GB600 Unit 02

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Volume 4, Number 1, 2010 ©2010 University of Phoenix

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI:10.1002/jls.20154 47

On the theme of personal development, this conceptual article aims to provoke thought about

power and influence in leadership by means of a short excursion into character depictions in J.R.R.

Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (1966). It is said of mythopoeic literature, the genre of Tolkien’s work,

that the very simplicity of the lens “pares away distractions,” “opens the way to unexpected con-

nections, . . . [and] draws attention to alternative modes of being and thinking” (Greene, 1994,

p. 457). Taking the liberty of perceived applicability of Tolkien’s literary genius to motifs on leader-

ship, this article provokes thinking on what constitutes “real” power and influence in leadership. It

is contended that demonstrating real power and influence in leadership lies not in coercive tactics

of wielding power over others but in withholding usurping power to work with and enable others

to achieve worthwhile ends. Three suggested markers of enabling or real power and influence in

leadership are explored. Each one contains an element of paradox. The proposed markers suggest,

in turn, that enabling or real power and influence does not usurp but serves, that it sublimates self-

interest for the interests of others and the intended goal, and that it positions for growth for the self

and others and fosters true engagement in leadership. The article offers some empirical evidence as

to the efficacy of the proposed markers for effective leadership and suggests a further research strat-

egy to test the proposed markers empirically.

E N A B L I N G O R “ R E A L ” P O W E R

A N D I N F L U E N C E I N

L E A D E R S H I P

GLENYS M. DREW

This article deploys the lens of myth and story to exam- ine leadership from a reading of some of J.R.R. Tolkien’s character depictions in The Lord of the Rings. The article suggests that a key facet in thinking about leadership is to consider the paradox inherent in questions of power

and influence in the leadership role. Why is this explo- ration important for leadership studies? It is said that stimulating and encouraging patterns on the part of the leader are critical to achieving genuine engagement in leadership, empowering and enabling others to act

48 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls

for achievement and personal freedom, while wielding power for selfish ends correlates with ultimate weakness and enslavement” (Drew, 1995, p. 13). Similarly, Drew and Bensley (2001) suggest that effective leadership is not founded on coercion, or indeed surveillance, but on the credibility of the leader to engage the willing in- volvement of others.

It is acknowledged that inevitably quotations from Tolkien’s large and significant trilogy are selective. My intent is simply to draw on quotations as depicting par- ticular themes, not purporting to reify the themes per se, nor to seek to analyze Tolkien’s work. The intent is to use the text illustratively to provoke thought on themes that, to this reader of Tolkien, resonate with themes of other authors touching on questions of power, influ- ence, and leadership. By way of background to some of the themes drawn forth, in The Lord of the Rings (here- after LotR), a Ring, representing the enervating effects of evil, entitles the holder to rule the world. The task of ridding the world of the Ring’s self-serving, enticing, but devastating power falls to the hobbit characters, Frodo and Samwise, at the behest of the aged hobbit, Bilbo, who is stretched and fatigued by his former own- ership of the Ring and its claims on him. At the start of the trilogy, these characters are among the inhabi- tants of a peaceful Shire at the center of Tolkien’s story. It is from this comfortable and efficiently functioning place that Frodo sets off, albeit daunted by the respon- sibility of bearing the Ring to its destruction point at the cracks of Mount Doom. Samwise, Frodo’s friend and “helpmeet,” quickly joins him and the two set their course toward the goal in view.

Frodo and Samwise clearly are differentiated in their status. Sam’s references to Frodo as “master” and as “Mr. Frodo,” even at the end of the trilogy, suggest this. An illustrative point that may be drawn forth proposes the efficacy of a style of leadership that readily subli- mates notions of status and hierarchy to work ethically with others, serving and enabling others to achieve shared goals (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). The concept aligns with the views of Avolio and Gardner (2005), paraphrased by Wong and Cummings (2009) thus: “emerging from theoretical discussions on the moral and ethical foundations of leadership is a focus on dis- tilling the core elements of positive approaches to lead- ership,” resulting in the concept of “authentic

(Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Empirical findings in orga- nizational leadership show that a blend of human- centered attributes as well as more instrumental skills and knowledge is, in fact, critical to leaders being perceived as effective (Drew, Ehrich, & Hansford, 2008; Scott, Coates, & Anderson, 2008). However, a development-oriented, supportive culture is not the over- whelming experience of people in organizations (Drew, 2009; Richards, 2008). Nevertheless, organizational lead- ers invariably are charged with engaging and mobilizing staff in achieving goals. The article proposes a principle that may shed light at this point. Perhaps paradoxically, benevolent use of power and influence enabling and em- powering others denotes strength, rigor, and potentially rich outcomes, while power wielded for its own sake, or for selfish ends, may appear “powerful” but could denote weakness, stultification, and compromised outcomes. Barnett (2004), Collins (2001), De Pree (2003), and Kouzes and Posner (2002) imply the principle. Hence the issue of power and influence in leadership is offered as important to explore in leadership studies.

The article proposes three markers of enabling or “real” power and influence in leadership, and it ac- knowledges the note of paradox that is inherent in each marker. Paradox, according to Kainz (1988), lies at the heart of any significant consideration in human experi- ence, and the blending and countering function of op- posite concepts, the unique strength of paradox, is argued by Kainz to be an insightful vehicle in examin- ing aspects of the human condition, particularly in re- lation to notions of power and influence.

Pertinent to the theme, for example, McIntyre (1994) suggests that there are those in human society who get their own way and those who do not; however, the problem (McIntyre suggests) is that the powerful “are not necessarily harder working, more intelligent or more admirable than the rest [but rather] the exact op- posite is often the case” (pp. 4, 5). It is proposed that genuine power and influence reverses the power para- digm, where the leader focuses primarily on the vision ahead more than (demonstrably) on self and partners with and enables others to reach shared goals. A reading of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings suggests an inversion of conventional perceptions about power, with an implicit argument that “resisting the usurpation of power demonstrates strength and creates greater possibilities

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls 49

The paradox put by Hoban (1980) that “the only power is no power” (paraphrased; p. 197) assists an ar- gument that may be inferred in Tolkien’s work: that self- aggrandizing power, in its bid to grab power, ultimately reduces the self, while resisting the exercise of usurping power expands the self and increases one’s potential for productive influence and authority. Frodo and Sam, to the extent they sublimate self and concentrate on the goal before them, grow in personal mastery and confi- dence and become more capable of achieving greatness. The discussion that follows offers, from Tolkien’s vi- brant character depictions, three propositions as mark- ers of authentic power and influence. Indeed, Clark (2000), Filmer (1992a, 1992b), and Head (2007) have drawn insightfully from Tolkien’s imagery to consider various aspects of the human condition, including, if indirectly, the leadership relationship. Filmer (1992a) and Head (2007) have cited paradoxical elements in their readings and analyses of Tolkien’s work. Barr (1973) asserts that “a poem, or a work of art, is not to be judged on the basis of what the author intended, but on the basis of what [the author] produced”; also that “any lit- erary appreciation implies, or induces, or is related to, a general view of the world, a way of understanding life” (pp. 22, 32–33). As the author of this article, I acknowl- edge bias and personal values inevitably in play in read- ing all literature; one’s reading of a text, indeed one’s viewing a word picture as “imagery,” is no more or less valid than another’s. However, in this article the per- ceived imagery is adopted as a scaffold for considering issues of power and influence in leadership.

Drawing from Tolkien’s trilogy and other leadership literature, I discuss three markers of enabling or real power and influence in leadership. A key question is, Is there scholarly empirical evidence to support the claims made? The discussion of each marker includes some empirical evidence from a published research study con- ducted with a group of university leaders. The study asked how those leaders identified effective leadership from the standpoint of being beneficiaries, in a sense, of the leadership of others. The study also asked the par- ticipants how they best learned as leaders. The findings suggested that “giving” and “supportive” forms of lead- ership appeared to have the most positive impact. The methodology and further information about that study is reported in the relevant paper (Drew et al., 2008).

leadership” (p. 7). This article suggests that one of the core elements of positive or enabling approaches to lead- ership is the leader’s perceived credibility to engage the willing involvement of others, part of which has to do with the values the leader demonstrates in use of power and influence.

In Tolkien’s story, the holder of the Ring is able to appropriate its power for self-aggrandizement. As did the aged Bilbo before him, Frodo battles with that “strange desire” to use the power that could be his for self-aggrandizement, or to use it for beneficial, greater good. Charged with the responsibility to rid the world of the Ring’s tantalizing and destructive power, Frodo knows the course he should take but is deflected from his quest in the measure to which he uses the Ring for selfish gain. At those times when Frodo succumbs, he realizes that he stands, in more important ways, to lose. This reminds us, at base, that the ability to reflect on one’s actions is a most vital leadership capability. Because Frodo reflects, and because he is committed to a greater, wider goal for good, Frodo recognizes self-interest as vulnerability—as risk, in fact, for the self: “I am naked in the dark, Sam, and there is no veil between me and the wheel of fire [the Ring]. I begin to see it even with my waking eyes, and all else fades” (Tolkien, Return of the King, p. 258). Frodo acknowledges the pitfalls, acknowl- edges the greater benefits of maintaining integrity and self-control, and achieves beyond himself. These motifs all may illustrate a principle that worthwhile fruition and greater personal fulfilment tend to mark power that serves, while vain power harms not only others but the usurper as well. It is in this sense that the term enabling (or real) power and influence is used.

The destructive effects of self-interest are most obvi- ous in the fallen Gollum, whose earlier ownership of the Ring and his obsession to reclaim it has robbed him of his personhood, and with it the ability to choose. Gollum’s “grievous marks,” “lean, starved, haggard” (Return of the King, chap. 3, p. 266) are not the marks of strength but of weakness. Worn away with the Ring’s claims on him, Gollum is depicted as “maimed forever, becoming a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in the shadows” (chap. 9, p. 185). As Bacon (1968) re- flects, “It is a strange desire, to seek power, and to lose liberty; or to seek power over others, and to lose power over [one]self ” (p. 546).

50 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls

Enabling or Real Power and Influence Does Not Usurp But Serves

It is said that leaders who serve—who put the interests of the goal before their own—are credible leaders capa- ble of earning respect as they model the way and enable others to act (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). A juxtaposition between the empowering effects of serving others and the usurping power of self-interest is well made in Tolkien’s character depictions. It is contended that power that serves begets achievement, empowering and motivating others. Such a leader tends to act as partner, steward, or tutor, channeling, as it were, intellectual en- ergy (Sveiby & Lloyd, 1987). In Tolkien’s trilogy, real- izing goals for the common good is vibrantly illustrated in the service attitude of Frodo the “Ring-bearer” and his helpmeet, Sam. In the story, the two demonstrate energy in service and commitment that enlarges and fulfills the self, contrasting against the motif of self- interest as enslavement.

It is posited that a demonstration of power and in- fluence that serves fosters the willing engagement of others. The relationship between Frodo and Sam sug- gests the idea of leadership vesting less in a role and more in an attitude of partnering and service, far re- moved from the notion of coercion. The relationship between the two characters is one of interdependent sol- idarity, where imperfect personalities operating in mu- tually deferential relationship create a synergy correlating with wholeness and forward movement. Frodo and Sam are the verisimilitude of effective part- nering, the more plausible for the flaws exhibited in both characters. Frodo bears the weight of responsibil- ity, yet it is through a collapsing and at times a reversal, of roles that success is achieved. Sam’s commitment in support of the goal is maintained throughout the quest. The helpmeet becomes the leader at times to ensure that the pair retain a sense of mission: “‘Now for it! Now for the last gasp!’ said Sam as he struggled to his feet . . . Sam looked at [Frodo] . . . ‘I said I’d carry him, if it broke my back,’ he muttered, ‘and I will!’ ” (Return of the King, p. 262). It might be said that passion for the goal and a serving, partnering attitude create an effectual environ- ment that, against odds, sees the victory won. Drew (2008) argues that artful leadership involves creating an environment supporting participation and

involvement while according to Oliver (2001) effective leadership is experienced as mutual support, inspira- tion, and encouragement. The problem with coercive behavior in leadership (an oxymoron at best) is that oth- ers may acquiesce perfunctorily, but where no positive relationship exists allegiance is likely to be soulless and temporary.

The futility of leading by coercion is implied by Tolkien when Gandalf, wise elder and friend, observes: “Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let [the Ring] go, nor will to manage it. And I could not ‘make’ you— except by force, which would break your mind. But as for breaking the Ring, force is useless” (Fellowship of the Ring, p. 90). Peck (1990) comments that “coercive tac- tics” will do more to “create than ameliorate havoc” (p. 271), and for all its apparent success, coercive power displays a hollowness that tends to leave little of value behind and demonstrates meager genuine influence. It is proposed that genuine power and influence that serves and involves others is not founded on legalism or coer- cion but on credibility.

A reading of Tolkien may suggest that coercion aimed at trying to get others to “perform” in a certain way wars against itself because it lacks credibility or ethical ap- peal, depending only on the thin thread of a sinecure role to exert its authority. For example, in Tolkien’s tril- ogy Aragorn (who is perceived by some critics as prefig- uring Christ) has true power but serves others. Aragorn tells Lady Eowyn, “There is a road out of this valley, and that road I shall take” (Return of the King, p. 61). Lady Eowyn is filled with dismay at what it might cost the traveler to take such a course. Aragorn’s reply, “but at least I will adventure it. No other road will serve” (Re- turn of the King, p. 61), comprises words of greatness and humility that bespeak credibility as he sublimates self to use (as it were) imputed power and influence to assist the greater good. This is resonant of exousia, a Greek word for “power” meaning “derived or conferred ‘authority,’ the warrant or right to do something” (Douglas, 1970, p. 1017). Erwin (1988) argues a similar principle in the life and teachings of Jesus, who reverses the power paradigm, putting “no pressure on the masses to submit to the leader” (p. 56); instead, the principle that “whoever will be chief among you, let him [sic] be your servant” applies (pp. 55–56). Credibility, it is said, is the dynamic currency of leadership (Leavy, 2003) and is

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls 51

fundamental to building vital trust (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). It is said that credible leaders model the way and enable others to act (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).

Leader credibility lies at the heart of the paradoxical combination of strong professional will and humility found to be so effectual in organizational transforma- tion in the large-scale research of Collins (2001). Un- concerned about who receives the credit, leaders in Collins’s research (2001) who took their companies from “good to great” (p. 188) were those who inspired and supported others, were listeners and learners, and worked with resolution to see goals fulfilled. In LotR, the journeymen see the active engagement of others who join them at different stages of the enterprise and they nurture and value these fellow-travelers. At one point, Frodo says to his “most beloved hobbits” (his fel- low companions), “You do not understand. This is no treasure-hunt, no there-and-back journey. I am flying from deadly peril into deadly peril.” “ ‘Of course we un- derstand,’ said Merry; ‘that is why we have decided to come’ ” (Fellowship of the Ring, p. 146). The evocation is that partnership and mutual encouragement fed their resolution and sealed their ability to succeed. One reads of their travail: “No listener would have guessed from their words that they had suffered cruelly, and had been in dire peril . . . or that even now, as they knew well, they had little chance of ever finding friend or safety again” (Two Towers, p. 71). The humility of learning from hardship and success in the leadership role, shar- ing these experiences with others, is said to be pertinent to growth in leadership. Adair (2005) implies that great benefits may be found in sharing experiences as leader- ship learners, reading about others’ experiences, and ap- plying learning from the shared life journeys of others.

Is there empirical evidence to test a claim that ef- fective leadership primarily serves rather than usurps? The study of Drew and colleagues (2008) explored what a group of university leaders in academic and ad- ministrative roles identified as effective leadership, and how they best learned as leaders. Notions of service and empowerment predominated in the responses of participants in answering these research questions. For example: “Leaders provide guided thinking. They don’t solve problems for people but engage people in solving problems” (Drew et al., 2008, p. 10). Also, “I don’t think of myself as a leader [but as] someone in the

group. For me, the best is to say: ‘We did the impos- sible; we did a great thing’. . . . In fact, if I am a leader they are incredibly important moments because I have brought the potential of the group to realization” (p. 15).

London (2002) asserts that the point of reflective tools and practice in leadership is for leaders to measure the extent to which followers perceive empowering be- havior in the leader. The assertion would seem to align with findings of another study, by Rafferty and Neale (2004), which investigated the open comments made by respondents in completing the Quality Leadership Profile 360-degree leadership feedback survey. The Lex- imancer-based study found that the substance of raters’ open comments when they answered the survey on leaders related most to the presence or absence of sup- portive and empowering characteristics. This suggested that a “service” or “giving” orientation in leadership was “top of mind” for raters.

Enabling or Real Power and Influence Sublimates Self-Interest for the Interests of the Goal The third hallmark captures an underpinning premise that enabling or real power and influence in leadership in a sense “dies to self ” so that worthwhile purposes, of greater value than those of self-interest, might be achieved. Kainz (1988) claims that any significant state in human experience cannot be understood apart from its opposite, as paradox insightfully works “to reproduce intellectually the actual reciprocity that obtains between opposites” (p. 44). The paradoxical proposition that genuine power results from giving rather than taking is articulated in “An Allegory Unveiled” by Filmer (1992a, p. 20), who suggests that if LotR is seen to have “any significant apologetic message” it is that of the “five- times-iterated message of the gospel . . . that ‘he that holds on to his life shall lose it, and he that loses his life shall find it’ ” (Luke 17:33). In Tolkien’s trilogy, Frodo’s helpmeet, Samwise, is the more effectual for being unimpeded by a need to satisfy his own ego. He focuses resolutely on the mission rather than on himself. In a sense, he displays a quality of leadership that, in a sense, dies to self so that greater purposes might be attained. Writing of Tolkien’s trilogy, Lakowski (2002) observes

52 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls

King, p. 271). Even so, of Sam we read: “In all that ruin of the world for the moment [Sam] felt only joy, great joy. The burden was gone. His master had been saved; he was himself again, he was free” (p. 271). A related point is that success did not require the adulation of others to produce fulfillment, suggesting again that lead- ing for worthwhile purposes reaps its own rewards of success and growth. The Shire had fallen into self- involved legalistic bureaucracy while the vanquishing pair battled dangers to fulfill greater purpose. Simply, the Shire did not notice the pair’s return (chap. 8), being too embroiled in petty power battles to apprehend that a greater victory had been won. Referring to “the an- cients,” Chesterton (1955) sees the problem of hu- mankind’s fallen nature as “a thread of subconscious awareness,” and “the need for restoration” as a univer- sal human hope and need (p. 96). These motifs are closely related to the notion of community. In the orga- nizational context, Fredrickson (2003) argues the pro- found influence of a positive work environment for effective performance.

In LotR, rule making and rule monitoring had taken over the Shire, eroding “community” spirit and sapping life and energy: “There are hundreds of sheriffs and as many rules. If I hear ‘not allowed’ much oftener, said Sam, I’m going to get angry” (Return of the King, p. 341). The “Old Grange” and the “Party Tree . . . under which Bilbo had made his Farewell Speech,” artifacts symbol- izing meaning in community, had been torn down (p. 360). Trakman (2007) notes the damaging effects of deviating from a process of integrity where, for ex- ample, perceived impending crises relating to gover- nance prompt governing bodies to institute exaggerated changes that in fact tend to protract poor governance practice. It might be argued that legalism forgets vision, cares little for growth and development of self and oth- ers, and perpetuates a litigious system that may become quite disconnected from the ends it purports to serve. As the antithesis of a dying-to-self model, in such situ- ations, instead of being empowered as the legitimate subjects of an institution or decision-making process and rather as “subordinated subjects” (Fiske, 1989, p. 58), members become victims of the institution meant to serve them.

A critical value demonstrated in the partnership of Frodo and Samwise is that of humility and fierce

a progression, suggesting that at the start of the story there has been little to challenge Sam, who seems sure of himself and a little conceited, but the more Sam is challenged the more he learns and grows, and in turn the more humility he demonstrates. His support role becomes the role of leader as, at the last, he carries Frodo to the point of victory, carrying his master forward to dispatch the Ring. In contrast, Saruman, in a bid to be- come greater and believing himself to be great, loses by his own hand the greatness that he once had (Head, 2007).

Lady Galadriel’s character connotes the “real power” of resisting what would subvert one’s best ideals and goals: “I pass the test, I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel” (Fellowship of the Ring, p. 475). When Frodo entreats Gandalf: “You are wise and power- ful. Will you not take the Ring?” p. 91), Gandalf ’s re- sponse is unequivocal: “No! . . . , With that power I should have power too great and terrible. . . . The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it [strength]. Great perils lie before me” (p. 91). The implication for leadership is that of a moral dimension in that those who are truly great serve not themselves but others, and out of their desire to contribute genuinely such leaders acknowledge, as a po- tential pitfall and peril, misusing their power, author- ity, and influence. This also suggests the benefits of leaders’ being aware of how success is measured in par- ticular contexts and frequently reappraising perceived success through the filter of their values. Manganiello (1992) infers from the text that Frodo’s character also grows considerably in personhood or spiritual stature during the journey. In fact, the characters’ disquisition seems to be set on a search for personal authenticity and growth that bears fruit beyond themselves. Frodo says: “I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them, but you are my heir” (Re- turn of the King, p. 376).

The evocation is that when selfishness is put aside, integrity then may drive a process of wholeness so that not only the goal is reached but a denouement of growth and fulfilment occurs for those involved. Sam rejoices that in his master’s eyes there was “peace now, neither strain of will, . . . nor any fear” (Return of the

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls 53

measuring the contributions individuals make to reach- ing key organizational success. It is here that thinking on leadership as art, and a century of theory and writ- ing on the subject of leadership, meets the incisiveness of Tolkien’s literary work (1966) to inspire personal de- velopment in leadership, regardless of whether the mantle of leadership is carried formally or informally. In organizational settings, it is said, positive and en- abling leaders contribute to building positive and enabling cultures as they reward constructive, ethical behavior, recognize others’ contributions, and seek to develop staff at all levels of the organization (Drew, 2009). Ideally, then, the real “power” of leadership is the “power to empower,” vesting in “ostensibly valuing and truly ‘engaging’ staff in the advancement of organi- zational goals, . . . sharing knowledge capital appropri- ately and freely, and . . . exploring flexible work modes that maximise efficiency while recognizing staff mem- bers as ‘whole persons’ ” (Drew & Bensley, 2001, p. 68). The motif here is that usurping power and self- interest tends to stultify and deny useful result, while a vigorous, rigorous culture begets action for collective achievement.

The participants in the study reported by Drew and colleagues (2008) asserted that they learned most as leaders from other leaders who were genuine, humble, and credible. Such leaders, participants said, “promoted an environment that fostered growth of leadership in others, opened doors for staff, and helped create oppor- tunities” (p. 7). One participant described a “brilliant example of a leader” (p. 8) this way: “He didn’t demand respect, he earned respect. He was a humble person and he had credibility. People follow a person like that. The environment that he created was one of trust” (p. 8). Moreover, the large-scale research undertaken by Collins and team (2001) reports that leaders taking their or- ganizations to positions of sustained outstanding suc- cess possessed the paradoxical combination of humility and fierce resolve, or strong professional will. The Collins study, too, situates effective leadership squarely with leaders who eschew self-interest for the interests of the team and the goal in view, and who invest rigor- ously in the growth of self and others. Similar notions of vigor, rigor, and action are bywords of the third pro- posed marker of enabling or real power and influence in leadership, discussed next.

resolve to act: “But I will always help you,” said Sam, “I will help you bear this burden, as long as it is yours to bear. But we must do something, soon. The Enemy is moving” (Fellowship of the Ring, p. 92). It is notewor- thy that leaders who took their organizations from “good to great” (p. 188) in the large-scale research proj- ect reported by Collins were action takers who engen- dered a rigorous environment and who possessed uniquely this paradoxical combination of “humility and strong professional will” (Collins, 2001, p. 39). Filmer (1992b) writes that “all readers might be encouraged to hope that they might share with . . . Frodo the quali- ties of Pity, Mercy, Humility and endurance which con- tribute to the success of the quest” (p. 31).

At multiple levels, the idea of dying to self is a propo- sition about seizing a quality of life that, paradoxically, allows an enlargement of the self—an expansion of one’s world for learning, discovery, and growth. The image is one of self-awareness and self-development and is reminiscent of Peck’s proposition (1990) that it is only through a process of questioning and reappraisal that we begin to become aware “that the whole point of life is the development of souls” (p. 200). Drawing illustra- tively finally from LotR, I made a point earlier in this article concerning clear differentiation of status in the characters of Frodo and Sam in Tolkien’s trilogy, yet the sharper evocations, at least to me, are sublimation of status to the achievement of wider good. Sam takes the leadership role on many occasions during the quest and, as Filmer (1992a) puts it, was highly instrumental in reaching the goal. The motif obviously enough suggests the richness of individual and collaborative accomplish- ment through preparedness to ignore status and work together as a team, but signals, to me, a subtly wider message that leaders do not thrive in isolation but in community with others. It is sometimes said that lead- ership at the top is a lonely role where it is difficult to confide in others. Peck (1990) argues that high-order leadership patterns can thrive only when leaders are “emotionally sustained in community” (p. 324) and that leaders do not thrive in “a climate of competitive isola- tion in which idealism and humaneness are crushed” (p. 324). Leaders, at their best, are facilitators who har- ness the talent of others.

Wondra (2009) points to talent management in leadership studies that focus on acknowledging and

54 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls

Lady Galadriel’s words are empowering, and her faith in Frodo is based on predictability that he will freely choose to take responsibility. Lady Galadriel says to Frodo: “I do not counsel you one way or another . . . you may learn something. . . . Seeing is both good and perilous. Yet I think, Frodo, that you have courage and wisdom enough for the venture, or I would not have brought you here. Do as you will!” (Fellowship of the Ring, p. 471) It may be said that Frodo and Sam grow in their capacity to make sound decisions and to meet and conquer challenge. Also, their capacity to achieve is fueled by the confidence that others place in them.

In a research study of a sample of leaders in one Aus- tralian university (Drew et al., 2008), the question was asked what, in the respondents’ experience, constituted the most effective leadership. Many participants spoke of beneficial interactions with leaders in the past who had taken them out of their comfort zone (Kouzes and Posner, 2002) and had given background support in challenging situations. Some reported that going through difficult team situations, with the support of their leader, had gradually built their resilience and con- fidence to lead (Drew et al., 2008). Further, Undung and De Guzman (2009) report research involving a group of Filipino academic administrators. The find- ings showed that empathy played a pivotal role in suc- cessful educational leadership practice, as well as demonstrating the importance of the leader having the humaneness of caring, listening, and interacting—of, in effect, journeying together with staff. This suggests the merits of paying attention to the personal develop- ment of self and others in organizations, gradually building resilience (including the capacity to change and grow; Wheatley, 2003). In Tolkien’s trilogy, gradu- ally, Frodo and Sam learn to rely more on building their own capacities to surmount difficulty than on hoping circumstances will be favorable.

In turn, it is suggested that part of self- and organiza- tional development is developing a culture of discipline (Collins, 2001). This involves preparedness to appraise situations rigorously and tackle the core issues rather than the superficial, convenient ones. Collins offers that, in the organizational environment, this includes criti- cally appraising work priorities, and identifying what is important and which activities are not adding value.

Enabling or Real Power and Influence Denotes Not Weakness but Strength The final paradox proposed is that enabling or real power and influence eschews “soft,” uncritical ap- proaches in favor of rigor, building what Collins de- scribes as a “culture of discipline” (2001, p. 130). Collins argues: “Fill the culture with self-disciplined people who are willing to go to extreme lengths to ful- fil their responsibilities” (p. 124). In Tolkien’s trilogy, the questing characters are fully committed; they com- municate honestly and openly, reflect on failures, and learn from their errors. The characters knew dejection, deflection from task, and the defection of co-workers, but they mitigated the stress of those events by attend- ing to developing (it might be said) a culture of disci- pline. They remained persistently within the “flow” of their mission, held, in the words of Chopra (2006), by the “balance” of shared goals and by the “oars” of their “core values” (pp. 5–95). It might be suggested that leadership was experienced in terms of a disciplined “patterning” formed as members dealt with day-to-day issues, handled conflict, and resolved setbacks. Such pat- terning, argues Barnett (2004), is a critical first princi- ple in successfully navigating change, and useful patterning is assisted when leaders and teams con- sciously attend as much to ontological (way of being) factors as to epistemological (knowledge-based) factors in carrying out their roles. Collins (2001) asserts the importance of getting the right people into the organ- ization, pointing to “the degree of sheer rigor needed in people decisions in order to take a company from good to great” (p. 44). Scott and colleagues (2008), research- ing the university leadership environment in Australia, find that capabilities around self-organization and self- regulation in the leadership role are vital. Similarly, Schein (2003) points to positive behaviors within or- ganizations gradually creating a “common set of as- sumptions . . . forged by clear and consistent messages as the group encounters and survives its own crises” (p. 438).

The proposition, here, is that within a culture of dis- cipline people are encouraged to act in ways that are conducive to reaching the goal. Collins (2001) pro- poses: “Build a culture around the idea of freedom and responsibility, within a framework” (p. 124). Concomi- tantly, in LotR, responding to Frodo’s fear, the gracious

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls 55

From Tolkien’s word picture, Frodo, preparing himself for his assault on Mount Doom and the destruction of the Ring, discards his shield, belt, and helmet to rid himself of weight instead of confronting the real weight that he bears in his love-hate relationship with the Ring. One might posit that (with similar avoidance as for leaders in organizations) humankind may tackle the “convenient” superficial issues and fail to address the underlying, core issues. Gandalf cautions Frodo not to lean on false solutions and risk missing the best: “A mor- tal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life. . . . And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he ‘fades’ . . . and walks in the twilight” (Fellowship of the Ring, p. 72). This motif is reminiscent of the risk of falling to mediocrity in the organizational leadership context. A related motif from Tolkien illustrates the hol- low, vacuous nature of usurping power.

In LotR, the questing characters relinquish self-serving power, win a great goal, and experience fulfillment, while the individuals set to benefit from the triumph wield power over others and disintegrate into chaos. In the trilogy, when the victors return to their home, the Shire is in disarray. The ruffians—the feisty rule mak- ers of the embattled Shire—for all their protestations about their own power are no match for the hobbits, who have been imbued with strength born of unselfish determination in order to see equity and peace again abound. We read: “Scaring Breeland peasants, and bul- lying bewildered hobbits, had been their [the ruffians’] work. These fearless hobbits with bright swords and grim faces were a great surprise” (Return of the King, p. 346). The words “And there was a note in the voices of these newcomers that they [the ruffians] had not heard before. It chilled them with fear” (p. 346) are to me some of the most searching in the text. The tone in the hobbits’ voices that the ruffians heard and that caused their attitude to change is suggested as the sound of true power—genuine and alive with hard-won authority— against which cheap, usurping power could find no measure. That the ruffians “turned and fled” and “blew their horns as they ran” (p. 346) is somewhat metonymic of vacuous, self-inscribed dominance. It might be pro- posed that rigorous cultures have little place for self-in- scribed dominance, for fatuous, empty claims or quick-fix approaches but are geared to action, capability

building, and achievement. It might be inferred from Tolkien that, paradoxically, self-absorption reduces and enervates the self while giving of oneself expands and invigorates the self.

If one concludes that supportive and other-centered leadership may be dismissed as soft or uncritical, this is belied by Collins’s research (2001), which found rigor, self-organization, and follow-through to be vital. The study by Drew and colleagues (2008) concluded simi- larly. For example, one participant said: “The leader must be able to instil confidence in you concerning his/her capacity to lead. Saying ‘there is a problem’ where there is one, and ‘let’s fix it’ is important” (p. 8). Again, research findings in the study reveal a blend of rigor with a supportive style to see matters accomplished as a recurrent theme in the statements of participants about effective leaders. As an example: “One needs to blend sincerity with organisational skills, as one can gen- uinely mean to do something, but if they [sic] can’t or- ganise themselves it won’t get done, despite their sincerity. That’s the type of leader I look for” (p. 8). Trakman (2007) agrees with the recurrent message that real power and influence is marked by rigor and cau- tions against organizations, faced with sudden challenge, resorting to ill-considered directives that result in mi- cromanagement, eroding morale, and trust. It is argued that these markers are fundamental to leadership where the remit of the leadership mantle is to engage and mo- tivate people.

Conclusion Le Guin (1979) argues that the mythopoeic genre com- municates through words in much the same way that music communicates through sound; that myth and story “short-circuit the verbal reasoning [and] . . . are pro- foundly meaningful, and usable—practical—in terms of ethics, of insight, of growth” (p. 62). My reading of The Lord of the Rings has attempted to exemplify some proposed markers of positive power and influence in lead- ership. A central theme has been posited that “the down- ward submission of the greatest” to become as servants is the place of genuine authority, influence, and credibil- ity (Erwin, 1988), arguing a paradoxical principle from this literature that the world of the self expands the more it gives and, conversely, narrows the more it centers on self alone. It has been interpolated from Tolkien (1966)

56 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls

education leadership (Middlehurst, 2007). Middle- hurst states:

The intention is . . . to challenge traditional ap-

proaches and conceptions of leadership and manage-

ment development in the higher education sector in

order to increase levels of engagement, demonstrate

the personal and professional benefit of such devel-

opment, and highlight (and test) different pedagogi-

cal approaches. (p. 54)

This article invites a follow-up empirical study to test the proposed markers of positive power and influence in leadership by conducting research on what a sample of organizational constituents view specifically as demon- strations of enabling or real power and influence. Find- ings could be compared with empirical research undertaken on caring, empathy, and humaneness by Undung and De Guzman (2009), who suggest that em- pathy “creates and maintains a sound and dynamic inter- personal milieu” (p. 1). Such investigation might usefully twin with research to explore empirically Wondra’s ref- erence (2009) to the “special gifts of knowledge, skills, and personal characteristics that individuals bring to or- ganisations” (p. 1), to determine what these might be and whether they relate to the markers proposed in this article. The investigation could build on the empirical research results from the study of a sample of university leaders (Drew et al., 2008) reported in this article.

Why are these understandings important? Leadership studies have argued for some time the importance of at- tending to the human qualities of caring, empathy, and humaneness. It is said that such attending “creates and maintains a sound and dynamic interpersonal mi- lieu” that is vital to engagement (Undung & De Guzman, 2009, p. 1). One acknowledges, with Adair (2005), that there is no one way to lead effectively and that context and situation play a large part in how leadership is en- acted; but also that leadership is best understood at a personal level, and leaders must know themselves and be clear about what they are aiming to achieve in order to be effective (Miller, 2006). It is argued that testing one’s approach to leadership through the lens of how one ap- prehends power and influence in the role is important in leadership thinking and practice. Testing the three proposed markers of enabling or real power and influ- ence and comparing the data with such other relevant

that leadership is effective when it invokes the engage- ment of others, consistent with the notion that “genuine power that influences society for good serves not self but others, and . . . therein [in fact] lies genuine, authorita- tive influence” (Drew, 1995, p. 15).

Further, it has been implied that a usurping, legalis- tic style, although tending to reproduce a similar legal- istic response in people, may inhibit useful result, whereas leadership that is generous, outwardly focused, and contributing to its environment invites others to engage and reciprocate in the same spirit. The discus- sion noted Tolkien’s character depictions in the demise of the Shire, which contrasted the hollow “horn-blowing” “noise” of usurping power against the truer rigor of gen- uine authority, credibility, and action. Indeed, it has been argued that leaders who are focused not on wield- ing power but on empowerment invest in relationships and may leave a legacy. Such leaders, committed to the realization of their own and others’ potential, in a sense “reproduce themselves” as they “take others to their own places of independent and unique capability and cri- tique, operating on a platform that is not endlessly up- held in a spirit of frustration or exhaustion” (Drew & Bensley, 2001, p. 64). Evidence of the importance of the notion of empowerment and supportive leadership patterns was noted from published research investigat- ing the view of leaders themselves. The findings revealed that leaders they had known who operated in an other- focused rather than self-focused way, and who com- bined supportive behavior with rigor, had been, in their view, most effective.

The limitations of this conceptual article, supported by limited theoretical literature and recent preliminary research, are acknowledged. In drawing from Tolkien, I have purported not to analyze Tolkien’s work as a whole or explicate theoretically the notion of “posi- tive” human behavior. This reading of selected themes from Tolkien’s trilogy and theoretical text is intended to provoke thought on some of the paradoxes in lead- ership relating to power and influence. In support of using unconventional means such as drawing on myth and story to explore concepts, the United Kingdom Leadership Foundation, for example, supports deploy- ing a variety of modes, including use of stories and theater, to build self-awareness on concepts relating to increasing “other-engagement” capability in higher

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls 57

D. Timmons (Eds.)., Contributions to the study of science fiction and fantasy, 89 (pp. 39–51). Westport CT: Greenwood.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others don’t. New York: HarperCollins.

De Pree, M. (2003). What is leadership? In Business leadership (pp. 65–71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Douglas, J. D. (Ed.). (1970). The new Bible dictionary. London: Intervarsity Press.

Drew, G. (1995). The portrayal of power in Lewis and Tolkien. Perspectives, 48, 13–15, 30–31.

Drew, G. (2008). An artful learning framework for organisations. Journal of Management & Organization, 14, 504–520.

Drew, G. (2009). Leadership and organisational culture: Can the CEO and executive leadership teams in bureaucratic organisations influence organisational culture? Academic Leadership OnLine Jour- nal, 7(1), 1–8.

Drew, G., & Bensley, L. (2001). Managerial effectiveness for a new millennium in the global higher education sector. Higher Educa- tion in Europe, 1(26), 61–68.

Drew, G., Ehrich, L. C., & Hansford, B. C. (2008). An exploration of university leaders’ perceptions of leadership and learning. Lead- ing & Managing, 14(2), 1–18.

Erwin, G. D. (1988). The Jesus style. Dallas: Word.

Filmer, K. (1992a). An allegory unveiled: A reading of The Lord of the Rings. Mythlore, 50, 19–21.

Filmer, K. (1992b). Scepticism and hope in twentieth century fantasy literature. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.

Fiske, J. (1989). Moments of television: Neither the text nor the audience. In E. Seiter et al. (Eds.), Remote control: Television, audi- ences and cultural power. London: Routledge.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The emerging science of positive psy- chology is coming to understand why it’s good to feel good. Amer- ican Scientist, 91, 330–333.

Greene, M. (1994). Epistemology and educational research: The influ- ence of recent approaches to knowledge. In L. Darling-Hammond (ed.), Review of Research in Education. Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.

Head, H. (2007). Imitative desire in Tolkien’s mythology: A Girar- dian perspective. Mythlore (Fall–Winter). Retrieved from http://find articles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OON/is_1-2_26/ai_n2113045

Hoban, R. (1980). Riddley Walker. London: Jonathan Cape.

Kainz, H. P. (1988). Paradox, dialectic, and system. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

findings would have implications for considering per- sonal development for leaders. In terms of continuous improvement at an individual level, committing to a relevant 360-degree feedback or similar process may offer useful data on how one’s leadership is perceived by others, while productively signaling to staff and oth- ers that their views are valued. In terms of further re- search, staffing groups may be in the best position to guide thinking on effective leadership. It would be use- ful to test the precepts of this article against the voices of staff, further to investigate what the beneficiaries of lead- ership themselves identify as effective leadership.

Acknowledgment In preparing this article, I acknowledge the encourage- ment and support of Associate Professor Lisa C. Ehrich, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Aus- tralia, for her great support and interest in the topic theme as vital to understanding other-engagement in leadership, and the mode chosen by which to explore the theme. This article is dedicated to the young people whose very lives inspire the values and ethos of this ar- ticle, and who diversely show promise of a way of being that makes the world a better place: Riley and Jordan Drew, Calum and Ruben Bensley, and Pierce and Jules McKain.

References Adair, J. (2005). The inspirational leader: How to motivate, encour- age and achieve success. London: Kogan Page.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership devel- opment: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Lead- ership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.

Bacon, F. (1968). Of great place. In B. Evans (Ed.), Evans diction- ary of quotations. New York: Delacorte Press.

Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(3), 247–260.

Barr, J. (1973). Reading the Bible as literature. Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library, 56, 10–33.

Chesterton, G. K. (1955). The everlasting man. New York: Dodd, Mead.

Chopra, P. (2006). The voice, the mind and the traveler. Chattanooga, TN: Brook of Life Press.

Clark, G. (2000). J.R.R. Tolkien and the true hero, J.R.R. Tolkien and his literary resonances: Views of middle earth. In G. Clark and

58 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 1 • DOI:10.1002/jls

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lakowski, R. I. (2002). Types of heroism in The Lord of the Rings: Critical essay. Mythlore, Fall–Winter. http://findarticles.com/p/ articles/mi_m0OON/is_4_23/ai_99848427

Leavy, B. (2003). Understanding the triad of great leadership: Con- text, conviction and credibility. Strategy & Leadership, 31, 56–60.

Le Guin, U. K. (1979). The language of the night. In S. Wood (Ed.), Essays on fantasy and science fiction. New York: Putnam.

London, M. (2002). Leadership development: Paths to self-insight and professional growth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Manganiello, D. (1992). The never ending story: Textual happiness in The Lord of the Rings. Mythlore, 69, 5–14.

McIntyre, J. (1994). Powerless in Redfern: Reflecting on power and looking for the kingdom. Perspectives, 48, 4–6.

Middlehurst, R. (2007). The challenging journey: From leadership course to leadership foundation for higher education. New Directions for Higher Education, no. 137. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, P. (2006). Book review: J. Adair (2005), The inspirational leader: How to motivate, encourage and achieve success. Leadership & Organization Development, 27(5), 418–419.

Oliver, R. (2001). Inspirational leadership. London: Industrial Society.

Peck, M. S. (1990). The different drum. Sydney: Arrow.

Rafferty, A. E., & Neale, M. (2004, December). What do followers say about supportive and developmental leadership? Paper presented at the 18th annual conference of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management. Full paper on CD ISBN 0-476-01131-0, University of Otago, NZ: ANZAM.

Richards, P. (2008). Organisational leadership: A case study of the identification and advancement of managers in an Australian

corporation. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 16(1), 122–130.

Schein, E. H. (2003). The learner leader as culture manager. In Busi- ness leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scott, G., Coates, H., & Anderson, M. (2008). Learning leadership in times of change: Academic leadership capabilities for Australian higher education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

Sveiby, K. E., & Lloyd, T. (1987). Managing know-how. London: Bloomsbury.

Tolkien, J.R.R. (1966). The Lord of the Rings comprising The Fel- lowship of the Ring, being the first part, The Two Towers being the sec- ond part and The Return of the Ring being the third part. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Trakman, L. (2007). Modelling university governance. Higher Education Quarterly, 62, 1–2.

Undung, Y., & De Guzman, A. B. (2009). Understanding the ele- ments as a component of care-driven leadership. Journal of Leader- ship. Studies, 3(1), 19–28.

Wheatley, M. J . (2003). Change: The capacity of life. In Business leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wondra, D. (2009). Talent and the human spirit. (Symposium.) Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(1), 67–68.

Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2009). The influence of authen- tic leadership behaviors on trust and work outcomes of health care staff. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 6–23.

Glenys M. Drew is senior leadership development consult- ant at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia. She holds a Ph.D. from QUT and can be reached at [email protected].

Copyright of Journal of Leadership Studies is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.