Organizational Leader Definitions

Organizational Leader: Defining a Leader 1
Organizational Leader: Defining a Leader
Michael Vega
Brandman University
Author Note
Michael Vega, Operations Manager, Golden State Foods, City of Industry
Manufacturing, California.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael Vega, Liquid
Products Manufacturing, Golden State Foods, City of Industry, California 90601.
Contact: MVega@GoldenStateFoods.com

Abstract
This paper discusses the definitions, theories, principles, and practices of leadership applied by
organizational leaders. Through review of the writings and research of various authors and experts in the
field of organizational leadership critical examination of the study of leadership, the paper will provide
the author’s philosophy, personal definition, and understanding of leadership. Pertaining to personal
experience, work, and the world.
Keywords: Organizational Leadership, Management, Organizational Development, Transformational
Leadership, Servant Leadership, Authentic Leadership, Mission Statement, Vision Statement, Core
Values, Systems Perspective, Organizational Behavior Perspective, Organizational Development
Perspective.

Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………. 2
Chapter I: Thoughts on Leadership……..………………...………………………. 5
Introduction………………………………………………...………………… 5
Definition…………………………………………………………………….. 6
Management and Leadership…………………….……………………………9
What Leaders Do……………………….…………………………...……….. 11
Conclusion………………………………...…………………………….…… 15
Chapter II: Leadership Theory…………………………………….……...………. 16
Transformational Leadership……………………....……………..………….. 17
Servant Leadership…………………………………….……..….…....……… 19
Authentic Leadership…………………………………………....…………… 23
Blake and Mouton’s Leadership Grid………………………………………... 24
Conclusion……………………………………………...…….…………….... 27
Chapter III: Self as Leader…………………………………….…………...…….... 29
Core Values…………………………………………….......……………...…. 30
Ethical Framework………………………………...…………….…………… 32
Organizational Change Framework…………………………….……………. 34
Bridges Transitions…………………………………………………………... 39
Self Assessment………………………………………………………............ 43
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………… 45
Chapter IV: Leadership in Context……………………………………………….. 47

Description of Situation…………………………………………………....… 47
Analysis of Situation………………………………………………………… 48
System Perspective…………………………………………………... 48
Organizational Behavior…………………………………………...… 49
Organizational Development Perspective…………………….…….... 54
Conclusion………………………………………………………….....…...… 62
Chapter V: Final Thoughts…………………………………………………….…... 63
Essence or Major Cornerstones………………………………………….....… 63
Evolution of Thinking………………………………………………………... 65
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………. 67
References…………………………………………………………………………..... 69

Organizational Leader: Defining a Leader
Chapter 1: Thoughts on Leadership
Introduction
Life shatters people and in the aftermath many are stronger where once weak. However, the
ones who refuse to fall apart, life kills. Life shatters the good and the gentle and the brave with
indifference. If a soul is none of the latter, it can be confident life will shatter it as well, to the exception
of being in no rush to do so (Hemingway, 1929). Shortly after adolescence many people learn the
difficulties, challenges, and adversities, which come while on this Earth. For an even less fortunate few,
this discovery comes at an even younger age as a child. Hemingway, (1929) eloquently stated its is those
few: the good, the gentle, and the brave that emerge to guide others through what at times can be the
murky darkness or the blinding brightness known as life.
It is a quality that is a living-breathing organism to which forms into the mold or challenge it is
poured into. The execution is equally as fluid, capable like water to take on many forms and methods. Its
very mystery can be its strength, as others gaze in respect and admiration of those who hold such a talent
or skill. This craft whether born with it, develop through trial and error, or mentorship has the greatest
power on the face of the Earth. It holds the power to change the world. Those who possess it can achieve
the unthinkable, revolutionize an entire culture, commit atrocious evils, and stop tyranny and uplift a
people. It is these words that define the essence of leadership, its theories, traits, ethical framework, and
development; which provide the foundation and framework for an individual to strengthen and guide a
group through a given task, shared vision, or desired future state.
An organization is defined as a preplanned grouping of individuals working to achieve a
common goal. Senge, (2006) defines this common goal as effort put forth towards a shared vision by a
group of individuals. Shared vision is the solution to the query of “what do we want to create?” Once a

shared vision is linked within an organization in which each member holds a visualization of the
existence of this vision a bond is created. It is in this bond through which an organization seeks to create
and maintain as a shared vision. Leadership is the method of application of an organization to create a
foundation and framework to drive a group toward this shared vision or desired future state. Going
forward in this discussion of leadership, shared vision or desired future state will describe the purpose or
end state goal for understanding leadership.
In addition leadership has profound impact on the individual, the group, and the society in which
it takes action. Evaluation of leadership requires measurement. Going forward evaluating topics of
discussion and evaluating theories, principles, and practices with a litmus test of greatest application.
The “best test” is challenging the idea or individual through evaluation of the impact of the follower.
Evaluating whether the follower achieves a greater quality of life coupled with improved motivation
(Greenleaf, 1991). For an organization defining leadership is the beginning stage of outlining ethical
framework, organizational behavior, and organizational development. It is the assessment and
measurement of leadership that allows organizations to drive change and strengthen leadership within
the confines of the establishment.
Defining Leadership
In order to complete a given task an individual needs tools; with these tools one must then
understand how to properly use these tools to successfully complete a given task. While one could use a
screwdriver to complete the task of a hammer, it is the comprehension of the defining purpose of a tool
that makes a carpenter efficient and successful. How then does one, who desires to lead, unlock the
mystery that is leadership and clearly outline its very existence? It is not a tangible trait, many would
add it is a perishable skill when not used or not challenged on a regular basis. To classify it as perishable
but calling it a skill, leadership then becomes something anyone can obtain and develop. On the other

hand, a former Marine officer might challenge the thought as he recalls many officer candidates who
were dropped for their lack of leadership abilities; this within an organization that has mastered
leadership in combat and military organization. To understand leadership one must understand the
environment and execution in which leadership functions. Acknowledging the fact that a successful
leader must have depth and the ability to exercise many different tools at any given moment to achieve
an overarching goal of an organization while connecting with each member of the group. The latter must
be done in order to gain buy-in for a shared vision, ensuring welfare of the group, and maintaining trust
and respect or good order and discipline depending on the environment and structure of a given group or
organization.
Leadership then is the ability, not talent or skill, to influence and motivate a group of followers
to maintain a unified vision toward a defined objective while maintaining morale and exude the
standard(s) of an established foundation of ethics and values within an organization. Jackson, (2006)
discusses leadership as an art and a science, impacting individual’s actions in order to complete a given
task. Furthermore leadership is the lifeblood of an organization to which successful leaders do so
through the view of their followers.
The view then of leadership, whether skill vs. talent or art and science still yields the same
requirement of understanding through definition of leadership. In the United States, society has coined
the term “leader” to be synonymous with that of an executive or manager (Kotter, 2013). While
individuals in these positions are in positions of power, privilege, and responsibility it does not directly
establish him or her as a leader. To this context of defining a leader a position of hierarchy, while it
brings entitlement and power, does not hail an individual with the definition of being a leader (Senge,
2006). Further arguing, individuals within an organization further down the chain of management and

executives in fact do hold a power for change. Thus defining a leader as an individual not necessarily of
power or privilege, rather an individual who has the capacity to compel others toward change.
The ability to drive change while understanding and connecting with the group of followers who
have been bought into a shared vision or desired future state of change narrows the scope of the
definition of leadership. To then define leadership including the latter of the definition of connecting
with followers can best be understood through the theory of servant leadership. Servant leadership states
a leader is an individual who desires to serve first rather than lead first. In turn being a leader is not a
position of power or privilege, instead it is a responsibility to those you serve (Greenleaf, 1991).
Through organizational principle the purpose of a leader is to develop, drive change, and
transform an organization through connecting and understanding the people who follow him or her.
This ability to lead raises the argument that a leader is either born as a leader or a leader can be made.
Though by this definition both hold true when an individual exudes the capacity to connect with his or
her followers. It is not the traits or principles that define and outline a leader. It is the foundation of
character that allows an individual to be or become a successful leader. It is the qualities of the
individual that must emerge or be brought to life, whether through the individual’s own initiative or
through mentorship. John Hoffman, a biographer of Lieutenant General Chesty B. Puller, discusses the
character traits outlined by General Puller that yields a successful leader. These character traits are self-
confidence founded on expertise, initiative, commitment, identity to a cause and recognition of
responsibility (Hoffman, 2001). While General Puller was the most highly decorated and combat
hardened Marine in history, these qualities he stated can be found even in other leadership roles. It can
be rationalized a young child no more than the age of 11 or 12 who’s parents tragically die and now
must be the head of the household in order to raise his or her younger siblings could be thrust into a
leadership role by necessity and display these leadership strengths. The same adage could go for a young

manager within an organization that, while highly talented, lacks business experience and savvy, though
upper executives elevate his or her role and responsibilities due to the needs of the corporation.
Regardless of reason an individual whether born or developed can become a leader. A leader is
an individual who displays the competency and ability, not talent or skill, to influence and motivate a
group of followers to maintain a unified vision toward a defined objective while maintaining morale and
exude the standard(s) of an established foundation of ethics and values within an organization. Kotter,
(2013) states leadership produces vision, while management oversees a process, quality, and services
rendered. The common misconception of leadership is a leader is a manager in turn a manager is a
leader. This sentiment transitions to the discussion of management vs. leadership.
Management and Leadership
A manager is someone who is a figurehead of a group or organization, oversees an area,
delegates tasks, or monitors a group of people. To oversee something and hold accountability for
achieving a standard does not define a leader. A manager can task a group of people with no knowledge
or experience in that given field. Kotter, (1996) discusses management as comprehending and putting
into action the process of planning, budgeting, staffing, and problem solving. While a manager within
the hierarchy of an organization may oversee others he or she can be misconstrued as a leader; key roles
of a manager fall under planning and organizational structure. The divide of management and leadership
on an emotional context to problem solving varies as well. Zaleznik, (2004) discusses managers seek
process and control, with a desire to instantly solve issues that arise. In contrast leaders embrace
instability and seek for complete comprehension of issues before acting to drive a desired change.
Henry Mintzberg, a renowned author in the field of business management defined managerial roles that
he broke into three segments: Interpersonal, Informational, and Decisional. Within these three segments
Mintzberg defines the role a manager plays within a given organization (Mintzberg, 1973).

Mintzberg, (1973) discusses the interpersonal role of a manager as a figurehead, leader, and
liaison, transition a focus specifically on leader, the role of an individual is one of being a motivator and
provider of guidance. While this is to be considered a leadership trait, an individual can continue to
manage with the absence of this action. Informational is defined as the action of monitoring, passing on
information, and being a spokesperson of an organization. Decisional, which exhibits entrepreneur,
disturbance handler, resource allocator, and arbitrator are representative of roles not requiring leadership
(Mintzberg, 1973). This taken into consideration then managers have the capacity to conduct themselves
in such a manor in which they are not a leader.
The misconception of a manager being a leader is outlined as a misunderstanding of the role.
Kotter, (2013) identifies a few common misconceptions of a manager vs. a leader. Individuals use the
term manager and leader interchangeably, missing the vital variance of the two functions. Individuals
coin the term leader in reference to individuals in a position of power or privilege. Nayar, (2013)
discusses the variance between managing and leading is counting vs. creating. A manager is one who
counts gains, while a leader is one who creates gains. In addition managers develop a network of power,
while leaders develop a network of influence (Nayar, 2013). Finally, individuals observe leadership as
an ability to charm or attract. The error of leadership vs. management is not that a manager fails if he or
she is not a leader. A manager can be highly valuable to an organization and successful without being a
leader. The error occurs in comingling the two terms to be synonymous with one another.
Leadership as a manager is further defined by the interaction a manager has with his or her
subordinates. It is the manager’s capacity to connect with followers on a professional and personal level
in which the shift from manager to leader occurs. Kotter, (1996) states leadership within an organization
is founded on vision, gaining followers buy-in, empowering followers, and driving change. Inspiring
people to come together inside of work and in life is the mark of a leader. To have a profound enough

impact on an employee that when he or she leaves the worksite the choices made in his or her personal
life now reflect the creed and values of an organization. It’s a leader who inspires people to do the right
thing when in the absence of leadership. The strength of a strong leader is not his or her ability to
accomplish a task while present and engaged with the group, rather to train and develop a group around
a moral and ethical code toward a shared vision or desired future state for overall organizational
accomplishment.
What Leaders Do
Ultimately a leader is also a manager, while a manager may not be a leader. As discussed leaders
have the capacity to inspire and provoke a shared vision or desired future state within a given
organization or task. The two roles while separate should interact fluidly throughout the overall process
of accomplishing a goal. An effective leader within an organization has the capacity to encompass both
a manager and a leader mentality. In order to accomplish this, a leader must consider his group and have
them apply specific skill sets each individual has and stay the course to accomplish this common goal.
Leadership is founded on behavior rather than qualities an individual has to oversee a group of
individuals or assigned task (Kotter, 2013). While leadership’s objectives are to instill a vision and
maintain motivation toward a shared vision or desired future state, it is imperative to the organization to
be able to accomplish both tasks of leadership and management. Two individuals can, as a
conglomerate, manage and lead a situation. However, a successful organization will seek out individuals
and develop their abilities to be both a leader and a manager. While managing and its roles and
responsibilities can be found within a job description, it is the challenge of the organization to define
what a leader does.
Motivation. One recognizes that the definition of a leader as the ability, not talent or skill, to
influence and motivate a group of followers to maintain a unified vision toward a defined objective

while maintaining morale and exuding the standard(s) of an established foundation of ethics and values
within an organization. While this is a specific definition of leadership, if an individual desired to purse
leadership in action a greater understanding of each component of the definition would prove beneficial.
Leadership, having been established in an action context, requires an individual to understand leading in
a behavioral context.
Leadership through influence is a leader’s ability to bring a group of individuals and unit into a
unified organization striving toward a shared vision. Rost, (1993) discusses a manager is an individual
who maintains a position of authority over a subordinate in order to coordinate actions toward providing
a good or service for a customer. In contrast to Rost’s definition of a manager, a leader’s focus falls
more on the followers and on the responsibility and loyalty to those who follow. It is the innate ability of
an individual to connect with their followers through actions such as caring, listening, providing vision,
motivating, showing compassion, and providing a sense of ownership to a follower that defines
leadership influence in the process of what a leader does (Greenleaf, 1991).
Leadership in this context is the actions of a leader to inspire and provide hope to those who
follow. Motivation, within this defined leadership responsibility, is the lifeline for the success an
organization seeks. In the absence of motivation productivity, quality, safety, and cohesion can be
diminished or lost. The very essence of motivation as a leader is the actions of providing a desire to
succeed at a given task or responsibility while improving the overall quality of life of the individual and
group as a whole (Senge, 1996). The act of motivating can come in various forms such as avenues of
reward, praise, punishment, and reprimand. Defining what leaders do via the servant leadership theory
would yield a leader whose central focus is for the greater welfare of his or her followers through
selfless actions of service to the follower and organization. Greenleaf, (1991) discusses motivation of
followers as an act of empowerment of the individual while developing strong bonds of trust and respect

between the leader and follower is the essence of servant leadership. It should be noted, however, that
leadership in motivation could be acted out in negative forms of punishment or reprimand for failure to
succeed. In respect to servant leadership or negative reinforcement motivation is an action of what
leaders do.
Ethics and values. Leadership ethics and values is the moral standard in which a leader holds
him or herself and those he or she leads accountable in the cultural character that a given organization
operates. Throughout history and within given geographical locations around the world societies have
varying definitions of what is and is not ethically acceptable. As a result ethics and values change
depending on the time period and cultural values of a given society. Universal to these barriers are basic
building blocks for any organization to define what a leader does ethically and to choose how the leader
within an organization will conduct him- or herself. Kurchner-Hawkins, and Miller, (2006) discuss how
these building blocks are charted with five segments focusing on:
 Serving self vs. Serving vision
 Power vs. Service
 Controlling vs. Achieving
 Competing vs. Collaborating
 Works standards/no ethical standards vs. Work standards/ethical standards
Through out these five segments an organization then defines leadership ethics and values on a
sliding scale from negative to positive, the first of each being a negative leadership ethics trait and the
latter being a positive leadership ethics trait. Pertaining to ethics and values, leaders evaluate their
current organization from their own cultural impact gained throughout his or her development of
character from life experiences. These established character traits that become the foundation of ethics
and values to enable the leader to set the example through action and words, re-enforce standards and

polices, and maintain order and discipline. From such life experience that outlines a leaders character
and ethics are so deeply rooted that it becomes the identity of the leader and in part defines who the
individual is as a person (Colby & Damon, 1995). In consideration for ethics and values, what leaders do
is establish the foundation and maintain the ethical framework for ethics within an organization.
Leadership in action. The action of what a leader does or fails to do is a result of the
responsibility of driving an organization toward a shared vision or desired future state. What leaders do
then is not a question rather an action. Leaders put into action influence, motivation, and ethics and
values required for an organization to sustain or drive toward a shared vision or desired future state. The
study of organizational leadership discusses various theories, principles, and practices. While the study
of leadership can have a profound impact on any organization, it is the capacity of the leader to put these
teachings into action. Leaders in action are the decision makers of an organization who guide followers
to a shared desired result. In addition leadership in action requires an individual to be a teacher or coach
to followers responsible for followers leadership development. Rost, (1993) discusses a leader has
ownership for the responsible development of followers in doctrinal and practical growth of followers
within a business organization. Such development must also remain within the confines of an
organization’s established business ethical framework and values.
Leadership in action brings to life an organization and its followers through various methods; a
key method or avenue of leadership in action is James Burns’s theory of transformational leadership.
Burns, (2003) discusses the application of transformational leadership as capturing the essence of and
putting into action the vision of an individual’s pursuit of happiness. Though the idea of happiness is not
enough to engage an organization to achieve a shared vision or desired future state, rather it is the
process of the pursuit that yields the end state result. From Burns established theory of transformational
leadership, Bernard Bass supported Burn’s work through defining measurable effects transformational

leadership has on an organization’s overall performance. Bass, and Riggio, (2006) discusses the leaders
ability to exude charisma or charm inspires and puts into action followers to imitate displayed actions by
a leader. It is through leaders actions of confidence, character, and resolve that empower followers while
also gaining insight to the follower resulting in driven change toward a shared vision (Bass, & Riggio,
2006). A leader in action in the context of transformational leadership is measurable through multifactor
leadership questionnaire (MLQ), which was developed by Bass. In context to action, what leaders do is
empower, guide, instill confidence, mentor, and measure desired change and development toward a
shared vision or desired future state.
Conclusion
A focus on defining leadership results in a deeper understanding of the actions a leader takes
within a given organization. It is the ability, not talent or skill, to influence and motivate a group of
followers to maintain a unified vision toward a defined objective while maintaining morale and exuding
the standard(s) of an established foundation of ethics and values within an organization in which
leadership is defined. Leadership then is not an esoteric mystery that only a privileged few through
talent or skill obtain. An individual may be born with natural leadership characteristics or through
mentorship and development become a leader. Regardless of the foundation in which a leader is
established, leadership at its core is the action one takes regardless of a position of power or privilege.
The comprehension of the role and responsibilities of a manager allows an individual to gain greater
understanding of how to marry to the role of a manager the actions of a leader. While a manager is a
figurehead for a group or organization, oversees an area, delegates tasks, or monitors a group of people;
intertwined in management lies leadership (Kotter, 1996). The result is a manager who in addition leads.
Leaders in action execute guidance to a shared vision through influence, motivation, and ethics
and values. While all managers by position or assignment oversee and delegate tasks to ensure a quality

service is provided (Mintzberg, 1973). As a result not all managers are leader and in contrast not all
leaders are managers. In the absence of power, privilege, and/or responsibility individuals still rise as
leaders. Senge, (2006) discusses top down leadership will have minimal impact in driving change due to
lacking the establishment of genuine commitment at all levels of an organization. In this form
leadership is acted upon in the forms of listening and empowering followers out of respect and
recognizing the source of his or her leadership is in the follower (O’Toole, 1996). Furthermore a leader
in action has the capacity to mentor and develop him- or herself and followers within a given
organization to drive measureable change. The result is an individual, regardless of position or power,
who has a profound impact on a collective group within an organization to provoke influence, provide
motivation, and drive change toward a shared vision.
Chapter 2: Leadership Theory
As initially introduced leadership is fluid and takes on the form of the mold or challenge it is
operating within. As a result understanding leadership theories facilitates the leaders ability to apply
multiple practices to achieve a desired goal or operational culture. Johnson, (2012) explains how
normative leadership theories aid a leader in identifying the responsibility or approach that should be
implemented to achieve a shared vision or desired future state while also identifying with his or her
followers and ensuring their needs are meet. In this context, the leader evaluates situations through
analysis of ethical and moral dilemmas. This enables the leader to guide followers through the
challenge, remaining ethically sound and with increased motivation. The end state goal for applied
leadership theory is not to solely be a manager of a task or challenge, rather to lead followers and
develop a sense of social empowerment toward a shared vision or desired future state.

Transformational Leadership
Identified as a leadership theory, which emerged from the United States government by a former
presidential advisor, James MacGregor Burns, Transformational Leadership theory is a
multidimensional outline, which clearly states guidance for methods to reward and manage through set
standards. The vision of this leadership method is for the leader to instill ethics and values to motivate
the followers of an organization (Burns, 2003). Thus the leader inspires followers by his or her own
morals and character to aspire for the further development individually, as a member of an organization,
and community or society as a whole. Transformational leadership aims to address deeper intangible
needs of followers. The inverse of this theory is transactional leadership, in which leaders exchange
performance with monetary rewards. The focus here is in the tangible recognition for performance.
Idealized influence. Within the theory of transformational leadership a leader is the standard in
which followers aspire to become (Bass, & Riggio, 2006). Through selfless acts, equality in
responsibility of work, and being the essence of an organization’s established morals and values. Burns,
(2003) discusses idealized influence within the context of transformational leadership as the standard to
which all others should emulate to become. It is a leaders ability in action to establish confidence of
completing a given task to achieve a shared vision or desired future state of an organization.
Individualized consideration. A subtext to transformational leadership in which a leader takes
on the form of a teacher, in turn followers are educated and developed in the art or craft required by the
organization (Burns, 2003). Individualized consideration is on an intimate level of connecting between
the leader and the follower where the leader specifically develops training and improvement plans
specific to the individual follower.
Inspirational motivation. Providing purpose for any follower allows for increased motivation.
Donovan Campbell, a former Marine Officer expresses inspirational motivation in his novel Joke One:

A Marine Platoon’s Story of Courage, Leadership, and Brotherhood. Campbell, (2009) discusses the
profound impact on how much his followers would withstand when explained the “why” of a situation.
It is displaying confidence and exuding hope in order to guide an organization of followers to a shared
vision or desired future state. As a vital component to transformational leadership, it is a segment in
which the leader instills a desire for self-fulfillment into his or her followers (Burns, 2003).
Additionally, forms of motivation in context to transformational leadership fall under the realm of
rewarding followers, though not in the form of monetary, benefits or tangible reward. This latter form of
reward represents transactional leadership, which is founded on leading and motivating followers
through exchange as stated by (Johnson, 2012).
Intellectual stimulation. Transformational leadership contains within it the leaders capacity to
engage followers to creative thinking. Intellectual stimulation defines the leaders action of developing
followers to “think outside the box” in free and open format discussion and forums free of negative
repercussion and criticism. Burns, (2003) discusses how in this respect individualized consideration
allows for open communication between a leader and his or her followers in order to support creative
thinking and specialized skills or knowledge of an individual follower to aid an organization in
achieving a shared vision or desired future state.
Revisiting the argument of transformational and transactional leadership, it should be noted that
a leader is either transformational or transactional in nature; however he or she could not be both (Burns,
2003). In spite of this theory it has been found that some of the most successful leaders have the ability
to balance between both transformational and transactional execution in his or her leadership style
(Johnson, 2012). Noting transactional leadership as a subset to the topic of transformational leader
provides insight to the balance required when motivating followers and holding followers accountable.
One style does not over power the other, rather it concept complements the other. Transformational

leadership is the moral and ethical cornerstone to a balanced approach of transformational and
transactional leader, as well as when it stands alone as a leadership style. As a result the caution in
executing a transformational leadership style, due to its moral and ethical foundation, is the concern of a
leader using this style in action to achieve unethical results (Bass, & Steidlmeier 1999). Ultimately the
established ethical and moral values of a leader will decide the positive or negative yield of
transformational leadership in action.
Servant Leadership
It is an unspoken code of all Marine Leaders, whether enlisted or officer, to always ensure that
the most junior Marine goes first when it comes to hygiene, meals, and sleep. This is due to the fact that
the most junior Marine always goes first into the fight and typically is put in the most strenuous and
dangerous of work environments during a mission. This is the essence of Servant Leadership. To most
leaders there comes a difficult situation where those who follow must be put through hardship. Nathanial
Fick, author of One Bullet Away and former Marine Officer, captures the essence of servant leadership
in the form of being a military leader. Fick, (2005) discusses how exceptional Marine commanders, are
able to kill or destroy what he or she holds most dear, his or her Marines. It is this reality, which calls for
leadership to put their followers first. In order to accomplish this level of trust and respect servant
leadership is a key leadership theory.
Robert Greenleaf, an expert in the field of management, developed the formalized theory of
servant leadership. His theory is established on the foundation of a core concept in which a leader places
others before self (Greenleaf, 1991). Supporting this concept are key characteristics upon which leaders
act in order to conduct him or her in a servant leader facet. Greenleaf, (1991) identifies and provides a
brief synopsis of each concept that encompasses servant leadership.

 Listening: The leaders ability to actively receive feedback and input from followers in
order to provide inspiration, drives change, and develops follower’s sense of
empowerment.
 Empathy: The display of humility and social awareness by the leader to have genuine
compassion to the needs and wants of his or her followers. It is the capacity for a leader
to connect with followers in such away to address the human factors of the individual
within an organization.
 Awareness: the ability of a leader to be in touch with his or herself as well as their
followers. The comprehending of when to push or reprimand and when to pull back or
reward followers dependent on the situation and circumstance presented within a given
task or challenge. A servant leader is one who can see when loss or failure creates a
profound negative impact on an individual or organization as a whole. From this
comprehension a servant leader then takes inventory of the current state of moral and
provides strength and direction to return lost confidence and moral to an individual or
organization.
 Healing: The desire of a leader to connect to followers in such a manner to provide a
sense of self and wholeness in spite of setbacks or failure.
 Persuasion: The act of gaining buy-in from followers in which the leader takes
inventory of feedback and sells followers on the way ahead plan or change in process. A
key factor to persuasion in servant leadership is the leaders capacity to drive change
without the use of power or privilege of his or her position.

 Conceptualization: A leader’s ability to think on an operational, tactical, and strategic
level, in order to drive an organization into planned change. Additionally, connecting
with followers on daily tasks while having vision of long-term goals.
 Foresight: Understanding possible obstacles and preventing unforeseen setbacks,
through recognition of past actions, current climate of operations, and repercussions of
decisions made in the present. It is the leader’s actions and ability to comprehend where
the organization or similar organizations succeeded and/or failed in the past. In
conjunction being able to fully understand the vision and way ahead to achieve a shared
vision or desired future state of an organization.
 Stewardship: The essence of servant leadership, stewardship is the action of ensuring
trust, respect, and ethical foundations of an organization are maintained while sustaining
a central focus of serving others and doing what is best for the organization rather than
what is best for self.
 Growth and Development of Followers: The committed involvement of a leader to
teach and mentor followers. It is the act of challenging followers to correct or turn their
weaknesses into strengths, grow into leader roles and responsibilities, and challenge
followers to think independently within present guidelines of an organization. The
ultimate goal for a servant leader, in context to growth and development of followers, is
to create an organization in which the absence of key leadership or specialized
individuals will not diminish the organizations ability to move forward in predetermined
planning to achieve a shared vision or desired future state.
 Building Community: The act of a leader to develop a connection within an
organization in which followers feel and embrace a sense of purpose and belonging.

Eliminating the sense of individualism or a follower being an outsider to the group. It is
a deep connection in which all members of the organization have a sense of security,
value, and purpose.
Servant leadership in context is the leader who is not self-serving or desiring to obtain more
power or privilege through promotion or position (Greenleaf, 1991). It is the leader whose focus is on
the organization and the greater good of the individuals within the organization that drives shared vision
and desired change. In some context a servant leader is a follower thrust into a leadership role by their
peers as a result of his or her actions and ability to put others first while gaining trust and respect. In
other instances it is an individual who holds a personal vision with a high level of passion, not seeking
leadership, in which others find admiration in the individual or the cause and choose to support the
vision (Greenleaf, 1991).
There are numerous of examples of this throughout human history; one example is Martin Luther
King Jr. during the 1960’s civil rights movement. King, a pastor’s son, began as a leader of a small
congregation. Throughout the 1950s he saw and experienced inequality in the United States. It was
during this time King developed a vision of a world in which all people held the same rights. In 1963,
King delivered, his historically famous speech, now known as the “I have a dream” speech. His words
spread throughout the United States and the world, empowering many regardless of race, sex, or creed to
seek equality. In 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. was award the Nobel Peace Prize for his civil rights
movement through non-violence (Garrow, 1999). While King did not enter the civil rights movement
with a vision of being an empowered and privilege leader, he became a leader to many. His legacy still
echoes to this day for many and is a prime example of a servant leader. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his
life for his vision and for others by refusing to discontinue his public speaking appearances despite of
the numerous death threats. Although assassinated in 1968, King’s vision lives on to this day.

Authentic Leadership
Authentic leadership is the reflection of the morals and values of both the organization and the
leader. Johnson, (2012) discusses authenticity in leadership is the leader who has an in depth connection
of how he or she thinks, acts, and is observed by followers in context of his or her personal values and
character. The successful execution of authentic leadership falls on the morals and values of the leader.
This form of leadership cannot be faked and must be transparent as the follower will see through any
falsehood and as a result lose trust and respect for the leader. The leader must have a full understanding
of the organization, the follower(s), and themselves with an outlook that reflects the idea of treat those
around one self as you would like to be treated.
Known theorists in the field of authentic leadership, Fred Luthans and Bruce Avolio, convey
authentic leadership as a positive avenue to leadership development (Luthans, & Avolio, 2009). The
focus becomes strengthening followers rather than focus on the failures and shortcomings a follower
provides to the leader and organization as a whole. It is the leader who understanding personal beliefs
and displays the capacity to act on these beliefs in a genuine manor in order to drive change, motivate
followers, and accomplish shared vision or a desired future state. Intertwined in these beliefs is the
leaders comprehension of the moral and ethical responsibility as a leader to instill motivation and
personal drive to achieve within ones self and those that follow.
Authentic leadership theory applied is advantageous to the leaders and organization as a whole
due to the transparent nature of this form of leadership. Followers embrace a feeling of trust and
equality, which allows the follower to provide input and feedback to the leader. Johnson, (2012)
discusses that authentic leadership provides avenues for the leader to receive follower perspective to
gain a great sense of self coupled with the reassurance of followers in leadership’s ability to make sound
decisions regardless of difficulty or popularity within the organization. Establishing a level of trust and

respect through genuine compassion, perspective, and communication increase overall productivity of
the organization as a result of all members of an organization not focusing on finding the falsehood or
fearing he or she may be left out on key information of future decisions of organizational structure.
In consideration of the multitude of leadership theories, authentic leadership’s cornerstone focus
lies within the human psyche reaching into the core of an individual’s morals, values, ethics, and self-
awareness. It is a transformational process of leadership in which leaders and followers unite to
construct a positive reality for a future in which all involved desire to see come to fruition (Avolio, &
Gardner, 2005). Authentic leadership yields positive results through various avenues, with the
establishment of trust and respect between the leader and follower. This yields positive displays that act
out in the form of followers emulating leadership, followers’ sense of empowerment to make ethical
decisions, and the establishment of self-competency felt within each individual throughout an
organization (Johnson, 2012).
Blake and Mouton’s Leadership Grid
While transformational, servant, and authentic leadership theories identify how a leader is to
conduct him-or herself toward guiding followers toward a shared vision or desired future state; it is
Blake and Mouton’s leadership grid that identifies key areas for application of leadership theories in
relation to concern for people vs. concern for productivity (Blake, & Moulton, 1964). Developed in the
early 1960s by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, both management theorists, the grid identifies various
shades of leadership vs. management styles. This grid-empowers a leader to self assess as well as
identify key leadership and management traits within his or her followership of a given organization.
Displayed below is Blake and Mouton’s leadership grid by (Warner, 2011).

Image retrieved from: http://laboratory-manager.advanceweb.com/columns/leadership-outlook/your-leadership-style.aspx
Further analysis of the Blake and Mouton’s leadership grid displays four quadrants each
representative of the relationship of an individuals balance for concern of people vs. productivity
(Warner, 2011). At the center of the four quadrants is a balance point identified as middle of the road.
Middle of the road is represents an equilibrium of concern for followers’ welfare and happiness and
overall productivity, it should not be confused with a utopian end state, rather identifying the
intersection of balance in relationship of two variables being evaluated. Each quadrant is indicative of
leadership and followers’ performance in relation to what is currently identified as most valued by an

organization. Blake, and Moulton, (1964) identify each quadrant within the leadership grid with specific
titles that represent a word play synopsis of the leadership environment within an organization that falls
within its respective sector, as further outlined below.
Country club. Representative of a high concern for people and quality of life with a low
relative concern for overall productivity, within this quadrant leaders and managers put individual needs
before results. This can also be identified as making comfort base decisions, rather than doing what is
best for the organization for growth and sustainable productivity. Individuals within this sector of the
leadership grid focus on what is best for his or her self.
Impoverish. Located below the country club quadrant and adjacent to left of produce of perish,
this quadrant is representative of a leader or manager acting with little regard to the welfare of his or her
followers coupled with minimal concern for overall productivity. Operating in this quadrant is
representative of a leader or manager who is attempting to get through an assigned task with minimal
responsibility or concern for the impact on the greater good of the organization.
Team leader. The display of a high level of concern for people and productivity, leadership
within this sector is representative of the essence of both leader and manager. He or she is capable of
connecting, empowering, and gaining a high level of trust from followers while producing maximum
results. It is the action of leadership yielding positive results in both personnel welfare and operational
efficiency.
Produce or perish. Found in the lower right of the leadership grid, produce of perish is
representative of a leader or manager whos sole focus is on overall productivity with little concern for
the welfare of his or her followers. Within this quadrant short term gains can occur, with the risk of
losing long-term sustainability of shared vision or desired future state. This is the result of leadership
solely focusing on the needs of an organization with disregard to followers needs.

Blake and Mouton’s leadership grid’s purpose is to identity leadership styles at work, regardless
if the leadership style is transformational, servant, or authentic in nature. The grid identifies key areas in
which a leader or manager may operate in relation to overall concern for people and productivity. Blake,
and Mouton, (1964) explains how the model does not represent the best venue for a leader or manager to
operate within. The model is representative of various applications of leadership styles in which a leader
or manager will display varying level of concern for followers in relation to overall productivity.
Conclusion
It is the leader’s ability to assess the situation and have full comprehension of his or her
followers’ motivations, and determine the current state of focus toward a given goal that lays the
foundation of cognitive evaluation for which leadership theory to apply. These are just four examples of
leadership theory; but there are many more with different vantage points for implementing leadership.
The focus here is not that these are the best or most frequently used of all the leadership theories, rather
a basic understanding of leadership theory in four specific areas pertaining to defining leaders, what a
leader does in relation to managing, and specific action which can be represented through identified and
developed leadership theory. To each their application has its place, ultimately it falls on the leader to
understand the scenario and which theory to execute to achieve maximum results.
Recognizing the various types of leadership theories and their value will aid a leader in personal
development and follower development. Transformational leadership is a leader’s capacity to inspire
followers through ethics and values connecting with each individual within an organization to his or her
core beliefs. There is no reward of tangible exchange for success or failure, rather an established sense
of community and empowerment through ethics and values (Burns, 2003). Servant leadership is a leader
whose focus is to put others before self (Greenleaf, 1991). A servant leader in addition by nature does
not seek power or privilege, rather often is thrust into a leadership role by followers who are inspired

and motivated by the compassion, ability to connect, empower, and sincere concern for those he or she
leads. Authentic leadership is the leader’s awareness of self, transparent nature, and focus of
strengthening followers rather than pointing out weakness or flaws (Avolio, & Gardner, 2005). The
authentic leader is one who gains the trust and respect of his or her followers through morals, ethics, and
character displayed in areas of action, extending trust, and communication. Blake and Mouton, (1964)
discuss the relationship of personnel welfare in relation to productivity within an organization. The
evaluation is broken down into a four-quadrant grid, each sector identifying a leadership perspective and
relationship of two specific variables of personnel and productivity. Blake and Mouton’s leadership grid
provides a tool for a leader to evaluate the current state environment of an organization and comprehend
current leadership application toward a shared vision or desired future state. While these four leadership
theories have varying approaches and applications each share the same end state, to drive an
organization to a shared vision or desire future state while maintaining unit cohesion, trust, and respect
of all members of the organization.
Having established the definition of leaders, understanding the variance in a manager and a
leader, and comprehending what leaders do; the deeper review of leadership in context was conducted
on a few of the many leadership theories. It should be noted for deeper review to look into: trait theory,
situational leadership, leader member exchange (LMX), path-goal theory, and followership. These in
addition will aid a leader in developing multiple tools to further develop his or her ability to lead. Within
this chapter the discussion of transformational leadership, servant leadership, authentic leadership, and
Blake and Mouton’s Leadership grid was reviewed. It should be noted these leadership theories have a
firm establishment in organizational leadership. Moving forward the review of self as leader, one should
recognize the true depth in theory, principle, and practice within leadership theory as he or she
establishes his or her core values, ethical framework, and internal review of his- or herself as a leader.

Chapter 3: Self as Leader
A key component to successful leadership is the leader’s capacity to identify his or her morals,
ethics, and character as an individual. It is then taking these personality traits and values and putting
them into action, to not only manage, but to lead an organization. While leadership can be developed
through teaching and mentorship it is this essential foundation of personality traits and values that
establishes what a leader will do with his or her place of power, privilege, or responsibility. While every
culture or time period in history has established various definitions of ethics there are universal theories,
principles, and practices for ethical leadership.
As a leader, the focus in context in ethics and organizational change framework, on avenue of
evaluation, falls on the principles of Immanuel Kant’s ethical decision making and theory of Altruism as
outlined by (Johnson, 2012). Kant’s ethical decision making principle is based on the concept of doing
what is right for all. Seeking direction as a leader one simply has to ask him or her self “would I want
everyone else to make the decision I did?” Kant’s core teachings fall into the context of treating others
with respect and doing what is morally right regardless of the ramifications to oneself (Kant, 1964).
Taking this initial sentiment into greater depth coupled with the theory of Altruism is the core value of
aiding others despite the end result of reward or personal gain (Johnson, 2012). It established through
this ideal as a leader to put others before self. While it is argued altruism is a spin off of utilitarianism,
an ethical theory founded by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, on the sentiment to make ethical
decisions based on doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Johnson, 2012). Altruism
seeks to go to a deeper level of ethical leadership and decision-making. Altruism in its purest state is an
act of compassion, understanding, selflessness, and service to others. Going forward the discussion of
core values, ethical framework, organizational change framework, and a deeper look into a self
assessment will identify numerous other ethical leadership theories and principles. Having established

the foundation and framework for further reflection with the views of Kant’s categorical imperative and
altruism will provide a specific vantage point when assessing self as leader.
Core Values
Walking into a United States Marine recruitment office many young men and women enter with
varying levels of uncertainty despite seeking one simple objective, earn the title of Marine. After 13
weeks aboard Recruit Training Depot Parris Island, South Carolina or Recruit Depot, San Diego many
leadership principles and traits are instilled into these young men and women. The Marine Corps core
values taught to all recruits is: honor, courage, and commitment. The same sentiment is instilled at
Officer Candidate School (OCS) in Quantico, Virginia, when an officer candidate seeks to become a
Marine officer during a 10-week boot camp. OCS candidates are screened and evaluated for the true
essence of being a leader and for the values one already holds in order to be a successful leader of
Marines. If one was to interview any Marine and inquire what are the core values, without hesitation and
with great motivation the interviewer will receive a response of honor, courage, and commitment. The
focus of self as leader and core values within this chapter is not on the Marine Corps or its process of
developing leaders. Rather, this is the imagery to recognize the profound impact core values can have
on an organization. In this example, a common person with no training, understanding, or affiliation to
an organization in a very short period of time can identify and commit to deeply rooted values as if these
values were his or her very own since birth.
It is core values that establish how a leader conducts his or herself and treats others regardless of
the individual’s position or title within an organization. The makeup of one’s core values is indicative of
various traits and more specifically how these traits are applied within the context of a leadership ethics
and character. Such traits can be identified as:

 Judgment: Encompasses sound morals with the capacity to evaluate situations,
problems, or ethical conflict within an organization to give direction, guidance, or
decisiveness to a fair and balance evaluation yielding positive results while maintaining
the creed and values of an organization.
 Integrity: An individual’s ability to be transparent and honest in spite of possible
negative repercussion. It is the act of holding true to established standards and regulations
within a given organization and maintaining the moral courage to hold one self and others
accountable to these standards and regulations.
 Unselfishness: The act of an individual to put the greater good of another or a group
before the needs or desires of his or herself. The commitment to service to an
organization or community in which an individual resides or works in to ensure positive
forward progress regardless of the individual sacrifice given.
 Courage: The fortitude to do what one fears regardless of repercussion or consequence
to oneself. It is not the absence of fear; rather it is holding greater value to achieve a
desired goal or preservation of a cause.
 Loyalty: The commitment by an individual to another person, organization, or belief.
The act of maintaining connection or relationship in spite of oppression, negative
ramifications, or self-sacrifice.
Johnson, (2012) discusses how core values establish the morals and principles for an
organization. Within any given organization a structure of a few essential values aids in addressing trust,
respect, standards of conduct, and fairness that should be exuded by all individuals, leaders and
followers alike. Core values fail when insufficient communication or lack of executing to the standard of
established values of an organization occurs (Johnson, 2012). Successful implementation of an

organization’s core values lies in constant communication, the advertising through posters or banners
throughout the organization’s worksite, and random reviews with individuals of an organization to recall
what these core values are. Successfully sustaining core values requires that the organization gain buy-in
from all members who in addition obtain a sense of connection, belonging, and empowerment from the
organization’s outlined core values.
Ethical Framework
Leaders must have the ability to evaluate personnel and situations within the boundaries of an
organization’s core values and creed. In this context a leader has to establish an outline or framework to
stay on course when making ethical decisions throughout the management and leadership process.
Johnson, (2012) discusses that leaders are a vital component to the ethical state and execution of an
organization. A leader’s role and responsibility is to evaluate the mission and values of an organization
and develop a positive ethical climate. This positive climate is maintained through a well-defined
ethical framework within an organization and comprehended by the organization’s leaders.
Ethical framework allows leaders to evaluate and face ethical challenges within their
organization. Evaluating the landscape of a moral dilemma for a leader is not one-dimensional. It
requires a leader to review, orient, take decisive action, and reevaluate the newfound climate of the
environment after implementation of ethical decision making. In this ethical decision-making process a
leader should ask him or herself various questions to gain perspective on the ethical decision making.
An example of such internal questioning for a leader is, the TV Test: a leader is evaluated in the context
of a scenario where a news camera shows up. In such a scenario, could one be able to confidently
explain the decision made to generate the desired result to an investigative reporter airing the
organization’s ethical decision-making process on worldwide news? A question such as this forces a
leader to evaluate the decisions made behind close doors or without having to take responsibility for his

or her actions. Regardless of a leader’s cultural upbringing or core values, evaluating an ethical decision
with consideration of having to publicly defending one’s position allows the leader to evaluate if he or
she is being honest, selfless, fair, and respectful to those involved and affected.
To aid a leader in establishing his or her ethical framework, a leader should self evaluate his or
herself and the organization in key areas of modeling ethical behavior, creating an ethical organization,
and speaking out to ethical issues. Once these areas have been addressed, a leader can implement ethical
framework models and principles such as appreciative inquiry or preferred futuring.
Modeling ethical behavior. Leaders are responsible for modeling ethical behavior within their
given group or organization. Johnson, (2012) discusses leaders are vital to the ethical performance of an
organization, due in part to the given role of defining mission, establishing values, and developing and
maintaining ethical climates. It is the leader who has full ownership in the outcome of the ethical
climate within his or her organization. As a result a leader must display and set the standard for ethical
behavior and set the example of for the desired state of the ethical climate within a given organization.
Creating ethical organizations. A key role as a leader is to develop in action the overall
performance and welfare of the group through facilitating ethical structure. Leaders are accountable for
the group as a whole; in contrast followers are accountable only for his or her self (Johnson, 2012). As a
leader one must be the example and be the voice of ethics within a group or organization. His or her
action to give direction and maintain a standard in light of ethical dilemmas within his or her
organization, it is the courage to stand up to a group or individual within an organization and correct the
unethical behavior even when doing so is not popular (Kant, 1964).
Speak out on ethical issue. When an unethical dilemma presents itself within an organization a
leader then evaluates the situation and takes decisive action to address the issue. It is the act of
addressing an ethical dilemma in which a leader must remain fair and balanced. To call out a member in

front of a group may not be the best course of action, then again at other times it might be required. In
addition evaluating the political ramifications of correcting unethical behavior in front of a customer or
general public could create a greater negative impact and prove to not be in the best interest of the
organization. A leader should address the ethical issue in the correct venue and in a timely manner.
Organizational Change Framework
In order to effectively drive change within an organization an outline provides direction for best
practices for implementing successful organizational change. Jackson, (2006) discusses that a
practitioner provides the organization’s leadership with methods and practices, which are tailored
specifically on improving the effectiveness of the organization with which the practitioner is already
associated. As a facilitator one must be able to instill confidence and gain buy-in from everyone in the
organization if they are to successfully implement change. The key driver for success is to develop
measureable and obtainable checkpoints along the path to change. The ideation is reinforced with the
thought; if you can measure it you can move it.
Appreciative inquiry. David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva initially theorized appreciative
Inquiry (AI) in a 1987 article Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life. Cooperrider and Srivastva,
(1987) discuss in depth previous research of organizational life in context to the theory of appreciative
inquiry, which is representative of building methodology for developing and placing into action
conglomerate efforts of an organization. Cooperrider, and Whitney, (1999) explains as a practical
philosophy, appreciative inquiry brings together members of an organization to evaluate and discover
what is the desired future and shared vision for the individuals and organization as a whole. The process
of execution for appreciative inquiry is to focus on the positive and desired end state. The ideation
component of appreciative inquiry is what one thinks about and speaks about most will come to fruition.

In this state of mind there is then the implementation of principles rather than phases to accomplish
change within an organization. Cooperrider, and Whitney, (1999) states these principles as:
 The Constructionist Principle: The recognition of knowledge and direction of an
organization is intertwined with one another. The realization that an organization is a
living organism capable of adapting to the environment it is in.
 The Principle of Simultaneity: Research and change implementation are not
independent of one another, rather each occur simultaneously.
 The Poetic Principle: Human organizations should be considered as a continuous novel.
The story line is in constant state of revision by multiple authors with unlimited possible
interpretations.
 The Anticipatory Principle: The self-fulfilling prophecy of what one desires will come
to fruition. Positive thoughts yield positive action, which lead to a positive desired result.
This is a core principle to the foundation of appreciative inquiry.
 Positive Principle: Establishment of and maintaining head way toward a shared vision or
desired future state requires a great deal of inspiration, motivation, compassion, and
passion toward a predetermined goal or dream. The more positive the outlook and line of
questioning the greater the yield and successful implementation of change process.
The appreciative inquiry process is outlined by four dimensions as shown in the following chart.
These dimensions are discovery, dream, design, and deliver (or destiny/delivery). Each phase represents
the process of recognition of what brings life, positive vision or affirmation of a desired future state,
development and construction of this desired future state, and the method of execution and
empowerment of all members, leaders and followers, to educate, adapt, and accomplished the desired
change process.

Image retrieved from: http://appreciativeinquiry.com.au/forum-2010/background/invitation/
The appreciative inquiry cycle process can occur a various lengths of time. Throughout this
process meetings and appreciative interviews are conducted in order to identify each of the four
dimensions. The desired end state of an appreciative inquiry summit is to establish best practices for an
organization, establishing buy-in, and outlining a timeframe for the execution of the change process.
Cooperrider and Srivastva, (1987) discusses the focus of appreciative inquiry is to identify what is right
with a change process, rather then focusing on what is wrong with the process.
Preferred futuring. Modeling of preferred futuring is credited to Larry Lippitt; the developer of
preferred futuring and son of Ron Lippitt whose work was the foundation for preferred futuring.
Jackson, (2006) discusses that this method of change strategy established a united understanding of the
current state of an organization, identifying values and future vision, and results in an action plan for
successful implementation of change. Lippitt, (1999) explains preferred futuring is represented by a
formula to express the solution to driving change:
C = D x V x F > R

(C)hange = (D)issatisfaction x (V)ision x (F)irst step > (R)esistance.
Outlined in the model are four specific factors that drive change (Lippitt, 1999).
 Dissatisfaction: Discontent with the current state, vital for establishing motivation
improvement prior to the onset of desired change.
 Vision: The image of desired change with alignment of all members of an organization
toward a shared vision or desired future state.
 First Steps: An outline for the way ahead to a shared vision or desired future state.
 Resistance: The desire of an individual or organization to remain the same, to prevent
the forward movement of change. Vital for a leader to diminish the dissatisfaction
pertaining to resistance in order to generate focus of a shared vision or desired future
state.
The purpose of this formula and preferred futuring as an organizational change framework is to
diminish dissatisfaction thus eliminating resistance and empowering the outlined framework toward a
shared vision or desired future state (Lippit, 1999). Preferred futuring establishes an eight-step method
to implement and execute sustained long -term change. Jackson, (2006) outlines these steps involved:
 History: Comprehension of the past and current visions of a given organization.
 Current state: Recognition of current processes and procedures and identifying which
ones are working. In addition identifying current industry and sectors in which an
organization currently serves for a specific customer base.
 Values and Beliefs: Committed understanding to values and beliefs directly correlated to
desired goals and objectives.
 Strategic Trends/Development: Analysis of current trends within a given organization
and industry which may impact future goals or visions.

 Vision: A clear and concise image of defined success and desired future state of an
organization.
 Strategic Action Goals and Roadblocks: The comprehension of specific objectives that
when put to action will yield the desire shared vision or future state of an organization.
 Action Plans: Clearly outlined and detailed actions to be taken by individuals or groups
within an organization in reference to a given timeline to achieve the desired shared
vision or future state for an organization.
 Follow up Support: The implementation for long-term sustainable change through
various methods such as rewards, anniversary celebrations, or milestone recognition.
Current state. Identifying with the current state of an organization will allow for a baseline in
which the practitioner, key management, and member within the organization to gain understanding of
where the organization is at, identify areas that require change, and aid in understanding the
transformation process (Jackson, 2006).
Desiredstate. Once the current state has been defined the next step is to develop the desired end
state of the organizational development change identified by key leadership of an organization. Jackson,
(2006) discusses this desired end state should be that of a vision statement rather than a mission
statement. This is due in part to instilling the ideal of a state of being, not a state of working towards a
means. The mission statement has its defined place within the action plan, as it is the guide through the
measurable and obtainable checks points for the organization transitioning through change.
Action plan. Facilitating action can only occur once a current state analysis has been completed
and a clearly defined and comprehendible desired state is completed. The action plan contains multiple
parts from the outline of change, which defines timelines for implementation and milestones to
accomplish specific parts of change (Jackson, 2006). The key to a successful action plan is to not create

milestones that have negative repercussions as this could lead to loss of motivation, moral, and overall
buy-in during the change process. Rather, reward through many different avenues should occur in order
to gain further trust and buy-in during this vulnerable state of change. In addition the action plan should
have a clearly defined mission statement, creed and values for the organization to operate within, and a
code of ethics. As an organizational development (OD) practitioner it is imperative to understand that
values and ethics will be intangible, yet key drivers to success of developmental, transitional, or
transformational change. Finally, the action plan should have multiple avenues of approach at critical
areas of change. Jackson, (2006) discusses how the OD practitioner should forecast areas of concern,
loss of buy-in and/or resignations due to change, and outside factors that may slow the change process.
Bridges Transitions
In addition to a leader identifying his or her own core values, establishing and outlining his or
her ethical framework, comprehending various methods of organizational change framework,
recognizing transitions internally and externally occurring within an individual and organization, are
vital to the overall change success. To supplement the discussion of evaluating oneself, as a leader there
is additional value in the context of William Bridges shared strategies for coping with transition.
Transitions occur when there is an internal or external shift within an individual or organization
for change. This change can result to be a negative or positive shift in an individual’s or organization’s
reality (Bridges, 2004). As a leader to accomplish the latter of the two, yielding a positive result, one
must understand transitions in order to navigate the process of change. Bridges, (2004) explains while
many would state a transition starts from a beginning, in reality accepting transitions starting from an
end will increase a leader’s ability to find success throughout the change process.
Ending stages. A leader must be able to identify key points of an ending stage. The ending stage
can become paralyzing due to the multiple phases that occur. Individuals as well, as organizations will

visit each of these phases outlined and at times may even revisit a stage throughout the transition process
(Bridges, 2004).
 Disengagement: Breaking from familiar: An initial phase in the end stage of transition,
disengagement is the process in which an individual or groups within an organization
break away and seek solitude (Bridges, 2004). This can occur for many reasons whether
in mourning of the past or in uncertainty of the future. As a leader in this stage one must
recognize the call for solitude while keeping a pulse on the morale of the individual(s)
and group involved. Bridges, (2004) discusses prolong isolation can lead to a breakdown
in structure, output, and acceptance of further change as an organization.
 Dismantling: The mourning process occurs shortly after a transition initiative has been
announced or presented whether to an individual or organization. Dismantling is the
disconnection to the past and uncertainty of the future, what can or will occur. It is the act
of becoming unplugged from the old place in the interpersonal and social world to which
once provided an individual with his or her identity (Bridges, 2004). It leaves untouched
the life infrastructure that an individual had constructed, these old habits and behaviors
and practices that made an individual feel like him or herself can only be dismantled. It is
the phase of taking apart a piece at a time. Bridges, (2004) discusses this phase can occur
in conjunction to disengagement. It is important as a leader to recognize the need for a
grieving period prior to engaging individuals and groups with new ideas, processes, or
changes in organizational structures.
 Disidentification: The loss of self image can occur once the transition has begun to take
a physical state in an organization, the past is now gone and the new direction that will be
taken is the present causes disidentification to occur. Bridges, (2004) discusses the act of

breaking old connections to the world and removing the internal structures that once held
connections to a past state. Disidentification is the loss of formally defining oneself. As a
leader it is key to recognize the past accomplishments or titles members have held while
directing buy-in to the new process and structure. Additionally, recognizing that
individuals within the organization may perceive to be accepting the transition though
internally they may be in conflict. The disidentification process is typically the internal
piece to the disengagement process (Bridges, 2004).
 Disenchantment: A phase in which the world no longer seems real. A major transition
within an organization takes time, it is during this period of time management may
choose to move members of the organization or terminate members who no longer fit the
new model. Shortly after this period many members begin to attempt to adjust to the new
structure of an organization. Many may struggle and revisit earlier stages of
disengagement and dismantling-the separation from the past identity, situation, or an
important aspect of it. An individual then floats in limbo between two worlds, the past
and the present (Bridges, 2004). Despite there still being a reality in the person’s head – a
vision of the way things are, which binds the person to the past world with an underlying
assumption and expectation. Bridges, (2004) explains it is a hope that the past may return
and things will be the way it once was. A leader must provide a role, responsibility, and
new identity for a follower to take hold of and create a personal vision of a new identity.
The action then is for the leader to allow internal and external growth for a follower to
create meaning and purpose within an organization.
 Disorientation: A state of confusion and emptiness, as with other areas of the ending
process, many can recognize or relate to disorientation (Bridges, 2004). Comprehending

the lost, confused, don’t-know-where-I-am emotions that increase as one becomes
disengaged, disidentified, and disenchanted. Bridges, (2004) notes it is the belief that life
has lost its direction or meaning, often the individual will fall into despair. During this
phase as a leader it is imperative to provide guidance, hope, and inspiration to push
forward into the newly defined future and provide support to followers who may not see
or comprehend the change trying to be achieved within an organization.
Neutral zone. When an individual or organization has navigated through the previously
identified phases of the ending stage he or she will enter into a void from the ending stage to the new
beginning. While migrating through the neutral zone an individual or organization will move from a
feeling of emptiness and in a time of solitude discover what is truly desired (Bridges, 2004). The neutral
zone is identified as a very deep and personal process, whether for an individual or organization, it is
during this internal meditation of large aspects of life itself that a new beginning begins to develop.
Bridges, (2004) discusses the neutral zone is not a state to be ignored or rushed through. It is a period in
which the real business of transition occurs.
New beginning. Bridges, (2004) discusses to arrive at the beginning only occurs at the end. It is
when an end has occurred to which the violence and tranquility of navigating through the plethora of
internal and external forces on an individual’s or organization’s emotions that then opens the path to a
new beginning. The onset of this stage in transition stems from an idea or impression that leads to an
image or vision (Bridges, 2004). It is the birth of a desired state or future vision. From this, as a leader,
implementation of defined core values, ethical framework and specific practices within organizational
change framework drives an organization and individuals within it to a new shared vision or desired
future state. Throughout this implementation various phases of disengagement, dismantling,
disidentification, disenchantment, and disorientation can occur if a leader is not fully engaged with

instilling inspiration, hope, and motivation. Bridges, (2004) discusses it is a genuine inner realignment in
contrast to external shifts that will establish deeper longings which will provide powerful motivation to
achieve a shared vision or desired future state.
Self-Assessment
The process of organizational development lies, in part, on the development of leaders and
followers. In order to understand the growth in change of individuals within an organization various
tools and process analysis are used to gain understanding in the type of leaders and followers within an
organization. Self-assessment allows for a leader to have a greater understanding of their current skills
and abilities internally and externally to the person he or she is. A leader’s ability to gain this kind of
insight allows for a leader to identify and correct weaknesses in his or her leadership and management
style.
DiSC. The DiSC method is a leadership assessment tool that focuses on increasing the overall
work productivity, team development, and communication within an organization. The acronym DiSC
stands for dominance, influence, steadiness, and conscientiousness. Each of these four dimensions
evaluates a leader on his or her capacity to generate results, ability to influence others, effectiveness as a
team member, and focus of quality and competency within his or her given field of expertise. William
Moulton Marston, who was also the inventor of the lie detector polygraph, invented the DiSC
assessment. Though William Marston did not establish a test for DiSC method, he did apply his model
as a consultant in the early 1930s (Discprofile, 2010). Further development was conducted by Walter
Vernon Clarke, an industrial psychologist to evaluate the potential for success of an individual within a
given job or trade. Through the identification of various patterns specific leadership skills can be
identified as a strength or weakness and will provide feedback to an individual on areas that will yield
greatest positive impact to an organization.

Leadership practice inventory (LPI). Leadership practice inventory is the evaluation of the
application of James Kouzes and Barry Posner’s five practices of exemplary leadership. Kouzes and
Posner, (2011) discuss leadership is not a skill held by a select few, that an individual through evaluation
and self-assessment could become extraordinary leaders resulting in organizational change. The
conclusion then is that every individual through tools and measurement has the capacity to lead. The
Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI) as an evaluation tool empowers leaderships to measure
competencies and comprehend his or her personal character traits and skills as a leader (Kouzes, &
Posner, 2011). From this insight a leader can then develop an action plan to address areas of weakness.
When a leader completes the 30 question self assessment he or she will identify specific leadership
behaviors graded on a 10 point sliding scale. This assessment focuses on five practices of exemplary
leadership which are model for inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act,
and encouraging the heart (Kouzes, & Posner, 2011). Receiving insight on these areas of leadership will
aid a leader through honest self-assessment of his or her leadership traits, character, and behaviors.
Personal power profile. Through the Personal Power Profile (PPP) a leader can assess his or her
behavior(s) when in a position of power. Johnson, (2012) outlines five power bases within personal
power profile:
 Coercive power: founded on reprimand or punishment. A leader maintains power
through negative reinforcement.
 Reward power: process of providing positive reinforcement through tangible and
intangible positive exchange such as bonuses, prizes, praise, and/or recognition.
 Legitimate power: established by title or position, for example, judges, police officers,
CEO, or manager. Leaders who establish a standard and have the ability to enforce
authority of these standards due to privilege of the position held.

 Expert power: The inverse of legitimate power, the leader obtains power through skills,
education, or degree within a given field of study. This form of leadership power does not
require the leader to be in a position of power or privilege.
 Referent (role model): A leader gains power through the trust, respect, and admiration
of his or her followers.
The five power bases are not one-dimensional or a specified behavioral form of leadership for a
given leader; a leader can display various forms of each power base (Johnson, 2012). The PPP is a
leadership evaluation tool to aid a leader or organization to identify which of the five power bases a
leader displays or uses most. Through a 20-question evaluation, tallying the scores for each question will
yield the preferred method of influence of a leader. This assessment tool can prove powerful for a leader
and organization as it allows a leader to have a greater understand of his or her method(s) of achieving
results and empowering his or her followers.
Conclusion
Long standing successful organizations whether the Roman Empire or newer organizations such
as Facebook must adapt to the changes within their environment. Competition will evolve as well, but
without structure change driving an organization toward a shared vision or desired future state, the
organization will undoubtedly fail. As a leader, rather than fear an inevitable downfall, one must be the
driving force to transitions and change. Though there are numerous methods to achieve successful
organizational change, the focus of this chapter was: the establishment and definition of core values, the
creation and purpose of ethical framework, the review of two methods of organizational change
framework pertaining to appreciative inquiry and preferred futuring methods, the theories of William
Bridges phases of transition, and self-assessment tools such as DiSC, LPI, and PPP that are practical for
a leader to self evaluate.

As a leader ensuring change is fluid while forecasting areas of concern, whether in operations or
individuals within an organization, is essential to the success of short and long-term implementing
change. A leader’s ability to establish core values which hold true to an organization’s ethical climate
aids in the success of the decision making process during times of ethical dilemmas. Ethical framework
establishes an outline for a leader to empower him or herself and followers when evaluating a decision-
making process for ethical repercussions that may arise. Organizational change framework has a variety
of methods, principles, and practices. Cooperrider, and Srivastva, (1987) discuses the focus of
appreciative inquiry is to achieve a positive shared vision or desired future state through four elements
of discover, dream, design, and destiny/discovery. In contrast preferred futuring which incorporates the
formula C = D x V x F > R {(C)hange = (D)issatisfaction x (V)ision x (F)irst step > (R)esistance.}
outlines how to successfully achieve change. The focus within the practice of preferred futuring is
diminishing the dissatisfaction thus overcoming resistance for a desired change and future state (Lippitt,
1999).
Through the recognition of a leader’s core values, ethical framework, and implementation of an
organizational change framework, it becomes relevant for a leader or organization to conduct self-
assessments of the leadership with the organization. Though there are various methods and practices the
DiSC method focuses on increasing the overall work productivity, team development, and
communication within an organization, while the leadership practices inventory focuses on the character
and behavioral traits of a leader. Through the leadership practice inventory assessment a leader or
organization can then create a development plan to address areas of concern or deficiency (Kouzes, &
Posner, 2011). Finally, the personal power profile evaluates a leader’s behaviors and practices of five
various types of power when in a leadership role (Jackson, 2006). Drawing on these discussed topics a
leader can maintain the essence of being a leader which is the ability, not talent or skill, to influence and

motivate a group of followers to maintain a unified vision toward a defined objective while maintaining
morale and exude the standards of an established foundation of ethics and values within an organization
Chapter 4: Leadership in Context
Description of Situation
ACME Foods Corporation, makes restaurant condiments for over 22 quick-serve restaurants
throughout the United States and worldwide. The facility produces over 300,000 cases to the quality
standard of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and British Retail Consortium (BRC), the
worldwide standards for food safety and quality for numerous customers on a weekly basis. The work
environment within this facility is in a constant state of change. Whether it is a revised production
schedule, shortage of raw materials, mechanical breakdowns or unanticipated employee absences,
change is the norm.
The current state of the leadership process change at this facility has been a recent lay off of 46
hourly and 10 salaried employees. The lay off was a result of a reduction in overall production in July of
2013 due to poor quality and untimely supply of product to customers. Nonetheless, the operations
department must continue to operate with the same number of machines, reclaim three million lost cases
annually, and manage the recent increase in business. All the while, leaders are required to accomplish
this task with fewer employees, many who lack motivation. The company executives have established
expectations for the facility’s management to return the facility to its former level of production and
profit margin but with a smaller labor force. As a result supervisors and hourly employees are forced to
work six or seven days a week and in excess of 12 hour per day with the additional demand to perform
at a higher standard. This has resulted in supervisors managing their shifts with a dictatorship mentality,
in contrast to being a leader. Within in the facility environment the focus for the supervisory and hourly
employee’s morale has become absent in light of the demand for successful obtainment of the weekly

production schedule and improving customer relationships. The organizational change process for this
facility is to return it to its previous success in production volume, establish new customers, and ensure a
balanced quality of life for all facility employees.
Analysis of Situation
Systems perspective. Comprehending the systems that a leader can implement for successful
change or transition to an organization requires communication, developing a relationship with
followers, and individual buy-in to a shared vision or desired future state. Andriole, (2007) discusses
communication is a process in a constant cycle. In times of tranquility a leader is still responsible to
effectively communication objectives, current status of operations, and current and future strategies. In
times of tribulation a leader must focus on increasing the depth of relationships with co-workers and
customers in order to solve various problems. Finally, in times of success a leader is called to
continuously communicate milestone achievements and long-term sustainment strategies for a shared
vision or desired future state. A leader requires the capacity to effectively communicate and to identify
individuals of the organization with whom he or she has yet to establish trust, respect, or buy-in to the
presented organizational change process. A negative emotional response to the volume in relation to the
challenge potentially develops a cause of ‘stuckness’. Inspiring employees to openly and freely
communicate his or her emotional responses is one form of intervention, which can help to unstick
situations. If employees are uncertain about engaging in this process, the consultant (the internal
practitioner or facilitator) can aid him or her to practice doing this in the safety of a one-to-one
conversation, action inquiry group or training workshops (Walker, 2008). Through this process a leader
is empowered to develop trust, respect, and buy-in to the organizational change process. This facilitates
the evolving development of a desired future state that employees will develop a sense of purpose,
empowerment, and passion to drive the organizational change process. Galloway, (2012) discusses

inspiring and using employee energy should be the focus of a leader seeking to achieve transformational
results in areas of safety or valued area of operations. When employees desire to, rather than are directed
to, vast and contrasting results develop. This leadership action, in addition, also facilitates a change in
organizational values and behaviors, improving the likelihood of long-term sustainability.
Organizational behavior perspective. Comprehending the behavioral change that will occur
during an organizational change process is imperative. An Organizational Development (OD)
practitioner must identify specific learning deficiencies within a given organization in order to develop
and provide an organizational development perspective; in the case of ACME Foods Corporation key
learning disabilities are the parable of the boiling frog, the myth of the management team, and the
enemy is out there (Senge, 2006). These specific learning disabilities identify key areas that ACME
Foods Corporation upper management, middle management, and hourly employees display preventing
healthy sustainable organizational unity and growth.
The parable of the boiling frog. Within organizations gradual downward change often time
results in minimal loss over a sustained period of time. As a result a failing organization often does not
realize the tribulations it will soon face until there is a complete breakdown in the organizational
process. Senge, (2006) describes the parable of the boiling frog pertaining to organizational breakdown
is equated to placing a frog into room temperature water and slowing increasing the temperature to a
boil. In this instance the frog while becoming uncomfortable though it will remain in the pot until it is
boiled alive. However, if the frog were placed into an already boiling pot of water it would immediately
jump out due to its natural instinct to respond to immediate threats.
Pertaining to ACME Foods Corporation the parable of the boiling frog occurred in 2011. At the
height of the production for this facility management was disconnected with on-floor production.
Despite record high sales and production numbers the facility was having slowly rising concerns in

quality and later assured supply to the customer. In late 2012, it all came to a “boil” and many members
of upper management were terminated due to a sudden loss of over three million cases in sales annually
and major repercussions from customers. The new regimen of management brought in, immediately
attempted to recover the lost business and customer confidence in conjunction with a significant
reduction in work force of over 25%. In the last 18 months the parable of the frog has shifted from an
unknowingly heading in a direction of lost business and customer confidence to loss of employee
motivation and overall morale.
The result of new upper management desiring to regain the three million lost cases has resulted
in seven-day work weeks and 10 to 12 hour workdays for hourly and supervisory employees. In addition
upper management has self-managed work hours for managers and above to a standard five day
workweek with 8 to 10 hour days. This has created a significant divide. During the last 18 months
management has slowly seen a rise in hourly employee absenteeism and the resignation of eight of the
ten supervisors at the facility. Compounding the matter, management has ignored these losses and has
not hired additional hourly employees or supervisors to cover the decrease in personnel and increase in
business. ACME Foods Corporation management team in consideration to the parable of the frog has
returned to the very organizational behavior learning disability that lead to previous managements
downfall. As an OD practitioner addressing this learning disability as stated, should provide guidance
for the management team to slow down and recognize the effects to subtle changes in the organizational
process (Senge, 2006). Through application of an organizational development process create
checkpoints to evaluate various areas of business throughout the stages of change implementation. In
doing so an OD practitioner can facilitate upper managements ability to assess and forecast future
possible or unforeseeable obstacles.

Organizational Leader Definitions

Organizational Leader Definitions

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Organizational Leader Definitions

Similar to Organizational Leader Definitions (19)

Organizational Leader Definitions