CHAPTER 1

Definitions and Conceptions of Leadership

Introduction

Leadership is a universal phenomenon that has preoccupied scholars, ­politicians, and others for centuries.¹ Zagoršek observed:

the simultaneous appearance of social institutions such as government, organized religion, and a significant role for individual leaders argues that there may well be something about people in complex organizations that provides a social value in having “­leaders”—they arise to fulfill a basic social function.²

In the management context, leadership has been consistently identified as playing a critical role in the success or failure of organizations and some surveys have pegged up to 45 percent of an organization’s performance on the quality and effectiveness of its leadership team.³ Apart from organizational performance, researchers have consistently found a strong correlation between leadership styles and behaviors and the job satisfaction and performance of subordinates.⁴

During the early years of serious research in the leadership area the focus was primarily on western leadership styles and practices. This occurred for various reasons including the location of the critical mass of researchers in the United States and the fact that most companies operated primarily in the United States with some cautious expansion into foreign markets with similar linguistic and cultural traditions. However, several factors—globalization of the workforce, expansion of operations into numerous countries and regions around the world, and exposure to increase global competition—have forced leadership scholars to incorporate culture into their research and theories because leaders of businesses of all sizes in all countries must be prepared to interact with customers and other business partners from different cultures and leaders of larger companies have the additional challenge of managing multinational organizations and aligning a global corporate culture with multiple and diverging national cultures.⁵ Another driving force in the push for more work on the relationship between culture and leadership has been the emergence of an international research community that includes scholars living, working, and observing in all parts of the world and this has led to the expansion of the scope of inquiry to include such diverse topics as leadership styles of managers and entrepreneurs in Russia and other countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union.⁶

Definitions of Leadership

The effective study and understanding of leadership begins with constructing a workable definition of the term “leadership.” Interestingly, although leadership has been rigorously studied and discussed for centuries, a consensus regarding how the term “leadership” can and should be defined has been elusive. In this regard, Stogdill observed that “there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept” and Fiedler wrote that “[t]here are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are leadership theories—and there are almost as many theories of leadership as there are psychologists working in the field.”⁷ Dickson et al. succinctly described leadership as involving “disproportionate influence” and noted that leadership roles around the world are universally associated with power and status and that it is therefore important to understand how power and status are distributed in a society in order to obtain a clear picture of leadership roles in that society.⁸ The researchers involved in the Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness (GLOBE) project defined leadership as “… the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members.”⁹ The potential influence of leaders is substantial as the following observation of the GLOBE researchers illustrates:

When individuals think about effective leader behaviors, they are more influenced by the value they place on the desired future than their perception of current realities. Our results, therefore, suggest that leaders are seen as the society’s instruments for change. They are seen as the embodiment of the ideal state of affairs.¹⁰

Eckmann offered a short and not inclusive list of leadership definitions from a variety of sources and activities that included the following¹¹:

• The creative and directive force of morale
• A process of mutual stimulation which, by the successful interplay of relevant individual differences, controls human energy in the pursuit of a common cause
• The process by which an agent induces a subordinate to behave in a desired manner
• Directing and coordinating the work of group member, a definition that is more appropriate for management activities
• An interpersonal relation in which others comply between they want to, not because they have to, a formulation similar to the concept of “transformational” leadership discussed elsewhere in this guide.
• The process of influencing an organized group toward accomplishing its goals and the creation of conditions for the team to be effective, both closely linked to the study and practice of team leadership
• The thing that wins battles, a contribution by General Patton

Muczyk and Holt defined “leadership,” in a general sense, as

the process whereby one individual influences other group members toward the attainment of defined group or organizational goals. In other words, the leadership role describes the relationship between the manager and his or her subordinates that results in the satisfactory execution of subordinates’ assignments and, thereby, the attainment of the important goals for which the leader is responsible and is instrumental in setting. At the very minimum, leadership requires providing direction and impetus for subordinates to act in the desired direction.¹²

They believed that it was important to distinguish leadership per se from actions or behaviors of leaders that are actually “enablers” or “facilitators” of effective leadership, such as the traits, tendencies, and practices of leaders with respect to such things as planning, communicating, motivating, and decision-making.

Muczyk and Holt noted that the GLOBE researchers claimed to have found evidence of the following “universal attributes that facilitate leadership effectiveness”: integrity (being trustworthy, just, and honest); charismatic–visionary (having foresight and planning ahead); charismatic–inspirational (being positive, dynamic, encouraging, and motivating and building confidence); and team builder (being communicative, informed, a coordinator, and a team integrator).¹³ In turn, “universal attributes that impede effectiveness” according to the GLOBE researchers included self-protection (being a loner and asocial); malevolence (being non-cooperative and irritable), and autocratic behavior (being dictatorial). The effectiveness of other attributes, such as individualism, status consciousness, and risk taking, were found to vary based on the cultural context (i.e., culturally contingent) in the GLOBE survey. Muczyk and Holt conceded that the leadership “attributes” identified by the GLOBE researchers were important to the extent that they could be analyzed as facilitators or inhibitors of effective leadership; however, they cautioned that those attributes should not be confused with leadership itself. In their view, for example, having integrity, being visionary and/or inspirational, or being adept at team building was not “leadership,” but those traits could be presumed to be extremely useful tools in successfully filling the role of a leader, namely influencing followers toward attainment of group goals. Similarly, “communication skills, motivational techniques, and influence strategies are the means to leadership success, and not leadership itself.”¹⁴

Although there appears to be a clear consensus that leadership is an important topic within the fields of business and organizational studies, one of the most significant challenges for researchers, and the principal basis for the entire field of cross-cultural leadership studies, is the anecdotal evidence that points to the realization that leadership has a very different meaning depending upon the cultural context. For example, the researchers in the GLOBE study collected and presented the following statements taken from interviews with managers from various countries to support the proposition that leadership is “culturally contingent” because various societies (i.e., Americans, Arabs, Asians, English, Eastern Europeans, French, Germans, Latin Americans, and Russians) tended to glorify the concept of leadership and considered it reasonable to discuss leadership in the context of both the political and the organizational arenas whereas people who came from other societies, such as the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, often had distinctly different views of leadership15:

• “Americans appreciate two kinds of leaders. They seek empowerment from leaders who grant autonomy and ­delegate authority to subordinates. They also respect the bold, ­forceful, confident, and risk-taking leader, as personified by John Wayne.”
• “The Dutch place emphasis on egalitarianism and are skeptical about the value of leadership. Terms like leader and manager carry a stigma. If a father is employed as a manager, Dutch children will not admit it to their schoolmates.”
• “Arabs worship their leaders—as long as they are in power!”
• “Iranians seek power and strength in their leaders.”
• “Malaysians expect their leaders to behave in a manner that is humble, modest, and dignified.”
• “The French appreciate two kinds of leaders. De Gaulle and Mitterand are examples. De Gaulle is an example of a strong charismatic leader. Mitterand is an example of a consensus builder, coalition former and effective negotiator.”

The diversity of opinion among managers from around the world elicited in an informal setting was sufficient encouragement for the GLOBE researchers to embark upon the rigorous multicultural study of perceptions of leadership that is described in detail elsewhere in this publication.

Chronology of Leadership Definitions

An interesting approach to definitions of leadership is a compilation based on the work of Rost that traces how definitional concepts changed as leadership studies evolved from 1900 through the first decade of the 21stcentury¹⁶:

Definitions from 1900 to 1929 emphasized control, centralization of power, and domination of subordinates by their leader. One definition that summed all this up viewed leadership as “the ability to impress the will of the leader on those led and induce obedience, respect, loyalty, and cooperation.”¹⁷

During the 1930s, leadership transitioned from “dominance” to “influence” as researchers became interested in studying the interaction of specific personality traits (i.e., the trait school of leadership discussed elsewhere in this guide) of the leader with followers in his or her group. Leaders were thought to use their personality characteristics to change, or influence, the activities, attitudes, and values of their followers and, in turn, the leader was also influenced by his or her followers as they interacted together in the group situation.

The emphasis on leadership dynamics with groups continued during the 1940s and leaders were expected to influence, persuade, and direct the members of their group without excessive reliance on the power and authority of their position. A common definition of leadership during this period was that it was “the behavior of an individual while he is involved in directing group activities.”¹⁸

In the 1950s, one school of leadership viewed it simply as “what leaders do in groups”¹⁹ and saw leaders as being in a noncoercive relationship with their followers and responsible for facilitating the group’s efforts to develop and pursue shared goals. Others, however, focused on domination in the leader–follower relationship and viewed leadership as “the art of getting what one … wants and making people like it.”²⁰

In the 1960s, the dominant theme was the role of leaders in influencing followers to achieve shared goals. Influence came from adroitly engaging in “a rational exchange of values in which followers barter their supports for political decisions to their liking.”²¹

Leadership in the 1970s was seen as the process of “initiating and maintaining groups or organizations to accomplish group or organizational goals.”²² Rost mentioned the introduction and development of the “leader–member exchange theory of leadership” during this period and the need for leaders to be adept at communication and persuasion and avoid resisting “counter-influence” by their followers and relying on tools of power to impose their will.²³ The path-goal theory, which was based on Vroom’s expectancy theory, was developed in the early 1970s and was based on the assumption that subordinates would be motivated if they thought they were capable of the work (or high level of self-efficacy), believed their efforts would result in a certain outcome or reward, and believed the outcome or reward would be worthwhile.²⁴

The leadership definitions used during the 1980s reflected the various schools of leadership that had developed up to and during that period. Influence remained an important concept and leadership was often described as the process of influencing, inspiring, and persuading followers to achieve organizational objectives. However, consistent with developments in earlier decades, leadership was not something that simply came down from the mountain where the leader sat but instead arose in the context of an “influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes.” In other words, effective leaders are able to mobilize their followers to realize goals mutually held by both leaders and followers.²⁵ Some definitions of leadership emphasized that leaders were persons who possessed or developed specific traits. The 1980s also saw the emergence of the concept of the “transformational” leader who was able to transform his or her followers to higher levels of motivation and/or morality. Transformational leadership, which was first described by James McGregor Burns and then expounded upon by Bernard Bass, has remained one of the most widely researched types of leadership well into the 2010s.²⁶

The 1990s saw the popularization of servant leadership, an idea that had its roots in the essays that Greenleaf published in the 1970s that proposed a new type of leadership focused on the follower. The 1990s and 2000s also saw increased interest in authentic leadership, first suggested by George, with the development of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire and a focus on various aspects of authentic leadership including self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing, and internalized moral perspective.²⁷ Other concepts of leadership that gained some degree of prominence during the period discussed earlier included implicit leadership theory based on the proposition that individuals have implicit beliefs, convictions, and assumptions concerning attributes and behaviors that help that individual distinguish between leaders and followers, effective leaders from ineffective leaders, and moral leaders from evil leaders; and situational leadership theory, proposed by Hersey and Blanchard, that is based on the concept that leaders choose the leadership style (i.e., directing, coaching, supporting, or delegating) based on the maturity or developmental level of the follower.²⁸

Zaccaro and Klimoski’s Defining Elements of Organizational Leadership

Rather than offer up another definition of leadership, Zaccaro and ­Klimoski elected to collect and describe what they considered to be the “central defining elements of organizational leadership” based on their review and assessment of the ideas that have come forth from the community of leadership scholars.²⁹ Specifically, they argued that

Organizational leadership involves processes and proximal outcomes (e.g., worker commitment) that contribute to the development and achievement of the organizational purpose.

Organizational leadership is identified by the application of nonroutine influence on organizational life.

Leader influence is grounded in cognitive, social, and political processes.

Organizational leadership is inherently bounded by system characteristics and dynamics. In other words, leadership is contextually defined and caused.³⁰

Leadership and Organizational Purpose

Zaccaro and Klimoski noted that “organizational purpose is operationalized as a direction for collective action” and that leadership positions within the organization are created as a means for helping the subunits of the organization to achieve the purposes for which they were created within the larger organizational system.³¹ The role, or function, of an organizational leader is to engage in processes directed at defining, establishing, identifying or translating the organizational purpose for his or her followers, and facilitating or enabling the organizational processes that should, if done well, result in the achievement of that purpose. In order to be effective in this role, the leader must be continuously involved in the development and attainment of organizational mission, vision, strategy, goals and plans, and the design of the tasks associated with implementation of the plans. Zaccaro and Klimoski believed that responsibility for organizational purpose and direction lay with senior organizational leaders and that those leaders must have the cognitive resources necessary to build the frame of reference necessary to forge organizational strategy. They also noted that organizational strategy reflected, in part, the personal and career objectives of the senior leader, an interesting observation that was integrated into their theory about the performance imperative of organizational leaders described elsewhere in this publication.

Leadership as Nonroutine Influence

Zaccaro and Klimoski argued that “leadership does not reside in the routine activities of organizational work” but rather “occurs in response to, or in anticipation of, non-routine organizational events.”³² They based their arguments on the observations of Katz and Kahn, who wrote that “the essence of organizational leadership [is] the influential increment over and above mechanical compliance with the routine directives of the organization.”³³ Zaccaro and Klimoski defined “non-routine events” as “any situation that constitutes a potential or actual hindrance to organizational goal progress” and suggested that leaders must be prepared and equipped to be continuously involved in constructing the nature of organizational problems; developing and evaluating potential solutions to those problems; and planning, implementing, and monitoring the chosen solutions in complex social domains. Zaccaro and Klimoski noted that the emphasis on the “non-routine” influence of the leader reflected ­several other important points: Leaders must respond to “ill-defined” problems with unspecified starting parameters and permissible solution paths and solution goals; the leadership process is only relevant in situation where there is decision discretion, thus creating an opportunity for leadership; and leadership intervention is not needed with respect to “team or organizational actions that are completely specified by procedure or practice.”³⁴ Zaccaro and Klimoski referred to the leader’s responsibilities and challenges with respect to nonroutine events as a “functional or social problem-solving perspective of leadership” and noted that leaders must operate within a contextual framework that presents fundamental performance imperatives that demand that leaders make decisions regarding which problems are important and which solutions are appropriate. These performance imperatives (e.g., technological, financial, senior staffing, etc.) are explained elsewhere in this guide.

Leadership as Managing Social and Cognitive Phenomena

Zaccaro and Klimoski correctly observed that social or interpersonal influence processes (i.e., “persuasion”) are an important element in many definitions of leadership. They did not quarrel with the notion that leadership required management of social phenomena; however, they argued that “execution of effective cognitive processes is equally critical to leader effectiveness.”³⁵ For example, Zaccaro and Klimoski argued that the cognitive requirements of the leadership position could be seen in the responsibility of leaders to interpret and model environmental events for members of the organization, determine the nature of the organization problems that need to be solved, engage in long-term strategic thinking, and plan collective action. They cited the following quote from the work of Jacobs and Jaques to support their argument:

Executive leaders “add value” to their organizations in large part by giving a sense of understanding and purpose to the overall activities of the organization. In excellent organizations, there almost always is a feeling that the “boss” knows what he is doing, that he has shared this information downward, that it makes sense, and that it is going to work.³⁶

Importantly, Zaccaro and Klimoski commented that all organizational leaders, not just those at the top of the hierarchy (i.e., the senior leaders), need to interpret their operating environment and communicate their understanding of that environment to their own constituencies.

Leadership and Organizational Context

Perhaps the strongest criticism that Zaccaro and Klimoski made with respect to many of the recognized theories of organizational leadership was that they were “context free” and thus failed to adequately take into account structural considerations that they believed significantly affected and moderated the conduct and effectiveness of organizational leaders. Zaccaro and Klimoski argued that a useful and realistic model of organizational leadership had to explicitly incorporate organizational context.³⁷ They were particularly interested in ensuring that the influence of the organizational level at which the leadership occurs was taken into account. Citing the prior research work of Zaccaro himself, as well as Jacobs and Jaques and Katz and Kahn,³⁸ Zaccaro and Klimoski maintained that the fundamental demands and work requirements of leaders change at different levels and that the “hierarchical context” of leadership “has profound effects on the personal, interpersonal, and organizational choices that can be made, as well as the import that a given choice might have.”³⁹ They described the three distinct patterns of organizational leadership specified by Katz and Kahn, which are described elsewhere in this publication, and suggested that the distribution of these patterns across organizational levels provided support for the presence of significant qualitative differences between the nature of junior and senior leadership, an idea explored in more detail in the discussion of “levels of leadership” as follows.

Barnard Bass

Bass, one of the most well known of the modern scholars and pundits on leadership, argued that leadership was a “universal phenomenon” that could be defined and described as “an interaction between two or more members of a group that often involves a structuring or restructuring of the situation and the perception and expectations of the members.”⁴⁰ Bass is perhaps most famous for his championing of “transformational leadership” and thus it is not surprising for him to have declared that “[l]eaders are agents of change—persons whose acts affect other people more than other people’s acts affect them” and that “[l]eadership occurs when one group member modifies the motivation or competencies of others in the group.”⁴¹

In addition to providing his own definition and conceptualization of leadership, Bass compiled the ideas and efforts of other scholars on the question into various groupings. One grouping includes conceptions that are based on the assumption that leaders work to understand and satisfy the needs of followers and that goals, roles, and responsibilities within the group emerge from interactions between the leader and his or her followers:

“The leader as the focus of group processes”: One scholar argued that “the leader is always the nucleus of a tendency”⁴² and Bass observed that this conception assumed that leaders were initially influenced by the needs of their followers and that once a leader understood the collective will of his or her followers the leader’s role was to focus the energies of the followers in the appropriate direction.⁴³

“Leadership as an instrument of goal achievement”: Similar to the earlier-described emphasis on understanding and executing the collective will of his or her followers, this conception focuses on a leader’s ability to satisfy the needs of the group and achieve the goals set for the group. According to Bass, the key roles of the leader include motivating and coordinating the group in the accomplishment of its goals, transforming followers, creating visions of the goals that may be attained, and, finally, articulating for followers the actions to be taken in order to achieve those goals.⁴⁴

“Leadership as an emerging effect of interaction”: Extending the influence of the collective will of the group in the prior conceptions of leadership, proponents of this conception argue that the group not only dictates the goals to be pursued but also selects the leaders and assigns them their status and responsibilities. Bass emphasized the process of interaction associated with this conception of leadership and commented that “leadership truly only exists when it is acknowledged and conferred by other members of the group.”⁴⁵

Another grouping, described as “leadership as personality and its effects,” was developed by personality theorists who “equated leadership with strength of personality” and saw leaders as being those members of a group who possessed the “greatest number of desirable traits of personality and character.”⁴⁶ According to Bass, personality theorists saw leadership as a “one-way effect”—followers had no influence on their leaders—and believed that leaders possessed qualities that distinguished them from their followers.⁴⁷ This grouping would include the so-called “great man” theories that assume that leadership is an inherent capability that is only within the reach of a chosen few who are “born to lead” and trait theories that argue that people are only qualified for leadership if they possess certain inherited traits or personality characteristics.

A third grouping paints leadership as an exercise is power and authoritarianism. One conception, referred to as “leadership as the art of inducing compliance,” implies that effective leadership is “the ability to handle men so as to achieve the most with the least friction and the greatest cooperation” and “the ability to impress the will of the leader on those led and induce obedience, respect, loyalty, and cooperation.”⁴⁸ According to Bass, the leader’s job under this conception was to exert his or her influence so as to mold the group and its actions to the leader’s will.⁴⁹ A related conception constructs leadership as a “power relation” and represents the potentially extreme and undesirable consequences of a leader’s efforts to induce compliance to his or her will and recognizes that leaders have often transformed leadership opportunities into an “overt power relation” amounting to an authoritarian leadership style that is now generally rejected as ineffective by most leadership theorists.⁵⁰

A fourth grouping includes conceptions that became popular as a response to heavy-handed authoritarian leadership techniques. For ­example, distinguishable from inducing compliance from followers, or unreasonably leveraging power and position authority, was the conception of leadership as “influencing change in the conduct of people”⁵¹
and/or as “the process of influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement.”⁵² Related to the emphasis on the use of influence by leaders is the conception of leadership as management “by persuasion and inspiration rather than by the direct or implied threat of coercion.”⁵³ Bass noted that this conception initially found favor among political scientists such as Neustadt, who concluded that leadership among American presidents was often grounded in their powers of persuasion.⁵⁴

In contrast to the emphasis on styles used by leaders to get their ­followers to take certain actions is the grouping of conceptions that focus on specific acts and behaviors that a person engages in while serving as a leader and attempting to direct and coordinate the work of his or her followers.⁵⁵ Bass himself mentioned actions such as “structuring the work relations, praising or criticizing group members, and showing consideration for their welfare and feelings.”⁵⁶ Related to this conception is the notion of “leadership as the initiation of structure,” which is based on the belief that leaders provide the stimulus to structure the behaviors of the members of the group and that leadership itself is the initiation and maintenance of structure in expectation and interaction.⁵⁷

Another important grouping of conceptions focuses on “leadership as a differentiated role”: This conception is based on role theory, which asserts that each member of a group occupies a position in the group which is more or less well defined and provides the member with a role to play. Differences among the various roles could be traced to influence, with the distinguishing element of the leader’s role being that he or she exerted influence over the other group members—their followers, whose actions were a response to the leader’s influence. Bass observed that

[o]f all the available definitions, the role conception of leadership is most firmly buttressed by research findings … [l]eadership as a differentiated role is required to integrate the various other roles of the group and to maintain unity of action in the group’s effort to achieve its goals.⁵⁸

The afore-described conceptions of leadership are not all-inclusive and, in fact, Bass noted that researchers had often attempted to combine some of the elements to cover a larger set of meanings. For ­example, Bass observed that Jago had defined leadership as “the exercise of noncoercive influence to coordinate the members of an organized group to accomplishing the group’s objectives” and had also argued that leadership was “a set of priorities attributed to those who are perceived to use such influences successfully.”⁵⁹ Tichy and Devanna focused on transformational leadership as emerging from a combination of power and personality and claimed that transformational leaders could be defined as skilled, knowledgeable change agents with power, legitimacy, and energy who were “courageous, value-driven, and able to deal with ambiguity and complexity.”⁶⁰

Building on the conception of leadership as an “exercise of influence,” Hemphill and Bass described various stages of interaction between leaders and followers, beginning with the leader’s initial efforts to change the behaviors of their followers, which they referred to as “attempted leadership.”⁶¹ If those efforts actually led to changes among the followers, the creation of change would be considered “successful leadership”; however, leadership would only be deemed “effective” if the followers were reinforced or rewarded for changing their behaviors to suit the requests of the leader.⁶² Some have argued that explicit exertion of influence by leaders is discretionary and should be undertaken only with respect to actions that are not otherwise prescribed within the leader’s recognized day-to-day managerial roles.⁶³

Day and Antonakis

After examining the research and accompanying literature relating to a wide array of theories of organization leadership, Day and Antonakis concluded that a comprehensive definition of leadership must incorporate the most commonly used definitional features: “the leader as person (dispositional characteristics), leader behavior, the effects of a leader, the interaction process between a leader and follower(s), and the importance of context.”⁶⁴ Day and Antonakis stressed that leadership “is required to direct and guide organizational and human resources toward the ­strategic objectives of the organization and ensure that organizational functions are aligned with the external environment.”⁶⁵ They noted that at the supervisory level, leadership compliments organizational systems by setting group goals and values, maximizing the use of the abilities of group members, and facilitating resolution of problems and conflicts that may arise within the group. In order words, “a leader is a ‘completer’ who does or gets done whatever is not being adequately handled by the group.”⁶⁶ At the higher, or executive, level of the organization the leader assumes responsibility for coordinating organizational strategies and activities with the challenges and opportunities that are identified during the leader’s scanning and monitoring of organization’s external environment.⁶⁷

Levels of Leadership

Zaccaro and Klimoski have argued strongly for careful consideration of organizational levels when studying the roles, functions, and recommended behaviors of organizational leaders.⁶⁸ They have endorsed the views of those scholars who have argued that one can observe qualitative shifts in the nature of leadership across organizational leaders and that organizational leadership was moderated by several significant factors such as organizational structure, particularly the organizational level where the leader is operating, the degree of differentiation in function, and the place in organizational space.⁶⁹ In the same vein, Muczyk and Adler, after surveying the extensive literature and theories relating to “leadership,” also concluded that the elements of leadership and the recommended behaviors of leaders vary depending on a variety of factors, including the position of the leader in the hierarchy, the type of business engaged in by the organization, and the environmental conditions that the organization is facing.⁷⁰ In order to capture these factors and provide organizational leaders with a way to figure out “what to do and when to do it,” they suggested a framework that included three levels of leadership: “transformational leadership,” which was also referred to as “big leadership,” which places the focus on the leader and his or her vision and direction and largely ignores the influences and opinions of subordinates when decisions are made about how they are expected to behave; “mid-range leadership,” which they explained to be more “transactional” in nature because they were “predicated either explicitly or implicitly on the idea of a ‘social compact’ between the leader and the subordinates”; and “small leadership,” which involves “little” acts of leadership (e.g., demonstrating knowledge of the job, “walking the talk,” fostering listening and practicing general supervision while allowing subordinates to figure out the details to achieve results), which can establish the requisite level of trust between leaders and subordinates that is needed in order to create a social compact between them that becomes the basis for high productivity and morale within the organization.⁷¹

Leadership, Power, and Management

When discussing definitions of leadership it is important to distinguish related concepts of “power” and “management,” each of which are often confused with leadership.⁷² Day and Antonakis suggested that “power” is rightly seen as “the means leaders have to potentially influence others” and that although power is not leadership it is nonetheless necessary for leaders to have power to be effective in that role.⁷³ With regard to leadership and management, Day and Antonakis noted that many researchers have come to accept the distinction between leadership as “purpose-driven action” to bring about organizational change or transformation and management as being “objectives driven.”⁷⁴ Although there are groups of researchers who argue that leaders and managers are different types of individuals,⁷⁵ others take the position that “successful leadership also requires successful management, that leadership and management are complementary, but that leadership goes beyond management, and that leadership is necessary for outcomes that exceed expectations.”⁷⁶

Muczyk and Adler argued that given the importance of “leadership” to organizations of all types and sizes it was essential to “attempt to integrate the many disparate concepts and constructs relating to this topic.”⁷⁷ As part of that process, they took the position that the appropriate approach for laying out the relationship between “leadership” and “management” was the one taken by Mintzberg when he suggested his 10 managerial roles in 1973, namely “… the leadership role is one of 10 managerial roles, although probably the most important one.”⁷⁸ They rejected suggestions that managerial activities should be subsumed under the broader umbrella of leadership because that would simply lead to “confusion between leadership and the means that a leader employs to obtain compliance from subordinates.”⁷⁹ They cited Gardner as an example of this approach, noting that he had developed a list of “basic leadership tasks” that included “managing” along with other responsibilities such as envisioning goals, affirming values, motivating, achieving a workable level of unity, explaining, serving as a symbol, representing the group externally, and renewing.⁸⁰ They were also critical of Kotter’s suggestion that leadership and management were two distinctive, albeit complimentary, systems of action: Leadership focused on coping with “change,” which requires providing direction, whereas management focused on coping with “complexity,” which requires developing and executing plans.⁸¹ Muczyk and Adler felt that Kotter had made a distinction without a difference and noted not only that “change can be quite complex” but also that one ­cannot truly be effective in setting and communicating a direction to navigate through a changing environment without also systematically creating a plan that can be followed by those that the leader/manager needs to influence and motivate.⁸²

Other Definitions and Conceptions of Leadership

Stogdill observed “there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept”⁸³ and by now it should be clear that there is no apparent limit to the creativity of researchers, management consultants, and actual practitioners in devising definitions and conceptions of leadership. Lyne de Ver, as part of her work on the influence of leadership on growth and economic development, noted that although there was an overwhelming consensus that “leadership” was important to the success of organizations and institutions in the private sector, there was still no consensus about how to define leadership, nor was there a model or approach relating to leadership that had garnered the support of scholars and practitioners and which could be used as a basis for assessing the behaviors of leaders or training persons to be more effective leaders. She observed that scholars and practitioners from management and organizational science, psychology, and other related disciplines had been the most prominent contributors to the study of leadership, but that leadership had yet to become a primary concern of those working in political science, economics, or development theory. She commented that one by-product of all this has been that “many of the conceptions of leadership in the literature are Western-oriented, universalist or individualistic” and then went on to present what she referred to as a brief survey of “a representative sample of some of the prevailing conceptions of leadership” that included the following:

Leadership as both an “act” and a “person”: “Leadership is both a process and a property. The process of leadership is the use of noncoercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of the members of an organized group toward the accomplishment of group objectives. As a property, leadership is the set of qualities or characteristics attributed to those who are perceived to successfully employ such influence.”⁸⁴

Leadership as facilitating creation and achievement of shared goals: “I define leaders as those who help a group create and achieve shared goals. Some try to impose their own goals, others derive them more from the group, but leaders mobilize people to reach those objectives.”⁸⁵

Leadership as marshaling collaborative group behavior: According to Dwight Eisenhower, leaders have the ability “to get people to work together, not only because you tell them to do so and enforce your orders but because they instinctively want to do it for you … [y]ou don’t lead by hitting people over the head; that’s assault, not leadership.”⁸⁶

Leadership as transformation of follower “wants” into “needs” specified by the leader: The conceptualization of leadership provided by Burns presumes that followers have primal desires, which may often be bad for or harmful to them, and that it is the role of the leader to transform those desires into needs that are consistent with goals and objectives established by the leader rather than the followers. Burns explained that “[l]eadership over human beings is exercised when persons with certain motives and purposes mobilize, in competition or conflict with others, institutional, political, psychological, and other resources so as to arouse, engage and satisfy the motives of followers.”⁸⁷

Upon completion of her survey, Lyne de Ver argued that the prevailing tendency among scholars and practitioners to conceive of leadership in terms of traits and characteristics, roles and behaviors, and styles was inadequate for understanding leadership from a “developmental” point of view given the neglect of the importance of context and the political nature of leadership. For Lyne de Ver, three guiding principles needed to be acknowledged to construct a definition of leadership for development purposes:

leadership implies the organization or mobilization of people and resources (economic, political and other) in pursuit of particular ends; leadership must always be understood contextually, occurring within a given indigenous configuration of power, authority and legitimacy, shaped by history, institutions, goals and political culture; and leadership regularly involves forging formal or informal coalitions, vertical or horizontal, of leaders and elites, in order to solve the pervasive collective action problems which largely define the challenges of growth and development.

She then suggested that “developmental leadership” could be defined as

the process of organizing or mobilizing people and resources in pursuit of particular ends or goals, in given institutional contexts of authority, legitimacy and power (often of a hybrid kind). Achieving these ends, and overcoming the collective action problems which commonly obstruct such achievement, normally requires the building of formal or informal coalitions of interests, elites and organizations, both vertical and horizontal.

Leadership as the exercise of influence has been a popular conception of the term since the beginning of the serious study of leadership, beginning with Nash’s view of leadership as the process of “influencing change in the conduct of people” in the late 1920s.⁸⁸ Stogdill referred to leadership as “the process of influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement.”⁸⁹ Yuki and Van Fleet observed that

[l]eadership is viewed as a process that includes influencing the task objectives and strategies of a group or organization, influencing people in the organization to implement the strategies and achieve the objectives, influencing group maintenance and identification, and influencing the culture of the organization.⁹⁰

Rost called leadership “an influence relationship among leaders and collaborators who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes.”⁹¹ Northouse described leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.”⁹²

Zaleznik agreed that leadership involved influencing the thoughts and processes of other people; however, he emphasized that influence typically required the use of power by the leader.⁹³ Bolden argued that in order for a leader’s influence to be effective he or she must succeed in inspiring followers to work toward group goals through personal motivation.⁹⁴ The U.S. Department of the Army counseled prospective leaders to engage in influence that involved providing purpose, direction, and motivation.⁹⁵ For other scholars, influence was just one of several actions required for a leader to be effective. For example, Van Vugt et al. described leadership as both influencing individuals to contribute to group goals and coordinating the pursuit of those goals,⁹⁶ and Yuki observed that leaders must not only influence their followers “to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it” but also design and oversee a “process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives.”⁹⁷

Finally, in his effort to provide a sampling of “the many definitions of leadership,” Shaver provided additional definitions and conceptions that have not otherwise been covered already in the discussion earlier.⁹⁸ He began with the often repeated definition offered by Bennis: “Leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realize your own leadership potential.” Also included was Drucker’s observation from 1995 that “[l]eadership is the lifting of a man’s vision to higher sights, the raising of a man’s performance to a higher standard, the building of a man’s personality beyond its normal limitations.”⁹⁹ Other quotes included “leadership should be defined in terms of the ability to build and maintain a group that performs well relative to its competition”¹⁰⁰; “leadership is the art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations”¹⁰¹; “[leadership is]…a process of motivating ­people to work together collaboratively to accomplish great things”¹⁰²; and “[l]eadership over human beings is exercised when persons with certain motives and purposes mobilize, in competition or conflict with others, institutional, political, psychological, and other resources so as to arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of followers.”¹⁰³

---

¹ See, e.g., Bass, B.M. 1997. “Does the Transactional-Transformational Leadership Paradigm Transcend Organizational and National Boundaries?” American Psychologist 52, no. 2, pp. 130–39; and Peterson, M., and J. Hunt. 1997. “International Perspectives on International Leadership.” Leadership Quarterly 8, no. 3, pp. 203–32.

² Zagoršek, H. 2004. Assessing the Impact of National Culture on Leadership: A Six Nation Study. Ljubljana.

³ Bass, B.M. 1990. Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Free Press; Day, D., and R. Lord. 1988. “Executive Leadership and Organizational Performance: Suggestions for a New Theory and Methodology.” Journal of Management 14, no. 3, pp. 453–64.

⁴ Schriesheim, C., and L. Neider. 1996. “Path-Goal Theory: The Long and Winding Road.” Leadership Quarterly 7, pp. 317–21; Howell, J., and D. Costley. 2001. Understanding Behaviors for Effective Leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

⁵ Zagoršek, H. 2004. Assessing the Impact of National Culture on Leadership: A Six Nation Study. Ljubljana. With regard to managing the cultural aspects of ­multinational corporations, see Miroshnik, V. 2002. “Culture and International Management: A Review.” Journal of Management Development 21, no. 7, pp. 521–44. Excellent reviews of the literature relating to international and cross-cultural leadership research can be found in House, R.J., N.S. Wright, and R.N. Aditya. 1997. “Cross-Cultural Research on Organizational Leadership: A Critical Analysis and a Proposed Theory.” In New Perspectives on International Industrial/Organizational Psychology, eds. P. Earle and M. Erez, 535–625. San Francisco; Dorfman, P. 1996. “International and Cross-Cultural Leadership Research.” In Handbook for International Management Research, eds. B. Punnett and O. Shenkar, 267–349. Oxford, UK: Blackwell; Dorfman, P.W. 1996. “International and Cross-cultural Leadership Research.” In Handbook for International Management Research, eds. B. Punnett and O. Shenkar, 2nd ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan; Dickson, M.W., D.N. Den Hartog, and J.K. Mitchelson. 2003. “Research on Leadership in a Cross-Cultural Context: Making Progress, and Raising New Questions.” The Leadership Quarterly 14, no. 6, pp. 729–68. and Scandura, T., and P. Dorfman. April 2004. “Leadership Research in an International and Cross-cultural Context.” The Leadership Quarterly 15, no. 2, pp. 277–307. For further discussion of the study of cross-cultural leadership in the context of the general evolution of cross-cultural studies, see “Cross-Cultural Leadership Studies” prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project (www.seproject.org).

⁶ See, e.g., Ardichvili, A., R. Cardozo, and A. Gasparishvili. 1998. “Leadership Styles and Management Practices of Russian Entrepreneurs: Implications for Transferability of Westerns HRD Interventions.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 9, no. 2, pp. 145–55; and Ardichvili, A., and K. Kuchinke. 2002. “Leadership Styles and Cultural Values Among Managers and Subordinates: A Comparative Study of Four Countries of the Former Soviet Union, Germany and the US.” Human Resource Development International 5, no. 1, pp. 99–117.

⁷ Stodgill, R. 1974. Handbook of Leadership, 259. New York, NY: Free Press; Fiedler, F. 1971. “Validation and Extension of the Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: A Review of Empirical Findings.” Psychological Bulletin 76, no. 2, p. 128.

⁸ Dickson, M.W., D.N. Den Hartog, and J.K. Mitchelson. 2003. “Research on Leadership in a Cross-cultural Context: Making Progress, and Raising New Questions.” The Leadership Quarterly 14, no. 6, pp. 729–68, p. 737.

⁹ House, R.J., P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, eds. 2004. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, 15. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

¹⁰ Id. at pp. 275–76.

¹¹ See Eckmann, H. 2018. “History of Leadership Studies.” http://jameslconsulting.com/documents/history-of-leadership-studies.pdf (accessed December 10, 2018) (includes citations to sources of leadership definitions)

¹² Muczyk, J., and D. Holt. May 2008. “Toward a Cultural Contingency Model of Leadership.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 14, no. 4, pp. 277–86, 280. (citing also Muczyk, J., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17; and Yuki, G. 1998. Leadership in Organisations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.)

¹³ Muczyk, J., and D. Holt. May 2008. “Toward a Cultural Contingency Model of Leadership.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 14, no. 4, pp. 277–86, 280. (adapted from Javidan, M., P. Dorfman, M. de Luque, and R. House. February 2006. “In the Eye of the Beholder: Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE.” Academy of Management Perspectives 20, no. 1, pp. 67–90.) For detailed discussion of the work of the GLOBE researchers, see “Cross-Cultural Leadership Studies” prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project.

¹⁴ Muczyk, J., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17 (citing Yukl, G., and C. Falbe. 1990. “Influence Tactics in Upward, Downward, and Lateral Influence Attempts.” Journal of Applied Psychology 75, no. 2, pp. 132–40.)

¹⁵ House, R.J., and N. Mansor. 1999. “Cultural Influences on Leadership and Organizations.” Advances in Global Leadership, Vol. 1, 171–233. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

¹⁶ See Northouse, P. 2016. “The History of Leadership Studies and Evolution of Leadership Theories.” June 14, 2016. https://toughnickel.com/business/The-History-of-Leadership-Studies-and-Evolution-of-Leadership-Theories (accessed December 10, 2018). See also Rost, J.C. 1991. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

¹⁷ Rost, J.C. 1991. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century, 47. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.(citing Moore, B.V. 1927. “The May Conference on Leadership.” Personnel Journal 6, no. 124, pp. 124–28).

¹⁸ Id. at pp. 49-50 (citing Hemphill, J. 1949. “The Leader and his Group.” ­Journal of Educational Research 28, pp. 225–29, 245–46.)

¹⁹ Id. at p. 50 citing Gibb, C.A. 1954. “Leadership.” In Handbook of Social ­Psychology, ed. G. Lindzey, 877–920, 2 vols. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

²⁰ Id. at p. 52 citing Titus, C. 1950. The Processes of Leadership. Dubuque, IA: Brown.

²¹ Schlesinger, J. 1967. “Political Careers and Political Leadership” In Political Leadership in Industrialized Societies, ed. L. Edinger, 266–93, 266. New York, NY: Wiley.

²² Rost, J.C. 1991. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century, 59. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

²³ For more on the “exchange theory of leadership,” see Jacobs, T. 1970. Leadership and Exchange Informal Organizations. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization; and Hollander, E.P. 1978. Leadership Dynamics. New York, NY: The Free Press.

²⁴ See Northouse, P. 2016. “The History of Leadership Studies and Evolution of Leadership Theories.” June 14, 2016. https://toughnickel.com/business/The-History-of-Leadership-Studies-and-Evolution-of-Leadership-Theories (accessed December 10, 2018).

²⁵ MacGregor Burns, J. 1979. Leadership. New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks. (“Leadership over human beings is exercised when persons with certain motives and purposes mobilize, in competition or conflict with others, institutional, political, psychological, and other resources so as to arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of followers”)

²⁶ See Northouse, P. 2016. “The History of Leadership Studies and Evolution of Leadership Theories.” June 14, 2016, https://toughnickel.com/business/The-History-of-Leadership-Studies-and-Evolution-of-Leadership-Theories (accessed December 10, 2018).

²⁷ For more information on “authentic leadership,” see George, B., et al. 2017. Authentic Leadership. HBR Emotional Intelligence Series Cambridge MA: ­Harvard Business Press.

²⁸ See Northouse, P. 2016. “The History of Leadership Studies and Evolution of Leadership Theories.” June 14, 2016, https://toughnickel.com/business/The-History-of-Leadership-Studies-and-Evolution-of-Leadership-Theories (accessed December 10, 2018).

²⁹ Zaccaro, S., and R. Klimoski. 2001. “The Nature of Organizational Leadership: An Introduction.” In The Nature of Organizational Leadership (Understanding the Performance Imperatives Confronting Today’s Leaders), eds. S. Zaccaro and R. Klimoski, 1–41, 6. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

³⁰ Id. The discussion in the following sections is adapted from the cited work of Zaccaro and Klimoski at pp. 6–13.

³¹ Id.

³² Id. at p. 8.

³³ Katz, D., and R. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations, 528, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley 528.

³⁴ Zaccaro, S., and R. Klimoski. 2001. “The Nature of Organizational Leadership: An Introduction.” In The Nature of Organizational Leadership (Understanding the Performance Imperatives Confronting Today’s Leaders), eds. S. Zaccaro and R. Klimoski, 1–41, 8–9. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

³⁵ Id. at p. 10.

³⁶ Jacobs, T., and E. Jaques. 1991. “Executive Leadership.” In Handbook of Military Psychology, eds. R. Gal and A. Manglesdorff, 434. New York, NY: Wiley.

³⁷ Zaccaro, S., and R. Klimoski. 2001. “The Nature of Organizational Leadership: An Introduction.” In The Nature of Organizational Leadership (Understanding the Performance Imperatives Confronting Today’s Leaders), eds. S. Zaccaro and R. Klimoski, 1–41, 12. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

³⁸ See Zaccaro, S. 1996. Models and Theories of Executive Leadership: A Conceptual/Empirical Review and Integration. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences; Jacobs, T., and E. Jaques. 1987. “Leadership in Complex Systems.” In Human Productivity Enhancement, ed. J. Zeidner. New York, NY: Praeger; and Katz, D., and R.L. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley.

³⁹ Zaccaro, S., and R. Klimoski. 2001. “The Nature of Organizational Leadership: An Introduction.” In The Nature of Organizational Leadership (Understanding the Performance Imperatives Confronting Today’s Leaders), eds. S. Zaccaro and R. Klimoski, 1–41, 12. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

⁴⁰ Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 19–20, 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press.

⁴¹ Id.

⁴² Cooley, C. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribners.

⁴³ Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press.

⁴⁴ Id. at pp. 15–16; and Davis, R. 1942. The Fundamentals of Top Management. New York, NY: Harper.

⁴⁵ Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 16, 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press. See also Stogdill, R., and C. Shartle. 1948. “Methods for Determining Patterns of Leadership Behavior in Relation to Organization Structure and Objectives.” Journal of Applied Psychology 32, no. 3, p. 286, 287. (“Leadership is a process of interaction between persons who are participating in goal oriented group activities”).

⁴⁶ Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 12, 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press; Bowden, A. 1926. “A Study of the Personality of Student Leaders in the United States.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 21, pp. 149–60; Bingham, W. 1927. “Leadership.” In The Psychological Foundations of Management, ed. H.C. Metcalfe. New York, NY: Shaw.

⁴⁷ Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 12, 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press.

⁴⁸ Moore, B. 1921. “The May Conference on Leadership.” Personnel Journal 6, no. 124, pp. 124–28; and Munson, E.L., and A.H. Miller. 1921. The Management of Men: A Handbook on the Systematic Development of Morale and the Control of Human Behavior. H. Holt.

⁴⁹ Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 13, 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press.

⁵⁰ Id. at p. 15.

⁵¹ Nash, J. 1929. “Leadership.” Phi Delta Kappa 12, pp. 24–25.

⁵² Stogdill, R. 1950. “Leadership, Membership and Organization.” Psychological Bulletin 47, no. 1.

⁵³ Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 14, 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press.

⁵⁴ Neustadt, R. 1960. Presidential Power. New York, NY: Wiley.

⁵⁵ See, e.g., Fiedler, F. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

⁵⁶ Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 14, 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press.

⁵⁷ Stogdill, R. 1959. Individual Behaviour and Group Achievement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. as quoted in Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 17, 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press. See also Stogdill, R. 1974. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, 411. New York, NY: The Free Press, (“Leadership is defined as the initiation and maintenance of structure in expectation and interaction”)

⁵⁸ Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 3rd ed, 17. New York, NY: The Free Press.

⁵⁹ Jago, A. 1982. “Leadership: Perspectives in Theory and Research.” Management Science 28, no. 3, pp. 315–36.

⁶⁰ Tichy, N., and M. Devanna. 1986. Transformational Leadership. New York, NY: Wiley. Summarized in Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 18, 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press.

⁶¹ Hemphill, J.K. 1949. “The Leader and his Group.” Journal of Educational Research 28, pp. 225–29, 245–46; and Bass, B.M. 1960. Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational Behavior. New York, NY: Harper.

⁶² Bass, B.M. 1990. Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 13, 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press.

⁶³ Id. at p. 14 (see, for example, Miller, J. 1973. Structuring/Destructuring Leadership in Open Systems (Tech. Rep. No. 64). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, Management Research Centre; and Jacobs, T., and E. Jaques. 1987. “Leadership in Complex Systems.” In Human Productivity Enhancement, ed. J. Zeidner. New York, NY: Praeger.)

⁶⁴ Day, D., and J. Antonakis. 2012. “Leadership: Past, Present and Future.” In The Nature of Leadership, eds. D. Day and J. Antonakis, 3–25, 5, 2nd ed. ­Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (citing also Bass, B.M. 2008. The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 4th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.)

⁶⁵ Id. (citing Zaccaro, S. 2001. The Nature of Executive Leadership: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis of Success. Washington, DC: American Psychological ­Association.)

⁶⁶ Id. (citing McGrath, J. 1962. Leadership Behavior: Some Requirements for Leadership Training. Washington, DC: U.S. Civil Service Commission, Office of Career Development.)

⁶⁷ Id. (citing Katz, D., and R. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley.)

⁶⁸ Zaccaro, S., and R. Klimoski. 2001. “The Nature of Organizational Leadership: An Introduction.” In The Nature of Organizational Leadership (Understanding the Performance Imperatives Confronting Today’s Leaders), eds. S. Zaccaro and R. Klimoski, 1–41, 12–13. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

⁶⁹ Id. at p. 4.

⁷⁰ Muczyk, J., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17.

⁷¹ For further discussion of the relationship between organizational level and leadership roles activities, including a detailed description of each of the levels of leadership mentioned in the text, see “Leadership Roles and Activities” in “Leadership: A Library of Resources for Sustainable Entrepreneurs” prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project. More information on the research relating to the “three levels of leadership” can be found in Antonakis, J., and R. House. 2002. “An Analysis of the Full-Range Leadership Theory: The Way Forward.” In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead, eds. B. Avolio and F. Yammarino, 3–34. Amsterdam, Netherlands: JAI; and Antonakis, J., R. House, J. Rowold, and L. Borgmann. 2010. A Fuller Full-range Leadership Theory: Instrumental, Transformational, and Transactional Leadership, Unpublished Manuscript. With regard to the second work, the terms “instrumental” and “transactional” leadership are similar to the “small” and “mid-range” leadership, respectively, discussed in the text.

⁷² Day, D., and J. Antonakis. 2012. “Leadership: Past, Present and Future.” In The Nature of Leadership, eds. D. Day and J. Antonakis, 3–25, 5, 2nd ed. ­Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

⁷³ Id. Day and Antonakis listed several examples of power including referent power, expertise, the ability to reward or punish performance, and the legitimate power of formal position within the organization. See also French, J., and B. Raven, “The Basis of Social Power.” In Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, eds. D. Cartwright and A. Zander, 259–69, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

⁷⁴ Day, D., and J. Antonakis. 2012. “Leadership: Past, Present and Future.” In The Nature of Leadership, eds. D. Day and J. Antonakis, 3–25, 5, 2nd ed. ­Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

⁷⁵ See, e.g., Zaleznik, A. March-April 1992. “Managers and Leaders: Are they Different?” Harvard Business Review, pp. 126–33.

⁷⁶ Day, D., and J. Antonakis. 2012. “Leadership: Past, Present and Future” In The Nature of Leadership, eds. D. Day and J. Antonakis, 3–25, 5, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. citing Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York, NY: Free Press; Bass, B.M. 1998. Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; and Bass, B.M., and R. Riggio. 2006. Transformation Leadership, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

⁷⁷ Muczyk, J., and T. Adler. 2002. “An Attempt at a Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 2, pp. 2–17.

⁷⁸ Id.

⁷⁹ Id.

⁸⁰ Id. (citing Gardner, J. 1987. “The Tasks of Leadership.” New Management 4, no. 4, pp. 9–14)

⁸¹ Kotter, J. 1996. Leading Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

⁸² For further discussion of the relationship between leadership and management, see “Management: A Library of Resources for Sustainable Entrepreneurs” prepared and distributed by the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project.

⁸³ Stogdill, R. 1974. Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, 7. New York, NY: The Free Press.

⁸⁴ Jago, A.G. 1982. “Leadership: Perspectives in Theory and Research.” Management Science 28, no. 3, pp. 315–36.

⁸⁵ Nye, J. 2008. The Powers to Lead, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. xi. Nye argued that good and effect leadership required a combination of soft power skills, hard power skills, and “contextual intelligence,” whereas Nye described as a leader’s ability knowing when to use which combination of soft or hard skills.

⁸⁶ Quote appeared in Axelrod, A., and P. Georgescu. 2010. Eisenhower on Leadership: Ike’s Enduring Lessons in Total Victory Management, 120, 386 vols. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

⁸⁷ Burns, J. 1978. Leadership, 18, New York, NY: Harper Torch Books.

⁸⁸ Nash, J. 1929. “Leadership.” Phi Delta Kappa 12, pp. 24–25.

⁸⁹ Stogdill, R. 1950. “Leadership, Membership and Organization.” Psychological Bulletin 47, no. 1, p. 1.

⁹⁰ Yukl, G., and D. Van Fleet. 1990. “Theory and Research on Leadership in Organizations.” In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, eds. M. Dunnette and L. Hough, 149, 2nd ed. 3 vols. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

⁹¹ Rost, J.C. 1997. “Moving from Individual to Relationship: A Postindustrial Paradigm of Leadership.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 4, no. 4, pp. 3–16.

⁹² Northouse, P. 2010. Leadership: Theory and Practice, 3, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

⁹³ Zaleznik, A. May-June 1977. “Managers and Leaders: Are they Different?” Harvard Business Review 55, no. 3, p. 67.

⁹⁴ Bolden, R. July 2004. “What is Leadership?” Research Report 1, 5. Exeter, UK: Leadership South West.

⁹⁵ U.S. Army. October 2006. Army Leadership: Competent, Confident and Agile: Field Manual 6–22 Washington, DC: Department of the Army, ­Glossary 3.

⁹⁶ Van Vugt, M., R. Hogan, and R. Kaiser. 2008. “Leadership, Followership, and Evolution: Some Lessons from the Past.” American Psychologist 63, no. 3, p. 182.

⁹⁷ Yukl, G. 2010. Leadership in Organizations, 8, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

⁹⁸ Shaver, E. 2018. “The Many Definitions of Leadership.” http://ericshaver.com/the-many-definitions-of-leadership/ (accessed December 10, 2018).

⁹⁹ Drucker, P.F. 1954. The Practice of Management. New York, NY: Harper ­Business.

¹⁰⁰ Hogan, R., and R.B. Kaiser. 2005. “What We Know about Leadership.” Review of General Psychology 9, no. 2, p. 169.

¹⁰¹ Kouzes, J., and B.Z. Posner. 1995. The Leadership Challenge, 30. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

¹⁰² Vroom, V.H., and A. Jago. 2007. “The Role of Situation in Leadership.” American Psychologist 62, no. 1, p. 17.

¹⁰³ Burns, J. 1978. Leadership, 18. New York, NY: Harper & Row.