Leadership Styles

4 PersonCentered Theories “A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.”

ALFRED KORZYBSKI

Personcentered theories include traitbased leadership, the leadership challenge model, emotionally intelligent leadership, and strengthsbased leadership. As a cluster, these theories are decidedly leadercentric, emphasizing individuals rather than collectives and leader roles over leadership processes. Additionally, the span of time during which these theories emerged is vast, but even the oldest among them retain influence today—sometimes despite substantial research proving their inaccuracy. The quote that opens this chapter provides a useful metaphor for understanding the intent of personcentered theories. In essence, traits and attributes (i.e., the map) are not in and of themselves leadership (i.e., the territory), but potentially representative of and associated with it. When this is the case, personcentered theories offer insights into how best to describe, cultivate, and reproduce effective leadership.

TRAITBASED LEADERSHIP “Identification of the traits that distinguish leaders from nonleaders and good leaders from bad leaders is perhaps the oldest theme in leadership scholarship” (Zaccaro, 2014, p. 14). The term “trait,” however, can be misleading given that its meaning has changed over time and can vary from study to study. It is also used both interchangeably with and distinctively from other terms such as competency, attribute, disposition, behavior, skill, and personality, just to name a few. Let's start by offering some definitional specificity.

Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2004) defined traits as “a range of stable individual differences, including personality, temperament, motives, cognitive abilities, skills, and expertise” (p. 104). Thus, many of the other commonly used terms (e.g., skills, personality, capacities) are simply types of traits. Let's also position traits as the most general term and refer to constellations of traits as attributes. For example, traits such as ambition, drive, and initiative might be clustered together as a set of motivational attributes.

We can also divide attributes into two unique categories. Distal attributes are more engrained and less mutable, reflecting foundational dimensions of who we are such as personality and cognition. This does not mean that they cannot be altered, but doing so is much more difficult and requires significant time and effort. Proximal attributes are more malleable and readily altered or learned, with different situations requiring the use of different sets of traits. For example, one situation may require greater use of social attributes (e.g., emotional intelligence, communication skills), while another draws more on knowledge attributes (e.g., situational knowledge, content knowledge).

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

One additional term is worth mentioning here. Bass (2008) offered a useful framing of the term competency, suggesting “when traits are requirements for doing something, they are called ‘competencies’” (p. 103). Thus, we can think of attributes and the traits that comprise them as the necessary competencies for leader roles and enacting leadership.

Overview The formal study of traitbased leadership is credited to Carlyle's (1841) On Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History, which outlined “great man theory”. He argued that some men were born with inherent gifts that set them apart from others positioning them as intrinsic leaders. Great man theories concerned themselves with the identification and study of extraordinary individuals such as Napoleon Bonaparte, William Shakespeare, Muhammad, and Martin Luther. Galton (1869) conducted the first formal research on these assertions in his work Hereditary Genius, concluding that there was a natural inequality among men with inherited abilities always trumping learned ones. As a side note, this is also the man who coined the term eugenics (i.e., the belief that humanity is best advanced by encouraging reproduction only among those with desirable traits). I'll just leave that little factoid there for you to mull over.

The first notable critique of Carlyle's work came from Stogdill (1948), who asserted that although individual traits were significant in determining leadership effectiveness, the situation and environment in which leadership unfolds play pivotal roles as well. Additionally, a growing consensus arose that many traits could indeed be learned. Thus, the ideas that some individuals were born leaders or that a universal list of individual differences associated with leadership could be generated were rejected (Bass, 2008). This initially contributed to a decrease in trait research due to perhaps unfair scrutiny about its relative value in predicting leadership outcomes, although a revival of the approach has occurred in recent years (Zaccaro, 2012). This revival is a function of new statistical approaches that allow for the reinterpretation of previous studies in more complex ways, challenging past critiques. Contemporary traitbased research also reflects an expansion in the types of traits being studied, reflecting movement away from those emphasizing power and control toward those reflecting reciprocity and transformational change. It also emphasizes constellations of traits rather than single ones, along with how traits dynamically interact with the situation and environment.

Applying the Concept Traitbased leadership is premised on the idea that groups should select leaders and provide opportunities for leader development based on the traits that emerge through empirical research as related to leadership outcomes. Traits that “matter” according to research have evolved over time and can be organized into three distinct phases: great man, situational, and revival (Bass, 2008; Day & Zaccaro, 2007; Zaccaro, 2012; Zaccaro, LaPort, & José, 2013). Table 4.1 provides an overview of key traits from each. Note that this list is not meant to be exhaustive but to highlight findings.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

TABLE 4.1 Traitbased leadership phases

Phase Traits Great man Action orientation, aggressiveness, charm, commanding personality, courage,

intelligence, intuition, judgment, persuasiveness Situational Achievement, adaptability, ambition, communication skills, cooperativeness,

conservatism, decisionmaking skills, dominance, drive, emotional regulation, extraversion, honesty, initiative, insight, intelligence, masculinity, organizational skills, persistence, responsibility, selfconfidence, sociability

Revival Ability to learn, achievement, agreeableness, charisma, cognitive ability, communication skills, conscientiousness, creativity, dominance, emotional stability, extraversion, integrity, intelligence, interpersonal skills, openness, problem solving, physical traits (e.g., height, facial structure), selfconfidence, sociability

How Research Evolves the Concept I don't think I'm being unfair by characterizing traitbased research as the junkyard of leadership scholarship. There is perhaps no other body of research in which you can state in advance a trait of personal interest (e.g., assertiveness, intelligence, popularity) and then dive in and find evidence to support that it is indeed important. No seriously… pick a trait… any trait. It. Is. In. There. I can almost guarantee it.

There is simply so much traitbased research that it becomes difficult to sort through and find the content that truly is of value, which is a shame because exceptional scholarship does exist. However, much of traitbased research is of questionable quality. This is problematic as people are able to find information that bolsters their assumptions even when they are biased or wrong. For example, despite clear and compelling evidence that leadership is not solely a function of heredity, greatman approaches continue to wield influence today. Just look at Turak's (2013) article in Forbes magazine, identifying essential lessons from great man theory.

So, what do we know about trait theory from highquality empirical research that does exist?

Need for Clear Outcome Specification A difficulty emerges in the application of traitbased research when the concept of leadership and/or outcomes that traits purportedly contribute to are not made explicitly clear (Yukl, 2013; Zaccaro, 2012). The exact traits and attributes that relate to one type of leadership (e.g., command and control) may not relate to another type (e.g., social responsibility). Similarly, some research examines traits associated with leadership emergence or the adoption of leader roles, other research focuses on leader effectiveness, and still other research examines leader advancement and success. The traits associated with each of these often differ, further reinforcing the importance of definitional clarity.

Leaders Are Both Born and Made

Let's be unequivocally clear. Evidence confirms without question that leaders are not Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

simply born. Rather, leader capacity, enactment, and effectiveness reflect a complex combination of genetic and environmental influences. The most rigorous research on biological connections to leadership involves studies of twins that allow for the examination of differential effects associated with nature versus nurture. Relatively consistent results across studies demonstrate that only between 24% and 32% of leader emergence (defined as occupancy of a positional leader role) is a function of heredity (Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang, & McGue, 2006; Arvey, Zhang, Avolio, & Krueger, 2007; De Neve, Mikhaylov, Dawes, Christakis, & Fowler, 2013). That leaves an additional 68%–76% that is influenced by the environment positioning leaders as indisputably both born and made.

For those who are feeling that 32% is still high, these studies looked only at leader role occupancy—not capacity, not efficacy, not motivation, not enactment, and most certainly not effectiveness. Furthermore, the occupancy of a positional leader role is hardly a natural phenomenon but typically a function of being elected or selected by others. As ILT so clearly reminds us, dominant leader prototypes play an enormous role in determining who accesses positional roles. As such, the 32% says more about the genetics that are associated with dominant leader prototypes than leadership itself.

WrapUp Although traitbased leadership ebbs and flows in popularity and credibility, it is among the oldest and largest bodies of leadership literature. Its roots are definitively in a history that reflects biased understandings of leadership emblematic of the time. There is no doubt that great man theory perpetuates inequality by its very design. I cannot stress enough how important it is to remember that because of the strength of those roots, great man approaches continue to influence conceptions of leadership today as well as shape the types of traits considered worthy of study. Because of this, it is easy to dismiss the scholarship on trait based leadership altogether rather than adopting the critical learning lens necessary to acknowledge its history, sort the good research from the bad, and recognize reasonable contributions. Table 4.2 identifies a number of strengths and weaknesses associated with traitbased leadership.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

TABLE 4.2 Strengths and weaknesses of trait theory

Strengths Weaknesses

Supported by substantial empirical evidence demonstrating transferability of traits across contexts and importance in predicting leader emergence and effectiveness

Contributed to disproving that leaders were simply born

Offers description of traits associated with leader emergence and effectiveness, useful for targeting learning opportunities

Research is largely atheoretical and of varying quality, with “leader” at best defined by positional role occupancy and at worst left undefined

Disagreement over which traits matter as well as which traits are innate versus learnable

Recognizes influences from situational and environmental contexts, but fails to address influences from broader social systems

Making Connections

Why might the same traits continue to emerge over time? How might ideological critique cause us to reconsider traits as a function of dominant norms more than leader success?

What stands out as useful about traitbased leadership? What do you think needs to be addressed in the deconstruction and reconstruction processes?

THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE MODEL Grounded in research started by Kouzes and Posner in the early 1980s, the leadership challenge model identifies five exemplary practices of leadership measured by a survey instrument called the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). The LPI can be completed as a leader selfassessment or in a 360degree format, with others filling out the instrument about the leader so that results can be triangulated for accuracy. To date, Kouzes and Posner (2012) have sold more than 2 million copies of The Leadership Challenge book, approximately 750,000 people complete the LPI annually, and the work has spun off numerous other books and training programs. Few other leadership theories have achieved this degree of distribution and usage.

Overview The leadership challenge model does not articulate a particular philosophical grounding or explicitly state a definition of leadership. However, three key tenets emerge that can be

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

inferred as central propositions. Kouzes and Posner (2012) asserted, “Leadership is an identifiable set of skills and abilities that are available to anyone” and that “leaders mobilize others to want to struggle for shared aspirations, and this means that, fundamentally, leadership is a relationship” (p. 30). They explained that this relationship is “between those who aspire to lead and those who choose to follow” (p. 30), arguing that credibility provides the foundation for leadership as “constituents must be able, above all else, to believe in their leaders” (p. 37). These tenets position the model as learnable, with a focus on the essential competencies of leaders.

Applying the Concept Kouzes and Posner (2012) identified five exemplary practices of leadership (i.e., model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart), each with two commitments or strategies (see Table 4.3). The goal is for leaders to increase the frequency with which they enact these universal capacities, which in turn contributes to a wide range of beneficial outcomes from leader effectiveness to organizational goal achievement. The outcomes are derived due to increases in perceived credibility of the leader resulting from engaging in the five practices. They are also resolute in stating that these capacities are learnable.

TABLE 4.3 The five practices and ten commitments of exemplary leadership Source: Copyright © 2012 by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner. Reprinted with permission from Wiley.

Practice Commitment

Model the Way 1. Clarify values by finding your voice and affirming shared values.

2. Set the example by aligning actions with shared values.

Inspire a Shared Vision

3. Envision the future by imagining exciting and ennobling possibilities.

4. Enlist others in a common vision by appealing to shared aspirations.

Challenge the Process

5. Search for opportunities by seizing the initiative and looking outward for innovative ways to improve.

6. Experiment and take risks by constantly generating small wins and learning from experience.

Enable Others to Act

7. Foster collaboration by building trust and facilitating relationships.

8. Strengthen others by increasing selfdetermination and developing competence.

Encourage the Heart

9. Recognize contributions by showing appreciation for individual excellence.

10. Celebrate values and victories by creating a spirit of community.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

Like many of the personcentered theories, process considerations associated with the leadership challenge model are less clear. It names the five practices as universal capacities but does not clearly state how they interact with one another or should be enacted. For example, the five practices are each unique but interrelated. Is there an order effect in terms of how a person should engage in them? In other words, in working with a team should I exhibit a high frequency of encouraging the heart to foster community before increasing the frequency with which I challenge the process? Or, does this not matter? Although Kouzes and Posner (2012) provide extensive recommendations on how to develop each of the individual practices, little attention is paid to process considerations associated with their actual enactment.

How Research Evolves the Concept Research on the leadership challenge model is robust and provides empirical evidence to support the psychometric rigor of the LPI (Posner, 2015). Suggesting the instrument is psychometrically rigorous is just a fancy way of saying research verifies that it measures what it says it does and there is a high level of trust in the results it produces. Independent scholars have also scrutinized the model with supportive research published in academic journals. Let's walk through two themes from research on the model.

Universality Research establishes the universality of the five practices across a wide range of groups and career fields (Posner, 2015). The five practices are also transferable beyond adults, emerging as universal leadership capacities with college and high school students. They are even consistent internationally with research verifying universality in numerous countries outside the United States.

However, questions do arise around individual differences. In early research Posner and Kouzes (1993) argued that “the opportunities for and process of leading is unrelated to individual differences such as functional background or technical expertise, race, gender, organizational position, or cultural background” (p. 198). They have largely maintained that position (Posner, 2004, 2009), although in their most recent report Posner (2015) acknowledged that some studies demonstrated variation on specific practices by gender and race. This variation was attributed in large part to the samples being studied.

Findings that suggest the five practices of exemplary leadership do not vary by race and gender simply do not align with other research, indicating that, particularly for women and people of color in the United States, there are meaningful differences in opportunities for and the process of leading (Chin & Trimble, 2015). It could be that this discrepancy between findings is a function of the degree to which studies using the LPI fail to account for context. In other words, there may be few differences in the capacity for the five practices based on race and gender, but some contexts may actually constrain the enactment of them because of hostile or normative climates.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

Impact on Outcomes Research establishes a wide range of beneficial leadership outcomes associated with practicing the five capacities (Kouzes & Posner, 2012; Posner, 2015). These benefits range from increased follower motivation and performance to improved organizational commitment and goal achievement. A word of caution is warranted here. Clearly there is an association between higher rates of exhibiting the five practices and positive leadership outcomes. However, what is unclear is to what degree researchers controlled for other factors that might influence leadership simultaneously.

Let me offer an example to explain what I mean. Let's say I want to lose weight, so I adopt two “exemplary” practices to meet that goal: I start working out three times a week and bring my lunch to work instead of eating fast food. After six months I've lost 15 pounds and attribute it to these two practices, which very well may be the case. But, what if at the same time I started these two practices I also stopped drinking soda? Could the weight loss actually be a function of giving up soda and not the other two practices? Or, might it be a combination of both giving up soda and the two practices? Without controlling for other factors occurring in the environment simultaneously, it becomes difficult to determine the unique contribution of the five practices to leadership outcomes.

WrapUp The leadership challenge model is well established and supported by empirical research. It offers a powerful heuristic that directs attention to five universal behaviors associated with increases in leadership outcomes. It is easy to understand and benefits from prescriptive recommendations that translate well across groups. However, anything label as “universal” gives me pause. It makes me question whether this seems too absolute, too prescriptive, and too easy an answer, particularly when there is so much evidence suggesting that social location makes a real difference in how leadership is understood, experienced, and enacted. This isn't to say it shouldn't be used, but that as a critical learner anything framed as universal ought to be troubled as part of its usage. Table 4.4 offers strengths and weaknesses.

TABLE 4.4 Strengths and weaknesses of the leadership challenge model

Strengths Weaknesses

Provides a useful heuristic that is easy to understand and implement

Positions leadership as learnable, with clear areas for selfimprovement and recommendations to support learning

Supported by empirical research establishing validity and psychometrics

Leadercentric, with strong distinctions between leaders and followers

Suggests universality of the five practices, but unclear whether other factors also contribute to leadership outcomes

Near total absence of process or context considerations

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

Making Connections

What dimensions of context could shape how the five practices are received? How might an individual have to adjust in using these behaviors to address this?

What stands out as useful about the leadership challenge model? What do you think needs to be addressed in the deconstruction and reconstruction processes?

EMOTIONALLY INTELLIGENT LEADERSHIP The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) exploded in popularity with the release of Goleman's (1995) bestselling book of the same name. Years before Goleman's popularization of the topic, Salovey and Mayer (1990) defined EI as “the ability to monitor one's own and other's feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions” (p. 189). Typically, EI serves as one trait among many of interest in leadership research and not a standalone theoretical construct. However, this is changing given that EI is positioned as learnable as well as highly congruent with contemporary understandings of leadership. Emotionally intelligent leadership (EIL) represents a deep dive into a specific proximal trait believed to be essential for effective leadership.

Overview Shankman, Allen, and HaberCurran (2015) suggested that EIL provides “individuals with the knowledge, skills, perspectives, and attitudes to achieve desired leadership outcomes” (p. 9). EIL is specifically designed for use with college students but transferable to other populations and environments (Allen, Shankman, & Miguel, 2012). It represents an important contribution integrating the literatures on EI and leadership to provide a roadmap for leadership development.

EIL begins by delineating how leadership is understood, offering 10 assumptions about its nature rather than a singular definition (Shankman et al., 2015). This includes positioning leadership as learnable and accessible to anyone, as more than just positional roles, focused on positive change, relational, and requiring meaningful, ongoing selfreflection. This framing provides the foundation for the overarching theory.

Applying the Concept As is the case with most personcentered theories, EIL is fairly selfexplanatory, with three key facets (i.e., consciousness of self, consciousness of others, and consciousness of context) and 19 capacities (Shankman et al., 2015). Table 4.5 identifies each of these.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

TABLE 4.5 Emotionally intelligent leadership framework Adapted with permission from source: Copyright © 2015 by Marcy Levy Shankman, Scott J. Allen, and Paige Haber Curran. Reprinted with permission from Wiley.

Facet/Capacity Definition Consciousness of Self: Awareness of your abilities, emotions, and perceptions Emotional SelfPerception Identifying emotions and their influence on behavior Emotional SelfControl Consciously moderating emotions Authenticity Being transparent and trustworthy Healthy SelfEsteem Having a balanced sense of self Flexibility Being open and adaptive to change Optimism Having a positive outlook Initiative Taking action Achievement Striving for excellence Consciousness of Others: Awareness of abilities, emotions, and perceptions of others Displaying Empathy Being emotionally in tune with others Inspiring Others Energizing individuals and groups Coaching Others Enhancing the skills and abilities of others Capitalizing on Difference Benefiting from multiple perspectives Developing Relationships Building a network of trusting relationships Building Teams Working with others to accomplish a shared purpose Demonstrating Citizenship Fulfilling responsibilities to the group Managing Conflict Identifying and resolving conflict Facilitating Change Working toward new directions Consciousness of Context: Awareness of the setting and situation Analyzing the Group Interpreting group dynamics Assessing the Environment Interpreting external forces and trends

EIL is hypothesized to work in a similar fashion as the leadership challenge model. As individuals enact EIL capacities, there is a positive impact on leadership behaviors and in turn a positive influence on individual, group, and organizational outcomes (Allen et al., 2012). Note, however, two key distinctions. First, each of the facets and capacities that comprise EIL interact dynamically. Shankman et al. (2015) explicitly state that there is no order effect in their development or enactment. In other words, there is no universal way to manifest them. Second, the capacities are responsive to context and should be adjusted accordingly. Unlike the leadership challenge model, which suggests that frequent use of all five practices contributes to greater gains, EIL encourages individuals to assess the environment and adjust the frequency of

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

use of each capacity. For example, one context might call for high degrees of flexibility and moderate degrees of displaying empathy whereas another might require the inverse.

How Research Evolves the Concept Shankman, Allen, and Miguel (2015) created a survey to operationalize EIL as well as for training purposes. This instrument assesses frequencies of behaviors associated with the 19 capacities in the model. Basic testing of the psychometrics was confirmed in its initial release. However, because the instrument is new, published results from extensive testing do not yet exist.

WrapUp The creators of EIL double down on a concept they feel is of vital importance but largely absent from leadership theory. They do this in a way that integrates scholarship from the broad bodies of knowledge on EI and leadership studies enhancing the overall complexity of both. However, this same strength also contributes to limitations. With three facets and 19 capacities, EIL adds to the growing list of things to “check off” when enacting leadership. Realistically, this is an awful lot for a person to remember and manage decreasing some of the overall heuristic value. Table 4.6 explores additional strengths and weaknesses.

TABLE 4.6 Strengths and weaknesses of EIL

Strengths Weaknesses

Situates EIL in the leadership literature with explicit statement of central tenets

Encourages alteration of EIL to reflect personal experiences and perspectives

Offers specific attention to context and the need for capacities to be responsive to varying contextual influences

Relatively new with limited empirical support

Introduces numerous, complex capacities with some seemingly tangential to EI and others needing greater explication

Absence of attention to considerations associated with power and social location

Making Connections

In what ways might power differentials in an environment influence the relative value and success of particular capacities in the EIL model?

What stands out as useful about EIL? What do you think needs to be addressed in the deconstruction and reconstruction processes?

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

STRENGTHSBASED LEADERSHIP The final personcentered theory may be a controversial inclusion, given that its prominence is largely built on popular culture rather than established academic merits. Born from positive psychology, a subset of psychology focused on optimal human functioning and emphasizing assets over deficits (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), strengthsbased leadership is wildly popular across career sectors. Though there are several competing approaches, the clear goliath is produced by The Gallup Organization, which uses the Clifton StrengthsFinder (CSF) survey to identify individuals' top five talent themes (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001). Investing in these talents transforms them into strengths, which are positioned as essential for maximizing personal development and leadership success. To date more than 12 million people have completed the CSF, with its books topping bestseller lists.

Overview Strengthsbased leadership represents a deeper exploration into the distal attribute of personality focusing on innate talents. Let's take a quick step back before moving forward. In his study of great man leadership, Galton (1869) argued that natural abilities always outweigh acquired skills. Strengthsbased leadership aligns with this belief asserting “to develop a strength in any activity requires certain natural talents” (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001, p. 29) and that investment in areas of talent will always have a greater overall effect than investing in areas of weakness (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Rath, 2007).

So what exactly are strengths? Rath (2007) defined a strength as “the ability to consistently provide nearperfect performance” (p. 20) of one's talent themes. Strengths have the potential to emerge in different areas based on dominant talent themes, which reflect “naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior” (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001, p. 29). Investing in one's talents occurs through the cultivation of knowledge and skills that amplify them as well as refinement through experience and practice (Rath, 2007). These concepts are operationalized through the CSF, which is designed to identify a person's top five talent themes from among 34 possibilities (Rath, 2007). For example, strengths could emerge from investing in the talent theme of “command” (i.e., individuals with significant presence and the ability to take charge as well as make decisions) or “empathy” (i.e., individuals who are able to readily perceive others' feelings by imagining their perspectives). Strengthsbased approaches stress the uniqueness of people given the varied patterns that can emerge across the top five talent themes as well as the fact that no two individuals will surface the same talent themes in exactly the same way (Rath, 2007).

You may be wondering how the concept of strengths connects specifically to leadership. Early work by Buckingham and Clifton (2001) made direct connections to management. Rath and Conchie (2008) later introduced the term strengthsbased leadership . They offer neither a theoretical grounding of strengths in the leadership literature nor a clear definition of leadership. The terms leader and leadership are conflated with staunch differentiation between leaders and followers as well as a focus on leader effectiveness: “The most effective leaders rally a broad group of people toward an organization's goals, mission, and objectives.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

They lead. People follow… You are a leader only if others follow” (Rath & Conchie, 2008, p. 79). That last line communicates a great deal about the conceptualization of leaders and leadership.

Applying the Concept Strengthsbased leadership consists of two key steps: knowing one's strengths and maximizing teams. When these are employed effectively, they contribute to a deeper understanding of followers' needs and positive organizational outcomes (Rath & Conchie, 2008).

Know Your Strengths

A significant component of strengthsbased leadership involves knowing one's top five talent themes and actively working to cultivate them into strengths. Rath and Conchie (2008) argued that “while our society encourages us to be wellrounded, this approach inadvertently breeds mediocrity” (p. 7). Rath (2007) suggested that “when we're able to put most of our energy into developing our natural talents, extraordinary room for growth exists… You cannot be anything that you want to be—but you can be a lot more of who you already are” (Rath, 2007, p. 9, emphasis in original). This claim highlights an important distinction between strengthsbased leadership and other personcentered approaches. Strengthsbased leadership suggests leadership is learnable, but the focus of learning is squarely on areas of innate talent, as “you will excel only by maximizing your strengths never by fixing your weaknesses” (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001, p. 26). A common misconception about strengths is that it advocates ignoring weaknesses altogether when in reality it encourages people to manage around them, develop them to the minimum amount necessary, or neutralize them.

Hire for Strengths and Maximize Teams

The second component of strengthsbased leadership involves maximizing organizational potential. This is accomplished by shifting both hiring and professional development practices to strengthsbased approaches. Rath and Conchie (2008) asserted that “although individuals need not be wellrounded, teams should be” (p. 23) and cohesive teams reflect a diversity of strengths across four leadership domains: executing, influencing, relationship building, and strategic thinking. It is unclear how these domains were identified as particularly essential for leadership above and beyond other concepts, as strengthsbased leadership offers no linkages to the leadership studies literature.

Table 4.7 provides definitions for the leadership domains along with the 34 talent themes that fall under each. Buckingham and Clifton (2001) suggested that “since each person's talents are enduring, you should spend a great deal of time and money selecting people properly in the first place” (p. 216). This includes ensuring that new team members' strengths are distributed across the four domains, complement those of existing team members, and align well with both organizational values and expectations for the specific role. Additionally, strengths development should serve as a focus of professional training.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

TABLE 4.7 Strengthsbased leadership domains and talent themes Adapted with permission from source: Copyright © 2008 Gallup, Inc.

Executing Influencing Relationship Building Strategic Thinking Make Things Happen

Help Reach Audience by Selling Ideas

Provide Glue That Holds Team Together

Absorb and Analyze Information to Focus on What Could Be

Achiever Activator Adaptability Analytical Arranger Command Developer Context Belief Communication Connectedness Futuristic Consistency Competition Empathy Ideation Deliberative Maximizer Harmony Input Discipline SelfAssurance Includer Intellection Focus Significance Individualization Learner Responsibility Woo Positivity Strategic Restorative Relator

How Research Evolves the Concept Empirical research conducted by Gallup suggests that strengthsbased leadership contributes to a wide range of beneficial outcomes, ranging from increased organizational productivity and profitability to higher levels of team member engagement, confidence, and overall quality of life (Asplund, Agrawal, Hodges, Harter, & Lopez, 2014; Louis, 2012; Rath, 2007; Rath & Conchie, 2008). Similar concerns as with other personcentered theories exist about the unique influence of strengthsbased approaches beyond other factors as well as the limited attention afforded to considerations of context.

More problematic, however, are some scholars' serious reservations regarding the way strengths are used and its research credibility (Kaiser, 2009; Kaplan & Kaiser, 2009; McCall, 2010). Concerns largely exist because the CSF is produced by a forprofit company and as such considered proprietary. In essence, Gallup does not widely release their intellectual property to be vetted by the broader scientific community. That means we have to trust that what they share is accurate.

Technical reports on the psychometrics of the CSF are made available by Gallup… . if you know where to look for them. For those persistent enough to track them down, the primary technical reports come with explicit warnings that they cannot be disseminated or even quoted (Asplund et al., 2014; Asplund, Lopez, Hodges, & Harter, 2009). I'd provide you a direct quote of the warning, but apparently that would be a form of copyright infringement. Now, you have to ask yourself, “Why wouldn't Gallup want this information disseminated as widely as possible to reinforce the quality and rigor of the assessment?”

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

Furthermore, some of the information provided in technical reports can appear misleading. Let me share three examples that highlight this. First, the published books on strengthsbased leadership clearly articulate the important role that strengths should play in hiring and building teams. However, technical reports as well as the professional conduct section of Gallup's terms of use statement explicitly state that CSF should not be used for hiring or selection purposes. This seems contradictory and antithetical to how the portfolio of strengths materials is described and sold.

Second, technical reports claim that the psychometric properties of the CSF were established by both Gallup and independent researchers (Asplund et al., 2014). They even go as far as differentiating between Gallup affiliates and “outsiders” by listing scholars and their institutional affiliations. Yet, these are mostly technical reports published by Gallup and not academic journal articles, which are the gold standard for vetting the trustworthiness of research. To suggest that research by “outside” scholars substantiates quality is at best disingenuous given the researchers are approved collaborators and the results largely published by the same organization that benefits from establishing the quality of the instrument.

For the third example I'm going to get statistically technical, so bear with me. I'll explain this carefully because it is important. Reliability reflects the extent to which a scale demonstrates consistency and stability of measurement and is important for establishing psychometric rigor. Reliability estimates at or below .60 are unacceptable, .61–.65 are undesirable, and .66–.69 are at best questionable (DeVellis, 2011). Think of interpreting a reliability score this way. If a scale's reliability score is .90, there is only a 10% chance that the results are inaccurate or a result of error. Conversely, if a reliability score is .50, there is a 50% chance that the results are a function of error.

Now, let's apply the concept of reliability to the limited information we have about the psychometrics of the CSF. In a random sample of 250,000 people, a whopping 74% of the 34 CSF scales yielded reliability estimates below .70, indicating that per statistical standards the results were at best questionable. Of these, 8 scales were reported to be .60 or less, indicating the scores were unacceptable (Asplund et al., 2014). In a sample of college students, the reliability score for using the Activator scale with students of color was a dangerously low .39 (Schreiner, 2006), indicating a 61% chance of error and that it should not be used with this population at all. Let's just make sure we are clear on what this means: essentially the scale used to measure Activator does not work with students of color yet continues to be used.

Gallup researchers suggest low reliability is a function of the way the CSF scales are designed, making it difficult to obtain higher scores, and as such the CSF is still appropriate for its intended purpose (Asplund et al., 2014; Schreiner, 2006). This runs counter to scientific logic, adding to the overall concerns. All of the research on strengthsbased leadership and its impact lacks relevance if the primary scales fail to consistently capture the concepts they are designed to measure. Furthermore, what is communicated when a scale purportedly works for White people but not for people of color yet continues to be used? Clearly, there is a need for greater transparency in reporting, external and objective testing of the instrument, and more nuanced analyses of the psychometric transferability of the CSF across populations.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.

WrapUp As you might have guessed by now, controversy regarding the inclusion of strengthsbased leadership emerges due to tensions between its popularity with the general public and scholars' apprehensions regarding the research that supports it. A lack of transparency complicates this further. Strengthsbased leadership is not a theory as technically defined, nor does it approximate one. Not unlike other personcentered theories, it reflects a static list of concepts hypothesized to relate to leadership outcomes. It also fails to address issues of context and how social stratification and power may shape how strengths are received in group and organizational environments.

Unlike other personcentered theories, strengthsbased leadership offers neither a sufficient theoretical integration of the leadership studies literature nor adequate independent, empirical evidence to support its central propositions. Reservations also emerge because of the multiple “faces” of strengthsbased leadership. The primary source of information lies in published books, which at times appear to conflict with technical reports on the CSF (which we aren't supposed to disseminate anyway). In turn, both of these can be at odds with the reality of how strengthsbased leadership is operationalized in practice by “strengths coaches,” who may or may not have received formal training. Conflicting messages lead to a wide range of misinterpretations and misrepresentations, making it even more difficult to assess the empirical support for the work and its applicability to leadership practice.

This book places at its core the assumption that leadership is manifest at least in part from socialization and the formation of informal theories that guide understanding. There is no doubt that strengthsbased leadership has pierced the collective consciousness through its extensive dissemination and use. As such, it has the potential to directly affect informal theories and cannot and should not be ignored. Table 4.8 offers additional strengths and weaknesses.

TABLE 4.8 Strengths and weaknesses of strengthsbased leadership

Strengths Weaknesses

Emphasizes assets over deficits by identifying and developing innate talents

Use is associated with wide range of leadership outcomes

Serves as a tool for developing self awareness, leadership efficacy, and positive group dynamics

Leadership is not defined, nor is there a grounding in leadership studies literature

Lack of independent, empirical research establishing basic premises

Limited attention to context, with assumption that enactment of strengths will be positively received and valued

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-22 08:20:32.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

7. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

.