Triangulating Freedom and Leadership Development by Allen Carn firstname.lastname@example.org Program: PhD in Applied Management and Decision Sciences Specialization: Leadership and Organizational ChangeKAM Assessor: Dr. Branford McAllister email@example.com Faculty Mentor: Dr. Duane Tway firstname.lastname@example.org Walden University June 6, 2012
i Abstract BreadthIn comparing and contrasting various leadership development theories, transformationalleadership was supposed to be the pinnacle of leadership development. However, as the leaderdevelops, he or she should never discard process-oriented lessons learned as being a situationalor a transactional leader. Situations and events may require the leader to react in an appropriatemanner that is either situational or transactional. Furthermore, a transformational leader does nottransform societies to fit his or her personal desires at the expense of its citizens. It is atransformational leader‟s moral responsibility to transform a society by enacting a vision ofpositive social change. He or she completes this life goal by transforming those in their personalsphere of influence to aspire to the highest levels of moral development. In addition, the process-oriented moral leader provides the constituent the necessary freedom and opportunity to learnand choose.
ii Abstract DepthThe focal point of the depth was to review leadership theories in current scholarly literature thatcould enhance the premise of process-oriented moral leadership. The literature included variousleadership theories, but the focus was on situational, contingency, transactional, andtransformational. The examination of the various leadership theory encapsulated in the literatureincluded the key concepts found in process-oriented moral leadership. These concepts included:the driving force of change, competition, and positive social change. Because of this analysis, theconcept of process-oriented moral leadership is enhanced in terms of looking for opportunitiesand avoiding threats that help leaders achieve their primary purpose, serving and inspiring thosethey lead to be more than they thought capable.
iii Abstract ApplicationIn an effort to triangulate freedom, equal opportunity, and positive social change concerningleadership development, three iconic leaders provided invaluable information to assist potentialprocess-oriented moral leaders in implementing their version of leadership development andorganizational change. In his self-proclaimed arrogance, Alinsky provided a method to developorganizers and leaders through continual societal upheaval. Iacocca announced that everyone hasleadership potential; it just takes a mentor, knowledge, and hard work to develop his ninecharacteristics of a good leader. This mentoring belief is similar to King‟s belief in the unlimitedpotential of individuals to achieve the height dimension of life, which includes leadershipdevelopment principles and the concept of interrelatedness. Interrelatedness provides the bestexample why Alinsky and Iacocca believed that leaders were supposed to serve the needs of allindividuals.
v Potential POML Negatives. 73 Amoral Transformational 77 Potential POML Positives. 77 Potential POML Negatives. 80 Moral Transformational 83 Potential POML Positives. 84 Potential POML Negatives. 87Summary 91 Driving Force for Change 91 Competition 96 Positive Social Change 99Conclusion 102Application 107Analysis 110 Leadership Development 111 Morality 115 Leader-Follower Relationship 124 riving Force for Change 128 Competition 134 Positive Social Change 141Conclusion 147
1 Leadership Development: Discovering a Morally Efficient Process to Achieve Positive Social Change Synopsis Process-oriented moral leadership (POML) derived from empowering individualdevelopment concepts that suggest an individual should focus on the journey and not the result.This empowering journey of self-discovery provides the starting point for POML. From thisstarting point, Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed, “to encourage initiative in others, training iscrucial to build self-efficacy and to encourage initiative. Training is one form of preparation:another effective way to prepare is mental stimulation” (pp. 170-171). Mental stimulationrequires a “powerful heuristic strategy for making people confident that they can act when thesituation requires” (p. 171). This strategy in developing others to become POMLs has six basicconcepts that were analogous Kouzes and Posner‟s belief in empowerment leadership. POMLconcepts include leadership development, morality, leader-follower relationship, driving forcefor change, competition, and positive social change. This fundamental leadership developmentstrategy serves as the starting point used to define the concept of POML. This process defines adevelopment path that requires current leaders to relinquish power to empower. However, it alsorequires aspiring leaders to classify and be committed to their core principles. These coreprinciples and ethics serve as the aspiring leader‟s foundation; consequently, the aspiring leadershould never abandon them as they progress in their leadership development process. Finally, asthe individual develops they increase their leadership potential to serve their constituents in amanner that allows them to develop and maximize their potential. In the breadth, the tactic is to focus on the foundational strategic concepts that includeleadership development, morality, and leader-follower relationship. These fundamental concepts
2offer insight on contingency and situational theories, transactional theories, and transformationaltheories. According to Bass (1985) and Burns (1978), leadership development is the engine thatdrives a vision of transformational change. Morality to Kouzes and Posner (2007) is the bedrockof understanding to systematic and efficient change while Burns believed the leader-followerrelationship is the lubrication that sustains a vision. Consequently, a collaborative theory evolvesthat promotes POML as the breadth compares and contrasts various leadership theories. Using this essential POML leadership foundation developed in the breadth, the depth willenhance and sharpen the POML process by analyzing the driving forces for change, competition,and positive social change using current leadership literature. The driving force for change stemsfrom a source generating a need as Bass (1985) alluded to in his theory. More importantly, thisconcept identifies the source of that need, and its use to promote change. Kouzes and Posner(2007) believed that competition is a powerful force that drives win-win solutions while Bennisand Ward-Biederman (1997) believed competition was the key to survival and a win at any costmentality. According to Kouzes and Posner, winning at any cost is antithetical to positive socialchange; furthermore, they believed that leadership development is the key to positive socialchange because it ultimately requires empowerment. It completes the development of one leader,while providing leadership development opportunities for a multitude of other aspiring leaders;as a result, it generates a force multiplying effect for positive social change. In the process ofusing leadership development to generate positive social change, the analysis suggests the leaderhas to protect freedom and other ingredients necessary for leadership development. Ultimately,the leader must do no harm to the mechanisms necessary to leadership development and positivesocial change.
3 In the application, this article ends with an analysis of three iconic leader‟s methods ofleadership development; the iconic leaders were Saul Alinsky, Lee Iacocca, and Dr. MartinLuther King, Jr. The analysis encompasses the positives and negatives of each leader‟sperspective as it concerns the six critical aspects of empowering leadership. The six aspects wereleadership development, morality, leader-follower relationship, driving forces for change,competition, and positive social change. Alinsky‟s (1989) perspective was admittedly efficient inexpressing contradictory claims of social change. Uncaringly, Alinsky sought contradiction asmeans to amass power and hateful zealots. Unlike Alinsky, who was at least consistent in hisbeliefs, Iacocca (2007) was inconsistent in his book that seeks to answer the question where haveall the leaders gone. Iacocca intertwined cronyism with soulful thoughts about mentoring. King(1986) was consistent in his belief in the interrelatedness of the individual and the unlimitedleadership development potential and power that comes with it. With great power comes greatindividual responsibility, which is in line with the POML maxim, first, do no harm, and thenseek positive social change.
4 Breadth AMDS 8512: Classical and Emerging Paradigms of Leadership Introduction In the breadth, the method used to refine a collaborative theory that promotes POMLinvolves comparing and contrasting various leadership theories authored by Bass; Bennis andWard-Biederman; Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi; Burns; Ibbotson; and Kouzes and Posner.The comparison focuses on three foundational elements of POML: they are leadershipdevelopment, morality, and the leader-follower relationship. The POML analysis begins with anexamination of the positive and negatives of contingency, situational, transactional, andtransformational leadership development theories. The analysis includes the methodology ofPOML used to compare and contrast each theory in order to ascertain the effectiveness of each indeveloping holistic leaders. The comparison includes the process of developing a leader, thefundamental morality of the theory, and its perspective on the leader-follower relationship. Thisanalysis focuses on the intrinsic aspects of the leader and his or her direct sphere of influence.Furthermore, this analysis provides the first portion of the answer that advances the notion that aprocess-oriented moral leader is something more than just another transformational theory.Contingency and Situational Leadership As noted by Kouzes and Posner (2007), contingency and situational leadership havemany similarities since both require the leader to adapt to a follower‟s reactions to an externalstimulus. Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi (1985) best explained this notion as they extolled thevirtues of contingent and situational leadership-styles. They believed that one leadership-stylecannot effectively respond to an infinite number of follower responses; consequently, theythought that contingent or situational leadership-style was the prudent choice in leadership
5development. However, there was one main difference between Ibbotson‟s (2008) contingenttheory and Blanchard et al.‟s situational theory. According to Ibbotson, a contingency theoryattempts to assess the follower‟s ingenuity in responding to an external stimulus, whileBlanchard et al. situational theory has a narrower perspective. Situational theory requires theleader and the follower to measure the follower‟s responses to external stimuli. This section willanalyze contingency theory and situational theory simultaneously while determining what eachtheory does or does not do well with respect to the leadership development process, morality,and leader-follower relationship. Potential POML Positives. One of the critical strengths in either contingency or situational leadershipdevelopment is flexibility, as noted by both Ibbotson (2008) and Blanchard et al. (1985).Ibbotson suggested using a creative cross-functional team that had a strong and well-developed leader to harvest spontaneous creativity as the team handled various tasks.From within the team, a leader develops as they became experienced in spotting desiredoutputs from other individuals in the work team. In total, Ibbotson thought the leadershipprofession is a learnable skill. A creative leader‟s capability determines the level ofexpertise in which they create situations to produce the correct or spontaneous result.From Ibbotson‟s perspective, leadership has to be more directive than democratic. On the subject of situational leadership, Blanchard et al. (1985) had a different outlook onleadership development, which contrasted sharply from Ibbotson (2008). Blanchard et al.believed that a leader strives to be more democratic than directive. However, the leader‟sapproach or style with respect to follower depends upon the follower‟s measurable level ofperformance. There are “four leadership styles” within situational leadership theory; the
6leadership styles were “directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating” (p. 31). A leader usesthe appropriate style that matches the level of measurable performance from the follower. As thefollower progresses in understanding while achieving an agreed upon level of output, the leaderswitches his or her style of leadership to match a followers‟ measured output. A leaderdelegating responsibility to the follower is the highest level of achievement. Blanchard et al.believed that a followers‟ ability to achieve a consistent level of performance is the only truemeasure of performance with regard to “competence and commitment” (p. 60). In a diverse culture, Ibbotson‟s (2008) believed that morality is a potent force that derivesfrom the leader‟s ability to “balance power and humility” (p. 10). This position appears to beneutral as it relates to any social moral norm and is dependent upon the leader defining morality.With respect to balancing power and humility, it requires a self-effacing leader knowing he orshe does not have all of the answers. As a result, the leader must be humble and provide his orher followers enough freedom to be unimpeded in expressing an opinion or idea. This requires astrong mutually dependent bond between the leader and the follower that is comparable to anethic of reciprocity. However, it is the leader‟s responsibility to manipulate and then harvest thatopen-minded natural act. Thus, the freedom of expression is dependent on the authoritarianleader‟s level of humility concerning their imposed morality. As with Ibbotson (2008), Blanchard et al. (1985) had a neutral position concerning anysocially set morality. The organization or the leader advocates their interpretation of morality.Whatever the source providing moral guidance, Blanchard et al. believed it is the leader‟sresponsibility to maintain a high level of moral understanding throughout the organization.Consequently, this high level of moral understanding made situational leadership developmenttheory more stringent than Ibbotson‟s creative based contingency theory. Blanchard et al.
7reemphasizes this disciplined approach to morality when stating leaders need to be constantlyevaluating the followers understanding of organizational morality. This means that a concept offairness revolves around organizational and societal rules, ethics, and morals. The follower‟sability to follow them is a part of the overall evaluation. Since the leader evaluates the followerin a continuous manner, the leader‟s leadership style varies as the follower develops competenceand commitment. This also ensures that the follower‟s moral and ethical code adheres to thestandard set by the leader. Since morality was not a priority to Ibbotson (2008), the leader-follower relationship hasto have well-defined roles and boundaries between leader and follower. Having defined roles iscomparable to Blanchard et al.‟s (1985) belief in leader needing to know a follower‟s level ofdevelopment. However, Ibbotson also believed that a leader could take away the boundarieswhen needed. For example, if the leader sets up a brainstorming event that encouragesspontaneity, he or she would temporarily eliminate the boundary between the leader and thefollower. As a result, this newly appointed freedom encourages the follower to react to theleader‟s predetermined stimulus and event boundaries. As the followers react to the stimulus, theleader coaches, mentors, facilitates, or even participates to encourage the continued developmentof the followers. As soon as the event between the leader and follower ends with the harvestingof creative ideas, the boundaries between leader and follower would resurface. The followerwould reassume their previous role. Similarly, Blanchard et al. (1985) had well defined relationship boundaries. UnlikeIbbotson‟s (2008) approach, Blanchard et al. used an approach that focuses on the continuousflow of small victories. This differed significantly from Ibbotson‟s creative bursts ofdevelopment energy. Continuous small victories are a method that promotes positive
8reinforcement, which helps increase the level of confidence and trust between the leader andfollower (Blanchard et al.). Consequently, not only did small victories serve as a continuousapproach to leadership development, they also strengthen the relationship between leader andfollower on a continual basis. Potential POML Negatives. The positive found in Ibbotson‟s (2008) leadership development theory was hisbelief in the level of freedom the leader bestows upon the follower. This freedomprovides the energy for dynamic, creative bursts of ideas while simultaneously providingthe best opportunity for development. However, as soon as the creative burst subsides,the leader falls back into the role of project manager or director, while the followerresumes a more subservient role. Contrastingly, one of Blanchard et al.‟s (1985) strengthswere a series of small victories as the follower developed; however, this concept relegatesthe follower to a need to know basis which means they only know what is necessary tocomplete their assigned tasks. This differed greatly from Ibbotson‟s belief, since seeingthe overall goal is an essential ingredient as the leader shapes the brainstorming event. Blanchard et al. (1985) determined that it was immoral to treat followers the same whenthey are at different levels of development within a status level. The original weakness with thisconcept is the subjectivity of the leader to determine the appropriate level the follower is at in hisor her development. Blanchard et al. tried to use “SMART – Specific, Measurable, Attainable,Relevant, and Trackable” (pp. 89-90) goals to reduce this weakness. The concept ofpersonalizing levels of development contrasts sharply with Ibbotson‟s (2008) belief that leadersshould provide equal treatment to all individuals within a status level. Ibbotson despisedhierarchy. Ironically, Ibbotson offered SMART goals as a means to achieve better performance
9in followers. Bass (1985), on the other hand, thought that SMART goals were just another formof the “carrot or the stick” (p. 130) approach to leadership development. Concerning Bass, heused SMART goals to aid the followers to become better managers of goals rather thandeveloping into leaders. Kouzes and Posner (2007) offered caution when using a reward orpunishment approach when dealing with morality and leadership development. The authorsthought it limited the follower‟s perspective in regards to their hierarchy of needs; consequently,it would impede their development. The primary drawback to Ibbotson‟s (2008) leader-follower relationship as it related tohis contingency theory is his dependence on the power-humility ratio that requires a strongmutually dependent bond. As Burns (1978) noted, the core issue concerning power in the leader-follower relationship is the mission or function of the exchange between the leader and follower.Since Ibbotson was morally neutral, there is little guidance to where the leader could take thefollower. The only firewall to protect the follower is the leader‟s humility. However, Burns re-issued Lord Acton‟s warning about power being a corruptible force. Humility offers little solaceto the follower as the leader has the potential to act as an ambivalent dictator. Blanchard et al.‟sperspective suffers from the same weakness as Ibbotson‟s; the leader-follower relationship is stilldependent upon the leader‟s interpretation of the organizational or community morality. As Bass(1985) declared, a leader could mislead, promote ignorance, or encourage negative activismwithin the follower. Concerning Blanchard et al.‟s and Ibbotson‟s perspective on leadership,there continues to be a fragile link to the greater good.Transactional Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) shared similar views of transactional leadership. They bothbelieve it is an inescapable stepping-stone in the process of a leader evolving into a
10transformational leader. The difference between the two is that Burns believed that transactionalleadership is a part of a linear evolution towards transformational leadership, while Bass had adynamic opinion of transactional leadership. For Bass, leadership development theories such astransactional theory are tools in a toolbox, used as necessary by a transformational leader guidedby experience and knowledge. In some ways, transactional leadership is similar to contingencyor situational leadership, since Bass and Burns both believed that transactional leadership is anagreed upon exchange. Nevertheless, the analysis in the next section will compare Bass andBurns‟ interpretation of that exchange in terms of positive and negatives as they relate to POML.In doing so, it will break down each author‟s theory with respect to the leadership developmentprocess, morality, and the leader-follower relationship. Potential POML Positives. Bass (1985) viewed the exchange between a leader and follower as an assessment ofneeds, with an exchange occurring if both parties met the other‟s negotiated need. Transactionalleadership, in terms of leadership development, is just another exchange. The leader receives anincrease in output while the follower receives tutelage in spotting opportunities, negotiatingskills and a small portion of the leader‟s power or the promise of power in the near future.Dissimilarly, Burns (1978) viewed the exchange as an item for item transference, such as workfor pay. If the leader wants more work, then he or she has to provide greater benefits. For Burns,transactional leadership development occurs when a leader provides insight concerning a worktopic, identifies a follower‟s transactional needs, and helps the follower spot transactional needsin others. This could mean more power for the follower while reducing the leader‟s burden ofwork and responsibility. One of the positives, found in both author‟s leadership developmenttheories, is the simplicity in the item for item exchange using a pseudo market bartering system
11of leadership development. The first step for the follower in leadership development is the act ofbartering to receive greater responsibilities. According to Burns (1978), the level of mutual understanding identifies the terms of theexchange and determines the level of morality. Increasing the level of understanding between thetwo parties makes the exchange between leader and follower more moral. It is imperative that theleader provides as much clarification as possible in a scope of work, instructions on how toperform the work, expected output, and the expected reward after achieving a certain output.Bass (1985) had a slightly different take on transactional morality. He viewed a transactionalleader as an individual that works within the confines of the law or social-moral ethos. Thetransactional leader never transforms or alters the terms of understanding. The moral strength,according to Bass, is the leader or follower being unwilling to alter the terms of the exchangeunless both parties are mutually willing to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. Thedependability in knowing that the leader or follower would not alter this understanding isreassuring to both parties. For both Bass (1985) and Burns (1978), the relationship between leader and follower is ashrewd exchange of needs and desires. The POML positive in this exchange is the level ofcommunication necessary to create a moral and mutually beneficial agreement. The act ofcreating this agreement also breeds confidence in a trusting relationship that has the potential tobe a lasting professional friendship. The exchange of needs offers the opportunity for the leaderand the follower to inject personal observations and opinions. This exchange provides both theleader and follower the opportunity to grow professionally and to learn. The relationship positivefor Bass and Burns, as well as any other leadership theory, occurs when both parties activelycommunicate and exchange information. As the level of open and honest communication
12increases, the level of trust increases with the leader and follower strengthening the bondbetween them. Potential POML Negatives. The agreement in transactional leadership determines the level of development.However, as Bass (1985) asserted, POML negatives occur when “compromise, intrigue,and control” (p. 13) mask a leader‟s hidden agenda. This misdirection of intentionscarried out by the leader would encourage the follower to be ignorant of the harm theyare doing to their own long-term development. At this point, the follower would eitherbecome despondent or learn negative life skills. Another negative that Bass noted occurswhen a leader would set unrealistic goals, setting the follower up to fail instead ofsucceeding. This could destroy the follower‟s confidence in his or her own abilities.Lastly, Bass thought transactional leadership focuses too much on the process and notenough on broad issues that influence the world around them. This meant that leadersshould steer followers away from the process and fundamental issues; instead, followersshould be inspired to focus more on societal issues. In a comparable manner, Burns(1978) thought transactional leadership development is a disservice to the follower sinceit did not inspire the follower to be more than they were capable of negotiating. Burnsnoted that another potential negative occurs when the follower could not present his orher terms in an effective manner. The leader could then determine that the follower isweak, unrefined, or uneducated. He thought the problem is more with the listening skillsof the leader and not the communication skills of the follower. Bass (1985) expressed concern that if the language in the agreement is brief orambiguous, then the rational response by the follower is that the leader is purposely being
13unscrupulous or vague in order to achieve a greater level of control or output. This lackof communication could make an honest leader appear scheming and divisive. However,Bass was just as concerned with a leader being purposefully manipulative by injectingambiguous or confusing language into an agreement. Another concern of Bass‟ occurredwhen a leader would carry out the letter of the agreement while committing unethical actsoutside the social moral norm. This would undermine the development of the follower,organization, or community the leader represents for his or her own personal gain. Burns(1978) had a similar view concerning the moral weakness in transactional leadership.This moral weakness occurs when a leader fails to project trustworthiness, use powercompetently, correctly apply the follower‟s output to the stated goal, or act appropriatelywhen action is necessary. This moral weakness hinders the moral development of thefollower. Both Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) thought that as the morality of the agreementbroke down, the leader-follower relationship would begin to degrade. For Bass, the firstmistake a transactional leader makes is to take punitive action when a follower has anoccurrence where he or she generated less than optimum output. If this occurs, atransactional leader would force the follower to regress downward in Maslow‟s hierarchyof needs. Bass believed that this would only ensure a response that often has unintendedconsequences, which fractures the understanding in the agreement as well as therelationship between leader and follower. Burns had a different take on the leadership-follower relationship, the intended reward for the output given often leads to a breakdownin the relationship. This misunderstanding often leads to a degree of unintended effectsgenerating negative (punitive) fluctuations in the leader‟s use of power, which in turn
14causes the follower to produce nothing more than the minimum requirement.Unfortunately, the leader views this cause and effect response as a loss in output and thecycle would repeat. For Burns, the inability of a transactional to be more proactive thanwhat the status quo requires often causes the transactional leader to be reactionary. As aresult, this generates unnecessary stress upon the leader-follower relationship.Transformational According to Burns (1978), the primary limitation in most leadership theories is theabsence of a transformational perspective that encourages the leader to be an agent of socialchange. The actual social change agent is where the author‟s began to differ; Bass (1985) andBennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) believed that a transformational leader could promotechange that is negative as well as a positive. In this analysis, Bass represented the traditionalperspective while Bennis and Ward-Biederman represented the emerging paradigm in leadershipdevelopment. Meanwhile, Burns, who represented the traditional perspective, agreed withKouzes and Posner (2007), who represented the emerging paradigm, they believed that atransformational leader promotes positive social change. The initial overall premise concerningtransformational leadership is the same between the two groups; a transformational leader isperceptive in understanding the needs and desires of their followers. However, the first groupmade up of Bass, Bennis, and Ward-Biederman believe it is acceptable for a transformationalleader to manipulate their follower‟s needs for selfish reasons. Meanwhile, Burns, Kouzes, andPosner thought a transformational leader is an agent of positive social change and uses theirfollowers‟ needs to gain a greater understanding of the world around them. As a result, the notedauthors had sharp contrasts in their opinions concerning positive social change. Since positivesocial change is a critical function of POML, the next section compares and contrasts all of the
15transformational theoretical perspectives as they relate to POML concepts of leadershipdevelopment process, morality, and leader-follower relationship. Potential POML Positives. According to Bass (1985), a transformational leader intellectually stimulates thecreative desires in followers so that they actively seek leadership development. Bassbelieved transformational leadership is an output and not the process. Consequently, toBass it appears that a transformational leader often emerges in times of tumult andsocietal upheaval. As a transformational leader, the leaders skill at manipulating eventsto hide their selfish desires often determines the level of their success. Bass‟stransformational theory incorporates two concepts. The first was similar to Burns‟ (1978)description of a transformational leader being a change agent. The second differed fromBurns‟ belief that a transformational leader does not have to be a great person to producesocietal change results. Bass thought transformational leaders have to be great men andsolve problems systematically while inspiring their followers to push the limits of societalchange. Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) had a similar belief as Bass; leadershipdevelopment of followers occurs when they enact a leader‟s vision as they dramaticallyalter the boundaries of societal norms. Unlike Bennis and Ward-Biederman, Bass‟version of a transformational leader requires the leader to have a transactional concernabout the leadership development of devout followers while promoting radical socialchange. Development occurs as followers aspire to emulate the leader. Leadershipdevelopment for the followers of the transformational leader requires the leader to seekthem out and cultivate them to challenge the status quo. As the leader demonstrates adesire to know the needs of the followers, it is only a means to achieve some form of
16political or socio-economic power, so the transformational leader could achieve his or herends. Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) had a similar approach where thetransformational leader seeks highly talented change agents with similar beliefs to createa different tomorrow. However, Bennis and Ward-Biederman believed that thetransformational leader has a more participative role, which differed significantly fromBass (1985). This participative role occurs as the leader relinquishes some of his or herpower to the team. This power allows talented individuals to operate freely while tryingto solve some societal issue of considerable importance. As the group of talentedindividuals solves the problem, the leader facilitates internal disagreements and protectsthe talented group from outside interference. This differed greatly from Bass‟s conceptwhile it had some similarities to Kouzes and Posner (2007) belief that a transformationalleader adapts to the needs of his or her followers while serving them. One of thedifferences in Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s concept is that every member in the grouphas to be talented, strong, and assertive. If not, the strongest members in the groupconsume or discount the ideas of lesser team members. Development within the group isoften the result of imagination, intelligence, and determination of the individual. Themeasure of success for the transformational leader comes in their ability to cultivate thegroups‟ creative energy. Leadership development is a case of the survival of fittest forthose strong and intelligent enough to be a visionary creator and inspirational leader. Burns‟ (1978) transformational theory had a different take all together. Leadersand followers have to be rooted in the fundamental belief that there are societalexpectations, and there are responsibilities in achieving those societal expectations. The
17transformational leader‟s reward is to “achieve mutually valued outcomes” (p. xiii). Thisdiffered greatly from Bass‟s (1985) belief that the leader shapes the outcome and theother extreme offered by Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) where the group shapesthe outcome. According to Burns, transformational leaders serve their followers;consequently, transformational leadership development is a variation of that same basicpremise. The leader in this instance mimics Bass‟s belief about surveying the needs of hisor her followers; however, Burns believed that a transformational leader searches for awin-win solution between him or herself and the follower. Societal change to Burns ismutually beneficial to everyone, and the output produces something greater than theGolden Rule. This differed greatly from Bass‟s concept of transformational leader. Forexample, Bass thought Hitler was a transformational leader while Burns thoughtotherwise. Like Burns (1978), Kouzes and Posner (2007) had a positive societal perspectiveto their concept of a transformational leader. Kouzes and Posner believed atransformational leader needs to lead by example, encourage followers to aspire to higherlevels of development, legitimately challenge the status quo, empower those with a desireto improve, and appreciate their efforts because as they win, society wins. Kouzes andPosner believed that anyone has the potential to be a transformational leader. Moreover,leadership is a learnable skill honed by experience and continuing education. It is thetransformational leader‟s responsibility to encourage and empower the follower to bemore than their self-imposed limitations. Through leadership development, societalchange occurs as leaders and followers interact with a community. Kouzes and Posnerhad much the same belief in leadership development as Burns; leadership development is
18a one of the primary responsibilities of the transformational leader. Unfortunately,leadership development is a circuitous process for Bass (1985), as well as Bennis andWard-Biederman (1997), since development only occurs during the act of a leader orgroup achieving some formidable task. As the transformational leader amasses power, heor she needs subordinate leaders to carry out their will. Bass‟s (1985) concept of a transformational leader requires the leader to create amoral code to avoid organizational confusion. However, the moral code is in line with theleader‟s perception of right and wrong, not societal good or evil. For instance, a leaderhas to account for societal norms; to act contrary would undermine the leader‟s ability totransform society. This did not mean the leader agreed with societal norms. He or shechanges them in an incremental manner with followers aspiring to be leaders piloting theway. As with Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997), the concept of a societal greater goodis not a burden for their concept of a transformational leader. Bass‟s moral thoughts weremore in line with the premise that the leader establishes their concept of right and wrong.As soon as the leader installs their version of morality, the leader should not vary asconsistency in thought made the leader and followers more in tune with one another,making them more effective as change agents. Similarly, Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) moral constructs did not have anyconnections to a societys established moral norms. Bennis and Ward-Biederman believed thatsolving the monumental problem provides its own moral clarity. It is society‟s problem todetermine if the results are socially acceptable. To Bennis and Ward-Biederman, great groupsfought “holy wars” (P. 204) or involved in a “crusade” (p. 206) for all ages. Morality within thegroup requires the highest levels of dedication. Dedication to the task requires personal
19sacrifices. As the individual increases their level of dedication to the project, the individualappears to generate a higher moral clarity in the eyes of the transformational leader and teammembers. The fanatical transformational energy generated from these groups alters the consciousof humanity for decades. Kouzes and Posner (2007) believe it is immoral to generate change inspite of the cost. Burns‟ (1978) perception of transformational leadership is something greater than thegreatest achievement by any of Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) transformational greatgroups. According to Burns, he believed that universal moral development requires a leader toserve and work to encourage the development of others. Burns‟ point of view stands in starkcontrast with Bass (1985) while paralleling the beliefs of Kouzes and Posner (2007). Burns wentfurther to state that some theorists fail to understand behavioral motifs of followers and theprimary reasons why some societies prosper. Without a fundamental belief in a moral structurethat makes all individuals equal in opportunity and responsibility, societies flounder and leadersbecome tyrannical. This fundamental moral belief provides the best opportunity for leaders toinspire followers to achieve the highest levels of development. Helping followers achieve the highest levels of development is something Kouzes andPosner (2007) considered when they wrote about a transformational leader needing to establish aset of ethics and values. The transformational leader must lead by example and not deviate fromwhat they preach. The establishment of ethics, morals, and values must be a compilation thefollower and leader‟s moral norms derived from society. As soon as there is an agreement on theethical and moral constructs, the leader needs to embody and promote the agreement. Kouzesand Posners concept of a greater good and win-win relationship philosophy is more similar to
20Burns (1978) than Bass (1985) or Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997). This dissimilarityconcerning morality carried forward in the leader-follower relationship. In Bass‟s (1985) theory of transformational leadership, the leader-follower relationship isa process of the leader listening to and potentially incorporating the follower‟s beliefs to build aworking relationship. This is an inclusive concept that had a similar construct to Burns (1978), aswell as Kouzes and Posner (2007). In doing so, Bass provided the appearance that thetransformational leader is listening and empowers the follower. Consequently, this inspires thefollower to increase his or her output. It is from this understanding that the transformationalleader drew his or her power. As the transformational leader builds this bond with the follower,the connection enables the leader to make holistic societal changes. Similarly, a strong leader-follower relationship was something Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) believed to be necessary for the leader and follower to achieve their separategoals in solving the societal problem. The relationship has to have a strong bond, which issimilar to Bass‟s (1985). However, the relationship between the leader and the group has theleader serving the group‟s needs while protecting it from outside influences. This increases thelevel of empowerment within the group and allows them to solve the most perplexing of societalproblems. Those followers not involved in the transformational group, according to Bennis andWard-Biederman‟s theory, did not have their needs addressed. As a result, the indirect followersare dependent upon the moral makeup and output of both the transformational leader and group.This separation between leader, group, and the rest of society was something Burns (1978) andthe collaborative effort of Kouzes and Posner (2007) discouraged in their theories about thetransformational leader-follower relationships.
21 Burns (1978), as with Kouzes and Posner (2007), believed a transformational leader hasto be very responsive to all stakeholders. This relationship with their followers flows through thedirect group of followers and has a positive impact on society as a whole. This is especially truesince the transformational leader encourages his or her direct followers to create a similarmutually beneficial bond between the followers and other members of society. This act is initself a leadership development activity. In doing so, it was Kouzes and Posner‟s conviction thatthis would promote a generational environment of positive social change that dwarfs any outputcreated by transformational leaders and groups as described by Bass (1985) or Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997). The premise behind Burns, Kouzes, and Posner‟s similar theories is toincrease the level of involvement and empowerment of all people; thereby, making societalresponses to positive change or problems highly dynamic and adaptive to any situation. Potential POML Negatives. The positive found in the theory offered by Bass (1985) is that it is dependent upon adynamic and strong leader understanding the needs of his or her followers. The negative in whathe had offered, when compared to Burns (1978) and Kouzes and Posner (2007), is thatleadership development of followers is truly an afterthought; consequently, it makes positivesocial change difficult from a generational standpoint. Bass did bring to light some “LeadershipDevelopmental Orientation” (pp.84-85) techniques, but the main goal of his belief intransformational leadership is about selfish desires of the leader. The transformation leader usescharisma and rhetoric to align followers to serve his or her needs as they transform anorganization or society. A transformational leader did allow followers limited freedom to searchout and expand as long as the expansion aligned itself with the mission and values of the leader.However, since Hitler was an example of one of Bass‟s transformational leaders, a follower‟s
22unaligned development has potentially dire consequences. Ultimately, a transformational leaderas defined by Bass is more rare than common. Contrastingly, Burns, Kouzes, and Posner createdrobust systems of leadership development that has the potential to make transformationalleadership a standardized approach to societal improvement. As with leadership development, according to Bass (1985), morality is a secular constructbased on rhetoric with minimal ties to societal norms. A true transformational leader may berequired to shape morality to meet his or her needs while attempting to be consistent in theapplication. This paradox of inconsistency helps explain why a transformational leader coulddeclare some social moral norms as immoral and require them to be changed. In addition, thisalso explains why Bass is not overly concerned about a follower‟s higher hierarchal needs, sincenecessity dictates whether a transformational leader needs to alter a follower‟s lower level needsto attain the desired output. Burns, Kouzes, and Posner have a diametrically opposite opinion toBass‟s interpretation of morality and the concept of a Hitler-like transformational leader. The negativity found in Bass‟s (1985) transformational theory as it relates to leader-follower relationship, required the leader to understand the follower‟s needs and desires. In doingso, the leader could manipulate their needs and desires to achieve the leader‟s perceived greatergood. Bass‟s view of the leader-follower relationship, it is cold and calculating. Contrastingly,Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner‟s (2007) believed the relationship is genuine and an invitingwin-win scenario. The win-win scenario occurs when the follower eventually adapts his or hersneeds to match the needs of the transformational leader. A follower bending their wishes anddesires to be in line with the leaders was something that conflicted with Bennis and Ward-Biedermans (1997) concept. Alarmingly, Bass admitted the manipulation of needs and desiresfuels resentment. This resentment allows an up and coming revolutionary leader to harvest the
23angst in order to build his or her power base. Furthermore, the revolutionary leader routinelyrepresents the next change and not a new concept in societal development. As a result, theleader-follower relationship becomes a tool for the revolutionary leader to implement thischange. As with Bass‟s (1985) concept of leadership development, Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) concept of developing leaders as a function of leadership is the exceptionand not the norm. The transformational group has a leader that bestows equality to the groupwhile attempting to solve a problem that has a transformational impact on society. The leaderassembles a group that is talented and self-driven. Since technical prowess provided the reason toassemble the group, each member comes to the group with a different level of leadershipdevelopment and style. The team becomes a creative gathering where dominant leaders withinthe group separate themselves at the expense of others in the group. The dominant leadersprovide guidance to the group while updating the team leader on progress and the group‟s needs.In some of the examples offered by Bennis and Ward-Biederman, if either the team leader or thedominant leaders within the group are unscrupulous, then the group will commit unscrupulousacts. This process of leadership development is the antithesis to the leadership developmentprocesses created by Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner (2007). Since Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s (1997) leader development process is absent of anyspecific moral construct, morality is not a priority for the group. In some instances, the absenceof morality is often unavoidable; Bennis and Ward-Biederman used the Manhattan Project andthe development of a nuclear bomb as examples of amoral projects. However, as with the laudedBlack Mountain Experiment, morality was the victim of “anti-institutional” (p. 170) de-evolvement. Leaders encouraged this anti-institutional belief, which warped the perception of
24followers to view shoplifting and other petty crimes as a badge of ingenuity and courage. ToBurns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner (2007), if the lowest common denominator found in amoralbehavior is the best example of societal progress, then the failure of the Black MountainExperiment was inevitable. A constantly changing moral landscape prevented individuals fromworking together. The experiment used a pseudo-institutional construct; however, theexperiment‟s anti-institutional belief system trapped leaders and followers in a self-destructiveloop of lawlessness and anarchy. The leadership-follower relationship as described by Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997)requires both to sacrifice everything, which usually means that the emotionally spent leaders andfollowers depart the project with shattered personal lives. As a reward, the authors believed thatthe satisfaction in completing the task offsets the shattered lives and relationships. In addition,any relationship within the group paled when compared to output of the project. Some trustingrelationships do form within the team; however, the relationships are a by-product of individualalliances made during the teams storming phase. Bass‟s (1985) theory failed to generate trustingleader-follower relationships since they were not one of his primary objectives. Trustingrelationships evolve out of necessity during the leader or group‟s development. As with morality,Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner‟s (2007) theory on transformational leadership had a differenttake on the leader-follower relationship. The strength of their relationship often has positivetransformational outputs for both the leader and the follower. Furthermore, sacrifice is theexception and not the rule. Burns‟s (1978) positive take on transformational leadership development differed greatlyfrom Bass (1985), Bennis, and Ward-Biederman (1997). However, the transformational leader asdescribed by Burns was in a tenuous position. Burns questioned this when he wrote about a
25transformational leader becoming too involved when wanting to relate and understand hisfollowers. This appears to put the leader in a position of micromanaging the follower‟s affairs. Ifso, then the leader could inadvertently stunt the leadership potential of the individual. If theleaders avoids involvement, does the leader neglect follower development duties? Burns offereda small group solution that was similar to Bennis and Ward-Biederman‟s; however, the propersolution may require a transformational leader to use situational or contingency techniques assuggested by Bass (1985); Blanchard et al. (1985); and Kouzes and Posner (2007). Differentproblems require different leadership techniques to provide maximum flexibility for thetransformational leader and the development of the follower. Burns (1978) believed that moral-character is a necessary ingredient in the developmentof transformational leader, which conflicts with Burns own thoughts about highly developedtransformational leaders being able to transcend the limits found in the ethic of reciprocity or theGolden Rule. Kouzes and Posner (2007) tendered a word of caution with regard to thoseindividuals thinking they have a level of wisdom that transcends time. To think an individualleader or group of leaders has a grander idea than freedom is the folly of fools, especially as theirhubris assumes they have all of the answers as they micromanage their fellow human beings. Inthe end, they only marginalize their leadership power as they eventually become out of touchwith the needs of their constituents. Making the simple complex has often led to disagreement,the eventual breakdown in the social moral norms, and a loss of freedom within a society. Thiswas one of Kouzes and Posner‟s concerns in a leader shaping morality; he or she could do it atthe long-term detriment of society. Burnss (1978) viewpoint has a fundamental weakness in the leader-follower relationshipthat occurs as the transformational leader works to achieve the highest levels of moral
26development. The weakness occurs as the transformational leader loses focus on the details toleadership development. Burnss perspective of highly developed leader is that he or she oftenoverlooks the little details in life. Contrastingly, Blanchard et al. (1985) pointed out that withinthose details are many of life‟s problems and moments of inspiration. Consequently, if a leaderignores the details it often meant repeating mistakes not knowing the sources of failure. Thisover indulgence concerning macro-level issues is an error duplicated in Bass (1985), Bennis andWard-Biederman‟s (1997) theories. However, Bass did offer the solution of using otherleadership theories such as contingency and situational leadership to offset this weakness. In evaluating weaknesses, Kouzes and Posner (2007) hinted to other leadershipdevelopment techniques; however, they did not define them for what they were. For example,they discussed a concept of “fostering hardiness” (pp. 208 -209). This appeared to be anabbreviated description of Blanchard et al‟s. (1985) concept of situational leadership. Whichreiterated the weakness found in Burn‟s description of transformational leadership development,a good transformational leader has to know when to step in to help a subordinate, to let themstruggle to learn, or leave them alone because they are both competent and confident. If theleader incorrectly assesses the subordinate‟s ability in being competent and confident, leavingthe individual alone may appear as leader ignoring the needs of the subordinate.Transformational leadership theories alone do not address this issue. Kouzes and Posner (2007), as with Burns (1978), believed that a transformational leaderhas to have an established moral foundation in order to communicate a reasonable vision of thefuture. For followers to believe in the communicated vision, followers need historical precedentto help them believe. The weakness in Kouzes and Posner‟s belief that morality is a necessaryingredient in the development of a transformational leader is time and communication. To
27establish a history and lead by example requires an aspiring leader to have time to prove he orshe is capable in delivering their vision. If a situation does not allow the leader enough time toevaluate the aspiring leader effectively, then it becomes a matter communication. As stated byKouzes and Posner, open and honest communication provides the best chance of success.Anything less than open and honest communication will have the follower wondering, if theleader is intentionally deceiving him or her which would separate the follower from the leader‟svision. Kouzes and Posner (2007) also required a strong leader-follower relationship in order forit to be successful. This is analogous to Burns‟ (1978) reference to Maslow‟s hierarchy of needsand where those that achieve in meeting the highest stages of development are often the mostdependent upon those striving to improve. This concept is similar to the weakness noted in theanalysis of Burns‟ theory on transformational leadership development. The weakness, in thisrespect, occurs as the transformational leader or follower becomes too dependent on the other.Kouzes and Posner suggested that the relationship needed a level of independence between theleader and followers in order to avoid groupthink, inefficient replication, and other ruinoushabits. In concluding the comparison and contrast analysis, there were four groups ofcontrastingly different leadership theories analyzed. These four groups provided an assortment ofvarying analysis; however, in aligning an author to a theoretical classification of the leadershiptheory the following systematic breakdown occurred. The reactive leadership development groupconsisted of the theories offered by Blanchard et al. (1985) and Ibbotson (2008). Thetransactional or exchange-based group consists of Bass (1985) and Burns (1978). They proposeexchanges that address the follower‟s lower level needs. The third group was an amoral
28transformational group that sought a leader‟s self-fulfillment this included the analysis of Bassand the controversial theories of Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997). Finally, the fourth groupwas the moral transformational group promoting leadership development. It consisted of Burns(1978) and more recently Kouzes and Posner (2007). The next section will summarize andprovide some concluding analysis concerning the four leadership theories noted in the precedinganalysis. Summary In the final analysis, Kouzes and Posner (2007) presented a picture of moral leadershipthat implied that Hitler (Bass), Mao (Burns), and Lenin (Burns) should not represent the pinnacleof leadership since the deaths of millions occurred when they assumed and then maintainedpower. Were their movements transformational, as Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) pointed out,the answer to all of them was a definitive yes. However, in providing evidence that ends didjustify the means, Bass and Burns would have a difficult time to define their transformations aspositive. Consequently, Kouzes and Posner believed that leadership has to be something morethan wielding power to quench a thirst for monumental change. A portion of the answer resideswithin analyzing three POML concepts; leadership development, morality, and leader-followerrelationships. These three concepts used in the analysis of the noted leadership theories emanatedfrom thoughts espoused by Kouzes and Posner. In addition, they serve as a foundation increating an empowering form of POML. This summary highlights each aspect and provides asynthesized version of important qualities taken from the leadership theories that includesituational, contingency, transactional, and transformational. These essential qualities define thefoundational concepts of POML.Leadership Development
29 One of the most important aspects a leader should consider as they look to the future andserve their followers is the process of leadership development. If anything, leadershipdevelopment serves as a force-multiplier as a leader works to instill his or her vision whilefulfilling the needs of the followers. The key qualities of leadership development start with theleader leading by example. As Kouzes and Posner (2007) noted, with a firm understanding oftheir moral foundational makeup a leader should be an example of honest self-assessments,empower followers to act, and appreciate the efforts of others with humility. As the followerdevelops, the leader must employ excellent communication skills that include being an activelistener as noted by all of the authors in the breadth. When communicating with followers, theleader must identify with the followers needs in a manner that Burns (1978) described asmutually valued outcomes. These leadership qualities offer the follower an example to emulate. The process portion of leadership development includes establishing goals forincremental follower success (Blanchard et al., 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; and Bass, 1985)based on input concerning the needs derived from followers. As Bass noted, this intellectuallystimulates the followers and offers the followers the opportunity for dynamic change and growth.However, this transformation requires a morally repeatable process to provide equal opportunitydespite development being unique to each aspiring leader. For example, in using a morallyrepeatable process, it requires the leader to be flexible, adaptive, and detailed oriented (Ibbotson,2008) in order to accommodate the needs of the individual. This requires the leader to usediverse leadership styles; Blanchard et al. provided four examples. They were “Directive,Coaching, Supporting, and Delegating” (p. 30). Ibbotson (2008, p. 92) and Blanchard et al.(1985, p. 81) all suggested that the leader use a measurable goal oriented process called“SMART” to help the leader to objectively evaluate the follower‟s progress and help the
30follower to understand what it takes to be a leader. In order to make the development processtruly transformational, the leader needs to be positive, help the follower envision their role in theleader‟s vision, and empower the follower to complete his or her portion of this vision. In doingso, as Kouzes and Posner noted, the leader stimulates the follower creatively which offers thefollower the opportunity of dynamic leadership development. Of the key weaknesses noted when reviewing the leadership potential of the four theoriesanalyzed, some of the theories ignore the destruction of leadership potential wrought by someleaders as a follower attempts to improve their current situation. First, if a leader is disingenuouswhile setting false expectations, goals, or targets he or she will destroy their personal integrity(Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; and Kouzes and Posner, 2007). Bass added if a leader is disingenuous,then he or she habitually changes organizational expectations and goals. As a result, the immoralleader warps and hinders the development potential of the aspiring leader while the organizationsuffers constant upheaval. During these periods of turmoil, as Kouzes and Posner explained,Machiavellian power plays begin while aspiring leaders fend for themselves as they attempt tosurvive. Bass believed that the aspiring leader no longer seeks development. This predicamentforces the aspiring leader to develop survivalist skills, which makes them a good leader thatknows how to survive and not a leader that knows how to inspire and promote positive socialchange.Morality As the leader leads by example, he or she develops followers and aspiring leaders. AsBass (1985) and Burns (1978) noted, the process of developing followers requires the leader towork within the confines of organizational or social moral norms. Burns went further by adding,while working within the confines of the social moral norms, the leader morally works to
31increase the level of understanding of the follower, so they may become examples to others.Within the social moral confines, Blanchard et al. (1985) suggested the leader explain anddemonstrate fairness. Fairness requires the consistent application of organizational or socialmorals, ethics, values, rules, and laws. Blanchard et al. continued this thought by adding, ifchange is necessary the change must occur in a systematic manner within the societal structure.Any change that occurs outside the socially accepted moral norms is anarchy inspired by amoraltransformational and revolutionary leaders (Bass). If a leader acts narcissistically or inspiresamoral behavior, Ibbotson (2008) suggested that the leader must self-correct and act withhumility in order to use his or her power judiciously. This judicious use of power falls withinKouzes and Posner (2007) concept of a leader being a humble servant of the people. As a moralservant, he or she works to inspire others, the moral leader works protect the future freedom andopportunity of future generations. To be amoral, Blanchard et al. (1985) cautioned, requires the inconsistent application ofsocial morals, ethics, values, rules, and laws. All of the authors reaffirmed this broad theme. Forinstance, Bass (1985) suggested that some inconsistency occurs because of impropercommunication or failing to communicate to increase understanding. If improper communicationoccurs, the follower may perceive this failure to communicate as impropriety. Burns (1978) wentfurther and wrote that failing to communicate, lead by example, or act in a morally acceptablemanner as the situation dictates exemplified amoral leadership characteristics. Bass expoundedthis last thought when he added that erratic behavior is a result of a secular belief in ethicalrelativism, in which the amoral leader communicates using rhetoric and ambiguity. Some authorspromoted amoral behavior. For example, Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) thought moralitywas an obstruction to creative thought. They condoned and promoted individuals acting in an
32amoral manner. Regardless, for leaders to operate outside the boundaries, Kouzes and Posner(2007) thought this typified a leader‟s arrogance in believing that morals do not apply to them,they only apply to followers. This ruling class mentality is antithetical to process-oriented moralleadership.Leader-Follower Relationship To counter a ruling class mentality, POML requires leaders who are humble and arewilling to create strong and trusting bonds between them and their constituents. Bass (1985) wassuccinct in pointing out that this bond must include open and honest communication. Basscontinued by stating that as the bond grows it cultivates a working inclusive arrangement thatrequires the leader to empower the follower, so he or she may act, learn, and develop into aleader. A part of this trusting relationship requires the leader to encourage spontaneity. AsIbbotson (2008) suggested, one way to encourage spontaneity is to conduct brainstorming or roleplaying events. During these events, the leader collects the actionable ideas to either solve aproblem or use them to build group unity. Blanchard et al. (1985) thought that the leader neededto transform the ideas into tasks in order to provide the best opportunity to generate a series ofsmall victories that would build competence and confidence, which only strengthens the bond oftrust. As implied in the brainstorming event, which Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) alsowrote about, the leader serves the group by providing information and the tools to succeed so thegroup could generate small victories. As Burns (1978) noted, the leader has to maintain a macro-level perspective while aligning the small victories with the larger group goals that ultimately fitwithin his or her vision. In order for the leader to get the follower to believe his or her actionsadd value, the leader educates the follower about the macro-level perspective while explaining
33how the small victories fulfill the leader‟s vision. Kouzes and Posner (2007) thought that themacro-level perspective must include various expected inputs and outputs of all stakeholders. Inthe act, of sharing the vision, the leader mentors, facilitates, coaches, and directs the followers(Blanchard et al., 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 2007). As the leader becomes inclusive to and empowers the followers, Kouzes and Posner(2007) were implicit by requiring the leader to be firm with the equal application of the rules andsocial moral norms. Equal application of the rules protects the group from anarchy and turmoil.Ultimately, the leader protects the group from itself. The act of protecting the group frominternal and external conflict ensures the follower can focus on higher-level needs while buildingtrust and confidence in the leader. The act of protecting the group and the follower, as Bass (1985) injected, requires theleader to include corrective actions. As Kouzes and Posner (2007) cautioned, a leader shouldconduct corrective action to protect rules, moral norms, or use them as a preventive measuresuch as a learning event to thwart future inappropriate actions. However, Bass warned againstany corrective action carried out in an immoderate manner will force the follower to focus ontheir lower level needs; consequently, reducing the follower‟s output and the leader‟s power.Burns offered a similar perspective; he thought reactive or punitive leadership is the carrot or thestick approach to leadership that hinders the leader-follower relationship making it inefficientwith respect to output and growing a power base. The process-oriented moral leader has to beconcerned with rules and corrective actions in order to be morally correct and fair. However,Kouzes and Posner thought that the best way to avoid the need to use punitive action is througheducation. This education must include preventative measures that increase social awareness andinterrelatedness.
34 Growing a power base built on a strong leader-follower relationship has potential pitfallsfor the leader as Ibbotson (2008); Bass (1985); Burns (1978); and Kouzes and Posner (2007)illustrated in their theories. Burns cautioned leaders about the corruptible nature of power.Powers corruptible nature makes Ibbotson‟s self-assessing process based on the power-humilityratio suspect and dependent upon the strength of leader‟s moral character. If the leader weremorally weak, as Burns warned, he or she could manipulate the leader-follower relationship toencourage the follower to carry out activities that were counter intuitive to the social need. When leaders amass power, a follower risks losing their identity as they becomecaptivated by the leader‟s vision. Kouzes and Posner (2007) made this point; furthermore, theythought a loss of self-identity created an environment where systems of hate could develop. Forexample, as Bass (1985), Bennis, and Ward-Biederman (1997) noted those followers within theleader‟s sphere of influence become zealots carrying out acts with a Machiavellian crusadementality. As a result, the leader-follower relationship de-evolves into groupthink and an abusivebi-polar carrot and stick approach to maintain output or group cohesiveness. Any dissentingthought that is contrary to the leader‟s vision requires corrective or punitive action. Sincenegative action identifies individuals left outside of the leader‟s sphere of influence, thesefollowers become targets of abuse. As resentment builds in the targets of abuse, the abused waitfor the next revolutionary leader to save those individuals forced to follow the amoral leader(Bass). In this example, as Bass noted, the leader has destroys incentive in the targeted group.The leader and his or her zealots will reduce the output of followers by forcing them to beconcerned about their lower level needs that include survival. In the final analysis, the leadership development answer found by analyzing positives andnegatives of the four leadership theories provides a synthesized version of leadership
35development that culminates in a developed process-oriented moral leader. This process-orientedmoral leader focuses on the positives found in leadership development, morality, leader-followerrelationship, by finding a mutually beneficial driving force for change, competition, and positivesocial change while avoiding the negatives of each. Simply, the process-oriented moral leaderlooks at the leadership development theories as tools in a toolbox. When used appropriately, theknowledge contained within each theory can inspire followers, depending upon the situation, tobecome force-multipliers as they propagate the concept of positive social change via POML. Positive social change in this analysis is working to inspire dormant and apatheticindividuals to be become societal leaders that protect freedom and opportunity. In doing so, withproper education, future leaders will not have to relearn the lessons of the past, future leaderswill have the opportunity to lead changes necessary for a better tomorrow. Consequently, tomake the change process more efficient, positive social change must occur with some societalunderstanding of right and wrong. As Bass (1985) noted with his examples, social moral normshave to be something greater than laws, for the excessive abuses found within them often lead tosofter versions of tyranny. However, Kouzes and Posner (2007) alluded to societal normsneeding to be adaptable. When societal norms need changed, the change has to occur on asocietal level, so everybody knows the new standard for growth and future leadershipdevelopment. After any necessary changes, Kouzes and Posner believed that when the leader andthe follower works within the re-established social moral norms: they both win when carryingout positive social change. In addition, the community wins as well when apathetic individualsbecome self-leaders. The reality to our development and interrelatedness is that the answers touniversal questions are within all of us.
36 Conclusion After analyzing the POML positives and negatives of different leadership theories, therewere numerous leadership qualities discovered enhancing the concept of POML. POML is aleadership development concept that emphasizes a process-oriented philosophy to producejustifiable results while encouraging moral, positive social change notions of mutual-cooperationand the continual improvement of all stakeholders. Even though, positive social changetransformation is the goal, the compilation of theories used in the analysis does not presume onetheory better or worse as Burns (1978) implied in his conceptual beliefs. Rather each theoryincorporates useful tools that a process-oriented moral leader could use in a manner that Bass(1985), Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997), Ibbotson (2008), and Kouzes and Posner (2007)suggested. This concept of using the correct situational approach in response to a situation wassomething Blanchard et al. (1985) wrote about in their situational leadership theory. A process-oriented moral leader does not transform a society to fit his or her vision orvalues as Bass endorsed; a process-oriented moral leader transforms by getting a group ofindividuals to push their potential and boundaries for the benefit of all stakeholders as Kouzesand Posner proposed. Furthermore, since the realm of the leader is the future, a process-orientedmoral leader must protect freedom and promote individual responsibility. Kouzes and Posnerbelieve it is necessary for leaders to have the freedom to choose and act upon those decisions.Understanding freedoms frailty, the authors also thought leaders have to have a moralfoundation. As a result, leaders need to know societal right from wrong, to understand why it isimportant to take responsibility for any improprieties, and the wisdom to know they are only aninterrelated servant to the greater good of positive social change. The process-oriented moral
37leader works to secure the potential of future leaders, in doing so he or she secures their legacyas a transformational agent of positive social change. In searching for the positives and negatives in the four theories as they relate to theconcept of POML, leadership development, morality, and leader-follower relationship areconsistent with regards to one basic concept. This fundamental concept instructs leaders to bementors of future leaders and prioritize the needs of their people first. A leader uses his or hervision, philosophy, and leadership developmental understanding to augment the developmentalneeds of followers as they develop into leaders. Morality comes into play in understanding rightand wrong, according to Kouzes and Posner (2007) knowing right from wrong provides afoundation to identify positive social change issues, which enables future leaders to endure andovercome obstacles to positive social change. This fundamental concept touches on three othercriteria used to evaluate POML; they were identifying a rationale for change, harnessingcompetitive nature of humanity, and clarifying the concept of positive social change. Inanalyzing current research, the depth will expand the last three criteria concerning the premise ofPOML by providing a point of reference used to compare and contrast current research withother current research and theories established in the breadth.
38 Depth AMDS 8522: Current Research on Leadership Development Annotated BibliographyBarbuto, Jr. J. E. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies; 11, 26-40. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100403. Barbuto‟s (2005) work focused on five hypotheses. The first hypothesis tried to establisha positive relationship between the intrinsic factors of “heteronymous morality, impulsive need,and pre-operational need” (p. 28-29) with charismatic and transformational leadership behaviors.The second hypothesis dealt with contractual or well-defined goals and rewards providing atheorized positive increase in a leader‟s internal motivation. The third hypothesis implied that thepositive relationship between a leader‟s popularity within a community and transactional andcharismatic leadership behaviors. The fourth hypothesis focused in on a leader‟s self-image aspositively related to charismatic and transformational leadership behaviors. The fifth hypothesisdealt with the process on how a leader processed intrinsic goals determined the constructiverelationship to transformational leadership behaviors. Using relatively obvious hypotheses,Barbuto determined that there were testable antecedents that a firm or organization could test forin order to find the right-fit candidate qualities to fill leadership positions. This leadership motivational “profiling” (Barbuto, 2005, p. 37) appeared to be fraughtwith developmental subjectivity and legal ramifications by stereotyping individuals and settingartificial limits. Barbuto appeared to have excluded the possibility of future developmentalepiphanies thereby relegating leaders of today and tomorrow to their current paradigm in bothmotivation and leadership development. Furthermore, the study was very dependent upon
39whether the subjects or future job candidates responded to the questions truthfully and did notoffer what the test person thought was the correct response. In essence, Barbuto‟s study wassimple and transactional in nature; consequently, it was not surprising that he had difficulties inidentifying strong correlations with an antecedent and transformational leadership.Fairhurst, G. T. (2005). Reframing the art of framing: Problems and prospects for leadership. Leadership, 1, 165 doi: 10.1177/1742715005051857. Fairhurst (2005) hoped to provide reasons as to why some leaders were both willing andcapable concerning the concept of framing as a communication tool while other leaders seemedunwilling or incapable. The first reason, offered by Fairhurst, centered on a leader‟s natural,philosophical makeup. Some leaders had a predominant relativistic or essentialist interpretationof events, which hindered their ability to process the dynamic skill of framing conversations. Asdetermined by the author, the focal point of the second reason was the leader‟s ability to use“Message Design Logics” (p. 173). The manner in which a leader communicated consisted ofthree levels, which were expressive, conventional, and rhetorical. Expressive was blunt and tothe point. The conventional level was utilitarian and based upon social upon social norms ofcommunication. The third level of communication was the rhetorical level. It was the ability toshape the exchange of ideas to fit a strategic need. If a leader displayed lower level logic, he orshe was less apt to understand the concept of framing conversation. Fairhurst believed that theskill of framing was teachable; however, the level of understanding was dependent upon theintrinsic abilities of the leader. As a result of an extensive revelation, Fairhurst (2005) identified four impediments to theunderstanding the skill of framing. All four impediments resided within a student‟s informationprocessing paradigm. The four Fairhurst identified were the inexplicable disorders of “arrogance,
40conduit thinking, authenticity concerns, and the absence of a moral framework” (p.175). Mostimportant was the absence of a moral framework, since framing was a tool, it could empower themost virtuous of activities or promote hateful surreptitious activities that destroy the good thatresides in humanity‟s conscious. The absence of a moral framework would allow an amoralleader to use it to promote social change that destroys. Fairhurst was explicit in the importance ofestablishing a moral framework because framing has subcomponents called “metaphor,jargon/catchphrases, contrast, spin, and stories” (p. 168). When used inappropriately, framingcan legitimize the inexplicable and cause social harm using the best of intentions.Gorlorwulu, J. & Rahschulte, T. (2010). Organizational and leadership implications for transformational development. Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies, 27, 199 – 208. doi: 10.1177/0265378810369955. The authors identified five features of Christian based transformational development.First, and most importantly, an individual must know them self as he or she analyzed theiractions in relation to the established moral norm. Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) thought thesecond feature required an individual to seek “positive change” as a leader with regards to thethree dimensions of a complete life, “materially, socially, and spiritually” (p. 202). The thirdfeature described the act of a leader being a servant of the people while focusing on the first twofeatures as being a “steward” (p. 200) for the people. The fourth feature required a totalcommitment from the transformational leader to the concept of transformational development asa life choice while serving the people. The authors‟ perceptions on the fifth feature included theconcept of a calling as it related to transformational leadership. It required a leader to assistindividuals to find their true calling in order to maximize their efforts and be efficientcontributors to their community. The authors believed that change was an integral part of
41leadership; as a result, they believed that their transformational development concept should beincluded for both profit and non-profit business entities. The unfortunate stance that Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) took was to declare thattrue transformational development was a Christian only concept of spirituality. In doing so, theauthors choose to ignore other secular and religious entities in pursuit of the same singularity indevelopment. Furthermore, they took a pessimistic stance concerning the individuals they hopedto help. Instead of improving the condition of poverty by harnessing the abundance of potentialin all individuals, they choose classify their endeavor as reducing poverty through “resourcescarcity” (p. 203) management and organizational efficiency. With that said, many of theirbeliefs were similar to King‟s, especially the notion that a person seeking transformationaldevelopment was on a quest to search for the “wholeness” (p. 201) of life which drew manyparallels to King‟s three dimensions of a complete life.Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of „leadership‟. Human Relations, 58, 1467-1494. doi: 10.1177/0018726705061314. Grint (2005) started the article by dispelling the notion of “context determiningleadership response” (p. 1490), as found in the great man, contingency, and situational theories,since it limited the leader‟s options when resolving the problem in a systematic manner. Grintoffered a different approach that required the leader to be keenly aware of the situation and thecontext in which the problem developed because a problem could either be “wicked, tame, orcritical” (p. 1472-1477). Each problem required a different response by the leader. For example,if the situation were a wicked problem, then the leader would use leadership skills that build aconsensus in order to do root cause analysis and resource delegation. If the problem were a tame,it would require routine managerial skills to resolve the problem. Finally, if the problem were
42critical, it would require a military style commander using coercion as they controlled others toresolve the problem. As a result, an effective leader stayed ahead of the problem by reclassifyingthe context of the problem in order to maximize political gain or lessen the damage to his or herpower base. The article‟s premise focused on the maxim of never letting a good problem go to waste.Ironically, Grint (2005) concedes that leaders routinely lusted for power, corrupted by power,and were unable to admit mistakes. As a solution, he offered an amoral construct that instructed aleader to frame the context of a problem in a manner that mitigated any negative effects andmaximized the positive effects in order to implement a social agenda. Upon taking office, aleader arranges a host of predetermined responses to implement a social agenda that may beintractable or even unwanted by his or her constituents. When a problem occurs, the leaderquickly frames it as wicked, tame, or critical with a matching predetermined response that mayhave nothing to do with resolving the problem that triggered a need for a response. In almostautomatic fashion concerning the manner of appreciative inquiry, bureaucratic managers pick upthe predetermined response and begin implementation. Depending on the initial results, theleader can reclassify the problem in order to deflect blame or to seize maximum power. On thesurface, this amoral construct appeared completely reactionary; however, this changeddramatically as the leader implements a proactive social agenda. The construct is in conflict withmoral leadership. Moral leadership requires a leader to navigate through the tumult of the changeevent, while consuming the least amount of resources in order to achieve a socially agreed uponobjective.
43Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership behaviors and subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 2-14. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100202. Using optimism as a control variable, Harland, Harrison, Jones, and Reiter-Palmon(2005) tested two hypotheses to determine if there were key ingredients a leader needed in orderto improve resilience in their subordinates. The first hypothesis theorized that the “fivetransformational leadership dimensions (attributed charisma, idealized influence, inspirationalmotivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration)” and the transactionaldimension of contingent reward “would be positively associated with resilience” (p. 9). Whilemonitoring the five dimensions and manipulating optimism, inspirational motivation was theonly dimension “not significantly correlated with resilience” (p. 9). As expected, in the secondhypothesis the author controlled optimism with respect to management-by-exception-active,management-by-exception-passive, and laissez-faire dimensions and there was no significantcorrelation with “subordinate resilience” (p. 9). When looking at the study in its totality and theconstant state of change found in current events, which political pundits have portrayed as aharbinger of doom, the results of this study suggested that it would take visionarytransformational leaders to see the good and unlimited potential in their subordinates to navigatethe tumult. Surprisingly, Harland et al. (2005) delved in to a topic that had relatively little researchconducted. In fact, they had to use research from other fields to assemble a definition forresilience that was similar to coping. Concerning both resilience and coping, Harland et al. listedsome protective factors when predicting if an individual would be resilient or not. Interestinglyenough, if a transformational leader could develop and foster these protective factors in their
44subordinates, then the leader would have developed a dynamic group or team that could adapt,improvise, and overcome any obstacle. The protective factors noted were “external supports (e.g.good role models, trusted family and non-family members), inner strengths (e.g. likability,optimism, empathy, a sense of purpose), and interpersonal and problems solving skills” (p. 3).The interpersonal and problem solving factor included being creative when searching out fornew ideas, knowing when a follower needs help, humility, perseverance, and be appreciative. Inessence, in order to be a transformational force-multiplier for positive social change, the leadermust be an external support for others while exhibiting the other protective factors. The leadertruly leads by example.Harms, P.D. & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 5-17. doi: 10.1177/1548051809350894. The inspiration for the authors of this meta-analysis concerned the growing debate withreference to the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and aspects of transactional ortransformational leadership. Unfortunately, the study produced correlations that were weak, tonon-existent. In spite of the results, Harms and Credé (2010) made some interesting suggestionsfor future research about EI and its links to more complex styles of leadership. First, according tothe authors, EI was a fundamental leadership principle best tested using a “self-reporting” (p. 13)format coupled with the external performance “measures of personality and cognitiveintelligence” (p. 7). Second, future studies needed to include enhanced validity controls whentesting for relationships between EI and various leadership theories that go beyond “intelligenceand personality” (p. 13). Third, EI was a western concept. Consequently, there were relativelyfew studies involving test subjects from non-English speaking countries. This led to researchers‟
45to suggest that there was a void in the available research. This void required more research todetermine if EI were a plausible concept in countries where strong leadership traits such asmachismo were the norm. Finally, research needs conducted to determine if a leader‟s age,gender, and socially expected emotional control skews the level of perceived EI. The inconclusive results of the study suggested that EI was a subcomponent of atransformational leader‟s makeup. The definition of EI reinforced this point when it included keycomponents such as, emotion management, empathy, self-awareness, self-confidence, self-evaluation, and an “adherence to professional or moral standards” (Harms and Credé, 2010, p.7). These key components were ingredients that Kouzes and Posner (2007) elaborated upon intheir description of a transformational leader. Since EI was just a subcomponent of thetransformational leader concept, then perceived EI would only become prominent as a leaderused those skills. This could offer an explanation to the nature of the meta-analytic hit and missresults from a plethora of studies. Furthermore, transformational leadership was an assortment ofdifferent skills sets. For example, depending on the need of the change event, an effectivetransformational leader could be a remarkable agent for positive change while having EI skillsthat were weak to average.Hetland, H., Sandal, G. M., & Johnsen, T. B. (2008). Followers personality and leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 322- 331. doi: 10.1177/1548051808315550. When evaluating the relationship between leaders and followers, Hetland, Sandal, andJohnsen (2008) studied the personality traits of subordinates in order to determine if arelationship existed between positive subordinate personality traits and transformationalleadership. More specifically, when using the five-factor personality model they hypothesized
46that low levels of neuroticism and high levels of agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness,and openness would equate to a relationship were the leader would have positivetransformational leadership ratings. Despite the researchers best efforts, the results of the studydemonstrated a weak relationship “between personality characteristics of subordinates andleadership ratings” (p. 329). In fact, Hetland et al. discovered that personality relationshipbetween a leader and subordinates were highly complex making bias and the effect of extraneousvariables problematic for the study. The ratings were unique to each test subject; consequently,they would vary from subject to subject. The study captured the unique nature and difficulties of leadership (Hetland et al., 2008).For example, the authors generated a result that included a relatively strong relationship betweena hypothesized subordinate‟s personality traits and a passive-avoidant leader. When paraphrasingBass (1990), Hetland et al. described passive-avoidant leaders as weak when compared totransactional or transformational leaders. In addition, passive-avoidant leaders were easy tosatisfy and gain recognition for substandard work. Meanwhile, a transactional ortransformational leader work to maximize the subordinates utility and potential. This requiredthe leader to push the subordinate out of their comfort zone in a manner where he or shedeveloped in to becoming more competent and confident. A leader pushing the subordinaterequired patience as the trial and error learning opportunities had the potential to generate angstin the subordinate. The variety of emotions generated by the learning opportunities was apotential factor in the weak relationship between subordinate personality traits andtransformational leadership.
47Houghton, J. D. & Yoho, S. K. (2005). Toward a contingency model of leadership and psychological empowerment: When should self-leadership be encouraged? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 65-83. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100406. Houghton and Yoho (2005) created a model that suggested an organization or leadershould encourage self-leadership. They noted that the three-contingency factors of “followerdevelopment, situational urgency, and task structure” (p. 71) determined which leadershipapproach should be taken to address the contingency factors. The four-leadership theories used inthe model were directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering. In addition,depending on the contingent factor that dictated the leadership approach, a “predictable followeroutcome” (p. 71) could be ascertained. The predicted follower outcomes include “commitment,dependence, creativity, and psychological empowerment” (p. 71). These outcomes weredependent upon the amount of power or control the leader judiciously delegated to the follower.It was surprising to note that according to the Houghton and Yoho model, the transformationalleader did not inspire independent thought and rated as being mixed or moderate concerningcreativity and psychological empowerment. One of the reasons why Houghton and Yoho (2005) thought that transformational leadershad a mixed or moderate score in promoting the predictable outcomes of creativity andpsychological empowerment was due to Bass‟s (1985) definition of a transformational leader.According to Bass, a transformational leader could be amoral or moral. The authors believed anamoral transformational leader does not relinquish power because the amoral leader typically hasa zero-sum approach to power, where amassing power is linear. For example, when an amoraltransformational leader gives up control or power, they have less. While another leader willaccumulate proportionately more control and power. On the other hand, a moral transformational
48leader was more apt to relinquish control and power to let the followers develop independently.Consequently, this was why Houghton and Yoho included an empowering leadership approachbecause power was a dynamic concept. A leader did not lose power; they cultivated somethingnew in a follower that made empowering leadership a force multiplier.Karriker, J. H. (2005). Cyclical group development and interaction-based leadership emergence in autonomous teams: An integrated model. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 54-64. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100405. Karriker (2005) began by explaining why she reduced a five-stage model of groupdevelopment to the three cyclical stages of development identified as storming, norming, andperforming. Of the three, the author determined that the storming phase was the most importantbecause potential leaders asserted their intentions; in addition, a potential leader‟s behaviorattracted or rejected followers as the potential leader gathered their input. From the chaoticactivity that made up the storming phase, Karriker defined the norming phase as the stage wherethe team‟s leader or leaders emerge. It was at this point the team‟s structure, social moral norms,and task assignment occurred. As soon as the team started working to complete task assignments,the team entered the performing stage where routine activities found within the tasks andoperation of the team occurs within the established rules and guidelines. If the team loses amember, or if the team‟s purpose, scope, or goals change, the team re-enters the storming phase. In what seemed to be a contradiction, Karriker (2005) highlighted the importance of anorganizational structure whether fluid or traditional. With structure, it brought about afundamental code of cooperation; the newly formed team became a quasi-organization with itsown structure, rules, and social norms. However, Karriker decided to drop the forming andadjourning stages in team development because they were linear stages while the other three
49stages were cyclical. Furthermore, the author iterated that the norming stage was now the pointwhere the formation of social norms and structure occurred. In other words, the highly prizedcyclical process had no beginning or ending. Despite the authors noting that the forming stagewas important because it defined the context in which the cyclical process was to evolve andwork to improve. The forming stage preceded the storming stage where chaos reigned. Next, thenorming phase suppressed any animosity generated by the storming phase. It appeared that thenorming process in the previous cycle became the forming stage for the current teaming cycle.With that said, Karriker noted two key points about leadership development. Teams are anexcellent environment for leadership development. She also provided a process to maximizeleadership potential for the greater good of the team, organization, or community.Keller, J. W. & Yang, Y. E. (2008). Leadership style, decision context, and the poliheuristic theory of decision making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52, 687-712. doi: 10.1177/0022002708320889. In the hope of improving poliheuristic theory, Keller and Yang (2008) chose to close aperceived gap found in the subjective first stage. As a decision making process, poliheuristictheory had two stages that included a political prescreening process that eliminated potentialdecisions to a problem based on the leader‟s unease about his or her power base. The secondstage included a cognitive cost-benefit analysis to determine the best solution concerning theremaining options. The subjective gap became apparent during extreme situations thatchallenged a leader‟s philosophical constructs, these included “task vs. interpersonal emphasis,need for power, belief in the ability to control events, and self-monitoring” (p. 691 – 692). As aresult, the leader‟s intrinsic orientation towards “distrust and military orientation” would overridehis or her philosophical construct. It was Keller and Yang‟s ultimate desire to eliminate some of
50the theory‟s subjective flaws while providing a more “explanatory and predictive power” (p.687) in decision-making. What Keller and Yang (2008) sought in this article was a tool that could be used todevelop leaders as they executed the decision making process. In addition, the tool had a dualpurpose; constituents could use it to predict a leader‟s response as a method to increaseinstitutional accountability. Unfortunately, profiling and information gathering techniques haveimproved in recent years. These improvements make the predictability that a leader develops apotential weakness greater. If a leader develops a level of predictability as the authors posited, ahostile competitor could frame and coax a leader into predictable responses forcing their intrinsicdistrust and military orientation to take over. In essence, the negative aspects of theory have beenin practice for some time. Various leaders throughout the world have used espionage, spying,feints, and actual military movements to assess the character strengths of other leaders. Theinformation generated allows the adversarial leader to form a version of poliheuristic theory thatforces the targeted leader to react in a predictable manner. In the past, military strategists such asMachiavelli called this information gathering process as testing the mettle of the leader.Muczyk, J. P. & Holt, D. T. (2008). Toward a cultural contingency model of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 277-286. doi: 10.1177/1548051808315551. With a multitude of leadership theories, leadership was never a one-style fits all thoughtprocess. However, as Muczyk and Holt (2008) noted, the application of western methodologiesto leadership in a multinational or global arena has had mixed results. These mixed resultspertaining to effectiveness have had prominent business executives complaining about shortagesin plant level leaders being able to adapt to global demands. Muczyk and Holt identified theinadequacy as global leaders lacking adaptive knowledge to match the leadership style with
51cultural leadership expectations of the host nation. The adaptive knowledge had 11-factors theleader needed to consider before taking a business leadership opportunity in a foreign land.These factors included “assertiveness, future orientation, gender differentiation, uncertaintyavoidance, power distance, collectivism versus individualism, in-group collectivism,performance orientation, humane orientation, internal versus external environmental orientations,and perceived role of hierarchy and acceptability of bypassing chain of command” (p. 279).Muczyk and Holt created a simplified table where they generalized regional stereotypes in orderto make it practical for use. Once the leader learned the regional expectation, the leader neededto complete further research and adapt to the social setting that the business resided to become anadaptable global leader. This article removed the verbose superlatives and delivered a basic description ofleadership; in addition, it explained the manner in which leadership style was to be contingentand based on regional setting. In the process, Muczyk and Holt (2008) promoted a universalleadership style and factors that transcend regional differences. The authors thought thattransformational leadership was an international style since it promoted commitment with avision that required the follower to exceed established expectations. The personal attributes ofthe transformational leader that were universal were “trustworthiness, integrity, just, honesty,having a positive attitude, dynamic, encouraging, motivational, and an informed team builder”(p. 280). In addition, the authors noted that “foresight and planning ahead” (p. 280) were thenecessities of a visionary. Universal impediments included the leader being an asocial loner thatwas a non-cooperative irritable dictator. In reviewing the article in total, Muczyk and Holtimplied that leadership was a teachable skill; furthermore, the various leadership styles were
52tools that the leader used on a contingent basis. Depending on the culture and circumstances, theleader applied the correct behavior and style to the given situation.Scandura, T. A. & Pellegrini, E. K. (2008). Trust and leader member exchange: A closer look at relational vulnerability. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies; 15, 101-110. doi: 10.1177/1548051808320986. In the study, Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) challenged the traditional predisposition thatthe leader-member exchange was “unidimensional” (p. 101). The authors identified three phasesof the leader-member exchange theory (LMX) based on trust. Trust may be either the precursoror successor to both the leader and follower advancing to the next stage in the theory. The firstphase of LMX was “role-taking” (p. 102). Role-taking was transactional and displayed much ofthe calculus-based trust dimension. Calculus-based trust was a strict exchange and both partieshad little willingness to expose themselves to risk and provided an output that met the minimumrequirement. The second phase was “role-making” (p. 102). During this phase, the leader andfollower develop beyond the transactional need of the relationship and incorporate sometransformational qualities. When this occurs, calculus-based trust becomes less prominent, andthe relationship evolves towards the identification-based trust dimension. The identification-based trust dimension was where the leader and follower willingly exchange ideas, beliefs, andoutput that go beyond the confines of the contract. The third phase was “role-routinization” (p.102). It was where the relationship develops high levels of identification-based trust.Subsequently, the follower becomes empowered allowing the leader to delegate responsibility. Itwas at this point in the study the authors determined that the leader-member exchange became“multidimensional” (p. 103) because the trust dimension in the exchange was not a constant.
53Trust was hard to earn and easy to lose. When a leader lost a followers trust, the relationshipdegraded back to being very transactional. From the leadership development standpoint, trust was a compilation of integrity,competence, and commitment. Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) implied that, as the strength in thelevel of trust increased from calculus-based trust to identification-based trust, the followerprogressed from transactional, through transformational, potentially to develop empowermentleadership traits. Ironically, Scandura and Pellegrini viewed delegation and empowerment as“leadership risk-taking behaviors” (p. 102). This was ironic because the authors stressed themultidimensional aspects of trust, yet take a linear and predictable approach to risk. Especially,as previously noted, a highly developed relationship exposed the follower to higher stress levelswhen taking on extra responsibilities and the potential to be conned with no contractualprotection or reward for their extra effort. Trust and risk appeared to be perpetually at odds withanother.Schröder, T. & Scholl, W. (2009). Affective dynamics of leadership: An experimental test of affect control theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72( 2), 180-197. The quest to predict social interactions concerning leadership was what Schröder andScholl (2009) attempted in their study. The goal of the quest had two parts. The first part of thegoal was simply to use Affect Control Theory (ACT) in a leadership environment using a virtualcompany with fictitious employees. The second part of the goal required that ACT generates amathematical model. The model requires a human subject to interact correctly with the virtualenvironment concerning a social action and emotion hypotheses. The social action hypothesispredicted that subjects would choose behaviors that generated low "affective deflection" (p. 184)scores. In addition, the emotion hypothesis predicted that these subjects would tag their
54“experiences with emotion concepts having low Euclidean distances to those predicted by ACT”(p. 184). The results of the study were not as strong as Schröder and Scholl had predicted. ACTseemed to act like a predictor; however, ACT was less than 66% correct in predicting theexperiment‟s virtual events. In addition, there was a less than average strength concerning theassociated correlations of social action and emotion. Given the situation, which was a highlycontrolled environment, the authors expected a stronger correlation and a much higher rate ofprediction. Upon completion of the study, Schröder and Scholl (2009) had some doubts to whethertheir simulation eliminated enough bias and other extraneous variables to say they met theirintended goal for the study. A virtual study with fictitious employees using a mathematicalmodel sets a finite number of possible solutions to any problem. With little chance of trueretribution for failure when faced with an organizational dilemma, the structure of the studyprevented subjects from conducting any root cause analysis. The authors noted this as theprimary concern along with a few other methodological problems that plagued the study. Theauthors restricted the leadership styles in the study to either authoritarian or democratic. Thisrestriction could have skewed results. Given the limited amount of options, a rudimentary coinflip, the results may generate a false positive concerning the first hypothesis.Van Breukelen, W., Schyns, B., and Le Blanc, P. (2006). Leader-member exchange theory and research: Accomplishments and future challenges. Leadership, 2, 295-316. doi: 10.1177/1742715006066023. In this article, Van Breukelen, Schyns, and Le Blanc (2006) attempted an awkwarddefense of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. The article began with the authors definingLMX. Then they contrasted LMX with transactional, trait, leader behavior approach, vertical
55dyad linkage theory, and situational or contingency theories. Van Breukelen et al. concluded thatLMX was a personally adaptive theory. It required leaders to treat subordinates equally in orderto attain high-quality relationships between the leader and his or her subordinates. Despite theauthors stating that the dyad was a unit of measurement of an exchange relationship, theysurmised that LMX did not have “clear definitions and measurements” (p. 310). In addition, theythought that leader and member exchanges had to be equally fair and just to all of the followersdespite the quality of the exchange. The authors seem preoccupied in grouping all subordinatesin to one egalitarian group without differentiating between subordinates; as a result, the equalityof subordinates meant shop floor employees, low, and mid-level managers were one potentialgroup. Finally, as soon as an advocate LMX theorist cleaned up the definition, methods ofmeasurement, and concept of equal fairness they believed LMX could facilitate the creation ofhigh-quality relationships. In using nuance, Van Breukelen et al. used the term “prescriptive” (p. 297) to describecontingency and situational theories. The context in which the authors used prescriptive made ita tactical term in which leaders would develop high-quality relationships based on the setting,commitment, and competence of the subordinate. This prescriptive concept was similar toSMART objectives. As Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi (1985) noted, a leader created SMARTobjectives on an individual basis to drive improvement for the situational leader. In addition,LMX strove to achieve high-quality relationships in a manner that Van Breukelen et al.described as “descriptive” (p. 297). Descriptive had a strategic context as LMX strived to searchout for group antecedents facilitating high-quality exchanges. In what appeared to be acontradiction, the authors then suggested that a leader practicing LMX searched out to find theprecursors and inhibitors to high-quality relationships on an individual and not a communal
56basis. After the leader has gathered data, he or she analyzes it in order to define organizationalantecedents to promote organizational high-quality relationships. Unfortunately, in the process ofcoming up with a comprehensive plan explaining why LMX misses the mark as the authorsnoted in their conclusion. The tactical nature of leader and member exchanges do not alwaystransfer into strategic action plans; consequently, some individuals within the organization willnot have their needs addressed. These individuals will not develop high-quality relationships.Vecchio, R. P., Bullis, R. C., & Brazil, D. M. (2006). The utility of situational leadership theory: A replication in a military setting. Small Group Research, 37, 407-424. doi: 10.1177/1046496406291560. Like LMX, situational theory lacked empirical predictability; consequently, Vecchio,Bullis, and Brazil tried to take a different approach in predicting a subordinate‟s need forsupervision. This contrasting approach included a subordinate‟s opinions on his or herperformance, quality of the leader-member exchange, and “satisfaction with supervision” (p.411). The study used military cadets with the same level of maturity. The authors hoped to testcadets in leadership roles to determine their effectiveness by measuring numerical outputsgenerated from the subordinate. According to Vecchio et al., the subjective component in testingthe theory occurred when the leader evaluated the subordinate‟s readiness to take on newchallenges. The leader must evaluate the subordinate‟s competence, commitment, and ability tobe self-directed. Unfortunately, for the authors, they can neither control the subjectivity in theleader‟s decisions nor the environmental context that influenced a leader‟s decision. Much likeVan Breukelen et al. LMX results, Vecchio et al. had mixed results with a low to mid-rangestrength in both regression and omnibus tests.
57 Vecchio et al. admittedly took a snap shot in time concerning a dynamic situation. Thesubordinates in this snap shot were at different levels of development while tackling thechallenges of their current leadership level. As a result, testing subordinate feedback ended upbeing reflective of the cadet‟s sensitivity to their current developmental situation and the punitivenature of the training. Positives from the study included results from those cadets needingstructured supervision, cadets involved in the supervisor‟s inner circle, and when the leaderdemonstrated flexibility when using the input from a subordinate. However, the study producedsome inconsistent results that were not significant. To rectify inconsistencies in the study, theauthors suggested that future researchers combine a leader‟s opinions with a subordinate‟smeasurable improvement. Another reality the authors discovered concerned the fact thatsituational theory was a small group concept as evident in the inner circle results. Theresearchers suggested that leaders fail to lead when try to become all things to everyone; it putsleaders in an impossible position where they cannot satisfy the needs of everyone. Their bestopportunity to succeed required them to build a consensus around their vision and developindividuals to form a core group. After the formation of the core group, they reach out anddevelop others wanting to share and implement the leader‟s vision.
58 Literature Review Essay As Bass (1985) believed, when a researcher creates and defines a leadership theory, theauthor has established criteria for leadership development. The breadth reviewed several keyleadership theories that included contingency, situational, transactional, and transformational.These provided the leadership development structure for the breadth. However, this structure isinefficient when incorporating modern research with divergent thought in the analysis. As aresult, the implied action generated by a theory provides the basis for the structure in the depth.This promotes a more effective method to compare and contrast theories in the breadth and depthin order to refine the process-oriented moral leadership (POML) concept. For example,contingency and situational have read and react components that exist in various premises thatinclude the affect control theory (ACT), leadership-member exchange (LMX), and interaction-based leadership (IBL). As a result, the reaction-based premises section analyzes theories thathave read and react components. Furthermore, the exchange-based premises section consists oftransactional and other current leadership theories that have the follower exchanging labor orinformation concerning their need in order to achieve a negotiated leadership response to fulfillthat need. The final sections of analysis, prior to the summary and conclusion, focus on twocontrasting aspects of transformational leadership. The criterion used to separatetransformational leadership was the inclusion or exclusion of a social moral element.Accordingly, these final sections of analysis use the headers amoral transformational and moraltransformational. As noted in the breadth, Bass (1985), Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997)provided the amoral perspective while Burns (1978), Kouzes and Posner (2007) provided themoral perspective. Current literature will help refine these perspectives as they relate to POML.
59 The process of analyzing reaction-based premises, exchange premises, amoral and moraltransformational premises in order to refine the concept of POML requires each section to beanalyzed in terms of POML positives and negatives. As previously noted in the breadth, Kouzesand Posner‟s (2007) characteristics of empowering leadership serves as the foundation or startingpoint to evaluate each positive and negative. However, the criteria used to distinguish thedifference between a POML positive or negative goes beyond determining if a premise promotesor discourages empowering leadership and POML development. It also determines whether anauthored premise is a POML positive or negative by assessing the following. Does the premiseprotect the social and economic freedom of followers to provide them the opportunity to developinto future leaders? In addition, the premise must be inclusive to social moral norms and ethicalstandards that encourage interrelatedness. Finally, does any change the premise attempts to gainavoid infringing upon the previous conditions while promoting social win-win scenarios thatKouzes and Posner believed necessary for positive social change? The action-based sectionheaders establish the theoretical link between the breadth and depth, while the POML positiveand negative sub-section headers guide the analysis to refine the concept of POML. In order to build beyond the foundation that included leadership development, morality,and leader-follower relationship, the content of the literature review will breakdown each POMLpositive and negative using Kouzes and Posner‟s (2007) remaining characteristics ofempowering leadership. The remaining characteristics, which include the driving force forchange, competitive interaction, and positive social change, are action-oriented and alignthemselves well with the overall action-oriented structure of the literature review. Thesecharacteristics will help create concentrated aspects of the quintessential POML elements as theyrelate to each section. The driving force for change analyzes the manner in which a developing
60leader instigates change. For example, the driving force for change evaluates the sources andmethods a developing leader uses to initiate an event that propels or inspires an aspiring leader toseize an opportunity and create a change movement. The competition criterion is the method inwhich a developing leader handles perceived internal and external competition. This analysisfocuses on relationships that are within and outside the leader‟s direct sphere of influence.Finally, the positive social change component is the manner a developing leader uses to attainpositive social change. This analysis delves into positive social change; explicitly, it identifieswhich theories make it possible for a society to thrive. As Kouzes and Posner (2007) noted, long-term positive social change thinking ensures that a win-win scenario exists between individualsand societal demands. The summary compiles the information and concludes with the notion thatthe POML concept is a highly adaptive and empowering style of leadership.Reaction-Based Premises Contingency, situational, affect control theory (ACT), leadership-member exchange(LMX), and interaction-based leadership (IBL) theories have read and react techniques thatrequire an aspiring leader to study in order to develop as a leader or help a follower develop.Read and react development has systematic goals. Systematic goals include mutually agreedupon individual performance targets. When applicable, this includes team outputs that thefollower works with others in a team environment to achieve. For example, VanBreukelen,Schyns, and Le Blanc (2006) described LMX as a method to understand and develop leadersusing various inputs. The leader or developing leader must understand organizational need,constraints, the follower‟s preparedness, and the resources required to aid the follower inmeeting the organizational need. The level of success guides the leader or aspiring leader‟s next
61action in meeting the organizational need. This concept is similar to Blanchard et al.‟s (1985)situational theory and Ibbotson‟s (2008) contingency theory. In reviewing reaction-based theories, this section will evaluate the POML positives andnegatives of two macro-level contingency theories written by two different sets of authors(Houghton & Yoho, 2005; Muczyk & Holt, 2008). It also includes a communication-basedtheory called ACT (Schröder & Scholl, 2009), an IBL using teams as a primordial stew forleadership development (Karricker, 2005), and a LMX theory that was more contingency-basedthan transactional (Van Breukelen et al., 2006). As previously mentioned, the following willanalyze the research material in terms of POML positives and negatives. The comparativeanalysis of each POML positive and negative includes the manner in which a developing leaderis suppose to drive change, address competitiveness, and his or her positive social changeapproach. Potential POML Positives. According to Houghton and Yoho (2005), as soon as a developing leaderestablishes a vision, being able to identify and seize upon opportunity is a necessary traitof an effective reactionary leader. This is similar to all reaction-based leadership theories.In addition, as noted by Schröder and Scholl (2009), they are all heavily dependent uponcommunication and require developing leaders to learn the traits and needs of followersin order to maximize productivity by spotting opportunities for improvement. Much likeIbbotson‟s (2008) contingency-based creative leadership theory, Vecchio, Bullis, andBrazil (2006) discovered that a leader could introduce a controlled stimulus in a teamenvironment to generate efficient and creative reactions in followers. Consequently, boththeories require a skillful leader to frame an appropriate stimulus in order to determine
62the general direction in which the anticipated change should take. Their theory wascomparable to Van Breukelen et al. (2006), the reactionary leadership developmentopportunity comes as the leader evaluates the leadership potential of the followers as theyrespond to the stimulus. The difference between the three sets of authors was thetheoretical POML positive generated from group responses. Van Breukelen et al. andVecchio et al. sought mutually beneficial outcomes. Contrastingly, Schröder and Schollfocused in on the benefits a leader attains. Ibbotson‟s (2008) theory is open to the unpredictability and the creative nature of change.The positives from Vecchio et al. and Van Breukelen et al. require the leader to use a compositeof measured inputs in order to find the most efficient response. Concerning the leadershipdevelopment opportunity, all of the authors used a method that requires potential leaders togather information, share the information in a team environment, and help develop and defendreaction plans submitted by the group to the leader. Reaction-based theories incorporatereactionary development tendency while attempting to achieve an organizational goal. Whencomparing the authors identified in this paragraph, the POML positive is the level of effectivecommunication needed to make the reaction-based theory operative in order to develop futureleaders. In reviewing each reaction-based theory, the rationale for change stemmed either from aleader‟s vision, a team-based decision incorporating a leader‟s input, or in reaction to an externalstimulus. A leader‟s vision served as the driving force for change in Blanchard et al. (1985) andIbbotson‟s (2008) theories; consequently, leadership development centered on improving anaspiring leader‟s vision. Muczyk and Holt (2008) had a contrasting perception when they createda cultural contingency model that matched leadership style with leadership positions in non-
63western cultures using a team-based approach. To develop or find the right fit to fill the vacancyrequires an upper management team that has a thorough understanding of the local culture. Theupper management determines the local leadership need. The situational model aids leadership infilling or developing that need with an aspiring leader. Karricker (2005) and Vecchio et al. (2006) were more inclusive than previous the authorssince the driving force for change could emanate from either the leader or a team environment.In using multiple sources to aid with problem resolution, a team concept provides the authors anopportunity for a comprehensive understanding of a dilemma, potentially a more creativeresponse, and the occasion to evaluate and develop leadership potential in followers. Houghtonand Yoho (2005) had a different take all together; they created a model that aids aspiring leadersin matching the correct leadership style with the nature and urgency of the task. In this instance,the problem defined the opportunity and the reaction selection process aided leadershipdevelopment. Regardless of the reasoning behind the various theories, any driving force forchange required an enhanced understanding of the subject matter. When the importance andurgency of the task permits, POML requires leaders to be force-multipliers. As Vecchio et al.noted, a team environment provided the best opportunity to develop numerous leaders. Ibbotson (2008) viewed competition with cautious optimism; the real opportunity incompetition is in the understanding and comradeship that fuels a respectful form of competition.In worse case situations, Ibbotson suggested using it as a last resort in order to reshape theparadigm of thought and push the boundaries of innovation. Vecchio et al. (2006) had acomparable perspective; they suggested creating small and flexible teams to handle diversesituations as the primary tool for leadership development. They believed that competition existswithin both the team and external forces such as other cadets. In dealing with competitive forces
64within the team, Karricker‟s (2005) perspective offered a win-win scenario that was analogous toVecchio et al. Karricker described the performing stage in team development as providing theorganization with a win as the individual or team overcomes a tactical or strategic issue. Inovercoming the issue, the leader and the team win as they develop competence and confidence. Despite Karricker‟s (2005) and Vecchio et al. (2006) team-based approaches differingsignificantly from Houghton and Yoho‟s (2005) individual-centric leadership development, theyall had a similar concept. When focusing on the topic of competition, all were comparable inachieving organizational goals and targets meant to develop competence and confidence inaspiring leaders. Whether occurring in an individual or team environment, Blanchard et al.‟s(1985) believed that human‟s natural competitive instinct in completing tasks and achievingdevelopment goals allowed leaders to harness the positive nature of competition while presentingthe greatest opportunity for organizational success and leadership development. To avoidnegative competition in a team environment, Muczyk and Holt (2008) took preventive-normingmeasures in order to avoid negative competition as they matched a leader to the team‟s societalcultural norms. In referring to ethics, laws, and social moral norms, all of the reaction-basedtheories noted in this paragraph were comparable as they provided a team or an individual astructured opportunity to maximize the POML potential found in the competitive learning event. As evident in Muczyk and Holt‟s (2008) article, reaction-based theories as a wholetypically do not strive for social change, let alone positive social change as goal. Societal changeonly becomes a goal or a target if the leader, team, or the context of the problem is inclusive to asocietal need. However, all of the reaction-based theories incorporate the ingredients for positivesocial change. Ibbotson (2008) believed a great team approach was extremely creative ingenerating a paradigm shifts. However, his social change perspective and achieving a positive
65outcome is dependent upon the leader‟s moral character, vision, and communication skills.Blanchard et al. (1985) subscribed to followers achieving positive social change goals moreefficiently when they have a firm understanding of their expectations and a moral code in whichto operate. In using LMX, Vecchio et al. would promote Blanchard et al‟s belief that leaderscould become force-multipliers in change when they empower aspiring leaders. Karricker (2005)had a comparable outcome, except she based her outcome on IBL principles. Houghton andYoho (2005) encouraged self-leadership in alignment with societal norms and needs as means topromote social change, which suggested that leadership is a learnable skill. Muczyk and Holt(2008) also believed leadership as a learnable opportunity, especially when they expected newhires to adapt to cultural peculiarities of their assignment. As it relates to positive social change,they expected the leader to achieve an understanding of the cultural needs that could drivepositive social change. More importantly, even though positive change was not the primary goalfor any of the authors previously noted, when applying key aspects of leadership development,their concepts of leadership development offer the potential to be a POML positive. Potential POML Negatives. Ibbotson (2008) described a potential leader‟s developmental opportunity as occurringwhen they serve as the catalyst for inspiration and enact the leader‟s vision. The antithesis todevelopment, as Ibbotson described, emanates from the leader‟s “persistence and single-mindedness” (p. 8) in pursuit of a vision. Persistence and single-mindedness could denote aproblem with the leader‟s vision, the method of communication, the preparedness of thefollowers, a failed process, or all of the above. Muczyk and Holt‟s (2008) results mimickedIbbotson‟s concept; in addition, a leader‟s single-minded pursuit hinders his or her ability todevelop followers. If single-mindedness turns into habitual obstinate behavior, the leader loses
66respect and adoration of the team, which serves as the greatest risk to the leader. Comparably, asKarricker (2005) noted, this occurs as the leader forgoes social structure and understanding inlieu of a selfish pursuit. This is an example of one POML negative, other negatives for reactive-based leadership theories are exclusion, poor communication, and compromising on principals,which only breeds confusion in followers (Vecchio et al., 2006). When focusing on driving forces for change as a POML negative, Houghton and Yoho(2005) thought the antithesis to follower development is a leader ignoring the follower‟sdevelopmental status, misunderstanding situational urgency of a change event, or failing toprepare an appropriate task structure with resources in order to respond to the change event. Asanalogous, Vecchio et al. (2006) believed that any of the previously mentioned failure modesmeant the leader would lose respect and understanding of the follower. Blanchard et al. (1985)also believed that the leader risks losing the follower‟s respect when the leader fails tounderstand their needs. Simply, the leader did not prepare the follower to succeed when a changeevent became apparent. To compound a failure in preparation, Ibbotson (2008) noted the inability tocommunicate accurately in a coherent manner often had detrimental consequences to the leader-follower relationship. In addition, Muczyk and Holt (2008) offered caution in a similar mannerby noting that if a leader lacks the visionary necessities to be an “informed team builder” (p. 280)while being able to plan or predict the future, then the leader has the potential to lose anypositives found in the change event. Vecchio et al. had a similar outcome; the only contrast wasthat they included the possibility that a leader would willingly ignore the follower‟s needs duringa change event. Karricker (2005) produced similar results. She believed that when a leader uses ateam to address the driving force for change and fails to address the team forming requirements
67such as rules, social norms, and expectations, then confusion and an abnormally long stormingperiod follows. Abnormally long storming phase during team formation delays leadershipdevelopment opportunities that come with the change event. As highlighted in the review of POML positives, both Ibbotson (2008) and Blanchard etal. (1985) had contrasting opinions concerning the potential positives and negatives found incompetition. Unlike Blanchard et al., Ibbotson viewed competition as a tool of last resort. Hefound competition disconcerting since it would lead to hierarchal roles, bureaucracy, andultimately it would lead to incoherent outputs that prohibit creativity while reducing leadershipdevelopment potential. This result was dissimilar to Houghton and Yoho‟s (2005) zero-sumleadership development approach where positives and negatives eventually balance out overtime. Comparable to Ibbotson, Muczyk and Holt (2008) thought that when a leader failed toanticipate an oncoming external stimulus that jeopardizes his or her vision, the leader becomesreactive to competition and change events. The leader repeatedly vitiates into defensive,inefficient, and predictable behaviors making it difficult to balance out the negatives withpositives. As a result, leadership development suffers. This outcome was analogous to the results generated by Vecchio et al.‟s (2006) study thatsuggested the fracturing of team unity would result. Competition in this instance had teammembers viewing other members as aggressive competitors. As the team begins to fracture, thedisintegration reduces team member input, productivity, and ultimately leadership developmentpotential. This occurs as individuals on the team begin to feel isolated and put in a positionwhere they are more concerned for their own self-interests than the team‟s. Similarly, Karricker(2005) declared that this often happens when a team forms incorrectly without rules, ethics, andsocial moral norms, they cannot not focus on the external competition efficiently or coherently.
68Which goes back to the point made by Ibbotson, if the only output coming from the leader is anambiguous goal, target, or castigation, then the leader has systematically limited the developmentpotential of their constituents. Furthermore, while followers are chasing indiscreet goals andtargets, it prevents the leader‟s organization or community to see any impending troublegenerated by external change events or competition. Ultimately, this has a negative impact theleadership potential of future leaders. When a leader makes shortsighted competitiveness a habit, then he or she risks effectingsocial change negatively. This occurs when amoral goals and shortsighted tendencies become apart of the leader‟s vision (Kouzes and Posner, 2007). For instance, Bass (1985) used Hitler as anexample of shortsighted competitiveness combined with an amoral predisposition. As a result,Hitler misled followers in doing horrific acts for the sake of shortsighted tendencies tied to theprotection of lower level needs. This ultimately was the problem with Muczyk and Holt (2008),Ibbotson (2008), and Blanchard et al.‟s (1985) theories on leadership development. As identifiedby Houghton and Yoho (2005), systems of positive social change built on reaction-basedleadership theories cannot become too dependent on leaders willfully relinquishing power. Therehas to be an end game that empowers potential leaders and avoids hindering their growth. To offer clarification, Karricker (2005) believed that if organizations and teams formwith ambiguous rules, ethics, and social norms, this process-oriented failure creates amoral orillogical leaders making positive change difficult. To affirm Karricker‟s perspective, Vecchio etal. (2006) wrote about amoral leaders attempting to use pacification as a means to generate socialchange. In this example, the authors thought that leaders who lack an appropriate moralfoundation while trying to be all things to everyone would fail to lead anyone and become thequintessential illogical leader. As Bass (1985) noted comparably, they lack the big picture social
69change perspective by assuming they can control every aspect of leadership development. In twocontrastive studies, Vecchio et al., Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) surmised that some of thereasons why reaction-based theories fail to generate consistent correlational results were becausethey assume total control. For example, a researcher manipulating a leadership trait that served asa control variable did not produce a reliable result in a group of followers. A likely reasonoffered by the authors is that singular leadership trait or ability could not consistently address allof the followers‟ dynamic needs. According to Houghton and Yoho (2005), to achieve anyconsistency, the leader had to be flexible and allow the followers to be self-leaders. This meantthe leader had to relinquish power in order to promote positive social change. In doing so, thisprovides the aspiring leader with individual freedom and power to address their individual needsefficiently. In order to be effective self-leaders, they have to have social normalcy as identifiedby Karricker.Exchange Premises The preeminent exchange theory has been transactional leadership. As both Bass (1985)and Burns (1978) suggested, the concept of a transactional leader is just another stepping-stoneto a more advanced form of leadership style; moreover, this leadership style is holistic inaddressing a multitude of situations. As with reactive leadership development, transactionalleadership focused on the follower‟s lower level needs with the intention of tying them to alarger organizational need or social issue. For example, a leader uses contingent rewards withsocial change contract language to entice followers into social change activities (Harland,Harrison, Jones, & Reiter-Palmon, 2005). As Kouzes and Posner (2007) pointed out, this conceptcaptures both the positive and negative aspects of transactional leadership concerning leadershipdevelopment. Because, as Barbuto (2005) identified, it attaches one of Maslow‟s lower level
70needs to a societal issue thereby limiting the leadership development and positive social changepotential of the individual. These differing views will carry forward in the analysis of the POMLpositives and negatives with respect to reasons for typical change, competition, and positivesocial change. Potential POML Positives. For Bass (1985), the typical reason for change is a result of effectivecommunication. This occurs as the leader gathers details from the followers as theycontractually perform to the agreed upon levels. This system incorporates an opportunityto make incremental changes in order to attain continual improvement and a successfuladaptive system. Unfortunately, this improvement has limitations. Transactional leaders,according Bass, thrive in the status quo while only making minor systematic changes.Harland et al. (2005) reiterated Bass‟s perspective when they addressed exchange-basedresilience and by Harms and Credé (2010) as they suggested a transactional leader needsto improve their emotional intelligence (EI) in order to become a transformational leader.Dissimilarly, Van Breukelen, Schyns, and Le Blanc (2006) wrote about LMX. Theythought an exchanged-based leader could bring significant change, open-endedperformance, and opportunity. Their theory consisted of stretch goals tied to leadershipdevelopment that provides a contingency-based expectation with a corresponding reward.The goal of the exchange and change event is the mutual quest for high-qualityrelationships. As a result, the mutual quest for high-quality relationships provides atransactional leadership development opportunity while becoming a POML positive. Like Bass, Burns (1978) understood that transactional leadership is an agreement ofutilitarian need and requires a leader to reward a follower for an agreed upon output. This
71utilitarian need serves as the engine that drives organizational or social change. The positivePOML opportunity for the follower is being able to meet lower level needs efficiently whilelearning leadership skills such as goal setting, responsibility, and trustworthiness while workingto surpass leadership‟s expectations. Comparably, Scandura and Pellegrini‟s (2008) LMX studynoted that surpassing expectations are one method for a follower to earn a leader‟s trust.Developing trust was a major factor that drove change in the LMX study. The contrastingdifference between the theorists was Barbuto (2005) and Bass believed in a rigid exchange whilemeasuring the efficiency in the follower to achieve the desired outcome. For Scandura andPellegrini, the outcome was the minimum requirement and they suggested rewarding followersfor going beyond this minimum expectation. Going beyond the minimum is the driving force forchange and leadership development. Keller and Yang (2008) had a slightly different take whenthey wanted to use rhetoric to increase efficiency or protect their power base as an externalstimulus or change event forced the leader to take action. In contrast to all of the leader centricsources of change, Burns, as well as Harland et al. (2005) thought input ascertained from variousstakeholders is the best method for social change and leadership development. In this example,all stakeholders have a stake in a successful outcome. Similarly, Kouzes and Posner (2007) alsobelieved in using cross-functional team sources of change in non-emergency situations toprovide the best opportunity for development. This, in turn, provides the best POMLdevelopment opportunity. Moral constructs did not impede Bass‟s (1985) opportunity for competitive advantage.With the use of stretch goals and a firm understanding of the minimum legal requirement, Bassbelieved a leader and follower had more room to maneuver for the purpose of competitiveadvantage. Similarly, Barbuto‟s (2005) assumption implied leadership thrives on competition;
72thereby, making competition and leadership inseparable while making morality optional. Thiswas significantly different from Burns (1978) and Harms and Credé (2010). Burns, Harms, andCredé believed using competitive opportunity to meet planned goals, self-imposed targets, andultimately leadership development. This positive take on meeting the transactional requirementbuilds competence and confidence in the follower. By increasing competence and confidence,Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) thought it would change the trust between a leader and followerfrom a calculus based trust, which is strictly transactional, to an identification-based trust that isempowering and provides leadership development opportunities. Van Breukelen et al. (2006)had a contrasting opinion; the opportunity in harnessing a competitive advantage lies within thefollower and a systematic moral construct. Especially in instances where followers arecompeting amongst themselves or working to attain organizational goals, Van Breukelen et al.believed that a leader has to treat everyone equally. This institutionalized equality generatesorganizational harmony. In the preceding examples, Harms and Credé (2010) would describethem as win-win scenarios that imply competition, change, and leadership development are acertain and potentially potent combination. For Bass (1985), the best positive social change and leadership development opportunityemanating from the leader occurs incrementally; unfortunately, it is highly dependent upon themoral character of the leader. Harms and Credé (2010) had a contrasting opinion whilesuggesting that a leader with EI must adhere to social or professional ethics and moral standards.In their study, they produced some correlational links suggesting a leader‟s amoral character haddire social change consequences since a follower‟s development was subject to the leader‟simpulsive need to violate contractual arrangements. Comparably, Scandura and Pellegrini (2008)contended, when a leader is attempting to establish empowering identification-based trust to
73promote positive change and leadership development they must have a firm moralunderstanding. During the process of leaders helping aspiring leaders, Van Breukelen et al.(2006) suggested that a leader needs to establish socially based morality and ethical standards, sofollowers can become self-leaders, team, or organizational leaders. In addition, they assistedfuture leaders by guiding them in making the best possible social change decisions whileensuring there is a level of self-regulating accountability. To continue to contrast Bass, Barbuto (2005) cautioned, leaders who fall prey to theirpopularity within the community, only provide the appearance of being a conscious driven leaderproviding insignificant contractual change. Positive social change requires what Harland et al.(2005) called optimism and resilience. This requires an endowed moral standard and atransparent contractual arrangement for a leader to be true visionary leader that inspires a vastmajority of constituents to maximize their freedom, and leadership development potential.Burns‟ (1978) understanding was comparable to Barbuto and Harland et al.; a leader‟s moral useof power requires a measurable change in the output of followers. Subsequently, it producespositive social change and leadership development opportunities that are measurable. SinceBurns thought a society defines positive social change, then measurable acts of positive socialchange requires leaders and aspiring leaders to be involved in the community creatingtransactional measurable gains that provide the leader, aspiring leaders, and the community witha win-win-win scenario. Potential POML Negatives. If communication offers the greatest opportunity for change and generates force-multipliers in a contractual exchange arrangement, then incorporating wrong or purposely-distorted information poses as the greatest threat to leadership development and the benefits of
74change. Bass (1985) wrote about the positives of an effective leader and the need for multipleavenues of informational flow. Ironically, for a theorist that composed a leadership developmenttheory that is morally neutral, he also wrote about detrimental effects of “negative inspirationalpractices that included false promises, unobtainable goals, arousing competitive feelings,encouraging conflict, and coercing the followers” (p. 73 – 74). The principle of the precedingpassage is comparable to a belief generated by Van Breukelen et al. (2006) who described anegative inspirational leader as an individual that is routinely disingenuously attempting tobefriend followers as to manipulate their needs for the leader‟s political or organizational changebenefit. Often these cold political calculations, as expounded by Barbuto (2005), lead tocompromise and consensus causing honest followers with high EI to regress into calculus-basedtrust as Keller and Yang (2008) had warned. As a result, a substantial loss in trust led to coldtransactional relationships curtailing leadership development as Scandura and Pellegrini (2008)had predicted. In stark contrast, Burns (1978) believed a negative inspirational leader did not exist. Hebelieved that a morally corrupt individual could only hold a title of leader because he or shenever developed beyond their lower level needs. In these instances, the leader never developsenough of what Harms and Credé (2010) described as EI. Consequently, as Burns noted, theseincomplete leaders may perform acts that are transactional or transformational. They just neverdevelop to a point where they are consistent in their application to help others develop. Thismeant that they posed as some of the greatest threats to change, communication, and leadershipdevelopment. Burns (1978) deemed that competition in an exchange environment and its adverseeffects are a result of a leader lacking moral clarity. What was important to Burns is the manner
75in which a person develops, if at all, and not the title or achieved goal. To understand how aleader might react to competition Barbuto (2005) suggested organizations create a behavioralprofile of prospective or current leaders to anticipate their actions. However, Kouzes and Posner(2007) had a contrasting opinion. Their concern focused on categorizing, stereotyping, orprofiling followers. The leader sets artificial limits that have the potential to inhibit theleadership development of the followers. Profiling an individual is difficult; profiling a team onhow they react to the leader in the face of competition is something several studies had a difficulttime in predicting. For example, Harland et al. (2005) noted external competition could assist theteam to overcome an internal team forming issue, by forcing them to band together. The teamsurvives on the condition that the internal competition and the dysfunctional nature of the teamdid not destroy it first. Negative team performance in the face of competition is comparable to Harms and Credé(2010) belief that the dysfunctional nature of the team stems from the leader being inconsistentwith their emotions and application of team rules, social norms, and terms of the contractualexchange. Similarly, Van Breukelen et al. (2006) highlighted sources of dysfunctionalityemanating from a leader could include belittling, micromanaging, poor communication skills,and lacking moral clarity. As result, Keller and Yang (2008) believed a dysfunctional teamimpeded follower leadership development. Correspondingly, Scandura and Pellegrini (2008)equated a dysfunctional team as a loss in trust. They cautioned that the trust a leader gains bydemonstrating confidence and competence in overcoming obstacles is hard to achieve and easyto lose. That is why moral clarity as a means to generate trust was so important to Fairhurst(2005). The lack of morality and a leader being unscrupulous in the face of competition opensthe door to negative social change, or at the very least, it destroys leadership potential as the
76followers feverishly work to adhere to the leader‟s changing amoral beliefs. Consequently, aresponse to any competitive activity has to work within social moral norms. A leader workingwithin social norms establishes a consistency that allows a follower to look beyond their lowerlevel needs and develop leadership skills. A leader does this by working to maintain a follower‟slower level needs of social order, civility, and honoring the terms of the exchange. Plainly, positive social change was not Bass‟s (1985) goal when he wrote abouttransactional leadership. He also implied that a society using capitalism and democracy based ona constitutional government was conservative and representative of a transactional form ofleadership. While, authoritarian and central planning systems symbolized a higher order ofleadership that was transformational. Surprisingly, Bass admitted that a constitutionalgovernment represented a higher degree of freedom, leadership development, and consistentsocial change. Keller and Yang (2008) made a claim that collaborated Bass‟s assertion. Kellerand Yang implied that authoritarian and central planning systems were heavily dependent onpolitical transactional decisions. It was their belief, those transactional decisions rarely promotedpositive social change or leadership development. Keller and Yang‟s version of a transactionalpolitical leader was one that responded to action. As a result, the political leader made reactivepolitical decisions that had nothing to do with the form of government because their decisionsemanated from the leader‟s character and the manner in which he or she developed. Harland and Credé (2010) offered a proportionate response as they pointed out; it isdifficult to affect positive change when political decisions are often reactive and unresponsive tofuture needs as set out in terms of the exchange. Worse, Barbuto (2005) hinted that leaders whouse social change to generate a façade hiding a leader‟s intrinsic political desires courts ruinousresults. In the best of circumstances, as Van Breukelen et al. (2006) emphasized, political
77decisions that thrive in ambiguity makes social change vague and obscures the intent ofleadership development. The most alarming provocation came from Scandura and Pellegrini(2008) as they viewed delegation and empowerment, necessary ingredients to social change, asrisk taking by a political leader. Burns (1978) offered a contrasting opinion; the threat to positivesocial change for a transactional leader is a leader limiting his or her perspective to politicalcalculations. Furthermore, if a leader actively works to create positive social change throughleadership development, then they would begin evolving into a moral transformational leader.Amoral Transformational As defined by Grint (2005), this form of leadership spawns a form of development that isabsent of any social moral construct. Similarly, Bass (1985) believed the only requirement thatdefines an individual as a transformational leader is the level of success that he or she have whileenacting a social change vision. This often requires the transformational leader to encourage thefollower to become an apostle of his or her vision, where the needs of making the vision come tofruition rise above the needs of the follower. The highest form of amoral leadership developmentrequires the follower to make the leader‟s vision his or her highest need thereby transforming theapostle into a zealot. In doing so, Bass (1985) believed the leader empowers the aspiring leaderto propagate that vision to other potential followers. The only time morality became an issue iswhen aspiring leaders fail to align themselves correctly with the transformational leader‟s vision. Potential POML Positives. Hetland et al. (2008) suggested that change, even in amoral transformational situations,should emanate from followers, aspiring leaders, and society as a whole, this differed greatlyfrom Bass‟s (1985) perspective. For Bass, real transformational change requires a series ofdiminutive successful empowering actions that build lasting bonds between the leader and
78aspiring leaders enabling the followers to implement the leader‟s vision of dramatic holisticchange. Bass defined the process of taking small steps to build to a climax as “Incrementalism”(p. 73). Similar to Grint‟s (2005) perspective, the leader‟s vision is the primary reason for changeirrespective of follower insight, social norms, and contractual arrangements. As noted, thiscontrasted sharply from Hetland et al.‟s approach as they suggested that the leader gatheredinsight from his or her followers in order to build a consensus to implement the leader‟s vision ofchange. Comparably, Schröder and Scholl (2009) suggested that the leader should address afollower problem by manipulating the follower‟s emotions during the problems framing process.The proper framing of the problem is an integral part of Schröder and Scholl‟s version of ACT.They believed a leader could calm followers to prevent over-reaction or incite the masses intoaction. Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) had a slightly different take for their intent was tocreate dramatic transformational change using a highly talented group that has a leader serving asthe group‟s facilitator and protector. The positive from this group concept is the group‟s abilityand dedication to solving a problem that appeared to be insurmountable. This team concept issimilar to a notion mentioned by Barbuto (2005). Barbuto thought an effective team consists ofhigh-energy talented self-leaders and change is an intrinsic part of the teams‟ psychologicalmakeup. Leadership development occurs as the aspiring leaders, and followers, implement theleader‟s vision. As identified by Barbuto (2005), both internal and external competition is a necessarycomponent of leadership; however, there are differing approaches noted in the research thatattempt to handle competition as a method for leadership development. Schröder and Scholl(2009) proposed that competition should be dealt with in a positive social atmosphere in order toincrease the predictability of the outcome while reducing the “affective deflection” (p. 184). In
79essence, Hetland et al. (2008) reaffirmed their outcome. Hetland et al. recommended the use ofconsensus during the debate of competing ideas. The only time the leader uses social normsduring the internal competition is to mitigate over-reaction. Consequently, leadershipdevelopment occurs during the process of creating and presenting a competing idea. Similarly, a competitive event for Bass (1985) as his premise relates to a transformationalleader, leadership development, and Incrementalism, offers the leader an opportunity pitdevotees against other devotees in order to assess a followers leadership potential and level ofcommitment to the vision. Any follower determined to be a nonbeliever required reevaluation orrooted out of the transformational leader‟s implementation group. Bennis and Ward-Biederman(1997) had the same fanatical approach to transformational groups and leadership development.They believed that participation in the group requires complete dedication to the cause. Anythingless than 100% dedication is immoral. Consequently, competition within the group has to beabout theory and ideas in order to solve the problem. Those with the best ideas become leaders. In addition, the leader encourage competition with entities outside the group to “boostcreativity” (p. 208) within the group as they work with an “us against the world” (p. 208)mentality. Concerning consensus, Incrementalism or the fanatical team approach, Grint (2005)had an analogous suggestion, a leader could have aspiring leaders aid in framing problems andpotential responses to either encourage or suppress emotions in other followers. In doing so, ithelps leaders stay ahead of internal and external competition in relation to a problem or socialchange issue. Circumventing obstacles to change (Grint, 2005) is the predominant leadershipdevelopment and positive social change opportunity for amoral transformational leader.According to Grint, the main obstacle preventing development and change is a society‟s moral
80norms. For instance, Hetland et al (2008) believed a leader needs to use transformativeleadership traits in order to generate “agreeableness and emotional stability” (p. 330) in aspiringleaders when attempting to change organizational norms, structure, and goals. In doing so, thiswill aid the leader in circumventing social obstacles by generating a force-multiplier effect byagitating the masses thereby making holistic-social changes more efficient. Another additive tothe force-multiplier effect was Barbuto‟s (2005) premise that includes profiling the leadershipcharacteristics of a leader or potential leader to initiate the change. If aligned correctly toorganization‟s need, the leadership change generates an immediate opportunity to make aholistic-social change. When an organization attempts to make sweeping change by replacing the leader, theincoming leader must sell the effective potential in their vision in order to initiate a change.However, positive social change and any leadership development is a secondary outcome, if ithappened at all, since the change is either a result of the moral composition of the organization,leader‟s vision, or the nature of the problem. Bass (1985), Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997)encouraged any individual to step away from the usual groupthink and challenge a perceivednegative moral norm. Comparably, Ibbotson (2008) described this as challenging the boundariesof the known and unknown. The goal of a transformational leader or group challenging aperceived wrong is often dramatic change of the social or economic system. Potential POML Negatives. As stated, Bass (1985), Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) believed the event or leaderinitiates change. More importantly, a successful outcome of the change event is their primaryconcern. A leader or team is only successful after they implemented their change. Potentiallydamaging, the change a leader or team implements may have nothing to do with the leaders
81stated reasons in responding to a change event. Simply stated, the results justified the meanswhile leadership development suffers. As found in a comparable version of ACT authored bySchröder and Scholl‟s (2009), their speculation has the appearance of being reactionary, itsubscribes to a notion of a leader generating numerous emotional responses as he or she gathersinput from followers. After the leader generates numerous responses, the leader selects aresponse that is similar to the leaders allowing him or her to implement their vision of change.This premise held true for Barbuto (2005) as well since he suggested that it was necessary toexclude aspiring leaders in the initiation of change. Another analogous source for amoral changeis popular or opinion polls used to generate the illusion of consensus. Grint (2005) endorsed thisopinion by suggesting that polls and consensus mislead followers in a manner that allows aleader to shape any problem as a reason for change in order to fulfill a political need at thefollower‟s expense. Contrastingly, Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner (2007) all noted, change atany cost typically has societal costs that go beyond leadership development. Consequently, thethreat is that any amoral change negatively affects the follower‟s lower level needs as theleader‟s vision comes to fruition and becomes a follower‟s nightmare. All of the authors analyzed thought competition, to one degree or another, is healthy.However, Grint (2005) best captured the amoral perspective. Competition is always necessary; itis the source of all problems, which absolves the leader of his or her moral responsibility.Contrastingly, Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed amoral competition tears at the internal,societal framework of a society or organization because it threatens the freedom to choose andleadership development potential of all. Concerning amoral competition, Barbuto (2005) presented another competitive extreme.He wrote about profiling to find a right fit for leadership positions to avoid internal competition.
82The drawback in the arena of ideas came when an organization selected a like-mindedindividual, which increases the potential of groupthink or consensus thinking. Consensus may bea practical tool (Hetland et al., 2008), but as Vecchio et al. (2006) pointed out, it has a time and aplace. To gather a consensus takes time; as a result, gathering a consensus can becounterproductive in the face of immediate competitive pressure. Although, Hetland et al. (2008)implied that consensus promotes fairness. Fairhurst (2005) provided a counter argument bysuggesting that fairness is an output of rhetoric. In addition, consensus is a tool for amoraltransformational leaders to buy time. The additional time allows an amoral transformationalleader to reframe their tactical position in relation to a change event. At its societal worse,Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed that consensus during an emotional event could generate amob mentality, which is only another form of groupthink. In these instances, mob mentality andgroupthink often make moral objectivity its first casualty. According to Burns (1978), systems ofleadership development require consistent assumptions, if there is no consistency then a leaderhas a comparatively small chance to become a transformational leader. Like win at any costcompetition, consensus at any cost destroys a society‟s moral cohesiveness. Kouzes and Posnerbelieved the destruction of this moral fabric poses as the greatest threat to leadershipdevelopment. In the face of competition and social change, Keller and Yang (2008) thought that thegeneral populace had to hold a leader accountable for his or her actions in order to increase thepotential for leadership development and positive social change. Comparably Schröder andScholl (2009) elaborated, with no fear of retribution or the opportunity to understand the lessonslearned from failure or defeat, an aspiring leader will continue to repeat the same mistakes andtake the easiest path despite the dire consequences of his or her actions. This explains why
83Fairhurst‟s (2005) concept of framing problems has the potential to allow leaders and aspiringleaders to reframe their failures in order to escape blame. According to Barbuto (2005), duringthe reframing of the problem process, the leaders team creates a façade of the leader beingemotionally involved. This emotional involvement includes the appearance that the leader iswilling to make the necessary changes as aligned with the input gathered from the followers. To contrast Barbuto, Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) offered caution concerning thenegative potential an amoral leader has on positive social change and leadership development.The harm begins and increases as the lower level need of self-preservation consumes the amoralleader‟s thoughts. Self-preservation encourages the leader to avoid responsibility; consequently,it becomes easier for him or her to alter social morals, standards, and expectations to explainfailures. Similarly, Fairhurst cautioned about a leader‟s selfish façade ultimately corruptingsocial change and leadership development as the leader manufactures societal needs to inducegroup delusions to preserve the leader‟s appearance of being important and involved. As a result,Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed the amoral leader never develops beyond their most basicmaterialistic needs. The amoral leader only displays transformational qualities, while his or herselfish desire is to reshape the world to match their distorted vision while preserving theirposition of power. They were never transformational as Bass (1985) had argued. Kouzes andPosner believed they never advanced past being a transactional or situational leader. In addition,as Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte contested, an amoral transformational leader often poses as someof the greatest threats to humanity; let alone leadership development.Moral Transformational Kouzes and Posner (2007) thought the difference between moral and amoral leadership isa leader‟s desire to include an “ethical dimension” (p. 346) to their responsibilities that amoral
84leadership theories excluded. Fairhurst (2005) reframed the concept of the ethical dimension asethical framework in her article on leadership and communication. She warned mentors andeducators about the need to establish a firm understanding of the social moral norms beforeteaching the art of leadership and communication. She felt that the starting point of a good andmoral foundation was humility, making it necessary for the student to understand and appreciatethe responsibility of leadership. For Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010), they thought thatleadership in its natural state is amoral; to become transformational meant the pursuit of a highercalling such as positive social change. At the very least, a moral transformational leader is apositive example for future leaders to emulate. This act of leading by example requires theconsistent application of values, ethics, or morals that are in itself transformational because ittransforms those in the leader‟s sphere of influence to search out and understand their impact onsociety. As Houghton and Yoho (2005) discovered, transformational leaders in training willsearch to find their moral clarity and voice. In doing so they often discover the best that societyhas to offer, they become empowering practitioners of positive social change; consequently, it isleadership development via empowerment, built upon a moral foundation, which generates thegreatest potential for positive social change. Potential POML Positives. According to Kouzes and Posner (2007), a moral transformational leader‟s reasons forchange were righteous and driven by the leader‟s moral understanding of societal ororganizational need. This righteousness stems from understanding and communicating withconstituents, which supply the reasons for change. In turn, the leader provides followers withleadership development opportunities. Harms and Credé (2010) thought that understandingbegins with a leader developing EI in order to have the empathetic aptitude to understand the
85needs of followers and aspiring leaders. From a different perspective, Fairhurst (2005) believed,a leader needs to communicate effectively to understand the needs of his or her followers.Communication in this instance is a leader‟s ability to frame a social issue in a confident andknowledgeable manner in order to motivate follower to act is what Harland et al. (2005) wouldcall optimism. When using resilient action to reinforce optimism, the combination becomes themost efficient form of communication and leadership development example. These concepts dosuggest that a leader is the centric reason for change. On the other hand, as Harland et al.explained, they also require that the leader develop EI and communication skills to gatherinformation from both aspiring leaders and followers. The leader then works to employ a sociallyagreeable vision that generates optimism and resilience. Optimism and resilience assists aspiringleaders and followers in the community to find their professional and spiritual calling asGorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) had theorized. As the individual finds their calling in life, they become self-leaders as Houghton andYoho (2005) had predicted. In contrast to self-driven leadership development, Scandura andPellegrini (2008) suggested a process where the leader provides mentoring to help an individualdevelop leadership traits. As a result, the mentor develops a trusting bond with the aspiringleader. Within this bond of trust, Scandura and Pellegrini surmised that the leader providingmentoring assistance offers empowerment to the aspiring leader in a manner that they become aself-sufficient leader of positive social change. Despite the slight differences, all of the authorsnoted there must be societal need in order to implement positive change. For example, Harmsand Credé (2010) thought the leader must understand the need, effectively create an open-minded approach to respond to it, and then communicate a response in the form of a reactionplan. Followers must be able to understand the importance of the need and the response.
86Similarly, Harland et al. (2005) believed that resilience develops when a leader develops avalues-based systematic approach with a measurable resolution concerning the specified need.As the process unfolds all involved need to understand their role, importance, and the level ofsocietal interrelatedness. This process serves as the leader development example. The need for competition in the arena of ideas is a highly desirable characteristic of thetransformational theory espoused by Kouzes and Posner (2007). Leadership development occursin the creation, formulation, and presentation of competing ideas. In this instance, individualssearching for a calling will undoubtedly cross paths with those that have a competing idea. Thiscompetition provides leadership development opportunity. As analogous, Gorlorwulu andRahschulte (2010) believed in a concept of competing ideas. Their belief involves individuals ina society generating competing ideas built upon a moral understanding. The moral understandingcomponent protects the same freedom that allows the ideas themselves to germinate. As a result,a society has the greatest potential for prosperity when the best societal idea initiates a positivesocial change event. The leaders circulating the competing ideas must understand theirfollower‟s needs while accepting the humility that their ideas may not be all encompassing. Similarly, Fairhurst (2005) noted, to be moral, the competing ideas should neverpropagate hate or dependency. As Harland et al. (2005) suggested, competing ideas should be“positive, intellectually stimulating, and considerate” (p. 9). Comparably, the leaders of thecompeting ideas acting in a manner as prescribed Harland et al. are demonstrating a high levelsof EI as defined by Harms and Credé (2010). Kouzes and Posner (2007) were specific, leadersmust adhere to a consistent set of moral codes and expectations when creating a positive-competitive atmosphere and an environment of trust. This builds identification-based trust andlasting personal connections (Scandura and Pellegrini, 2008) between leaders, followers, and
87even competitors. If not, the competing ideas develop amoral transformational qualities; makingMachiavellian power struggles an unfortunate necessity. When a leader identifies a problem while promoting a societal defined honorable solutionto the change event, the leader increases the potential for positive social change. According toBurns, a follower‟s “authentic need” (1978, p. 4) helps a leader identify the problem,hypothetical adversary, and the honorable solution. Comparably Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte(2010) defined authentic need as something that meets the criteria of promoting self-leadershipand leadership development in general. This is similar to a concept promoted by Houghton andYoho (2005). They believed a leader should empower an individual with morally correctresponsibility that does not infringe upon the freedom of other individuals. Equally, Fairhurst(2005) believed that positive social change has to be morally correct with a focus on thedevelopment of the individual. When the social change is positive, intellectually stimulating, andconsiderate of individual freedom, optimism and resilience builds in the individual. Optimismand resilience were key components of Harland et al.‟s (2005) assumption in building a dynamicgroup that can overcome obstacles. As a result, empowering leadership then becomes thepinnacle of leadership since it not only becomes a force-multiplier of positive social change; itbuilds Scandura and Pellegrini‟s (2008) societal identification-based trust. Kouzes and Posner(2007) believed that the only way societal identification-based trust was to come about was whenleaders promote understanding, courage, and selfless-dedication to all stakeholders both presentand especially the future. Potential POML Negatives. According to Kouzes and Posner (2007), the negative consequences of power andleadership occur when amoral action, which includes indecision and purposeful inaction,
88consume the leader‟s thoughts there by muddling the reasons used to initiate positive socialchange. This muddling has two negative leadership development effects. First, Harland et al.(2005) noted that negative or amoral actions destroy optimism and resilience. Indirectly, it alsofosters dependency. For example, as Harms and Credé (2010) surmised, a leader with a falsesense of EI who promotes dependency will cripple a follower‟s optimism and resilience bymaking them dependent on something other than them self as they strive to become a self-leader.Second, it destroys Scandura and Pellegrini‟s (2008) identification-based trust and fosters acalculus-based trust, which is transactional and forces the individual to focus on their ownpersonal needs instead of developing higher order leadership skills. The destruction of trustoccurs when a leader fails to be intellectually honest when framing an issue. This form of amoralaction occurs as the leader uses ambiguous platitudes, discursive logic, or deceit during theframing process. As a result, Kouzes and Posner‟s statement about the consequences of powerneeds to include token and trifling responses to a follower‟s perceived need. Regardless of thepositive reasons for change, as Scandura and Pellegrini noted, a lack of perceived intellectualintegrity will promote transactional, situational, and Machiavellian behaviors in followers whilelimiting leadership development potential. Bass‟s (1985) concern about an amoral leader manufacturing reasons for change for hisor her benefit also includes a need to create pseudo internal or external competition between anillegitimate claim and a fictitious adversary. To create pseudo competition meant the leadertargets and then polarizes a group or person, then persuades those within the leader‟s control thatthis is a win-lose adversary. Ultimately, the leader wastes positive leadership developmentpotential on a negative event. That was why Fairhurst (2005) had an opposing opinion; a leadermust frame his or her competition in morally correct terms that meets the needs of the greater
89societal good and not political gamesmanship with a win at any cost mentality. From a utilitarianperspective, Harland et al. (2005) theorized that external competition is a reality that anindividual or group only overcomes if it has a moral consistency that allows it to pacify internalteam issues. Consequently, why waste resources and time on something external, when the issueis morally and obviously internal unless the amoral leader does it for their own personal gain.However as Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) elaborated, creating pseudo competition within thegroup only ensures transactional Machiavellian power struggles which redirects the groupmember‟s focus on the internal conflict, distracting them from external issues and makinginternal pseudo competition another tactic that could prove beneficial to the amoral leader. As aresult, the leader limits positive change and wastes leadership development opportunities. Harms and Credé (2010) had a different take on negative competition, concerningexternal competition and EI, a leader that continually compromises his or her principals andmorality did not have them from the start and appeared weak in eyes of followers. As a result,the leader destroys any trust gained making defeat of the competition more difficult. Even worse,Harms and Credé also noted that a leader with low EI has a tendency to generate negativecompetition within the leader‟s own group, which parallels Harland et al‟s (2005) point. A leadermust meet competition with balance and coordination, wasting resources in an amoral pursuitonly ensures that hate has a foothold in the development processes of leaders and followers.Burns (1978) would go further; progressive amoral social change destroys the leadershipdevelopment of those dissenting voices while molding future leaders to comply with shiftingvalues of the new regime or force future leaders to be counterrevolutionary in a world where hatebegets hate. Leadership development suffers in an amoral world.
90 As Bass (1985) extolled, the act of a leader creating contrived competition often comes inthe guise of promoting or protecting societal good. This was antithetical to the “Norms ofReciprocity” and “cooperative goals” (2007, p. 234) as espoused by Kouzes and Posner. Incontrast to Bass, Fairhurst (2005) cautioned, a leader could use the tools for positive socialchange, such leadership development and framing issues, for both moral and amoral purposes.That was why Fairhurst was so concerned about the moral temperament of the leader. Two competing examples highlighted the importance of leadership development while inpursuit of positive change. Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) produced an example ofquestionable social change. They thought reducing poverty was a concept of resource scarcityand required centralized management. Concerning poverty, Harland et al. (2005) believed thatwhen a leader focuses primarily on the management of scarcity and not the abundance found inthe unlimited potential of empowering autonomous individuals, their actions will prevent thosewho aspire to be leaders or in search of positive change from becoming optimistic and resilient.Another example came from Scandura and Pellegrini (2008); they viewed delegation andempowerment as risk-taking behaviors by the leader. However, as Harms and Credé (2010)believed, when a leader has educated, empowered, and delegated responsibility, the leader hasdemonstrated profound EI while encouraging leadership development and positive social change.If not, future leaders will lose their freedom to choose the best way to maximize their potential;moreover, they will lose their individual responsibility that comes with freedom. Similarly,Kouzes and Posner (2007) noted, a continual belief in scarcity of outcome only breedsdependence on an ever-growing need for equalized outcome. In turn, it creates an opportunity forthe rebel leader, as suggested by Burns (1978). Unfortunately, this warps the mind of the most
91able individual who is ripe with positive leadership potential and makes them into an instrumentof amoral change. Summary Recent leadership development research conducted by Harms and Credé‟s (2010)determined that transformational leadership cannot be the pinnacle of leadership. Even Bass(1985) and Burns (1978) suggested that transformational leadership has the potential to destroyan individual‟s development potential as much as it can inspire or expand it. When expandingupon Harms and Credé‟s theorized EI, an empowering style of leadership comes to the forefrontsince it works to inspire passive or apathetic followers to become what Houghton and Yoho‟s(2005) described as self-leaders. According to Harland et al. (2005), self-leaders have the driveand determination to develop optimism and resilience making drive and determination intrinsicindividual characteristics. These individuals also have the potential to be so much more whenthey establish identification-based trust (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008) with a leader or mentorthat practices empowering leadership. As these aspiring individuals work to develop empoweringleadership skills, they become living examples and practitioners of positive social change assuggested by Kouzes and Posner (2007). In addition, they also become force-multipliers becausewithin them is where the future of positive social change resides. Through mentoring andcoaching, each aspiring leader will know their intrinsic approach in being a driving force forchange, harnessing the power of the competitive spirit, and implementing non-dependentpositive change.Driving Force for Change A reason for change can emanate from a source that is either within a leader‟s sphere ofinfluence, external to the sphere of influence, or a combination of the two sources. For example,
92if the motive or reason for change derives from some societal dire need, that is an external sourcedriving change. In that example, Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) suggested a leader neededto create a team whose mission is to generate and implement solutions. This is similar to Vecchioet al. (2006) who suggested assembling a team to address a purposeful need. Furthermore, theyalso suggested it requires the leader to load the team with highly talented people that have skillsand expertise that match the level of need. Houghton and Yoho (2005) suggested that the leaderget the group together, brainstorm, and then the leader lays out a plan of action to counter theexternal source. It is at this point that Bennis and Ward-Biederman thought the leader would thenplay a supportive facilitating role as the team responds to the external diving force. However, inthe face of an external source of change, a leader becomes a manager when he or she is reactingto event (Muczyk & Holt, 2008). According to Vecchio et al., leadership consists of workingwith constituents in assuming responsibility for actions while anticipating events, and generatingproactive or preemptive solutions. All of the authors noted thought leadership developmentopportunity emanates from the experience gained in society‟s continual improvement.Nevertheless, Harland et al. (2005) believed reactive leadership offered poor leadershipdevelopment methodologies, tendencies, and opportunities. If acquisition and maintenance of the leader‟s power is the motivation for change, then itbecomes an example of an internal driving force for change. This was as Bass (1985) hadtheorized and Keller and Yang (2008) reiterated in their article. This source of change requiresthe leader to seize upon external sources of change as opportunities to institute their vision ormanipulate the rate of change within the leader‟s group. Similarly, Barbuto (2005) implied thatall socially accepted change is a façade generated by a leader in search of power. With a thirstfor power, the driving force of change emanates from the leader through his or her followers. To
93fuel the thirst for power, according to Grint (2005), a leader had to understand and manipulatethe needs or deficiencies of his followers, in doing so the followers provide obedience, which isthe source of an amoral leader‟s power. Carrying out the leader‟s vision provides the leadershipdevelopment opportunity. Schröder and Scholl (2009) had a comparable premise. They believed that when a leadercombines his or her vision with the follower‟s needs and deficiencies, the combination providesopportunities to generate small victories needed to form a coalition that can create radicaltransformational change. As aspiring leaders participate and complete tasks, the aspiring leadergains leadership experience. Grint also thought that small victories shaped by the leader‟s visionrequire a theoretical trial and error approach. This is similar to what Bass (1985) had defined asIncrementalism. Like Bass, Grint‟s attempt to provide a multistep resolution to address a needfor change still restrained leadership development potential of followers. Grint‟s premise has aflaw in it when contrasted with Kouzes and Posner‟s (2007) philosophy. Kouzes and Posnerbelieved authentic leadership development requires the leader to relinquish power in order toallow the aspiring leader to develop his or her own vision. In reference to internal change, all of the authors analyzed offered various types ofwarnings about a leader unleashing an amoral change movement upon a society. Their primaryconcern is the leader‟s amoral character. Especially since the majority of the societal threatsemanate from a leader‟s licentious thoughts as they drove change aligned to their misrepresentedvision. For example, Bass (1985) thought the source providing the excuse for change wasinconsequential, since any reason for change provides an opportunity for the aspiring orrevolutionary leader to seize power. Contrastingly, Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) stated,that when a leader became consumed with self-indulgence or even narcissism, it often meant that
94he or she suffers from a flawed vision unaligned with established social norms and aspirations.The failure of the internalized vision often meant the vision communicated to followers suffersfrom a combination of shortsightedness, incoherent explanations, or a hidden agenda with self-serving goals. Similarly, Fairhurst (2005) thought these flaws would ultimately destroy the force-multiplier effect by wasting the leadership potential of followers requiring them to chaseillusions of grander or folly. In relation to Bass‟s point, having follower‟s waste leadershippotential in pursuit of token issues and lower level needs is an ineffective means for a leader toprotect his or her power base. Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) offered an example of a specious pretense whenimplementing purposeful change. This change generated dire consequences. The example theauthors wrote about was the Black Mountain Experiment and the promotion of anarchicalchange. When the experiment eventually failed, the leadership potential of the surroundingcommunity was one of its many casualties since the students pillaged the local area to survive. Inaddition, this anarchic change generated systematic hate forcing followers to focus on their lowerlevel needs and ultimately distrust leadership, as Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) had theorized.The Black Mountain Experiment was an example of a leader creating a false reason for change,which required him to mislead the ignorant into obedience while destroying an observantfollowers‟ willful compliance and contradictory beliefs. As they lost their individualresponsibility to serve others, they lost their leadership development potential to promotepositive social change. The last driving force for change is a combination of the two; the source for change couldemanate from a societal need or be a perceived need initiated by the leader and his or herfollowers. Karriker (2005) thought this blended approach was the best system to provide an
95answer to the societal need and leadership development. In addition, she thought the mostefficient societal change occurred when a leader was proactive in identifying a need for a change,instead of reacting to it. As a result, the leader offered a rough plan of action and then elicitedhelp from all stakeholders to fill the voids within the plan in order to accomplish its mainobjectives. As aspiring leaders help fill in the gaps in the plan, they learn leadership skills. In asimilar manner, Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) thought a leader‟s power emanated from societalempowerment. A leader had to inspire and empower those that he or she served in order toenlighten the masses while encouraging righteous change in order to build mutual trust.Empowerment is the key to leadership development. Despite the leader being a servant of the people, a leader has to stand for what wasmorally right and not settle for what is easiest and self-serving. As a result, Scandura andPellegrini thought empowerment was a risk that could weaken a leader‟s power base.Contrastingly, Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed it to be a requirement of leadership. Kouzesand Posner also defined true power as righteous societal need or more specifically as values-based systematic change. Analogous, Harms and Credé (2010), defined EI as the empathicability to identify righteous societal need. It occurs when a leader connects an external source ofbroad societal need in a positive manner to his or her vision. From that point, the leader has toexplain how his or her plan of action connected with the follower‟s needs. This connectionprovides the opportunity to generate a force-multiplier effect as the leader works to developaspiring leaders. A leader working to develop more leaders is what Harland et al. (2005) alludedto in their article. This exponentially effective change occurs as a leader empowers followerswith positive societal transformational opportunities thereby changing dormant followers in to
96active resilient aspiring leaders. The result is more individuals working as a cohesive empoweredgroup in search of positive social change.Competition Humanity‟s natural inclination is to survive, which means humanity is naturallycompetitive (Barbuto, 2005; Burns, 1978). Which is why Hetland et al. (2008) thought it isadvantageous when leaders manipulate this natural inclination in order to amass power vialeadership development. However, competition has a potential to create both positive andnegative change. (Karriker, 2005; Vecchio et al., 2006). For example, Scandura and Pellegrini(2008) thought understanding and trust fueled an inner, personal level of competition that couldproduce win-win results while developing leaders. A win-win scenario is equivalent to a win forthe leader and a win for the majority in a society or organization. A win-lose scenario producesresults that are a method of last resort as they generate calculus-based trust and focus on amarginalizing groups within a society or organization. Win-win, as posed by Kouzes and Posner(2007), offers the best societal solution as leaders develop and is a measure of positive change.As Scandura and Pellegrini admitted, win-win results build positive leadership potential infollowers; consequently, this positive leadership potential increases the level of trust between aleader and follower making empowerment less risky. Vecchio et al. (2006) and Harland et al. (2005) believed that a leader could achieve win-win results by getting the follower to focus his or her natural competitive instinct inwards as in amanner of self-assessing actions, meeting time lines, and achieving organizational goals.Similarly, Houghton and Yoho (2005) wrote about another source for win-win results thatinvolve a competition from within the organization stemming from a task. This competitionoccurs in the arena of ideas where two or more followers or group of followers exchange ideas in
97a manner that not only finds the best one, but also offers those involved a self-leadershipopportunity as they defend their point of view. The leader forces the followers to use empiricalor pragmatic evidence when offering competitive designs. This keeps the debate betweenfollowers positive and a productive leadership development opportunity. Kouzes and Posner(2007) thought the competition that occurs in the arena of ideas by leaders could be a tool used topush the boundaries of social change in a positive manner. Using leadership development, theysuggested a balanced approach, which looks at ethical or moral value of the change and compareit with the analytical or an identifiable social need. There were two last resort methods of competitive leadership development, which Bennisand Ward-Biederman (1997) prescribed after the leader expends all other options. The first is awin-lose competition with entities that reside outside the leader-follower sphere of influence.Grint (2005) thought this to be a highly motivational leadership development tool to getfollowers to perform at extra-ordinary levels. The other occurs in a similar fashion; Hetland et al(2008) believed it requires the leader and followers to search for an amoral solution to a socialproblem through consensus after removing the boundaries of ethics and morality. The leaderwould acquire a competitive advantage since he or she would be able to generate solutionsunimpeded by traditionalist thought. The exploration of new paradigms provides the leadershipdevelopment opportunity. As stated, these amoral approaches to attain competitive advantagesare to be used sparingly and not as a standard operating procedure. If the latter became true,Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed they would shroud the organization in hate and destroyleadership development potential. Likewise, Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) thought an amoral competitive systemcreates confusion as well as hate. The confusion occurs as followers try to achieve organizational
98win-win solutions while attempting to understand and adhere to the leader‟s ever-changingamoral activities. In this example, an ever-shifting standard of success and morality makesdetermining an outcome as a win difficult. Correspondingly, Blanchard et al. (1985) believedthat this do as I say, not as I do leadership approach to competition and organizational issuesoften means aspiring leaders have to work on shortsighted goals. According to Vecchio et al.(2006), these shortsighted goals may not be in line with organizational goals. Moreover, theseshortsighted goals encourage the aspiring leader to develop lower level survivalist tactics and notleadership skills making the follower‟s response counterproductive in terms leadershipdevelopment. Van Breukelen et al. (2006) revealed that as leaders create contradictory mechanisms toinspire pseudo win-win competition, the leader forces individuals to ignore the search forcompetitive opportunity and settle for equalized output. As individuals settle for an equalizedoutput, systems of hate begin to fester feeding the illusion of inequality. According to Fairhurst(2005), if humanity has a natural inclination to be competitive, then equality is the unlimitedpotential found within the individual. Ensuring equal opportunity is the only way to ensure equalfairness. As Van Breukelen et al. implored, it is a leader‟s duty to ensure equal fairness andpromote leadership development. In the effort to create systems that are antithetical to an individual‟s intrinsic competitivespirit while ensuring equalized output, it forces a leader to hoard information in order to controlthe rate of societal or organizational change. In turn, restricting information impedes leadershipdevelopment. This was evident in Van Breukelen et al‟s (2006) study on developing high qualityrelationships. Hoarding knowledge ultimately erodes a leader‟s power as Schröder and Scholl(2009) inadvertently discovered when researching affective leadership dynamics. A leader who
99hoards information will limit the competitive and leadership development potential of thefollower, which in turn limits a follower‟s output and positive social change potential. Thisultimately slows the rate of change and converts willful compliance of the follower, intoobedient groupthink. Hence, the erosion of a leader‟s power as the leader has converted anaspiring leader into apathetic follower. Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed that the way to getpower is through the use of informed empowerment, which unleashes the competitive nature ofthe individual with their unlimited leadership development potential. Thereby making systems ofhate as found in most amoral transformational theories an antiquated and ineffective notion ofleadership development.Positive Social Change Positive social change meant many things to many theorists; as Bass (1985) noted,perspective has always determined the level of effectiveness of change. As a result, positivesocial change has a highly subjective quality. As with Kouzes and Posner (2007), Scandura andPellegrini (2008) attempted to define it as a societal inspired vision that liberates and empowerspassive individuals into becoming active aspiring leaders rallied around an authentic cause orneed. Kouzes and Posner believed that the leader‟s role was to isolate the need and then promotewin-win scenarios. In addition, Harland et al. (2005) believed that a leader must be positive as heor she demonstrates courage, understanding, integrity, and selfless dedication to the need. Inturn, this builds optimism and resilience in followers as they become what Houghton and Yoho‟s(2005) described as self-leaders or even the aspiring leaders depicted by Harms and Credé(2010). As the leader empowers the aspiring leaders, these leaders in training inspire otherfollowers to take charge and lead by example. The positive social change in this example is theprocess of building societal identification based trust (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008) and high
100quality relationships (Van Breukelen et al., 2006) to solve any societal need. For a moral leaderto take charge, as Blanchard et al. (1985) defined positive change, a leader efficiently uses his orher power to attain meaningful leadership development through an alignment of social moralsand values with a societal need. In accomplishing this, as King (1986) noted, a leader willmanufacture a force-multiplication effect while knowing where he or she stands in times ofchallenge and controversy; thereby, ensuring leadership development and positive social changeadvances. However, Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) noted that some social change advocateswho claim to be advancing societal good often-implemented theories that were antithetical to thenorms reciprocity by promoting equalized output and thereby increasing dependency on asocietal level. In doing so, King (1986) cautioned that equalized output separates individuals intoclasses. As a result, the well-intentioned leader that Harland et al. (2005) wrote about loses sightof the bigger picture of equalized opportunity and freedom, while unintentionally destroyingoptimism, resilience, and leadership development. Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) wroteabout a concept of equalized output that instituted limits on freedom, potential, and opportunityof leadership development by changing the abundance found in potential and opportunity intothe scarcity of equalized resources requiring socially punitive laws and an over abundance ofregulations to ensure equal outcome. This opens the societal door to condone amoral forms ofsocial justice, which is often, portrayed as positive social change. As predicted by Keller andYang‟s (2008) research on poliheuristic theory, when social justice fails to promote the trulycharitable equalized opportunity and freedom it becomes a segregated form of social injustice.Especially as those promoting social justice exaggerate claims as poliheuristic theory alludes to,forcing leaders into publicly and politically unattainable situations forcing a predictable outcome
101as a form of extortion. Those caught up in the social injustice lose leadership developmentopportunities. The exaggeration is what Grint (2005) suggested a leader should do, whileFairhurst (2005) cautioned leaders about when framing problems for amoral purposes since itpromotes societal hate and destroys leadership development opportunities. In Muczyk and Holt‟s (2008) article, they discussed the importance of finding the correctleader to match a culture‟s social moral norms in order to be effective. This contrastedsignificantly from Bass (1985), Bennis, and Ward-Biederman (1997) who found it acceptablewhen a leader disseminates false promises and generates pseudo social need while ignoringsocial norms. False need allows the leader to portray their actions as positive social change. AsSchröder and Scholl (2009) discovered, this occurs when a leader no longer fears the retributionthat comes with failure and deceit. In these situations, leadership adopts a ruling class mentalitywhere established social norms no longer apply to them. In terms that Vecchio et al. (2006) used,the leader fails to apply moral consistency with the situational leadership response and in turndestroys social stability and leadership development opportunity. Equally, as noted by Bennisand Ward-Biederman, they offered several examples of amoral leadership that threatened socialstability when leaders exchanged power for group delusions and manufactured pseudo needwhile promoting positive social change. If the change event either hinders the equality ofopportunity, freedom, or human potential in any manner; then Kouzes and Posner (2007)believed, that leadership development would suffer and the social change would ultimately havenegative repercussions. From a different social change perspective, there is another leadership practice generatinginconsistent results, it is a leader in search of continual consensus on a variety of issues. AsVecchio et al. (2006) discovered continuous consensus is not leading, but managing a mob and
102limiting leadership development. Understanding the needs of one‟s followers and getting theirinput is beneficial in developing the high quality relationships as Van Breukelen et al. (2006) hadtheorized. Furthermore, consensus is a crucial component of moral leadership, which provides anabundance of positive social change potential. Although this has to have defined limits asHarland et al. (2005) alluded, a leader always has his or her eye on the future direction of theirorganization, which may run contrary to prevailing opinion. In these instances, a leader educatesand reforms consensus using empowerment and leadership development. Contrastingly, constantconsensus and compromise provides poor social change and leadership developmentopportunities by failing to address issues in the arena of ideas. When creating consensus, Grint (2005) suggested that leaders use outside influences tomanufacture emotion to sway popular opinion in one direction or another as a form of spuriousconsensus. In turn, reaffirming Keller and Yang‟s (2008) adaptation of poliheuristic theory, inthis instance the mob forces the leader in an unattainable situation limiting the leader topredictable responses. If a moral structure does not guide the mob, then leadership developmentand positive social change is at the mercy of the mob or the next revolutionary leader.Concerning the next revolutionary leader, Hetland et al. (2008) looked at any amoral consensus-based problem as an opportunity to generate social change, which the mob in this example, mayend up regretting. Hetland et al. believed that radical social change in this instance was rarely, ifat all, positive while destroying an aspiring leader‟s development potential. Conclusion The reoccurring theme found in the leadership development research was balance. Theessence of being a leader is about serving while resisting a desire that demands the servitude ofothers. A leader is always in the process of receiving some form of instruction as well as
103teaching those within his or her sphere of influence to become leaders. A leader needs tostimulate an individual‟s competitive nature while avoiding the win at any cost mentality. Aleader is to encourage leadership development and positive social change, while not creatingdependency and being the sole source for change. In a similar fashion to a medical practitioner‟sHippocratic Oath, an empowering leader‟s motto should be, first, do no harm, and then seekpositive social change. Some leadership theories require a leader to implement change in order tobe successful. However, change for the sake of change often has negative consequences. That iswhy the leader needs to find balance between doing no harm to the environment of leadershipdevelopment and using leadership development to promote positive social change. Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) thought effective leadership development derives from atrusting relationship that requires a leader‟s adherence to a moral code, which is the starting pointfor the concept of do no harm. Similarly, Harland et al. (2005) believed that optimism andresilience in those that the leader serves could only germinate when there is consistency in anequal application of social moral norms that Van Breukelen et al. (2006) equated to being a formof equal fairness. Concerning optimism and resilience, both require the follower to have thefreedom to act and assert a high level of control over their life as Vecchio et al. (2006) surmisedin their study on situational leadership. While optimism is a construct of opportunity in a freesociety, a developing leader is only hopeful when they have limited power to enact change; theybecome optimistic when they are a stakeholder with unlimited potential when enacting change.The minute difference between hope and optimism is action. It serves as the foundation inHoughton and Yoho‟s (2005) theories about self-leadership, which are about inspiring theapathetic into responsible self-motivated action. Vecchio et al. also mentioned that in order topromote responsible self-motivation, a leader should never create systems of dependency that
104rob an aspiring leader‟s self-reliance, dignity, motivation, and any opportunity to change theirlives as they see fit. Eventually, systems of dependency based on equalized output destroy thehigh levels of trust needed to promote positive social change because they force all parties to betransactional. Simply, systems of dependency require naïve obedience to the shifting demands ofamoral leaders making leadership development and positive change ineffective. It is at this point some leadership development ideas congeal into an interrelated conceptthat an empowering leader should do no harm. Humbly, an empowering leader make everyattempt to be consistent in the application of a society‟s moral norms. In doing so, they promotea form of reassuring consistency that makes protecting both freedom and leadership developmentopportunity understandable. Reassuring consistency also provides an understanding of what wentwrong which is the prerequisite to potential solutions, potential solutions breeds‟ optimism andresilience for the visionary empowering leader. On the other hand, when a leader promotessystematic equalized fairness and output, as Van Breukelen et al. (2006) suggested, the leaderinadvertently creates systems of dependency. According to Kouzes and Posner (2007), thesesystems only generate apathy and hate while destroying optimism, resilience, and leadershipdevelopment potential. When seeking positive social change, the empowering leader must formhigh-quality relationships through openness and the exchange of information, which wassomething Van Breukelen et al. also prescribed in the same article that addresses leadershipdevelopment and future challenges. Similarly, Houghton and Yoho (2005) noted it takesknowledge, mentoring, and a reassuring consistency to develop an individual into a self-leader. Depending on the self-leader‟s calling, Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) believed aself-leader could develop into a communal leader that understands that he or she serves others.According to Harms and Credé (2010), EI is what separates a self-leader and a communal or
105organizational leader. In addition, when the leader promotes freedom, it serves as the foundationof a leader‟s EI. This form of EI is what converts a transactional or transformational leader tobecome an empowering leader. When a leader combines high-quality relationships, sociallycorrect moral mentoring, EI, and a multitude of followers in search of a calling, according toKouzes and Posner (2007), society gets force-multipliers for positive social change. As the leader balances the concepts of doing no harm and achieving measurable positivesocial change, they will encounter leadership styles that promote some form of harm. Whatfollows is an example of doing harm for the sake of social change and leadership development.In this example, the alternative to empowering leadership is transactional or transformationalleadership and their potential to create systematic hate. Burns (1978), Kouzes and Posner (2007)thought the source for most systematic hate occurs when leaders promote centralized planningsolutions to societal needs. Consequently, as Bass (1985) noted, the leaders separate themselvesand the rest of the followers into three classes. The leaders made up the ruling class. The targetgroup of the social need becomes the victims, while the rest of the followers became the allegedtransgressors. In this example, only one of the three classes becomes engaged in providingleadership development opportunities while representing a minor portion of the population. Thevictims disengage becoming dependent on the ruling class, at the same time ruling class devaluestransgressor input. In addition, Bass believed this class-warfare mentality classifies a largeportion of the population as transgressors. In doing so, it makes any solution to the societal needunproductive since it will require more power to control the transgressors in order to address thebureaucratically fostered dependent needs of the victims. As hate breeds hate in a centralizedbureaucracy, inefficiency breeds more inefficiency. Ultimately, this counterproductive leadershipdevelopment and social change opportunity produces less optimism and more obedience or
106disenchantment. Disenchantment is the source of opportunity and power for the revolutionaryleader. Positive social change is creating systems that inspire or assist in the act of changingapathetic individuals into engaged self-leaders or aspiring leaders that seek to empower others(Van Breukelen et al.). As Fairhurst (2005) surmised, positive social change is difficult. Thismakes an empowering leader‟s task of positive social change more difficult than other leadershiptheories, since transformational and transactional theories suggest a leader should tell a followerwhat to do with their life. Empowering leaders have to lead, inspire, communicate, educate, andbelieve in the aspiring leader when the individual‟s belief in them self may have faltered. All ofthis work instigates individuals into action, self-reliance, and optimism. As the individualovercomes internal and external obstacles, they develop into a leader themselves. Inevitably, thismakes empowering leadership one of the last and more crucial skills for a leader to develop inorder to become a process-oriented moral leader. There by making the motto of the process-oriented moral leader: first, do no harm, and then seek positive social change. When analyzingthe beliefs and writings of Alinsky, Iacocca, and King, the before mentioned motto and theconcepts of POML will form the criteria of evaluation. Finally, this will form the basis of thescholarly essay, suitable for publication, which explores the iconic leadership styles of Iacocca,King, and Alinsky and their relationship to process-oriented moral leadership.
107 Application AMDS 8532: Professional Practice Application of a Theory of Leadership Development Introduction In the breadth, and depth, analysis focused on various iterations of reaction-based,exchange-based, and transformational premises providing a developmental path for an aspiringleader to become a Process-Oriented Moral Leader (POML), which is an empowering form ofleadership. Specifically, POML is a leadership development concept that emphasizes a process-oriented philosophy to produce justifiable results while encouraging moral, positive socialchange notions of mutual-cooperation and the continual improvement of all stakeholders. Thebreadth, during the process of synthesizing various theories, confirmed an assumption promotingPOML; furthermore, it asserts that aspiring leaders need freedom to act and learn. Furthermore,Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed, leaders need to know societal right from wrong, tounderstand why it is important to take responsibility for any improprieties, and the wisdom toknow they are only an interrelated servant to the greater good of positive social change. The keyingredients in making that assessment are the results synthesized from the review of POMLpositives and negatives concerning the topics of leadership development, morality, and theleader-follower relationship. These topics, found in the breadth, were three of six that werecritical leadership aspects set forth by Kouzes and Posner in their book, The LeadershipChallenge. They were critical in assessing the issues, problems, or needs to develop a morallyresponsible leader as defined by the leadership theories found in the breadth. The depthaddressed the three remaining critical leadership aspects. As with the breadth, the depth examined concepts that refine the notion of POML. Thedifference was that the depth included current research and grouped theories based on a leader‟s
108expected action as a POML positive and negative while addressing Kouzes and Posner‟s (2007)remaining three critical leadership aspects for each POML positive and negative. The remainingthree critical leadership aspects were action-oriented. The aspects were the driving force forchange, competition, and positive social change. The POML deliverable generated from theanalysis and the actions a leader takes was balance. The maxim--first, do no harm, and then seekpositive social change-- exemplifies this concept of balance. This maxim assumes that leadership development is a critical function of positive socialchange, since Houghton and Yoho (2005) believed that society‟s apathetic masses could bemotivated into becoming responsible self-leaders. As these self-leaders develop confidence andcompetence in a free society, Vecchio et al. (2006) believed that many could become advocatesof positive social change. According to Van Breukelen et al. (2006), these advocates form high-quality relationships through openness and the exchange of information based on morally soundprinciple that protects the leadership development potential of all individuals within the society.The first part of the maxim, do no harm, captures Van Breukelen et al.‟s morally sound principalprotecting an individual‟s freedom to develop as captured in their concept about equal fairness.Harland et al. (2005) reinforced this moral necessity when they wrote about optimism andresilience being dependent on the equal application of social moral norms. Ensuring freedomthrough the equal application of social moral norms to all of a society‟s members was theequivalent to the concept of equal fairness. In doing no harm, a leader does not infringe upon thesocial moral fabric that assists in maintaining freedom and freedom itself. As the maxim relates to the application, Martin Luther King (1986) once suggested thereis good in everything only if an individual opens their mind to it. However, King would caution,if any individual searches for the good or positive in life, then he or she must establish criteria of
109what is good or not. The maxim--first, do no harm and then seek positive social change--becomes the guiding principle of POML and the point of analysis in the application. It alsoestablishes a criterion of acceptable behavior. In this instance, first, do no harm, suggests a leadermust not infringe upon an individual‟s freedom thereby protecting the opportunity any individualto develop as they see fit. This concept, which Alinsky (1989) endorsed, has the theoretical rootof equalized opportunity. Iacocca profoundly captured the quest for positive social change withhis statement, “have a mentor, be a mentor” (Iacocca & Whitney, p. 234). Positive social changein this instance is maximizing the leadership potential in all individuals, which ensures that thiscollaborative effort became a force multiplier for positive social change in whatever sociallyacceptable form individuals decide to pursue. In its totality, it fits within the moral concept of theLaw of Reciprocity (King). The deliverable for this application is a scholarly essay, suitable for publication, whichexplores the iconic leadership styles of Iacocca, King, and Alinsky and their relationship toPOML. The reason I selected works authored by Alinsky, Iacocca, and King was due to theiriconic stature in relation to leadership as well as organizational and social change. Specifically,they wrote books that encouraged leadership and worked to bring about social change. Alinsky‟s(1989) book, Rules for Radicals, was an example of amoral social change as it attempted toinspire individuals to become organizers. An organizer is Alinsky‟s version of a leader assignedthe task of organizing a group of individuals to incite social change. Iacocca, on the other hand,in his book Where Have All the Leaders Gone (Iacocca & Whitney, 2007), established a set ofcriteria designed to find leaders and evaluate their effectiveness in rejuvenating a society indecline. Finally, King; the books that best capture his work that inspired the apathetic to becomeactive agents and leaders promoting social equality and change were the Testament of Hope
110(1986) and The Measure of a Man (1988). Finally, these authors had varying levels of success inimplementing their version of change. The focus of the analysis will be their intentions and plansfor change using leadership development. Evaluating three iconic leaders and analyzing their intentions for change helps triangulateand demonstrate that POML provides a sound foundation that assists aspiring leaders and currentleaders trying to effect positive social change. Consequently, those individuals in search of anempowering leadership style become the intended audience and beneficiaries of this research. Inusing a macro-analysis to evaluate the theoretical, as found in the breadth and depth, and theexperiences gained from proven leaders, as in the application, the knowledge gleaned from across-functional group of sources provides the audience generational wisdom concerning thesubject matter of leadership development. More specifically, the application identifies what ittakes to be an empowering leader promoting POML while being an agent of positive socialchange. King (1986) believed that those who take on the challenge of being a morally guidedempowering leader are champions of light in the world that at times becomes shrouded in thedarkness as described by Bass (1985) and Alinsky (1989). Analysis From the maxim, I used six comparison criteria extracted from both the breadth anddepth to evaluate the leadership styles of Alinsky, Iacocca, and King. The criteria includedleadership development, morality, leader-follower relationship, driving force for change,competition, and positive social change. For example, I used each criterion to break downAlinsky‟s admittedly contradictory beliefs that promoted amoral-transformational systematichate and anarchy in the guise of freedom. Ironically, Alinsky used America‟s Declaration ofIndependence as an example of the freedom he sought. The application continues by evaluating
111Iacocca‟s transactional leadership style and his recent discovery of transformational altruismupon his retirement. Finally, the application appraises King‟s belief in the individual and themanner in which equal opportunity and individual responsibility promotes a form of moraltransformation, empowerment, and self-leadership. Ultimately, the compilation of differingthoughts from three iconic leaders provides a sound foundation that assists aspiring POML‟s ineffecting positive organizational change.Leadership Development As noted by Alinsky (1989), Iacocca (2007), and King (1986), leadership development isthe engine that enables a leader to implement his or her vision. For example, Alinsky believed incultivating acolytes to become organizers of a never-ending societal implosion. Iacoccarecommended that the leader finds talented individuals and mentor them, so they can carry outthe leader‟s vision. Similarly, King suggested a leader has to develop “intelligent, courageous,and dedicated leadership” (p. 143) that serves the societal greater good. Leadership developmentis one of the primary obligations that a leader needs to perform in order to become an efficientservant of his or her followers. The process of development varies from one author to anotherauthor; however, there are two consistent aspects of leadership development woven into eachauthor‟s idea concerning the development of followers. The critical aspects of leadershipdevelopment include the ability of a leader to communicate and then educate the follower on thekey aspects of his or her vision. Other similar key aspects are curiosity and creativity; however, itis at this point the authors varied in their descriptions of leadership development. In the process of creating societal upheaval, Alinsky (1989) identified ten characteristicsthat help a mentor develop an aspiring organizer. The characteristics include: “curiosity,irreverence, imagination, a sense of humor, a bit of blurred vision of a better world, an organized
112personality, a well-integrated political schizoid, ego; a free and open mind [concerning] politicalrelativity, and constantly creating new out of the old” (pp. 71-80). The process of converting anorganizer into a leader is simple, “repetitiveness” (p. 80). This meant the organizer builds apower base to serve his or her need, instead of serving the needs of his or her followers. Servingthe needs of his or her followers was the supposed goal of the organizer. However, once theorganizer has amassed power via an organization in which he or she had worked hard to create,the relinquishing of that power proves difficult as Alinsky alluded to in quoting Lord Acton andhis belief about power being a corruptible force. Similarly, Burns (1978) and King (1986)offered caution as both wrote about the corruptible nature of power and the amoraltransformation it generates. This amoral approach to organizational power and change is whatAlinsky sought to develop in leaders and organizers. Regardless of the moniker in an Alinsky style social change event, leader or organizer,the individual guiding the movement is still its leader. Ironically, in order for an organizer toresist the urge to become a leader in a movement, the organizer must place an extra emphasis onbecoming a “well-integrated political schizoid” (p. 78) as the organizer develops. Being aschizoid was Alinsky‟s safeguard to prevent the aspiring leader from becoming narcissistic.Narcissism begins when a leader believes their amoral rhetoric to the point where it consumestheir reality. Alinsky‟s safeguard highlights the amoral and even contradictory nature of histhoughts. It was also an understatement to say that Iacocca‟s (2007) and King‟s (1986) views onleadership development differ greatly from Alinsky. Both Iacocca and King believed an aspiringleader has to be humble while leading by example. Similarly, Ibbotson (2008) thought humilityis a requirement of leadership development. The leader has to live their vision, which includesbeing humble enough to know the vision may need some modification according to societal
113needs and to accept responsibility if it suffers any shortcomings. Consequently, as King noted,amoral leadership development via amoral change was equivalent to hate begetting hate and failsto meet any standard of positive social change while potentially harming the leadership potentialof developing leaders. In a similar fashion to Alinsky‟s (1989) ten characteristics, Iacocca (2007) created the“Nine C‟s of leadership” (pp. 6-10). The Nine C‟s were curiosity, creativity, communication,character, courage, conviction, charisma, competence, and common sense. Of the nine, the onlysignificant difference from a leadership development perspective, as previously noted in theanalysis of Alinsky, was character. According to Iacocca, not only does character include leadingby example; it also requires a leader to exhibit a sense of morality. The leader has to know rightfrom wrong in order to do what is best for society as a whole; in addition, he or she must avoidpacifying groups of individuals seeking some form of segregated social justice within thesociety. King (1986) and Kouzes and Posner (2007), reiterated Iaccoca‟s point about a leader‟smoral character being a critical component of the leader‟s development. Especially since, theNine C‟s were about a leader or individual earning the right to be a leader while exhibiting moralclarity. In looking at the foundation that sets up the leadership development process, there weresignificant differences among the three authors. Alinsky admittedly set his system up based onclass warfare, the eternal amoral transformational conflict between the “Haves” and “Have-Nots”(p. 3) and systems of hate that this eternal conflict spawns. Iacocca‟s Nine C‟s of leadershipincorporated the transactional concept of “pay for performance” (Iacocca & Whitney, p. 139)while ensuring a certain level of accountability for failure and a potential that the leaderdeveloped some transformational qualities. Although Iacocca developed Nine C‟s to prevent any
114harm coming to the leadership potential of aspiring leaders, the Nine C‟s fall short in the positivesocial change aspect because positive change is not inherently woven into them. In stark contrast,King‟s (1986) view of leadership development and positive social change included the conceptsof agape, the dimensions of complete life, and the moral transformational qualities that empoweraspiring leaders to become servants of the people. Comparable to Alinsky (1989) and Iacocca (2007), King (1986) created a list ofcharacteristics that the aspiring leader and mentor worked together to improve in each other. Thelist included key characteristics such as being: intelligent, courageous, altruistic, committed, aperson of integrity, calm in the face of turmoil, creative while avoiding groupthink, a positivesocial change agent; and having a genuine love of humanity. The development of thesecharacteristics occurs as the aspiring leader makes his or her way through “the three dimensionsof a complete life” (King, 1988, p. 37). The complete life includes creating a movement based ona vision that serves the greater good. In creating a movement, an aspiring leader does not search out for compromise. He or sheanticipates, educates, and reshapes any need to compromise to fit the greater need of societalgood. Simply, the aspiring leader only searches for consensus after he or she had marshaledenough support through various means of communication and education to form a majority. As aresult, this provides opportunities for the aspiring leader to set the timeline and terms forcompromise or consensus. Fairhurst (2005) defined this as the ability to frame problems asopportunities for development. Alinsky (1989) and Iacocca (2007) reiterated this need of framingand shaping consensus; it was a necessary component of being a leader as noted in the majorityof leadership development theories found in the breadth and depth. Fairhurst‟s warning identifiedthe difference, framing that promotes positive social change requires a leader with integrity. As a
115result, the moral foundation aids in the leadership development aspect of positive social changebecomes critical. More specifically, this holistic concept of leadership development beinginclusive to morality and positive social change is what separates the different leadershipdevelopment theories of Alinsky, Iacocca, and King. In reviewing Alinsky (1989), Iacocca (2007), and King (1986), all of their premisesinvolved leadership development theories such as situational, contingency, and eventransactional behaviors. However, the three authors differed as the aspiring leader developedtransformational and empowering behaviors. Alinsky‟s theory was amoral from the outset;making transformation development amoral and not necessarily dependent upon a societal need;thereby making positive change an afterthought. In addition, empowerment was dependent uponthe organizer relinquishing his or her amoral power to the aspiring leader. Iaccoa‟s developmentpath, in the sense of right and wrong, was more structured and transactional. However, likeAlinsky, if an aspiring leader wishes to develop transformational and empowering leadershipqualities, it is a process based on luck as the mentee searches out for a mentor. It is an implied oran assumed goal, not stated goal in the development path. For example, Iacocca did not developaltruistic, transformational, or empowering qualities until after his retirement. Prior to hisretirement, transactional need was the motive behind any public service. For King, and his threedimensions of a complete life, the stated goals were moral transformation and empowerment.Leadership development to King was a lifelong process as the roles of mentor and menteebecome interchangeable, especially as the challenges of life prevent anyone person from beingall knowing. King believed in doing no harm while promoting positive social change; therebymaking him the quintessential POML.Morality
116 Morality is a key feature in POML. Since it serves as a foundation in the development offollowers, it requires a leader to educate the aspiring leader to work within the confines of social,organizational, or cultural moral norms. According to King (1986), morality allows mutual-cooperation to exist where members in a society can work together and determine right fromwrong. Furthermore, it serves as a baseline for continued systematic societal improvement. Inthese instances, a society ensures the possibility that individuals within a society can maximizetheir potential by equally applying the requirement of adherence to social moral norms. Kingbelieved that life included both good and evil. An individuals life presented a plethora ofopportunities for the individual to falter and accept evil into his or her life. Social moral normsprovided aspiring leaders a code in which they must learn and try to live up to in order to lead byexample and teach others. Ultimately, King warned, if an aspiring leader focuses on the outcome,and not the moral process, it prevented the aspiring leader from learning. As a result, the aspiringleader replicates humanity‟s worse qualities. Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) added in theiranalysis, amoral development curtails positive social change potential, which is a necessarycomponent of POML. According to King (1986), morality and its tacit code prevent two societal extremes. Thefirst extreme centers on the issue of freedom as it related to an individual participating in societywithout self-imposed control. Without self-imposed control and individual responsibility, asociety would ultimately require a centralized entity to impose physical and psychologicalcontrol. As the central entity attempts to create a stable or irreversible condition, it eliminatesindividual responsibility and freedom. However, this stable or irreversible condition generatesthe second extreme as it opens the door to perpetual revolution as predicted by Alinsky (1989).According to King, the perpetual revolution was an eye for an eye concept that destroyed the
117leadership development potential of the masses. Alinsky also believed that the path to tyranny, asrepresented in the two extremes is often subtle. For example, as both King and Iacocca (2007)suggested, leaders set the standard. If a leader uses purposeful ambiguity to pollute that standard,then those who aspire to be more or follow no longer need to honor the trust established throughmutual-cooperation. This weakens the bond of civility. According to Alinsky (1989), in theprocess of weakening civility that was masquerading as justified freedom, these amoral leadersoffer amorality and anarchy to those that they lead. Ultimately, as Keller and Yang (2008) notedin their premise concerning poliheuristic theory, amoral leaders have to impose laws andregulations on those who fail to adhere to rules that they no longer follow as an attempt toreclaim societal order. As King warned, if leaders choose to play by one set of rules whilesubjugating those that follow with a different set, they have established a ruling class. In thisinstance, without morality, laws that ordinarily protect aspiring leaders and productive citizensbecome playthings for tyrants and fools as Alinsky hoped to maximize in his design of sustainedsocietal upheaval. King‟s (1986) and Iacocca‟s (2007) Judeo-Christian background served as the foundationto their descriptions of morality. On the other hand, Alinsky (1989) viewed any morality taintedwith “Christian dogma” (p. 88), or any dogma for that matter, as “the enemy of human freedom”(p. 4). Alinsky then contradicted himself and conceded that there was strength in numbers ofindividuals cooperating, if not working together, to achieve some mutually agreed upon goal. ForAlinsky, the intelligent mutually agreed upon goal is equalized output, since it is morally correctfor one individual to be “his brothers keeper” (p. 23). Furthermore, altruism and self-sacrificeshould be an individual‟s daily goal, if not service to the rest of humanity. If that individual failsto understand Alinsky‟s version of a righteous life, then it was morally acceptable to kill that
118individual since it was the only means that humankind, as a species, would escape extinction.The greater good justifies the death of an individual or a group of individuals since “the mostunethical of all means is the non-use of any means” (p.26). This line of thinking allowed Alinsky(1989) to create 11-rules pertaining to the “ethics of means and ends” (pp 27–45). To sum upAlinsky‟s 11-rules in to one expression, Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) offered a conceptsuggesting morality is your enemy‟s problem; moreover, it is immoral to limit your options. Tosupport his own logic that it is immoral to be moral, and that morality is an illusion, Alinskyprovided examples where morality changed to serve the egocentric needs of a society. Alinsky (1989) attacked morality since it posed as the greatest danger to his version offreedom; his version of reality believed a centralized-bureaucratic entity distributes earnedfreedom. Bass (1985) identified the contradiction that purposefully permeates through Alinsky‟stheory about social change; as soon as freedom and power become centralized, it offers the nextrevolutionary leader the opportunity to advance their version of social change. Alinsky believedall previous and current socio-economic systems have inherent flaws; thereby, it is only throughperpetual chaos can a society discover the best possible societal solution. Alinsky‟s belief in acentralized system being the focal point of chaos and control conflicted with King (1986) andIacocca‟s (2007) conviction in a decentralized moral concept. King and Iacocca based theirbelief on the necessity of using a moral foundation to promote equal opportunity and economicfreedom making a strong centralized-bureaucratic power unnecessary. By focusing on theindividual, King and Iacocca believed their method generates the most social stability anddynamic, positive social change. Strangely, Alinsky promoted the American Revolution as thekey to freedom and decentralized power; however, his disdain for humanity generated aperception that a moral civilization, not a centralized power, poses as the greatest threat to
119freedom. Consequently, Alinsky‟s optimum solution encourages a centralized entity to increasetheir control on freedom in the hope that the next revolutionary leader solves humanity‟sproblem that humanity itself poses upon itself. King‟s perspective on morality is a polar opposite to Alinsky. Morality, as in mutual-cooperation and the Law of Reciprocity never changes. However, the understanding in itsintended application requires continual improvement for the greater good in order to equalizeopportunity. Furthermore, as King alluded, humanity‟s demise occurs when it discards morality,which opens the door to perpetual chaos and the forced servitude of the people. Ironically,Alinsky conceded this point when he wrote about humanity repeating a continuous cycle ofgrowth, revolution, rebirth, and then growth. This never-ending cycle of destruction and harm tofreedom and leadership development reinforces King‟s point. Kouzes and Posner (2007) alsosuggested that the quelling of chaos, similar to what Alinsky described, only occurs when thereis a common understanding and equal application in ethics and morality. In addition, it allows amoral leader promoting leadership development as a means of positive social change to developas aligned with the maxim promoting POML. Iacocca‟s (2007) belief about morality is more in-line with King‟s (1986) perspectivethan Alinskys (1989). Especially since, it is an imperative of leadership and leadershipdevelopment when dealing with adversity, to “understand the difference between good and bador right and wrong” (p. 226). It is at this point in his book that Iacocca muddied the concept ofmorality when he began to extol the benefits of crony capitalism. For example, he thought it wasacceptable for his father to bribe an official at Ellis Island in order to expedite the process of aloved one gaining access to the United States. This “minor corruption” (Iacocca & Whitney, p.225) seemed to support Alinsky‟s (1989) belief that the concept of morality is nothing more than
120societal nonsense, especially when an individual encounters a dilemma between the need ofdoing what is morally right and some other theoretically greater need. The greater need usuallywins. The real difference between Alinsky and Iacocca‟s thoughts on morality went back to onecrucial notion. For Iacocca, it is imperative that a leader or an aspiring leader needing tounderstand the moral consequences of his or her actions. It was this understanding ofconsequences that King (1986) and Fairhurst (2005) defined as an individual‟s moral conscious.Coincidentally, a moral conscious is one of the greatest impediments to the development ofAlinsky‟s version of an organizer and an aspiring leader. This helped explain why Alinskydenounced religious-based morality and created the "ethics of means and ends"(p. 27 – 45). Theethics of means and ends is a system designed to obliterate an aspiring leader‟s moral conscious. Like Alinsky (1989) and Iacocca (2007), King (1986) believed legitimate societaladvancement required mutual-cooperation. As defined by Burns (1978), mutual-cooperationoccurs when individuals treat one another in a socially acceptable manner. Likewise, Kingbelieved that righteous behavior is the definition of mutual-cooperation. This formed the basis ofhis definition of morality. King purposely did not specify an exact moral construct used in hisdefinition; he only suggested that individuals and leaders should follow the path of the “GoodSamaritan” (p. 30) since other belief systems had similar constructs such as the Golden Rule orthe Law of Reciprocity. However, he was very specific when defining righteous behavior. Anindividual or leader promoting righteous behavior acts with “intelligence and goodness” (p. 47).Furthermore, righteous behavior requires all to seek enlightenment, act with compassion, andeducate others while making agape a life style. Without brotherly love, the cycle of violence andchaos as predicted by Alinsky would come to fruition. This led King to suggest that since hate
121would only beget more hate and societal destruction, then love would open the door to morelove, and it is love that provides the greatest opportunity for societal improvement. King (1988) laid out a path for aspiring leaders choosing to participate in a moral andopen society called the “three dimensions of any complete life” (p. 40). Gorlorwulu andRahschulte (2010) created the five characteristics to Christian-based transformation that hadmany similarities to King‟s dimensions of a complete life. The first step in King‟s path to acomplete life requires an aspiring leader or individual to responsibility to seek knowledge and aprofessional calling. The second step challenges the same individual or aspiring leader to choosea method of cooperation with their fellow humans and actively live it. The first two steps in thepath to a complete life ensure that individuals or aspiring leaders are making informed choicesand being individually responsible. The last step is similar to Iacocca‟s (2007) conceptconcerning mentoring; it requires action in helping, teaching, mentoring, and serving others.King believed it is hateful or immoral when an individual hoards information. Consequently, itmakes those who choose to distribute information as courageous leaders to the people as theseleaders battle for truth and dignity. By empowering others with the truth, these courageousleaders are practitioners of King‟s concept of agape and an aspiring POML‟s best friend. There are aspects concerning morality and leadership development that Alinsky (1989),Iacocca (2007), and King (1986) dealt with using different methods. These aspects force anindividual to respond to others who refuse to act morally or the individual encounters a morallyuntenable situation. An untenable situation develops when a morally influenced individualencounters a forced-choice between two or more immoral actions that the individual findsobjectionable. As King and to a lesser extent Iacocca asserted, morality is only important when asociety adheres to it during the most inconvenient of times when responding to amoral
122individuals or untenable situations. From Alinsky‟s perspective, the organizer works to createuntenable moral situations as a method to ambush the opposition‟s leaders since they are easilyexploitable as the untenable moral situations provide the opportunity to point out classdifferences. Consequently, Alinsky‟s protégés are an example of amoral individuals activelyworking to destroy the social bonds that form a society. This group also includes otherindividuals or leaders, who refuse to engage other individuals with in a society in a moraltransformational or empowering manner. They, for whatever reason according to Bass (1985),only act in a situational, transactional, or a confrontational manner. King (1986) suggested when aspiring leaders encounter amoral individuals they need totreat these individuals with dignity and respect in accordance with the Law of Reciprocity. TheChristian approach King mentioned includes turning and exposing the other cheek when slappedin the face. However, King “tried to embrace a realistic pacifism” (p. 39), which is the choiceand selection of the lesser evil between two or more. This approach includes being patient andaccepting discord as an opportunity for improvement. Conversely, Alinsky (1989) perceived thisacquiescence to discord as an exploitable weakness in any leader. If a target tries to be patientwhen pressed, the identified target provides the organizer an opportunity to increase the fervor ofrhetoric and deploy other vehicles of communication such as civil disobedience. The organizerhopes that those involved in the civil disobedience suffer some punitive reaction as a method toidentify and separate classes. In these instances, Alinsky defined success as either forcing anopposing leader to abandon their concept of morality or have his target use their sense ofmorality in a punitive fashion as a means to separate individuals into haves and have-nots.King‟s approach searches for understanding in the difference of opinions. Alinsky, on the otherhand, tries to create class stagnation and harvest the hate if fomented to generate conflict, and
123ultimately class warfare. All of which, harm freedom and destroy positive social changeopportunities that promote POML development. To King, class status is what an individualworks to achieve in a free society, making class movement, up or down, essential. Class status isjust a snapshot in time of a free individual‟s current predicament, and class movement denotes ahealthy society. Alinsky (1989) designed his tactics with the goal to trap the opposition‟s leader inmorally untenable situations. According to King (1986), hate-based tactics are shortsighted andindifferent to societal destruction. King also believed morally untenable situations are avoidableand often self-induced due to flaws in the leader or aspiring leader‟s character or development. Inresponse to an untenable situation, King and Iacocca (2007) both believed it requires action inthe form of humility, accountability, and a personal realignment to social moral norms. Theacceptance of failure by the leader is just the first step. The realignment, learning from failure,and ultimately devising an empowering plan of attack is the only way to survive an untenablesituation. Consequently, the only way to survive an Alinsky inspired ambush is to fight for themorally right reason through it. At times, this requires the leader to fight using any meanspossible as Alinsky had hoped. Hence, as King noted, a realistic pacifist would suggest the pathof the lesser evil. That is why King stressed that leaders and aspiring leaders need to take aproactive course that includes anticipation and preemption. He also believed that positive socialchange is the best method to anticipate and preempt systematic hate because hate grows fromignorance. Positive social change requires communication and the exchange of knowledge. As aresult, followers and aspiring leaders offer the leader diverse opportunities to avoid the morallyuntenable situations. This makes mutually beneficial exchanges of information morally correctand necessary for both the mentor and the mentee.
124Leader-Follower Relationship In building upon leadership development and morality, a strong mentoring leader-follower relationship assists and potentially speeds up the aspiring leader‟s development tobecome an empowering leader. From a POML perspective, this mentoring relationship should bemutually beneficial to both parties; this is similar to King‟s (1986) love begets love and iscomparable to Kouzes and Posner‟s (2007) win-win scenario. Equalized opportunities along withopen and honest communication are the requirements for a positive leader-follower relationshipbecause they assist in the development of competence and confidence. According to Scanduraand Pellegrini (2008), competence and confidence leads to “role-routinization” and“identification-based trust” (p. 102) that rewards spontaneity. Fairness in this instance is themoral and equal application of organizational rules, social norms, and laws. King strove to createan environment where leader-follower relationships as laid out become force-multipliers forpositive social change. Unfortunately, as some leaders amass power to implement a vision; theseleaders view empowerment as an impediment. Power concerning the leader-follower relationshipis information, and Alinsky (1989) was the self-admitted master at hoarding and manipulating itin order to instigate a revolution. To begin with, Alinsky (1989) created an utopist list of “the ten ideal elements of anorganizer” (pp. 71-80). The ideal elements list includes critical items that make the leader-follower relationship potentially troublesome and ripe with negativity. First, Alinsky‟s listincluded conflicting criteria that he admitted to being unattainable. For example, Alinskybelieved that the organizer must examine the vast expanse of life‟s ambiguity to find useful“contradictions” (p. 75) in order to generate discourteous accusations, class envy, agitation, hate,and potentially violent action. As this occurs, Alinsky was expecting the organizer in training to
125be both open and close-minded to input from followers. The organizer must be open to theabundance of potential discontent and yet maintain “a bit of blurred vision of a better world” (p.76) in order to manipulate followers to achieve class distinctions. To add emphasis to thiscontradictory relationship between a leader and follower, Alinsky wrote that nothing annoys afollower more than “arrogance, vanity, impatience, and personal egotism” (p. 61). This wasparadoxical since he classified himself as the preeminent organizer while describing himself asarrogant, vain, impatient, and egotistical. This do as I say, not as I do attitude creates a negativerelationship that the follower must endure. This subsequently harms the leadership developmentpotential of the aspiring leader and the subsequent positive social change potential. For King (1986) and Iacocca (2007), they considered these contradictory relationshipssimilar to those as Alinsky defined as confusing, inefficient, and eventually destructive to anyorganization. As further evidence, Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) believed these relationshipsforced an aspiring leader to regress to a form of “calculus-based trust” (p. 103) where theaspiring leader becomes urgently concerned with lower level needs; thereby, limiting ordestroying positive social change potential. However, in order to discover a better world, Alinsky(1989) believed the results justified the means and the expected societal implosion would be atemporary condition and the negative leader-follower relationship is a byproduct of the continualsocial chaos initiated by an organizer ripe with hate and full of contradictions. Alinsky foretoldthe eventual destruction of the relationship between the leader and follower in element two of hisideal organizer requirements. Eventually, the follower must “challenge, insult, agitate, anddiscredit” (p. 71) any contradiction. This includes contradictions emanating from the leader ormentor, since the organizer needs to have a well-defined different vision of the future.
126 Iacocca (2007) had a series of mentoring experiences that aided him in his leadershipdevelopment path. Consequently, he believes that the leader-follower relationship is to befostering and full of mentoring by the leader. These experiences eventually prompted Iacocca tocoin the concept of “have a mentor, be mentor” (p. 234). The concepts of mentoring andempowering are something that both Alinsky (1997) and King (1986) incorporated in theirdiffering notions of an effective leader-follower relationship. This agreement between theauthors concerning conceptual mentoring and empowering is only theoretical. As previouslynoted, Alinsky created a contradictory leadership development premise that suggests anorganizer could forgo mentoring aspiring leaders if justified by the results. Like Alinsky, Iacoccawas inconsistent with this concept because it was not until after his retirement that he developedthis enlightened perspective. A good portion of the book talked about a series of differentmentors he had that helped him with different aspects of his life. During his career, his emphasiswas on hiring the right people to help him shape his future vision of the company. Hiring insteadof developing led him to pick a successor to become the next chief executive officer (CEO) ofChrysler. He described this decision as his worse, as his successor led Chrysler to the mergerwith Daimler. Iacocca‟s inconsistency with developing a mentoring leader-follower relationshipis noteworthy since it is absent in his “Nine C‟s of Leadership” (p.6 -10) and his thoughts onleadership responsibilities to rebuild the United States. In stark contrast to the contradictions and inconsistencies of Alinsky (1989) and Iacocca(2007), King (1986) establishes consistency in his belief of the positive potential found in theinterrelatedness of individuals. Furthermore, he believed that interrelatedness is dependent uponthe continued growth of all individuals in a society, making the leader-follower relationshipextremely important. A strong leader-follower relationship was something Vecchio et al. (2006)
127promoted in their article on situational leadership. However, King built his premise of aneffective leader-follower relationship on the Biblical concept of the “Good Samaritan” (p. 285)and the Greek concept of “agape” (p. 8). He notes that the biblical and Greek concepts areequivalent to the Law of Reciprocity with an emphasis on brotherly love. He elaborated bystating that if two individuals want to get along then good begets good making the inverse true,which is “hate begets hate” (p. 449). The link between the leader and follower is an empoweringrelationship in which both assist the other to achieve the highest aspirations of life. Thisapproach is similar to the method Blanchard et al. (1985) described in their theories concerningsituational leadership. In assisting the follower to achieve the height of life, the leader mustunderstand that they serve the follower by providing information, guidance, and assistance asnecessary to cultivate the development of the follower as the leader progresses through the threedimensions of a complete life. To be successful, achieving the height or highest aspiration of lifeincludes the mentoring of others. To achieve King‟s (1986) perspective of the height of life, both the leader and followerhave to earn the right, not given, to pursue this dimension. Consequently, the follower must earntheir experience and place in life, whereas the leader must only mentor and guide as needed.According to King, by practicing responsibility in a free society and refusing to harm thefreedom that comes with it, leaders and aspiring leaders earn respect, dignity, and integrity.King‟s perspective differed greatly from Alinsky (1989). Alinsky fomented underachievement infollowers as means to differentiate between classes. This weakens the traditional leader-followerrelationships in order to generate class warfare. When comparing King‟s concepts to Alinsky andIacocca (2007), Alinsky‟s leadership-follower relationship thrived on provoking hate, whichmade manipulation and deception a common practice between the follower and leader. While
128Iacocca‟s better-late-than-never approach to empowerment and mentoring mimicked King‟s, itlacks commitment since it is not a key component of his nine C‟s of leadership. To one degree or another, hate or agape, the common thread between the three authorsincluded the interrelatedness of all individuals. Furthermore, all three also believed that theleader-follower relationship serves an integral part of leadership, organizational, and individualdevelopment. As a result, proper cultivation of this relationship is essential to leadershipdevelopment and positive social change. The main difference between the three authors is themethod used to cultivate a relationship. There was Alinsky‟s (1989) contradictory method, whichwas both amoral and transformational. Despite being inconsistent, Iacocca‟s (2009) was mostlytransactional that had a transformational and empowering ending. Finally, there was King‟smethod that was moral, transformational, and eventually empowering. Dependent upon thefollower‟s acceptance of responsibility, it made empowerment a requirement of leadership.Kouzes and Posner (2007) provided a level of affirmation to this premise in their book. Also in asimilar fashion to Kouzes and Posner, King‟s method serves as the baseline for POML since itinspires a consistent thought that leadership is not about what individual acquires as a leader. It isabout the competence and confidence that the leader earns through education, communication,and action as the leader develops other aspiring leaders. Positive social change occurs when asociety of individuals peacefully promotes morally sound leader-follower relationships in orderto develop other leaders, to earn an enriched life, and participate in a productive society.Driving Force for Change Alinsky (1989), Iacocca (2007), and King (1986) understood that change is constantmaking organizational and individual development necessary to embrace change and ensureprosperity, if not survival. The difference between the three authors is the source driving the
129change and the manner in which they expect a leader to interpret and respond to a change event.The source driving the anticipated response to the change could be either the leader, thefollowers within the leader‟s sphere of influence, or a varying combination of both as determinedby the urgency of the change. In addition, the manner of interpretation meant their overarchingleadership philosophy often predetermined their response. From a POML perspective, dependingon the time constraint, the leader uses varying sources of inputs from multiple levels of followersand aspiring leaders to provide the best proactive response to a change event. The response,when possible, should be proactive rather than reactive since proactive responses customarilyprovide a deeper understanding of the event. Keller and Yang (2008) noted; reaction and crisisoften lead to hurried action and mistakes. Alinsky (1989) thrived on forcing civic leaders inmaking rash decisions that only increased the likelihood of strategic or tactical errors. Anymistake is an exploitable amoral opportunity for social change. Finally, the crucial aim of aPOML should be positive social change; therefore, any solution to change should lead to equalopportunity, empowerment, individual responsibly, and the reaffirmation of freedom. Change was an integral ingredient to everything that Alinsky (1989) wrote about in hisbook Rules for Radicals. The book‟s goal is to instigate a never-ending anarchic battle betweenoutput-based haves and have-nots. Alinsky believed there would always be a disparity in output;consequently, he came up with a convoluted mechanism called an organizer to agitate this never-ending need for change and segregated social justice. Since the change was an omnipresentreality to Alinsky, he instructed organizers to harness change and drive wedges between societalclasses. An example of a wedge issue is the disparity in resources generated from societal outputand identifying them is one of the primary tasks of the organizer. The organizer instigates awedge issue by setting the tone and perspective to generate movement based on a manufactured
130or perceived inequality. Fairhurst (2005) described this as framing an issue with the potential tocreate abhorrent amoral consequences. As the organizer addresses a social inequity, the socialinequity has the appearance to be the motivation for change. For Alinsky, the social inequity is ameans to an end, a simple hand tool used to implement his dark version social change whiledestroying freedom and leadership potential of all individuals not in the core group of agitators. At the outset, the organizer is the sole source for change. As soon as the organizersuccessfully grooms followers and an eventual leader in using Machiavellian style hate-basedtactics to address the inadequacies in output, the leader may or may not include the followers inaddressing subsequent change events. An organizer releasing control of the movement isconditional; according to Alinsky (1989), the organizer never relinquishes control to the leaderand his or her protégées until they demonstrate a high level of commitment to the necessity oftheir actions in relation to the movement. Consequently, this makes the organizer as the centralforce and his or her handpicked protégées a secondary force driving change. Societal change was at the root of any Alinsky (1989) activity; the organizermanufactures short-term incremental opportunities that had a dual purpose of generating societaldiscontent in the form of conflict and team building exercises aligned with the grand societalchange plan (Bass, 1985). In essence, the organizer continually generates short-term reactiveemergencies aligned with an amoral proactive long-term vision. Moreover, Alinsky mentionedfreedom as being his goal in order to establish a system of equalized output, but he admits thathis system creates amoral leaders thus making the goal of equalizing output as an admittedillusion. As a result, the real driving force for change starts and ends with the first organizermaking Alinsky‟s book a source for perpetual chaos. Any leadership development opportunitiesfound in the societal change only happened as an incidental necessity. Either as a part of the
131organizer‟s grand scheme or, as Bass noted, when the next revolutionary organizer identifies theinequities in the previous organizer‟s vision. In turn, harm and negative change become the normas predicted in Keller and Yang‟s (2008) analysis on poliheuristic theory. Much like Alinsky (1989) using a leader and a small team with limited leadershipdevelopment potential to drive change, Iacocca (2007) had a similar construct to drive change.Another similarity that Iacocca had when compared to Alinsky; Iacocca believed crisis was thecrucible used to create leaders. A majority of Iacocca‟s career ignored the leadershipresponsibility to develop talent, especially during the most successful stages of his life. Hispreferred method to fill an open position on his staff involved handpicking a leader via talent-based review and an interview process. A process Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) praised intheir book concerning the establishment of great teams. This practice of handpicking led Iacoccato make what he would describe as his worse business decision. It occurred when he selected aperson outside of Chrysler to replace him as CEO. Later in the book, he offered the concept ofmentoring to drive leadership development and proactive change. As a result, the concept ofmentoring softens his previous reactive position of using crisis and handpicked teams to drivechange. The concept of mentoring and using it as a force-multiplier to drive positive change issimilar to King‟s (1986) belief in “all life being interrelated” (p. 20). Iacocca incorporated thisconcept of interrelatedness when he wrote about leadership “being part of a bigger picture” (p.245) and “advance the common good” (p. 23). Yet, when comparing Iacocca with King,Iacocca‟s inconsistency stands out. Iacocca wanted to use mentoring to drive change, but his lifeis an example of him leading a small highly talented team to drive change. Unfortunately,Iacocca‟s inconsistencies and Alinsky‟s contradictions make the authors more similar than not.
132 The important difference between King (1986), Alinsky (1989) and Iacocca (2007), is thebelief in the individual. For King, the real driving force for change is an enlightened populacethat practices agape, individual responsibility, and personal continual improvement. King‟smethod requires the leader to serve the followers by assisting them in maximizing their potentialas the leader and followers work together to solve a societal need. As a result, the driving forcefor change is truly a compilation of inputs from an abundance of individuals with varying levelsof development and experiences. Kouzes and Posner (2007) defined this as a cross-functionalapproach to positive social change. The inputs from a variety of sources help identify the need orproblem. In addition, the inputs should always offer a solution. Contrary to the King‟s proactiveapproach, reactive leadership is the continual use of crisis in which Keller & Yang (2008)deemed to be predictable and inefficient. However, crisis to Alinsky provided a reason to changesince he wanted to create and manipulate it in order to implement an action that may or may nothave anything to do with any previously stated reason for social change. Even worse, as Iacoccanoted, when the change agenda is in direct opposition to the social norms of society, the failurein leadership becomes an example of an amoral leader. Alinskys use of crisis and leaders alwaysinvolved in crisis supplied King with examples that led him to believe that leaders whocontinually react to change are an example of amoral or failed leadership, making themdetrimental to leadership development. In noting a similar outcome, as identified by Keller and Yang (2008), Iacocca admittedthat even though crisis creates leaders, crisis also generates hate and fear in both leaders andfollowers. Decisions based on fear and hate often restricts the amount of options to overcome thecrisis, which in turn generate poor leadership development opportunities. Those leaders usingcrisis as means to generate change are flirting with disaster. This led King (1986) to believe that
133reactive responses to change rarely produce positive social change opportunities. To use King‟sbelief that hate begets hate, so does fear as fear begets fear and Alinsky style manipulation, hate,and societal ignorance. That is why King countered fear, ignorance, hate, and eventualmanipulation with education, love, the Law of Reciprocity, and the search for a complete lifemaking the individual the driving force for change and the leader a servant to that necessity. Asthe leader serves, they inspire. After they inspire others to serve, they have fostered anenvironment of positive social change and the force-multiplier effect. Leaders and aspiringleaders become what King would describe as beacons of light and the consummate POML. In using the driving force for change criteria, which includes proactive responses to socialneed requiring input from multiple individuals at differing levels of development to enactpositive social change, all three authors had varying success in meeting this criteria. Alinsky‟s(1989) perspective included reactive and proactive responses to an organizer‟s manufacturedneed in order to generate a crisis. This crisis influences others, defined as have-nots, to believethat Alinsky‟s perspective is correct. With the organizer identifying an actual or pseudo-legitimate societal need, it provides justification for the have-nots to take from the haves, since ithas been the haves committing crimes of social injustice; thereby, the have-nots become victims‟outcome inequality. As a result, it limits the types of input and coerces groupthink throughout thehave-nots. Change is the goal, positive or negative change is an irrelevant concept to Alinsky.For those that Alinsky defined as the haves, their eventual destruction is the long-term goal. Like Alinsky, Iacocca (2007) had a centralized plan to drive change via crisis since hebelieved crisis is necessary to forge leaders. Crisis requires a great leader and a small team ofhighly talented individuals to react to the necessity of change that might produce outputsbeneficial to the society in general. Mentoring and being a force multiplier for change is an
134option; however, it is dependent upon the necessity of the crisis. Unlike Alinsky and Iacocca‟scentralized plan that focused on the leader as being the driving force for change, King (1986) hada decentralized approach that focuses on the individual. Not only was King‟s belief in theindividual different, he also believed in the individual‟s potential and the potential to beresponsible in a socially acceptable manner. His inclusive methodology has the greatest potentialto protect freedom and drive positive social change.Competition As a part of the human condition, Alinsky (1989), Iacocca (2007), and King (1986) notedthat change is a constant. In order to survive this constant change, Alinsky believed that humanshad to develop a competitive instinct that was integral to their survival. Furthermore, Alinskyalso believed that an efficient leader or organizer has to manipulate this competitive spirit inorder to grow and maintain a power base. Manipulation to inspire either action or inaction camein various forms. King, and to a lesser extent Iacocca, tried to incorporate an individual‟scompetitive desire into proactive responses to anticipated competition. However, responses tocompetition ranged from Alinsky‟s version of polarizing win-lose scenarios to King‟s positivechange win-win scenarios. Whether polarizing or positive, each author‟s perspective haddiffering effects on the leader, those followers within the leader‟s organizational sphere ofinfluence and those outside the leader‟s sphere of influence. Consequently, the POMLperspective to competition strives to achieve a win, win, and win scenario. In a win, win, and winscenario, a positive outcome must occur for the leader, those individuals in the leader‟s operativegroup, and those indirectly affected by the action. In Alinskys (1989) Machiavellian-style perception of a world with haves and have-nots,a win-win result is the exception and not the rule. The acquisition of power and its maintenance
135require a reactive polarized enemy that aids the organizer to rally his or her followers and recruitothers to the cause. An organizer uses amoral tactics that include, but not limited to socialdisobedience, lying, withholding information, intimidation, blackmail, extortion, and evenviolence. As the organizer goes about instigating change, Alinsky thought it is more immoral forthe organizer to fail than to worry about the social moral implications of his or her actions. Thiswin at any cost mentality meant the aspiring leader has to pursue an amoral transformationalleadership style that has a transactional quality. It is transactional because it manipulates lowerlevel needs of followers within the organization. As an exchange for the necessities of life, themanipulation mobilizes the followers against an enemy identified by the organizer that representsa social inequity. The transformational quality occurs after the defeat of the identified enemythereby discrediting a social entity of the haves and forcing it to concede power to the organizer.Consequently, this provides the organizer or leader of the movement more opportunities forsocietal change, while the unending conflict prevents the organizer or leader to reach theirmaximum development potential since the eternal search for new ideas is always in directcompetition with improving and developing the old ones. Continuously tearing down the old paradigms meant the organizer or leader rarely buildsanything of consequence since it meant the establishment of a new order of haves. In Alinsky‟s(1989) world vision, it means the newly created paradigms become a despised enemy of thenewly ordained have-nots. That is why Alinsky believed it was morally acceptable to purge thenewly created have-nots from society since they represent the old system. Purging thecompetition in the form of an enemy from the newly created society is a practice that Bass(1985) identified as transformational when extolling the virtues of Hitler. Burns (1978) offeredconfirmation when complimenting the transformational qualities of Stalin and Mao. The purge in
136this instance buys the new leader time to establish their version of order and create systems tosuppress competition and rival societal ideas. In maximizing the negativity of this action andconverting followers into eternal victims of the previous regime, the negative social constructsprohibit any growth or development since the alternative is to become an identified enemy. Forthose deemed as enemies, their total financial, emotional, and even physical destruction is oflittle consequence. The great contradiction that Alinsky (1989) poses in his concepts that supposedly create anew world order occur at the outset, he framed his ideas on social change as radical, new,intelligent, and socially invigorating. Alinsky concedes he created his system based on aMachiavellian power-system that is more than 500-years old. It means Alinsky used a zero-sumapproach to power and competition as identified by Houghton and Yoho (2005), which is notradical, new, and socially invigorating. In the zero-sum approach to leadership, leadership is notdynamic or transformational; it is transactional as leader searches to eliminate competition thatmay erode the leader‟s power-base. In total, when compared to King‟s (1986) competitionperspective, an Alinsky style competition is a loss for the leader since it encourages long-termnegativity, a loss for the followers since they will always be a victim of some change event, andhe designed his system to destroy any internal or external competition. It purposely harmsfreedom and any dynamic leadership potential because they pose as the greatest threat toAlinsky‟s Machiavellian-based system. It is ironic that Alinsky portrayed his book as the questfor freedom. Iacocca (2007) had an ambivalent or erratic take on the concept of competition.Competition is a necessity that drives leadership to improve. Especially when Iacocca believed, aleader only demonstrates greatness when he or she crushes the opposition. However, his book
137revealed other inconsistencies. For example, Iacocca demanded competitive fairness in themarketplace. Conversely, he asked the U.S. government to tip the scales of fairness in hiscompany‟s favor when the government bailed out Chrysler. As a form of crony capitalism, if aleader uses a political connection to provide anomalous resources, then King (1986) defined thatform of competitive-fairness as another form of tokenism. Since competition makes or breaks theleader from Iacocca‟s perspective, much like Alinsky (1989), the only measure of success is thescale to which a leader achieves a stated goal despite the long-term consequences of the processused to attain it. In addition, a successful outcome did not always equate into a win for those inthe leader‟s sphere of influence. Much like the rise and fall of Chrysler, after Iacocca‟s departure,those in the leader‟s sphere of influence only experienced a short-term victory before embracingfailure. Hollow short-term victories reinforced King‟s (1986) point about establishing long-termprocesses of success that involves leadership development and harnessing humanity‟scompetitive nature. The consequence to this dynamic potential is that it requires the leader torelinquish power. At Chrysler, to Iacocca‟s own admission, he and his leadership team failed torelinquish enough power needed to set up long-term systems of success. According to King andeven Alinsky‟s (1989) principles about leadership development and competition, this meant thatIacocca should have relinquished some control of Chrysler long before his departure. Iacoccaconfirmed this reality when he admitted to making a mistake in handpicking a successor insteadof investing the time and power to develop a successor. Despite Iacocca‟s best intentions intranscending differences and promoting collaboration, he did not develop what Harland et al.(2005) would call a multitude of dynamic teams ripe with competing ideas and leadershippotential. Unfortunately, Iacocca‟s short-term successful outcome obscured the needs of
138individuals outside of Iacocca leadership team‟s direct sphere of influence. Since Iacoccarestricted information to his hand selected leadership team, Van Breukelen et al (2006) noted thatthis restricts leadership development. Instead of doing root-cause analysis to determine whyChrysler eventually failed, Iacocca‟s book turned into a search for a scapegoat questioning hissuccessor‟s and President George W. Bush‟s leadership abilities. Failing to setup self-reliantleadership development systems meant short-term wins turned into long-term losses. Forexample, when comparing King to Iacocca, Iacocca promoted innovation and empowerment viathe competitive spirit but was inconsistent in backing it up with a consistent long-term inclusivevision because he was always chasing his next impressive victory. On the other hand, Kingpromoted innovation and empowerment via the competitive spirit, as captured in his long-termvision that emphasizes the individual as King defined in a dream. Using positive action, thisdream became a win for humanity in general. As previously mentioned, King (1986) in many ways was a polar opposite of Alinsky(1989), despite struggling with his own consistency issues that had the potential to ensnare theleader in a trap of their own making. King based his theories on nonviolence, the GoodSamaritan, and agape; in turn, they epitomized the classic win-win competitive scenario. Aleader‟s obligation is to assist others and thereby him or herself. Unlike Alinsky, who exploiteddifferences, King believed a functional leader must understand the differences and work toappreciate them in every one of his followers instead of emphasizing the differences as ananarchical righteous cause. In using the Tower of Babel example, King believed theunderstanding of differences did not require conformity and standardization. For King, everyperson in a society held a portion of the ultimate truth. Consequently, he meant it as a method toshare knowledge while emphasizing competitiveness in the arena of ideas. He encouraged
139individuality as a means to discourage groupthink. Analogous to Karricker‟s (2005) perspective,this diversity of thought generates an abundance of dynamic information and ideas, which are aboon for the aspiring leader. Furthermore, in a similar fashion to Iacocca‟s (2007) have a mentor,be a mentor, the opportunity to inform, be involved, encourage responsible action and empoweroffers those in and outside the leader‟s direct sphere of influence the maximum potential forleadership development. King extended an overture of freedom to those external andphilosophically different from the leader‟s sphere of influence. This inclusive overture includesthe leader turning to the other cheek if offended during any clash of ideas or beliefs. In these instances of conflict or competitive disagreement, a leader or aspiring leaderencounters the first of two potential pitfalls. For example, the first potential pitfall as King(1986) admitted, self-defense is acceptable and understandable for the realistic pacifist.However, preemptive action encourages Alinsky style hate since there is an ever-presentpotential for preemption to turn into revenge and revenge into successive preemption. Bass(1985) believed preemptive action encouraged conflict when dealing with transactional ortraditional amoral leaders with a narcissistic facade of being transformational. As soon aspreemption disintegrates in to open conflict, as defined by Bass, it has harmed the freedom of allinvolved in the conflict and restricted leadership development to Machiavellian and subsequentlyAlinsky (1989) style subservient leaders as Houghton and Yoho (2005) had predicted. Despite follower dependency being the goal of most transformational leaders, asHoughton and Yoho (2005) believed, King (1986) admitted that his belief in selflessness andservitude had its drawbacks, which ultimately led to dependency and the second potential pitfall.King cautioned these individuals who desire acceptance into the leader‟s sphere of influence,these individuals do so at the risk of surrendering their own competitive individuality. This
140submissive action comes as an exchange as the individual offers their individuality andcompetitive spirit, in exchange for a reduction in individual responsibility while increasing theleaders power-base. King thought the leader exacerbates the situation when in an effort ofselfless servitude to win individuals over and avoid conflict; the leader creates systems ofredistribution to equalize outcomes making it desirable for the individual to cede theircompetitive spirit and individuality. However, as Fairhurst (2005) surmised, framed conflictavoidance, redistribution, and outcome based equality only ensures that a potential followerbecomes dependent as the follower loses their competitive spirit, responsibility, dignity, andeventually their freedom. Houghton and Yoho (2005) thought dependence upon the leader onlystrengthens the leader‟s power at the expense of the individual. Finally, when comparing King‟s (1986) beliefs concerning competitive self-reliance withsystems that generate dependency, as espoused by various authors, King believed dependencyopened the door to societal horrors. For example, King thought that if a leader works to increasea follower‟s dependency, the leader reduces the follower‟s individualistic moral clarity.Poignantly, reducing a follower‟s moral clarity is a stated goal of both Alinsky (1989) and Bass(1985) and their amoral transformational theories. Alinsky thought it made the follower pliablewhen carrying out the leader‟s vision and eliminating competition. In turn, as King warned, thisundoubtedly makes the followers unprepared for the extremes of life and setting them up tobecome an amoral leader‟s beast of burden. As a result, domination by destroying theindividual‟s willpower or lavishing them with undeserving love will only open the door to apathyand hate while destroying their leadership development potential. Competition will always be the leader‟s constant companion, especially as the leaderdevelops beyond the selfish constraints found in a transformational leader and adopts
141empowering and POML attributes. As King (1986) believed, it is the individual‟s responsibilityto evaluate the outcome of a competitive event on whether it was positive, negative, or anopportunity for improvement regardless of the outcome. The competitive event could be manythings: for example, a personal goal, defeating an opponent or achieving a mutually agreeableoutcome. The competitive concepts of Alinsky (1989) and Iacocca (2007) present a certainreality as described by King; the ugliness found in their systems of hate will force a leader andhis or her followers to make convenient choices during times of great turmoil and inconvenience.The best of leaders will see convenient choices for what they are and anticipate them in order tomitigate their negative impact, thereby producing a win, win, and winnable scenarios. Alinsky,Iacocca, and King fully agreed on one crucial topic from their differing points of view. If aleader, or a developing leader, makes a decision based on personal convenience when faced witha competitive adversary they are amoral from a societal point of view; in addition, the leader hasexposed them self to various forms of manipulation. Consequently, as King alluded to, theybecome examples of failed leadership because they presented their competitors a weakness. Anyreaction to an exploited weakness without a humble acceptance usually compounds the failure.In turn, they open the door to societal harm and put positive social change at risk.Positive Social Change Alinsky (1989), Iacocca (2007), and King (1986) had various approaches to encouragingindividuals to become a factor in implementing their version of social change. From a POMLperspective, the concept of positive social change has subjective qualities that question whetherthe change generated by the authors was positive. The subjective aspects found in the authors‟work involved the change event. Did it promote the positive development of others? In someinstances, an author appeared to be developing a leader that promoted change that destroyed
142others in order to grow a power base. Much like the change described by the three authors, thepositive social change aspect a POML focuses on is a society‟s authentic need, which is thedevelopment of others. This need has to be a liberating and empowering motive for an individualto become a force-multiplier of social change. However, as King illustrated several times, hatehas always provided a follower the illusion of need as it generates pseudo liberation andempowerment. That is why the POML has to include criteria such as protecting freedom,encouraging morally inclusive individual responsibility and seeking to develop and empowerleadership throughout society. It is the holistic POML leadership concept that helps separate theauthors and adds clarity to the intent of their social change premises. Social change was one of Alinsky‟s (1989) main objectives in his book Rules forRadicals. In the book, Alinsky wrote about positive social change as returning to the conceptsthat drove the American Revolution in the late 1700‟s. However, he also included an equalizedoutcome concept that King (1986) classified as a prerequisite to class warfare and generatingsystems of hate. This contradiction was a part of Alinsky‟s perception of reality, which is anever-ending struggle between haves and have-nots. Dissimilar to King and Iacocca (2007),Alinsky believed that central planning is necessary to develop a “smaller, simpler, and moreorderly world” (p. xv) and “the greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself”(p. xxiv). Iacocca believed that there is nothing smaller and simpler about central planning.Concerning freedom, King thought freedom without morality and laws is anarchy, whichsupports Alinsky‟s statement. However, Alinsky did not believe in socially structured morality,except the moral code he created for organizers. Moreover, laws are tools Alinsky used to burdenand eventually trap targets of opportunity using rhetoric and contradiction. Lastly, even though
143Alinsky sought to develop and empower leadership, the group he allowed to develop was oftenrelatively small, mostly made up of potential organizers and future leaders. King (1986) was very concerned about the destruction of morality; its demise indirectlyallows restrictions on information and freedom to occur. In addition, the absence of moralitylimits the leadership development potential of all individuals. He would go further and describethe act of a leader promoting a change activity as being positive when it destroys morality astokenism. For example, Alinsky (1989) used hate-based systems that offered the tokendevelopment and empowerment found in collectivism. According to Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte(2010), these systems force the individual to surrender their power in the form of personalresponsibility and moral clarity to manipulating controlling entities that refocus their competitivespirit to support systems of hate. Similarly, Van Breukelen et al. (2006) thought systems thatrestrict information are counterintuitive to positive social change since it restricts the expansionof high quality relationships necessary for leadership development to a select group in theleader‟s inner circle. Alinsky, to his own admission, designed his version of social change to behighly selective and was content with the reality that he reclassified the masses as an expendablecommodity. Alinsky knew he could not save everyone; those deemed as targets or an undesirablesocietal fit are the first to go in a societal purge. In the process of purging the undesirables, it willbe necessary to sacrifice some of his followers for his version of the greater good. According toKing, this concept of the masses being an expendable commodity is equivalent to those whosuffered under fascist or communist rule; these systems convert individuals into beasts of burden. While Alinsky (1989) developed a long-term perspective that purposely-jeopardizedhumanity, Iacocca (2007) created limited short-term concepts that made lasting positive socialchange difficult. For example, his system to rebuild America has holistic long-term concepts
144similar to Alinsky‟s, such as create emergencies, the equalized output concept of sharedsacrifice, social simplification, and eliminating systematic inefficiencies. In his book, Iacoccadecided to target the automotive industry as the only means of America‟s revival. As a result, hisrebuilding of America concept fell short in solving the issue of failed leadership that his ownbook attempted to address. This became evident when comparing Iacocca‟s thoughts to King‟s(1986) continual improvement notions that included the three dimensions of a complete life.Furthermore, Iacocca‟s shortsightedness carried over into his belief in the Nine C‟s of leadership,which has more to do with defining the qualities of a narcissistic leader than helping an aspiringindividual to become a better leader. In essence, Iacocca‟s book questioned leadership while attempting to provide insights tosignificant social change using leadership; however, the crux of what he had to offer would fallinto what King described as tokenism. Iacocca‟s theories attempted to address leadership andsocial change, but lacked any real substance to help the follower get there and take ownership oftheir own life. Only as an afterthought did Iacocca attempt to encourage readers to practicesomething similar to King‟s belief in agape and the search for a complete life. Despite Iacocca‟sstances on individual responsibility, mentoring, and a tepid acceptance of morality, it is notsurprising that his belief in leaders needing to take control of a situation had more informationabout taking control than leading a positive social change movement that promotes freedom,empowerment, and long-term systematic improvement. In sharp contrast to Alinsky (1989) and to a lesser extent Iacocca (2007), King (1986)promoted social change that focuses on the individual and a theory of nonviolence similar toGandhi‟s beliefs. Alinsky scoffed at Gandhi‟s theories of nonviolence; he asserted that in 1930‟sHitler‟s goons would have executed him. As a result, Gandhi‟s theories on nonviolence were
145impractical to Alinsky. Alinsky using Hitler as an example serves King‟s point; amoral socialchange only creates amoral systems of dependency, hate and eventually the general population‟sservitude. In a similar manner, to Alinsky‟s point, Iacocca (2007) hoped leaders with moralclarity would take charge during periods of great turmoil and change. This served another one ofKing‟s point about an informed populace made up of individuals proactively driving the focus ofsocial change; using agape, the individuals within a society would avoid periods of significantturmoil and dramatic change. As a result, King suggested measured proactive improvement isbetter than turmoil when trying to identify a competent leader. Consequently, it makes a greatleader to be unnecessary because the changes they impose during times of turmoil have anegative effect on leadership development and positive social change. As Van Breukelen et al.(2006) noted, any societal turmoil only forces individuals to focus on their lower level needs.With individuals focusing on their lower level needs, high quality relationships disintegrateforcing the great leader to gather power in to a central planning system. As a result, this becomesa predictable poliheuristic outcome (Keller & Yang, 2008). King would continue by suggestingany social change based on a great leader promoting ignorance, equalized outcome, segregatedsocial justice, and centralized planning as madness. The great leader‟s actions only encourage themost abhorrent of human emotions. As evidence, Alinsky designed his system of amoral socialchange to feed off the great leaders and systems that Iacocca promoted in his book. Three things that Iacocca (2007) brought forward that had similarities to King‟s (1986)writings included: leaders have to be accountable for their actions, leaders need to be morallysound, and they need to be mentors. These similarities served as the leadership developmentfoundation that drove King‟s approach to the Civil Rights movement in the 1950‟s and 1960‟s.King elaborated by noting that leaders need to educate, empower other potential leaders, and
146continue to receive education in order to prevent a positive social change movement fromfaltering into a social change event. As King repeated several times, it is the process and not theoutcome that profoundly establishes lasting positive social change. By energizing the apatheticand ill informed into becoming leaders of positive change, King hoped to create a force-multiplier effect built on love and a complete life of continual improvement. Furthermore, hebuilt his concept of positive social change on the holistic qualities of love, freedom, equalizedopportunity, learning, individual responsibility, the search for a calling, mentoring, andempowerment, which all support his version of leadership development. Furthermore, as Kouzesand Posner (2007) noted, it is a leaders responsibility to protect and improve those qualities forfuture generations of potential leaders. This belief is strikingly different from Alinsky (1989). Itwas Alinsky‟s belief that the organizer is the focal point of what he described as a centralizedentity, systematically endorsing and promoting hate that infringed upon the holistic rights ofindividuals. This profound difference in the concept of positive social change is why Kingbelieved social change could not be vindictive. Social change must be inclusive rather thanexclusive in order for a society to experience lasting and positive change. Positive social change as laid out by Alinsky (1989), Iacocca (2007), and King (1986) allhave some inclusive qualities. Alinsky and Iacocca‟s social change approach starts as aninclusive event; however, it becomes leader centric as soon as the manufactured emotional socialneed identifies a centrally engineered social change reaction. According to King, as soon as thedriving force of change becomes leader centric, it excludes groups of people. Furthermore, theproblem with an emotional reaction to social need, as Schröder and Scholl (2009) noted, emotionprovides the potential for manipulation, and the emotional actions carried out are often corrosiveto freedom while being intolerable to laws or morality. Conversely, King‟s approach is always
147about the inclusiveness of the individual especially as it pertains to interrelatedness. For socialchange to become effective, it must avoid the exclusive tendencies that include equalizedoutcome, segregated social justice, politically correct education, and centralized planning. Thesetendencies often lead to what King would define as tokenism and eventual systems of hate.Effective positive social change must have inclusive qualities that include agape, morality,individual responsibility, freedom, equalized opportunity, and the search for a calling. For asocial system to span generations, its design must include a system that protects the basicqualities that promote positive social change, which includes the transference of knowledgeconcerning the system, leadership development, and empowerment. For King, he believed thatlove, knowledge, the exchange of knowledge, and an individual having the freedom to act on thatknowledge are integral to his dream of a better society. Conclusion The application focused on the theories espoused by Alinsky, Iacocca, and King.However, empowering leadership traits provided by Kouzes and Posner (2007) as identified inthe breadth serve as the foundation for the entire KAM; consequently, they also serve as theintroductory POML concepts used in the analysis of each section. The analysis in the breadthexamined several primary leadership theories. The analysis used three of the six empoweringleadership traits as root concepts of leadership development. Moreover, these empoweringleadership traits help establish POML as a grounded concept. The empowering leadership traitsused as POML concepts were leadership development, morality, and the leader-followerrelationship. Research on leadership development continued in the depth, I used the remainingempowering leadership traits to analyze current literature. In this instance, the empoweringleadership traits used as POML concepts were the driving force for change, competition, and
148positive social change. From a POML perspective, these empowering leadership traits are action-oriented as well as empowering, making them necessary rudiments of leadership development.The POML concepts used in the breadth and depth also serve as section headers in theapplication. Furthermore, they provided direction in analyzing, identifying relevant POMLconcepts, and rule out divergent thoughts that were antithetical to POML development andpositive social change. This process enhanced the concept of POML to the point where it waspossible to synthesize the maxim: first, do no harm and then seek positive social change. Themaxim assumes that leadership development is the force-multiplier for positive social change.The application uses this maxim, and the compilation of analysis from the breadth and depth tocompare three iconic authors. Their differing approach to social change was the method used toselect Alinsky, King, and Iacocca. The application used the maxim and the opposing concepts espoused by Alinsky (1989),Iacocca (2007), and King (1986) to triangulate an enhanced version of POML theory promotingpositive social change. The triangulation process included analyzing the perspectives of Alinsky,Iacocca, and King concerning leadership development, morality, leader-follower relationship,their driving force for change, competition, and positive social change. The wisdom provided bythe authors described in this application reinforces the analysis that generated the maximdescribed in the conclusion of the depth. The maxim, first, do no harm, then seek positive socialchange captures the overarching premise used to define what an enhanced version of POMLbecomes since it incorporates King‟s substantive belief in humanity. Ironically, Alinsky‟s hate-based chaos tempered the consistency and resiliency of maxim and then Iacocca‟s belief inmentoring quenched it to obtain a force-multiplier effect. Most importantly, when combining theperspectives, this maxim evolves in to a Hippocratic Oath for empowering leaders. Especially as
149it incorporates King‟s desire to protect the future of all individuals from the ravages generated bythe Machiavellian power plays as described by Alinsky and Iacocca. In addition, it also promotesthe premise of mutual-cooperation that generates a moral understanding, which eventually opensthe door to brotherly love that King and the ancient Greeks described as agape. The promotion ofmutual-cooperation fosters an environment of social success encouraging individuals to becomeleaders, force-multipliers, and ambassadors of positive social change. The output generated fromthree iconic leaders strengthens and reinforces the maxim: first, do no harm, and then seekpositive social change. Doing no harm is a social preventive maintenance concept designed to ensure futuregenerations have the same basic freedoms available as Alinsky (1989) described when writingabout the first great American revolution. Unlike Alinsky‟s version, which includes concepts thatincorporate class warfare and systems of dependency that foment hate, King (1986) and Iacocca(2007) spoke of equalized opportunity. King was specific in stating equalized opportunity meantthe elimination or reduction in centralized regulations restricting free enterprise and anindividual‟s search for a calling. Centralized planning often produces, the inequities found insegregated social justice, systems of equalized output, and most importantly, systematicignorance often found in politically guided public education. Not surprisingly, these sameimpediments to opportunity became targets of opportunity for Alinsky. As King noted that ofthese impediments to development, overcoming systematic ignorance and an apathetic attitude ofvictimization through self-education is the most important aspect to sustaining freedom. To offset the manipulation fomented by proponents of Alinsky (1989), King (1986)believed learning had to include social survival skills such as a socially agreed upon language,writing, history, social self-regulation, math, science, and economics. Since the greatest teacher
150in life is the experience in doing, the student must understand and appreciate the bitterness offailure and the fruits of success. With an emphasis on communication and interrelatedness, thelearning must encourage and maximize an individual‟s creativity and curiosity. For King, doingno harm meant the leader works to ensure the individual has the freedom to make choices toimprove their living conditions; to learn as much as each indivdual desires; to teach when calledupon; and as important to lead by serving as an example. Both King and to a lesser extentIacocca (2007) believed that a moral understanding is the first step to freedom. Specifically,King thought the socially acceptable moral understanding aids individuals with similar beliefs toovercome obstacles and failures because it promotes mutual-cooperation as incorporated in theLaw of Reciprocity. From mutual-cooperation, King thought a group of individuals has thepotential and opportunity to develop open and honest communications along with agape.Consequently, the concept of doing no harm captures the Hippocratic Oaths requirement that aleader has to protect an individual‟s opportunity to develop in a free society and compel theleader to abstain from activities that may infringe or harm an individual‟s equal opportunity tosucceed. Whether the harm is purposeful or not, doing no harm constrains leaders from creatingcontradictory systems that Alinsky sought to exploit. In doing no harm, the leader is a practitioner of freedom in which the concept serves as aprerequisite in the evaluation of any social change activity. When building upon the preventivemaintenance survival skills, the leader becomes more than a practitioner of freedom they becomeits emissary. According to King (1986), a leader aids in the search for positive social change bymaximizing the concept of freedom using a set of proactive criteria to become a harbinger oflight. This criterion includes assisting individuals in becoming a self-leader; aid others in theirsearch for a calling; promote continual improvement through formal and experienced-based
151education; emphasize accountability and the moral equivalent to mutual-cooperation; maintainan open-minded approach to the interchangeable roles of mentor and mentee, and embraceinterrelatedness in order to avoid the pitfalls of life. First, as both Alinsky (1989) and King (1986) introduced in their writings, the individualmust develop into becoming responsible and self-sufficient which aids the individual to developas a self-leader. Humility enters this process as individual learns and appreciates theirinterrelatedness to others in society. This was similar to a theory authored by Houghton andYoho (2005); they thought a self-leader needed to have an appetite for learning and the desire tosearch out for a calling. A calling, as defined by King, is a professional meaning to life. It canonly exist in an environment where an individual is free to choose a socially acceptableprofessional career that makes them happiest. This freedom also allows the individual to makebest use of their opportunity to become the best at it. As the individual pursues their calling, theindividual has a greater potential to develop from an apathetic state of awareness to a self-leaderor even a leader. As this awareness and leadership ability develops, the individual embodiespositive social change. According to King, this personification of positive social change occurswhen the aspiring leader humbly inspires others to maximize their potential while emphasizingaccountability, freedom, and the moral understanding of right and wrong. Similar to Iacocca‟s(2007) belief in an aspiring leader needing to find a mentor and be a mentor, the aspiring leaderserves and learns from those that are in search of their own calling while striving to be leaders, aswell. The most important lessons a mentor and mentee must learn, according to King (1986), isthat if doing something wrong at a time of inconvenience for the sake of expediency becausedoing it right is more difficult, then they will be setting themselves up for systematic failure. In
152addition, if leaders, aspiring leaders, and self-leaders avoid the pitfalls in life that exploit theirlimited belief in themselves, then they will truly have access to their unlimited potential. Intaking the path least travelled, King believed that individuals would naturally follow a path oflight and become force-multipliers of positive social change. In becoming beacons of light whileserving their fellow humans, their actions will not only provide guidance as these POMLs leadby example; their actions automatically become socially proactive maintenance measures againstsocietal decline. Alinsky (1989) engineered social destruction by attacking interrelationship using a seriesof contradictory logic that emphasizes hate in the form of radicalized freedom. He believed “lifeis the story of contradictions” (p. 11) and the future organizer must seek them out and act uponthem since they were the steppingstones to victory. In essence, they provide a path to inducesocietal destruction rather than an opportunity to improve. Instead of taking the positive, heencouraged his followers to pursue the negative. However, the inversion of his perspectiveprovides profound insight into morally fundamental freedom and positive change. Life is a seriesof similarities and diverse thought; a leader must seek them out to aid others. As King (1986)believed, similarities include interrelatedness, morality, learning, and equalized opportunity asfound in freedom. Diverse thought offers all stakeholders involved in an exchange of ideas theopportunity to embrace teachable moments. These teachable moments provide opportunities forpositive social change. To contrast Alinsky, Iacocca (2007) provided an impassioned perspicacity in what wasnecessary to be a self-centered great leader. However, Iacocca did concede that the positiveleadership development qualities of interrelatedness and mentoring where necessary for acomplete life. This confirmed King‟s (1986) belief in setting up a foundation of holistic
153leadership development; he wanted to maximize the great potential that exists within everyperson in a society. He accomplished leadership development through win-win competitionwhere everyone can be a self-leader and eventually a POML. As King stressed, it is thedevelopment process that allows an individual to maximize their opportunity in order to becomean emissary of positive change. It was also King‟s belief that as an individual blazes a moral pathout of the infinite possibilities; the leader‟s responsibility is to ensure that the self-servingpettiness of those enamored with and the use of power do not impede other individuals‟ journeysof self-discovery. While serving as enablers of freedom, the leader strives to achieve a level ofpositive social change that inspires others to find the untapped potential that resides within them.„First, do no harm, and then seek positive social change‟ for POML is a maxim that promotes thebest in humanity as captured in King‟s dream. As laid out in this essay, positive social change and the concept of POML aresynonymous. It was King‟s (1986) belief that all types of leaders have the potential to bepractitioners of positive social change. All these leaders need to do is be morally humble in theirexpressions of agape, which requires action that exceeds the standard of being a Good Samaritan.In addition, it requires the responsible pursuit of a complete life. The spiritual aspect of thispursuit is simple; it is the pursuit of an understanding that allows an individual to overcome anyadversity with optimism and resilience. It is the belief that we, as a society, can use our diverseindividualism to overcome obstacles and that the greater good is our interrelated collectiveintelligence. Being a POML and being a practitioner of the maxim, first, do no harm, and thenseek positive social change; I hope to live positive social change every day of my life. The path Itake is difficult, because it is difficult to get individuals to believe in themselves and that theyhave enormous potential. It is the path least taken; a point made by Bass (1985) when he noted, it
154has been humanitys historical inclination concerning leadership where leaders order someindividuals to provide for others. I choose to help those to provide for themselves, so everyonecan have the opportunity to learn more about them self, our interrelatedness, and the universe welive. This is my path to positive social change as I develop as a leader in search of a complete lifewhile practicing the POML maxim. I will endeavor to persevere in becoming one of King‟sbeacons of light.
155 ReferencesAlinsky, S. D. (1989). Rules for radicals: A pragmatic primer for realistic radicals. New York, N.Y.: Vintage Books.Barbuto, Jr. J. E. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies; 11, 26-40. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100403.Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free Press.Bennis, W. & Ward-Biederman, P. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the One Minute Manager. New York, NY: William Morrow Co.Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & RowFairhurst, G. T. (2005). Reframing the art of framing: Problems and prospects for leadership. Leadership, 1, 165. doi: 10.1177/1742715005051857.Gorlorwulu, J. & Rahschulte, T. (2010). Organizational and leadership implications for transformational development. Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies, 27, 199 – 208. doi: 10.1177/0265378810369955.Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of „leadership‟. Human Relations, 58, 1467-1494. doi: 10.1177/0018726705061314.Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership behaviors and subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 2-14. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100202.
156Harms, P.D. & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 5-17. doi: 10.1177/1548051809350894.Hetland, H., Sandal, G. M., & Johnsen, T. B. (2008). Followers personality and leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 322- 331. doi: 10.1177/1548051808315550.Houghton, J. D. & Yoho, S. K. (2005). Toward a contingency model of leadership and psychological empowerment: When should self-leadership be encouraged? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 65-83. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100406.Iacocca, L. & Whitney, C. (2007). Where have all the leaders gone? New York, NY: Scribner.Ibbotson, P. (2008). The illusion of leadership: Directing creativity in business and the arts. Great Britain: Palgrave-Macmillan.Karriker, J. H. (2005). Cyclical group development and interaction-based leadership emergence in autonomous teams: An integrated model. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 54-64. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100405.Keller, J. W. & Yang, Y. E. (2008). Leadership style, decision context, and the poliheuristic theory of decision making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52, 687-712. doi: 10.1177/0022002708320889.King, M. L. (1986). A testament of hope: The essential writings and speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York, NY: Harper Collins.King, M. L. (1988). The measure of a man. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
157Muczyk, J. P. & Holt, D. T. (2008). Toward a cultural contingency model of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 277-286. doi: 10.1177/1548051808315551.Scandura, T. A. & Pellegrini, E. K. (2008). Trust and leader member exchange: A closer look at relational vulnerability. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 101-110. doi: 10.1177/1548051808320986.Schröder, T. & Scholl, W. (2009). Affective dynamics of leadership: An experimental test of affect control theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72 ( 2), 180-197.Van Breukelen, W., Schyns, B., and Le Blanc, P. (2006). Leader-member exchange theory and research: Accomplishments and future challenges. Leadership, 2, 295-316. doi: 10.1177/1742715006066023.Vecchio, R. P., Bullis, R. C., & Brazil, D. M. (2006). The utility of situational leadership theory: A replication in a military setting. Small Group Research, 37, 407-424. doi: 10.1177/1046496406291560.