Discussion

Describe dynamic followership and explain why it is a requirement for effective leadership.

2 Read “Case 13.1 Bluebird Care” in Ch. 13 (p. 477) of Leadership: Theory and Practice.

 in detail to the following case study questions:

• Using the roles identified in Chaleff’s follower typology (Figure 13.4), what roles do Terry, Belinda, Caleb, and James play at the agency?
• Using the “reversing the lens” framework (Figure 13.6), explain how Caleb and James’s characteristics contribute to the followership outcomes at Bluebird Care.
• Terry and Robin have a unique relationship in that they both engage in leading and following. How do you think each of them views leadership and followership? Discuss.
• If you were an organizational consultant, what would you suggest to Robin that could strengthen Bluebird Care? If you were a followership coach, how would you advise Robin?

Respond has affected your thought processes, development, and professional disposition. This statement should articulate your personal learning process (challenges, moments of discovery, life experiences, and interactions).

You may also include questions for your faculty member about material that may still be unclear. Ideally, you will use these reflections throughout the course and the program to document your development as a scholar, practitioner, and leader, and to reflect critically on the changes that occur during this process.

Describe dynamic followership and explain why it is a requirement for effective leadership.

2 
Read “Case 13.1 Bluebird Care” in Ch. 13 (p. 477) of 
Leadership: Theory and Practice.

 in detail to the following case study questions:

· Using the roles identified in Chaleff’s follower typology (Figure 13.4), what roles do Terry, Belinda, Caleb, and James play at the agency?

· Using the “reversing the lens” framework (Figure 13.6), explain how Caleb and James’s characteristics contribute to the followership outcomes at Bluebird Care.

· Terry and Robin have a unique relationship in that they both engage in leading and following. How do you think each of them views leadership and followership? Discuss.

· If you were an organizational consultant, what would you suggest to Robin that could strengthen Bluebird Care? If you were a followership coach, how would you advise Robin?

Respond has affected your thought processes, development, and professional disposition. This statement should articulate your personal learning process (challenges, moments of discovery, life experiences, and interactions).

You may also include questions for your faculty member about material that may still be unclear. Ideally, you will use these reflections throughout the course and the program to document your development as a scholar, practitioner, and leader, and to reflect critically on the changes that occur during this process.

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

1 INTRODUCTION

Leadership is a highly sought-after and highly valued commodity. In the 25 years since the first edition of this
book was published, the public has become increasingly captivated by the idea of leadership. People continue
to ask themselves and others what makes good leaders. As individuals, they seek more information on how to
become effective leaders. As a result, bookstore shelves are filled with popular books about leaders and how
to be a leader. Many people believe that leadership is a way to improve their personal, social, and professional
lives. Corporations seek those with leadership ability because they believe these individuals bring special
assets to their organizations and, ultimately, improve the bottom line. Academic institutions throughout the
country have responded by offering programs in leadership studies, including at the master’s and doctoral
levels.

In addition, leadership has gained the attention of researchers worldwide. Leadership research is increasing
dramatically, and findings underscore that there is a wide variety of different theoretical approaches to explain
the complexities of the leadership process (e.g., Bass, 2008; Bryman, 1992; Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson, &
Uhl-Bien, 2011; Day & Antonakis, 2012; Dinh et al., 2014; J. Gardner, 1990; W. Gardner et al., 2020; Hickman,
2016; Mumford, 2006; Rost, 1991). Some researchers conceptualize leadership as a trait or as a behavior,
whereas others view leadership from an information-processing perspective or relational standpoint.

Leadership has been studied using both qualitative and quantitative methods in many contexts, including
small groups, therapeutic groups, and large organizations. In recent years, this research has included
experiments designed to explain how leadership influences follower attitudes and performance (Podsakoff &
Podsakoff, 2019) in hopes of increasing the practical usefulness of leadership research.

Collectively, the research findings on leadership provide a picture of a process that is far more sophisticated
and complex than the often-simplistic view presented in some of the popular books on leadership.

This book treats leadership as a complex process having multiple dimensions. Based on the research literature,
this text provides an in-depth description and application of many different approaches to leadership. Our
emphasis is on how theory can inform the practice of leadership. In this book, we describe each theory and
then explain how the theory can be used in real situations.

LEADERSHIP DEFINED
There are many ways to finish the sentence “Leadership is . . .” In fact, as Stogdill (1974, p. 7) pointed out in a
review of leadership research, there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are people
who have tried to define it. It is much like the words democracy, love, and peace. Although each of us intuitively
knows what we mean by such words, the words can have different meanings for different people. As

Box 1.1

shows, scholars and practitioners have attempted to define leadership for more than a century without
universal consensus.

Box 1.1

The Evolution of Leadership Definitions

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

While many have a gut-level grasp of what leadership is, putting a definition to the term has proved to
be a challenging endeavor for scholars and practitioners alike. More than a century has lapsed since
leadership became a topic of academic introspection, and definitions have evolved continuously during
that period. These definitions have been influenced by many factors, from world affairs and politics to
the perspectives of the discipline in which the topic is being studied. In a seminal work, Rost (1991)
analyzed materials written from 1900 to 1990, finding more than 200 different definitions for
leadership. His analysis provides a succinct history of how leadership has been defined through the last
century:

1900–1929

Definitions of leadership appearing in the first three decades of the 20th century emphasized control
and centralization of power with a common theme of domination. For example, at a conference on
leadership in 1927, leadership was defined as “the ability to impress the will of the leader on those led
and [to] induce obedience, respect, loyalty, and cooperation” (Moore, 1927, p. 124).

1930s

In the 1930s, traits became the focus of defining leadership, with an emerging view of leadership as
influence rather than domination. Leadership was also identified as the interaction of an individual’s
specific personality traits with those of a group; it was noted that while the attitudes and activities of the
many may be changed by the one, the many may also influence a leader.

1940s

The group approach came into the forefront in the 1940s with leadership being defined as the behavior
of an individual while involved in directing group activities (Hemphill, 1949). At the same time,
leadership by persuasion was distinguished from “drivership” or leadership by coercion (Copeland,
1942).

1950s

Three themes dominated leadership definitions during the 1950s:

continuance of group theory, which framed leadership as what leaders do in groups;

leadership as a relationship that develops shared goals, which defined leadership based on behavior
of the leader; and

effectiveness, in which leadership was defined by the ability to influence overall group
effectiveness.

1960s

Although a tumultuous time for world affairs, the 1960s saw harmony among leadership scholars. The
prevailing definition of leadership as behavior that influences people toward shared goals was
underscored by Seeman (1960), who described leadership as “acts by persons which influence other
persons in a shared direction” (p. 53).

1970s

In the 1970s, the group focus gave way to the organizational behavior approach, where leadership
became viewed as “initiating and maintaining groups or organizations to accomplish group or

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

organizational goals” (Rost, 1991, p. 59). Burns’s (1978) definition, however, was the most important
concept of leadership to emerge: “Leadership is the reciprocal process of mobilizing by persons with
certain motives and values, various economic, political, and other resources, in a context of competition
and conflict, in order to realize goals independently or mutually held by both leaders and followers” (p.
425).

1980s

The 1980s exploded with scholarly and popular works on the nature of leadership, bringing the topic to
the apex of the academic and public consciousness. As a result, the number of definitions for leadership
became a prolific stew with several persevering themes:

Do as the leader wishes. Leadership definitions still predominantly delivered the message that
leadership is getting followers to do what the leader wants done.

Influence. Probably the most often used word in leadership definitions of the 1980s, influence was
examined from every angle. To distinguish leadership from management, however, scholars
insisted that leadership is noncoercive influence.

Traits. Spurred by the national best seller In Search of Excellence (Peters & Waterman, 1982), the
leadership-as-excellence movement brought leader traits back to the spotlight. As a result, many
people’s understanding of leadership is based on a trait orientation.

Transformation. Burns (1978) is credited for initiating a movement defining leadership as a
transformational process, stating that leadership occurs “when one or more persons engage with
others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation
and morality” (p. 83).

1990s

While debate continued through the 1990s as to whether leadership and management were separate
processes, research emphasized the process of leadership with the focus shifting to followers. Several
approaches emerged that examine how leaders influence a group of individuals to achieve a common
goal, placing particular attention on the role of followers in the leadership process. Among these
leadership approaches were

servant leadership, which puts the leader in the role of a servant who utilizes “caring principles”
focusing on followers’ needs to help followers become more autonomous, knowledgeable, and
like servants themselves (Graham, 1991);

followership, which puts a spotlight on followers and the role they play in the leadership process
(Hollander, 1992); and

adaptive leadership, in which leaders encourage followers to adapt by confronting and solving
problems, challenges, and changes (Heifetz, 1994).

The 21st Century

The turn of the 21st century brought the emergence of moral approaches to leadership, with authentic
and ethical leadership gaining interest from researchers and executives. These new approaches also
include leader humility and spirituality. Leadership theory and research also highlighted communication

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

between leaders and followers, and as organizational populations became increasingly diverse, inclusive
leadership was introduced. Among these approaches were

authentic leadership, in which the authenticity of leaders and their leadership is emphasized
(George, 2003);

ethical leadership, which draws attention to the appropriate conduct of leaders in their personal
actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers (Brown,
Treviño, & Harrison, 2005);

spiritual leadership, which focuses on leadership that utilizes values and sense of calling and
membership to motivate followers (Fry, 2003);

discursive leadership, which posits that leadership is created not so much through leader traits,
skills, and behaviors, but through communication practices that are negotiated between leader
and follower (Aritz, Walker, Cardon, & Zhang, 2017; Fairhurst, 2007);

humble leadership, in which leaders’ humility allows them to show followers how to grow as a
result of work (Owens & Hekman, 2012); and

inclusive leadership, which focuses on diversity and leader behaviors that facilitate followers’
feeling of belongingness to the group while maintaining their individuality (Shore, Cleveland, &
Sanchez, 2018).

After decades of dissonance, leadership scholars agree on one thing: They can’t come up with a
common definition for leadership. Because of such factors as growing global influences and
generational differences, leadership will continue to have different meanings for different people. The
bottom line is that leadership is a complex concept for which a determined definition may long be in
flux.

Ways of Conceptualizing Leadership

In the past 60 years, as many as 65 different classification systems have been developed to define the
dimensions of leadership (Fleishman et al., 1991). One such classification system, directly related to our
discussion, is the scheme proposed by Bass (2008, pp. 11–20). He suggested that some definitions view
leadership as the focus of group processes. From this perspective, the leader is at the center of group change
and activity and embodies the will of the group. Another set of definitions conceptualizes leadership from a
personality perspective, which suggests that leadership is a combination of special traits or characteristics that
some individuals possess. These traits enable those individuals to induce others to accomplish tasks. Other
approaches to leadership define it as an act or a behavior—the things leaders do to bring about change in a
group.

In addition, some define leadership in terms of the power relationship that exists between leaders and
followers. From this viewpoint, leaders have power that they wield to effect change in others. Others view
leadership as a transformational process that moves followers to accomplish more than is usually expected of
them. Finally, some scholars address leadership from a skills perspective. This viewpoint stresses the capabilities
(knowledge and skills) that make effective leadership possible.

Definition and Components

Despite the multitude of ways in which leadership has been conceptualized, the following components can be
identified as central to the phenomenon: (a) Leadership is a process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c)

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

leadership occurs in groups, and (d) leadership involves common goals. Based on these components, the
following definition of leadership is used in this text:

Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common
goal.

Defining leadership as a process means that it is not a trait or characteristic that resides in the leader, but
rather a transactional event that occurs between the leader and the followers. Process implies that a leader
affects and is affected by followers. It emphasizes that leadership is not a linear, one-way event, but rather an
interactive event. When leadership is defined in this manner, it becomes available to everyone. It is not
restricted to the formally designated leader in a group.

Leadership involves influence. It is concerned with how the leader affects followers and the communication that
occurs between leaders and followers (Ruben & Gigliotti, 2017). Influence is the sine qua non of leadership.
Without influence, leadership does not exist.

Leadership occurs in groups. Groups are the context in which leadership takes place. Leadership involves
influencing a group of individuals who have a common purpose. This can be a small task group, a community
group, or a large group encompassing an entire organization. Leadership is about one individual influencing a
group of others to accomplish common goals. Others (a group) are required for leadership to occur.
Leadership training programs that teach people to lead themselves are not considered a part of leadership
within the definition that is set forth in this discussion.

Leadership includes attention to common goals. Leaders direct their energies toward individuals who are trying
to achieve something together. By common, we mean that the leaders and followers have a mutual purpose.
Attention to common goals gives leadership an ethical overtone because it stresses the need for leaders to
work with followers to achieve selected goals. Stressing mutuality lessens the possibility that leaders might act
toward followers in ways that are forced or unethical. It also increases the possibility that leaders and followers
will work together toward a common good (Rost, 1991).

Throughout this text, the people who engage in leadership will be called leaders, and those toward whom
leadership is directed will be called followers. Both leaders and followers are involved together in the leadership
process. Leaders need followers, and followers need leaders (Burns, 1978; Heller & Van Til, 1983; Hollander,
1992; Jago, 1982). An extended discussion of followership is provided in Chapter 12. Although leaders and
followers are closely linked, it is the leader who often initiates the relationship, creates the communication
linkages, and carries the burden for maintaining the relationship.

In our discussion of leaders and followers, attention will be directed toward follower issues as well as leader
issues. Leaders have an ethical responsibility to attend to the needs and concerns of followers. As Burns (1978)
pointed out, discussions of leadership sometimes are viewed as elitist because of the implied power and
importance often ascribed to leaders in the leader–follower relationship. Leaders are not above or better than
followers. Leaders and followers must be understood in relation to each other (Hollander, 1992) and
collectively (Burns, 1978). They are in the leadership relationship together—and are two sides of the same coin
(Rost, 1991).

LEADERSHIP DESCRIBED
In addition to definitional issues, it is important to discuss several other questions pertaining to the nature of
leadership. In the following section, we will address questions such as how leadership as a trait differs from
leadership as a process; how appointed leadership differs from emergent leadership; and how the concepts of
power, coercion, morality, and management interact with leadership.

file://view/books/9781071834473/epub/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i1623.html

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

Trait Versus Process Leadership

We have all heard statements such as “He is born to be a leader” or “She is a natural leader.” These statements
are commonly expressed by people who take a trait perspective toward leadership. The trait perspective
suggests that certain individuals have special innate or inborn characteristics or qualities that make them
leaders, and that it is these qualities that differentiate them from nonleaders. Some of the personal qualities
used to identify leaders include unique physical factors (e.g., height), personality features (e.g., extraversion),
and other characteristics (e.g., intelligence and fluency; Bryman, 1992). In Chapter 2, we will discuss a large
body of research that has examined these personal qualities.

To describe leadership as a trait is quite different from describing it as a process (Figure 1.1). The trait
viewpoint conceptualizes leadership as a property or set of properties possessed in varying degrees by
different people (Jago, 1982). This suggests that it resides in select people and restricts leadership to those who
are believed to have special, usually inborn, talents.

Description

Figure 1.1 The Different Views of Leadership

Source: Adapted from A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs From Management (pp. 3–8), by J. P. Kotter, 1990, New
York, NY: Free Press.

The process viewpoint suggests that leadership is a phenomenon that resides in the context of the interactions
between leaders and followers and makes leadership available to everyone. As a process, leadership can be
observed in leader behaviors (Jago, 1982) and can be learned. The process definition of leadership is consistent
with the definition of leadership that we have set forth in this chapter.

Assigned Versus Emergent Leadership

Some people are leaders because of their formal position in an organization, whereas others are leaders
because of the way other group members respond to them. These two common forms of leadership are called
assigned leadership and emergent leadership. Leadership that is based on occupying a position in an
organization is assigned leadership. Team leaders, plant managers, department heads, directors, and
administrators are all examples of assigned leaders.

Yet the person assigned to a leadership position does not always become the real leader in a particular setting.
When others perceive an individual as the most influential member of a group or an organization, regardless of
the individual’s title, the person is exhibiting emergent leadership. The individual acquires emergent leadership
through other people in the organization who support and accept that individual’s behavior. This type of
leadership is not assigned by position; rather, it emerges over a period through communication. Some of the

file://view/books/9781071834473/epub/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i890.html

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

positive communication behaviors that account for successful leader emergence include being verbally involved,
being informed, seeking others’ opinions, initiating new ideas, and being firm but not rigid (Ellis & Fisher, 1994).

Researchers have found that, in addition to communication behaviors, personality plays a role in leadership
emergence. For example, Smith and Foti (1998) found that certain personality traits were related to leadership
emergence in a sample of 160 male college students. The individuals who were more dominant, more
intelligent, and more confident about their own performance (general self-efficacy) were more likely to be
identified as leaders by other members of their task group. Although it is uncertain whether these findings
apply to women as well, Smith and Foti suggested that these three traits could be used to identify individuals
perceived to be emergent leaders.

Leadership emergence may also be affected by gender-biased perceptions. In a study of 40 mixed-sex college
groups, Watson and Hoffman (2004) found that women who were urged to persuade their task groups to
adopt high-quality decisions succeeded with the same frequency as men with identical instructions. Although
women were equally influential leaders in their groups, they were rated significantly lower than comparable
men were on leadership. Furthermore, these influential women were also rated as significantly less likable
than comparably influential men were. Another study found that men who spoke up to promote new ideas in
teams were granted higher status compared to women who did so (McClean, Martin, Emich, & Woodruff,
2018). These results suggest that there continue to be barriers to women’s emergence as leaders in some
settings.

A unique perspective on leadership emergence is provided by social identity theory (Hogg, 2001). From this
perspective, leadership emergence is the degree to which a person fits with the identity of the group as a
whole. As groups develop over time, a group prototype also develops. Individuals emerge as leaders in the
group when they become most like the group prototype. Being similar to the prototype makes leaders
attractive to the group and gives them influence with the group.

The leadership approaches we discuss in the subsequent chapters of this book apply equally to assigned
leadership and emergent leadership. When a person is engaged in leadership, that person is a leader, whether
leadership was assigned or emerged. This book focuses on the leadership process that occurs when any
individual is engaged in influencing other group members in their efforts to reach a common goal.

Leadership and Power

The concept of power is related to leadership because it is part of the influence process. Power is the capacity
or potential to influence. People have power when they have the ability to affect others’ beliefs, attitudes, and
courses of action. Judges, doctors, coaches, and teachers are all examples of people who have the potential to
influence us. When they do, they are using their power, the resource they draw on to effect change in us.

Although there are no explicit theories in the research literature about power and leadership, power is a
concept that people often associate with leadership. It is common for people to view leaders (both good and
bad) and people in positions of leadership as individuals who wield power over others, and as a result, power is
often thought of as synonymous with leadership. In addition, people are often intrigued by how leaders use
their power. Understanding how power is used in leadership is instrumental as well in understanding the dark
side of leadership, where leaders use their leadership to achieve their own personal ends and lead in toxic and
destructive ways (Krasikova, Green, & LeBreton, 2013). Studying how famous leaders, such as Adolf Hitler or
Alexander the Great, use power to effect change in others is titillating to many people because it underscores
that power can indeed effectuate change and maybe if they had power they too could effectuate change.

In her 2012 book The End of Leadership, Kellerman argues there has been a shift in leadership power during the
last 40 years. Power used to be the domain of leaders, but that is diminishing and shifting to followers.
Changes in culture have meant followers demand more from leaders, and leaders have responded. Access to
technology has empowered followers, given them access to huge amounts of information, and made leaders

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

more transparent. The result is a decline in respect for leaders and leaders’ legitimate power. In effect,
followers have used information power to level the playing field. Power is no longer synonymous with
leadership, and in the social contract between leaders and followers, leaders wield less power, according to
Kellerman. For example, Posner (2015) examined volunteer leaders, such as those who sit on boards for
nonprofit organizations, and found that while these individuals did not have positional authority in the
organization, they were able to influence leadership. Volunteer leaders engaged more frequently in leadership
behaviors than did paid leaders.

In college courses today, the most widely cited research on power is French and Raven’s (1959) work on the
bases of social power. In their work, they conceptualized power from the framework of a dyadic relationship
that included both the person influencing and the person being influenced. French and Raven identified five
common and important bases of power—referent, expert, legitimate, reward, and coercive—and Raven (1965)
identified a sixth, information power (Table 1.1). Each of these bases of power increases a leader’s capacity to
influence the attitudes, values, or behaviors of others.

Referent
Power

Based on followers’ identification and liking for the leader. A teacher who is adored by
students has referent power.

Expert Power Based on followers’ perceptions of the leader’s competence. A tour guide who is
knowledgeable about a foreign country has expert power.

Legitimate
Power

Associated with having status or formal job authority. A judge who administers
sentences in the courtroom exhibits legitimate power.

Reward Power Derived from having the capacity to provide rewards to others. A supervisor who
compliments employees who work hard is using reward power.

Coercive
Power

Derived from having the capacity to penalize or punish others. A coach who sits players
on the bench for being late to practice is using coercive power.

Information
Power

Derived from possessing knowledge that others want or need. A boss who has
information regarding new criteria to decide employee promotion eligibility has
information power.

Sources: Adapted from “The Bases of Social Power,” by J. R. French Jr. and B. Raven, 1962, in D. Cartwright (Ed.), Group Dynamics: Research and

Theory (pp. 259–269), New York, NY: Harper & Row; and “Social Influence and Power,” by B. H. Raven, 1965, in I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.),

Current Studies in Social Psychology (pp. 371–382), New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

In organizations, there are two major kinds of power: position power and personal power. Position power,
which includes legitimate, reward, coercive, and information power (Table 1.2), is the power a person derives
from a particular office or rank in a formal organizational system. It is the influence capacity a leader derives
from having higher status than the followers have. Position power allows leaders to attain central roles in
organizations; for example, vice presidents and department heads have more power than staff personnel do
because of the positions they hold in the organization. In addition, leaders’ informal networks bring them
greater social power, which separates leaders from nonleaders (Chiu, Balkundi, & Weinberg, 2017).

Position Power Personal Power

Legitimate Referent

Reward Expert

Coercive  

Information  

Source: Adapted from A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs From Management (pp. 3–8), by J. P. Kotter, 1990, New York, NY: Free Press.

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

Personal power is the influence capacity a leader derives from being seen by followers as likable and
knowledgeable. When leaders act in ways that are important to followers, it gives leaders power. For example,
some managers have power because their followers consider them to be good role models. Others have power
because their followers view them as highly competent or considerate. In both cases, these managers’ power is
ascribed to them by others, based on how they are seen in their relationships with others. Personal power
includes referent and expert power (Table 1.2).

In discussions of leadership, it is not unusual for leaders to be described as wielders of power, as individuals
who dominate others. In these instances, power is conceptualized as a tool that leaders use to achieve their
own ends. Contrary to this view of power, Burns (1978) emphasized power from a relationship standpoint. For
Burns, power is not an entity that leaders use over others to achieve their own ends; instead, power occurs in
relationships. It should be used by leaders and followers to promote their collective goals.

In this text, our discussions of leadership treat power as a relational concern for both leaders and followers.
We pay attention to how leaders work with followers to reach common goals.

Leadership and Coercion

Coercive power is one of the specific kinds of power available to leaders. Coercion involves the use of force to
effect change. To coerce means to influence others to do something against their will and may include
manipulating penalties and rewards in their work environment. Coercion often involves the use of threats,
punishment, and negative reward schedules and is most often seen as a characteristic of the dark side of
leadership. Classic examples of coercive leaders are Adolf Hitler in Germany, the Taliban leaders in
Afghanistan, Jim Jones in Guyana, and Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte, each of whom used power and
restraint to force followers to engage in extreme behaviors. At an extreme, coercion combines with other
bullying and tyrannical behaviors known as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2007).

It is important to distinguish between coercion and leadership because it allows us to separate out from our
examples of leadership the behaviors of individuals such as Hitler, the Taliban, and Jones. In our discussions of
leadership, coercive people are not used as models of ideal leadership. Our definition suggests that leadership
is reserved for those who influence a group of individuals toward a common goal. Leaders who use coercion
are interested in their own goals and seldom are interested in the wants and needs of followers. Using
coercion runs counter to working with followers to achieve a common goal.

Leadership and Morality

In considering the relationship of leadership and morality, let’s start with a simple question: Do you agree or
disagree with the following statement:

Hitler’s rule in Germany could be considered a good example of leadership.

Throughout the United States and around the world, in classroom discussions of leadership, the question
about whether or not Adolf Hitler was a “great” leader inevitably comes up. Your response to this statement is
intended to bring out whether your conceptualization of leadership includes a moral dimension or if you think
that leadership is a neutral concept that treats leadership as amoral.

If you answered agree to the statement, you probably come down on the side of thinking the phenomenon of
leadership is neutral, or amoral. You might think it is obvious that Hitler was a leader because he was very
charismatic and persuasive and his actions had a huge impact on Germany and the world. On the other hand,
if you answered disagree, you most likely do not think of Hitler’s leadership as being in any way positive and
that the notion of Hitler as a model of leadership is repugnant because you reserve the concept of leadership

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

for nondestructive leaders who create change for the common good. That is, you believe leadership cannot be
divorced from values; it is a moral phenomenon and has a moral component.

For as long as leadership has been studied, the debate of whether or not leadership has a moral dimension
has been a focus of leadership scholars. It is an important debate because it gets at the core of what we think
the phenomenon of leadership actually entails. How we define leadership is central to how we talk about
leadership, how we develop the components of leadership, how we research it, and how we teach it.

There are two consistent trains of thought regarding the relationship of leadership and morality: Either
leadership is a neutral process that is not guided or dependent on a value system that advances the common
good, or leadership is a moral process that is guided and dependent on values promotive of the common good.

Leadership Is a Neutral Process

It is common for people to think of leadership as a neutral concept—one that is not tied to morality. From this
perspective, leadership can be used for good ends or bad, and can be employed both by individuals who have
worthy intentions and by those who do not. For example, moral leaders like Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela,
and Martin Luther King Jr. used leadership for good. On the other hand, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin used
leadership destructively. Common to all of these examples is that these leaders used leadership to influence
followers to move toward and accomplish certain goals. The only difference is that some leaders used
leadership in laudatory ways while others used leadership in highly destructive ways.

A classic historical example of treating leadership as an amoral concept can be found in Niccolò Machiavelli’s
The Prince (c. 1505; Nederman, 2019). In this book, Machiavelli philosophizes that moral values need not play a
role in decision making; instead, leaders should concentrate on using power to achieve their goals. Their focus
should be on the ends, or consequences, of their leadership and need not be about the means. Machiavelli
endorsed leaders’ use of fear and deception, if necessary, to accomplish tasks; he was concerned with the
pragmatics of what leaders do and not the rightness or wrongness of a leader’s actions (Nederman, 2019).

There are an abundance of definitions of leadership, and most of these treat the concept of morality in a
neutral fashion (e.g., Rost’s 1991 analysis of 221 definitions of leadership). These definitions do not require that
leadership result in only positive outcomes. To use a specific example, Padilla (2013) defines leadership as “an
organized group process with associated goals resulting in a set of outcomes” (p. 12), which involves a leader,
followers, and contexts. From his perspective, leadership is value-neutral and can be used for constructive or
destructive ends. Padilla argues that Hitler should be considered a leader even though the outcome of his
leadership was horrendously destructive.

Leadership Is a Moral Process

In contrast to describing leadership as a neutral process, some in the field of leadership argue (as we do in this
chapter) that leadership has a value dimension—it is about influencing others to make changes to achieve a
common good. From this perspective, Hitler, who thwarted the common good, cannot be considered a “great”
leader.

One of the first scholars to conceptualize leadership as a moral process was James MacGregor Burns in his
book Leadership (1978). For Burns, leadership is about raising the motivations and moral levels of followers. He
argued it is the responsibility of a leader to help followers assess their own values and needs in order to raise
them to a higher level of functioning, to a level that will stress values such as liberty, justice, and equality
(Ciulla, 2014). Burns (2003) argued that values are central to what leaders do.

Expanding on Burns, Bass (1985) developed a model of leadership (see Chapter 8, “Transformational
Leadership”) that delineated transforming leadership, a kind of leadership that affects the level of values of
followers. Because it is difficult to use the term transformational leadership when describing a leader such as
Adolf Hitler, the term pseudotransformational leadership was coined by Bass to refer to leaders who focus on

file://view/books/9781071834473/epub/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i1287.html

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

their own personal goals over the common good and are self-consumed, exploitive, and power-oriented, with
warped moral values (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). In contrast to pseudotransformational
leadership, “real” or “ideal” transformational leadership is described as socialized leadership—leadership that
is concerned with the collective good. Socialized leaders transcend their own interests for the sake of others
(Howell & Avolio, 1993).

Additionally, morals have a central role in two established leadership theories, authentic leadership and servant
leadership. Authentic leadership (see Chapter 9) is an extension of transformational leadership, stressing that
leaders do what is “right” and “good” for their followers and society. They understand their own values, place
followers’ needs above their own, and work with followers to align their interests in order to create a greater
common good. Similarly, servant leadership has a strong moral dimension. It makes altruism the central
component of the leadership process and frames leadership around the principle of caring for others. Within
this paradigm, leaders are urged to not dominate, direct, or control others; they are urged to give up control
rather than seek control.

Referring back to the question about whether you agree or disagree that Hitler is an example of leadership,
your answer has to be predicated on what you think leadership is. If you think leadership is a neutral process
that does not have a moral requirement, then Hitler is an example of leadership. On the other hand, if you
think leadership includes ethical considerations such as elevating the morals, values, and goals of followers to
make more principled judgments (Burns, 1978), then Hitler is not an example of leadership. In this view, he was
nothing more than a despotic, Machiavellian autocrat and an evil dictator responsible for the imprisonment,
abuse, and execution of millions of innocent people and the unprovoked origin of World War II—the deadliest
armed conflict in history.

Leadership and Management

Leadership is a process that is similar to management in many ways. Leadership involves influence, as does
management. Leadership entails working with people, which management entails as well. Leadership is
concerned with effective goal accomplishment, and so is management. In general, many of the functions of
management are activities that are consistent with the definition of leadership we set forth at the beginning of
this chapter.

But leadership is also different from management. Whereas the study of leadership can be traced back to
Aristotle, management emerged around the turn of the 20th century with the advent of our industrialized
society. Management was created as a way to reduce chaos in organizations, to make them run more
effectively and efficiently. The primary functions of management, as first identified by Fayol (1916), were
planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling. These functions are still representative of the field of
management today.

In a book that compared the functions of management with the functions of leadership, Kotter (1990) argued
that they are quite dissimilar (Figure 1.2). The overriding function of management is to provide order and
consistency to organizations, whereas the primary function of leadership is to produce change and movement.
Management is about seeking order and stability; leadership is about seeking adaptive and constructive
change.

As illustrated in Figure 1.2, the major activities of management are played out differently than the activities of
leadership. Although they are different in scope, Kotter (1990, pp. 7–8) contended that both management and
leadership are essential if an organization is to prosper. For example, if an organization has strong
management without leadership, the outcome can be stifling and bureaucratic. Conversely, if an organization
has strong leadership without management, the outcome can be meaningless or misdirected change for
change’s sake. To be effective, organizations need to nourish both competent management and skilled
leadership.

file://view/books/9781071834473/epub/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i1373.html

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

Figure 1.2 Functions of Management and Leadership

Source: Adapted from A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs From Management (pp. 3–8), by J. P. Kotter, 1990, New
York, NY: Free Press.

Many scholars, in addition to Kotter (1990), argue that leadership and management are distinct constructs. For
example, Bennis and Nanus (2007) maintained that there is a significant difference between the two. To
manage means to accomplish activities and master routines, whereas to lead means to influence others and
create visions for change. Bennis and Nanus made the distinction very clear in their frequently quoted
sentence, “Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing” (p. 221).

Rost (1991) has also been a proponent of distinguishing between leadership and management. He contended
that leadership is a multidirectional influence relationship and management is a unidirectional authority
relationship. Whereas leadership is concerned with the process of developing mutual purposes, management
is directed toward coordinating activities to get a job done. Leaders and followers work together to create real
change, whereas managers and subordinates join forces to sell goods and services (Rost, 1991, pp. 149–152).

In a recent study, Simonet and Tett (2012) explored how best to conceptualize leadership and management by
having 43 experts identify the overlap and differences between leadership and management in regard to 63
different competencies. They found a large number of competencies (22) descriptive of both leadership and
management (e.g., productivity, customer focus, professionalism, and goal setting), but they also found several
unique descriptors for each. Specifically, they found leadership was distinguished by motivating intrinsically,
creative thinking, strategic planning, tolerance of ambiguity, and being able to read people, and management
was distinguished by rule orientation, short-term planning, motivating extrinsically, orderliness, safety
concerns, and timeliness.

Approaching the issue from a narrower viewpoint, Zaleznik (1977) went so far as to argue that leaders and
managers themselves are distinct, and that they are basically different types of people. He contended that
managers are reactive and prefer to work with people to solve problems but do so with low emotional
involvement. They act to limit choices. Zaleznik suggested that leaders, on the other hand, are emotionally
active and involved. They seek to shape ideas instead of responding to them and act to expand the available
options to solve long-standing problems. Leaders change the way people think about what is possible.

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

Although there are clear differences between management and leadership, the two constructs overlap. When
managers are involved in influencing a group to meet its goals, they are involved in leadership. When leaders
are involved in planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling, they are involved in management. Both
processes involve influencing a group of individuals toward goal attainment. For purposes of our discussion in
this book, we focus on the leadership process. In our examples and case studies, we treat the roles of
managers and leaders similarly and do not emphasize the differences between them.

PLAN OF THE BOOK
This book is user-friendly. It is based on substantive theories but is written to emphasize practice and
application. Each chapter in the book follows the same format. The first section of each chapter briefly
describes the leadership approach and discusses various research studies applicable to the approach. The
second section of each chapter evaluates the approach and how it works, highlighting its strengths and
criticisms. Special attention is given to how the approach contributes or fails to contribute to an overall
understanding of the leadership process. Finally, beginning with Chapter 2, each chapter has an application
section with case studies and a leadership questionnaire that measures the reader’s leadership style to prompt
discussion of how the approach can be applied in ongoing organizations. Each chapter ends with a summary
and references.

Case Study

Case 1.1 is provided to illustrate different dimensions of leadership as well as allow you to examine your own
perspective on what defines a leader and leadership. At the end of the case, you will find questions that will
help in analyzing the case.

Case 1.1 Open Mouth . . .

When asked by a sports editor for the Lanthorn, Grand Valley State University’s student publication, what three
historical figures he would most like to have dinner with, Morris Berger, the newly announced offensive
coordinator for the GVSU Lakers football team, responded Adolf Hitler, John F. Kennedy, and Christopher
Columbus.

“This is probably not going to get a good review,” he said, “but I’m going to say Adolf Hitler. It was obviously
very sad and he had bad motives, but the way he was able to lead was second-to-none. How he rallied a group
and a following, I want to know how he did that. Bad intentions of course, but you can’t deny he wasn’t a great
leader” (Voss, 2020).

When the article ran, it caused a stir. Shortly after, the writer, Kellen Voss, was asked by someone in the
university’s athletics department to alter the online story to remove those comments. The Lanthorn initially
complied, but then changed course and added the full interview back in. Once the Lanthorn republished the
quote, the story went viral. It was covered in the Washington Post, on ESPN, and in Sports Illustrated and even
ended up in the monologue of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon (Boatner, 2020).

In addition to public dismay, GVSU’s Hillel chapter, a Jewish campus organization, spoke out strongly against
Coach Berger after his comments were made public. “It is unfortunate to see a member of our Grand Valley
community glorify the Holocaust, a period that brought such destruction and travesty to the world,” the group
posted to its Facebook page. “We appreciate the university’s swift response and we will continue to partner
with them to educate our campus community and provide a safe and inclusive environment for all students”
(Colf, 2020).

Seven days after the article appeared, GVSU announced that Coach Berger, who had been suspended by the
university, had resigned. Matt Mitchell, the team’s head coach, gave a statement: “Nothing in our background

file://view/books/9781071834473/epub/OEBPS/s9781071834497.i890.html

1186212 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

and reference checks revealed anything that would have suggested the unfortunate controversy that has
unfolded,” Coach Mitchell said. “This has been a difficult time for everyone. I accepted Coach Berger’s
resignation in an effort for him to move on and for us to focus on the team and our 2020 season” (Wallner,
2020).

In another statement, Coach Berger said he was disappointed to leave, but added, “I do not want to be a
distraction to these kids, this great university, or Coach Mitchell as they begin preparations for the upcoming
season” (Wallner, 2020).

Coach Berger also issued a more personal apology in a Twitter post:

I failed myself, my parents, and this university—the answer I attempted to give does not align with
the values instilled in me by my parents, nor [does it] represent what I stand for or believe in—I
mishandled the answer, and fell way short of the mark.

For the last 11-years, I worked tirelessly for each and every opportunity and was excited to be a
Laker.

Throughout my life, I have taken great pride in that responsibility—as a teacher, mentor, coach, role-
model, and member of the community.

It is my hope that you will consider accepting my apology.

I recognize that I cannot undo the hurt and the embarrassment I have caused.

But I can control the way I choose to positively learn from my mistake moving forward—as I work to
regain the trust and respect of everyone that I have let down. (Berger, 2020)

A few weeks later, GVSU announced that it would increase its curriculum around the Holocaust and Native
American history. “We will use this moment to work diligently toward institutional systemic change that creates
a healthier campus climate for all,” the university’s president, Philomena Mantella, said (Colf, 2020).

Questions

1. Who are the leaders in this situation? How would you describe their actions as leaders based on the
definition of leadership in this chapter?

2. Do you think it was wrong for Coach Berger to cite Hitler as a “great leader”?
3. What is your reaction to Coach Berger resigning one week after signing a contract to coach at GVSU?