Introduction

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to hike Peru’s Salkantay trail that ends at the famed ruins of Machu Picchu. The five-day pilgrimage led my fellow travelers and me past snow-capped mountains, through lush rain forests, and across the raging Urubamba River. The path summits at 15,500 feet above sea level (4,724.4 meters). At the time, I was in my early 40s, so I was one of the oldest people in our group of mostly 20-something college students. Where they seemed to effortlessly skip like young mountain goats across the rocks and gorges on our path, I staggered and plodded along, gasping for breath. Our guide, Carlos, who truly was impervious to the effects of the altitude, would run ahead with the students and then circle back to provide me with company and encouragement until we made it to camp, sometimes hours after our fellow travelers. In those hours alone together on the trail, Carlos and I developed a rapport.

On the fourth day, we stumbled into a little cantina near the end of the trail that served hikers winding up their journey. I bought everyone in our group a cold beer to celebrate nearing the end of our excursion. I made a brief toast and thanked my guide and fellow hikers for their patience during our time together. We all quickly raised our bottles and began to enjoy our well-earned libation. Our guide, however, did something unexpected. Before he took a sip of his beer, he poured a bit of it on the ground. I was stunned. Why would my new friend waste something as “precious” as a cold beer at the end of such a difficult journey? Carlos explained that it was his way of thanking the Incan goddess Pachamama, the goddess of the earth, for her kindness and generosity on our journey. Indigenous people from the Andes believe Pachamama is angered and problems develop when humans take too much from the earth or take nature for granted. Our guide taught me a valuable lesson that day – one that I believe we must all learn if we are to better understand the relationship between leadership and the natural world. This is something that my Peruvian guide had learned as a child, but it is something that we in the field of leadership need to learn today.

I propose that leadership scholars must more fully incorporate the natural world in their understanding of leadership if we are to better understand the leadership process. In our book, Understanding Leadership: An Arts and Humanities Perspective (2015), my co-author Gama Perruci and I provide our readers with a definition of leadership. We argue that leadership is a process that incorporates several components that function together to produce the phenomenon we call “leadership.” These components include the leader, the followers, the goal, the context in which the leaders and followers pursue their goal, and the unique cultural values and norms that influence the entire leadership process. Thus, we argue: “Leadership is the process by which leaders and followers develop a relationship and work together towards a goal (or goals) within … . context shaped by cultural values and norms” (McManus & Perruci, 2015, p. 15; Perruci, 2011, p. 83). We call this The Five Components of Leadership Model. What we propose with this model is an architectural plan to better understand and map the field of leadership studies. Rather than proposing to add another “brick” to the leadership literature – that is, another particular theory – we suggest that the many theories of leadership can fit into the Five Components of Leadership Model to make better sense of the field and add to our overall understanding of the leadership process.

Review of Relevant Literature

Most leadership scholars are familiar with these five components of leadership, but they are usually studied in isolation. For example, many theorists have spent considerable time studying the particular traits or behaviors of leaders forming a “leader-centric” approach to the study of leadership, such as trait, behavior, and charismatic leadership theories (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1964; House, 1976; Stogdill, 1948). Likewise, the study of followership has grown a great deal in recent years as scholars have recognized the importance of followers to the leadership process (e.g., Chaleff, 2009; Kellerman, 2008; Kelley, 1988; Riggio, Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008). The relationship between the leader and the follower has also been analyzed with theories such as Leader–Member Exchange Theory, Transformational Leadership, and Servant Leadership (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1994; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Greenleaf, 1970). Many scholars have focused upon leaders and followers achieving the goal, which is the heart of the leadership process, such as Path-Goal Theory and Contingency Theory (e.g., Fiedler, 1967; House & Mitchell, 1974). Organizational scholars have long examined the contextual factors influencing leadership, such as the way an organizational or political culture may affect leadership in a particular situation (e.g., Bolman & Deal, 2013; Kellerman, 2015; Schein 2016). Likewise, cultural theorists have recently paid increasing attention to the effect culture has upon the leadership process (e.g., Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012). All of these components of leadership are readily acknowledged in the journals and textbooks in the field of leadership studies (e.g., Northouse, 2016; Yukl, 2013). What has not been generally acknowledged is the role the natural environment plays in the leadership process. However, there are some exceptions to this observation.

There are scholars in the field of leadership studies who have previously identified a relationship between leadership and the natural environment, at least tangentially or as an emerging area of interest. Benjamin Redekop provides an extensive literature review of this scholarship in his edited volume Leadership for Environmental Sustainability (2010, pp. 1–8). Other scholars have more directly linked the study of leadership and the natural world. For example, Peter Senge specifically identifies the natural world as a vital aspect of systems thinking (Senge, 2006; Senge et al., 2010), and Mark Van Vugt (2012) links leadership to evolutionary biology.

More recently, Deborah Gallagher (2012) assembled a two-volume text, Environmental Leadership: A Reference Handbook, that brings together a variety of scholars from multiple disciplines who present a wide range of perspectives to study the connection between leadership and the natural world. Gallagher defines environmental leadership as “a process by which Earth’s inhabitants apply interpersonal influence and engage in collective action to protect the planet’s natural resources and its inhabitants from further harm” (2012, p. 5). Gallagher’s text presents a wealth of literature on environmental leadership, and has become a definitive text for those who study environmental leadership. What I am proposing here, however, is that the natural world not be seen as a component of only environmental leadership, but as a vital component of the general phenomenon of leadership.

There are two chapters in Redekop’s anthology mentioned earlier that are of particular importance to our discussion here. The first is Simon Western’s (2010) chapter “Eco-Leadership: Towards the Development of a New Paradigm.” In his chapter, Western summarizes and builds upon the concept of “eco-leadership” that he originally presented in his Leadership: A Critical Text (2008/2013). Although Western is quick to point out that his focus on the natural world is not the exclusive emphasis of his theory, he does acknowledge the natural world as playing a part in the process of leadership and the “reciprocal relationship between leadership and its environment” (p. 36). The other chapter found in Redekop’s anthology that is of particular relevance to our discussion of the connection between the process of leadership and the natural world is Rian Satterwhite’s (2010) “Deep Systems Leadership: A Model for the 21st Century”. Satterwhite’s Deep Systems Leadership emphasizes the couplings between systems and their environments, people and systems, and the environment and people. These couplings form intersections between systems theory, deep ecologies, and systemic leadership, which Satterwhite places within the broadest context of cultural biology. Satterwhite’s model directly ties the broad practice of leadership to the natural world and serves as an impetus for the argument presented in this chapter. However, what I propose to do in this chapter is to somewhat simplify Satterwhite’s basic thesis and place the process of leadership directly in the context and constraints of the natural world.

The Connection Between Leadership and the Natural World

Let me begin my argument with a syllogism – a basic argument with a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion:

Let us first begin with our major premise: “Human beings are a part of nature, and, thus, operate within and are constrained by the natural world.” Darwin’s seminal text On the Origin of the Species (1859/2008) proposed biological evolution as a grand biological system directly tying humanity to the natural world. Twelve years later in his book The Descent of Man (1871/2004), Darwin focused on the processes that led to the development of human beings. Here Darwin made it clear that he thought that human thinking and actions, as well as our physical characteristics, have an evolutionary origin. Rather than conceiving human beings as above nature – or “a little lower than the angels” – as did those who held a religious view of the cosmos before him, Darwin made the argument that human beings were a part of nature and subject to all of its physical processes. Scientists now widely accept this principle. Biologist and Pulitzer Prize winner E.O. Wilson encapsulates this point when he states:

Nature is the birthright of everyone on Earth. The millions of species we have allowed to survive are our phylogenetic kin. Their long-term history is our long-term history. Despite all our fantasies and pretensions, we always have been and will remain a biological species tied to this particular biological world.

(Wilson, 2014, p. 132)

More recently, leadership scholars have echoed Darwin’s and Wilson’s claim as they have explored the embodiment of leadership in contexts ranging from a leader’s physical environment to neuroscience (e.g., Ropo & Parviainen, 2001; Waldman et al., 2011). These authors and studies support my major premise that human beings are subject to the constraints of the natural world just as is the rest of the universe. To think otherwise is to remove human beings from their natural embodied context, thus ignoring the interdependency between human beings and their environment and disregarding the relationship between leadership and the natural world. At first blush, this statement may seem self-evident – indeed, I believe it is – however, leadership practitioners and scholars have overlooked this fundamental fact for too long, adding to our present climate crisis. We will return to this idea later in this chapter, but for now, we must establish our minor premise, which is “Leadership is a universal human process.”

Our minor premise is more directly related to leadership. Perruci and I also propose “For leadership studies … the central intellectual focus revolves around human beings’ purposeful interaction” (McManus & Perruci, 2015, p. 17). It is worth taking some time to unpack this statement. The first concept that needs some explanation is what is meant by “purposeful interaction.” Refer back to the definition of leadership provided earlier in this chapter: “Leadership is the process by which leaders and followers develop a relationship and work together towards a goal (or goals) within a context shaped by cultural values and norms.” This is an often-overlooked ubiquitous process. Some illustrations immediately come to mind. For example, a coach (leader) working with a team (followers) to win game three (goal) of the national championship (context) of the Brazilian Football Confederation (cultural values and norms) is leadership. Similarly, a CEO (leader) motivating her employees (followers) to develop a new product and bring it to market (goal) in the technology industry (context) that faces competition from domestic and foreign markets (cultural values and norms) is also leadership. What we often fail to recognize is the more quotidian forms of leadership, such as that of a parent (leader) helping a child (follower) to complete the child’s project (goal) for the local middle school science fair (context) in a highly competitive school district in Japan (cultural values and norms); this is also leadership. One thus does not have to venture into the confines of a national football stadium or a Fortune 500 company to find leadership. The phenomenon is a part of our daily lives. This is not to say that non-human animals do not practice leadership (see Van Vugt, 2012), but leadership studies most often conceive of leadership as a human process, and this is the focus of our discussion here. Now that we have explored our minor premise, let us turn our attention to our conclusion: The process of leadership operates within and is constrained by the natural world.

One way to conceptualize the ubiquitous nature of leadership and its relationship to the natural world is found in the duality between action and motion. Action is marked by intentionality and free choice as an expression of one’s values. This places the leadership process squarely in the realm of action. Motion, contrarily, is marked by the natural world and a lack of intentionality. Events may happen in the natural world that can be seen, for example, bodily functions performed by the respiratory and circulatory system or rain falling, but there is no intent to such events. However, this difference is not to disregard the fact that motion is still a fundamental requirement for action. This fact also does not preclude leader and follower agency – self-awareness and free will – that separates leaders and followers from the context and allows for purposeful interaction.

As we have established, the central focus of leadership can be conceptualized as human beings’ purposeful interaction. If we were to once again refer to the examples listed above – the football team, technology company, and the parent and child – these actions imply an explicit or implicit purpose to the interaction between leaders and followers. Once again referring to our examples above, the football team must have the physical ability to play the game (motion) if they are to win the championship (action). The CEO and employees experience hunger (motion); they may find a variety of ways to feed themselves, but they choose to do so by producing a particular good to sell to consumers (action). The parent and child must have the required cognition (motion) if they are to present a successful experiment at the science fair (action). This inter-linkage between action and motion can be summarized thus:

Said another way:

The key to the relationship between leadership and the natural world is found in the first point: There is no action without motion, and there is no leadership without the natural world.

The Five Components of Leadership and their Relationship to the Natural World

Now that we have established our syllogism, let us turn our attention to the way the natural world manifests itself in each of the other five components of leadership.

Leader

As we discussed above, the literature surrounding the embodiment of leadership has grown a great deal in recent years. This literature draws our attention to the fact that leaders are living, breathing human beings, and that their corporeal bodies have an effect upon the leadership process. The International Leadership Association recently recognized this trend in the field of leadership studies in their annual Building Leadership Bridges’ volume The Embodiment of Leadership (2013), in which the contributors explore the embodiment of leadership in a number of contexts. The volume’s editor observes:

In life, leaders have bodies that think, move, act, have emotions and desires, age, hurt, and sense. The corporality [sic] is raced, gendered, cultured, sexual, instinctual, and emotional. Too often, however, in both academic literature and mainstream media, leaders are treated as disembodied, their leadership qualities referred to in ways that not only suggest leadership involves only cerebral functions but fail to recognize that cerebral functions originate and are actualized in the body.

(Melina, 2013, p. xiii)

This idea is echoed in the literature surrounding trait leadership and attribution theory and its relationship to leadership; e.g., does a person “look” like a leader? (Re et al., 2013). This may take on an explicitly physical dimension, such as in the studies that have illustrated the role that one’s physical height may play in an election (Lawson et al., 2010). Likewise, the more subtle forms of physicality, such as body language, facial expression, and vocalics may play a role in the way leaders are perceived and their ability to relate to and motivate followers (Riggio & Feldman, 2005). The literature cited here illustrates just a few of the ways the leadership process is tied to the natural world. Leaders are intimately tied to their corporeal bodies. Critics may say that this is self-evident. However, most scholars in the field of leadership studies have for too long failed to recognize the material limits in which the process of leadership operates. This failure has consequences that we will examine later in this chapter. For now, we turn to the way the natural world encompasses followers.

Followers

Just as leaders are tied to the natural world through their physical bodies, so are followers. However, there are other facets of followership that further illustrate this point. To further understand the constraints the natural world places on followers, we turn to two early theories of human motivation developed by Abraham Maslow and Frederick Hertzberg.

Those familiar with the field of leadership studies know that there is a rich river of thought that runs from the field of psychology. Maslow developed one of the germinal theories laying the foundation for the psychological study of leadership and followership in his 1943 article “A Theory of Human Motivation.” In his article, Maslow proposed his Hierarchy of Needs Pyramid. Many are familiar with this theory; the basic thesis is that people must have their most basic level needs met before they can hope to pursue their higher-level needs. Leaders and followers must meet their basic physiological needs at the bottom of the pyramid (food, water, warmth, rest), along with their need for safety and security, before they can hope to meet their psychological needs, such as love and belonging or their need for self-esteem. These needs must be met before either leaders or followers can hope to meet their need for self-actualization and experience their full potential located at the top of Maslow’s pyramid. Although there is room for moving up and down the pyramid as the context changes, the basic premise is that people’s natural needs must be met before they can hope to achieve their higher-level needs (Maslow, 1943).

Another theory that reinforces this point can be found in Frederick Hertzberg’s Work and the Nature of Man (1966) in which the author identifies two forms of human motivation: hygiene factors and motivation factors. Hygiene factors include company policy, supervision, interpersonal relations, working conditions, and salary as basic needs for personal satisfaction. In some ways, this list mirrors Maslow’s basic and mid-level needs. If a person does not make enough of a salary to put food on the table, is fearful for their safety on the job, or does not enjoy the people with whom they interact on a day-to-day basis, they are not having their physiological, safety, and love and belonging needs met. If these needs are not met, followers will be dissatisfied. However, Hertzberg argues that these factors alone are not enough to motivate followers. Followers also have motivators to make them want to follow the leader and pursue a goal – factors such as achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and advancement. These needs correspond to Maslow’s higher-level needs of self-esteem and self-actualization. Hertzberg summarizes this duality:

The human animal has two categories of needs. One set stems from his animal disposition, that side of him previously referred to as the Adam view of man [based upon the Biblical myth of the Garden of Eden]; it is centered on the avoidance of loss of life, hunger, pain, sexual deprivation, and on other primary drives, in addition to the infinite varieties of learned fears that become attached to these basic drives. The other segment of man’s nature, according to the Abraham concept of the human being [based upon the Biblical founder of the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam], is man’s compelling urge to realize his own potentiality by continuous psychological growth … If man is to be understood properly, these two characteristics must be constantly viewed as having separate biological, psychological and existential origins.

(Herzberg, 1966, p. 56)

These are two basic theories of follower motivation that illustrate the point that followers must first have their needs met in the natural world before they can hope to engage in the leadership process to achieve a goal. This is not unlike the difference between motion and action that we discussed earlier in which motion was tied to the natural world, and action was tied to purposeful interaction. In short, motion animates; action motivates, but you cannot have action without motion. I reference these two well-known theories of human motivation simply to illustrate a point: just like leaders, followers are tied to the natural world and cannot engage in the leadership process effectively without considering the constraints imposed upon them by the natural world. We now turn our attention to the next component in our model, the goal.

Goal

The goal is that portion of the Five Components model that unites leaders and followers in a common purpose. It is also the linchpin in the argument that claims the central focus of leadership revolves around human beings’ purposeful interaction. There are some obvious ways in which goals are tied to the natural world. Once again, we refer to our examples of a Brazilian soccer team winning a championship, a technology company producing a product for market, and a parent and a child working to produce a project for a science fair. In the case of the technology company, the link to the natural world is explicit. Leaders and followers work together to create a physical object to sell to consumers. This process is constrained by the availability of the natural resources needed to produce the object. Likewise, in the example of a parent and child working to produce a project for a science fair, the resources available place a constraint upon the project. The example of the Brazilian football team is a bit different. True, there is a great deal of physicality needed to achieve the goal of winning the championship. There is also likely a financial reward tied to the accomplishment; thus, there is a reasonable tie to the natural world, but the championship itself is not so much about a physical object, such as a trophy or a financial reward, as much as it is about the pride that comes from winning the title. Likewise, in the examples of the technology company, both leaders and followers may be motivated by the importance of their work and the contribution they can make to science and technology as much as, or even more than, the physical product they are creating. The parent working with a child to complete the science fair project probably does not care so much for the project itself as much as the parent cherishes the time he or she can spend with the child, or the knowledge that the child gains from doing the project. Where does the natural world fit into these less tangible and more altruistic and emotional/personal goals?

These more altruistic and emotional factors often seem more important to leaders and followers than do the physical goals they may be attempting to achieve. Can human goals be reduced to exclusively meeting physiological purposes? Perhaps not, but that does not mean that altruistic and emotional factors are not rooted in the natural world. Many scholars have asked why humans seem to possess pro-social qualities, such as altruism, that do not seem to comport immediately with the broad concept of natural selection. Although there is a plurality of reasons for this kind of phenomenon, many of them come from the field of biological science. For example, Darwin argued that such pro-social traits gave tribes a natural advantage over other tribes (Darwin, 1871/2004). Likewise, various authors since Darwin’s time have argued that such pro-social traits help enable group selection and adaptation, although their ultimate explanations for such traits may differ (Wilson, 1975; Dawkins, 2004). Likewise, even emotions as complex as love may have a biological basis in an evolutionary social contract between persons within groups and protection of oneself and one’s progeny, in addition to cultural and environmental influences that may influence such emotions (Dawkins, 2004; Pinker, 1997, 2003.) One scholar argues:

Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection (1871) makes clear that human psychology is ultimately a product of biological evolution – in the same way that our bodies are evolutionary products – consisting of many different traits that evolved because they enable our ancestors to cope better with the demands of the environments in which they were living.

(Van Vugt, 2012, p. 142)

This is not to imply that all goals are based exclusively in the realm of motion. The way one chooses to reach a goal and one’s responses to the emotion attached to obtaining or not obtaining a goal is certainly within the realm of action. Nevertheless, altruistic and emotional action is grounded in the realm of motion, as we have described earlier. Leaders and followers developing a relationship and working toward a goal is a part of the process of leadership, but that is only a portion of our model; we must also consider the next component of the Five Components of Leadership Model.

Context

Leadership does not occur in a vacuum. We must also consider the context in which this process takes place. When considering context and its relationship to the natural world, we will consider the immediate framework in which the leaders and followers pursue their goal and work our way out to the larger systems that encompass this process. Let us once again consider our recurring examples. The Brazilian soccer team may practice for their games on a green field set within a grand stadium in downtown Rio de Janeiro. The technology company may be a startup in a small office somewhere in the heart of Silicon Valley, whereas the parent and child may be working on their science project at a kitchen table in their home located in a suburb of Tokyo. Each of these contexts possesses its own unique organizational culture that is a part of any team, working group, or family, as organizational leadership scholar Edgar Schein observes (Schein, 2016).

Certainly, these micro-cultures affect the way these leaders and followers go about reaching their goal, as well as the general climate and working norms within these organizations. On a larger scale, however, each of these organizations are members of much larger systems with a wide variety of stakeholders. The Brazilian football team is just one team among many in the Brazilian Football League, complete with the coaches, players, employees, fans, and bars and restaurants that make their living through their connection to the team. The technology company may produce a product that might potentially affect the lives millions of consumers, not to mention its connection to global manufacturers and supply chains. Even the little family working away the evening at their kitchen table somewhere in the suburbs of Tokyo is connected to a web of organizations throughout the world that may be exhibited in the physical objects in the home – from the materials for their project, to the chairs on which they sit, to the music on the radio. These scenarios are to simply illustrate the complexity of the open systems of which we are all a part (Senge, 2006; Wheatley, 2006). What we often fail to realize, however, is the way the natural world relates to these systems.

However, a growing number of individuals and organizations are beginning to understand the importance of the natural world. As more organizations now acknowledge their corporate social responsibility, the natural world is increasingly being acknowledged as a major stakeholder for these organizations (Enkvist et al., 2008; World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). For example, consider the thousands of paper cups used at an average football game and their impact on landfills, the petroleum products used to power global manufacturing and supply chains, and even the amount of resources used and energy consumed by a single family. These organizations all take much more than they give to the natural world. As organizations become more aware of their impact upon the environment, they are increasingly starting to acknowledge the inputs and outputs that are a part of the grand systems of which they are a part. Satterwhite, Miller, and Sheridan echo this when they say: “Natural systems surround and define our lives. We are active participants in them. Indeed, any sense of separation from them is false; we are them and they are us” (Satterwhite, Miller, & Sheridan, 2015, p. 61). (Emphasis in the original.)

One line of research that illustrates this well is found in Evolutionary Leadership Theory (ELT). This line of research calls on fields such as evolutionary theory, biology, social neuroscience, and neurosciences to examine the biological implications of leadership. Scholars in this field argue that leadership and followership are products of biological processes, adaptation, and natural selection that help ensure the survival of the species (Van Vugt, 2012; Van Vugt & Ahuja, 2011; Van Vugt et al., 2008).

Hence, leadership and followership are natural extensions of the evolutionary process and part of the natural world. Although we may comprehend this, most leaders and followers do not appreciate the larger ecological systems of which we are a part, which points to the need for an ecologically-informed leadership theory and practice.

Cultural Values and Norms

Thus far we have examined four components of our model and their connection to the natural world. We now turn to examine the fifth component in our model, cultural values and norms. As briefly mentioned above, leadership scholars such as Edward Hall, Geert Hofstede, Fonz Trompenaars, and Robert House have explored the way culture affects the leadership process (Hall, 1973; Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012). These theorists have examined elements of culture such as individualism and collectivism, power distance, and performance orientation, among others. Perhaps the cultural theorists who have had the most to say about the connection between a culture’s view of leadership and its connection to the environment are Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner. These scholars propose that cultures have two basic ways they relate to nature: those cultures that hold an internal locus of control and those cultures that hold an external locus of control. Those cultures that have more of an internal locus of control believe they can control their environment to reach their goals, whereas those cultures that have an external locus of control believe that their environment controls them and that they must work with the environment to reach their goals (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012.)

Although there are many ways this theory can be interpreted, we can use this division as a starting point to examine the different ways cultures may view the natural world in the leadership process. We started our conversation with a classic example of this dichotomy. My guide, Carlos, possessed an external locus of control. He believed we were to work with nature and be careful to respect it and treat it well if we were to have a safe journey and complete our hike. As a Westerner, I possessed more of an internal locus of control. If we completed our hike, it was because we had the fortitude to soldier on and subdue nature. Remember, I toasted myself and my fellow pilgrims and our strength in completing our journey; Carlos toasted Pachamama for her benevolence.

There are some cultures that are more inclined to acknowledge the role of the environment in the leadership process than are others. The example above illustrates this point. However, all cultures have an ethic of environmental responsibility that can be called upon to compel leaders and followers to more fully consider the natural world in the leadership process. Many times, this ethic can be found in the realm of religion. The monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have rich histories and current philosophies that call for the thoughtful stewardship of nature (Blanchard & O’Brian, 2014; Foltz et al., 2003; Francis, 2016; Yaffe, 2001). Likewise, Eastern wisdom traditions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism also have traditions that honor the natural world (Jenkins et al., 2017); as do Native American and other indigenous cultures (Holthaus, 2013; Marchand & Vogt, 2016). Religion is just one way scholars and practitioners can better understand the link between the environment and cultural values and norms, but it does help to further illustrate the natural world’s connection to the leadership process. It is important to remember Lao Tzu’s admonition in the Tao te Ching: “Man is ruled by the earth” (Stenudd, 2015, p. 123).

For too long leadership scholars have failed to fully acknowledge the natural world as a fundamental part of the broad context in which leadership takes place. As mentioned above, most leadership scholars have only briefly touched upon this topic or identified it as an emerging trend or of tangential interest to the field of leadership studies. This is a blind spot in the discipline (Redekop, 2010, p. 2). We now turn to a potential remedy to this problem. There are a variety of ways scholars can visualize the role of the natural world in the leadership process. I am proposing here a model to further develop our understanding of this connection, and to encourage other scholars to critically analyze this model and its heuristic potential.

The Natural World as a Sixth Component of Leadership

Building upon the Five Components of Leadership Model presented throughout this chapter, I propose the natural world be conceived as having an equal role as the other five components of the model, thus revising the model to a Six Components of Leadership Model. Here once again is our proposed revised definition of leadership: “Leadership is the process by which leaders and followers develop a relationship and work together towards a goal (or goals) within a context shaped by cultural values and norms, and functions within and is constrained by the natural world.” We can picture this with a circle labeled “natural world” encompassing the other components of the model as was presented earlier in this chapter.

The implication of Figure 6.2 above is that the natural world is just as much a part of the process of leadership as is the leader, the follower, the goal, the context, and the cultural values and norms that we have discussed in this chapter. Certainly, such a definition and representation of leadership highlights the important role the natural world plays in the leadership process. As we have seen in this chapter, the natural world touches upon every other aspect of the model. Such a definition of leadership would also encourage leadership practitioners to more fully consider the natural world when making all sorts of leadership decisions.

Another aspect of this definition is that it identifies the natural world as a constraint imposed upon the leadership process. Leaders and followers can only reach their goals inasmuch as the natural world allows. We are all a part of nature; ultimately, nature can exist without human beings, but human beings cannot exist without nature. Depicting the natural world as a part of the leadership process in this way emphasizes this fact.

Critics of this approach may argue that the natural world does not exert as much influence as do other aspects of the model, such as the leader. Leadership is essentially situational. If a goal does not directly affect the natural world, should the natural world be considered as a component of leadership writ large? There is a difference between a football team deciding to use recycled cups at their concession stands, a technology company deciding to use carbon neutral power, and a family spending an evening working away at their kitchen table on a child’s science project. Critics may also argue that humankind has, indeed, harnessed nature on many occasions, such as by building dams, creating means of refrigeration and heating, and even through geothermal and solar power. Can scholars really claim that nature constrains the leadership process with the myriad of examples that may suggest otherwise? Those responding to this criticism might argue that these critics miss the point: all of the other components of leadership are a part of the natural world, and to think otherwise is to dismiss the limitations the natural world imposes as well as the opportunities it provides.

Critics of the model might also ask why it is so important to consider the natural world as a part of the leadership process? One might reply that anthropogenic climate change, air and water pollution, overpopulation, loss of biodiversity, deforestation, and ocean acidification are just a few of the “wicked” problems that leaders and followers have created by not considering the natural world when attempting to achieve their goals. Thoughtless leadership created these problems; thoughtful leadership must seek to correct them. If leaders continue to fail to address the natural world as a vital part of the leadership process, the problems humans have created will ultimately place the human species itself in jeopardy as we enter the period of the earth’s six great extinction. Some may say that it is already too late to reverse many of the problems that humans have created. Regardless, leadership scholars and practitioners have a responsibility to fully consider the natural world as an integral part of the leadership process if our species and others will have any hope of long-term survival.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we examined the role the natural world plays in the leadership process. We also explored the way leadership is a pervasive human process that is distinguished by purposeful action, but is animated by natural motion. In so doing, we used McManus and Perruci’s Five Components of Leadership Model to consider the way leaders, followers, goals, contexts, and cultural values and norms relate to the natural world. Finally, we considered adding the natural world as a vital component of leadership and suggested that it be acknowledged as a vital sixth component to the leadership process. As we conclude, I encourage other leadership scholars and practitioners to consider what I have proposed here as they research, test, and practice leadership. What I have proposed is what I hope to be a part of continuing conversation regarding the way scholars and practitioners can better understand the role of the natural world in the leadership process and address the multitude of problems our failure to acknowledge this fundamental fact has created. I close with the words of the biologist E.O. Wilson: “Perhaps the time has come to cease calling it the ‘environmentalist’ view, as though it were a lobbying effort outside the mainstream of human activity, and to start calling it the real-world view” (2003, p. 28). Perhaps the time has also come to cease calling the incorporation of the natural world into the process of leadership simply “environmental leadership” and start calling it real-world leadership.

References

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

Blanchard, K.D., & O’Brian, K.J. (2014). An Introduction to Christian Environmentalism: Ecology, virtue, and ethics. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2013). Reframing Organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Burke, K. (1978). (Nonsymbolic) Motion/(Symbolic) Action. Critical Inquiry, 4(4), 809–838.

Burke, K. (1989). The Nature of Human Action. In J. R. Gusfield (Ed.), Kenneth Burke: On symbols and society (pp. 53–55). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Chaleff, I. (2009). The Courageous Follower: Standing up to and for our leaders (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Darwin, C. (1859/2008). The Origin of Species. New York: Bantam Dell.

Darwin, C. (1871/2004). The Descent of Man. London: Penguin Books.

Dawkins, R. (1976/2004). The Selfish Gene (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Enkvist, P., Nauclér, T., & Oppenheim, J. M. (2008). Business Strategies for Climate Change. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 24–33.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Foltz, R.C., Denny, F.M., & Baharuddin, A. (Eds) (2003). Islam and Ecology: A bestowed trust. Cambridge, MA: Center for the Study of World Religions.

Francis, Pope. (2016). Laudato Sí: Praise be to you: On care for our common home. North Palm Beach, FL and Erlanger, KY: Beacon Publishing/Dynamic Catholic Institute.

Gallagher, D. R. (2012). Environmental Leadership: A reference handbook (2 Vols.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of a leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1970). The Servant as Leader. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

Hall, E.T. (1973). The Silent Language. New York: Random House.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing Company.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Holthaus, G. (2008/2013). Learning Native Wisdom: What traditional cultures teach us about subsistence, sustainability, and spiritualty. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

House, R.J. (1976). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

House, R.J., & Mitchell, R.R. (1974). Path-Goal Theory of Leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81–97.

Jenkins, W., Tucker, M.E., & Grim, J. (2017). Routledge Handbook of Religion and Ecology. Abingdon: Routledge.

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Kellerman, B. (2015). Hard Times: Leadership in America. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

Kelley, R. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142–148.

Lawson, C., Lenz, G.S., Baker, A., & Myers, M. (2010). Looking like a Winner: Candidate appearance and electoral success in new democracies. World Politics, 62(4), 561–593.

Marchand, M.E., & Vogt, K.A. (Eds). (2016). The River of Life: Sustainable practices of Native Americans and indigenous peoples. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.

McManus, R.M., & Perruci, G. (2015). Understanding Leadership: An arts and humanities perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.

Melina, L.R., Burgess, G. L., Falkman, L.L., & Marturano, A. (Eds). (2013). The Embodiment of Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Perruci, G. (2011). Millennials and Globalization: The cross-cultural challenge of intragenerational leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 82–87.

Pinker, S. (1997). How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Pinker, S. (2003). The Blank Slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Penguin Books.

Re, D.E., Hunter, D.W., Coetzee, V., Tiddeman, B.P., Xiao, D., DeBruine, L.M., Jones, B.C., & Perrett, D.I. (2013). Looking Like a Leader: Facial shape predicts perceived height and leadership ability. Plos One, 8(12). Retrieved from: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080957.

Redekop, B. (Ed.). (2010). Leadership for Environmental Sustainability. New York & London: Routledge.

Riggio, R.E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (2008). The Art of Followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Riggio, R.E., & Feldman, R.S. (2005). Applications of Non-Verbal Communication. New York: Psychology Press/Routledge.

Ropo, A., & Parviainen, J. (2001). Leadership and Bodily Knowledge in Expert Organizations: Epistemological rethinking. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17(1), 1–18.

Satterwhite, R. (2010). Deep Systems Leadership: A model for the 21st century. In B. Redekop (Ed.), Leadership for Environmental Sustainability (pp. 230–242). New York & London: Routledge.

Satterwhite, R., Miller, W.M., & Sheridan, K. (2015). Leadership for Sustainability and Peace: Responding to the wicked challenges of the future. In M. Sowcik, A.C. Andenoro, M. McNutt, & S. Murphy (Eds), Leadership 2050: Critical challenges, key contexts, and emerging trends (pp. 59–74). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

Schein, E.H. (2016). Organizational Culture and Leadership (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Senge, P.M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.

Senge, P.M., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2012). The Necessary Revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. New York: Broadway Books/Crown Publishing.

Stenudd, S. (2015). Tao Te Ching: The Taoism of Lao Tzu explained. Charleston, SC: Create Space.

Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2010). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding diversity in global business (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Van Vugt, M. (2012). The Nature in Leadership: Evolutionary, biological, and social neuroscience perspectives. In D.V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds), The Nature of Leadership (2nd ed.) (pp. 141–175). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Van Vugt, M., & Ahuja, A. (2011). Naturally Selected: Why some people lead, why others follow, and why it matters (Kindle ed.). New York: HarperCollins e-books.

Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2008). Leadership, Followership, and Evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182–196.

Waldman, D.A., Balthazard, P.A., Peterson, S.J. (2011). Leadership and Neuroscience: Can we revolutionize the way that inspirational leaders are identified and developed? Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 60–74.

Western, S. (2008/2013). Leadership: A critical text (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Western, S. (2010). Eco-leadership: Towards the development of a new paradigm. In B. Redekop (Ed.), Leadership for Environmental Sustainability (pp. 36–54). New York & London: Routledge.

Wheatley, M.J. (2006). Leadership and the New Science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler.

Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Wilson, E.O. (2003). The Future of Life. New York: Vintage Books.

Wilson, E.O. (2014). A Window on Eternity: A biologist’s walk through Gorongosa National Park. New York: Simon & Schuster.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yaffe, M.A. (2001). Judaism and Environmental Ethics: A reader. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Yukl, G.A. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Prentice Hall.