Question 081924

18772447 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

1 INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

LEADERSHIP DEFINED There are many ways to finish the sentence “Leadership is . . .” In fact, as Stogdill (1974, p. 7) pointed out in a review of leadership research, there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define it. It is much like the words democracy, love, and peace. Although each of us intuitively knows what we mean by such words, the words can have different meanings for different people. As Box 1.1 shows, scholars and practitioners have attempted to define leadership for more than a century without universal consensus.

Box 1.1

The Evolution of Leadership Definitions

18772447 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

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

1900–1929

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

1930s

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

1940s

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

1950s

Three themes dominated leadership definitions during the 1950s:

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

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

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

1960s

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

1970s

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

18772447 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

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

1980s

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

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

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

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

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

1990s

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

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

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

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

The 21st Century

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

18772447 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ways of Conceptualizing Leadership

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

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

Definition and Components

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

18772447 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18772447 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

Trait Versus Process Leadership

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

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

Description

Figure 1.1 The Different Views of Leadership

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

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

Assigned Versus Emergent Leadership

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

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

18772447 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

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

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

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

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

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

Leadership and Power

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

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

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

18772447 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

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

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

Referent Power

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

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

Legitimate Power

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

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

Coercive Power

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

Information Power

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

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

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

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

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

Position Power Personal Power

Legitimate Referent

Reward Expert

Coercive  

Information  

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

18772447 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

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

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

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

Leadership and Coercion

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

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

Leadership and Morality

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

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

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

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

18772447 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

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

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

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

Leadership Is a Neutral Process

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

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

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

Leadership Is a Moral Process

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

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

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

18772447 - SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

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

Additionally, morals have a central role in two established leadership theories, authentic leadership and servant leadership. Authentic leadership (see Chapter 9) is an extension of transformational leadership, stressing that leaders do what is “right” and “good” for their followers and society. They understand their own values, place followers’ needs above their own, and work with followers to align their interests in order to create a greater common good. Similarly, servant leadership has a strong moral dimension. It makes altruism the central component of