Exploring scientific leadership
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
3 likes•5,231 views
A quick overview (not exhaustive) of the history of the leadership from an academic/scientific perspective. The notes are critical and all citations listed in references (APA) for further reading.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Exploring scientific leadership
Similar to Exploring scientific leadership (20)
More from Jon R Wallace
More from Jon R Wallace (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Exploring scientific leadership
- 1. Exploring Leadership Science A brief historical construct Jon R. Wallace 2015
- 2. Exploring Definitions “Leaders’ influence will turn on their own qualities of character, expertise, prestige, intelligence, charm and credibility, but these will have little impact unless they engage the relevant needs and motivations of the persons being influenced.” (Burns, 1978, pp. 374)
- 3. Path-Goal Productivity • Motivation = Productivity • Goals reflect individual needs • Path perception is instrumental to productive behavior. Maslow (1954) U of M Research (1957)
- 4. Vroom to House Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
- 5. House’s Revised Path-Goal Theory Leader Behaviors • Clarifying Path-Goal • Supportive • Value Based • Achievement Oriented • Group Decision Making • Networking Employee Characteristics • Task Ability • Achievement Need • Clarity Needs • Experience • Locus of Control Environmental Factors • Group Dynamics • Task Structure Leadership Effectiveness • Leader Acceptance • Employee Motivation • Employee Satisfaction • Employee Performance • Unit Performance
- 6. Charismatic Leadership Hitler? or Martin Luther King, Jr.? Charismatics exhibit: • High self-confidence • Need for power • Strong convictions • Appear competent • Appear trustworthy • Articulate vision • Set high goals • Appeal to hopes and dreams of followers • Ability to communicate • Revolutionary from the current paradigms
- 8. Organization Citizenship Behavior • Altruistic sacrifice and sportsmanship for the good of the organization beyond defined roles. • Leaders’ behavior is key • Leaders’ and followers’ behavior are not always equal. • Healthy debate (adaptive conflict) is required • Transformational leadership increases follower performance and organizational citizenship behavior
- 9. The Full Range of Leadership
- 10. Transformational Leadership Inspirational motivation Idealized Attributes Idealized Behavior Individualized consideration Intellectual stimulation Organizational Culture Individual Traits Individual Life Experiences Increased leader identification Internal motivation increases with achievement orientation & goal pursuit Increased group collaboration Increased Organizational commitment Increased commitment to leader & vision Increased Altruism Individual & Organization Characteristics Leader Behaviors Follower & Group Impacts Outcomes
- 11. The Transforming 5 I’s • Socialized charisma with perceived confidence & high ethics Idealized Attributes • Does the leaders behavior model the values, beliefs and mission Idealized Behaviors • Energizing stakeholders with ambitious objectives to achieve future vision Inspirational Motivation • Supporting individual and organizational learning Intellectual Stimulation • Providing support, advice, empathy and personal needs of team members encouraging growth Individualized Consideration
- 12. Authentic Transformational Servants AuthenticLeadership • Genuine • Transparent • High ethics • Self-aware • Honest • Relational • Balanced • Accountable TransformationalLeadership • High ethics • Vision • Self-aware • Integrity • Inspiring • Supportive • Relational • Collaborative • Encourages learning • Accountable ServantLeadership • Serves others • Inspires • Honest • Self-aware • Supportive • Relational • Collaborative • Visionary • Balanced • Encourages learning • Accountable
- 13. A Simpler Definition Leadership is the inspiration and mobilization of others to undertake collective action in pursuit of the common good.
- 14. References Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14:261-295. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. California. Sage Publications. Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta- analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20764-784. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. New Jersey, Erlbaum. Bateman, T. S. & Snell, S. A. (2013). Management: Leading & collaborating in a competitive world (10e). New York. McGraw-Hill. Boerner, S., Aisenbeiss, A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and organizational performance: The impact of transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15-26. Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass. Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2007). Leadership for the Common Good: Creating Regimes of Mutual Gain. M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
- 15. References Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York. Harper & Row. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. The Academy Of Management Review, 12(4), 637-647. Constas, H. (1961). The U.S.S.R.– From Charismatic Sect to Bureaucratic Society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6(3), 282. Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2008). Organization development & change. (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Publishing. Dan-Shang, W., & Chai-Chun, H. (2013). The effect of authentic leadership on employee trust and employee engagement. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 41(4), 613-624. Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(Leadership Quarterly 25th Anniversary Issue), 63-82. DeRue, D. S., Spreitzer, G., Flanagan, B., & Allen, B. (2013). Developing adaptive leaders for turbulent times: The Michigan model of leadership. Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/?p=1477
- 16. References Dionne, S. D., Gupta, A., Sotak, K., Shirreffs, K. A., Serban, A., Hao, C., Kim, D.H. &Yammarino, F. J. (2014). A 25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 6-35. Evans, M. G. (1970). Leadership and Motivation: A Core Concept. Academy Of Management Journal, 13(1), 91-102. Gatling, A., & Harrah, W. F. (2014). The Authentic Leadership Qualities of Business Coaches and its Impact on Coaching Performance. International Journal Of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 12(1), 27-46. Georgopoulos, B. S., Mahoney, G. M., & Jones, N. J. (1957). A path-goal approach to productivity. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 41(6), 345-353. Hayyat Malik, S. (2012). A Study of Relationship between Leader Behaviors and Subordinate Job Expectancies: A Path-Goal Approach. Pakistan Journal Of Commerce & Social Sciences, 6(2), 357-371. House, R. J. (1971). A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321 House, R. J., & Toronto University. (1976). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. Working paper series 76-06.
- 17. References House, R. J. (1996, Fall96). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly. p. 323. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?. Journal Of Management, 23(3), 409-473. Hui-Bing, X., & Ping, F. (2014). Authentic leadership, Collective efficacy, and group performance: An empirical study in China. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 42(6), 921-932. Ibarra, H. (2015). The Authenticity Paradox. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 93(1/2), 52. Joo, B., & Lim, T. (2009). The Effects of organizational learning culture, perceived job complexity and proactive personality on organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 16(1), 48-60. Juanmei, Z., Yueru, M., Weibo, C., & Bing, X. (2014). Mediating role of employee emotions in the relationship between authentic leadership and employee innovation. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 42(8), 1267-1278. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131- 133. Kinsler, L. (2014). Born to be me...who am I again? The development of Authentic Leadership using Evidence-Based Leadership Coaching and Mindfulness. International Coaching Psychology Review, 9(1), 92-105.
- 18. References Krishnan, V. R., & Arora, P. (2008). Determinants of transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Asia-Pacific Business Review, IV (1), 34-43. Landrum, N. E., & Daily, C. M. (2012). Corporate Accountability: A Path-Goal Perspective. International Journal Of Business Insights & Transformation, 450-62. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The Leadership challenge (4th edition). California. John Wiley & Sons. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2011). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it. Why people demand it. California. Jossey-Bass. Lunenberg, F. C. (2011). Expectancy theory of motivation: Motivating by altering expectations. International Journal of Management, Business and Administration. 15(1): 1-6. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York. Harper. McLaurin, J. R., & Al Amri, M. B. (2008). Developing an understanding of charismatic and transformational leadership. Allied Academies International Conference: Proceedings Of The Academy Of Organizational Culture, Communications & Conflict (AOCCC), 13(2), 15- 19. Pearce, C. L. (2007). The future of leadership development: The importance of identity, multi- level approaches, self-leadership, physical fitness, shared leadership, networking, creativity, emotions, spirituality and on-boarding processes. Human Resource Management Review, 17(The Future of Leadership Development), 355-359.
- 19. References Peterson, S. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2014). Retraction notice to: “The relationship between authentic leadership and follower job performance: The mediating role of follower positivity in extreme contexts” [The Leadership Quarterly 23 (2012) 502-506]. Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1183-1184. Pundt, A. (2014). A multiple pathway model linking charismatic leadership attempts and abusive supervision. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 222(4), 190-202. Rowold, J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Extending the transformational-transactional leadership paradigm. Zeitschrift Für Personalforschung, 28(3), 367-390. Schriesheim, C., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1977). The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Academy Of Management Journal, 20(3), 398-405. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2008). The utility of transactional and transformational leadership for predicting performance and satisfaction within a path-goal theory framework. Journal Of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 81(1), 71-82. Vroom, V. H., & Maier, N. R. (1961). Industry social psychology. Annual Review Of Psychology, 12413-446. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. California. Jossey-Bass.
- 20. References Vroom, V. H. (2015). Curriculum Vitae. Retrieved from http://faculty.som.yale.edu/victorvroom/VITA1.htm Weber, M. (1922). Economy and society. Retrieved from https://ia701202.us.archive.org/11/items/MaxWeberEconomyAndSociety/MaxWeberEcono myAndSociety.pdf Wofford, J. C., & Liska, L. Z. (1993). Path-Goal Theories of Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal Of Management, 19(4), 587. Yukl, G. (1993). A retrospective on Robert House's “1976 theory of charismatic leadership” and recent revisions. The Leadership Quarterly, 4367-373. Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations (8e). New Jersey. Prentice Hall. Zehir, C., Muceldili, B., Altindag, E., Şehitoglu, Y., & Zehir, S. (2014). Charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of ethical climate. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 42(8), 1365-1375.
- 21. Graphics Slide 3 – Maslow retrieved from http://www.saybrook.edu/newexistentialists/sites/www.saybrook .edu.newexistentialists/files/images/posts/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs.jpg Slide 4 – Vroom’s Expectancy retrieved from https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/coo_lzxddD4PV WFinzPj6E52PmVS1nO9P6CEL4YN74Dvbbl1yzRZe6gCvzALxRggh2vw2IaSUfLX7QihTxNwOIl07D YwbF1lVR6k3Zygre07xprOUBscDDbVutRQdpFlJQ Slide 4 – House Path-Goal Theory retrieved from http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MoCqsrSsIUY/UiJ lSvSVwGI/AAAAAAAAAeE/4yXWrYhoXS4/s1600/Path-goal+Theory+of+Leadership.png Slide 7 – Hitler retrieved from http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2009 /10/hitler_window.jpg Slide 7 – MLK retrieved from http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/styles/homepage_ slideshow/public/mlk_13.jpg?itok=8rhh9SnU Slide 8 – Steve Jobs retrieved from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/19October-19-Employee- Celebration-of-Steve-Jobs-Life.html Slide 8 – Jack Welch retrieved from http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/10/article-2215662- 156DAE3B000005DC-940_634x417.jpg Slide 8 – Richard Branson retrieved from http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1133488/thumbs/o-RICHARD-BRANSON- STEWARDESS-facebook.jpg Slide 10 – Full range of leadership model retrieved from http://www.mmurray.com.au/wp- content/uploads/2011/01/FRLM-Graphic.png Note: All other graphics retrieved from Microsoft clip art.
Editor's Notes
- Asked individually at any organization and the definitions of leadership by both managers and employees will vary but contain similarities of expected behaviors, characteristics, skills and practices. Aside from honesty what most individuals’ desire from leaders is guidance in personal growth to achieve both individual and organizational goals (Bateman & Snell, 2013, pp. 432). The entire history of leadership theory is too broad for this presentation but to begin the concept is a quote from James McGregor Burn’s foundational 1978 book on leadership: “Leaders’ influence will turn on their own qualities of character, expertise, prestige, intelligence, charm and credibility, but these will have little impact unless they engage the relevant needs and motivations of the persons being influenced,” (pp. 374).
- Growing out of the scientific management movement in the early 1900’s, leadership research began by studying leadership traits in the 1930’s (House & Aditya, 1997). The University of Michigan and Ohio State University leadership studies began after World War II (Schriesheim & Bird, 1979; Shartle, 1979; DeRue, Spreitzer, Flanagan & Allen, 2013; Yukl, 2013). Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs constructs leads Georgopoulos, Mahoney and Jones (1957) to conduct research on a small appliance firm (possibly Whirlpool?) found that individuals with a clear positive path to goal perception will have higher productivity while low productivity workers have negative path goal perception (pp. 348). Across the campus at U of M, Dr.’s Vroom and Maier were conducting research into industrial organizational psychology and stated in 1961 that there is tremendous difficulty in evaluating leadership research because there is so little agreement on a definition of the concept (pp. 419).
- Dr. Vroom moves from the U of M to the University of Pennsylvania before ending up at Yale where he is still active today. In 1964 Vroom publishes Work and Motivation expressing the expectancy theory regarding workplaces: 1) People join organizations with expectations regarding motivations, needs and past experiences; 2) Behavior is a conscious choice; 3) Employees don’t all want the same thing form the organization; and 4) Employees will make choices based on what gives them the highest personal outcome. (Lunenburg, 2011). This research in combination with the Ohio State leadership studies becomes foundational in Dr. Robert J. House’s original path goal theory of leader effectiveness (1971). House, building off Georgopoulos, et al. (1957), Evans (1957, 1968) and Vroom (1964) proposes that employees make ongoing probability decisions linking their behavior with potential outcomes with individual degrees of value on those outcomes, which can be measured with the formula: M = IVb + P1 [IVa + ∑(P2iEVi)] (pp. 322). Definitions are: M = motivation; IVb = intrinsic valence tied to goal directed behavior; IVa is the instinsic value associated with work goal accomplishments; P1 is the behavior path; P2i is the external work goal path; and EVi are the external valences associated with goal accomplishments (House, 1971, pp. 323). That 1971 study found relationships between leaders initiating structure, role ambiguity, employee consideration, employee satisfaction, task autonomy performance, but recommended further studies were necessary.
- Twenty-five years later, Dr. House revises the Path-Goal leadership theory in 1996 since at the time of the original formulation Vroom’s expectancy theory was the primary motivational theory but continued research in the field finds that people aren’t nearly as rational or cognitive in their decision making as originally assumed (House, 1996, pp. 332) . In part the need for revision comes from a meta-analysis by Wofford and Liska (1993) found the theory deficient and significant flaws in academic path-goal theory research. The revised theory, as a matrix presented here suggests that leader behavior is motivational to employees if it: A) Reduces impediments to goal accomplishment; B) Provides the support and guidance employees need; C) facilitates unit collaboration; D) provides sufficient resources to the task; E) Provides psychological support and structure; and F) Relates goal accomplishment with meaningful rewards. House (1996) states that leader behaviors will always be independent variables but that based on employees and situations leaders need to foster intrinsic motivation through team member empowerment (pp. 335). Path-goal theory was recently applied to the construct of corporate accountability, but found that the domination of ambiguity evident globally today and that this leadership theory lacks more task-oriented directed means for managers to clear obstacles (Landrum & Daily, 2012). Malik and Karachi (2012) in a path-goal theory study of 200 cellular industry employees showed that subordinate demographics had no impact on job expectancy; management had a negative impact on job expectancy while situational factors had a significant impact, with directive leadership and participative leadership being more effective. Although useful as a construct in that goals are required to reach performance objectives, all leadership is situational to environment and unit composition, the theory falls short of definitive conclusions because there are too many variables involved.
- During his path-goal leadership studies, Dr. House discussed the construct of charismatic leadership at the Southern Illinois University Leadership Symposium, describing such leaders as able to emotionally inspire follower with “unquestioned obedience, loyalty, commitment and devotion … to the leader’s values, goals and behavior” (House, 1976, pp. 6). Historically the first appearance of the word charismatic in a peer-reviewed scientific literature title comes from a review of U.S.S.R. bureaucracy relating the term to a rejection of any other external authority and in opposition to existing organizational structures (Constas, 1961). German political economist and sociologist Max Weber first described charismatic leaders in negative connotations as temporary, demanding obedience on an emotional level since followers can make neither rational or traditional decisions on their own (Weber, 1922). This may in part be why when attending leadership conferences one will often hear current academics more devoted to transformational or servant leadership speak of charismatic leaders in terms of Stalin and Hitler (among others). One could just as easily find positive charismatic leadership in Martin Luther King, Jr. for example, and say that by any definition those in authority who are destructive to the unit, organization or community are not leaders at all.
- Yukl (1993) stated the benefits of charismatic leadership theory when introduced by House were that it pulled together influence processes, leadership behaviors, leader traits and situational variables than previous leadership theories. Conger and Kanugo (1987) stated theoretically that: A) There are multiple behavioral components to charismatic leadership; B) Leaders appear charismatic when opposing the status quo; C) Take high risks at high cost but engage in self-sacrifice to achieve vision; D) Demonstrate expertise; E) Are unconventional; F) Assess environmental conditions and create innovative strategies; G) Paint a picture of the current as unacceptable and the future as better; and H) Can articulate that vision with expertise and concern for the needs of followers (pp. 640-644). One might think on an entrepreneurial basis then of successful corporate leaders such as Steve Jobs, Jack Welch or Richard Branson, who achieved tremendous innovations and growth in their fields. Zehir, Muceldili, Altindag, Şehitoglu and Zehir (2014) in face to face surveys of 600 participants in multiple fields found that while the ethical climate within organizations had a week effect on charismatic leadership and follower’s commitment to the organization (OCB) but that charismatic leadership had a significant strong and direct effect on organizational citizenship behavior by followers.
- “A leader has to engage people in facing the challenge, adjusting their values, changing perspectives, and developing new habits of behavior” (Heifetz, 1994, pp. 276). The relationship between charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior is in the constructs of both innovation and emotional connections. OCB was conceptually introduced in 1964 by Katz as the extra effort required by employees beyond the basic technical and minimal roles in order for the organization to succeed. A study of 422 employees and supervisors for two Midwestern banks found two distinct of citizenship behaviors, altruism without regard to immediate reward, and generalized compliance of doing what is right for the organization rather than an individual leader (Smith, Organ and Near, 1983). Rioux and Penner (2001) more recently found in a study of 145 Florida government employees that individuals vary in three areas concerning desire for the organization to do well: prosocial values, organizational concerns, and from a desire not to look bad, impression management. Their research found significant relationships between prosocial values, altruism, courtesy and civic virtue, while organizational concerns correlated to civic virtue and impression management to good sportsmanship (Rioux & Penner, 2001). A study of 15 organizations in India with 93 superior-subordinate relationships found a direct relationship between transformational leaders and their OCB, and although transformational leadership can lead to increased OCB in followers, that depend on the individual employee (Krishnan & Aurora, 2008). Boerner, Aisenbeiss & Griesser (2007) in a study of 91 German firms found that transformational leadership significantly explains differences in employee organizational citizenship behavior in part through rigorous debate leading to increased innovation.
- Similarities that exist between charismatic and transformational leadership include an emphasis on values, vision and motivation though transformational leaders may de-emphasis charisma (avoiding narcissistic tendencies) to avoid negative effects sometimes associated with charismatic leaders (McLaurin & Al Amri, 2008). There is a full range of leadership styles from no leadership (laissez-faire) up through transformational (Avolio 1999; Bass & Riggio, 2006) though one may also add servant leadership and authentic leadership at the higher effectiveness levels. One cannot be an effective leader without strong self-awareness knowing where on the leadership scale behaviors are best for the team and organization to affect desired outcomes (Goleman 1995, 2002; Kouzes and Posner, 2007). A Transactional and contingent reward leadership behaviors demonstrate varying degrees of success depending on the competency of followers and task difficulty for organization. Burns (1978) states transactional leadership is not as effective because there is no long-term purpose binding team members, whereas transformational leaders deliver increased motivation and values to followers. The need of leadership, particularly in an environment of global uncertainty requiring increased innovation and sustainability, to provide subordinates with critical psychological needs of recognition, appreciation and sense of accomplishment (Burns, 1978; Kouzes & Posner, 2004) is increasingly important where financial rewards may not be available
- James McGregor Burns stated that “the moral legitimacy of transformational leadership . . . is grounded in conscious choice among real alternatives,” (Burns, 1978, pp 36.). Transformational leadership is the most studied and researched scientific approaches (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm & McKee, 2014; Dionne, Gupta, Sotak, Shirreffs, Serban, Hao, Kim &Yammarino, 2014) and originally centered around four main constructs utilizing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ): a) idealized influence; b) inspirational motivation; c) intellectual stimulation; and d) individualized consideration (Avolio, 1999; Bass & Riggio, 2006). The current iteration, MLQ5X is a 360 degree feedback tool which measures leadership behaviors in the areas of charisma, management by exception (passive or aggressive, laissez-faire, contingent rewards, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration and has split the original idealized influence into two specific constructs: idealized attributes and idealized behavior.
- In more comprehensible layman’s terms idealized attributes measures how team members perceive the leader’s social charisma and confidence with high ethical standards. Idealized behavior is how well the manager models desired values and purpose for others (do they walk like they talk). Inspirational motivation is the ability to energize stakeholders with ambitious objectives to achieve future vision. Intellectual stimulation is management’s support of both individual and organizational learning (necessary to achieve innovation, adaptation, collaboration and sustainability). Finally individualized consideration is the providing of support, advice, empathy and personal needs of team members to encourage growth (Antonakis, Avolio & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Bass & Riggio, 2006). While in very large organizations it’s certainly not common that the CEO would know every global employee. That doesn’t mean that they can’t “model the way” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, 2011) and establish human resources and management policies and procedures which support the constructs.
- There are two exciting aspects for this author to the scientific study of leadership. The first one being the interaction of early researchers (as in the U of M and Ohio State studies) building upon each other’s work as the field grew from one of management theory to incorporate sociology, psychology and economics. The second is the continued growth and development of additional theories and constructs which all provide some level of insight and growth to those willing to learn. A cynic might suggest that the only reason some leadership theories have different names is for copyright and consulting royalties. An optimist would look at the growth of servant, situational, ethical, steward, or authentic leadership studies, recognize the value in each and learn to practice behavioral traits which best fit the individual and the organizational culture. Theoretically, if not in actual practice, transformational leaders are servants and must be authentic in their actions which may or may not be charismatic depending on the situation. Exploring all of them in this venue is beyond the scope of this overture but the graphic above shows the similarities between authentic, transformational and servant leadership. Which as a conclusion leads us to a simpler definition of leadership on the following slide from Bryson and Crosby (2007).