Leadership - How It Is Defined, How It Is Measured, Where It Resides

*** WARNING: Below is a 33-page (double-spaced) academic paper (including annotated bibliograpy). It could do with a full re-write to make it a business-friendly paper, which would reduce it quite a bit. This was actually my undergraduate thesis from a few years back. I'm including it here in its entirety for now. It's a quest for objective measures of leadership that ultimately offers some good ways of thinking about the problem, but that does not provide the magic unicorn of a truly objective measurement system for leadership. I include the annotated bibliography as it includes notes to myself and other behind-the-scenes looks at the progress of the research. The final submitted version did not include this commentary.***

Every individual in every level of management in a given organization has their own subjective notion of leadership derived from their personal experiences in their careers: how leadership is manifested, what it entails, and what actions and traits comprise it.  Such a subjective set of concepts of leadership frustrates real progress in developing leadership within an organization. But maybe such concepts are less subjective than thought. Perhaps they can be proven to derive from a more objective system; perhaps a more objective and measurable model of leadership could be created anew by studying existing methods. Such a model could provide a consistent methodology in training business leaders and helping them hone their skills. Such a system could also provide a means to promote leadership skills and to uncover pockets of leadership perhaps overlooked by more subjective models.

Ideas considered to be a defining component of leadership usually include a mix of actions and character traits such as: leading by example, being calm and steady, thinking long-term, protecting employees from chaos or churn, being honest, being loyal to the team, putting in long hours, communicating upward succinctly, etc. The number of such possible ideas that combine to create the concept of leadership is nearly infinite, and no two leaders in a company can agree on the full list of components or on the specific number of these components necessary to combine into a fully defined concept of leadership. So a very immeasurable (and thus non-reproducible) concept of leadership emerges.

Yet this mode, in most minds, seems to be measurable. You can understand a subset of such actions, look at people in management positions, measure them against an arbitrary subset of individual actions and/or traits deemed to comprise leadership (using the subjective feedback their own manager and/or from those who work for, with or beside them), and then determine their total leadership rating by simply adding up compliance with their individual actions and tallying for a total score. This process, or processes very similar to it, describes in effect the performance rating systems used in many companies around the world today. Such a system creates measurability and objectivity, but only from surveys and templates that still ultimately derive their data from subjective opinion. As a manager, I have found myself in the past choosing scores in a performance review system by a combination of subjective opinion and the memory of one or two specific incidents over the course of a year. Clearly this kind of system could benefit from more objective and measurable approaches.

But if the initial superset of components used for defining the total sum of leadership is slightly different in every place of work, and if every leadership assessment methodology is comprised of some arbitrary subset of those components in order to make the actual assessment, we have an issue far greater than the fact that subjective opinion decides whether compliance with the components has been achieved; we are now making subjective measurements against a stack of arbitrary concepts, whose relationship to one another and to the greater concept of leadership is utterly unknown. A subjective opinion of compliance with a set of criteria that has no apparent relationship to the thing being measured is as meaningless as a process can be. Such a process is two steps removed from measurability, and carries only the appearance of objectivity. Granted, such a system uses numbers and polls – two valid systems of measurement when used with measurable concepts, and even defines known limits and known goals based on prior analysis. But this simply cannot be our best tool for defining and measuring leadership.

What is even more interesting about the above model (components adding up to a total leadership score), is that the components in question are almost always listed as actions, or traits directly connected to the implementation of actions.  This is due in part to two reasons: 1) Such a system purports to speak to efficacy in the business world because actions speak to results far better than do traits, and 2) A list of actions or action-specific traits would appear to be further strengthening of the notion that such a model is in fact removing subjectivity; actions are easier to objectively recognize and measure than traits.

Some business analysts, however, think of the components that define leadership as personality traits or aspects of character (fairness, courage, balance, forethought, respect, responsibility, kindness, even-handedness, bravery, adversity to too much risk, disdain for chaos, creativity, adherence to policy, firmness, flexibility, etc.) For these people, leadership is a quality that exists within a human being; leadership is a quality consisting of a mix of the finest, noblest, and/or most virtuous traits that define a human being. The obvious questions come to mind: Whose definition of noble? Which virtues matter most for leadership? Isn’t being virtuous the same thing as being morally upright? By whose set of morals? Is there any credence to the idea that traits and characteristics can be measured as objectively as actions? And if traits are more important than actions in measuring leadership, or exist as the sole defining realm of leadership, developing such traits in new leaders is far more difficult than training them to perform certain actions. Maybe part of the reason the action model is embraced so broadly is because it allows for the creation of more leaders in a given organization. A list of actions is measurable, and more importantly trainable, and can provide a modicum of measurability no matter how small the list.

What percentage of good (or near-perfect) character traits must a manager have in order to demonstrate leadership? Can only people with such good traits and characteristics become leaders? With the list of actions mentioned in the first model of leadership above, the door to leadership is potentially open to anyone, as anybody can aspire to perform a crisply defined set of actions. The personality traits/aspects of character theory, at least when taken exclusively, makes leadership seem a bit unobtainable for the average worker. Perhaps this serves as the origin of the popular saying, “Leaders are born – not made!”

Also notice how many of the traits in the short list enumerated two paragraphs above seem to be internally contradictory. This indicates a lack of measurability of traits in general. If a leader has to be brave, strong and firm in the promotion of new ideas within an organization for example, how do we reconcile this with the idea that a leader must be flexible and adapt to current conditions within the same organization? Yet the traits/characteristics model must have relevance and at least some validity despite all of these issues, because so many embrace it, or at least refer to it in some capacity when the subject of leadership is discussed. Leadership itself is noun – not a verb – so how can it be comprised of nothing but verbs? As a larger trait or characteristic itself, Leadership must surely contain at least smaller traits and characteristics.

In addition to the problems inherent to both the action-based and traits/characteristics-based models, leadership as a concept seems to exist in one of two possible realms. Some business leaders refer to it as if it were a concept that exists exclusively in the positive realm. In other words, you either demonstrate leadership at a given moment (good), or you fail to demonstrate leadership (bad). Such a manager might say, “You showed some real leadership today. Keep it up!” Other leaders in the business world see leadership as a concept that exists in both good and bad forms. Such a manager might say, “You demonstrated good leadership today. Keep it up!” This is an incredibly important distinction that might well serve as the tool that helps us to understand the conflict between the two models above. It might also reveal other underlying principles of leadership. We know from history that some of those in charge of nations and empires led their nations in growth and prosperity while committing atrocities against outsiders or even the people themselves. Such anecdotes would seem to lend themselves to the idea that bad leadership does in fact exist. Further analysis on this subject is required.

Another point of disagreement regarding the definition of leadership lies in the understanding of where exactly leadership resides. Most definitions of leadership seem to argue that it resides completely (or at least mostly) within the person who is in the leadership role (the so-called “great man” theories that often accompanies the theories referenced above that posit that leaders are born and not made). Others suggest leadership (or at least some portion of leadership) exists within those being led. This concept is exemplified by the popular phrase, “A leader is only as strong as his people.” This model suggests that leadership is in fact in the hands of those who follow – at least partially if not fully. To a certain extent, this model is precisely one of the core tenets of democracy, a system of governance in which leadership is given to the leader by the people.

Yet another model as to where leadership resides characterizes a leader as the hapless individual who happened to find themselves in a certain place and a certain time, thus having leadership thrust upon them by the fates. Such a person rises to the occasion and embraces leadership because circumstances compel him or her to do so. But if leadership resides in the circumstances of the moment and place in which it is conferred (or in which it manifests), then would the dissolution of those circumstances also mean the dissolution of the leadership those circumstances conferred? Joan of Arc serves as an example of this theory of leadership – getting captured and languishing in a cell shortly after her epic war with England - a war that placed a new king on the throne of France - was finally resolved by truce. None of her followers or supporters so willing to charge into battle with her before came to pay her ransom or facilitate her escape during her captivity in her tower. Once the circumstances that called this seemingly random peasant girl into leadership faded, apparently so did her leadership.

The above theories as to where leadership resides and how it is defined bring to light another concept that discussed far less than the concept of leadership - a concept that ties quite directly to the notion that leadership resides at least partially in followers. This concept is followership, and is worth study when one is considering the nature of leadership. If followers have any control or ownership of leadership, then their specific role, function, and purpose must be understood at least to some extent. The in-depth exploration as to the definitions and components of followership, along with any sub-theories about its place of residence, is outside the scope of this article, but it is important to note the existence of followership as it influences working theories of leadership.

This multiplicity of definitions for leadership, the number of theories as to its origins and its locus of existence can be summarized thus far as follows: Leadership exists as a combination of actions and/or a collection of traits and characteristics, and all of these subcomponents combine to embody leadership once some critical mass of these traits or characteristics is crossed. Leadership resides either in the leader, in the followers, or both. Leadership is either inherently positive, or exists on a scale of positivity in which case it can in fact be negative. This summary of leadership requires some tightening and some clarification before it can be deemed useful in the real world of business.

If a crisp model of leadership can be derived from the comparison and analysis of these many conflicting theories, there still remains the subsequent burden of discovering or defining measurability within the chosen model. Perhaps additional future research will uncover better methods of measurability.

The first conflict of theory that absolutely must be resolved before any of the other theories can be explored is the debate over whether or not leadership exists solely as a positive phenomenon, or as a phenomenon with both good and bad aspects. With Bad Leadership, Barbara Kellerman devotes an entire book not just to the idea that leadership does indeed have bad manifestations in the world, but that studying these bad manifestations is necessary in order for us to further develop good manifestations of leadership. She tackles the idea that leadership is an inherently positive phenomenon on the very first page of her introduction when she notes that in spite of all the good work on leadership that assumes it by definition to be good, leaders can exercise power, authority, and influence in ways that cause damage (Kellerman, 2004, p. xiii). This initial observation sets the stage for a thread that runs throughout her book. She later adds that in everyday life, we will constantly encounter not only good leaders and good followers doing good things, but also with bad leaders and bad followers doing bad things (Kellerman, 2004, p. 4). It is important to note that she includes bad followers in this admonition. Regardless of the great man theories or the theories of distributed leadership, regardless of any notion of where leadership resides, Kellerman points out that both good and bad choices, traits and actions are available. She goes on to cite scandals and abuses from political leaders to church leaders, and on and on. If people have the power to influence, to exert authority, to control, or to influence, then they are by definition, leaders. If they abuse these abilities, they are bad leaders. Kellerman cites Machiavelli and other historical analysts of leadership, all of whom seemed to focus on bad leadership and how to control it. The shift toward leadership as positive force only, she argues, began in recent history with leadership seminars and college degrees emphasizing the positive-only view of leadership in order to fuel what she calls the “leadership industry” – the industry of books, seminars and other vehicles used to train existing and aspiring leaders on concepts of leadership (Kellerman, 2004, p. 3). Furthermore, the positive-only view of leadership is challenged with resolving the existence of abuse of influence, power, threats, etc. in the realm of leadership. Supporters of positive-only leadership theory attempt to reconcile the existence of this type of abuse by simply calling one thing leadership, and the other side coercion. Kellerman cites John Gardner, who states that in our culture, the popular understanding of leadership distinguishes it from raw coercion.

In our modern world, forms of leadership that exercise the least amount of coercion are valued more highly than those that exercise the most amount of coercion (Kellerman, 2004, p. 4). This notion would be best demonstrated in our popular culture by contrasting the Hollywood mafia boss, whose authority comes from the constant threat of violence, to the archetypal grass roots newcomer political candidate out to win hearts and minds to right some wrong that challenges their community. Such a distinction of Hollywood archetypes may not have any bearing in the real world, where things are seldom so black and white. Fundamentally, since coercion is nothing more than a tool that can be used gently, sparingly, and more importantly effectively by good leaders, those who embrace the positive-only view are in fact saying that those who exemplify leadership are crippled by a lack of any number of tools that would also fall into gray areas.

Jean Lipman-Blumen, in The Allure of Toxic Leaders – Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians – and How We Can Survive Them, does not even bother to defend the concept of bad (toxic) leaders vs. a positive-only approach. Instead, she just dives right into an explanation of toxic leaders, and gives examples of their existence all up and down the social structures in which we live and work. Chapter One is titled, “Toxic Leaders: They’re Plentiful”, and she starts that chapter by stating that such leaders can at first charm followers, but that they then manipulate, abuse, and undermine their followers. Ultimately such leaders leave their followers worse off than they found them – failing the most important test of action-based theories as well as trait-based theories by decreasing efficacy and by sabotaging morale (Lipman-Blumen, 2005, p. 1). This reveals at least one way that positive-only leadership makes no sense. If a CEO starts as a benign leader, then becomes corrupt, and then mends their ways, are they a leader, then not a leader, then a leader again? Or is there a period where they are a bad leader? Does a mediocre retail manager, whose leadership skills ebb and flow with their ennui, have to take off their company-issued “I’m A Leader!” badge on bad days? Until they are fired for their mediocrity, they are still in charge of employees and the business they control (department, store, etc.). Put another way, they are still in a leadership position regardless of attitude or behavior. In the CEO’s leadership timeline above, and in the day-over-day fluctuations of the store manager, we see that each is placed in a leadership position – by others – and that each is performing one action: leading. The theory that leadership has both good and bad aspects is essentially rooted in this idea. They may not lead well in the sense of the respect that they engender. Their followers or peers may resent or loathe them. They may not lead effectively in terms of business goals. But they have been placed in charge, own the domain, and their followers cannot simply cease to report to them. Bad leaders most certainly exist.

Both Kellerman’s and Lipman-Blumen’s books deconstruct bad leadership in order to understand its workings in detail. Each justifies that approach in their books via the same mechanism – if we do not understand bad leadership, how can we avoid putting into place, following, or becoming bad leaders? But the focus on good leadership is easily as important. An individual’s leadership can most certainly be improved via the same deconstruction of good leadership.

The journey to becoming a better a leader begins with a desire to improve. Without an active desire for self-improvement, a leader simply cannot benefit from any of the aspects of good leadership that will be uncovered with deeper study. Industrial psychologist Eileen Berman, in an article for Industrial Management, presents a case study on “Jack” – a client who brought her in to consult him on his leadership role as CEO of a small company. Her first observation about Jack is that he is already quite capable. Jack reads books about other successful leaders. He constantly sought communication and feedback literally from everyone in his company. Despite all of this existing behavior – all indicative of a desire to improve and to receive feedback from others – Jack came to Dr. Berman because he still felt that he could improve his leadership. Through this constants sense of self-improvement, Jack found both his leadership and his confidence improving. Berman notes of him, after wondering why he was even seeing her in the first place, that by talking about his concerns with Berman, and by seeking her input, he felt he was able to see his situation as a leader more clearly, recognize some of his own weaknesses, and continue to develop personally and professionally (Berman, 2010, p. 6). This tale is not just a case study in self-improvement as a desired and positive trait of leadership – it also reveals another critical trait for good leadership. Jack’s ability to recognize his weaknesses indicates that he has a high degree of self-awareness – another key component of good leadership.

A team of researchers whose backgrounds range from behavioral science to business management, in an article for The Leadership Quarterly, focus on efficacy as the measure of good leadership. They note that the acceleration of the goal of efficacy requires self-awareness and meta-cognitive ability (Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, & Harms, 2008, p. 687). Self-awareness means awareness of one’s skills, strengths, limits and weaknesses as a leader. Meta-cognitive ability means awareness of one’s own thinking processes – how one perceives, thinks, and produces results. This level of self-awareness is rather extraordinary, but serves only as the second half of the foundation for good leadership traits and actions. The desire to improve, the self-awareness of one’s abilities, and one’s capabilities to learn all serve as a means to acquire a list of traits, skills, and actions – the very components of good leadership.

This desire for self-improvement as a leader indicates a desire not just be more effective, but to be better. A survey and analysis of certain schools in the philosophy of ethics is outside the scope of this paper, but one can argue that a desire to be better as a leader indicates a certain sense of commitment to others (the followers), to the organization one serves, and to one’s self; seeing one’s potential, and the followers’ collective potential, and grasping for it. One group of authors has built an entire business education model created as a subset of the education model called whole person learning. This new model is designed to ensure that students learn business leadership ethics as an integral part of their whole person learning (Carter & Donohue, 2012, p. 677). The idea is that leadership ethics is both so integral to learning and to the leader, that ethics must be integrated into everything taught in order to have it integrated into the leader as a whole. The authors state that societal ethics awareness serves as the foundation of a new philosophy that they call “ethical enterprise” – a philosophy that in their collective mind fully captures the fundamental purpose of whole person learning (Carter & Donohue, 2012, p. 680). A linkage between self-awareness, the desire for improvement, and ethics is established in this model.

James McGregor Burns analyzes leadership from the perspective of a political scientist (examining political leaders throughout history). Despite both his field and his subjects being different from those of Carter and Donohue, his conclusions are eerily similar: “I believe that leadership is not only a descriptive term but a prescriptive one, embracing a moral, even a passionate, dimension… I contend that there is nothing neutral about leadership; it is valued as a moral necessity” (Burns, 2003, p. 2). His take is that leadership ethics are as integral to leadership as anything else can be. He reiterates his theory that ethics must be and are firmly rooted in leadership, and devotes this entire book to studying those who exhibited strong ethical leadership, and to those who did not. Deconstruction of good and bad leadership are seen by Burns to have value in improving leadership.

If both sides of the debate on the issue of bad leadership can agree that ethics is integral to the concept of leadership, then we have only to define what ethics and/or ethical behaviors we mean. Some researchers at the University of Nebraska created a theoretical framework to create effective ethical behavior in leadership, and to integrate values into that framework. After a brief review of the history of the philosophy of ethics, the team quickly hones in on values of justice, fairness, equity and honesty, which have practical efficacy in that they stimulate a higher level of trust and loyalty in an organization (Zhu, May, & Avolio, 2004, p. 18). Their model to incorporate these values and to use them for achieving maximum organizational efficiency is very straightforward. First, the leader must incorporate these values (“ethical leadership behavior”), then use them in an authentic and honest manner (“authenticity of ethical leadership behavior”), then focus them on employee encouragement (“psychological empowerment”), and finally achieve both “organizational commitment” and “trust in leaders” (Zhu et al., 2004, p. 22). 

This idea of a business leadership framework that incorporates ethical values is used in a very tactical model in this article, at the level of the frontline manager, but its concepts seem to scale well to higher levels of leadership within an organization. Burns speaks to some of these same values (and the need for a framework) while focusing on leadership at a level of whole-societal governance, and yet parallels the work of Zhu’s team. He mentions values such as justice, equality, and happiness, and notes that they apply just as well in the workplace as in nations. Such values can easily be expressed in the practical and effective results that rules are enforced equally, that team members are treated with equal favor, and that team members have the ability to develop in their roles and grow (Burns, 2003, p. 205). But what Burns speaks to that is most interesting is the idea that values alone are only a first step. He posits that the strength of even the best values is best realized if they are part of a cultural value system – what Zhu would call a framework (Burns, 2003, p. 206).

Another group of organizational psychologists enumerate a similar list of values as the ones noted by Burns and Zhu, but their framework is described in more detail. Leaders must lead by example (“Leaders need to be in-group prototypes”) and serve the team (“Leaders need to be in-group champions”) (Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2011, p. 75). Haslam and his team also add that leaders must also proactively define the charter and group identity (“Leaders need to be entrepreneurs of identity”), and drive that identity into the organization as a whole (“Leaders need to be embedders of identity”) (Haslam et al., 2011, p. 75). These last two points illustrate the fact that is not just ethics that serve as the core foundation for good leadership. Other traits and attributes come into play as well.

A group of psychology researchers invented a leadership model called “worthy leadership” that they define as “the ability to guide, direct, or influence people [as opposed to intimidate or coerce] in a way that has great merit, character, and value” (Thompson, Grahek, Phillips, & Fay, 2008, p. 366). Note that they list merit before character. Merit speaks to efficacy, character speaks to ethical leadership, and value is a concept that includes both efficacy and ethics. As they break down the subcomponents of their model, they focus on “the character to lead”, which includes integrity (both personal and organizational), ethics, courage, humility, gratitude, and forgiveness (Thompson et al., 2008, p. 376). Again we see the balance between ethics and integrity on the one hand, and efficacy on the other. In the business world, courage is less about personal traits and more about willingness to embrace risk. Though organizational integrity and courage seem something like personal integrity and ethics, the difference matters quite a bit. The organization as a whole has no ethics – it has only the combined ethics of its individual workers. Similarly, it cannot possess courage. So a crisper understanding of the traits that seem to border on ethics, and yet whose primary purpose lies in promoting efficacy must be performed in order to capture what I am calling ethical efficacy.

It is interesting that of all the articles and books researched for this paper, only two focused on negative examples of leadership. Even more interesting is the fact that both of these books analyze bad leadership with one eye on ethics and another eye on efficacy. In other words, analyzing what can go wrong with leadership yields a crisp understanding of these two facets of leadership – more so than in books or articles focused strictly on the positive aspects of leadership.

Jean Lipman-Blumen wrote an entire book about what she calls “toxic leadership”, wherein she critiques bad leadership both for its ethics and for its efficacy. In her list of “Toxic Behaviors: How Toxic Leaders Act”, we see the following breakdown (summarized by me, with labels regarding applicability to ethics and/or efficacy added as well) (Lipman-Blumen, 2005, p. 19):

·        Leaving their followers worse off than when found [efficacy]

·        Violating basic standards of human rights [ethics]

·        Consciously feeding their followers’ illusions [ethics & efficacy]

·        Playing to the basest of fears [ethics]

·        Stifling constructive criticism [efficacy & ethics]

·        Misleading followers through deliberate lies an misdiagnoses of issues and problems [ethics & efficacy]

·        Subverting the good processes and structures to become instruments of bad [efficacy & ethics]

·        Building totalitarian regimes, or narrowly dynastic ones [efficacy]

·        Failing to nurture other leaders [efficacy]

·        Maliciously setting constituents against one another [efficacy & ethics]

·        Treating their own followers well [ethics & efficacy]

·        Identifying scapegoats [ethics]

·        Ignoring or promoting incompetence [efficacy]

This list almost uniformly captures the essence of bad leadership from both an efficacy and an ethical perspective, which means that its inverse can be used to define good leadership: leaving followers better off than when found, etc. Ethics matter for all the obvious reasons, and for the reasons listed above, but efficacy as a filter through which to study leadership is a different thing. Efficacy serves to remind us that leadership has a purpose; that leadership is about leading towards or for something, and that it does not occur in a vacuum.

The other book that analyzes bad leadership speaks more deeply to this idea of leadership as having purpose, and of efficacy being the measure of how well a given leader fulfills that purpose. Barbara Kellerman, after much analysis of bad leadership, offers several pieces of advice for good leadership. One of here lists, titled “Leaders: Working with Others” speaks almost exclusively to efficacy because its hidden subtext is working with others to achieve a common goal. Kellerman puts together her list, annotated here by me (Kellerman, 2004, p. 235):

·        Establish a culture of openness in which diversity and dissent are encouraged

·        Install an ombudsman (person to whom followers can complain)

·        Bring in advisers who are both strong and independent

·        Avoid groupthink – allow dissent

·        Get reliable and COMPLETE info, and then disseminate it

·        Invite and historian to the table

·        Establish a system of checks and balances

·        Strive for stakeholder symmetry

The entire list speaks almost exclusively to efficacy, with a dash of ethics thrown in. If the goals and purpose of leadership are to further a business cause or to win a political campaign, or to create a new non-profit organization or to provide charity services to a group of people, or to build a new church, etc. then the results of the team/group/organization are clearly measurable objectively in terms of success. The traits and actions of the leader of such efforts should also correspondingly be measurable in an equally objective manner. Kellerman’s list provides the steps and measures necessary for a leader to meet such measurable goals.

The first goal by which a leader is measured, as inferred above, is the goal of the team or organization. Such goals might be: “generate $1 million in revenue”, “build three houses”, “provide documentation for this business process”, etc. Beyond that, efficacy begins to intersect with ethics, such that other goals (usually set by the higher organization or a higher leader) are also a factor in defining success. Such examples might be: “without offending the sales team”, “in a way that makes us look professional to the customer”, “without tearing up the existing environment”, “while getting along with others”, “in a way that improves morale”, “in a way that promotes an ethical work environment”, etc. These types of goals are often just as measurable as the high-level goal, but sometimes get a little fuzzier in terms of objectively measurable success. Some are nearly efficacy-only goals, while some are mixed efficacy/ethics. A few are purely ethical goals.

Experiences in the professional workplace would seem to indicate that these two layers of goals (high level objectives and conditions expressed in terms of efficacy with an ethical component) seem to be the only ones that upper management might require: meet the concrete team objective, and do it with a few caveats as to the behavior or results. Put another way, more familiar to workers in the corporate environment, the goal is to achieve objectives while remaining in line with the corporate culture. Corporate culture is a (usually vaguely) defined list similar to the second tier above; a statement embracing a certain specific list of effective and/or ethical behaviors.

At surface glance, leaving the rules that guide a leader to just these two levels of measurability would seem to promote sloppy leadership, bad leadership, or ineffective leadership. However, if one were to assume that one’s leadership tier in a given organization are de facto qualified, capable, and effective, then perhaps this lack of stringent measurement is beneficial. Giving much leeway to the leaders who manage their zones of control might just be the most important leadership action that higher-level leaders can exhibit.

Larry Norton, VP of Organizational Effectiveness at Hostess Brands, espouses the theory that leadership must intrinsically remain flexible in order to succeed. He considers leadership flexibility to be a “metacompetency” more significant than a myriad of other more narrowly defined aspects of flexible leadership such as being capable of a wide range of behavioral modes, an orientation towards learning, and an ability to remain open to learning (Norton, 2010, p. 143). In other words, Norton states that specific behavioral detail is unnecessary if the meta-trait of flexibility is mandated as one of the Tier 2 goals (e.g., achieve the given objective while remaining flexible). Other professionals who study leadership have found other facets of leadership that would also seem to indicate that the two-tiered model of measuring leadership is sufficient to the task.

A group of researchers exploring the connection between intelligence and leadership note that the creative aspects of intelligence serve as another high-level metacompetency that feeds leadership and increases success. After first determining that creativity and intelligence are linked, they state that “…not only are intelligent leaders better problem solvers, but they are likely to be more creative and foster the creativity of their followers” (Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004, p. 543). This speaks to both letting leaders be and to the fact that there are leadership traits that fulfill the concept of autonomous leadership. The researchers go on to say that leaders gifted with creative intelligence “…may stimulate follower creativity through follower intrinsic motivation and higher quality leader–member exchange” (Judge et al., 2004, p. 543).

Researchers from India’s School of Management Science, Varanasi have fused business science with spiritual studies to conclude that bad leadership comes from “afflictions of the mind” they describe as negative traits within the leader that affect the meeting of leadership goals (Singh & Bhattacharjee, 2012, p. 34). These two authors speak of another metacompetency: a concept of humility that perhaps transcends our Western definition of the same. They state that when a leader is “dasasya dasaha” (literally a “servant of servants”) only then would they be able manage and balance the needs of all those who report to them while making the task of leadership look easy (Singh & Bhattacharjee, 2012, p. 37). Though humility exists as a competency in others’ lists of leadership traits, here it is a metacompetency because of its overarching effect on all leadership decisions and on the presentation of leadership. Serving the servants goes beyond humility and puts the leader in a space where he or she is truly divested of greed, self-interest and other factors listed as facets of bad leadership in others’ studies.

But this concept of serving the servants seems counterintuitive to the role, or position, or leadership. In traditional Western models, one person is the leader, and the others are followers. If the leader makes him or herself the servant of the servants, then will his/her leadership somehow be threatened by this act? Will his or her position as the strongest or fastest or smartest member of the group be undermined? This last example is perhaps rooted too much in the great man theories of leadership, granted, but used her to emphasize the point: how important is the perception of strong, single-person leadership, and how much time should a leader spend in fostering, promoting, or enhancing that perception? The reality is that many researchers of leadership espouse a view more similar to that of the Indian research team. Past models of single-person leadership, evolved from the great man theories, have given way to models in which leadership is a nearly tangible concept, existing outside of any individual leader, which can thus be laid upon the leader, his followers, or both. This model of distributed leadership serves two important functions: 1) It encourages humility in the leader and discourages negatives traits such as self-importance. 2) It empowers the followers and allows them to realize that following is, to some extent, a choice. Followers do not need to support bad leadership, and followers can encourage and grow positive leadership traits in their leader.

Two other researchers not only espouse the view of distributed leadership, but even go so far as to suggest that tallying up leadership traits at all might even be giving too much to the great man theories. They note that early in the 20th century, the great man theories evolved into trait-based theories that share heritage with the great man theories because they ultimately claim that leadership traits and characteristics are different from the traits and characteristics of non-leaders” (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991, p. 48). Trait theories have in turn, evolved into theories of distributed leadership. Power, in a distributed model, is seen as a concept larger than leaders and followers; effective leaders share power with their followers because power given away will not take away from the leader’s power, but rather create more power for all (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991, p. 52).

Our first indication that leadership is perhaps more distributed than we have previously thought, at least as far as scientifically measurable data are concerned, comes from a team of researchers who did nothing more than build a model to determine the collective personality of a given group of workers by taking a popular model of personality measurement that was designed for measuring individual workers’ personalities and scaling it up to the group as a whole: the Five Factor Model, “FFM”, or “The Big Five”. Hoffman and Jones find it quite easy to transfer a model designed for individuals to an entire group. The FFM describes individual personality by way of observable characteristics or phenomenon. If applied to a group instead of individuals, the externally observable phenomenon would be considered as routines, habits, and behavioral norms (Hofmann & Jones, 2005, p. 509). Note that such criteria can also be summed up as the notion of corporate culture mentioned above. As the individual models are transferred to the collective group, there is acknowledgement that leadership has a role. The group, as a newly formed entity, is capable of being influenced by factors and people outside of the group being measured, including leaders and other influencers (Hofmann & Jones, 2005, p. 510). Though the results of leadership ultimately become part of the group identity in this model, at leadership begins as an external factors: a leader who consistently promotes specific attitudes or behaviors can ultimately engender those routines and attitudes within the group, as measurable by traits in the FFM (Hofmann & Jones, 2005, p. 510). This seems to be balanced perspective – a mix of leader as external factor, and yet the personality of the group being its own collective identity, (shaped but not controlled) by numerous factors, of which the leader is only one. This analysis speaks to the leader’s influence as opposed to control in a model where every individual – even the leader – is merely part of the collective. What it does not speak to, however, is the role and locus of leadership itself within this collective.

Gail Fairhurst, in her invention of the concept of “discursive leadership”, describes leadership itself as a distributed and temporary state of “influence and meaning management” (Fairhurst, 2008, p. 511). The second phrase refers to literally managing the group perception of the meaning of various events, processes, roles, people, actions, etc. By focusing on leadership as a moment between any random set of people, Fairhurst is separating leadership from authority; removing leadership from the leader, or at least from the person officially placed in the leader role. This is one step towards theory of equitable leadership distribution, but a cogent theory for the followers, consistent with this theory, must be established as well. Fairhurst goes on to state that leadership is an attribution, assigned by followers and observers, existing solely as a concept in the subjective opinions of those observing it (Fairhurst, 2008, p. 511). This is the most significant aspect of her theory. Taken to its extreme, this theory seems to indicate that leader roles are useless in finding the locus of leadership. She states, working against the old great man theories, that the focus is on leadership processes as opposed to leader communication, thus keeping the leader from being imbued with or perceived as having special attributes (Fairhurst, 2008, p. 511). She then combines these three statements into one cogent observation about leadership studies: Leadership as influence and meaning management does not have to be performed by any one person, exists outside of assigned roles, and can shift between or lay upon several actors (Fairhurst, 2008, p. 511). Fairhurst uses this term, “leadership actors”, to further emphasize the temporary nature of leadership within a given person’s participation in the group (Fairhurst, 2008, p. 511).

The final summation of all of Fairhurst’s theories on leadership is very simple: leadership is a temporary mantle, draped randomly over various members in a given group, regardless of official roles in that group. Her model of leadership is a totally distributed one: The leadership itself, the traits that make it up, and the actions by which it is comprised all shift around the group based on changes in the goals, temporal events, and the group dynamic. This model is validated by another group of researchers who attempt to characterize a very similar theory through the more measurable tenets of psychology.

S. Alexander Haslam and his fellow researchers share many of Fairhurst’s theories, but approach them from a model of scientific validity. In their book, The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power, they dismiss both the great man theories of leadership, and most modern theories of followership as well. As with Fairhurst, Haslam dismisses many leadership theories and followership theories alike. Modern leadership theories that emphasize motivating, coaching, or guiding followers into followership (as opposed to the older theories in which the leader’s role was to coerce or dominate them) still ultimately place leadership in the center of the equation, while leaving followership on the periphery of the equation, almost like a brass ring to be won by the leader.

Haslam counters all of this with a call for a new psychology of leadership – one that meets many of Fairhurst’s criteria for leadership. But Haslam challenges his posited theory of leadership with additional scientific requirements in order to ensure that it does not fall in with the bad company of past theoretical models and their failures to properly scope and emphasize followership. Haslam says that a new psychology of leadership must be:

1.                         Non-individualistic. As with Fairhurst, Haslam wants to see the focus move from a centralized leader and into the group as a whole.

2.                         Context-sensitive. As with Fairhurst, Haslam sees leadership as being variable with combinations of people and situations, although Fairhurst sees it as being more fluid and more temporary.

3.                         Perspective-sensitive. As with Fairhurst, Haslam sees the value in followers perceiving the leader as a leader, but unlike Fairhurst, he seems to speak only to the degree of leadership being observed – Fairhurst would have the followers able to eliminate a person’s leadership by taking the leadership score down to zero.

4.                         Aware of the genuinely inspirational and transformational character of relevant processes of leadership, without belittling them. Here he deviates from Fairhurst in his analysis of past theories.

5.                         Scientifically rigorous in that this new theory must have stronger empirical validity than any past theories that it supplants. It is here that Haslam takes his most important step forward in calling for a new theory similar to Fairhurst’s (Haslam et al., 2011, p. 17).

Haslam’s book is dedicated to supporting each of these requirements via a large number of studies and articles focused on both individual and group analysis of leadership. He also conducts specific studies of his own, and his team also harvests statistical data from various extent studies, performing data mining and discovering new trends and conclusions in old data. His references to existing works of psychological articles and studies span twenty-one densely packed pages. There are too many to cite in this paper, but some highlights include conducting experiments where ordinary people role play as prisoners and guards (Haslam et al., 2011, p. 74), reviews of a study on follower perception of various fictional CEO memoranda (Haslam et al., 2011, p. 122), and various studies on incentives, compliance, and conversion of followers (Haslam et al., 2011, p. 61). The evidence from all of these studies, along with analysis of historical and other works, strongly supports the theories of Haslam and, by extension, many of the theories of Fairhurst as well.

In review, our original questions were: What traits make up leadership? What actions make up leadership? Are these traits and actions measurable? (A new question emerged from this one: Which are more important - actions or traits)? Do negative forms of leadership exist, or is leadership intrinsically positive? Lastly, were does leadership reside? Is it in the leader? Is it in the followers? Does it live within both? With regards to this last question, another question emerged: Is leadership’s place of residence (wherever it is) permanent, or does leadership move around due to factors beyond the mere assessment of who is who?

The two new questions above prove to be the most important determining factors for our new theory of leadership because in our new theory, leadership proves to very transitory, and proves to be unrelated to the specific characters of the individual players. Fairhurst puts forth the idea that leadership’s transitory nature is in fact due to one main factor: perception in the eyes of the followers as the leader acts to build consensus of meaning for a given perception or task. This is very important because it is the actions of the leader, in conjunction with the nearly democratic perceptions of the followers that determine where and when the transitory mantle of leadership will settle. Using measurable data from the world of psychology, Haslam and his team substantiate this theory with research and evidence.

This is not to say that characteristics and traits are wholly out of the equation that defines leadership. As Berman and Hannah point out, a high degree of self-awareness, a willingness to self-improve and a desire to learn new things are necessary precursors to good leadership. This is not in conflict with the theories of Fairhurst and Haslam because these traits contribute to the likelihood that the leadership mantle will fall upon a given person’s shoulders. Since the act of leadership, as defined by Fairhurst and Haslam, is centered around the act of selling perception of the situation, then having sound ethics should be a necessary precursor to success in this effort to sell. A corrupt perception, a perception motivated by baser human instincts, or a perception founded in a negative goal would presumably be harder to sell. So, as with Berman and Hannah, the attribute theories of Carter, Burns and Zhu do in fact dovetail with the Fairhurst/Hannah model.

This idea that ethics contribute to efficacy is echoed by Thompson, who concerns himself with both merit and values – but who puts merit first. Again, ethics are required, but seem to mostly serve as a contributing factor towards efficacy. Haslam himself covers this same area early in his book, before crafting his distributed model. He points out, rightly so, that leaders must lead by example and must serve the team. These action-based expressions of leadership bely certain underlying ethics. Humility, generosity, and a genuine commitment to others’ welfare are necessary ethical precursors to effective leadership action. Lipman-Blumen supports this concept by coming at it from the negative side. If good leaders use ethics to achieve efficacy, then bad leaders lack such ethics and ultimately are less effective. Bad leaders are characterized by choosing the negative alternative to nearly ever positive step a leader can have. If a good leader builds consensus, a bad leader orders. A good leader serves the team, and a bad leader expects to be served. The comparisons go on and on, but the end result is bad leadership.

The existence of bad leadership (vs. the idea that leadership exists solely in positive form) was validated in the early parts of this paper. On the surface, this theory may seem to contradict our new theory that leadership is a flowing thing that passes from person to person, based upon group perception and upon an individual’s capabilities in selling perception. But the collusion between these two theories exists. As the positive traits of encouragement and sharing can incite the group towards a shared vision, so too can the bad counterparts to these skills: manipulation and deception. It is possible, for some amount of time, to be a bad leader in our new model of leadership, because the other half of the equation is collective group perception. A vision sold convincingly through crooked means is still a vision sold.

The insights of Singh, the idea that a leader is servant to the servants, captures more this spirit of ethics and serves as an excellent counterpoint to the negative aspects of leadership demonstrated by Lipman-Blumen and Kellerman.

The final conclusion in all of this is that leadership does exist in both good and bad forms. Leadership does indeed consist of both traits and actions – both of which are measurable at least to some degree. Many of these traits seem to center around an ethical core, and the actions all seem to center around the simple tenet of efficacy. Given all of these traits and descriptors that seem to indicate a leadership model that champions the old “great man” theories, the reality is that leadership does not reside in one dedicated leader at all. The traits, the attributes, the choice of good or bad leadership, all reside within the leader of the moment – a role that shifts and changes dynamically in a given group and with a given task or purpose. Leadership exists fundamentally as two things: the ability to champion a given perception and to lead others towards that perception, and the temporary role of leadership as defined by the group as a whole. If the group perceives someone as a leader, then that someone is a leader as long as they are also meeting the first goal of perception. This group perception can and will shift about as different individuals espouse new perceptions convincingly. If one wishes to study leadership with such a model, then one literally has to play follow the leader.

References

Berman, E. L. (2010). Personal perspectives: Leadership. Industrial Management, 52(1), 6.

Eileen L. Berman is a psychologist who writes a regular column for Industrial Management called “Personnel Perspectives”. In this one, she cites another work – Leading the Charge: The Leadership Lessons from the Battlefield to the Boardroom, by Tony Zinni. Zinni postulates that a successful leader is always self-improving.

Berman uses this precept to launch into a tale of one of her clients, “Jack”, who already demonstrated great use of Zinni’s precept, but who was also seeing Berman in order to add still more self-improvement to his methods. She ultimately concludes that Jack’s incredibly communication-based style equaled self-improvement via feedback, and that his seeking her out for more feedback indicated still more self-improvement. She concludes that Jack is quite the leader – for these reasons, as well as for his belief in himself.

Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York, NY: Grove Press.

This book hails from the realm of political science, and serves as a historical overview of famous leaders through time, with specific examples of their leadership styles and successes. This is the least useful of all the books I read, as the assertions and their supporting “evidence” are strictly anecdotal. Despite this, Burns manages to define a key concept in leadership – that of “transforming leadership”.

He defines this kind of leadership as one in which leaders mobilize people to participate in great change of their society, or life paradigm, etc. Such great change, and the ability to rally people to its cause, are the key areas of leadership upon which Burns focusses in his book.

One of the key questions in this paper is – how much leadership rests with the followers? Burns gives many examples (FDR’s recovery from a near political disaster and others), to demonstrate the value of followers participating in leadership. He explores this area quite well. On the topic of good leadership vs. all leadership is (by definition) good, he comes down on the second choice. He regards Hitler as having not been a leader, for example.

Carter, E. V., & Donohue, M. (2012, November/December). Whole person learning: Embedding ethical enterprise leadership in business education. Amerian Jounal of Business Education, 5, 677-692.

The authors first introduce their holistic models of business education, summarized as teaching skill, then strategy, then service. They then show how their model includes leadership ethics in a way that attaches it to all processes – as opposed to teaching leadership ethics as its own subject, separate from all the others in their circumferential model.

There is a great deal of learning theory here as well, but no matter the model, what they manage to demonstrate is that the ethics of leadership is a core competency necessary for leadership to be successful. They summarize leadership as the combination of the following competencies: enterprise, curricular, cultural, ethics, change, community.

Much of what the authors to consider to be “ethics” is beyond the enterprise and into relationships with the community and the planet. Such goals include responsibility towards the community, ecological sustainability, etc. It is acknowledged that much of this is contrary to the objectives of most business.

Fairhurst, G. T. (2008, March 19). Discursive leadership: A communication alternative to leadership psychology. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(4), 510-521. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0893318907313714

This article is from the realm of organizational psychology. It summarizes various theories about leadership from the great man theories to the theories that still include the great man, but in conjunction with follower-owned leadership. All such theories are dismissed as being stuck in the concept of inherent, trait-based leadership. This article seeks to explore leadership as defined by communication.

Discursive leadership, according to the author, is a look at leadership separate from but equal to leadership psychology.

Examples of discursive leadership are communications in which context is considered, the past is considered, anticipation of the audience’s needs is considered, and a fostering of desired consequences occurs.

Discursive leadership, as a study, is contrasted against leadership psychology by several key areas, the most important of which is the object of study: discourse or internal mental landscape.

Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 669-692.

The title gives us our first clue as to the authors’ stance on one of the two main questions this paper seeks to explore. According to these authors, leadership does indeed come in good and bad variants (or at least effective and ineffective).

Modern organizations have changed, and this means that leadership skills must change as well. But this also means that leader’s conceptions of leadership must change too. One observation they make is that a leader’s self-perception regarding their own leadership abilities is a driving factor in their efficacy. They also note that followers have the same obligation, thus showing us the authors’ position on the other of this paper’s two main questions – they believe that followers have as much responsibility in the process as leaders do.

In a further separation of leader personality dominance in the leadership definition, they are quick to point out the differences between leader efficacy and leader efficacy.

They end with practical strategies for improving leader efficacy.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence, and power. East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.

This book very clearly comes down against the “great man” theories of leadership, but it also does not automatically embrace follower-owned leadership either. It does support the paradigm of good and bad leadership, but again with its own caveats.

The authors, in summary, posit that any psychological theory of leadership must adhere to 5 criteria – 1) Can’t be based on one individual (the leader), 2) must be adjustable based upon context in which leadership is taking place, 3) must be adjustable based on the perspective in question being shined upon leadership, 4) acknowledge that leadership process is inspirational and transformative, and 5) be based on empirical validity, scientific method, etc. before being allowed to replace prior theories.

These points add much dimension to the dialogue beyond this paper’s main questions, and ample material is here to mine for this paper.

Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 509-522. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.509

This article is very much a pure psychology article. The first paragraph launches into concepts taken as common knowledge in that realm, which are brand new to me. I will be relying on my wife (PhD psychology student) to help me understand some of the psychology background while I ferret out the key components related to this paper.

The authors first apply a common psychology model known by many names, but that serves as a five-factor assessment of individual personality to the concept of collective personality – what most people in a company, for example, refer to as their “corporate culture”. Once this individual model is applied to the collective personality, the collective personality can now be assessed vs. concepts of leadership.

A study is constructed where tests are run where transformational leadership is measured against each of the five factors, one at a time. A full study is run, mathematical data is produced, and the conclusions are that collective personality is related to transformational, transactional, and passive leadership. Transformational leadership was found to be linked to 4 of the 5 factors: openness, agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness.

Note to self: more information about the types of leadership (especially transformational leadership) need to be defined for the paper. These terms might cause the scope of the paper to narrow.

Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 542-552. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.542

The authors start with the fact that intelligence is highly valued in modern Western society, referencing a few studies, articles, and books where intelligence is linked highly to favorable aspects of personality, life, etc. Historical psychology literature also shows a great and positive link between intelligence and leadership. Some research exists, however, where intelligence and leadership are NOT in fact linked.

The studies from the past claiming that intelligence is a positive influence on leadership cite the fact that leadership requires juggling multiple complex tasks and being creative (things which other studies have shown to be related to intelligence).

This study seeks to modify the broad claims by exploring the hypotheses that perceptual assessments of leadership (vs. objective) will have a stronger correlation, and that a lower correlation will be seen when the leader is under stress or when the leader has a more participative rather than directive management style.

Results show a low (but positive) correlation between intelligence and leadership. This disproves somewhat the “great man” theory. 

Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership - What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

One of the first premises the author puts forward is the idea that leadership does, in fact, have bad variants. Many schools of leadership refer to positive or successful aspects of leading as just “leadership”, while negative aspects are “not leadership”.

Kellerman launches from this into an analysis of bad leadership. The question she hopes to answer is this: Why do followers follow bad leaders? She cites many real-world bad leaders and delves into the stories of why their followers followed them.

Kellerman spends a bit of time here comparing and contrasting her leadership theory to New Psychology. She holds New Psychology up as a ruler to compare to her non-leadership vs. bad leadership analysis, and to her model on hero vs. interactive/collective leadership styles.

Despite her awareness of New Psychology, Kellerman relies almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence for the bulk of her work. She also seems unaware of the defensive posture she takes with her entire premise. She spends at least some part of nearly every topic or argument re-explaining why studying bad leadership is a good thing. It is unclear what opponent she is debating, but it is certainly not the reader.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60.

Kirkpatrick and Locke focus on leadership traits in this article. They note that having certain traits does not guarantee leadership success, but that effective leaders do seem to share key traits: drive, leadership motivation, honesty & integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge of business.

They also agree that the great man theory is dead, and that a democratic process is required, and that context influences who becomes a leader – leaders in business do not share the same traits as leaders in the military, for example.

Ultimately, regardless of how a leader gains or already possesses key traits, and regardless of context and situation, leaders are clearly different from other people.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders - Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians and how we can survive them. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.

Right off the bat this book takes a very fascinating turn from the rest of the research discovered on the topic of leadership. This author clearly believes in the “bad leadership” model, and then proceeds to devote an entire book towards studying bad leadership. Lipman-Bluman also adheres to the “leaders exist partially at least due to followers” model, and incorporates analysis of the followers’ role in supporting bad leadership.

The behaviors and traits of bad leaders are broken down. Analysis of why we, as followers, keep hunting down and selecting bad leaders follows. Analysis includes psychological factors, and the rationalization processes associated with wanting to keep one’s job.

Reversing the trends in our own behavior to unseat such leaders is also discussed, as is whistleblowing.

Ultimately, this entire book is (without citing it), embracing Kurt Vonnegut’s concept of the wrang-wrang: people whose value to society – whose purpose - is to teach us how not to live through the negative example of their own lives.

Norton, L. W. (2010). Flexible leadership: An integrative perspective. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 143-150. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019990

This article’s purpose is to discuss and analyze a trend from 2012 in the organization psychology world that leadership flexibility (adapting leadership style to shifting priorities and situations) is a key trait in a good leader. The author uses multiple sources to analyze and explain this theory. The author also cites this trait as being necessary to survival. The author also works for Hostess.

Five theorists have their take on flexible leadership deconstructed and analyzed, starting with their very definitions of what the phrase “flexible leadership” means.

He then comes up with an applied model, showing how flexible leadership works. He then gives some very practical, hands-on concepts as to how to reinforce flexible leadership and how to develop it in the first place as a leadership capability in the workplace.

Despite the author having written this from a 2010 Hostess perspective, it is one of the more practical, hands-on analyses in all my research.

Régine, P., & Clin, M. (1998). Joan of Arc: Her story. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

A fascinating look at Joan of Arc, aimed at eliminating the mythology and the emotional politicization of Joan of Arc’s life and deeds by tapping primary sources as well as secondary sources to capture the true life of this great historical figure.

The notes from the trial in which she was found guilty of heresy, and the subsequent posthumous trial to exonerate her were used to show an accurate history of Joan’s life.

This book was translated from the original 1986 French book, and was released in 1998 in America. This is a very good read if one has any interest in Joan of Arc.

 Singh, S., & Bhattacharjee, A. (2012, September 2012-February 2013). Leadership and afflictions of the mind. SMS Varanasi, V(2), 34-54.

This is one of two articles reviewed that incorporate spirituality with leadership. Though this may have relevance in various parts of the world, incorporating spirituality into the business word in the USA is not something that can be done overtly or openly. If an individual business leader wants to incorporate spirituality into his/her leadership, that is a personal choice.

 With this article, there is enough psychology involved that perhaps integration of the recommended practices might well be possible.

 Singh breaks down leadership’s many possible point of failure, and has advice (via citation) to address each one: Ignorance, Attachment, Aversion, Ego and Insecurity.

Ultimately, much of his advice does seem sound at a high level, but there is very little step-by-step information as to how to incorporate the advice into one’s leadership practice.

 Thompson, A. D., Grahek, M., Phillips, R. E., & Fay, C. L. (2008). The search for worthy leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal, 60, 366-382. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.60.4.366

A new model for leadership – “worthy leadership” – is introduced here. This is not a review of another’s model, but truly and original introduced by the authors and based upon their real-world experiences. They break down their model by several sub-factors: The Capacity to Lead, The Commitment to Lead, and The Character to Lead.

 As with other models introduced via such journal articles, the high-level categories are accompanied by specific sub-models. In this case, however, there appears to be much more hard science than usual with regards to defining and measuring the sub-categories.

 This article is indeed equal in weight to those articles that review or summarize leadership models developed by others.

 Zhu, W., May, D. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). The impact of ethical leadership behavior on employee outcomes: The roles of psychological empowerment and authenticity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(1), 16-26. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190401100104

This article was written at a time when ethical scandals in the corporate world were at an all-time high: Enron, MCI-Worldcom, AIG, Tyco, Qwest, etc. The authors take this kind of activity, and create a theoretical model in which employee’s outcomes are directly affected by such ethical failings on the part of their leaders.

Premise One is that leaders are obligated to exhibit ethical behavior. Premise Two is that an employee’s Organizational Commitment (his/her degree of identification and involvement with the organization) is grievously harmed when leaders fail to exhibit ethical leadership. Premise Three is that employ trust is eroded as well.

 Lastly, impact to employees’ psychological empowerment is considered. Multiple facets of empowerment are cited, and the fundamental concept of meaning is introduced – as in, whether employees feel as if their job has any meaning. Finding out that you are working for unethical leaders can sure rain on your parade.

All in all, without discussing the topic specifically, the authors adhere to a traits/behaviors model of leadership – in this case, highlighting the negative cases.