‟s lower level needs. The third group was an amoral

28

transformational group that sought a leader‟s self-fulfillment this included the analysis of Bass

and the controversial theories of Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997). Finally, the fourth group

was the moral transformational group promoting leadership development. It consisted of Burns

(1978) and more recently Kouzes and Posner (2007). The next section will summarize and

provide some concluding analysis concerning the four leadership theories noted in the preceding

analysis.

Summary

In the final analysis, Kouzes and Posner (2007) presented a picture of moral leadership

that implied that Hitler (Bass), Mao (Burns), and Lenin (Burns) should not represent the pinnacle

of leadership since the deaths of millions occurred when they assumed and then maintained

power. 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 did

justify the means, Bass and Burns would have a difficult time to define their transformations as

positive. Consequently, Kouzes and Posner believed that leadership has to be something more

than wielding power to quench a thirst for monumental change. A portion of the answer resides

within analyzing three POML concepts; leadership development, morality, and leader-follower

relationships. These three concepts used in the analysis of the noted leadership theories emanated

from thoughts espoused by Kouzes and Posner. In addition, they serve as a foundation in

creating an empowering form of POML. This summary highlights each aspect and provides a

synthesized version of important qualities taken from the leadership theories that include

situational, contingency, transactional, and transformational. These essential qualities define the

foundational concepts of POML.

Leadership Development

29

One of the most important aspects a leader should consider as they look to the future and

serve their followers is the process of leadership development. If anything, leadership

development serves as a force-multiplier as a leader works to instill his or her vision while

fulfilling the needs of the followers. The key qualities of leadership development start with the

leader leading by example. As Kouzes and Posner (2007) noted, with a firm understanding of

their 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 follower

develops, the leader must employ excellent communication skills that include being an active

listener as noted by all of the authors in the breadth. When communicating with followers, the

leader must identify with the followers needs in a manner that Burns (1978) described as

mutually valued outcomes. These leadership qualities offer the follower an example to emulate.

The process portion of leadership development includes establishing goals for

incremental 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 intellectually

stimulates the followers and offers the followers the opportunity for dynamic change and growth.

However, this transformation requires a morally repeatable process to provide equal opportunity

despite development being unique to each aspiring leader. For example, in using a morally

repeatable 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 use

diverse 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

30

follower to understand what it takes to be a leader. In order to make the development process

truly transformational, the leader needs to be positive, help the follower envision their role in the

leader‟s vision, and empower the follower to complete his or her portion of this vision. In doing

so, as Kouzes and Posner noted, the leader stimulates the follower creatively which offers the

follower the opportunity of dynamic leadership development.

Of the key weaknesses noted when reviewing the leadership potential of the four theories

analyzed, some of the theories ignore the destruction of leadership potential wrought by some

leaders as a follower attempts to improve their current situation. First, if a leader is disingenuous

while 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 immoral

leader warps and hinders the development potential of the aspiring leader while the organization

suffers 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 to

survive. Bass believed that the aspiring leader no longer seeks development. This predicament

forces the aspiring leader to develop survivalist skills, which makes them a good leader that

knows how to survive and not a leader that knows how to inspire and promote positive social

change.

Morality

As the leader leads by example, he or she develops followers and aspiring leaders. As

Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) noted, the process of developing followers requires the leader to

work 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

31

increase 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 and

demonstrate fairness. Fairness requires the consistent application of organizational or social

morals, ethics, values, rules, and laws. Blanchard et al. continued this thought by adding, if

change 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 amoral

transformational and revolutionary leaders (Bass). If a leader acts narcissistically or inspires

amoral behavior, Ibbotson (2008) suggested that the leader must self-correct and act with

humility in order to use his or her power judiciously. This judicious use of power falls within

Kouzes and Posner (2007) concept of a leader being a humble servant of the people. As a moral

servant, he or she works to inspire others, the moral leader works protect the future freedom and

opportunity of future generations.

To be amoral, Blanchard et al. (1985) cautioned, requires the inconsistent application of

social morals, ethics, values, rules, and laws. All of the authors reaffirmed this broad theme. For

instance, Bass (1985) suggested that some inconsistency occurs because of improper

communication or failing to communicate to increase understanding. If improper communication

occurs, the follower may perceive this failure to communicate as impropriety. Burns (1978) went

further and wrote that failing to communicate, lead by example, or act in a morally acceptable

manner as the situation dictates exemplified amoral leadership characteristics. Bass expounded

this last thought when he added that erratic behavior is a result of a secular belief in ethical

relativism, in which the amoral leader communicates using rhetoric and ambiguity. Some authors

promoted amoral behavior. For example, Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) thought morality

was an obstruction to creative thought. They condoned and promoted individuals acting in an

32

amoral 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 moral

leadership.

Leader-Follower Relationship

To counter a ruling class mentality, POML requires leaders who are humble and are

willing to create strong and trusting bonds between them and their constituents. Bass (1985) was

succinct in pointing out that this bond must include open and honest communication. Bass

continued by stating that as the bond grows it cultivates a working inclusive arrangement that

requires the leader to empower the follower, so he or she may act, learn, and develop into a

leader. A part of this trusting relationship requires the leader to encourage spontaneity. As

Ibbotson (2008) suggested, one way to encourage spontaneity is to conduct brainstorming or role

playing events. During these events, the leader collects the actionable ideas to either solve a

problem or use them to build group unity. Blanchard et al. (1985) thought that the leader needed

to transform the ideas into tasks in order to provide the best opportunity to generate a series of

small victories that would build competence and confidence, which only strengthens the bond of

trust.

As implied in the brainstorming event, which Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) also

wrote about, the leader serves the group by providing information and the tools to succeed so the

group 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 fit

within his or her vision. In order for the leader to get the follower to believe his or her actions

add value, the leader educates the follower about the macro-level perspective while explaining

33

how the small victories fulfill the leader‟s vision. Kouzes and Posner (2007) thought that the

macro-level perspective must include various expected inputs and outputs of all stakeholders. In

the 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 and

social 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 from

internal and external conflict ensures the follower can focus on higher-level needs while building

trust and confidence in the leader.

The act of protecting the group and the follower, as Bass (1985) injected, requires the

leader to include corrective actions. As Kouzes and Posner (2007) cautioned, a leader should

conduct corrective action to protect rules, moral norms, or use them as a preventive measure

such as a learning event to thwart future inappropriate actions. However, Bass warned against

any corrective action carried out in an immoderate manner will force the follower to focus on

their 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 the

stick approach to leadership that hinders the leader-follower relationship making it inefficient

with respect to output and growing a power base. The process-oriented moral leader has to be

concerned 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 through

education. This education must include preventative measures that increase social awareness and

interrelatedness.

34

Growing a power base built on a strong leader-follower relationship has potential pitfalls

for 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.

Power's corruptible nature makes Ibbotson‟s self-assessing process based on the power-humility

ratio suspect and dependent upon the strength of leader‟s moral character. If the leader were

morally weak, as Burns warned, he or she could manipulate the leader-follower relationship to

encourage 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 become

captivated by the leader‟s vision. Kouzes and Posner (2007) made this point; furthermore, they

thought a loss of self-identity created an environment where systems of hate could develop. For

example, as Bass (1985), Bennis, and Ward-Biederman (1997) noted those followers within the

leader‟s sphere of influence become zealots carrying out acts with a Machiavellian crusade

mentality. As a result, the leader-follower relationship de-evolves into groupthink and an abusive

bi-polar carrot and stick approach to maintain output or group cohesiveness. Any dissenting

thought that is contrary to the leader‟s vision requires corrective or punitive action. Since

negative action identifies individuals left outside of the leader‟s sphere of influence, these

followers become targets of abuse. As resentment builds in the targets of abuse, the abused wait

for 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 be

concerned about their lower level needs that include survival.

In the final analysis, the leadership development answer found by analyzing positives and

negatives of the four leadership theories provides a synthesized version of leadership

35

development that culminates in a developed process-oriented moral leader. This process-oriented

moral leader focuses on the positives found in leadership development, morality, leader-follower

relationship, by finding a mutually beneficial driving force for change, competition, and positive

social change while avoiding the negatives of each. Simply, the process-oriented moral leader

looks at the leadership development theories as tools in a toolbox. When used appropriately, the

knowledge contained within each theory can inspire followers, depending upon the situation, to

become 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 apathetic

individuals to be become societal leaders that protect freedom and opportunity. In doing so, with

proper education, future leaders will not have to relearn the lessons of the past, future leaders

will have the opportunity to lead changes necessary for a better tomorrow. Consequently, to

make the change process more efficient, positive social change must occur with some societal

understanding of right and wrong. As Bass (1985) noted with his examples, social moral norms

have to be something greater than laws, for the excessive abuses found within them often lead to

softer versions of tyranny. However, Kouzes and Posner (2007) alluded to societal norms

needing to be adaptable. When societal norms need changed, the change has to occur on a

societal level, so everybody knows the new standard for growth and future leadership

development. After any necessary changes, Kouzes and Posner believed that when the leader and

the follower works within the re-established social moral norms: they both win when carrying

out positive social change. In addition, the community wins as well when apathetic individuals

become self-leaders. The reality to our development and interrelatedness is that the answers to

universal questions are within all of us.

36

Conclusion

After analyzing the POML positives and negatives of different leadership theories, there

were numerous leadership qualities discovered enhancing the concept of POML. POML is a

leadership development concept that emphasizes a process-oriented philosophy to produce

justifiable results while encouraging moral, positive social change notions of mutual-cooperation

and the continual improvement of all stakeholders. Even though, positive social change

transformation is the goal, the compilation of theories used in the analysis does not presume one

theory better or worse as Burns (1978) implied in his conceptual beliefs. Rather each theory

incorporates 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 was

something 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 or

values as Bass endorsed; a process-oriented moral leader transforms by getting a group of

individuals to push their potential and boundaries for the benefit of all stakeholders as Kouzes

and Posner proposed. Furthermore, since the realm of the leader is the future, a process-oriented

moral leader must protect freedom and promote individual responsibility. Kouzes and Posner

believe it is necessary for leaders to have the freedom to choose and act upon those decisions.

Understanding freedom's frailty, the authors also thought leaders have to have a moral

foundation. As a result, leaders need to know societal right from wrong, to understand why it is

important to take responsibility for any improprieties, and the wisdom to know they are only an

interrelated servant to the greater good of positive social change. The process-oriented moral

37

leader works to secure the potential of future leaders, in doing so he or she secures their legacy

as a transformational agent of positive social change.

In searching for the positives and negatives in the four theories as they relate to the

concept of POML, leadership development, morality, and leader-follower relationship are

consistent with regards to one basic concept. This fundamental concept instructs leaders to be

mentors of future leaders and prioritize the needs of their people first. A leader uses his or her

vision, philosophy, and leadership developmental understanding to augment the developmental

needs of followers as they develop into leaders. Morality comes into play in understanding right

and wrong, according to Kouzes and Posner (2007) knowing right from wrong provides a

foundation to identify positive social change issues, which enables future leaders to endure and

overcome obstacles to positive social change. This fundamental concept touches on three other

criteria used to evaluate POML; they were identifying a rationale for change, harnessing

competitive nature of humanity, and clarifying the concept of positive social change. In

analyzing current research, the depth will expand the last three criteria concerning the premise of

POML by providing a point of reference used to compare and contrast current research with

other current research and theories established in the breadth.

38

Depth

AMDS 8522: Current Research on Leadership Development

Annotated Bibliography

Barbuto, 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 establish

a 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 a

theorized positive increase in a leader‟s internal motivation. The third hypothesis implied that the

positive relationship between a leader‟s popularity within a community and transactional and

charismatic leadership behaviors. The fourth hypothesis focused in on a leader‟s self-image as

positively related to charismatic and transformational leadership behaviors. The fifth hypothesis

dealt with the process on how a leader processed intrinsic goals determined the constructive

relationship to transformational leadership behaviors. Using relatively obvious hypotheses,

Barbuto determined that there were testable antecedents that a firm or organization could test for

in order to find the right-fit candidate qualities to fill leadership positions.

This leadership motivational “profiling” (Barbuto, 2005, p. 37) appeared to be fraught

with developmental subjectivity and legal ramifications by stereotyping individuals and setting

artificial limits. Barbuto appeared to have excluded the possibility of future developmental

epiphanies thereby relegating leaders of today and tomorrow to their current paradigm in both

motivation and leadership development. Furthermore, the study was very dependent upon

39

whether the subjects or future job candidates responded to the questions truthfully and did not

offer what the test person thought was the correct response. In essence, Barbuto‟s study was

simple and transactional in nature; consequently, it was not surprising that he had difficulties in

identifying 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 and

capable concerning the concept of framing as a communication tool while other leaders seemed

unwilling or incapable. The first reason, offered by Fairhurst, centered on a leader‟s natural,

philosophical makeup. Some leaders had a predominant relativistic or essentialist interpretation

of events, which hindered their ability to process the dynamic skill of framing conversations. As

determined 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 of

three levels, which were expressive, conventional, and rhetorical. Expressive was blunt and to

the point. The conventional level was utilitarian and based upon social upon social norms of

communication. The third level of communication was the rhetorical level. It was the ability to

shape the exchange of ideas to fit a strategic need. If a leader displayed lower level logic, he or

she was less apt to understand the concept of framing conversation. Fairhurst believed that the

skill of framing was teachable; however, the level of understanding was dependent upon the

intrinsic abilities of the leader.

As a result of an extensive revelation, Fairhurst (2005) identified four impediments to the

understanding the skill of framing. All four impediments resided within a student‟s information

processing paradigm. The four Fairhurst identified were the inexplicable disorders of “arrogance,

40

conduit thinking, authenticity concerns, and the absence of a moral framework” (p.175). Most

important was the absence of a moral framework, since framing was a tool, it could empower the

most virtuous of activities or promote hateful surreptitious activities that destroy the good that

resides in humanity‟s conscious. The absence of a moral framework would allow an amoral

leader to use it to promote social change that destroys. Fairhurst was explicit in the importance of

establishing a moral framework because framing has subcomponents called “metaphor,

jargon/catchphrases, contrast, spin, and stories” (p. 168). When used inappropriately, framing

can 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 their

actions in relation to the established moral norm. Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) thought the

second feature required an individual to seek “positive change” as a leader with regards to the

three dimensions of a complete life, “materially, socially, and spiritually” (p. 202). The third

feature described the act of a leader being a servant of the people while focusing on the first two

features as being a “steward” (p. 200) for the people. The fourth feature required a total

commitment from the transformational leader to the concept of transformational development as

a life choice while serving the people. The authors‟ perceptions on the fifth feature included the

concept of a calling as it related to transformational leadership. It required a leader to assist

individuals to find their true calling in order to maximize their efforts and be efficient

contributors to their community. The authors believed that change was an integral part of

41

leadership; as a result, they believed that their transformational development concept should be

included for both profit and non-profit business entities.

The unfortunate stance that Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) took was to declare that

true transformational development was a Christian only concept of spirituality. In doing so, the

authors choose to ignore other secular and religious entities in pursuit of the same singularity in

development. Furthermore, they took a pessimistic stance concerning the individuals they hoped

to help. Instead of improving the condition of poverty by harnessing the abundance of potential

in all individuals, they choose classify their endeavor as reducing poverty through “resource

scarcity” (p. 203) management and organizational efficiency. With that said, many of their

beliefs were similar to King‟s, especially the notion that a person seeking transformational

development was on a quest to search for the “wholeness” (p. 201) of life which drew many

parallels 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 determining

leadership 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. Grint

offered a different approach that required the leader to be keenly aware of the situation and the

context in which the problem developed because a problem could either be “wicked, tame, or

critical” (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 a

consensus 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

42

critical, it would require a military style commander using coercion as they controlled others to

resolve the problem. As a result, an effective leader stayed ahead of the problem by reclassifying

the context of the problem in order to maximize political gain or lessen the damage to his or her

power 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 a

leader to frame the context of a problem in a manner that mitigated any negative effects and

maximized the positive effects in order to implement a social agenda. Upon taking office, a

leader arranges a host of predetermined responses to implement a social agenda that may be

intractable or even unwanted by his or her constituents. When a problem occurs, the leader

quickly frames it as wicked, tame, or critical with a matching predetermined response that may

have nothing to do with resolving the problem that triggered a need for a response. In almost

automatic fashion concerning the manner of appreciative inquiry, bureaucratic managers pick up

the predetermined response and begin implementation. Depending on the initial results, the

leader can reclassify the problem in order to deflect blame or to seize maximum power. On the

surface, this amoral construct appeared completely reactionary; however, this changed

dramatically as the leader implements a proactive social agenda. The construct is in conflict with

moral leadership. Moral leadership requires a leader to navigate through the tumult of the change

event, while consuming the least amount of resources in order to achieve a socially agreed upon

objective.

43

Harland, 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 order

to improve resilience in their subordinates. The first hypothesis theorized that the “five

transformational leadership dimensions (attributed charisma, idealized influence, inspirational

motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration)” and the transactional

dimension of contingent reward “would be positively associated with resilience” (p. 9). While

monitoring the five dimensions and manipulating optimism, inspirational motivation was the

only dimension “not significantly correlated with resilience” (p. 9). As expected, in the second

hypothesis the author controlled optimism with respect to management-by-exception-active,

management-by-exception-passive, and laissez-faire dimensions and there was no significant

correlation with “subordinate resilience” (p. 9). When looking at the study in its totality and the

constant state of change found in current events, which political pundits have portrayed as a

harbinger of doom, the results of this study suggested that it would take visionary

transformational leaders to see the good and unlimited potential in their subordinates to navigate

the tumult.

Surprisingly, Harland et al. (2005) delved in to a topic that had relatively little research

conducted. In fact, they had to use research from other fields to assemble a definition for

resilience that was similar to coping. Concerning both resilience and coping, Harland et al. listed

some protective factors when predicting if an individual would be resilient or not. Interestingly

enough, if a transformational leader could develop and foster these protective factors in their

44

subordinates, then the leader would have developed a dynamic group or team that could adapt,

improvise, and overcome any obstacle. The protective factors noted were “external supports (e.g.

good role models, trusted family and non-family members), inner strengths (e.g. likability,

optimism, empathy, a sense of purpose), and interpersonal and problems solving skills” (p. 3).

The interpersonal and problem solving factor included being creative when searching out for

new ideas, knowing when a follower needs help, humility, perseverance, and be appreciative. In

essence, in order to be a transformational force-multiplier for positive social change, the leader

must be an external support for others while exhibiting the other protective factors. The leader

truly leads by example.

Harms, P.D. & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional

leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 5-17.

doi: 10.1177/1548051809350894.

The inspiration for the authors of this meta-analysis concerned the growing debate with

reference to the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and aspects of transactional or

transformational leadership. Unfortunately, the study produced correlations that were weak, to

non-existent. In spite of the results, Harms and Credé (2010) made some interesting suggestions

for future research about EI and its links to more complex styles of leadership. First, according to

the authors, EI was a fundamental leadership principle best tested using a “self-reporting” (p. 13)

format coupled with the external performance “measures of personality and cognitive

intelligence” (p. 7). Second, future studies needed to include enhanced validity controls when

testing for relationships between EI and various leadership theories that go beyond “intelligence

and personality” (p. 13). Third, EI was a western concept. Consequently, there were relatively

few studies involving test subjects from non-English speaking countries. This led to researchers‟

Triangulating freedom & leadership

Triangulating freedom & leadership

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (7)

Destaque

Destaque (17)

Semelhante a Triangulating freedom & leadership

Semelhante a Triangulating freedom & leadership (20)

Triangulating freedom & leadership