9VanguardTheoriesThosewhosimplifytheuniverseonlyre.docx

9
Vanguard Theories
“Those who simplify the universe only reduce the
expansion of its meaning.”
ANAÏS NIN
The vanguard cluster consists of theories that offer
novel approaches to the study of
leadership.
Authentic, adaptive, and complexity leadershipeach
share commonalities with other
theoretical clusters, where they could just as
easily be positioned for the sake of
parsimony.
However, each plays a substantive role in shaping
contemporary thinking and, as such, is
situated here to signal its relevance.
The vanguard cluster is malleable by design. The
set of theories that comprise it today may
not
be the same a year, five years, or a decade
from now. Yet, inclusion is not dictated solely by
time.Adaptive leadershiphas existed for over 20 years
while formal theorizing on complexity
leadershiphas been around for only about half that
time.What contributes to the inclusion of a
theory in the vanguard cluster is the degree to
which it pushes on the boundaries of
how
leadershipis understood and manifest. The opening

quote by Nin captures this desire to add
complexity to our thinking, and vanguard theories
aid in this. They are far from perfect, but the
value added of their contributions lies in these
imperfections.
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP
For the past decade, authentic leadershiphas captivated
scholars and practitioners attempting
to make meaning of the egregious failures of
leadershipacross both the public and private
sectors (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014; Caza &
Jackson, 2011; Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, &
Dickens, 2011; George, 2003; George & Sims,
2007). Political scandals, corruption on Wall
Street, and allegations of childabuse by
religious figures are just a few of the
catalysts for
perceptions that both individuals and institutions
that were supposed to lead were instead
violating the public's trust. It is important to
note that this was not just a perfect storm of
problems indicative of the time when authentic
leadershipfirst emerged. The same issues and
many more continue to diminish public opinion
about leaders and leadership.
That leaders would act with such disregard for their
impact served as an impetus to examine
the apparent vacuum of ethical and moral
grounding in leadership. Authenticity emerged as
a
framework from which to address theseconcerns.
George (2003) is oftencredited with
reinvigorating efforts to integrate authenticity with
leadership. His popular books (George,

2003, 2015; George, Craig, & Snooks, 2015;
George & Sims, 2007) brought significant
attention to the topic, cementingthe term as
inherently linked to “good” leaders and
leadership
in many people's informal theories. Concurrently,
scholarship on authentic leadershipboomed,
with Luthans and Avolio (2003) playing a central
role in establishing its prominence in the
leadershipstudies literature.
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:25:26.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
7
.
Jo
h
n
W

ile
y
&
S
o
n
s,
I
n
co
rp
o
ra
te
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d

.
The pace and vigor with which leadershipstudies
adopted, theorized, and applied the concept
of authentic leadershipis, in and of itself, novel
and validates its inclusion in the vanguard
cluster. Authentic leadershipis also novel in its
attempt to situate itselfas an underlying
and
requisite part of all prosocial theories of leadership
(e.g., servant, transformational, social
change model).
Overview
So, I need to be candid. The body of literature on
authentic leadership, while novel and
important to leadershipstudies, is also … how should
I put this … a mess. The rapidity with
which scholars have delved into the subject matter
and leaders have translated it to practice is
astonishing. It has also resulted in competing
definitional parameters, core tenets, component
parts, and methods of measurement, making it
exceptionally difficult to compare
conceptualizations. Additionally, much of the
literature is just that—conceptual (Avolio &
Walumbwa, 2014). This is somewhat expected given
how “young” the theory is in its
development. However, things get further complicated
given that several of the empirical
studies that do exist and support the development of
the theory have either been called into
question for problematic research procedures or
completely retracted from publication. This

makes synthesizing content related to authentic
leadershipchallenging.
To minimize confusion, we will only explore content
from the scholarly line of inquiry that
evolved from Luthans and Avolio's (2003)
conceptualization of authentic leadership. This is
not to suggest that popular pressand more practical
writing on the topicare not important or do
not influence the larger body of work. However,
focusing on the scholarly literature allows us
to interpret content in more informed ways.
Points of Caution
Let's start by walking through a number of
cautions that emerge across the scholarly
literature
on authentic leadership:
There exists no unifying definition, theory,
model, or measurement of authentic
leadership(Gardner et al., 2011). Consensus simply
has not been reached. There is some
cohesion around core components outlined by Kernis
(2003) and Kernis and Goldman
(2006), which we will explore later.
Authenticity is oftenframed as a false dichotomy
in which a person is either entirely
authentic or entirely inauthentic. This reduces the
concept to a static trait as opposed to a
capacity that can be developed. It also ignores
situational influenceson how authenticity is
manifest. Scholars typically position authenticity as a
developmental construct and urge the
use of more nuanced terminology that reflects

gradations such as more or less authentic
(Erickson, 1995; Gardner et al., 2011).
However, writing on authentic leadershipoften
fails to make this distinction, employing
language that reinforces a good/bad,
authentic/inauthentic dichotomy.
Scholarship on authentic leadershipis leadercentric,
oftenexacerbating staunch
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
7
.
Jo
h
n
W
ile

y
&
S
o
n
s,
I
n
co
rp
o
ra
te
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

differentiationsbetween leaders and followers (Ladkin &
Spiller, 2013; Yammarino et
al., 2008). Most scholarship focuses on the actions
of the leader, although theseare
understood in relation to followers' perceptions.
Some attention is directed toward
follower authenticity and the role that leaders play in
developing it, although this reinforces
leader/follower dichotomies and risks paternalism. Some
suggest authentic leadership
emerges from the relationship between the leader
and follower as opposed to focusing on
one or the other(Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014).
The description of this, however, reflects
more of an interactional approach than a relational
one.
These cautions reflect points of tension in
the literature that differentiate perspectives on
what
authenticity and authentic leadershipare as well as
how they operate. They are also important
to keep in mind when interpreting and applying
concepts.
Defining Authenticity
So, what exactly is authenticity? This is a
question that has troubled philosophers and
scholars
across cultural and political contexts from antiquity to
today. Some of the earliest
understandings date back to ancient Greece and the
philosophical tenet “Know Thyself.”

Modern conceptualizations typically position authenticity
as the process of constructing a core
sense of self that is consistent over time and across
contexts (Avolio & Gardner, 2005;
Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005; Gardner et
al., 2011; Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Harter
(2002) defined authenticity as “owning one's
personal experiences, be they thoughts, emotions,
needs, preferences, or beliefs, processes captured by
the injunction to know oneself … one
acts in accord with the true self, expressing oneself
in ways that are consistent with inner
thoughts and feelings” (p. 382).
Gardner et al. (2011) explained that authenticity is
believed to consist of four elements,
originally outlined by Kernis (2003) and Kernis
and Goldman (2006), which include “(1)
awareness (i.e., knowledge and trust in one'sthoughts,
feelings, motives and values); (2)
unbiased processing (i.e., objectivity about and
acceptance of one'spositive and negative
attributes); (3) behavior (i.e., acting based on
one'strue preferences, values, and needs rather
than merely acting to please others, secure
rewards, or avoid punishments); and (4)
relational
orientation (i.e., achieving and valuing truthfulness
and openness in one'scloserelationships”
(p. 1121). This understanding of authenticity and its
constituent parts serves as the basisfor
most of the literature on authentic leadership(Avolio &
Walumbwa, 2014; Gardner et al.,
2005; Gardner et al., 2011).
Defining Authentic Leadership

Before we explore how authentic leadershipis
defined, let's walk through threecore premises
that inform it:
Authentic leadershipgrows out of two specific bodies
of literature. Positive psychology
(i.e., a subset of psychology focused on optimal
human functioning and emphasizing assets
over deficits; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000)
served as a strong influence in shaping
the interpretation of authenticity in the context of
leadership(Luthans & Avolio, 2003).
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
7
.
Jo
h
n

W
ile
y
&
S
o
n
s,
I
n
co
rp
o
ra
te
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv

e
d
.
Additionally, many consider authentic leadershipto be
an extension of transformational
leadershipattempting to further the differentiation
between positive enactments and
negative, pseudotransformational ones (Caza &
Jackson, 2011).
Together thesebodies of literature position authentic
leadershipas fundamentally moral
(Gardner & Avolio, 2005), a premise that did
not appear in the original definitions of
authenticity in which it is grounded.
Scholars increasingly argue that authentic leadership
serves as a “root” construct that
undergirds all prosocial leadershiptheories by
providing a grounding in morals and ethics
(Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio, Gardner,
Walumbwa, Luthans, & May,2004; Luthans &
Avolio, 2003). Thus, someone might practice
authentic transformational leadership,
authentic servant leadership, or authentic relational
leadership.
Luthans and Avolio (2003) initially defined
authentic leadershipas “a process that draws
from both positive psychological capacities and a highly
developed organizational context,
which results in both greater selfawareness and
selfregulated positive behaviors on the

part of leaders and associates, fostering positive
selfdevelopment” (p. 243). This definition
was later adjusted based on empirical research.
Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing,and
Peterson (2008) defined authentic leadershipas “a
pattern of leader behavior that draws upon
and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a
positive ethical climate, to foster
greater selfawareness, an internalized moral
perspective, balanced processing of
information, and relational transparency on the part of
leaders working with followers,
fostering positive selfdevelopment” (p. 94).
This shift in definitions reflects a more
competencybased approach to authentic leadership,
moving further awayfrom original definitions of
authenticity. Additionally, Walumbwa et al.
(2008) deviated from Luthans and Avolio's (2003)
assertions of the centrality of positive
psychological capacities and ethical organizational
climates. They argued instead that there
was a reciprocal relationship between theseconcepts
and the development of authentic
leadership. Therefore, they remain foundational to
understanding authentic leadershipbut not
part of the core conceptualization.
Applying the Concept
The four core competencies (i.e., selfawareness, relational
transparency, balanced
processing, and internalized moral perspective)
identified in Walumbwa et al.'s (2008)
definition of authentic leadershipprovide the focalpoint
for translating the theory to practice
(see Table 9.1 for definitions). Collectively, they

represent the overarching construct of
authentic leadership, with each component
demonstrating unique contributions to the whole.
Additionally, each construct is constituted by both a
person's thoughts as well as behaviors.
Essentially, enacting the competencies is equated
with enacting authentic leadership.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
7
.
Jo
h
n
W
ile
y

&
S
o
n
s,
I
n
co
rp
o
ra
te
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

TABLE 9.1 Core competencies associatedwith authentic
leadership
Adapted from: Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014;
Walumbwa et al. (2008)
Competency Definition
Self
Awareness
Understands one'sown process of deriving and making
meaning of the world as
well as how this influencesthe perspective of self
over time;demonstrates
understanding of personal strengths and weaknesses;
recognizes the
multifaceted nature of the “self”; gains
selfperspective through social
interactions; exhibits mindfulness of one'simpact on
others
Relational
Transparency
Ability and willingness to present one's“authentic”
self to others; promotes
trust through disclosure and openness in sharing;
communicates one'strue
thoughts and feelings while also reducing expression
of inappropriate emotions;
avoidance of selfrepresentations that are distorted or
insincere
Balanced
Processing

Ability to objectively analyze all relevant
information prior to decision making;
requests and legitimately considers information and
perspectives that challenge
deeply held positions
Internalized
Moral
Perspective
Draws on ethical values and moral standards in
process of selfregulation;
resists external pressures that conflict with internalized
standards; demonstrates
congruence between internalized values and
behaviors
Positive psychological capacities influence the four key
competencies of authentic leadership
and in turn are influenced by them. So, what
exactly are they? Luthans, Avolio, Avey,
and
Norman (2007) suggested they represent a form of
psychological capital and are defined “as
going beyond human (what you know) and
social (who you know) capital to ‘who you
are’
(your possible self) … . [and] involves
investing in the actual self to reap the return
of
becoming the possible self” (Avolio & Luthans, 2006,
p. 147). This investment occurs through
ongoing development across threepositive states:
hope, optimism, and resilience (see Table
9.2).

TABLE 9.2 Positive psychological states associated
with authentic leadership
Adapted from: Avolio & Luthans (2006),
Luthans et al. (2007)
State Definition
Hope Motivation to accomplish goals (willpower);
ability to identify multiple pathways
to achieve a goal (agency)
Optimism Expectation of a positive outcome;
internalization of successes;failures perceived
as temporary and a function of context
Resiliency Adoption of patterns of positive adaptation
to situations; the ability to bounce back
in the face of adversity or stress
As is the case with many competencybased and
behavioral approaches to leadership, thereis
a lack of clarity about how the theory
functions beyond enactment of the core concepts.
The
C
o
p
yr
ig
h

t
©
2
0
1
7
.
Jo
h
n
W
ile
y
&
S
o
n
s,
I
n
co
rp
o
ra
te
d
.
A

ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
principle is largely to just do more of what the
theory values. Avolio and Walumbwa (2014)
suggested that the enactment of authentic approaches
“should be highly valued by followers
and indeed emulated in that followers would come
to identify with and trust authentic leaders
to a greatextent” (p. 339). This situates role
modeling as well as trust building as primary
considerations in translating authentic leadershipto
practice.
How Research Evolves the Concept
Making sense of the empirical research on
authentic leadershipcan be challenging given
the
wide arrayof measurement tools that exist. The
Authentic Leadership Questionnaire is used
most oftenand reflects Walumbwa et al.'s (2008)

definition of the theory (Banks, McCauley,
Gardner, & Guler, 2016; Gardner et al. 2011).
The instrument demonstrates crosscultural and
crosscontext reliability, although more work is needed
to verify the extent of this (Avolio &
Walumbwa, 2014; Walumbwa & Wernsing,2013).
Leadership Outcomes
Findings link authentic leadershipenactment by leaders to
outcomes such as increased
teamwork, trust, group performance, follower
satisfaction and engagement, and organizational
citizenship behaviors (Bamford,Wong, & Laschinger,
2013; ClappSmith, Vogelgesang, &
Avey, 2009; Giallonardo, Wong, & Iwasiw,
2010; Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, 2015;
Walumbwa et al., 2008; Wong & Giallonardo,
2013; Wong, Spence Laschinger, &
Cummings,
2010). Much of the research is predicated on
perceptions of leader authenticity by
followers.
Additionally, Steffens, Mols, Haslam, and Okimoto
(2016) found that followers' perceptions of
leader authenticity were enhanced by the degree to
which they believed the leader both
advocated for collective interests over personal ones and
was a member of the group rather
than an outsider.
Distinctiveness as a Theory
There is someconcern about the extent to
which authentic leadershipis distinctive from
other
theories that incorporate moral and ethical
perspectives (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014;

Banks et
al., 2016). Walumbwa et al. (2008) provided
empirical evidence that as a root construct
authentic leadershipis related to transformational
and ethical leadershipbut also offers
explanatory value above and beyond those
theories. Banks et al. (2016), however,
identified a
high degree of correlation between authentic and
transformational leadership, suggesting a
significant overlap between the concepts. Although
they expressed concern about this, they
also acknowledged that further research is needed to
clarify the issue.
WrapUp
Practitioners and scholars alike seementhralled with
authentic leadership, and the theory most
certainly demonstrates considerable potential. However,
Walumbwa and Wernsing (2013)
admitted that while “authenticleadershipis believed by
scholars to foster a range of positive
outcomes and reduce counterproductive behaviors,
the how and why of theserelationships has
C
o
p
yr
ig
h

ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
remained largely unexplored” (p. 397). Avolio
and Walumbwa (2014) go a step further by
urging caution regarding the rapidity with which
authentic leadershiphas been adopted,
suggesting that the integration of what are still
nascent and unvalidated ideasinto training and
development programs is risky. More than almost
any othertheory, scholars of authentic
leadershipseemto blur the boundaries of statements
based on evidence versus mere
conjecture. In sum, authentic leadershippresents a
novel approach that attempts to extend the
work of transformational leadershiptheories, but its
novelty also serves as one of its greatest
weaknesses. Table 9.3 provides additional strengths
and weaknesses.
TABLE 9.3 Strengths and weaknesses of authentic

leadership
Strengths Weaknesses
Extends the understanding of prosocial
leadershiptheories by identifying authentic
leadershipas a root construct
Positions ethical and moral values as
drivers of leadership
Incorporates the concept of psychological
capital as a foundation with attention
toward hope, optimism, and resilience
Leadercentric in design and treatment of
followers
Lack of conceptual clarity contributing to
multiple interpretations of the theory, its
core concepts, and measurement
Remains largely conceptual with limited
empirical testing, someof which is
identified as problematic
Making Connections
How might authentic leadershipreflect dominant norms
associatedwith social
location? To what extent might exhibiting authenticity
be dangerous based on power
dynamics?
What stands out as useful about authentic
leadership? What do you thinkneeds to be

addressed in the deconstruction and reconstruction
processes?
ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP
Adaptive leadershipis included in the vanguard cluster
given the degree to which it disrupts
common sense understandings about leaders and
leadership. Initially introduced by Heifetz
(1994), and advanced over the years in
collaboration with otherscholars (Heifetz, Grashow, &
Linsky, 2009; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002), the
purpose of adaptive leadershipis to provide a
pragmatic approach. However, pragmatism in Heifetz's
world is clearly a relative term; his
concepts are complex and disrupt many of the
commonly held assumptions about what
leadershipis, its central purpose, and how it
functions.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1

7
.
Jo
h
n
W
ile
y
&
S
o
n
s,
I
n
co
rp
o
ra
te
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts

r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
TABLE 7.1 Strengths and weaknesses of
transforming/transformational leadership
Grounded in moral values, it is among
the earliest theories to espouse the
importance of investing in follower
development
Substantial, highquality research
supports the validity of the theory and its
influence on a wide range of leadership
outcomes
Situates transformational behaviors in
the context of transactional and non
leader behaviors differentiating the
influencesof each
Fullrange leadershipis a misnomer as the
metacategories described do not account
for all leadershipbehaviors

Little evidence of how followers,
organizations, or systems are “transformed”
as a result of behaviors
Leadercentricity offers minimal
consideration of follower agency despite
articulating a mutual relationship between
leaders and followers
Making Connections
Transformationsounds great, but who has the power
and authority to determine the
type of transformation being pursued and the moral
foundations that guide it? How
might this run the risk of replicating dominant
norms?
What stands out as useful about
transforming/transformational leadership? What do
you thinkneeds to be addressed in the
deconstruction and reconstruction processes?
SERVANT LEADERSHIP
The concept of servant leadershipinitially emerged as
a philosophical framework for
understanding leadershipin a series of papers
written by Greenleaf (1970, 1977), a
business
executive who worked for AT&T. Greenleaf offered a
reframing of what he believed
leadershipshould be about. His philosophy
suggested that formal leaders should act as
servants first and leaders second, reflecting a calling
to give back rather than selfserving

motives or an overemphasis on production.
Greenleaf's propositions contributed to a
wide
range of publications and the formation of the
Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership to
advance the philosophy and train people in its
application to practice. Numerous businesses,
universities, and religious organizations have adopted
servant leadershipas the foundation for
their work given its positioning of leadershipas a
moral imperative. Despite servant
leadership's popularityin practice and existence for
over 45 years, it has only been in the last
15 years that scholars have directed considerable
attention toward its empirical validation.
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
7
.
Jo

h
n
W
ile
y
&
S
o
n
s,
I
n
co
rp
o
ra
te
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e

se
rv
e
d
.
Overview
Interestingly, Greenleaf's (1970, 1977) early
writings on servant leadershippredate Burns's
(1978) work on transforming leadership. Yet, servant
leadershipdid not initially receive the
same degree of academic attention that Burns's work
did. Both theories draw on similar
foundations, emphasizing a movementbeyond
management alone, engagement with values
and
ethics, and development of followers. The unique
contribution of servant leadershipabove and
beyond those of transforming and transformational
leadershiplies in its inclusion of social
responsibility as a core premise (Graham, 1991;
van Dierendonck, 2011). In transformational
leadershipthereis a stated need to invest in
individuals, but those investments are in
service of
an end goal of organizational advancement whereas in
servant leadershipthey are ends in and
of themselves. Fully understanding servant
leadershiprequires a quick sidestep into its
origins.
The Muse
Greenleaf (1977) credits Hesse's (2003) novel

The Journey to the East, first published in
Germany in 1932, as the inspiration for servant
leadership. The novel tells of a mystical
journey taken by a group of Western
European men who belonged to a sacred
religious order
whose past members included greatmen and characters
from history, including Plato, Mozart,
Don Quixote, and Puss in Boots. Yep … the cat.
So, the sacred order was composed of all
men
and a talking cat. We'll come back to that
later.
The purpose of the group's journey to the East
was to seek out the “ultimate truth.” What
starts
as a successfuland jovial spiritual quest falls
apartafter a humble servant to the group
disappears and its members devolve into petty
arguments, eventually disbanding and
pursuing
individual paths. It's clear to readers, however, that
this “servant” was in actuality much more.
He provided the glue that held the group together,
yet they remained oblivious to his
importance.
The main character spends years in despair over
the failure and what he believes to be the
collapse of the religious order that gave him purpose
and direction in life. During this time,he
attempts to document the journey, strugglingto capture
what happened and all the while
becoming more disenfranchised. A sharp turn in
the novel reveals that the “servant” who left

the group was in actuality the head of the order
and the journey and subsequent years of
disillusionmentwere tests of faith, which the main
character failed. He is given a final test
that
challenges his understanding of what constitutes
“truth.” This test ends with the main character
viewing his own storyas documented in the
archives of the order, revealing that his identity
is
tied to and merging with that of the servant—an
allegory for letting go of personal ego and
the
emergence of an interdependent consciousness.
Understanding the storythat inspired Greenleaf (1977) to
writeabout servant leadershipis
incredibly important as it helps us understand
the dynamics from which he drew as he built
his
philosophy. His interpretation rests on the assertion
that “this storyclearly says that the great
leader is seen as servant first, and that simple
fact is the key to his greatness … he was
servant first because that was who he was, deep down
inside” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 21,
emphasis in original). Greenleaf saw in Hesse's (2003)
work the ways in which “servants” are
C
o
p

yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
7
.
Jo
h
n
W
ile
y
&
S
o
n
s,
I
n
co
rp
o
ra

te
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
oftenobscured by groups that instead focus on
those in formal positions using authority to
advance organizational or individual goals rather
than collective ones. Drawing on the major
themes of the story, his intent was to reshape
leadershipas derived first from deep service that
in turn elevates one into formal authority roles.
However, as a function of both its content and
the historical context in which it was written,
The Journey to the East also reflects a number of
problematic elements that are either ignored
by Greenleaf (1977) or showup in his philosophy
and its contemporary application in

problematic ways. This includes the patriarchal
positioning of “great men,” paternalistic
approaches to development and learning, and
orientalistovertones (i.e., an ideology presuming
marked distinctions between “Western” and
“Eastern” cultures in which Western values
are
normative and Eastern cultures misrepresented,
exaggerated, and exoticized). These ideasare
particularly apparent in how servant leadershipremains
leadercentric, positions the role of
the leader as a nurturing parental figure, and
reproduces gendered norms. Furthermore,
Greenleaf's interpretation leaves out someof the
most important existential questions of the
novel that draw on multiple spiritual traditions,
defaulting instead to JudeoChristian
examples. It should not be surprising, then, that
servant leadershipis sometimes narrowly
interpreted through the lens of religiosityand
appropriated as solely a storyof Judeo
Christian leadership. For example, Sendjaya and Sarros
(2002) argued that “Greenleaf is not
the individual who first introduced the notion of
servant leadershipto everyday human
endeavor. It was Christianity's founder, Jesus Christ,
who first taught the concept of servant
leadership” (p. 58). Parris and Peachey (2013)
caution that the rootsof servant leadershipdate
back not to a single faith tradition or individual,
but to teachings from most of the world's great
religions and a wide range of historical figures.
Philosophical Starting Point
If you thinkback to the first chapter, we
differentiated between theories, models, taxonomies,

and philosophical frameworks. Servant leadership
provides an example of how that
differentiation becomes important. Servant leadership,
as originally conceived by Greenleaf
(1977), offers a philosophical framework or
abstract representation of untested ideasand
principles. He did not offer a formal theory,
provide an explicit definition, or include a
model
for how it should be operationalizedin practice.
This means that over time both the application
of servant leadershipand scholarly research on it
have been interpretations of Greenleaf's
philosophy, reflecting varying degrees of congruence
with the original work.
Scholars and practitioners alike have attempted to provide
definitional clarity about what
servant leadershipmeans as a starting pointfor
research and applications to practice. Most
draw on the following quote in building their
definition:
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©

2
0
1
7
.
Jo
h
n
W
ile
y
&
S
o
n
s,
I
n
co
rp
o
ra
te
d
.
A
ll

ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
The servantleader is servant first … It begins
with the natural feeling that one wants to
serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings
one to aspire to lead. That person is
sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps
because of the need to assuage an
unusual power driveor to acquire material
possessions. For such, it will be a later
choice
to serve—after leadershipis established … The
difference manifests itselfin the care taken
by the servantfirst to make sure that other
people's highest priority needs are being
served. The best test, and difficult to administer is
this: Do those served growas persons?
Do they, while being served, become healthier,
wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely
themselves to become servants? And, what is the
effect on the least privileged in society?
Will they benefit, or at least not be further

deprived? (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 27)
Additionally, scholars and practitioners attempt to
identify core tenets that set servant
leadershipapartfrom othertheories. These typically include
(1) that the motivation to lead is
derived from a deeply personal desire to serve
others, (2) that the desire to serve others
operates not just in a particular organizational or
group context but in all aspects of the
leader's
life, (3) that power and authority should be given
to leaders by followers and only to the
degree that they operate from a servant perspective,
and (4) that leaders have a moral
obligation to demonstrate concern for the development
of followers and stakeholders to their
full potential.
Applying the Concept
Numerous scholars offer insights into how best to
operationalize servant leadership, moving it
from a broad philosophy to a functional theory,
model, or taxonomy more accessible for
application to practice (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006;
Brown & Bryant, 2015; Liden, Panaccio,
Meuser, Hu, & Wayne, 2014; Liden, Wayne,
Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Russell &
Stone, 2002;
Spears, 1995, 2010; van Dierendonck, 2011;
van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; van
Dierendonck & Patterson, 2015). Initially theseefforts
focused almost entirely on the
identification of traitsand behaviors associatedwith
enacting the role of a servant leader. This
was later extended to a broader range of

considerations. However, thereexists no single
agreedupon approach to servant leadership. As
such, Figure 7.2 provides an adaptation of
servant leadershipthat draws on several of the
most recognized conceptualizations (Liden et
al., 2008, 2014; van Dierendonck, 2011).
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
7
.
Jo
h
n
W
ile
y
&

S
o
n
s,
I
n
co
rp
o
ra
te
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.

FIGURE 7.2 Adapted model of servant leadership
At the center of Figure 7.2 is the heartof
servant leadership—the behaviors that leaders
exhibit
to bring to life Greenleaf's (1977) original
philosophy. These include the following:
Conceptual Skills: Developing knowledge of
the environment in which leadershipunfolds
as well as the leadershiptasks/processes occurring to be
able to support followers
effectively
EmotionalHealing: Demonstrating sensitivity to the
personal concerns of followers
Putting Followers First: Communicating and
demonstrating through action that the work
needs of followers are a priority
Helping Followers Grow and Succeed: Prioritizing
the personal and professional
development of followers by providing necessary support
and resources
Behaving Ethically: Engaging with followers in an open,
fair, and honest manner
Empowerment: Positioning followers as capable of
identifying and resolving problems as
well as directing their own work flow through
encouragement
Creating Value for the Community: Communicating
a genuine concern for the community

I
n
co
rp
o
ra
te
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e
d
.
Each of the behaviors should be individualized to
best meet the unique needs of each follower.
For example, how a leader enacts emotional healing
may look different for one person than it
does for another.

The relative effectiveness of servant leader
behaviors is a function of threekey factors.
First,
the context in which servant leader behaviors
are manifest shapes the degree to which
they will
be accepted. Second, not all groups and
organizations may find servant leadershipdesirable or
effective and thus may not be receptive to it
(Anderson, 2009; Liden et al., 2014).
Third,
culture influencesthe ways in which servant leader
behaviors are enacted, valued, and
interpreted (van Dierendonck, 2011).
Additionally, the characteristics of both leaders and
followers play a powerful role in
determining the effectiveness of servant leader
behaviors. Leader characteristics include the
following traitsand attributes:(1) a desire to serve
others grounded in altruistic, intrinsic
motivation, (2) emotional intelligence, (3) a level of
moral maturity characterized by the
ability to make sound moral judgments,
employ metacognitive reasoning, situate oneself
as
morally responsible, and consistently act in moral
ways, (4) a prosocial identity in which
one'sselfconcept is defined in part by a belief
in the importance of helping others, (5) a
core
sense of self characterized by healthy selfesteem
and selfefficacy, an internal locus of
control, and low degrees of neuroticism, and (6)
low levels of narcissism so that egodriven
behaviors, selfimportance,and entitlement are limited

and the needs of followers put first.
Leader characteristics interact dynamically with
follower traitsand attributes, influencing how
servant leader behaviors should be enacted. First,
followers with a proactive personality
thrive on and benefit from the agency and
interdependence afforded by empowerment
behaviors. Those whose personalities are less
proactive benefit from behaviors associated
with conceptual skills, putting followers first, and
helping followers to growand succeed.
Second, when followers possess a healthy core
sense of self, behaviors associatedwith
empowerment and helping followers growand succeed
are well received. If a follower's core
sense of self is underdeveloped, then behaviors
associatedwith helping followers growand
succeed and emotional healing become important.
Finally, harkening back to ILT, followers
develop ideal leader prototypes that shape how
they perceive those in leader roles.
Followers'
servant leader prototypes influence their conscious
and subconscious expectations regarding
what servant leadershipshould “look like” and
whether it is a desirable approach. This shapes
followers' receptivity to and expectations for servant
leader behaviors, in turn requiring
leaders to rely heavily on the relational aspects of
emotional healing to customize behaviors to
meet their needs.
When thereis a dynamic alignment between
context, leader characteristics, and follower
characteristics, servant leader behaviors cultivate

intermediate outcomes that contribute to
leadershipoutcomes (e.g., performance, satisfaction,
goal attainment). These intermediate
outcomes are important in and of themselves as
they foster a climate of reciprocity. This
includes increased mutual trust between leaders and
followers; gains in followers' core sense
of self, prosocial identity, and moral development;
greater sense of empowerment; increased
commitment to the leader; and better alignment
between leader and follower prototypes for
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
7
.
Jo
h
n
W

ile
y
&
S
o
n
s,
I
n
co
rp
o
ra
te
d
.
A
ll
ri
g
h
ts
r
e
se
rv
e

d
.
servant leadership. Collectively, theseintermediate
outcomes shape the degree to which
leadershipoutcomes are achieved.
How Research Evolves the Concept
As previously stated, servant leadershiporiginated as
a broad philosophical framework
without a clear theoretical base from which to
ground empirical research. This may explain in
part why it took so long for scholars to direct
significant attention toward evolving the concept
despite its widespread use in practice. Let's
examine several considerations from research.
Validation and Theoretical Distinctiveness
The seven servant leader behaviors presented in
this chapter are the direct result of
rigorous
model building and psychometric testing (Liden et
al., 2008, 2014, 2015). While othersets of
behaviors exist, none have undergone such extensive
empirical examination to affirm accuracy
of measurement. Furthermore, scholars have
demonstrated that servant leadershipis distinct
from othertheories, including ethical leadership, LMX,
and transformational leadership
(Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008; Parolini,
Patterson, & Winston, 2009; Peterson, Galvin, &
Lange, 2012; Schaubroeck, Lam,& Peng, 2011;
van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt,
& Alkema, 2014).

Influences on Leadership Outcomes
A growing body of empirical research demonstrates a
clear impact associatedwith enacting
servant leadershipbehaviors on leadershipoutcomes. Several
literature reviews synthesize
theseresults, highlighting its positive influence on
outcomes ranging from individual and team
performance to organizational commitment and
citizenship behaviors (Liden et al., 2014;
Parris & Peachey, 2013; van Dierendonck, 2011).
Figure 7.2 captures the full range of
leadershipoutcomes found in the literature. It is
important to note that research on servant
leadershiphas included varying aspects of the
environmental context oftenabsent from studies
as well as demonstrated the additive value of
enacting servant leadershipbeyond that accrued
through othertheories alone.
Considerations Based on Social Location
As is the case with many leadershiptheories, most of
the research on servant leadership
addressing social location reflects a convenient
side step around domestic cultural differences
in the United States, emphasizing instead
international crosscultural applications. Empirical
measures of servant leadershiphave been employed in a
variety of international contexts and
demonstrated transferability (Hu & Liden, 2011;
Schaubroeck et al., 2011; Walumbwa,
Hartnell, & Oke, 2010).
Some attention has been directed to gender
differences in the enactment of servant
leadership

behaviors, although most of this research comes
from unpublished dissertations or studies with
limited generalizability. EicherCatt (2005),
however, offered an insightful deconstruction of
servant leadership, drawing on feminist perspectives
that add significantly to understanding the
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
7
.
Jo
h
n
W
ile
y
&

concept. She troubled the use of contradictory terms
such as “servant” and “leader,” which
elicitparadoxical stocks of knowledge to disrupt
commonly accepted understandings of
leadership. However, theseterms are not values
neutral and as such also simultaneously draw
on gendered stocks of knowledge that associate
“leader” with masculinity and dominance and
“servant” with femininity and subjugation. EicherCatt
further argued that the grounding of
servant leadershipin a JudeoChristian ideology has
implications for how power is manifest,
given its rootedness in patriarchy and how the
tradition has historically “marked women and
othermarginalized groups as others, as
transgressors against society's norms” (p. 21).
She goes
on to caution that because the initial disruption of
what leadershipis thought to be is so
attractive and the core tenets of inclusivity and
development alignwith contemporary values,
servant leadership“can be easily appropriated to
serve political ends” (EicherCatt, 2005, p.
23).
WrapUp
Some might argue that understanding the value
of servant leadershiprequires the use of
dialectical thinking (i.e., engaging in the process of
holding two seemingly contradictory
concepts in unison) given the terminology that
defines it and the ways in which it both
disrupts
and reinforces dominant norms. Servant leadershipis
unique within the body of leadership
theories, having evolved from a philosophical

framework created to challenge commonly
held
conceptions of power and production. However,
servant leadershipalso runs the risk of
reinforcing leadercentricity and a number of
problematic ideologiesdependingon how it is
translated to practice. Greenleaf (1977) acknowledged
someof thesecriticisms. He also
encouraged people to avoid dismissing the
potential that servant leadershippresents simply
because it isn't perfect. Table 7.2 synthesizes
key strengths and weaknesses associatedwith
servant leadership.
TABLE 7.2 Strengths and weaknesses of servant
leadership
Emergent research that is
psychometrically rigorous validates
the concept
Demonstrated positive influenceson
leadershipoutcomes above and
beyond those associatedwith other
leadershiptheories
Acknowledges how dynamic
interactions with context, culture,
and followers shape relative success
when translating to practice
Because it originated as a philosophy, multiple
competing versions exist, each with varying
congruence with the original concept and quality

of empirical support
May not be desirable in all organizational
contexts given its core tenets
Leadercentric nature, limited examination of
social location, and potential to perpetuate
patriarchal and JudeoChristian norms
necessitate caution in its enactment
C
o
p
yr
ig
h
t
©
2
0
1
7
.
Jo
h
n
W
ile

9VanguardTheoriesThosewhosimplifytheuniverseonlyre.docx

9VanguardTheoriesThosewhosimplifytheuniverseonlyre.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 9VanguardTheoriesThosewhosimplifytheuniverseonlyre.docx

Similar to 9VanguardTheoriesThosewhosimplifytheuniverseonlyre.docx (17)

More from ransayo

More from ransayo (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

9VanguardTheoriesThosewhosimplifytheuniverseonlyre.docx