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 to persons with formal authority. My examination of leadership theory does not necessarily imply formal position or authority, nor is there an attempt to present a comprehensive compilation of all organizational leadership theory. Leadership is, therefore, 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. Leadership theories are grouped by seven major themes, some of which overlap in chronology. The themes are: Control, Trait, Behavioral, Basis for Authority, Effective Behavior, OpenSystems and Inter-Personal Leadership. Figure 1 provides a chronological summary of major leadership themes and theorists.

The evolution of thought on the subject leadership is vast and increasingly complex. Over time, leadership theorists have built upon each others’ ideas and discoveries creating an interdisciplinary study that draws on many academic disciplines including 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 theoretical 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

OVERVIEW OF LEADERSHIP CHRONOLOGY Regardless of the focus, each leadership theory tends to pull forward 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

ory-base is in grounding one’s leadership work in both ethical and practical. Concepts that have been objectively 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 development that does not harm.

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 academic research, new theories often overlap and draw from concepts and work of theorists in earlier periods. The value of learning and using a the*

Mitchell, Larson & Green, Attribution Theory (1977) Hersey & Blanchard, Situational Leadership Theory (1977)) Kets de Vries, Psychodynamics (1979) Schein, Culture (1982) Misumi, Performance-Maintenance (1985) Goleman, Emotional Intelligence (1985)

Machiavelli The Prince (1531)

¾ Lewin, Lippitt & White, (1939) ¾ Stodgill & Coons (1948) Great Man Theories Carlyle, (1841)  Weber, (1942) Galton, (1870)  Stodgill, (1948)

James (1880)

Fiedler, Contingency Theory (1967) Hollander, Exchange Theory (1964, 1979) House, Path-Goal Theory (1971) Vroom, Decision Making (1973) Argyris, Double-loop learning (1976)

☯ Bass & Avolio, Transformational Leadership (1990-94) ☯ Goleman, Primal Leadership (19xx) ☯ Heifetz, Adaptive Leadership (1990-94) ☯ Kets de Vries, Psychodynamics (2004)

☯ Burns, Transformational Leadership (1985) ☯ Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (1977 ) 1530

1840

* Control Control of Information Regard for informers & informants

1900

1940

Trait Theories ¾Behavior Courage Physical Strength Charisma Heroism

Learning

 Basis of Authority Charisma + Leadership Style

1970

1980

Effective Behavior Contextual Complexity Leaders & Subordinate Influence Multi-lateral influence Decision-making Emotional behavior

1990

Open Systems Event Management Situations Culture Role making

2000

2004

☯ Inter-Personal Leadership Values Integrity, moral intention Mentoring Role models Empowerment

Figure 1. Major themes in leadership theory: 1530 – 2004 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 Jefferson. It would be nearly 100 years before the next significant shift in leadership theory emerged. In the late 1930s and 1940s leadership research began to focus on behavior and the role of authority. In

While leadership is “… one of the world’s oldest preoccupations…” (Bass, 1990, p.3), the formal development 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 leadership 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 TheoNorthShore Group

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

2

As leadership theorists focused on more complex and therefore realistic research strategies, research increasingly took place in the field. Studies were conducted about decision making and Contingency Theory was introduced by Fred Feidler (1967). “The theory (called the “Contingency Model”) postulates that the effectiveness 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 organizations and looked at issues such as complexity of choice, (House, 1971, as cited in Bass, 1990). In the mid1970s the stage was set to look deeper inside the self by Chris Argyris’s (1976) ground-breaking book, Increasing Effective Leadership. Argyris’ background in psychology was one of the first leadership theories to take into consideration a leader’s ability to become aware of his or her own behavior and its influence of subordinates 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 leadership theories combine many of the

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 inherent in particular persons. This quality has been seen as enabling such persons to achieve roles in society which legitimize the exercise of influence over others, and as ensuring their use such powers effectively. A modification of this view became popular from the 1930s onward, stimulated in particular by the energies of Kurt Lewin (p. 8).

Kurt Lewin, Ron Lippitt and R.K. White performed research that concluded 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 compelling: the research failed to reach generalizable conclusions because it failed to take account of the circumstances within which leadership acts occur” (p. 11). Nevertheless, relentless interest in unlocking the mysteries of leadership eventually led researchers to consider a greater number of the variables in organizational leadership (pp. 11-14). NorthShore Group

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

3

When someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action. This is the theory to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon request, he communicates with others. However, the theory that actually 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).

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 leadership concepts which have endured to become foundations for leadership theories of the current age. Argyris: Setting the Foundations of Inter- and Intra-Personal Leadership

Argyris developed two models for behavioral theory-in-use called Model I and Model II. Using field research, Argyris found that most humans employ what he called Model I theoriesin-use which are primarily intended to maintain control and protect the individual. 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:

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 behavior. He was one of the first scholars to emphasize the role of personal development and its impact on organizations. In his 1976 book, Increasing Leadership Effectiveness, Argyris introduced the concept of “congruence” (p.14) and its role in creating effective leaders. Argyris explained 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 support itself. “If one helps create situations in which others can be congruent, his own congruence is supported” (p. 14). His model for developing effective behavior hinged on these his concepts of espoused theory of action and theory-in-use (p.6).

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

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

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

4

tive outcomes for individuals and organizations by sharing decision making with others who may have differing viewpoints. “The behavioral strategies of Model II involve sharing power with anyone who has the competence and who is relevant in deciding or implementing the action” (p. 22). Model II Theory-in-use is consistent with learning systems in organizations 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 require that individuals reflect on what informs their present behavior and question it genuinely. By this means people perform double-loop learning, which we have suggested, 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 advocacy, because the typical purpose of advocacy is to win. Model II couples articulateness and advocacy with an invitation to others to confront 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 internally committed. This means that the actor (Model II) is skilled at inviting 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 influences. In the Bass and Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, research & managerial applications, Bernard Bass (1990) suggested that “An open-systems point of view implies sensitivity to the larger environment 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 systems, as well as organizational, industrial, national and ethnic cultures.

Although Argyris is not heavily credited in popular leadership literature, 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 leadership theories embracing selfawareness and personal growth as foundations for effective leadership.

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

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

5

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

haviors are a consequence of the interpretation of subordinates and peers. These concepts led to further research on the role of leadership styles related to circumstances. Hersey 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 competencies 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 subordinates. This model guides the manager to apply any one of four leadership styles appropriate to any leadersubordinate situation: “delegating, participating, selling and telling” (pp. 488-494). The simplicity of the model is useful and appealing, however it does not emphasize leader congruence. Nevertheless, its concepts and the concepts of Argyris are embedded in the 1990s work of journalist and psychologist, Daniel Goleman which became popular through his book Emotional Intelligence (Goleman 1985).

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 organization’s work environment: flexibility—that is, how free employees feel to innovate unencumbered by red tape; their sense of responsibility to the organization; the level of standards that people set; the sense of accuracy about performance feedback and aptness of rewards; the clarity people have about mission and values; and finally, the level of commitment to a common purpose (p. 25).

Emotion Intelligence or EI is situational leadership steroids. While situational leadership seeks to create a simple match between leader style and follower capabilities, EI adds additional dimensions by pointing out that managers perform best when they are able to deploy multiple leadership styles responding to the multidimensional aspects of climate which infers characteristics that may be originating both internally and externally to the leader and the organization. Notably missing from Goleman’s EI model, however, are the systemic emotional dimensions of followers and the evolving capacity of the individual leader for self-learning.

Emotional Intelligence Emotional Intelligence provided a new prescription to situational leadership in which four fundamental capabilities: self-awareness, self-management, 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 between six leadership styles: coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, NorthShore Group

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

6

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

Culture and Leadership Edgar Schein (1992) of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has worked a great deal on the impact of culture on leadership and visa versa. In Schein’s book, Organizational Culture and Leadership, he makes a case for focusing on culture in any approach to managing and leading organizational change.

Schein again surfaces the importance 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 conceptions are easy to misinterpret” (p. 122). Below Schein echoes Argyris’s theories of single and double-loop learning when he discusses the implications of culture on leadership.

When one brings culture to the level of organization, and even down to groups within organizations, one can see more clearly how it is created, embedded, developed and ultimately manipulated, managed and changed. These dynamic processes of culture 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 already been stated—they must learn to decipher cultural cues so that the normal flow of work is not interrupted by cultural misunderstandings. More important 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 ultimately 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 decisionmaking process, time and space. (p.122)

Schein believes that leaders create organizational cultures by consciously or unconsciously imposing their values and assumptions on the groups they lead and that these values and assumptions are gradually and tacitly absorbed by the members of the group to create an organizational culture. Culture, in turn, determines how the organization communicates, 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 dysfunctional, it is the unique function of leadership to perceive the functional and dysfunctional elements of the existing culture and to manage cultural evolution… .

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

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

7

cle which complements fellow MIT colleague, Peter Senge’s (1990) theory of learning organizations to propose 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 meaning of leadership in organizations.

proval and then submitted to the superior, who most typically approves the proposal. Decisionmaking procedures are not necessarily so smooth as this outline implies, but their goal is to arrive at consensus decision-making. In order to ensure that colleagues will indeed approve the proposal, extensive formal consultation known as nemawashi may be needed (p. 149).

Smith and Peterson (1988) believed that Schein’s concepts of culture in leadership were missing the management of meanings. (p.122) “Meanings may be subdivided between 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 perspective by introducing non-Western organizational culture to situations that involve superior, peer and subordinate relationships and decisionmaking. Smith and Peterson explain Misumi’s theories on decision-making by providing a concise account of the manner in which Japanese organizations succeed in being both hierarchical and peer-oriented at the same time (Misumi, 1984 as cited in Smith and Peterson, 1988).

Misumi’s decision making process described above serves the innovation needs of organizations while preserving both the face-saving and reverence-for-status customs of Japanese culture. Whether Japanese leadership styles were being overcome by Western influence or vice versa was the subject of much controversy in the 1980s. Smith and Peterson (1988) point out that the adoption of Western management techniques in Japan has been influenced by its own culture. While the quality circles movement was “… initially seen as American innovation to replace 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 theories combine the complexity of leaderfollower roles, leadership styles, event management, situations, culture and emotional development. Referenced in Figure 1 as InterPersonal 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-

A characteristic decision-making procedure in many Japanese organizations is known as ringi. Under this procedure proposals for future action are initiated by junior members of the organization, circulated to their colleagues for apNorthShore Group

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

8

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

ship theories were Servant Leadership (Greenleaf, 1998) and Transformational Leadership (Burns 1978) (as cited in Stone, Russell, and Patterson, 2003).

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 servant leader is upon service to the follower.” (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 servant leadership stems from skepticism 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 concepts of servant and transformational leadership when he posits that service is a critical element of to empowerment in his book, Stewardship. Block suggests that stewardship creates the trust required by the informal leadership that Heifetz, (1994) says is needed to address adaptive problems.

Servant Leadership and Transformational Leadership Co-existent with theories that focused 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 elevate followers, which theoretically result in enhanced levels of performance. 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 environment 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).

Ultimately the choice we make is between service and self-interest. Both are attractive. The fire and intensity 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)

Several more studies investigated transformational leadership and (Bass, 1998; Avolio and Bass, 2002, Behling and McFillen, 1996) established that transformational leaders became role models for followers, providing inspiration, stimulating innovation and were able by virtue of NorthShore Group

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

9

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 professor of leadership development at INSEAD France, examines how unconscious psychological dynamics such as Carl Jung’s concept of shadow (Small, n.d.) play out in organizational life. Kets de Vries posits that both leaders and organizations need to delve into the hidden aspects themselves in order to become effective over the long term.

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 establishing both inter-personal and organizational 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).

The collective unconscious of business practitioners and scholars alike subscribes to the myth that is only what we see and know (in other words, that which is conscious) that matters. That myth is grounded in organizational behavior of an extremely rational nature—concepts based on assumptions made by economists (at worst) or behavior psychologists (at best) (p.184).

Primal Leadership and Psychodynamics 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 addressed by Goleman’s Primal Leadership (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 human 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 emotions, good and bad, can be contagious and therefore a leader’s mood can infuse followers with optimism or its opposite (p. 45). The psychodynamics of leadership deals with aspects of ourselves of which we are unaware and that are likely necessary to achieve Argyris’s

Kets de Vries argues that simply looking at the visible aspects of leadership and organizational performance does not do enough to help leaders deal with the internal dysfunctional aspects of relationships that prohibit long-lasting solutions to organizational problems. He advocates for a clinical paradigm in leadership development and describes leadership from a diagnostic context in relation to the organization. “At its heart, leadership is about human behavior— understanding it, enhancing it. It revolves around the highly complex interplay between leaders and followers, all put into a particular situational

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

10

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 intended to confront or avoid the opposition and the latter, a way of coping with anxiety. Psychodynamics helps to explain what drives individual and organizational behavior. It calls leaders to create what Kets de Vries calls authentizotic organizations. Such organizations 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 human 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 adaptive 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 strategy” (p.254).

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 making a link between espoused values, the psyche and the popular attitudes toward the role of influence in leadership. The essence of leadership is the ability to use identified motivational patterns to influence others—in other words, to get people to voluntarily do things they would not otherwise 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 explicitly 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 identified 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 indicated that the assumptions: dependency, fight-flight and pairing, take

Adaptive Leadership Adaptive leadership (Heifetz, 1994) acknowledges the role of values, the concept of leadership and the pace and challenges of today’s most knotty organizational problems. Heifetz, director of leadership at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government draws on the traditions of psychotherapy in order to explain the concept of adaptive work. “In psychotherapy, people adapt more successfully to their environments, given their purposes and values, by facing painful circum-

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

11

stances and developing new attitudes and behaviors. They learn to distinguish reality from fantasy, resolve 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 general adaptive capacity for future challenge (1993, p. 5).

ence; authority relationships are voluntary and conscious” (p. 56-58). The application of adaptive leadership, 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 decisionmaking process rather than a method. “In essence, they must decide on the presence of conflict, and whether and how to unleash it” (p. 121). Leadership is more a set of behaviors appropriate to the individual and the setting allowing the leader to “… choreograph and direct learning processes in an organization or community” (p. 187). Effective adaptive leaders walk a fine line between holding the environment for the organization to learn while encouraging self-reliance. This is why Heifetz’s book is aptly titled Leadership Without Easy Answers.

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 numbers 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).

Conclusion

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 hierarchy. Collaboration takes place between leader and followers. Formal authority is thought of as traditional positional authority and may or may not include informal authority. Informal authority is conferred by others and infers trust. …As theoretical types of power relations, dominance and authority can be viewed as distinct. Dominance relationships are based on coercion or habitual defer-

There are many overlapping themes among leadership theorist, but the most central themes are that regardless of position or role, leadership 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 ongoing. Can one consistently create the conditions for personal growth and learning such that leadership can emerge when needed? How is the

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

12

Irrespective of theoretical authenticity, theories of the late 20th and early 21st century, such as those from Argyris, Kets de Vries and Heifetz reflect relational style and experiences of effective leadership. At the same time, our own biases and experiences can blind us to new learning opportunities 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 better leaders and the readiness of learners to learn to be addressed? If personal growth is critical to leadership effectiveness, in what ways can barriers to learning be lowered in organizational cultures that see personal growth as soft or inessential? Leadership is a complex set of effective behaviors set in a specific context. Because organizations and their problems are complex, it follows that developing leaders will be neither simple nor expeditious. One can create the conditions for, but not control the pace of learning. Nor can oneinfuse others with an internal, ongoing commitment to learn.

Heifetz makes the point that, “Leadership is both active and reflective” (p. 252). Leadership is a practice. Leading means engaging in a continual challenge to better understand 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 experiences of leading to continually refine a personal capacity for clarifying purpose, forgiving mistakes, and acting with integrity. Learning to lead is, above all, about learning to learn.

The most recent leadership theories appear to encompass increasingly complicated approaches. Although some new theories contain original concepts, others are innovative 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 Network 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 developed 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 effectiveness in groups and institutions.

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

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, (3rd ed.). 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. 2128). 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 Publishing 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 Business 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 organization, New York, NY: Doubleday a division of Bantam Doubleday Bell Publishing Group, Inc. NorthShore Group www.northshoregroup.net © Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD

14

Small, J. (n.d.). The Shadow. In Becoming a Practical Mystic (pp. 95-97). Retrieved from http:// www.eupsychia.com/perspectives/defs/shadow.html Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Smith, P.B. & Peterson, M. F. (1988). Leadership, Organizations and Culture, London: 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.

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

15