500 Years of Leadership Theory

Five Hundred Years of Leadership Theory: Learning to Lead is about Learning to Learn

Lucy E. Garrick, MA, WSD Principle Consultant, NorthShore Group

The evolution of thought on the

subject leadership is vast and in-creasingly complex. Over time, lead-ership theorists have built upon each others’ ideas and discoveries creating an interdisciplinary study that draws on many academic disciplines includ-ing psychology, social psychology, anthropology, design and systems theory. The intent of this paper is to examine the development of concepts driving leadership theory, especially those that have accentuated theoreti-cal thought in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Because the terms, leadership and theory, have multiple meanings, I wish to first clarify how these terms shall be used herein.

Theories are a generalized set of concepts which in themselves are not necessarily correct. Although much leadership theory cited here is based on empirical and field research on positional leaders, researchers often seek to measure only a tiny slice of the activities involved in leadership and most consistently limited theory

to persons with formal authority. My examination of leadership theory does not necessarily imply formal po-sition or authority, nor is there an at-tempt to present a comprehensive compilation of all organizational lead-ership theory. Leadership is, there-fore, defined by the concepts that the theorists emphasize. Major shifts in the development of leadership theory are revealed, primarily as held in Western European institutions. Lead-ership theories are grouped by seven major themes, some of which overlap in chronology. The themes are: Con-trol, Trait, Behavioral, Basis for Au-thority, Effective Behavior, Open-Systems and Inter-Personal Leader-ship. Figure 1 provides a chronologi-cal summary of major leadership themes and theorists.

OVERVIEW OF LEADERSHIP CHRONOLOGY

Regardless of the focus, each leadership theory tends to pull for-ward ideas from its predecessors. It is, therefore, useful to understand

NorthShore Group www.northshoregroup.net © Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD

1

major shifts in theoretical thinking and how later theories have built upon prior ideas leading to current themes. It is also interesting to note that due to the frequently narrow focus of aca-demic research, new theories often overlap and draw from concepts and work of theorists in earlier periods. The value of learning and using a the-

ory-base is in grounding one’s lead-ership work in both ethical and practi-cal. Concepts that have been objec-tively studied and evaluated provide a deepened exploration of the topic for the practitioner of leadership and a guide for the consultant or educator in facilitating a course of leadership de-velopment that does not harm.

1970 1980 200018401530 1940

MachiavelliThe Prince (1531)

Great Man Theories Carlyle, (1841)Galton, (1870)James (1880)

Trait TheoriesCouragePhysical StrengthCharismaHeroism

ControlControl of InformationRegard for informers & informants

BehaviorLearning

Fiedler, Contingency Theory (1967)Hollander, Exchange Theory (1964, 1979)

Effective BehaviorContextual ComplexityLeaders & Subordinate InfluenceMulti-lateral influenceDecision-makingEmotional behavior

House, Path-Goal Theory (1971)Vroom, Decision Making (1973)

Hersey & Blanchard, Situational Leadership Theory (1977))

Argyris, Double-loop learning (1976)

1990

☯ Inter-Personal LeadershipValuesIntegrity, moral intentionMentoringRole modelsEmpowerment

☯ Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (1977 )

☯ Bass & Avolio, Transformational Leadership (1990-94)

☯ Heifetz, Adaptive Leadership (1990-94)

Basis of AuthorityCharisma + Leadership Style

Mitchell, Larson & Green, Attribution Theory (1977)

Schein, Culture (1982)Misumi, Performance-Maintenance (1985)Goleman, Emotional Intelligence (1985)

Open SystemsEvent ManagementSituationsCultureRole making

Lewin, Lippitt & White, (1939)Stodgill & Coons (1948)

Kets de Vries, Psychodynamics (1979)

Weber, (1942)Stodgill, (1948)

Kets de Vries, Psychodynamics (2004)☯

Burns, Transformational Leadership (1985)☯

Goleman, Primal Leadership (19xx)☯

1900 20041970 1980 200018401530 1940

MachiavelliThe Prince (1531)

Great Man Theories Carlyle, (1841)Galton, (1870)James (1880)

Trait TheoriesCouragePhysical StrengthCharismaHeroism



BehaviorLearningBehaviorLearning

Fiedler, Contingency Theory (1967)Hollander, Exchange Theory (1964, 1979)



House, Path-Goal Theory (1971)Vroom, Decision Making (1973)

Hersey & Blanchard, Situational Leadership Theory (1977))

Argyris, Double-loop learning (1976)

1990

☯ Inter-Personal LeadershipValuesIntegrity, moral intentionMentoringRole modelsEmpowerment

☯ Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (1977 )☯ Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (1977 )

☯ Bass & Avolio, Transformational Leadership (1990-94)☯ Bass & Avolio, Transformational Leadership (1990-94)

☯ Heifetz, Adaptive Leadership (1990-94)



Mitchell, Larson & Green, Attribution Theory (1977)

Schein, Culture (1982)Misumi, Performance-Maintenance (1985)Goleman, Emotional Intelligence (1985)





Kets de Vries, Psychodynamics (1979)

Weber, (1942)Stodgill, (1948)Weber, (1942)Stodgill, (1948)

Kets de Vries, Psychodynamics (2004)☯

Burns, Transformational Leadership (1985)☯

Goleman, Primal Leadership (19xx)☯

1900 2004

Figure 1. Major themes in leadership theory: 1530 – 2004

While leadership is “… one of the world’s oldest preoccupations…” (Bass, 1990, p.3), the formal devel-opment of theories evolved slowly. Most historical sources on the subject cite the earliest writings on leadership in Western culture with the publication of Machiavelli’s The Prince in 1531. “Perhaps the earliest sophisticated discussion of the processes of lead-ership is that provided by Machiavelli” (Machiavelli, 1977 as cited in Smith and Peterson, 1988, p.2). The next substantial writings about leadership theory were published 300 hundred years later in the 1800s, and are often referred to as the “Great-Man Theo-

ries” (Bass, 1990, p.37). Great-Man theories assumed that the course of human history and the evolution of societies were due to the personal traits held by men of extraordinary character and assumed that leaders were endowed with superior qualities that gave them influence over the masses without regard to situational contexts. Examples of such leaders are cited as Moses and Thomas Jef-ferson. It would be nearly 100 years before the next significant shift in leadership theory emerged.

In the late 1930s and 1940s lead-ership research began to focus on behavior and the role of authority. In


2

their analysis of leadership research Smith and Peterson (1988) state,

Those whose work we have so far examined have chosen to define leadership as a quality which is in-herent in particular persons. This quality has been seen as enabling such persons to achieve roles in so-ciety which legitimize the exercise of influence over others, and as ensur-ing their use such powers effectively. A modification of this view became popular from the 1930s onward, stimulated in particular by the ener-gies of Kurt Lewin (p. 8).

Kurt Lewin, Ron Lippitt and R.K. White performed research that con-cluded that leadership was more than traits; rather it was behaviors that could be learned. In the 1940s and 1950s, Max Weber as well as Stodgill and Coons began to examine more specifically the role of charisma and the concept of leadership styles (Lewin, Lippit & White, 1939; Weber, 1947; Stodgill & Coons, 1957, as cited in Smith and Peterson, 1988). The work of Lewin et al. precipitated an avalanche of academic research that has since been both frustrating and rewarding ever since. According to Smith and Peterson (1988) “… a third criticism of the early leader styles research was the most compel-ling: the research failed to reach gen-eralizable conclusions because it failed to take account of the circum-stances within which leadership acts occur” (p. 11). Nevertheless, relent-less interest in unlocking the myster-ies of leadership eventually led re-searchers to consider a greater num-ber of the variables in organizational leadership (pp. 11-14).

As leadership theorists focused on more complex and therefore realistic research strategies, research increas-ingly took place in the field. Studies were conducted about decision mak-ing and Contingency Theory was in-troduced by Fred Feidler (1967). “The theory (called the “Contingency Model”) postulates that the effective-ness of a group is contingent on the relationship between the leadership style and the degree to which the group situation enables the leader to exert influence.” (p. 15). Fiedler’s theory was followed by another surge in research that included elaborate models for decision making (Vroom and Yetton, 1973) but, for the most part, did not take into account a broader context of the organizations and the circumstances surrounding them. Instead studies emphasized leadership behavior within organiza-tions and looked at issues such as complexity of choice, (House, 1971, as cited in Bass, 1990). In the mid-1970s the stage was set to look deeper inside the self by Chris Argy-ris’s (1976) ground-breaking book, Increasing Effective Leadership. Ar-gyris’ background in psychology was one of the first leadership theories to take into consideration a leader’s abil-ity to become aware of his or her own behavior and its influence of subordi-nates and peers.

In the next decade researchers began to focus on broader contextual elements such follower capacities, rewards and punishment, culture and emotional development. This group of theories considered aspects of leadership that came from systems outside the leader’s organization. It became inevitable that current lead-ership theories combine many of the


3

concepts of Effective Behavior, and Open Systems into what I have called Inter-Personal Leadership. Such theories tend accentuate ideals based on personal or organizational values, moral intention and empowerment of others. With more than 200 years of leadership theory behind us, at this point it is worthwhile to look more deeply at some of the classic leader-ship concepts which have endured to become foundations for leadership theories of the current age.

Argyris: Setting the Foundations of Inter- and Intra-Personal Leader-ship

Argyris (1976) laid the ground work that shifted questions about leadership from the narrow confines of style and role, to understanding the conditions that control leadership be-havior. He was one of the first schol-ars to emphasize the role of personal development and its impact on or-ganizations. In his 1976 book, In-creasing Leadership Effectiveness, Argyris introduced the concept of “congruence” (p.14) and its role in creating effective leaders. Argyris ex-plained that, “Congruence means that one’s espoused theory matches his theory-in-use—that is one’s behavior fits his espoused theory of action (p. 14), He explained that by creating conditions for congruence, effective leadership behavior will begin to sup-port itself. “If one helps create situa-tions in which others can be congru-ent, his own congruence is sup-ported” (p. 14). His model for devel-oping effective behavior hinged on these his concepts of espoused the-ory of action and theory-in-use (p.6).

When someone is asked how he would behave under certain cir-cumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action. This is the the-ory to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon request, he communicates with others. However, the theory that actu-ally governs his actions is his theory-in-use, which may [or may not] be compatible with his espoused theory; furthermore, the individual may or may not be aware of the incompatibility of the two theories (p. 6).

Argyris developed two models for behavioral theory-in-use called Model I and Model II. Using field research, Argyris found that most humans em-ploy what he called Model I theories-in-use which are primarily intended to maintain control and protect the indi-vidual. The consequences of Model I behavior are that it tends to create defensiveness and therefore prohibit learning. Argyris called this type of learning: Single-loop Learning” (pp. 17-20). Argyris went on to explain the consequences of single-loop learning for organizations as follows:

People programmed with Model I theories of action produce Model I group and organization-al dynamics that include quasi-resolution of con-flict, uncertainty avoidance, mistrust, conformity, saving face, inter-group rivalry, invalid information for impor-tant problems and valid information for unimportant problems, mispercep-tion, miscommunication and parochial interest (p.20).

A second behavioral model, Model II Theory-in-use, leads to more effec-


4

tive outcomes for individuals and or-ganizations by sharing decision mak-ing with others who may have differ-ing viewpoints. “The behavioral strategies of Model II involve sharing power with anyone who has the com-petence and who is relevant in decid-ing or implementing the action” (p. 22). Model II Theory-in-use is consis-tent with learning systems in organi-zations and the use of dialogue.

The goal was to help people learn how to extricate themselves from this Model I trap and move toward Model II. Such learning would re-quire that individuals reflect on what informs their present behavior and question it genuinely. By this means people perform double-loop learning, which we have sug-gested, is not within the repertoire of individuals programmed with Model I theories-in-use (p.23).

Model II does not reject the skill or competence to be articulate and precise about one’s purpose. It does reject the purpose of advo-cacy, because the typical purpose of advocacy is to win. Model II cou-ples articulateness and advocacy with an invitation to others to con-front one’s views, to alter them, in order to produce the position that is based on the most complete valid information possible and to which people involved can become inter-nally committed. This means that the actor (Model II) is skilled at in-viting double-loop learning (p. 20).

OPEN SYSTEMS AND LEADERSHIP THEORY

Building on the concepts of learned leadership, the next wave of theorists began to consider other in-fluences. In the Bass and Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, re-search & managerial applications, Bernard Bass (1990) suggested that “An open-systems point of view im-plies sensitivity to the larger environ-ment and organizations in which leaders and their subordinates are embedded” (p. 50). Some of the most significant influences included in that larger environment include superiors, peers, subordinates, and family sys-tems, as well as organizational, in-dustrial, national and ethnic cultures.

Although Argyris is not heavily

credited in popular leadership litera-ture, modern theories of leadership echo his work over and over. Argyris proposes that in order to understand the effect of his or her own behavior in relation to others, leaders need to be willing to collaborate with others to obtain an accurate view of reality and maintain a willingness to learn and change. Argyris did not consider double-loop learning to be a simple, predictable process; rather it offered an opportunity to progress in learning leadership effectiveness while setting the stage for new generation of lead-ership theories embracing self-awareness and personal growth as foundations for effective leadership.

Attribution and Situational Theo-ries

Theories which examine the influ-ences of subordinates and peers are referred to as attribution theories (Feldman, 1981; Green and Mitchell, (1979, as cited in Smith and Peter-son, 1988, pp. 37, 48-52). Indirectly, attribution theories built on Argyris’s ideas that congruence supports con-gruence by showing that leaders’ be-


5

haviors are a consequence of the in-terpretation of subordinates and peers. These concepts led to further research on the role of leadership styles related to circumstances. Her-sey and Blanchard (1969a, 1969b, 1982a, as cited, 1990) conducted many studies leading to a situational model for leadership that prescribes behavior in relation to the competen-cies and capacities of subordinates. In the situational leadership model, leaders are evaluated in terms of their concern to task and relationships (p. 488), and an inter-dependence is created between the concerns of the leader and the maturity of subordi-nates. This model guides the man-ager to apply any one of four leader-ship styles appropriate to any leader-subordinate situation: “delegating, participating, selling and telling” (pp. 488-494). The simplicity of the model is useful and appealing, however it does not emphasize leader congru-ence. Nevertheless, its concepts and the concepts of Argyris are embed-ded in the 1990s work of journalist and psychologist, Daniel Goleman which became popular through his book Emotional Intelligence (Gole-man 1985).

NorthShore Group

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional Intelligence provided a new prescription to situational leader-ship in which four fundamental capa-bilities: self-awareness, self-manage-ment, social-awareness and social skill are identified. Each capability is, in turn, is composed of specific sets of competencies. (p. 25). Proprietary research drew direct correlations be-tween six leadership styles: coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic,

pacesetting, and coaching to work environments which he referred to as climates. Goleman’s claim is that cli-mates have measurable impact on financial and other organizational per-formance metrics.

Climate is not an amorphous term. First defined by psychologists George Litwin and Richard Stringer and later refined by McClelland and his colleagues, it refers to six key factors that influence an organiza-tion’s work environment: flexibil-ity—that is, how free employees feel to innovate unencumbered by red tape; their sense of responsibil-ity to the organization; the level of standards that people set; the sense of accuracy about perform-ance feedback and aptness of re-wards; the clarity people have about mission and values; and fi-nally, the level of commitment to a common purpose (p. 25).

Emotion Intelligence or EI is situ-ational leadership steroids. While situational leadership seeks to create a simple match between leader style and follower capabilities, EI adds ad-ditional dimensions by pointing out that managers perform best when they are able to deploy multiple lead-ership styles responding to the multi-dimensional aspects of climate which infers characteristics that may be originating both internally and exter-nally to the leader and the organiza-tion. Notably missing from Goleman’s EI model, however, are the systemic emotional dimensions of followers and the evolving capacity of the indi-vidual leader for self-learning.

www.northshoregroup.net © Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD

6

Culture and Leadership The bottom line for leaders is that if they do not become con-scious of the cultures in which they are embedded, those cultures will manage them. (p. 15).

Edgar Schein (1992) of the Mas-

sachusetts Institute of Technology has worked a great deal on the im-pact of culture on leadership and visa versa. In Schein’s book, Organiza-tional Culture and Leadership, he makes a case for focusing on culture in any approach to managing and leading organizational change.

Schein again surfaces the impor-tance of leader self-reflection when he refers to a leader as an analyst of culture within the organization. “The analyst of culture must be careful not to project his or her own conceptions of reality, time and space onto groups and must remember that the visible artifacts surrounding these concep-tions are easy to misinterpret” (p. 122). Below Schein echoes Argyris’s theories of single and double-loop learning when he discusses the impli-cations of culture on leadership.

When one brings culture to the level of organization, and even down to groups within organiza-tions, one can see more clearly how it is created, embedded, de-veloped and ultimately manipu-lated, managed and changed. These dynamic processes of cul-ture creation and management are the essence of leadership and make one realize that leadership and culture are two sides of the same coin. (p. 1)

What are the implications of all this for leaders and managers? The obvious implication has al-ready been stated—they must learn to decipher cultural cues so that the normal flow of work is not interrupted by cultural misunderstandings. More impor-tant than this point, however, is the implication that how leaders act out their own assumptions about time and space comes to train their subordinates and ul-timately their entire organization to accept those assumptions. Most leaders are not aware of how much the assumptions they take for granted are passed on in day-to-day behaviors by the way they manage the decision-making process, time and space. (p.122)

Schein believes that leaders cre-ate organizational cultures by con-sciously or unconsciously imposing their values and assumptions on the groups they lead and that these val-ues and assumptions are gradually and tacitly absorbed by the members of the group to create an organiza-tional culture. Culture, in turn, deter-mines how the organization commu-nicates, listens, learns and functions.

Once cultures exist, they determine the criteria for leadership and thus determine who will or will not be a leader. But if cultures become dys-functional, it is the unique function of leadership to perceive the func-tional and dysfunctional elements of the existing culture and to man-age cultural evolution… .

Ultimately, Schein blends the con-cepts of leading culture creation with the concepts of organizational lifecy-


7

cle which complements fellow MIT colleague, Peter Senge’s (1990) the-ory of learning organizations to pro-pose that leaders must be learners and that they must create learning cultures. “It seems clear that leaders of the future will have to be perpetual learners” (p.391) Although Schein is not explicit about hierarchy, one might infer positional leading as his mean-ing of leadership in organizations.

Smith and Peterson (1988) be-lieved that Schein’s concepts of cul-ture in leadership were missing the management of meanings. (p.122) “Meanings may be subdivided be-tween what the organization is seen as being for—in other words its goals, ideologies and values—and how the organization believes those purposes are to be accomplished” (p. 123). Misumi distinguished between the general functions of leadership and behaviors that were expressed in a given context and integrated them with an international and holistic per-spective by introducing non-Western organizational culture to situations that involve superior, peer and subor-dinate relationships and decision-making. Smith and Peterson explain Misumi’s theories on decision-making by providing a concise account of the manner in which Japanese organiza-tions succeed in being both hierarchi-cal and peer-oriented at the same time (Misumi, 1984 as cited in Smith and Peterson, 1988).

A characteristic decision-making procedure in many Japanese or-ganizations is known as ringi. Un-der this procedure proposals for fu-ture action are initiated by junior members of the organization, circu-lated to their colleagues for ap-

proval and then submitted to the superior, who most typically ap-proves the proposal. Decision-making procedures are not neces-sarily so smooth as this outline im-plies, but their goal is to arrive at consensus decision-making. In or-der to ensure that colleagues will indeed approve the proposal, ex-tensive formal consultation known as nemawashi may be needed (p. 149).

Misumi’s decision making process described above serves the innova-tion needs of organizations while pre-serving both the face-saving and rev-erence-for-status customs of Japa-nese culture. Whether Japanese leadership styles were being over-come by Western influence or vice versa was the subject of much con-troversy in the 1980s. Smith and Pe-terson (1988) point out that the adop-tion of Western management tech-niques in Japan has been influenced by its own culture. While the quality circles movement was “… initially seen as American innovation to re-place old-fashioned procedures such as ringi, quality circles have put down much firmer roots in Japan than they have ever had in the West” (p. 150).

INTER-PERSONAL LEADERSHIP

The most recent leadership theo-ries combine the complexity of leader-follower roles, leadership styles, event management, situations, cul-ture and emotional development. Referenced in Figure 1 as Inter-Personal Leadership, these theories are about putting ideals into action by articulating vision, infusing values, creating hope and serving followers. The first of the inter-personal leader-


8

ship theories were Servant Leader-ship (Greenleaf, 1998) and Transfor-mational Leadership (Burns 1978) (as cited in Stone, Russell, and Patter-son, 2003).

NorthShore Group

Servant Leadership and Transfor-mational Leadership

Co-existent with theories that fo-cused on effective behavior and the complexity of organizational systems two similar theories emerged, servant leadership, first introduced by Robert Greenleaf in 1977, and transformation leadership (Burns 1978; Bass and Avolio, 1990, 1994, as cited in Stone et al., 2004).

Both theories speak to the leader’s role as serving purposes that transcend self-interest in order to ele-vate followers, which theoretically re-sult in enhanced levels of perform-ance. Stone et al. (2004) point out the subtle differences in these two theories:

Transformational leaders transform the personal values of followers to support the vision and goals of the organization by fostering an envi-ronment where relationships can be formed and by establishing a climate of trust in which visions can be shared (Bass, 1985a) (as cited in Stone, Russell, and Patterson, 2004, p. 350).

Several more studies investigated transformational leadership and (Bass, 1998; Avolio and Bass, 2002, Behling and McFillen, 1996) estab-lished that transformational leaders became role models for followers, providing inspiration, stimulating in-novation and were able by virtue of

the ability to cater their attention to followers by recognizing their individ-ual needs. (as cited in Stone et al., 2004, p. 351-354).

The principle difference in servant leadership is described by Stone et al. as being that transformational leadership focuses on followers on behalf of organizational pursuits, while “the overriding focus of the ser-vant leader is upon service to the fol-lower.” (p. 354). They go on to say, “The differences between the two theories in practice may be a function of both the organizational context in which the leaders operate and the personal values of the leaders” (p. 356). Ongoing controversy about ser-vant leadership stems from skepti-cism from both leaders and followers about issues of power and trust. (Blanchard, 1998, as cited in Insights on Leadership: Service, stewardship and servant-leadership, pp. 21-28). Peter Block (1993) blends the con-cepts of servant and transformational leadership when he posits that ser-vice is a critical element of to empow-erment in his book, Stewardship. Block suggests that stewardship cre-ates the trust required by the informal leadership that Heifetz, (1994) says is needed to address adaptive prob-lems.

Ultimately the choice we make is between service and self-interest. Both are attractive. The fire and in-tensity of self-interest seem to burn all around us. … Our doubts are not about our leaders’ talents, but about their trustworthiness. We are unsure whether they are serving their institutions or themselves (Block, p.9)


9

Certainly, values play a significant role in servant leadership. Russell (2001) explains that “values are the core elements of servant leadership” (p. 80). He goes on to explain that values not only affect the leader but the organization and play a role in es-tablishing both inter-personal and or-ganizational trust. “Not until we have considered our leadership model at the level of its values, assumptions and principles, can we discern to what extent we are leading from a power or servant base” (Reinhart, 1998, p.30, as cited in Russell et al. p.81).

NorthShore Group

Primal Leadership and Psychody-namics of Leadership

With 200-plus years of leadership theory now behind us, why are we continually struggling to prescribe good leadership? At least part of the answer appears to lie in the deeper recesses of our psyche, which is ad-dressed by Goleman’s Primal Lead-ership (2001) and Manfred Kets de Vries’s (2004) psychodynamics of leadership. Primal leadership is based on the science of moods. “A growing body of research on the hu-man brain proves that, for better or worse, leaders’ moods affect the emotions of people around them” (Goleman, 2001, p.44). Goleman cites research that suggest that emo-tions, good and bad, can be conta-gious and therefore a leader’s mood can infuse followers with optimism or its opposite (p. 45).

The psychodynamics of leader-ship deals with aspects of ourselves of which we are unaware and that are likely necessary to achieve Argyris’s

goal of double-loop learning. These hidden aspects may also affect our moods as well. While double-loop learning and primal leadership focus on what may be observed, Manfred Kets de Vries (2004), a clinical pro-fessor of leadership development at INSEAD France, examines how un-conscious psychological dynamics such as Carl Jung’s concept of shadow (Small, n.d.) play out in or-ganizational life. Kets de Vries posits that both leaders and organizations need to delve into the hidden aspects themselves in order to become effec-tive over the long term.

The collective unconscious of busi-ness practitioners and scholars alike subscribes to the myth that is only what we see and know (in other words, that which is con-scious) that matters. That myth is grounded in organizational behav-ior of an extremely rational na-ture—concepts based on assump-tions made by economists (at worst) or behavior psychologists (at best) (p.184).

Kets de Vries argues that simply looking at the visible aspects of lead-ership and organizational perform-ance does not do enough to help leaders deal with the internal dysfunc-tional aspects of relationships that prohibit long-lasting solutions to or-ganizational problems. He advocates for a clinical paradigm in leadership development and describes leader-ship from a diagnostic context in rela-tion to the organization. “At its heart, leadership is about human behavior—understanding it, enhancing it. It re-volves around the highly complex in-terplay between leaders and follow-ers, all put into a particular situational


10

context” (p. 188). These comments recall Argyris (1976), and as shall be demonstrated, Ronald Heifetz (1994).

Investigating clinical approaches to leadership acknowledges both the role motives play in leader-follower relations and the risks associated with dark motives. “Taking the emotional pulse of followers, both individually and as a group, is essential, but that alone does not comprise effective leadership” (p. 188). Kets de Vries acknowledges the importance of mak-ing a link between espoused values, the psyche and the popular attitudes toward the role of influence in leader-ship.

The essence of leadership is the ability to use identified motivational patterns to influence others—in other words, to get people to volun-tarily do things they would not oth-erwise do. Generally those things are of a positive nature, but there is nothing inherently moral about leadership: it can be used for bad ends as well as good (p. 188).

A distinction made by Kets de Vries is that effective leadership ex-plicitly attaches cultural values to the concept of an undistorted reality, the purpose of which is to help the leader to develop an increasingly undistorted reality of him or herself and to avoid exacerbating the group dynamics. “The psychologist Wilfred Bion identi-fied three basic assumptions to be studied in group situations, the trio that has become a corner-stone of the study of organizational dynamics (Bion, 1959) (as cited by Kets de Vries, 2004, p. 192). Bion’s work indi-cated that the assumptions: depend-ency, fight-flight and pairing, take

place at an unconscious level and are all stimulated by fear. Dependent groups look to the group leader for protection. Fight-flight and pairing are defensive measures, the former in-tended to confront or avoid the oppo-sition and the latter, a way of coping with anxiety. Psychodynamics helps to explain what drives individual and organizational behavior. It calls lead-ers to create what Kets de Vries calls authentizotic organizations. Such or-ganizations communicate the how and why of the work, “… revealing the meaning of each person’s task. The organization’s leadership walks the talk—they set the example” (p. 199). Such organizations bring out the best in employees by responding to hu-man needs for exploration. While such an ideal is admirable, it is only the first step to informing leaders on how they might address what Ronald Heifetz (1994) refers to as the adap-tive challenge. “… adaptive challenge consists of a gap between the shared values people hold and the reality of their lives, or a conflict among people in a community over values and strat-egy” (p.254).

Adaptive Leadership Adaptive leadership (Heifetz,

1994) acknowledges the role of val-ues, the concept of leadership and the pace and challenges of today’s most knotty organizational problems. Heifetz, director of leadership at Har-vard’s Kennedy School of Govern-ment draws on the traditions of psy-chotherapy in order to explain the concept of adaptive work.

“In psychotherapy, people adapt more successfully to their environ-ments, given their purposes and values, by facing painful circum-


11

stances and developing new atti-tudes and behaviors. They learn to distinguish reality from fantasy, re-solve internal conflicts, and put harsh events in perspective. They learn to live with things that cannot be changed and take responsibility for those that can. By improving their ability to reflect, strengthening their tolerance for frustration, and understanding their own blind spots and patterns of resistance to facing problems, they improve their gen-eral adaptive capacity for future challenge (1993, p. 5).

NorthShore Group

Adaptive concepts apply to both leaders and followers. They also speak to the sorts of challenges that face organizations of all sizes in an increasingly complex world. Given the pace of change there are some num-bers of situations for which adaptive skills will be certainly be needed. Heifetz calls such circumstances Type III situations. “The problem is not clear-cut, and technical fixes are not available. “The situation calls for leadership that includes learning when even the doctor doesn’t have a solution in mind” (p. 75).

The primary elements of adaptive leadership are deceptively simple, consisting of collaboration and a blend of formal and informal authority, and do not necessarily infer hierar-chy. Collaboration takes place be-tween leader and followers. Formal authority is thought of as traditional positional authority and may or may not include informal authority. Infor-mal authority is conferred by others and infers trust. …As theoretical types of power relations, dominance and authority can be viewed as dis-tinct. Dominance relationships are based on coercion or habitual defer-

ence; authority relationships are vol-untary and conscious” (p. 56-58).

The application of adaptive lead-ership, however, is as tricky as the situations it seeks to resolve. The leader applies power in response to the circumstances by appropriately framing issues and managing the flow of information such that he or she creates a balance between tensions required to motivate change without overwhelming followers. To manage tension, the leader selects a decision-making process rather than a method. “In essence, they must decide on the presence of conflict, and whether and how to unleash it” (p. 121). Leader-ship is more a set of behaviors ap-propriate to the individual and the set-ting allowing the leader to “… choreo-graph and direct learning processes in an organization or community” (p. 187). Effective adaptive leaders walk a fine line between holding the envi-ronment for the organization to learn while encouraging self-reliance. This is why Heifetz’s book is aptly titled Leadership Without Easy Answers.

Conclusion

There are many overlapping themes among leadership theorist, but the most central themes are that regardless of position or role, leader-ship behavior demands flexibility, is about seeing and testing reality, and cannot be achieved without ongoing learning and practice toward making appropriate choices. The challenges of applying leadership theory are on-going. Can one consistently create the conditions for personal growth and learning such that leadership can emerge when needed? How is the


12

Irrespective of theoretical authen-ticity, theories of the late 20th and early 21st century, such as those from Argyris, Kets de Vries and Heifetz re-flect relational style and experiences of effective leadership. At the same time, our own biases and experiences can blind us to new learning opportu-nities about leadership. Therefore, as facilitators of leadership development, it is important to continue to maintain environments for our own learning.

conflict between the demand for bet-ter leaders and the readiness of learners to learn to be addressed? If personal growth is critical to leader-ship effectiveness, in what ways can barriers to learning be lowered in or-ganizational cultures that see per-sonal growth as soft or inessential?

Leadership is a complex set of ef-

fective behaviors set in a specific con-text. Because organizations and their problems are complex, it follows that developing leaders will be neither simple nor expeditious. One can cre-ate the conditions for, but not control the pace of learning. Nor can onein-fuse others with an internal, ongoing commitment to learn.

Heifetz makes the point that,

“Leadership is both active and reflec-tive” (p. 252). Leadership is a prac-tice. Leading means engaging in a continual challenge to better under-stand one’s motivations, impact on others and the events that surround us. Developing leaders is about teaching them how to be learners; teaching them how to use the experi-ences of leading to continually refine a personal capacity for clarifying pur-pose, forgiving mistakes, and acting with integrity. Learning to lead is, above all, about learning to learn.

The most recent leadership theo-

ries appear to encompass increas-ingly complicated approaches. Al-though some new theories contain original concepts, others are innova-tive hybrids of other organizational theories. And since theories are also opinions, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish new theories from clever re-packaging of ideas.

About the Author Lucy E. Garrick has been working as a manager and consultant for over 20 years. For the past 10 years she has focused on strategic planning, leadership development and adaptation to change in organizations. She is past board president of the Pacific Northwest Organization Development Net-work and a member of the board of directors for the Satir Institute of the Pacific. Ms. Garrick holds an M.A. in Whole Systems Design, Organization Systems Design and Leadership. She has devel-oped an original model for leading at all levels of an organization. Her consulting work focuses on helping formal and informal leaders develop clarity and internal perspective about their effective-ness in groups and institutions.


13

References

Argyris, C. (1976). Increasing Leadership Effectiveness, (2nd ed.). Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Inc.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, (3 ed.).rd New York, NY: The Free Press.

Blanchard, K. (1998). Servant Leadership Revisited. In L. C. Spears, (Ed.), Insights on Leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit and servant leadership. (pp. 21-28). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A. (2000). Primal Leadership: The hidden driver of great performance. Reprinted in Harvard Business School Publish-ing Company. (2001). Best of HBR on Leadership. (HBR OnPoint No. 8296, (pp. 37-51). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

Goleman, D., (2000). Leadership That Gets Results. Reprinted in Harvard Busi-ness School Publishing Company. (2001). Best of HBR on Leadership. (HBR OnPoint No. 4487, pp19-34). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1998). Servant Leadership. In L.C. Spears. (Ed.), Insights on Leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit and servant leadership. (pp. 15-20). New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Heifetz, R.A. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Kets de Vries, M. (2004). Organizations on the Couch: A clinical perspective on organizational dynamics. European Management Journal, 22, 183-200.

Russell, R.F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. The Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 22/2, 76-83.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning or-ganization, New York, NY: Doubleday a division of Bantam Doubleday Bell Publishing Group, Inc.


14

Small, J. (n.d.). The Shadow. In Becoming a Practical Mystic (pp. 95-97). Re-trieved from http:// www.eupsychia.com/perspectives/defs/shadow.html

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Smith, P.B. & Peterson, M. F. (1988). Leadership, Organizations and Culture, Lon-don: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Stone, A.G., Russell, R. F. & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. The Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25/4, 349-361.

Vroom, V.H. & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and Decision-Making, Pittsburgh: PA, University of Pittsburgh Press.


15

http://www.eupsychia.com/perspectives/defs/shadow.html

Documents

500 Years of Leadership Theory