The Responsibility-effectiveness Model Of Leadership (updated)

FEAR INTO POWER: THE RESPONSIBILITY-EFFECTIVENESS MODEL OF LEADERSHIP™ INTRODUCTION Responsibility is the most powerful internal motivator for problem solving. When you remove it, all that remains is the lesser drive of self-preservation. If necessity is the mother of invention then responsibility is its father. (Mark A. Crouch)i In recent years, a main trend in business has been responsibility. Large scale movements, such as the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) phenomenon have been determining public perception and, in turn, the success or demise of organizations worldwide. Companies are now taking responsibility for their actions and are feeling more accountable than ever. An example of such a company is Nike, whose CSR department released a report in April 2005 disclosing the names and locations of the hundreds of factories worldwide that produce its products; this was the first such report ever disclosed by a major shoe and apparel company (Nolan, 2005)ii. Others who continue to avoid responsibility and are not perceived as responsible, are quickly being targeted for reprimand by activist groups, regulatory bodies, other organizations, and stakeholders. The result is lower efficiency and dwindling profits. If not for the sake of upholding certain codes of conduct, the responsibility trend is a strategic move intended to improve public perception and support. Thus, responsible organizations in every sector, and leaders who are perceived as responsible, are favored among stakeholders (subordinates, customers, and constituents). CSR, for example, has been shown to contribute to organizational effectiveness, in terms of employees (who make a greater contribution to their company if they perceive it as more responsible, take less sick days, and remain with the company longer) and customers (customer loyalty is correlated positively with employee satisfaction)iii. 1  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

“Few things help an individual more than to place responsibility upon him, and to let him know that you trust him.” (Booker T. Washington) If added responsibility has been proven to increase effectiveness at the organizational level, and if organizations endorsing this concept are beginning to reap its benefits, why should it not be applied within the organization, at the personal level? The Responsibility-Effectiveness Model (the R-E Model) shows how increasing the responsibility of a subordinate working in a group can lead to increased effectiveness, in a perpetual cycle influenced by the leader. This paper begins by defining key terms, including responsibility and my conception of leadership. Next, it explains the leadership-related phenomenon of interest, responsibility. Later, it moves into the specifics of the R-E Model, making certain hypotheses about relationships among variables. Some of these hypotheses have not been tested, while other relationships are supported by research. During each step in the model, certain obstacles are recognized and discussed, as seen in Figure 1. Finally, several examples are provided, in which the R-E Model may have helped improve outcomes.

DEFINITIONS Responsibility can be interpreted in many ways, according to the context in which it is used. Some use it as a term with which to assign blame (i.e. being responsible for delaying traffic). Others define it as a person’s job or duty (i.e. a factory worker’s responsibility for sealing boxes). To others, being responsible means being trustworthy and dependable (using responsibility as a descriptive adjective). At times, responsibility can be thought of as the immediate, short-term task at hand (i.e. to ensure the survival of a team of mountaineers). Finally, assigning responsibility can be a way of assigning liability (i.e. “Who can be sued?”).

2  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

Obviously, the concept of responsibility is an integral part of leadership. No matter what style of leadership and decision-making is used, in almost every conceivable case, it is the leader who is held responsible for group outcomes. Leadership, here, is the leader-followers interaction in which the leader influences others in the pursuit of a common mission, in a given situation. The success of the outcome depends on each follower’s individual contribution and on the leader’s ability to meet the followers’ needs and guide them through the process. “The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority.” (Stanley Milgram) Much of the responsibility research has focused on the tendency of followers to avoid it (Avoidance of Responsibility research). For several possible reasons, people who are not “in charge” of the outcome would rather not be responsible for it. Mainly in low context situations, this aversion to responsibility may be due to a fear of the unknown (or, a lack of established means by which to reach the desired end) and of failure. In these cases, as in crises, it seems natural that group members would prefer a strong leader who is willing and able to take responsibility for the group and reduce the ambiguity felt by group members. In the R-E Model, responsibility is something bestowed upon the follower which, with the appropriate guidance, may lead to increased effectiveness and improved outcomes (as related to the task and to follower self-efficacy). Here, the term refers to the follower’s ability (and requirement) to take on her section of the overall mission and to influence group outcomes. It follows, then, that the mission, as well as each follower’s individual contribution to that mission, should be clearly defined. Throughout this paper, the terms leader, follower, and subordinate are used frequently. The leader here is the person who wishes to facilitate the positive change (the increased

3  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

effectiveness and self-efficacy) in those she is leading. Hopefully, the current reader is, or has access to, such a leader for whom this model may be of use. Though distinctions exist between followers and subordinates, the two terms are used interchangeably. They are intended to signify the person (or group) in whom the leader whishes to affect change. These are the members of the group whose effectiveness may be increased by an increase in responsibility, as detailed below.

THE RESPONSIBILITY-EFFECTIVENESS MODEL The Responsibility-Effectiveness Model (REM) of Leadership concentrates on the process by which increased responsibility, bestowed upon a subordinate, can (if certain obstacles are avoided) begin a circular process, a product of which is increased effectiveness. The model, then, is a leadership tool that is concerned mainly with followers’ perceptions (or, affects) but also with their cognition and behavior, as influenced by the leader. The model has six ordinal stages of progress (which are causally related): responsibility, accountability, perception (or, a sense of ownership), commitment, effectiveness, and motivation. Each stage is accompanied by a potential obstacle that may halt the follower’s progress. Each obstacle can be the result of numerous situations, most of which can be avoided by reframing the follower’s thought processes and by organizational readiness. Essentially, the leader’s actions involve: 1. Initially bestowing and increasing the subordinate’s responsibility 2. Helping the subordinate overcome (not avoid) the obstacles 3. Monitoring follower progress, making changes for the future, as needed

4  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

It is worth making two distinctions before proceeding. First, this model is discrete and should not be communicated to the follower before or during the process.1 This is by no means a secretive model; however, as mentioned, it deals with follower perception, which may be altered if the leader’s intent to use it is disclosed. In some cases, leader-follower relations may be open enough to acknowledge a need to improve effectiveness and to openly discuss the process. Second, this model is not a magic pill. Any process that involves changing people’s feelings, thoughts, and behaviors, takes time. How much time is needed should be proportionate to the amount of effort needed to overcome the obstacles, depending on the follower and the situation. Before explaining the process of the R-E Model, it will help to have a clear definition of each of the stages involved and their relationship in the model. Especially important is the distinction between responsibility and accountability.

Follower Responsibility As mentioned above, the R-E Model refers solely to the responsibility bestowed upon the follower, not the responsibility of the leader. Thus, responsibility here is the degree to which a group member can, and is expected to, influence the overall outcome, given her resources to do so. These resources are allocated by the leader. Using another term, responsibility can be described as the degree of freedom the group member has to influence the outcome, using her resources. The above definition has several premises. First, the amount of responsibility a group member possesses can be altered by the leader. Second, beyond the mere ability to affect the outcome, responsibility includes an expectance to do so positively. Third, the degree of

1

It may not be beneficial, for example, for Mrs. Smith to tell an employee that she plans to make him more effective by changing his perception and increasing his commitment.

5  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

responsibility is also directly related to the follower’s access to resources (such as time, funds, knowledge, manpower, support, and so on), which is determined by the leader.2

Follower Accountability The term accountability is often used interchangeably with both responsibility and liability. Hence, it is usually used to describe negative responsibility which both followers and leaders seek to avoid.3 Also, if the result is a success, group members claim greater responsibility (Forsyth and Norvell, 1984)iv. However, if the result is a failure, group members hold other factors accountable. Here, the term accountability is not taken to mean legal liability. After all, most organizations do not hold one employee or manager liable for any single outcome. Instead, accountability here is something to be perceived. The model aims to increase a subordinate’s perception of accountability. Causing the subordinate to feel accountable is hypothesized to cause a perceptual shift, in which she feels a sense of ownership of the task at hand.

Follower Perception Perception in the R-E Model is the way in which a follower sees her contribution to the overall mission. A sense of ownership refers to the follower’s acceptance of the responsibility as hers and the ensuing desire to succeed.

Follower Commitment Commitment, like responsibility, does not refer to legal obligation, such as signing a contract. Instead, commitment is a mental state; it is the degree to which the follower feels loyal 2

For example, while the leader cannot prevent the group member from learning, access to certain pertinent information may be withheld. 3 For instance, one can make the distinction between a professor wanting to feel responsible for the success of a student, but not liable if, say, the student applied the knowledge gained in an illegal way.

6  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

to the group and bound to its outcome. Instead of legal obligation, true commitment may cause the follower to feel an obligation and desire to contribute; it is devotion to the group’s mission.

Follower Effectiveness Follower effectiveness is the only term that is not narrowly defined; it can be defined in many ways and is contingent on the group’s goals. Thus, effectiveness should be determined by the organization. It should be noted that expectations should not be set too high, initially. Again, the R-E Modal is not a magic pill. If the model is applied correctly and the expectations are consistent, follower effectiveness should increase over time. Before attempting to implement the model, the leader should clearly define “success” to the group. With a specific outcome in mind, each member will have a target to aim for and will be able to gauge her own progress.

Follower Motivation Follower motivation is an important step in the model, and constitutes a link to future success, as explained below. The term simply refers to the follower’s enthusiasm which can be increased and can have other positive effects.

THE R-E MODEL PROCESS We now describe step in the R-E Model, making certain hypotheses about the relationships between steps. We also discuss the obstacles associated with each step, offering possible reasons for failure to advance, and suggesting actions the leader may take to avoid succumbing to each obstacle.

7  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

Step 1: Follower Responsibility This step sets the tone for the entire process and should not be taken lightly. The leader must carefully consider the amount and type of responsibility to bestow upon the subordinate. The first obstacle, then, is assigning either too much or too little responsibility, as well as assigning the wrong type of responsibility. Too much responsibility can overwhelm the follower, increasing work-related stress and leading to failure. (Krupat, 1973)v Too little responsibility may cause the follower to mentally dismiss the task or, worse, to feel resentment toward an “untrusting” leader. Assigning the right type of responsibility should not be difficult, as the leader should have a conception of the follower’s areas of knowledge and expertise. This will not be the case if the follower or the leader is new to the organization. In these instances, the R-E Model may not be appropriate. Once responsibility is increased, it can either be “taken on” or dismissed by the follower. This may be due to responsibility aversion, a fear of failure, or relying on other members, also known as diffusion of responsibility. Diffusion of responsibility occurs when individual perceptions of responsibility decrease as the group size increases. (Darley and Latané, 1968)vi While the R-E Model addresses individual leader-follower relations, the follower is part of a group. If the group is too large, a follower may feel less responsible. Indeed, it has been shown that people who feel that another group member is the leader take less responsibility for the group’s performance than did those who did not assign a leader. (Forsyth, Zyzniewski, and Giammanco, 2000)vii In theory, two possible solutions to this would be assigning smaller, autonomous groups (see Self-Managed Groups, below) and explaining that each member has her own responsibility, which is separate from everyone else’s. Also, it may help to assign leaderless groups, where the actual leader serves as a coach or advisor. 8  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

Step 2: Follower Accountability Once responsibility has been accepted, the follower should begin to feel accountable for her portion of the overall mission. As mentioned, this is the perceptual side of responsibility. A feeling of accountability is not something a leader can directly create. If accountability is not perceived, the follower will not advance to the next step of the process. However, if the leader correctly aligns the follower’s mental models pertaining to her responsibility (i.e. framing her perceptions), a perceptual shift may occur, causing the follower to feel ownership of her task. As shown in Figure 1, there may be a weaker, negative relationship between accountability and effectiveness. That is, a sense of follower accountability may actually produce a negative result. If the follower’s aversion to responsibility or fear of failure is high, the result may be ineffectiveness. Thus, the leader should gauge the follower’s feelings toward responsibility, ambitions, and motivations, before attempting to apply the model. As the model shows, accountability can either be perceived or not. There are a number of leader-related factors that may cause the follower not to feel accountable. Since this step involves shaping follower perception, the leader can still “make or break” this process. The follower may simply not believe she is truly accountable. Other group members may believe that the new process allows the leader to “delegate liability”. Also, the leader may have performed poorly in the past, causing the follower to doubt her sincerity. Finally, the leader may not be adept at reframing follower perceptions. Steps 1 and 2 should phase out group members who may not be suitable to benefit from the R-E Model. Once step 3 is reached, however, the retention level should increase. Followers who reach this step tend to have fewer aversions to responsibility and are willing to take on (perceived) personal liability. 9  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

Step 3: Follower Ownership In this step, the follower has accepted responsibility, feels personally accountable for her actions, and begins to feel a sense of pride and purpose in (or, ownership of) her work. A person’s ownership of an idea (in this case, that the responsibility is one’s own) causes it to be included in one’s self-concept (De Dreu et al., 2005)viii and may also be associated directly with an increase in follower motivation, as seen in Figure 1. The feeling of ownership can vary. Low feelings of ownership may be the result of follower apathy, skepticism, or low identification with the organization and its goals. Apathy, or indifference, may be felt if the follower does not care or does not see the higher purpose of the outcome. This too may be the result of improper framing or ineffective communication of the organization’s vision. Skepticism can be either a personality trait or the result of negative past experiences.4 Finally, the follower may simply not identify with the organization’s values or may not have long-term plans to stay with the organization. One final link between a sense of ownership and that of accountability is worth mentioning. It has been shown that control-based thinking (as opposed to freedom-based thinking) can cause a reduction in group member accountability “by destroying people’s sense of ownership of their jobs.” (Buono, 2003)ix In essence, the accountability-ownership relationship may be two-way. That is, each can affect the other. This is one reason why the leader’s role must be supportive and allow creative thinking.

4

For example, if the follower has witnessed similar processes fail or is generally a skeptical person, her perception of ownership may be low.

10  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

Step 4: Follower Commitment Follower commitment is the direct result of a high sense of personal ownership. Here, the follower already perceives her responsibility as hers and becomes committed, even devoted, to a successful outcome. This commitment brings with it openness to feedback. Indeed, leader support has been found to increase motivation to learn (such as the learning that occurs with feedback). (Green, 2002)x Here, the leader should meet with the follower, as a consultant or a coach, to review her progress and make suggestions for improvement. After receiving feedback, the follower may accept and implement the feedback, increasing her level of commitment to the outcome. Similar to Hersey and Blanchard’s Life Cycle Theory of Leadership® (1969)xi, the follower here is at the third development level (high competence and variable commitment). Decreased commitment may be cause by follower disappointment in progress, feedback, or lack of positive reinforcement. In each case, the leader can influence the follower’s commitment by being supportive.

Step 5: Follower Effectiveness Follower effectiveness is reached once follower commitment is increased and feedback has been given and implemented. Increased effectiveness will have been achieved and the follower will be deserving of credit and acknowledgement. Regarding credit, increased follower effectiveness (as seen in Figure 1) may be causally related to increased ownership, as the follower expects to receive full credit for her efforts. If the R-E Model is used for a single project, on a one-time basis, there is no need to continue to the next step. In this case, increased follower effectiveness is only needed for the task at hand. However, leaders cannot expect system-wide improvements after a single trial. The 11  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

model will likely be more useful if applied to ongoing projects and processes, in which followers have the opportunity to improve in the long run. Unchanged or decreased effectiveness, after an increase in follower commitment, may be the result of ineffective learning or teaching. Ineffective learning may be due to the follower’s cognitive abilities, which are not conducive to coping with a significant change in operations (i.e. increased responsibility). In this case, the leader may choose to persist and try implementing the model again, this time at a slower pace, allowing the follower to adapt. Ineffective teaching may be due to the leader’s lacking cognitive abilities or her misunderstanding of the model or desired outcome. In this case, the leader may not be well-suited to implement the model. Unsurprisingly, members of groups that fail assign less responsibility to themselves, to the average group member, and to the group as a whole, than do members of successful groups (Forsyth and Schlenker, 1977)xii. Hence, if the leader’s goal is for individual followers to take on more responsibility in the future, she should consider the group’s perceived success as a priority.

Step 6: Follower Motivation Motivation may also be caused by follower perception of ownership. It may also directly cause an increase in commitment (see Figure 1). Finally motivation may also be unchanged or decreased after effectiveness has increased. This may be due to personality traits or dissatisfaction. Personality traits like depression or general pessimism may be hard to change.5 Dissatisfaction may be felt if a follower, having become more effective, does not feel better or is not acknowledged or given a promised reward. In this case, it is the leader’s responsibility to communicate specific rewards to be received upon achievement of a specific outcome.

5

Note that depression may be temporary.

12  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

In this sense, the R-E Model contains aspects of both transactional leadership and transformational leadership. Clearly defined rewards, as motivators, are typical of a temporary, transactional leadership relationship (Bass, 1990).xiii It should be noted that the symbolic properties of rewards have been found to increase intrinsic motivation. (Harackiewicz and Sansone, 2000)xiv Mobilizing followers (in a setting conducive to creating leaders) and driving organizational change are associated with transformational leadership (Bass, 1990). As mentioned above, this step of the R-E Model constitutes the link to future success and the perpetuation of the cycle. First, the link between effectiveness and motivation is hypothesized to be two-way, in that each can cause the other.6 Second, motivation is also hypothesized to cause an increase in follower acceptance of responsibility. Once the cycle has been completed successfully by the follower, satisfaction should cause an increase in selfefficacy, and the follower should believe that she can positively influence the organization. Here, leaders may notice followers with leadership potential. Another opportunity here is identifying followers who are well-suited, as a result of the process, to be part of a self-managed team (SMT). Flory (2005) defines the self managed team as …highly proactive and independent relative to other non self-managing teams… These teams consist of a relatively small number of people with complementary skills, who are given the responsibility, to organize their own resources and approaches… within reasonable boundaries set by the organization. They are committed to a common purpose, performance, goals and approaches for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.xv Note the likeness between SMT’s and the workings of our Model. SMT’s are considered the fundamental units in today’s organizations, a place conducive to major learning. Managers see SMT’s as drivers of organizational change and increased efficiency. (Senge, 1990)xvi

6

See the blue two-sided arrow in the model below.

13  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

THE R-E MODEL IN PRACTICE While the model is geared towards improvement and explained in terms of a positive outcome, it is reasonable to assume that lowered responsibility can create a parallel process with negative outcomes. See Trout’s (1997) comment on disengaged college students: [T]hey do not read the assigned books, they avoid participating in class discussions, they expect high grades for mediocre work, they ask for fewer assignments, they resent attendance requirements, they complain about workloads, they do not like “tough” or demanding professors, they do not adequately prepare for class and tests, they skip opportunities to improve their class performance and grade, they are impatient with deliberative analysis, they regard intellectual pursuits as “boring,” they resent the intrusion of course requirements on their time, they are apathetic or defeatist in the face of challenge, and they are largely indifferent to “anything resembling an intellectual life.”xvii This insight aligns with our model. Because students are not given full responsibility for their own success, they do not feel accountability. This in turn causes them to have little, if any, perceived ownership of their own success, expecting professors to be easy and not enforce attendance requirements. In turn, students do not become committed to their studies and tend to avoid an “extra work”, minimizing the amount of time spent on course work. This lack of commitment causes poor study habits and mediocre performance in class. Lower performance may cause students to think that the demands of professors are too high, possibly resulting in resentment and other negative feelings associated with a lack of motivation. Low motivation may perpetuate lower academic performance, as well as further disdain for responsibility. The R-E Model of Leadership is in some ways similar to House’s (1974)xviii Path-Goal theory, in that the leader should affect “the followers’ beliefs that if they exert a certain level of effort [or commitment, as a result of the increased responsibility and sense of accountability], they will be more likely to accomplish a task [with increased effectiveness], and if they accomplish the task, then they will be even more likely to achieve some valued outcome [such as increased responsibility in the future]”.xix (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy, 2006) 14  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

Conclusion The Responsibility-Effectiveness Model of Leadership has partial empirical evidence, supporting its theory that increased follower responsibility and competent leadership support can lead to increased follower effectiveness, which in turn can help the organization create motivated leaders who do not fear responsibility. More research is needed to prove or disprove some of the hypotheses made. The model does, however, make intuitive sense and several of its claims have been supported. Whatever a leader’s actions, almost anything is better that inaction. If positive change is desired, it must be pursued; mistakes can be leaned from, but inaction will teach us nothing. I believe Ching put it best when he said:

Everything proceeds as if of its own accord, and this can all too easily tempt us to relax and let things take their course without troubling over details. Such indifference is the root of all evil.

15  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

Figure 1: The Responsibility-Effectiveness Model of Leadership™

16  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond

REFERENCES i

Crouch, M. (2002). Bouncing off paper walls: 10 simple wisdoms to becoming a black belt problem solver. Wilmington, Del: Delmax Publishing Co. ii Nolan, H. (2005). Nike boosts CSR program by issuing factory report. PRweek. 8 (17), pg. 3 iii Anonymous (2004). CSR activities generate higher performance – official. Women in Management Review;19, 5/6; pg. 280. iv Forsyth, D., & Norvell, N. (1984). The impact of inhibiting or facilitating causal factors on group members' reactions after success and failure. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47(3), 293-297. v Krupat, E. (1973) ‘I'm too busy’: The effects of overload and diffusion of responsibility on working and helping. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 293-294. vi Darley, J., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergence: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383. vii Forsyth, D., Zyzniewski, L., & Giammanco C. (2002). Responsibility diffusion in cooperative collectives. PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, (28), 54 - 65. viii De Dreu, C., Van Knippenberg, D., & . (2005). The possessive self as a barrier to conflict resolution: effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 345-357. ix Buono, A. (2003). Accountability: freedom and responsibility without control . Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 546. x Green, E. (2002). The influence of individual and work environment characteristics on trainee motivation and training effectiveness measures. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 62(12-A), 4025. xi Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 23, 26-34. xii Forsyth, D., & Schlenker, B. (1977). Attributing the causes of group performance: effects of performance quality, task importance, and future testing. Journal of Personality, 45, 220-236. xiii Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership. 3rd ed. New York: Free Press. xiv Harackiewicz, J., & Sansone, C. (2000). Rewarding competence: the importance of goals in the study of intrinsic motivation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. xv Flory , M. (2005). Management fads: the case of the self-managed team. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12(3), 275-282. (Italics added for emphasis) xvi Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday. xvii Trout, P. (1997). Disengaged students and the decline of academic standards. Academic Questions, 10(2 ), 46-56. xviii House, R., & Dressler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: some posthoc and a priori tests. in contingency approaches to leadershp. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. xix Hughes, R., Ginnett, R., & Curphy, G. (2006). Leadership, enhancing the lessons of experience. 5th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

17  © 2005, Jesse Kedy www.jessekedy.net

Theories & Models of Leadership University of Richmond