Which theory of leadership is based on the ability of leaders to inspire their followers through their own behavioral characteristics?

The Authentic Theory

Several “positive” leadership theories have emerged and include empowerment, transformation, charismatic, servant, spiritual, authoritative, and authentic leadership theories, to name a few. An article by Avolio and Gardner (2005) compared authentic leadership to five other positive leadership theories including transformation leadership theory, behavioral theory, self-concept–based theory, servant leadership theory, and spiritual leadership theory. In this article, the primary components of the leadership theory for authentic leadership were compared to determine the degree to which the other theories focused on these same elements (Table 10.2).

Table 10.2. Comparison of Authentic Leadership Development Theory with Transformational, Charismatic, Servant, and Spiritual Leadership Theories

Note: FC, focal component; D, discussed.

Key: TL, transformational leadership theory.

CL (B), behavioral theory of charismatic leadership.

CL (SC), self-concept–based theory of charismatic leadership.

SVT, servant leadership theory.

SP, spiritual leadership theory.

Source: Avolio and Gardner (2005).

Leadership Development Theories

A number of leadership development theories exist as the foundation for leadership styles. Additionally, within these leadership theories there are further classifications that are a function of the foundations of each theory (i.e., behavioral, biological). The categories of leadership theories can be classified as one of eight primary types: [2]

Relationship Theories

Relationship theories (i.e., transformational theories) focus upon the connections formed between leaders and followers. This theory assumes that through vision and passion a leader can achieve by inspiring and injecting enthusiasm and energy into a group. Transformational leaders motivate and inspire people by helping the group members see the importance and greater good of the vision and each associated task. These leaders are focused on the performance of the team but also want each person to fulfill his or her potential. In these situations, the result is a transformation of the group or organization that moves them toward attainment of the shared vision.

These theories are ultimately translated into implementable methods to infuse the desired leadership traits into an individual.

Several “positive” leadership theories have surfaced and include empowerment, transformation, charismatic, servant, spiritual, authoritative, and authentic leadership theories, to name a few. An article by Avolio and Gardner [3] compared authentic leadership to five other positive leadership theories: transformation leadership theory, behavioral theory, self-concept based theory, servant leadership theory, and spiritual leadership theory. In this article, the primary components of the leadership theory for authentic leadership were compared to determine the degree to which the other theories focused these same elements (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1. Comparison of authentic leadership development theory with transformational, charismatic, servant, and spiritual leadership theories

Components of authentic leadership development theory		TL
Positive psychological capital		D
Positive moral perspective		FC
Leader self-awareness
	Values	FC
	Cognitions	FC
	Emotions	FC
Leader self-regulation
	Internalized	FC
	Balanced processing	FC
	Relational transparency	FC
	Authentic behavior	D
Leadership processes/behaviors
	Positive modeling	FC
	Personal and social identification	FC
	Emotional contagion
	Supporting self-determination	FC
	Positive social exchanges	FC
Follower self-awareness
	Values	FC
	Cognitions	FC
	Emotions	FC
Follower self-regulation
	Internalized	FC
	Balanced processing	FC
	Relational transparency	D
	Authentic behavior	D
Follower development
Organizational context
	Uncertainty	FC
	Inclusion	FC
	Ethical	FC
	Positive, strengths-based
Performance
	Veritable
	Sustained	FC
	Beyond expectations	FC

Note:

(FC) – Focal Component

(D) – Discussed

Key:

TL – Transformational Leadership Theory

CL(B) – Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership

CL(SC) – Self-Concept Based Theory of Charismatic Leadership

SVT – Servant Leadership Theory

SP – Spiritual Leadership Theory

Source: Avolio and Gardner (2005)

As we decide what theory of leadership we choose to subscribe to as a basis for our developmental activities, it is important to recognize that we can utilize an approach that considers elements of various types of leadership theories. The analysis in the study indicates that authentic and transformational theories are among the most comprehensive of these leadership styles. The theory or basis for the proposed leadership development strategies offered in this text is a hybrid of the authentic, transformational (Figure 5.2) [4], and servant leadership (Figure 5.3) theories. The premise for this hybrid approach (Figure 5.4) is that the integration of these theories can meet the developmental needs of various types of individual while supporting an integrated innovative culture. This will ultimately offer greater benefit to the organization over the use of the individual theories.

Figure 5.2. Transformational leadership.

Source: Bass (1998)

Figure 5.3. Servant leadership theory: Central characteristics in the development of servant leaders.

Source: Spears L. C. (2010) Character and Servant Leadership: Ten Characteristics of Effective, Caring Leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 25–30

Figure 5.4. Hybrid leadership development theory

As you attempt to apply the guidance offered in the transformation of your STEM career, consider the specifics of your personal vision and organizational constraints and tailor the approach as necessary. The knowledge of how to tailor the approach for you will be gained through an understanding of your organization, clarification of your vision, and experiences. Finally, the plan that you create to meet your leadership development needs should be dynamic and adapt to your changing developmental requirements throughout your career.

4.2 Cross-cultural Leadership Research

The quantity of leadership research performed in cultures other than ‘western’ societies (e.g., USA, Canada, Western Europe) is very limited. This leaves it open as to whether the currently available leadership theories are universally applicable. We have good reasons to assume that there are some similarities but also marked differences in conceptions about leadership across cultures (House et al. 1997), even within particular regions that share a common market, like Europe (Brodbeck et al. 2000). For example, the GLOBE research program found that differences in the implicit leadership theories (Lord and Maher 1991) held by middle level managers are linked to the degree of societal cultural differences of the nations studied (Brodbeck et al. 2000, House et al. 1999). To move beyond a formal role in influencing others, one must first be perceived as a leader (or an effective or a trustworthy leader etc.). It is unlikely that someone not perceived as a leader can exercise the influence on others necessary for performing effectively. With regard to culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories, it is expected that the less they overlap in terms of cross-cultural leader–follower relationships, the less likely it is that the leader will be accepted and the respective interpersonal relationships will be characterized by trust, motivation, and high performance.

The removal of trade barriers and the growth of global markets increases the permeability of organizational and national cultures. Managing a culturally diverse workforce and the transitions it entails requires that insights derived from research inform participants in a multicultural workforce, as well as the trainers and consultants facilitating them in accommodating values, skills, and behavior and adjusting the managerial context in suitable ways. Thus cross-cultural leadership research is clearly an important issue for future research.

Second Trend: From Generic to Educational Leadership

While generic leadership skills and knowledge (e.g., staff relationship skills) are applicable to educational leadership, those generic skills must be infused with educational content to promote educational goals. This is the point at which educational leadership theory and research needs to engage deeply with research findings on the pedagogical, assessment, curricular, and student management practices that help diverse students engage in important intellectual work. Instead of asking if leadership theory has any educational impact, an alternative backward-mapping strategy starts with research on effective pedagogy and teacher learning and identifies the role of leadership in creating the conditions that develop and sustain those practices. Theories of educational leadership would be the end result rather than the starting point of such programs of research.

Most research on educational leadership has not used this approach. One of the most frequently researched leadership theories focuses on transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is a form of leadership through which a combination of charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration is expected to change the motivations and purposes of followers. The theory was first developed by Burns (1978), who wanted to explain why leaders in many settings gain unusually high levels of effort and commitment from followers. It was not designed to predict how leadership affects student learning. Much subsequent empirical work was done in industry and is summarized by Bass and Avolio (1994). A recent review of the research on transformational leadership in education finds that most studies have not looked at how it influenced student achievement (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005). Those that did found mixed results. It was more common to examine the effects of transformational leadership on student engagement with school; those results tended to be more positive.

In contrast to transformational leadership, instructional leadership theory is more educationally oriented. While there are variations in the concept, the common theme is the close involvement of leaders in establishing and overseeing the academic mission and goals of the school. Specific practices can include setting academic goals, ensuring appropriate resourcing of the teaching program, acting as a resource for solving pedagogical problems, evaluating teaching, and monitoring student progress (Hallinger, 2005). Instructional leadership theory has its origins in studies of leaders in high-poverty urban schools that succeeded against the odds (Edmonds, 1979). Subsequently, survey instruments were developed to measure dimensions of instructional leadership and its direct and indirect impact on student learning (Hallinger, 2005). While the impacts are still modest, the multivariate research using measures of instructional leadership has produced somewhat stronger impacts on student outcomes than has similar research on transformational leadership (Hallinger et al., 1996; Heck et al., 1990).

These two traditions are starting to converge. Some educational research on transformational leadership has incorporated instructional leadership variables such as “providing instructional support” (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999). In addition, there is some evidence that leaders who integrate both transformational and instructional leadership qualities achieve greater gains in student learning than leaders who score high on only one of these leadership qualities (Marks and Printy, 2003).

Even though instructional leadership research has a more explicit focus on teaching and learning, it does not draw explicitly on theories of teaching and learning to develop ideas of what leaders should do. For that step to be taken, educational leadership researchers have moved beyond organizational theories to learn from researchers studying classroom phenomena.

Good versus Bad Leadership

The corporate ethical scandals of the early 2000s, along with the continual history of despotic heads of state, has led to a concentrated effort by psychologists and other social scientists to better understand the ethics of leadership. Most theories of leadership focused primarily on leader effectiveness – getting things done – without consideration of how goals were achieved. A new generation of theories has attempted to incorporate ethics into leadership. Studies have focused on ethical/moral reasoning – identifying ethical situations and making the morally correct decisions (e.g., Brown and Trevino, 2006). Other scholars have taken the opposite tactic and tried to better understand the ethical failures of leadership (Price, 2006).

One newer leadership theory has incorporated ethics into transformational and relational leadership behavior and is termed authentic leadership theory (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Authentic leadership is composed of leader self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, being honest and transparent in relationships with followers and others, and analyzing situations objectively. Additional emerging leadership theories have been concerned with ethics/morality and include spiritual leadership theory, servant leadership, and a variety of leadership theories based on the leader's possession of moral virtues and character. Our seeming preoccupation with leaders, and the fact that leaders are often admired and respected, means that there is great interest in the positive characteristics/qualities that leaders possess. We strive to identify those qualities and foster them in our leaders, in workers in general, and in our youth.

For every charismatic and revered world leader (e.g., Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mandela), there seems to be a charismatic, effective, but evil, or ‘dark side,’ leader (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, and Mao). A number of studies have tried to identify the dark side qualities associated with bad leaders. Leader narcissism, sociopathy, and arrogance have all been implicated in bad leadership (Kellerman, 2004). Lipman-Blumen (2005) emphasized the role that followers play in allowing bad, or ‘toxic,’ leaders to flourish.

2.18.2 History of Leadership in Psychology

7.24.10 Summary

Interdisciplinary teams are a particularly appropriate way to organize health care for geriatric patients, who typically have complex, chronic problems. The interdisciplinary team provides care in which several disciplines coordinate assessment and treatment, so that problems can be dealt with consistently and comprehensively. Interdisciplinary teams are characterized by a nonhierarchical organization, in which responsibility for the effective functioning of the team is shared by all team members. This requires that team members be excellent representatives of and advocates for their disciplines. It also requires that team members have training in team theory, leadership skills, and communication skills, including conflict resolution skills. Interdisciplinary teams go through a process of development. Newly formed teams work out goals and basic models of function; this process usually highlights areas of disagreement among team members in strategies of care and/or personal interaction styles. As groups work out these disagreements, they develop shared norms which define the team's working strategies. With experience, most interdisciplinary teams reach a high level of function and deliver cost-effective care while supporting staff morale.

Interdisciplinary teams come about through the efforts of health care providers who are committed to the idea that patients will be best served when their care is coordinated and provided by team members who challenge, learn from, and rely on each other. Interdisciplinary teams depend on the wise and creative integration of diverse viewpoints. Sometimes those are complementary, but sometimes they are conflicting. The team must learn to value diversity, remain cohesive when viewpoints conflict, and negotiate agreement to which all team members are committed.

Leadership education

West Point requires all cadets to take general or advanced psychology in their freshman year and military leadership in their junior year. The focus of the introductory psychology course is the development of an awareness and understanding of one's own behavior and the behavior of others. Emphasis is placed on applying the behavioral principles learned to the cadets' current lives and their functioning as future officers. Military leadership is a multidisciplinary study of leadership in an organizational context which focuses on the integration of theory and practice. The cadet studies the leader's direct influence on individual motivation and group processes through the application of leadership theories, skills, and attributes. In addition, the cadet learns how to influence subordinates indirectly through organizational systems and procedures, organizational culture, and ethical climate.

Midshipmen at Annapolis are required to take principles of self-leadership and organizational dynamics in their freshmen year and theory and applications of leadership in their junior year. They begin the study of leadership in the context of theories and principles of individual and group behavior. The introductory course emphasizes the development and understanding of personal strengths, values, and opportunities for growth. The theory and applications course builds on the concepts introduced in the first year by examining the theory and research of the contingent and dynamic process of leadership. The course combines literature from the fields of social psychology, organizational behavior, and group dynamics to help students understand the factors that influence leadership in a military context.

At the US Air Force Academy, all cadets are required to take introduction to behavioral sciences in their freshman year, foundations for leadership development in their junior year, and management and command in their final year before graduation. The introductory course provides an introduction to the scientific study of behavior and mental processes across diverse levels of analyses. The leadership development course explores leadership development as a scientific study. Specifically, the course examines principles that will set students on a lifelong path of becoming a leader of character who treats others with respect and dignity. Management focuses on the successful techniques that allow people to understand and influence their environment.

Strategic Leaders Are Concerned with Leading and Developing People

It is important to find a way to build a connection between thinking and action. The concept of a learning organization helps here: an organization of people who are attuned to changes and able to respond to them have valuable insights into how individuals and groups learn and how to convert this knowledge into organizational action. Pietersen (2002: 181) states that all learning organizations have developed a “culture of giving” which “fosters teamwork, experimentation, learning, and knowledge sharing”.

More recent leadership theories focus on transformational (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999) and visionary leadership, which emphasize the interpersonal processes between leaders and followers. Boal and Hooijberg (2001: 526) suggest that research into transformational leaders stress upon factors such as intellectual stimulation and inspiration. Cheng (2002: 53) found two recurring elements of leadership in various definitions: “first, leadership is related to the process of influencing others’ behaviour; and second, it is related to goal development and achievement”. This view is reflected in the previous discussion on the process of strategy; leaders need the skills to be able to influence people and their actions and they need to direct those actions through setting goals and creating meanings. This resonates with the perspective of transformational leadership, where a leader is proactive about the future view, shaping members’ beliefs, values, and attitudes while developing strategies for the future. Bass (1985) identified that transformational leaders, in educational settings, motivate people to do more than they are originally expected to do by raising their level of awareness and getting them to go beyond their own self-interest for the sake of the team or the organization. Strategic leadership, therefore, is about altering attitudes, values, and beliefs, all of which influence the culture of an organization.

Digman (1990) defines strategy as “the organisation’s pre-selected means or approach to achieving its goals or objectives, while coping with current and future external conditions”. He considers that strategy has a corporate dimension, that of achieving objectives, and as previously discussed, a functional operational dimension, but Digman also identifies that strategy has a future dimension. He contends that organizations have to consider why they exist and how they function in society. This dimension determines the relationships the organization has with those who have an interest in what the organization does and how it does it. This would form the framework within which the other types of strategies operate. The implication from this view is that many people are involved in strategic decision making at any one time. Digman refutes this since he believes that the way decisions are made means that decisions are taken at the corporate level. He believes that a decision is the “result of a stream or sequence of inputs and actions by a number of people.” Everyone shapes the decision but the managers or executives make the choice.

Hambrick (1998) argues that strategic leadership occurs in an environment embedded in ambiguity, complexity, and informational overload. It is important therefore for strategic leaders to recognize new information, analyze it, and apply it to new outcomes; in other words, leaders need the ability to learn. Boal and Hooijberg (2001: 517) call this absorptive capacity and argue that leaders “have a unique ability to change or reinforce existing action patterns” within the organization. Therefore, they should create an organizational context where learning can take place. They define the ability to change as adaptive capacity. Boal and Hooijberg (2001: 518) add a third key element to their essence of strategic leadership – that of managerial wisdom which they define as the combination of discernment and Kairos time. Discernment is the ability to perceive variation in the environment and to develop an understanding of the social relationships and behavior of the participants. Kairos time is the critical moment (time) when key decisions can and should be made. Gardner (1985) and Sternberg (1985) talk about interpersonal intelligence or social intelligence. The key components, and therefore necessary skills, of this area are social awareness or empathy and social skill or conflict resolution. Sternberg (1985) usefully extends this definition suggesting that social intelligence is not just the ability to understand but also the ability to act on that understanding of others.

Summary

Interprofessional teams are a particularly appropriate way to organize health care for geriatric patients, who typically have complex, chronic problems. The interprofessional team provides care in which several disciplines coordinate assessment and treatment, so that problems can be dealt with consistently and comprehensively. Interprofessional teams are characterized by a nonhierarchical organization, in which responsibility for the effective functioning of the team is shared by all team members. This requires that team members be excellent representatives of and advocates for their disciplines. It also requires that team members have training in team theory, leadership skills, and communication skills, including conflict resolution skills. Interprofessional teams go through a process of development. Newly formed teams work out goals and basic models of function; this process usually highlights areas of disagreement among team members in strategies of care and/or personal interaction styles. As groups work out these disagreements, they develop shared norms which define the team's working strategies. With experience, most interprofessional teams reach a high level of function and deliver cost-effective care while supporting staff morale.

Interprofessional teams come about through the efforts of health care providers who are committed to the idea that patients will be best served when their care is coordinated and provided by team members who challenge, learn from, and rely on each other. Interprofessional teams depend on the wise and creative integration of diverse viewpoints. Sometimes those are complementary, but sometimes they are conflicting. The team must learn to value diversity, remain cohesive when viewpoints conflict, and negotiate agreement to which all team members are committed.