Week 4 - Assignment 2: Apply Strategic Thinking and Policy Implementation to Improve Operations
Fila64
Week4-3Ateachableapproachtoleadership.pdf
A TEACHABLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
H. Skipton Leonard Learning Thru Action, LLC, Reston, Virginia
Although excellent tools and methodologies for developing leadership skills/ competencies exist, there is an absence of a practical and easily teachable model for the development of leadership that is research-based, yet practical, and can be easily understood and applied by leaders, managers, and administrators. Starting with a definition of leadership that focuses on getting results rather than on idealized and abstract processes, this article presents an approach that provides a framework for developing a strategy for applying leadership skills/competencies to achieve organiza- tional objectives in a wide variety of situations and contexts. Furthermore, the devel- opment of leadership skills is best achieved when this teachable model of leadership is introduced using pedagogical principles that (a) employ inductive, inquiry-based/ discovery learning that emphasizes “homegrown” theories; (b) provide opportunities for realistic and real-world practice; (c) provide opportunities for real-time feedback and process debriefing; and (d) ensure participant accountability. The success of this ap- proach is illustrated by describing a leadership-development program where it was used.
Keywords: leadership development, leadership, leadership strategies, action learning, organizational-leadership simulations
We are indeed fortunate to have many useful and proven methods for assessing and developing specific leadership skills and competencies. Regrettably, however, our field is lacking a correspond- ing model of leadership that provides a framework for these skills and competencies and guidance to managers and leaders about how and when to apply them.
The Crux of the Problem
Having designed and delivered leadership-development (LD) programs for several decades, I am well aware of the many excellent tools that are available today. We have a large variety of self-assessment and multirater tools (e.g., 360-degree-feedback surveys; Bracken, Timmereck, & Church, 2001; Fleenor & Prince, 1997) to provide baseline assessment of leadership skills, as well as myriad training methods and techniques for developing specific leadership competencies and skills (cf. Gebelein et al., 2010). Many leadership programs also include tips and perspectives on leadership provided by key leaders in the organization as well as familiar and famous business and political leaders (e.g., Powell, 2012; Slater, 2004).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to H. Skipton Leonard, Learning Thru Action, LLC, 11354 Orchard Lane, Reston, VA 20190. E-mail: [email protected]
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research © 2017 American Psychological Association 2017, Vol. 69, No. 4, 243–266 1065-9293/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000096
243
To augment these resources, powerful developmental tools such as coaching and mentoring (With- erspoon, Goldsmith, Lyons, & Freas, 2000) have been included in most contemporary LD programs. In addition, many current leadership programs (77% by some estimates; Corporate Executive Board, 2009) include action learning (Leonard & Freedman, 2013; Marquardt, Leonard, Freedman, & Hill, 2009) and organizational simulations (Hartman & Waisman, 2005) to provide practical leadership experience with accompanying feedback from faculty, staff, and peer participants.
However, our field does not have practical companion leadership theories that can be opera- tionalized and easily taught and that provide an organizing structure for discrete skills and competencies. A common criticism of typical LD programs is that they are too “abstract.” Although participants in these programs are told that effective leadership depends upon the context and situation (Fiedler, 1971; Hersey & Blanchard, 1977; House, 1971), leadership skills/competencies are frequently introduced in simplified and undifferentiated contexts (cf. Gebelein et al., 2010). Further, LD programs are often designed as if one model or methodology is suitable for developing leadership at all levels of management (Freedman, 2005; Leonard, 2005). Consequently, participants in LD programs do not learn when to apply these skills in the variety of situations they face. Perhaps worse, without situational guidance, leaders young and old learn to apply their strongest individual leadership skills in most situations, overusing these talents and strengths when more flexible and adaptive behaviors are required (Kaplan & Kaiser, 2013). This is an ironic result for programs that stress the need for flexible and adaptable leadership.
It is also not surprising that many LD professionals describe their programs in terms of the leadership skills/competencies that they are trying to develop (i.e., better strategic thinking or coaching skills) rather than the organizational results they hope to achieve (i.e., becoming a more successful organization). Awareness of this problem is not new. For example, Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986) noted that research frequently confused how leaders were perceived with how their organizations performed. Later, Kaiser, Hogan, and Craig (2008) pointed out that the factors associated with career success are frequently not the same as the factors associated with leading a team successfully.
These trends continue in many, if not most, current LD programs. In these programs, partici- pants typically receive much more feedback from program assessments and faculty, staff, and peer participants about how effective they appear as leaders than about what their impact is on the organization. This bias toward appearance over organizational impact is paralleled in the literature on leadership research. Despite ample evidence of the strong positive association between the capabilities of leaders and the fate of their organizations, there has been relatively little research conducted on the impact of organizational leaders on the success of the organizations they lead (Kaiser et al., 2008); these authors noted that only 18% of meta-analytic studies used organizational outcomes (i.e., “Did the team win or lose?”) as criterion measures versus 35% for perceived effectiveness (i.e., “approval”), 28% for process (i.e., “How did the team play?”), and 18% for leadership emergence (i.e., “standing out”). Following these theoretical and research trends, most LD programming emphasizes leadership appearance (i.e., “leadership presence”) and process rather than the link between leadership behavior and organizational success.
Given that our field emphasizes appearance over results and organizes LD programs around content feedback tools, coaching, and content presentation without a strong foundation in an easily understood theory of leadership, it is not surprising that there is a general lack of confidence in organizational leadership. In fact, Kaiser and Curphy (2013) report that organizations have a great and growing concern about the supply of effective leaders. In a survey of 14,000 human-resource and line managers, Boatman and Wellis (2011) reported that only 18% of human-resource profes- sionals and 32% of line leaders consider their leadership bench strength “very strong” or “strong.” Kaiser and Curphy (2013) reported another disturbing trend: Although spending for leadership development has doubled over the past 20 years, the perception of leadership competence has dropped by 30% (see Figure 1).
In this article I argue that one of the primary causes of LD programs failing to provide organizations with an adequate supply of effective leaders is the disconnect between the leadership skills that are being taught and an easily understood and usable model of leadership. I further identify the reasons that leadership programs lack an operational and teachable leadership model. In
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
244 LEONARD
addition, I propose a new definition of leadership that is more appropriate and useful in an LD context: Leadership is taking responsibility for getting results through the efforts of others. I also provide a set of pedagogical principles that can significantly improve the effectiveness of LD programs. Finally, I provide an illustration that demonstrates how my proposed teachable model of leadership (TML) has been successfully used in an LD program.
Why We Do Not Have a TML
The degree of disconnect between theory and practice development that I noted above is fairly unusual in the behavioral sciences. In most cases our understanding of a behavioral process is rooted in direct experimentation (e.g., the Hawthorne effect; Mayo, 1933; learning theory; Hilgard & Bower, 1966) or systematic observation and inductive theory development based upon naturally occurring phenomena (e.g., grounded theory; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Goulding, 2002; Locke, 2001) or quasiexperimental and correlational analysis of economic and management data (Gummesson, 2000; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Through the processes of observation, theory develop- ment, prediction, and testing, it is possible to develop teachable theories that result in methodologies for generating, developing, or reproducing desired outcomes or specific behaviors.
An understanding of leadership and the development of leadership skills has not been based upon this time-tested empirical model, which creates a weak foundation for a TML. Some of the earliest studies of leadership were rooted in social psychology, political science, and education (e.g., Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939). However, these studies had more to do with management than leadership as we conceptualize these terms today. Most thought leaders today would define leadership as setting priorities and direction rather than monitoring and correcting performance (Bennis, 1994; Drucker, 2008; Kotter, 1999; Zaleznik, 1977). Bennis set the direction for contem- porary thinking about the distinction between management and leadership when he stated that “Leaders are people who do the right thing; managers are people who do things right”1 (Bennis, 1994, p. 78).
For example, the Ohio State studies of leadership in the late 1940s emerged from the inability to select effective leaders in World War II (Stodgill, 1948) and the difficulty in developing capable managers and administrators (Shartle, 1950a; Shartle, 1950b). The results from these studies
1 This definition is based upon a Drucker (1967) principle that efficiency is doing things right while effectiveness is doing the right things. Kotter extended this definition by associating leadership with change and management with directing and controlling. Zaleznik (1977) provided a similar and more nuanced viewpoint in noting that “managers embrace process, seek stability and control, and instinctively try to resolve problems quickly—sometimes before they fully understand a problem’s significance. Leaders, in contrast, tolerate chaos and lack of structure and are willing to delay closure in order to understand the issues more fully”.
Figure 1. Trends in confidence in leadership and annual spending on leadership training and develop- ment in the United States. Reprinted from “Leadership Development: The Failure of an Industry and the Opportunity for Consulting Psychologists.” R. B. Kaiser and G. Curphy, 2013, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65, 294 –302. Copyright 2014 by the American Psychological Associ- ation.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
245A TEACHABLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
identified consideration for workers as well as the creation of effective structure (Fleishman, 1973) as primary attributes for effective management. Other research conducted about the same time at Michigan State by Likert (1958) and Katz (Katz et al., 1951) reported the importance of people and results dimensions in the supervision and management of employees.
In fact, many of the most influential models for leadership in the 1950s through the 1970s were identified as management-development models (e.g., managerial grid; Blake, Mouton, & Bidwell, 1962; Systems 4; Likert, 1959). The “contingency” models of the late 1960s and 1970s (Fiedler, 1971; Hersey & Blanchard, 1977; House, 1971) identified the importance of situational factors and began to shift the terminology from management to leadership. Nonetheless, the behaviors identified would be considered more related to management than to leadership issues when using Bennis’s (1994), Drucker’s (2008), Zaleznik’s (1977), or Kotter’s (1999) distinctions between management and leadership.
The full pivot to leadership from management came in the late 1970s when Burns (1978) introduced the concept of transformational leadership. This model stood in sharp contrast to the prior leadership models that Burns described as more transactional, involving actions designed to satisfy the self-interests of followers (i.e., incentives, rewards, punishments, and sanctions).2 In contrast, transformational leaders stress the satisfaction of higher psychological (Maslow, 1954) and moral needs, as well as the more basic human needs further down on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Transformational leadership gained popularity quickly throughout the 1980s and 1990s and became the dominant theory in the leadership literature (Avolio, 2005; Dinh et al., 2014; Lowe & Gardner, 2001; Tal & Gordon, 2016) as well as for corporate LD programs by the first decade of the 21st century (Day, 2001; Riggio, 2009). In the past decade a number of approaches to leadership have been proposed that extend the more traditional models (i.e., transactional, transformational, contingency models) or offer new models that were proposed as better fits for emerging and developing organizational structures. For example, Luthans and Avolio (2003) extended transfor- mational leadership by proposing an authentic-leadership model that integrates emerging concepts from positive psychology (Fredrickson, 2001) and emphasizes the importance of “self-awareness and self-regulated positive behavior” (p. 243) on the part of effective leaders. Similarly, Brown, Trevino, and Harrison (2005) and Craig and Gustafson (1998) extended the argument that Burns (1978) made for the importance of ethical or character-based leadership. The introduction of spiritual leadership (Fry, Vitucci, & Cedillo, 2005) and servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977/2002; Spears, 2004) can also be seen as extensions or variations of the transformational-leadership genre of leadership theory.
Pearce and Conger’s (2003) shared-leadership model described nonhierarchical, team-based leadership patterns in organizations “flattened” and “delayered” by technology or decentralization or whose structure emphasizes self-managing teams. Pearce and Conger contended that shared- leadership models are a better fit, in many cases, for contemporary organizations by allowing and even encouraging flexible and spontaneous informal leadership processes. Gronn (2002) suggested another nonhierarchical model, distributed leadership, as a method for preventing factional conflict and polarized coalitions and for promoting more democratic, collective action.
Complexity leadership (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007) is another model that has necessarily evolved as a consequence of the explosion of knowledge retrieval resulting from the widespread use of computers and the Internet. These technologies make possible emergent and dynamic interplay between knowledge, agents, and formal organizational structure. Adopting the framework of complex adaptive systems, the authors proposed that “leadership should be seen not only as position and authority but also as an emergent, interactive dynamic” (p. 299). This description of leadership in contemporary organizations is consistent with Pearce and Conger’s (2003) description of the fluid, nonhierarchical leader-follower dynamics observed in today’s organizations. Uhl-Bien et al. (2007), as well as Pearce and Conger (2003), recognized that informal
2 Some contemporary theories such as leader–member exchange (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) can be described as transactional, although noneconomic incentives and benefits are included.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
246 LEONARD
leadership-followership processes are superimposed upon more formal leadership designations, making the understanding of leadership (and leadership development) a very difficult and complex process to understand.
Despite the popularity and enthusiasm generated by transformational leadership (Burns, 1978) and the variety of “new genre” leadership theories that have been developed in the past 15 years (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009), these theories have not been supported by the depth of empirical research that was the basis for the earlier transactional models of leadership that had more to do with management than leadership skills.
The review of the leadership literature to this point has been historical and has been organized to answer the question, “Why isn’t commonly accepted leadership theory more useful in the process of teaching leadership skills?” Over time, leadership theory increasingly has placed importance on values, psychological processes, and organizational context. However, while the accepted view of the definition of leadership has become more abstract, nuanced, and process-focused, the operational definition of how to be a leader has become less behavioral and practical, making it more difficult to develop a teachable approach to developing leadership.
Management and Leadership Revisited
Prior to the introduction of transformational leadership in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the distinction between management and leadership was quite blurred. In fact, as noted earlier, the terms were often used interchangeably (cf. Blake et al., 1962; Shartle, 1950a, 1950b). Nevertheless, a consensus at that time emerged that leadership represented discretionary activities beyond a manager’s role requirements such as rules, regulations, and procedures (Osborn, Hunt, & Jauch, 1980). Considerable research was conducted to determine the nature of these discretionary activities. For instance, Williams (1956), using a critical-incidents methodology (Flanagan, 1951), coded over 3,500 incidents from a representative sample of 742 executives distributed proportionally by industry, company size, and geographic location. Mintzberg’s (1973) oft-cited study of actual behavior (i.e., direct observation and review of daily calendars of five executives) described three categories of activities (interpersonal, informational, and decisional) organized around three fun- damental roles (figurehead, leader, liaison). Beyond any controversy about distinctions between management and leadership, this research provided a clear understanding of what managers/leaders did on a very granular level and produced an exhaustive list of manager/leader behaviors of that era. Because of this vast catalogue of what manager/leaders of that era actually did, it was possible to provide practical, teachable guides for managers/leaders (cf. Hollander, 1978; Winter, 1979) to develop their skills.
Since the ascendency of transformational leadership (Burns, 1978), however, much less research has been conducted with respect to the actual behaviors displayed by leaders that make them transformational (or, for that matter, authentic, Avolio, 2005) rather than merely transactional (Bass, 1990). In part, the lack of research has been because the transformational process is largely values-based, which makes this approach to leadership more difficult to measure and study empirically. It is much more difficult to measure behaviors that inspire or lead to trust, or that are perceived as authentic, than to observe and measure planning or monitoring behavior. Also, methods such as qualitative research (Patton, 2002) and content analysis (Krippendorff, 2012), useful in this kind of research, were in their infancy during the emergence of transformational and other new-genre leadership theories. It was much easier to decide whether the totality of behavior over a period of time was inspiring, trustworthy, or authentic than to unpack the sequence of behaviors to determine which specific behaviors were inspiring, trustworthy, or authentic.
The research that does exist reflects this trend. As noted earlier, Kaiser et al. (2008), in summarizing research (mostly in the last 20 years) included in meta-analyses, found that researchers tended to use the appearance and probability of the emergence of leaders rather than the performance of the organizational units they led as criteria for leadership. These authors also noted that the research included in these meta-analyses was more likely to focus on how leaders influenced organizational process rather than on how they affected organizational outcomes.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
247A TEACHABLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
The Problem With the Traditional Tripod Leadership Model
Bennis (2007) noted that “in its simplest form [leadership] is a tripod—a leader or leaders, followers, and a common goal they want to achieve” (p. 3). Drath et al. (2008) observed that this conception of leadership has been the basis for leadership theory and definition throughout the modern era. The nearly universal acceptance of this statement necessarily defines the theoretical space for leadership theory—that leadership is fundamentally the “practice of leaders and followers interacting around their shared goals” (p. 635).
Although this simple and intuitive model will likely provide a basic framework for defining leadership and conducting research well into the future (Drath et al., 2008), it also presents some basic difficulties for conceptualizing leadership in contemporary and future organizations. First, the exclusive focus on formally designated as well as emergent leaders provides for a fairly inflexible and unrealistic model of leadership in collaborative organizational cultures (cf. Gronn, 2002; Pearce & Conger, 2003) that have flattened power hierarchies and that encourage rapid shifts between leading and following among peers (Drath et al., 2008).
Second, the tripod model leads to an emphasis on processes of influence rather than results and outcomes. In fact, a high percentage of definitions of leadership in common use still employ influence or persuasion as the dominant component: (a) “Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northhouse, 2004, p. 3), (b) “Leadership is the process of persuasion or example by which an individual (or leadership team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader and shared by the leader and . . . followers” (Gardner, 1990, p. 1), and (c) “Leadership is a process of social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task” (Chemers, 1997, p. 1).
In summing up the definitions of leadership, Bass (1990) stated that “defining effective leadership as successful influence by the leader that results in the attainment of goals by the influenced followers . . . is particularly useful” (p. 14).
From an instructional standpoint, definitions of leadership that identify the ability to influence, persuade, or induce as fundamental have some serious limitations. For instance, each of these psychological processes has a weak operational definition. Because effective leadership is deter- mined by the situation (Fiedler, 1971; Hersey & Blanchard, 1977; House, 1971), it is very difficult to identify, let alone measure and repeat, the behavioral sequence that leads to goal accomplishment or to tie that sequence to concepts such as “influence” or “persuasion.”
From a historical standpoint, other definitions of leadership, while appealing, were no more scholarly or rigorous: (a) the ability to handle people so as to achieve the most with the least friction and the greatest cooperation (leadership is the creative and directive force of morale; Munson, 1921), (b) the ability to get other people to do what they do not want to do and like it (Harry Truman, 1958, p. 139), and (c) the influential increment over and above the mechanical compliance with routine directions of the organization (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 528).
These are subject to the same criticism; there is no way to operationalize them. Imagine trying to develop these skills and abilities in a class of rising leaders. How would you
develop leadership skills needed to demonstrate leadership as defined above? How would you describe the linkages between these methods and leadership development? Are these definitions useful as a basis for a TML? In my opinion, they are not.
The combination of these trends in the scholarly literature (subjective perceptions of leaders by superiors or subordinates— either “standing out” or “approval”—and dependence upon second- order behavioral criteria such as influence or persuasion) has resulted in abstract definitions of leadership that are difficult to operationalize in a training-and-development context. In fact, the lack of a clear, teachable definition of leadership is one explanation for my observation that many practitioners define leadership development in terms of the methods they use (i.e., 360-degree feedback or leadership exercises/simulations) rather than the outcomes that they are trying to achieve (i.e., We teach people how to . . . in order to accomplish . . .).
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
248 LEONARD
A Results-Based Definition of Leadership
We need a more useful definition of leadership to reflect the expectations of organizational stakeholders and shareholders as well as organizational leadership. Leaders are selected with the expectation that they will deliver desired results and are evaluated with respect to their ability to deliver on this promise. As evidence of this linkage, Kaiser et al. (2008) have reported that 20 years of research on managerial succession indicates a consistent relationship between the behavior of chief executive officers (CEOs) and the fate of the organization. Influence and persuasion are intervening processes between shareholder expectations and organizational results, but they should not be ends unto themselves. The LD process, therefore, must be aligned with achieving results rather than being persuasive or influential. The importance of making the achievement of results the most important criteria for effective leadership is also emphasized by Ulrich, Zenger, and Small- wood (1999).
With outcomes in mind, any definition of leadership must also include the leader’s commitment to getting results and achieving strategic goals. Efforts to influence, no matter how clever, creative, and eloquent, will not be experienced as authentic leadership (Avolio, 2005) without this demon- stration of personal commitment to the welfare of the organization. Otherwise, these behaviors will often be perceived as self-serving and not in the long-term best interest of the organization or organizational members. Kraines (2001) noted that commitment to the organization is deepened by a sense of accountability.
In accordance with the Biblical observation that “The race is not to the swift,/ Nor the battle to the strong” (Ecclesiastes 9:11, the New King James version), a useful definition should also acknowledge that leadership must be focused on directing, motivating, inspiring, and empowering other people to achieve goals that cannot be accomplished alone. This idea is also expressed in an African proverb: “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” In other words, an effective definition of leadership must note that leadership is getting results, in large part, through the efforts of others.
The following definition includes these essential elements.
Leadership is taking responsibility for getting results through the efforts of others.
Note that this definition does not distinguish between successful and unsuccessful leadership. In my view, leadership is best conceived of as a combination of attitude (commitment) and effort to achieve results. If both are present, leadership is evident. Not all leaders who are committed and hardworking, however, are successful. A TML is necessary to provide a road map and instruction manual for leadership success.
The Confusion Between the Leadership Process and Leadership Competencies
The difficulty in operationalizing the processes central to the current definitions of leadership (i.e., influencing, persuading, and inducing) makes it difficult to create a clear line of sight between specific behaviors, effective leadership, and organizational outcomes. An apparent solution to this limitation was the creation of leadership competencies. McClelland (1973) proposed that personal competencies rather than aptitudes were better predictors of job success. McClelland viewed competencies as enduring personal characteristics that include knowledge, skills, self-concepts, traits, and motives.
Because McClelland’s conception of competencies seemed to provide the operational links between purpose (goals) and results, they were quickly included in mainstream leadership selection and development methods. Many, if not most, contemporary LD programs place a primary focus on developing leadership competencies as a way of providing tools for influencing, persuading, and inducing followers to assist in achieving organizational goals.
No matter how useful competencies may be for selecting and developing leadership, they should not be confused with the entire leadership process. McClelland’s view was that competencies are
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
249A TEACHABLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
components or building blocks for success, not a description of all the elements, including strategy, required to get results. This approach to selecting3 or developing leadership ignores the situation and purpose that leaders face.
An adequate leadership model, therefore, must include the sequence of a propelling purpose (goal), decisions that the leader makes about the most promising leadership strategies considering the situation and personal skills and characteristics, and the application of leadership competencies. A more useful conceptualization of the leadership sequence is presented in Figure 2.
A Teachable Model of Leadership
In addition to providing a more useful definition of leadership and identifying the causal path between goal development and achievement, I propose the adoption of an ontological4 model for leadership put forth by Drath et al. (2008). As discussed earlier, the traditional, and almost universally accepted, tripod ontological model (Bennis, 2007), has a number of limitations as a useful model for leadership. In sum, the tripod model (a) is a difficult fit for contemporary organizational dynamics and structures encouraging collaboration and fluid and dynamic leadership/ followership relationships (Pearce & Conger, 2003); (b) is a difficult fit for organizational systems described as complex and defined by uncertainty (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007); (c) places primary focus on processes rather than results in contradistinction to the way leaders are selected and evaluated; and (d) understates the role of context or situation in determining effective leadership behavior.
Drath et al. (2008) proposed the following alternative leadership framework that emphasizes direction, alignment, and commitment (DAC; see Figure 3).
The reader will note that the fundamental elements of the tripod model—leaders, followers, and shared goals—are absent from this model. Instead, the focus is on how the interaction between individual and collective leadership beliefs produces leadership practices that, in turn, generate DAC. Ultimately, these practices produce long-term results. This model provides a causal model of factors leading to long-term outcomes/results, and it has a clear, practical focus on the beliefs and practices that enable people in collectives with shared values to develop organizational DAC. The model also focuses on outcomes accommodating a wide variety of cultural beliefs and practices for creating DAC and is equally applicable to horizontal (shared) or vertical (hierarchical) leadership. An important feature of the model is that it includes the leadership practices (competencies and strategy) that produce DAC to the benefit of long-term success and survival. The elements of the Drath et al. (2008) ontological model can also be viewed in organizational-systems terms with leadership culture (individual/collective leadership beliefs and leadership practices) representing leadership-system input while the DAC components represent leadership throughput. Longer term organizational success is leadership-system output.
From the standpoint of developing a TML, the DAC framework places a clear focus on outcomes/results and provides an operational framework with the flexibility necessary to describe and develop leadership capabilities in contemporary organizations and organizational structures of the future. The DAC model also provides a useful framework for empirical research on leadership strategies.
3 Unfortunately, I have noticed many instances in which leadership potential was estimated for individuals by adding up or taking the average of all the leadership competencies measured by the organization and using these averages to make personnel decisions.
4 In metaphysics, ontology is the discussion or exploration of the fundamental nature of things— how things really are. Ontology provides definitions but digs further into the fundamental nature of things. From that standpoint, the tripod and Drath et al. (2008) models are more than definitions of leadership because they reference other concepts such as leaders, followers, and direction, alignment, and commitment that express leadership in the simplest and most fundamental terms.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
250 LEONARD
Leadership Strategies
Leadership strategies are introduced here as clusters of leadership skills/competencies that are associated with each other (i.e., are correlated behaviors that are used together to achieve similar goals). Strategies, however, are not simply a different way to organize competencies to develop logical taxonomies (as is common in most competency models). Strategies involve plans for achieving a goal or objective. Using a travel analogy, strategies provide a road map to help leaders decide which routes to follow in order to arrive at a destination, while competencies provide instructions for operating the means of transportation to arrive at a destination. Both sets of information are important but are distinct.
Historically, there have been a number of conceptual frameworks for organizing the leadership literature (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Fleishman et al., 1991; Hunt, 1996; Lord & Maher, 1991; Pearce et al., 2003; Podsakoff, Todor, & Skov, 1982; Quinn, Bright, Faerman, Thompson, & McGrath, 1990; Yukl, 1998). The Pearce et al. (2003) leadership-strategy typology5
has been selected for inclusion in the teachable model presented here because (a) it is an empirically developed model based upon a synthesis of the best-regarded typologies identified above (Quinn et al., 1990; Yukl, 1998), (b) it is based on close-hand observation of what a sample of CEOs actually do (cf. earlier analyses of what managers actually do; Fleishman, 1953; Mintzberg, 1973), (c) it is an inclusive model that incorporates behaviors identified in the literature of the major leadership models, (d) it is flexible enough to apply to contemporary organizations, (e) the components of each strategy are behavioral and relatively familiar to managers because they are similar to the behaviors commonly used in multirater surveys (e.g., 360-degree feedback; Bracken et al., 2001), and (f) by and large, the behavioral factors in each strategy are well represented in the social-science literature.6 In most cases, we already understand a great deal about these skills and have strategies for developing them (cf. Gebelein et al., 2010).
5 Pearce et al. (2003) derived their leadership strategies using a combination of exploratory factor analysis (EFA; Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999) and confirmatory factor analysis. EFA is a factor analysis method used to uncover the underlying structure of a relatively large set of variables. The authors used EFA to test whether leadership strategies identified in earlier research were consistent with the factor structure of two data sets of leadership behavior. These data sets (a combined sample of 461) represented descriptions by subordinates of CEOs, middle managers, and supervisors. EFA analysis of these data sets indicated that a four-factor model representing the directing, transactional, transformational, and empowering leadership strat- egies was the best fit for both data sets. A confirmatory factor analysis (Akaike, 1987) conducted on a third data set (n � 702) confirmed the factor structure identified in the EFA.
6 This statement doesn’t contradict an earlier statement that some popular leadership models (i.e., trans- formational leadership) are not supported by the depth of research associated with earlier theories of leadership (i.e., transactional theories of leadership). Although many meta-analyses support the effectiveness of the outcomes of a transformational approach (DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross, 2001; Dundum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Gaspar, 1992; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), there are many fewer research articles studying the processes identified as components of transformational leadership. In contrast, there have been numerous research studies that provide practice guidelines for the behavioral components of leadership presented in handbooks such as Successful Manager’s Handbook (Gebelein et al., 2010). However, the point remains the same that the models themselves do not have strong research support.
Figure 2. Leadership sequence of goals, leadership strategies, and leadership skills (competencies). (Drath et al., 2008) Reprinted with permission. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
251A TEACHABLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
Once leadership strategies have been selected, based upon analysis of the situation and awareness of personal leadership skills and talents, leaders can apply any or all of the leadership skills associated with the leadership strategy to achieve the organizational results they desire. The point made here is that effective leadership is more than the sum total of all leadership skills that can be applied in a situation requiring leadership. Effective leadership requires that the most effective strategies with accompanying behaviors be used to achieve the best results.
A Teachable Set of Leadership Strategies
Pearce et al. (2003) identified four leadership strategies: directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering. I use the same behavioral clusters but have renamed the transactional and transformational strategies to reflect more fundamental psychological processes. Pearce et al.’s transactional strategies rely heavily upon the principles of rewards/incentives and nonreward and, to a lesser extent, upon the principles of punishment/sanctions associated with the theories of behav- iorism and operant conditioning in the psychological literature (Ferster & Skinner, 1957; Thorndike, 1901). I have, therefore, renamed this strategy as incentive-based. Similarly, I have substituted the term inspiring for transformational to focus on the psychological process (inspiring) rather than the end result (transformation).
While the four strategies presented here are based on factor-analytic studies, information relevant to these strategies is found throughout the behavioral-science literature. This section provides the research data that not only supports the effectiveness of the strategies but also presents the operational details necessary for creating curriculum for the TML or teaching/facilitating within a TML-based LD program.
Directive
The directive leadership strategy represents many of the behaviors included in traditional manage- ment methods and is also consistent with the process of initiating structure described by Fleishman (1973) and task orientation identified by Katz et al. (1951). The directive strategy relies heavily upon position and coercive power (French & Raven, 1959) and is often perceived to be the opposite of a participative approach to leadership (Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958).
The extent to which leaders use a directive versus a more participative approach often depends on how leaders perceive the task (e.g., situations with great urgency, where followers have a high degree of trust in the leader and where there is little doubt that followers will follow the directive) and the assumptions they make about the people they are leading and depend upon to accomplish organizational missions. Management practice in the post-WWII period was described by McGregor (1960) as based upon a Theory X, which implicitly assumes that employees (a) are lazy and work as little as possible, (b) lack ambition, (c) dislike responsibility, (d) prefer to be led, (e) are inherently selfish, (f) are indifferent to organizational needs and goals, (g) are resistant to change, and (h) are
Figure 3. Alternative framework for leadership that emphasizes direction, alignment, and commitment, proposed by Drath et al. (2008).
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
252 LEONARD
gullible, not very intelligent, and easily duped. If managers of that era held many of these assumptions, it would make sense that they developed policies that contained tight controls over performance and exhibited coercive behavior over subordinates (Pinder, 1984). Consequently, the management literature reflected these beliefs and the terms supervision and management were used interchangeably (cf. Fleishman, 1953).
Assuming the prevalence of Theory X assumptions about the workforce, it is also not surprising that Fleishman (1953, 1973) identified the initiation of structure as a fundamental characteristic of supervision and management. Bass (1990) and Yukl (1989), in summarizing the research literature on initiating structure, identified the following behaviors as representative of directive leadership: (a) Initiates activity of the work group; (b) organizes group activity; (c) defines, in detail, the way work is done; (d) establishes clear channels of communication; (e) emphasizes goal attainment; (f) assigns subordinates to tasks; (g) offers new approaches to problems; and (h) coordinates activities of subordinates.
The objectives of the directive strategy are similar to the “command and control” strategies developed by military organizations (U.S. Department of the Army, 2001, para. 5-2). Although the command-and-control strategy was developed explicitly for use in military and armed-combat environments, these principles are frequently used in many civilian organizations (Alberts & Nissen, 2009).
To ensure that directives are consistent with their goals and are obeyed and to ensure that standards are met, Bass (1990) and Yukl (1989) noted that leaders using the directive strategy (a) make important decisions without consulting subordinates, (b) criticize poor work, (c) closely monitor subordinate behavior to make sure procedures and policies are followed, and (d) push for maximum effort from every employee.
It should be noted that these behaviors would be consistent with, but do not necessarily follow from, the assumptions about workers and employees contained in McGregor’s (1960) Theory X, which has a predominantly pejorative view of the motives of workers. As noted earlier, there are certain situations when most would agree that a directive strategy would be appropriate (such as in times of crisis or urgency when compliance can be expected). In other words, these are times when leaders have a responsibility to get results through others— either quickly or without fail.
Nevertheless, most would agree that the directive leadership strategy would not be considered a participative management or leadership approach that is based on what McGregor (1960) termed Theory Y, which presents a more positive view of employee motivation (i.e., that workers seek responsibility and are motivated to fulfill prescribed goals, are self-motivated, and work creatively to solve work problems if given the opportunity). In reviewing this literature, Pearce et al. (2003) summarized these features of the directive leadership strategy into three behavioral clusters: (a) instruction and command, (b) assigning goals, and (c) contingent reprimand.
Incentive-Based
Pearce et al. (2003) termed this strategy transactional leadership because it conformed closely to Burns’ (1978) distinction between earlier transaction-based leadership and the transformational strategy that he observed and promoted. As noted earlier, I relabeled this strategy as incentive-based because the more fundamental distinction is that this strategy relies almost exclusively on creating rewards for compliance with organizational and leader-issued requests and directives.
This strategy has strong support from the operant-conditioning research that demonstrated the link between rewards and schedules of rewards and the probability that a specific behavior will occur in the future (Ferster & Skinner, 1957; Thorndike, 1901). It is important to note that the operant- conditioning research makes a clear distinction between nonreward and punishment. When a behavior is not followed by the expected reward (i.e., does not receive an expected incentive), the probability that the behavior will be elicited in the future is reduced because the expectation of reward is incrementally reduced. Eventually, the behavior will face extinction. If, on the other hand, a behavior is met with an aversive event (i.e., the person is punished or reprimanded), that behavior is reduced or curtailed going forward to the extent that the connection between behavior and
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
253A TEACHABLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
punishment is perceived by the individual. Strong enough punishment will result in “one-trial” learning and very quick extinction of that behavior.
The reader may note that the punishment-and-reprimand aspect of operant conditioning is also a prominent element of the control function of the directive strategy. The incentive-based strategy relies much more heavily upon contingent incentives, reward, and nonreward (absence of reward) than punishment, sanctions, and reprimand. There are very sound research-based reasons for distinguishing and separating contingent incentive/rewards and punishment/sanctions/reprimands. The use of incentives is the most effective way to encourage new and desired behavior. Punishment is best used to quickly extinguish undesired behavior. It is difficult, however, to encourage new behavior using punishment (Schacter, Gilbert, & Wegner, 2010). In addition, punishment frequently decreases feelings of self-esteem and self-worth while increasing the level of anxiety and anger directed toward the punisher and associated organization (Schacter et al., 2010).
Transactional-leadership theories also incorporated the basic principles of operant conditioning in a number of ways. Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory proposed that people consider three factors in evaluating an incentive: (a) the attractiveness of the potential results from engaging in a certain behavior, (b) the perceived linkages between a behavior and the results, and (c) the effort estimated to obtain a desired result. Building on Vroom’s expectancy theory, House (1971) proposed a path-goal theory that identified a key objective of leadership as managing the perception of the relationship between the desired activity and the probability of reward as well as the effort required. Homans (1961) and Adams (1963) contributed additional components to the transactional- leadership approach by offering an exchange/equity theory that posited that people acted rationally in balancing equity and effort in considering four fundamental pieces of information: (a) what they give in an exchange, (b) what they receive in an exchange, (c) what others give in a similar exchange, and (d) what others receive in a similar exchange.
Because of the extensive operant-conditioning research and the powerful effects of reinforce- ment (incentives) and punishment (sanctions) demonstrated in this literature, behavioral principles have been widely applied within organizations of all types, including education, animal training, and so forth (Miltenberger, 2008). Because these principles are so familiar and accepted by psycholo- gists, trainers, and managers/leaders, the incentive-based leadership strategy is easily incorporated and taught in the LD context. In reviewing this literature, Pearce et al. (2003) summarized the concepts and features of operant conditioning, expectancy theory, and path-goal theory into two behavioral clusters: (a) contingent material reward and (b) contingent personal reward.
Inspiring
The inspiring strategy is based largely on the transformational behaviors identified by Burns (1978) and later expanded and elaborated upon by Bass and Avolio (1993) and Avolio et al. (1999). The inspiring/transformational strategy relies heavily upon the sociology of charisma discussed much earlier by Weber (1924/1947, 1946), as well as the process of the charismatic-leadership theory proposed by House (1977). Traditionally, transformational-leadership theory has contained two separate, but related, threads: (a) the personal qualities and talents of the leader (usually grouped under the term charisma; cf. House, 1977) and (b) the set of behaviors employed by the leader (e.g., transmitting a sense of mission and higher purpose; delegating authority, coaching, and teaching; and emphasizing problem-solving and reasoning; Bass, 1985, 1990).
Weber believed that charismatic leadership is based upon five elements (summarized by Trice & Beyer, 1986): (a) The leader must be gifted with extraordinary or mystical gifts; (b) the organization, society, or country must be in crisis; (c) the leader must propose a radical solution to the crisis; (d) followers must feel and believe that they have a link to the leader via some transcendent powers; and (e) the leader validates these beliefs in followers because of repeated successes.
Clearly, Weber (1968) believed that charisma has a strong situational element as well as the personal qualities and talents of the leader. In addition, many have questioned whether charisma can be taught— either you have it or you do not. Weber described charisma as a gift “of the body and spirit not accessible by everyone” (p. 19). Others, including House and Shamir (1993), believed that
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
254 LEONARD
charismatic “effects” can be achieved by (a) managing impressions, (b) articulating ideological goals, (c) defining subordinate roles through ideological values, (d) being a role model, (e) communicating high expectations and confidence in subordinates, and (f) arousing appropriate follower motives (e.g., need for achievement).
Antonakis, Fenley, and Liechti (2011) provided evidence that charisma can be developed by using the following methods: (a) using metaphors; (b) including stories and anecdotes; (c) display- ing moral conviction; (d) stressing group, team, or organizational sentiments; (e) communicating confidence; (f) including rhetorical questions (“Why should you hear this from me?”); and (g) using expressive body gestures and facial expressions.
Although the inspiring strategy may require special talents or gifts, House and Shamir (1993) have argued that these talents, like those for other leadership strategies, can be developed, and Antonakis et al. (2011) have supported this assertion with evidence. Furthermore, these researchers believe that any leader can be more inspiring by applying specific behavioral principles. These principles are exemplified in the Pearce et al. (2003) leadership strategies by the following leadership behaviors: stimulation and inspiration, vision, idealism, and challenge to status quo.
Empowering
Although elements of the empowering leadership strategy had been articulated by Greenleaf in the 1970s (Greenleaf, 1977/2002) as servant leadership, the current interest in empowering strategies didn’t really attract the attention and enthusiasm of leadership theorists until the mid-1990s and corresponded with the rapid gain in popularity of coaching for high-potential as well as derailing leaders. Pearce et al. (2003) believed that the empowering strategy for leadership was “a ‘paradigm shift’ rather than a linear extension of transformational leadership” (p. 289). For Pearce et al. (2003), the empowering strategy is also aligned with a number of behaviors identified by Yukl’s (1998) typology of leadership behaviors: (a) consulting, (b) delegating, (c) supporting, (d) developing and mentoring, and (e) managing conflict and team building.
The servant-leadership strategy (Greenleaf, 1977/2002; van Dierendonk, 2011) provides a comprehensive theory of leadership that has several elements that are of importance and relevance to the TML presented here. In addition to identifying empowering behaviors that are relevant to the empowering strategies, the servant-leadership model also explicitly provides the individual and collective leadership beliefs as well as leadership practices identified in the Drath et al. (2008) model (see Figure 2). Whereas other leadership strategies implicitly identify or allude to guiding assump- tions (e.g., the directive strategy) and values (e.g., the inspiring strategy), the servant-leadership model explicitly provides appropriate values, attitudes, virtues, ethics, and even character traits for leaders (van Dierendonk, 2011).
A second area of relevance of servant leadership to the TML is its emphasis on service. Greenleaf (1977/2002) made it clear that servant leaders are motivated by a need to serve and the need to develop organizational members:
It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. . . . The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? (p. 7)
The need to serve individual members of the organization as well as the stakeholders and shareholders of the organization provides an important distinction between servant leadership and any of the other traditional leadership models (i.e., directive, transactional, and transformational leadership). This aspect of servant leadership is consistent, however, with the empowering strategy. In addition, servant leadership’s emphasis on service is consistent with the TML’s definition of leadership—taking responsibility for achieving results through the efforts of others. Although this definition does not specify who will benefit (the employee or the organization), the implication is clear that leadership involves personal involvement and engagement with both members of the organization and the organization’s strategic goals.
As is the case with transformational leadership, research related to servant leadership has been primarily focused on comparisons with other leadership models as well as the impact on a variety
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
255A TEACHABLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
of key organizational processes. Schneider and George (2011), in comparing transformational- leadership and servant-leadership behavior in involuntary-service organizations, reported that ser- vant leadership explained a significant amount of variance that was independent from the variance attributable to transformational leadership. Other studies have reported that servant-leadership behavior results in significant improvements in team performance (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011). Peterson, Galvin, and Lange (2012) reported that servant-leadership behaviors predicted later organizational performance (e.g., return on assets).
Less research, however, has examined how and why servant leadership works. One recent unpublished study (Robin & Sendjaya, 2012), based on data collected in 441 Australian firms, reported evidence that servant leaders improve employee engagement and minimize workplace deviant behavior by providing positive feedback, modeling desirable behavior (cf. Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963), providing an optimal level of psychological arousal (cf. Yerkes & Dodson, 1908), and fostering self-efficacy through experiences of mastery (Bandura, 1978).
There is, however, a wealth of research and practice experience from other psychological disciplines that have direct relevance to the empowering strategy. For instance, there is an extensive literature about developing therapeutic alliances in psychotherapy and counseling (Bordin, 1979; Gelso & Hayes, 1998). Similarly, counseling psychology provides an extensive body of research and practice experience related to establishing helping relationships (Carkuff, 1969; Egan, 2010; Hutchins & Vaught, 1997). Likewise, contemporary coaching practice and empowering leadership share several behavioral components. First, like coaching, empowering leadership places a heavy emphasis upon building rapport: between coaches and their clients in the case of coaching (Moore & Tschannen-Moran, 2010) and between leaders and followers in the case of empowering leader- ship. Second, they are both based upon philosophies that emphasize self-direction and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1978) as well being a catalyst for change rather than being a provider of expert advice and direction (Axmith, 2004).
The empowering strategy identified by Pearce et al. (2003) includes the following leadership behaviors: (a) encouraging opportunity thinking, (b) encouraging self-reward, (c) encouraging self-leadership, (d) promoting participative goal setting, and (e) encouraging teamwork. In sum, the strategies provide the road map that leaders can use to choose and employ leadership competencies to achieve their goals and objectives. In addition, the theory and research presented in this section provides the necessary mental models that will be useful to trainers, facilitators, and curriculum designers.
Effective Pedagogical Principles for Teaching Leadership
The introduction of the TML without using effective pedagogical principles may not, however, lead to the development of necessary leadership skills. As the title of this article implies, a teachable approach to leadership requires the introduction of the TML using a pedagogical approach that is consistent with the principles of effective adult learning (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005).
As noted by most contemporary leadership theories, effective leadership is situationally deter- mined. This fact makes it very difficult to provide simple prescriptions for successful leadership. Accordingly, a LD program based upon the TML must provide opportunities for participants to learn how to (a) assess the leadership requirements with respect to the organization’s competitive environment as well as its goals and objectives, (b) select the appropriate leadership strategy given the organization’s capabilities and their personal skills and talents, and (c) apply the leadership skills necessary to effectively carry out the selected strategy. In addition, LD programming should conform to a didactic framework that is consistent with current advances in adult development (androgogy, using Knowles et al.’s, 2005, terminology). I propose the following developmental principles to achieve this goal.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
256 LEONARD
Involve and Engage the Learner in Action as Quickly as Possible
One of the most effective ways to engage participants is to use designs that emphasize discovery rather than a lecture delivered by a content expert. The inductive-learning designs championed by Kolb (2014) are action-based and experientially based and are anchored by practices emphasizing inquiry (Dewey, 1997; Leonard & Freedman, 2013; Leonard & Lang, 2010; Leonard & Marquardt, 2010), dialogue (Bohm, 2004), and sensemaking (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005).
In many cases, employing this principle means delaying the presentation of relevant theory until participants have had an opportunity to engage in meaningful action (e.g., experiential exercises or simulations). The attitudes of inquiry and discovery support inductive-learning approaches that are well received by participants and produce excellent results with adult learners (cf. Knowles et al., 2005; Kolb, 2014).
Encourage Participants to Create Their Own Insights to Explain What Has Happened and What They Are Experiencing
After an experiential process is completed, trainers/instructors can lead inquiry-based debriefing periods that encourage participants to assess what has happened and to offer personal, team, or organizational insights. Systematic debriefings after every significant action is consistent with the after-action review (AAR) process developed and popularized by the United States armed forces (Darling & Flanigan, 2008). The debrief processes also provide opportunities for creating the personal and team-developed mental “homegrown” models (cf. indigenous theories; Day, 2005) that facilitate retention and recall in nontraining settings.
Delaying theory presentation (for instance, the theory underlying the four strategies) until experiential and debriefing activities are completed may seem counterintuitive but, in my experi- ence, produces a superior outcome. In most cases the theories and explanations that participants develop in a debriefing process mirror the principles that the trainer/instructors would present in a more traditional educational process. Placing activity/debriefing processes first doesn’t eliminate the opportunity to include additional theory content not identified by participants in later presentations. Furthermore, the experiential component provides many examples that can be referenced in later content presentations.
Provide Opportunities to Practice Leadership Skills in Realistic Settings
Hicks and Peterson (1999) noted that the lack of opportunity for realistic practice can significantly reduce the amount of on-the-job development and change achieved by even the best skill training programs. While most LD programs provide experiential exercises or limited simulations designed to provide opportunities for practice, in many cases they are experienced as artificial or contrived. Realism is significantly increased when the training is embedded in actual work (e.g., coaching) or a highly realistic exercise or simulation. A wide variety of organizational simulations are available today, including those that range from a focus on specific topics or leadership skills (e.g., Power and Systems Lab; Oshry, 2016; Oshry, n.d.) to highly realistic and comprehensive “day in the life” simulations such as Leading for Organizational Impact: The Looking Glass Experience (Center for Creative Leadership, n.d.) and Korn-Ferry’s (n.d.) Active Leader.
Action learning (Leonard, 2014; Leonard & Freedman, 2013; Marquardt et al., 2009) and individual coaching (Moore & Tschannen-Moran, 2010) provide the most realistic environment for practicing leadership skills because participants are working in the context of real organizational and personal problems and challenges.
Provide Opportunities for Real-Time Feedback and Process Debriefing
The AAR processes discussed earlier (Darling & Flanigan, 2008) are excellent ways to provide immediate feedback to participants in LD programs. AAR debriefs can be initiated immediately after critical events or pivotal moments and can also be conducted at periodic intervals such as the end of an exercise, simulation segment, morning or afternoon session, or a program day. AAR
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
257A TEACHABLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
within LD action-learning or organizational-simulation programs is typically facilitated by program trainers/instructors using a discussion outline similar to the following: (a) What was our objective? (b) What was the action plan? (c) What actually happened? (d) Why did this happen? (e) What did we learn? (f) What are the implications for change? Although these discussions start at the team level, it is not unusual for the review to shift to the actions of individuals.
Using the TML in conjunction with an AAR-like process within a leadership-coaching process encourages discussion of the participant’s success in achieving organization success rather than overemphasizing style, personal impact, appearance, or individual leadership skills as described by Kaiser et al. (2008).
Ensure That Participants Experience Accountability for Learning and Demonstrating Leadership Skills
Accountability is another necessary condition for achieving development noted by Hicks and Peterson (1999). In too many cases, high-potential participants in LD programs act as if merely showing up and completing a program (i.e., getting their “ticket punched”) qualifies them for promotion into senior-leadership positions. Successful development programs create consequences to make sure that people are recognized and rewarded for applying their new skills on the job.
One way to ensure accountability is to involve senior leaders in developing goals and evaluating participant performance. Senior-leader participation in developing program goals and showcasing participant achievements (or lack thereof) is a central component in action-learning LD programs. Accountability also occurs when senior leaders participate in personal goal development in lead- ership coaching and when skill development is assessed through anonymous ratings from program peers and participants’ superiors and subordinates.7
Case Example
The LD program, entitled Leader Lab, was designed as a 2-credit course to be delivered during an intersemester period at the business school of a major and highly competitive American university. The core development process was a 2-day highly realistic organizational simulation delivered on consecutive Saturdays. In addition to the 2 days when the simulation was conducted, students attended three traditional 3-hr evening classes— one class a half-week before the first day of the simulation, one class between the 2 simulation days, and one class a half-week after the second day of the simulation.
The Organizational Simulation
Twenty-four students were divided into three teams representing major business units of a global business offering three diverse product lines. Each of the students assumed the role of director of one of the major functions within each business unit (e.g., director of finance, director of global supply chain, director of human resources). Each participant also received an “in-box” of messages that provided information about the state of the global organization as well as the situation facing his or her business unit and functional organization. The information provided to participants, if fully
7 It is difficult to demonstrate change in behavior administering a traditional 360-degree survey before and after a developmental program. In addition to some arcane statistical issues such as Lord’s reliability paradox, regression to the mean, and so forth, perhaps the most significant issue is that each participant is asked to focus on a few personal learning goals. Because most 360-degree tools evaluate dozens of leadership behaviors, it is unlikely that participants will demonstrate across-the-board improvement in leadership skills. Assuming mod- erate variance in the selection of leadership skills being worked on, improvement by a handful of participants working on any particular skill is “diluted” by a lack of improvement on that skill by participants who are not focused on improving that skill. The statistical and methodological problems noted above can be mitigated by using a 360-degree tool that is designed to be used in pre/post designs (cf. PDI/Korn Ferry’s, 2015, Time2Change instrument).
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
258 LEONARD
shared and explored with all team leaders, indicated that that the organization was stagnating, losing market share, and in danger of losing ground to competitors.
Because of this downhill slide, the CEO of the corporation instructed each team to develop a strategic plan for the business unit. Although individual strategic plans were requested, the challenges embedded in the initial information and information that was provided to the teams as the simulation progressed indicated that the best results could be achieved by creating a strategic plan developed collaboratively by the three teams. Success in this simulation required a balance between competition and collaboration and a willingness to take personal and team risks for the sake of broader organizational success.
Introduction of the TML
Prior to the first day of the simulation, students attended a 3-hr evening class that provided a historical overview of leadership as well an introduction to leadership strategies and related competencies. However, rather than providing a traditional content lecture on the four leader- ship strategies (i.e., defining the strategies, breaking the strategies into behavioral components, demonstrating the strategy, and providing opportunities to practice the strategies), a more inductive approach was used. Students were shown video clips from well-known movies that demonstrated each of strategies. The strategies were not labeled by the instructor. Instead, students were asked to identify leadership behaviors, the dynamics involved, and the situations where this approach would work best or where it should be avoided. The nature of the videos produced a high degree of engagement and enthusiasm on the part of the students. The faculty member leading this instructional segment (the author) used a guided Socratic process to introduce behavioral components of each strategy and appropriate labels for the strategies. They were, in fact, very similar to the labels that Pearce et al. (2003) had introduced.
Prior to the first class, students completed a short self-report training inventory developed by Pearce (2007) to provide feedback about their preferences in using the four leadership strategies. Students shared this feedback within small groups to develop insights about personal leadership styles and how the styles might impact their success as leaders.
AAR Debriefing Process
A team facilitator, trained in action-learning coaching (Leonard & Freedman, 2013), observed and video recorded team meetings and as many one-on-one meetings with team members (of their own team as well as members of other teams) as possible. Although team facilitators did not intervene during the simulations themselves, they did lead an AAR debriefing process at the end of each morning or afternoon session. In addition to the standard AAR debriefing questions described earlier, team facilitators asked questions that focused directly upon the expression or demonstration of leadership as defined earlier (i.e., a commitment to getting results through people). Specifically, they asked students to identify incidents or behaviors that demonstrated the core strategies of directing, incenting, inspiring, or empowering. Following a model effectively used in action learning (Leonard & Freedman, 2013), students were asked to discuss when these behaviors were effective, when the behaviors could be modified to be more effective, and what specific changes would improve leadership efforts in the future.
Situation-Specific Individual and Team Feedback
Team coaches were instructed to review the videos of the previous day of the simulation and to select three or four “pivotal moments” when a team member’s behavior had a significant impact on the success of the team, positively or negatively. The team coach simply “teed-up” the video sequence and invited team members to discuss and analyze the video sequence. Coaches were instructed to let the team process the video sequence with limited guidance or facilitation in order to encourage team-led inductive learning. Each of the two video debriefing processes lasted 90 min
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
259A TEACHABLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
in order to encourage team members to thoroughly process the sequences with the aim of “deep” personal learning.
Course Outcomes
It is not possible to provide carefully controlled experimental evidence to demonstrate the advan- tages of the TML delivered using the pedagogical principles described above. However, student course evaluations provide strong support for the benefits of this model.
Prior to using the Leader Lab model, the author taught a 4-credit leadership course for a similar group of students enrolled in the same business school. The course presented the leadership strategies used in the case example; in fact, many of the same PowerPoint slides were used. The course also provided feedback from a number of popular leadership-assessment instruments that are used in developmental-assessment centers—measures of cognitive abilities and emotional intelli- gence, personality measures, and a comprehensive 360-degree-feedback survey focusing on lead- ership skills. In addition, the course featured the organizational simulation offered in Leader Lab but the debriefing and feedback processes were quite traditional and did not include the leadership- specific questions by the coaches or the video segments.
In sum, the content and instructors of Leader Lab and the course were the same and the student groups similar but the manner of introducing the leadership strategies and the processing of behavioral data during the simulation were quite different. The course used a more traditional expository-teaching approach, while Leader Lab emphasized an inductive, discovery/inquiry ap- proach to teach the curriculum. The course also provided considerably more feedback data about cognitive and emotional abilities, personality, and leadership competencies than Leader Lab.
The evaluations for the two, however, were strikingly different. Unfortunately, the evaluation questions for them were not the same. However, it is possible to compare overall ratings for the two. The mean student rating for the course was 3.6 out of 5, which is about the average rating for courses in this highly competitive business school. The mean rating for Leader Lab, however, was 4.58 (see Table 1). Specific ratings were even more striking. One student specifically noted the value of the video-clip discussions in critiques:
This simulation and the feedback from my peers was like having a mirror on hand at every moment of the day. I could see my interactions and behavior and get a clear look into my strengths and development areas. Athletes have access to film and coaching. They can see where they are strong and where they need to improve and have coaches who are invested in their success. This is what this class did for me. I got a chance to see what I did well when I hit a home run and what I did not do well when I struck out.
These evaluations, of course, do not provide evidence that Leader Lab did a better job developing leadership skills. It is clear, however, that students in it (a) believed that they had learned leadership skills that would be valuable in their careers, (b) believed that they had a better understanding of leadership competencies and strategies, and (c) were highly engaged in their own development as leaders. These ratings clearly address the first three levels of Kirkpatrick’s four
Table 1 Mean Course-Evaluation Ratings From Students in Leader Lab (18 of 24 Students Responding)
Course-evaluation question Ave. student rating
This course increased my knowledge and competence in the subject matter. 4.61 This course increased my interest in the subject matter. 4.56 This course provided me with concepts or skills necessary to succeed in business. 4.50 I would recommend this course to other students. 4.78 This course increased my understanding of leadership competencies and effective
leadership strategies. 4.61
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
260 LEONARD
levels of training assessment (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2007)—trainee reaction, learning, and behavior. Future evaluations, however, will need to assess the impact of the use of the TML in leadership training with respect to the effectiveness of leadership upon enterprise success (the fourth, and most important, level of effectiveness in the Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2007, model). In addition, future research on the TML should also evaluate the longer term impact of using the TML in LD processes as recommended by Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver, and Shotland (1997).
Summary
Our field suffers from the lack of a model of leadership that can easily be taught or included in LD programs in organizations or academic curricula. As a result, current leadership programming is often defined by the processes involved and individual leadership skills taught rather than by how to identify and develop strategies for achieving the desired organizational results. Developing leaders need a TML to provide guidance about which leadership skills to use in particular situations.
In this article I provide an alternative definition of leadership that focuses upon getting results through people. This definition nicely complements a framework proposed by Drath et al. (2008) that can be applied by leaders to achieve DAC. I also identify a set of leadership strategies proposed by Pearce et al. (2003) that provides a practical road map for applying leadership skills. These strategies can effectively be related to a set of social-psychological principles that are well understood and therefore can be effectively operationalized in an LD setting.
I also propose that the TML must be introduced within LD programming in conjunction with pedagogical principles that (a) emphasize inductive learning using inquiry and discovery rather than the more typical lecture/exercise model currently employed, (b) provide realistic and real-world opportunities to practice leadership skills, (c) offer opportunities for real-time feedback and process debriefing, and (d) include accountability for students to demonstrate improved leadership skills.
Finally, I provide a case example of an LD program that includes the TML and that employs the pedagogical principles described above. Evidence is included from course evaluations that demonstrate the value of this approach in improving LD programs. Although the case example does not provide definitive evidence for the efficacy of the TML, the student evaluations are promising, demonstrate the value of the teachable approach to leadership, and encourage additional experi- mentation and research.
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Wage inequities, productivity and work quality. Industrial Relations, 3, 916. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1963.tb00805.x
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrica, 52, 317–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02294359 Alberts, D. S., & Nissen, M. E. (2009). Toward harmonizing command and control with organization and
management theory. The International C2 Journal, 3, 1–59. Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S., Bennett, W. B., Traver, H., & Shotland, A. (1997). A meta-analysis of the
relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50, 341–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1997.tb00911.x
Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2011). Can charisma be taught? Tests of two interventions. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 374 –396. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0012
Avolio, B. J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: Made/born. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transactional and transfor-
mational leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organi- zational Psychology, 72, 441–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317999166789
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621
Axmith, M. (2004). Executive coaching: A catalyst for personal growth and corporate change. Ivey Business Journal, May/June. Retrieved from http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/executive-coaching-a- catalyst-for-personal-growth-and-corporate-change/
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
261A TEACHABLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1, 237–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(78)90012-7
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 601–607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0045550
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In J. G. Hunt, B. R.
Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 49 –80). Lexington, MA: D. C. Health.
Bennis, W. G. (1994). An invented life: Reflections on leadership and change. New York, NY: Perseus Books Group.
Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 62, 2–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.2
Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., & Bidwell, A. C. (1962). Managerial grid. Advanced Management, 1, 12–15. Boatman, J., & Wellis, J. E. (2011). Global leadership forecast. Pittsburgh, PA: Developmental Dimensions
International. Bohm, D. (2004). On dialogue (2nd ed.). Abington-on-Thames, United Kingdom: Routledge. Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research, & Practice, 16, 252–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0085885 Bracken, D. W., Timmereck, C. W., & Church, A. H. (2001). The handbook of multisource feedback. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for
construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harpers. Carkuff, R. (1969). Helping and human relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Center for Creative Leadership. (n.d.). Leading for organizational impact: The looking glass experience.
Retrieved from http://solutions.ccl.org/Leading_for_Organizational_Impact_The_Looking_Glass_Experience Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Corporate Executive Board. (2009, March 19). What drives leadership bench strength? [E-mail sent to all
members]. Learning and development roundtable. Washington, DC: Author. Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived leader integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee
perceptions of leader integrity. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 127–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048- 9843(98)90001-7
Darling, M. J., & Flanigan, D. C. (2008). What can leaders do? In P. Kumar & R. Ramsey (Eds.), Learning and performance matters (pp. 75–91). Toh Tuck Link, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1142/9789812771933_0005
Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581–613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00061-8
Day, D. V. (2005, April). Identifying, evaluating, and using indigenous leadership theories: Building leadership brand. In R. Kaiser (Chair), Making leadership research more relevant. Symposium conducted at the annual convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2001). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 356 –371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1936-4490.2000.tb00234.x
Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. New York, NY: Dover Publications. Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and
research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 36 –62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005
Drath, W. H., McCauley, C. D., Palus, C. J., Van Velsor, E., O’Connor, P. M. G., & McGuire, J. B. (2008). Direction, alignment, commitment: Toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 635–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.003
Drucker, P. F. (1967). The effective executive. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Drucker, P. F. (2008). The essential Drucker: Management, the individual and society. New York, NY: Harper
Business. Dundum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional
leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio & F. J.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
262 LEONARD
Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. 35–66). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: The John Adams Institute.
Egan, G. (2010). The skilled helper (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory
factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 1082-989X.4.3.272
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10627-000
Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 128 –148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0031454
Flanagan, J. C. (1951). Defining the requirements of the executive’s job. Personnel, 1, 28 –35. Fleenor, J. W., & Prince, J. M. (1997). Using 360-degree feedback in organizations: An annotated bibliography.
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 1–6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0056314 Fleishman, E. A. (1973). Twenty years of consideration and structure. In E. A. Fleishman & J. G. Hunt (Eds.),
Current developments in the study of leadership. Carbondale, IL: South Illinois University Press. Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Kevin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991).
Taxonomic efforts in the description of leadership behavior: A Synthesis and functional interpretation. The Leadership Quarterly, 2, 245–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(91)90016-U
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218 –226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Freedman, A. M. (2005). Swimming upstream: The challenge of managerial promotions. In R. Kaiser (Ed.), Filling the leadership pipeline (pp. 25–44). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory, measure- ment, and establishing a baseline. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1120 –1145.
Gardner, J. G. (1990). On leadership. New York, NY: Free Press. Gaspar, S. (1992). Transformational leadership: An integrative review of the literature (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Western Michigan University. Gebelein, S. H., Nelson-Neuhaus, K. J., Skube, C. J., Lee, D. G., Stevens, L. A., Hellervik, L. W., . . . Marasco,
L. (Eds.). (2010). Successful managers handbook (8th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: PreVisor. Gelso, C. J., & Hayes, J. A. (1998). The psychotherapy relationship: Theory, research, and practice. New York,
NY: Wiley. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market researchers.
London, United Kingdom: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849209236 Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspec- tive. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219 –247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (25th anniversary edition). New York, NY: Paulist Press. (Original work published 1977)
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0
Gummesson, E. (2000). Quantitative methods in management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hartman, L. G., & Waisman, C. S. (2005). The leadership training activity book: 50 exercises for building
effective leaders. New York, NY: AMACOM. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (3rd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hicks, M. D., & Peterson, D. B. (1999). The development pipeline: How people really learn. Knowledge
Management Review, 9, 30 –33. Hilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. (1966). Theories of learning (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective relationships. New York, NY: Free
Press. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace. House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. American Quarterly, 16, 321–338.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
263A TEACHABLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In H. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edges (pp. 189 –207). Carbondale, IL: South Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories of leadership. In M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81–107). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Hunt, J. G. (1996). Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hutchins, D. E., & Vaught, C. C. (1997). Helping relationships and strategies (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson
Brooks/Cole Publishing. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their
relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755 Kaiser, R. B., & Curphy, G. (2013). Leadership development: The failure of an industry and the opportunity for
consulting psychologists. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65, 294 –302. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035460
Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63, 96 –110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.96
Kaplan, R. E., & Kaiser, R. E. (2013). Fear your strengths: What you are best at could be your biggest problem. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. I. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin, C., & Floor, L. G. (1951). Human organization and worker motivation. In L. R.
Tripp (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2007). Implementing the four levels: A practical guide for effective
evaluation of training programs. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Knowles, M., Holton, E. F., III, & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult
education and human resource development (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson FT Press. Korn Ferry. (n.d.) Active Leader: Enabling enterprise perspective: Transformational leadership development
[fact sheet]. Retrieved from http://static.kornferry.com/media/sidebar_downloads/KF_ActiveLeader_ HR_08312016.pdf
Korn Ferry. (2015). Time2Change: Organizational assessment report: KF Migration Testing-5.1 T2C: The PROFILOR for business unit leaders. Retrieved from http://www.personneldecisions.com/360/ time2change_videos/Sample%20Group%20Report%20T2C.pdf
Kotter, J. P. (1999). John P. Kotter on what leaders really do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Book. Kraines, G. A. (2001). Accountability leadership: How to strengthen productivity through sound managerial
leadership. Franklin Lakes, NJ: The Career Press. Krippendorff, K. H. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. Leonard, H. S. (2005). When leadership development fails managers: Addressing the right gaps when developing
leadership. In R. Kaiser (Ed.), Filling the leadership pipeline (pp. 69 –84). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Leonard, H. S. (2014). Understanding the causal link between action, learning, and solutions: Maximizing the power of action learning to achieve great results. Action Learning Research and Practice, 12, 1–15.
Leonard, H. S., Freedman, A. M., & Kilburg, R. (2013). Tribal elders’ views of consulting psychology’s past, present, and future. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65, 266 –277. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0035494
Leonard, H. S., & Freedman, M. A. (2013). Great solutions through action learning: Success every time. Reston, VA: Learning Thru Action Publications.
Leonard, H. S., & Lang, F. (2010). Leadership development via action learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(2), 1–16.
Leonard, H. S., & Marquardt, M. J. (2010). The evidence for the effectiveness of action learning. Action Learning Research and Practice, 7, 121–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2010.488323
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1939.9713366
Likert, R. (1958). Effective supervision: An adaptive and relative process. Personnel Psychology, 11, 317–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1958.tb00020.x
Likert, R. (1959). Motivational approach to management development. Harvard Business Review, 37, 75–82. Locke, K. D. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
264 LEONARD
Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leader perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.402
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston, MA: Unwin-Hyman.
Lowe, K. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2001). Ten years of The Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and challenges for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 459 –514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00059-X
Lowe, K., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Marquardt, M. J., Leonard, H. S., Freedman, A. M., & Hill, C. (2009). Action Learning for developing leaders and organizations: Principles, strategies and cases. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper. Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for “intelligence.” American Psychologist, 28,
1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034092 McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Miltenberger, R. G. (2008). Behavioral modification: Principles and procedures. Belmont, CA: Thomson/
Wadsworth. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Moore, M., & Tschannen-Moran, B. (2010). Coaching psychology manual. Philadelphia, PA: Point/Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins. Munson, E. L. (1921). The management of men. New York, NY: Holt. Northhouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (1980). Organizational theory: An integrated approach. New York,
NY: Wiley. Oshry, B. (n.d.). Barry Oshry. Retrieved from http://seeingsystems.blogs.com/about.html Oshry, B. (2016). Power � Systems. Retrieved from https://www.powerandsystems.com Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pearce, C. L. (2007). Shared leadership workshop video. Mobile, AL: CLP Associates, LLC. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage. Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P., Jr., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K. A., & Trevino, L. (2003). Transactors,
transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical typology of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 22, 273–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710310467587
Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 565–596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01253.x
Pinder, C. (1984). Work motivation: Theories, issues, and applications. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., & Skov, R. (1982). Effects of leader contingent and noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 810 –821. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256100
Powell, C. (2012). It worked for me: In life and leadership. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Quinn, R. E., Bright, D., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., & McGrath, M. R. (1990). Becoming a master
manager, New York, NY: Wiley. Riggio, R. E. (2009, March 24). Are you a transformational leader? Psychology Today. Retrieved from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/200903/are-you-transformational-leader Robin, M., & Sendjaya, S. (2012, June 21–22). Leadership behaviors, employee engagement, and workplace
behaviors: A multi-level perspective. Paper presented at the 3rd Global Servant Leadership Round Table, Melbourne, Australia.
Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. T., & Wegner, D. M. (Eds.), (2010). B. F. Skinner: The role of reinforcement and punishment. Subsection. In Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 278 –288). New York, NY: Worth.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 863–871. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0022625
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
265A TEACHABLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
Schneider, S. K., & George, W. M. (2011). Sevant5 leadership versus transformational leadership in voluntary service organizations. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 32(1), 60 –77.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Shartle, C. L. (1950a). Leadership aspects of administrative behavior. Advanced Management, 15, 12–15. Shartle, C. L. (1950b). Studies of leadership by interdisciplinary methods. In A. G. Grace (Ed.), Leadership in
American education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Slater, J. (2004). Jack Welsh on leadership. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Spears, L. C. (2004). The understanding and practice of servant-leadership. In L. C. Spears & M. Lawrence
(Eds.), Practicing servant-leadership: Succeeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness (pp. 9 –24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stodgill, R. M. (1948). Personnel factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.
Tal, D., & Gordon, A. (2016). Leadership of the present, current theories of multiple involvements: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 107, 259 –269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1880-y
Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36, 95–101.
Thorndike, E. L. (1901). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Review Monograph, 1–109.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and its routinization in two social movement organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 113–164. In H. M. Trice & J. M. Beyer (1991, May). Cultural leadership in organizations. Organizational Science, 2(2), 149 –168.
Truman, H. S. (1958). Memoirs. New York, NY: Doubleday. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the
industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298 –318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.leaqua.2007.04.002
Ulrich, D., Zenger, J., & Smallwood, N. (1999). Results-based leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
U.S. Department of the Army. (2001). Field manual No. 3-0: Operations. Washington, DC: Author. van Dierendonk, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 27, 1228 –
1261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462 Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work
published 1924) Weber, M. (1946). The sociology of charismatic authority. In H. H. Mills and C. W. Mills (Eds.) From Max
Weber: Essays in sociology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1968). Max Weber on charisma and institutional building: Selected papers (S. N. Eisenstadt, Ed.).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization
Science, 16, 409 –421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 Williams, R. E. (1956). A description of some executive abilities by means of the critical incident technique
(Doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York, NY. Winter, D. G. (1979). An introduction to LMET theory and research. Boston, MA: McBer & Co. Witherspoon, R., Goldsmith, M., Lyons, L., & Freas, A. (Eds.). (2000). Coaching for leadership: How the
world’s greatest coaches help leaders learn. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulaus to rapidity of habit formation. The
Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459 –482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cne.920180503 Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55, 67–78.
Received November 29, 2016 Latest revision received July 12, 2017
Accepted July 17, 2017 �
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
266 LEONARD
- A TEACHABLE APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP
- The Crux of the Problem
- Why We Do Not Have a TML
- Management and Leadership Revisited
- The Problem With the Traditional Tripod Leadership Model
- A Results-Based Definition of Leadership
- The Confusion Between the Leadership Process and Leadership Competencies
- A Teachable Model of Leadership
- Leadership Strategies
- A Teachable Set of Leadership Strategies
- Directive
- Incentive-Based
- Inspiring
- Empowering
- Effective Pedagogical Principles for Teaching Leadership
- Involve and Engage the Learner in Action as Quickly as Possible
- Encourage Participants to Create Their Own Insights to Explain What Has Happened and What They A ...
- Provide Opportunities to Practice Leadership Skills in Realistic Settings
- Provide Opportunities for Real-Time Feedback and Process Debriefing
- Ensure That Participants Experience Accountability for Learning and Demonstrating Leadership Skills
- Case Example
- The Organizational Simulation
- Introduction of the TML
- AAR Debriefing Process
- Situation-Specific Individual and Team Feedback
- Course Outcomes
- Summary
- References
