The document reviews the field of leadership development, highlighting the differences between leader and leadership development while emphasizing the importance of integrating both human and social capital within organizations. It discusses contemporary practices such as 360-degree feedback and mentoring, as well as the need for a cohesive strategy that connects individual and collective leadership efforts to enhance organizational adaptability. The review aims to bridge the gap between the practical application and scientific understanding of leadership development, encouraging further research in the area.

1. LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT:
A REVIEW IN CONTEXT
David V. Day*
The Pennsylvania State University
Interest in leadership development is strong, especially among
practitioners. Nonetheless, there
is conceptual confusion regarding distinctions between leader
and leadership development, as
well as disconnection between the practice of leadership
development and its scientific foundation.
The present review examines the field of leadership
development through three contextual
lenses: (1) understanding the difference between leader
development and leadership development
(conceptual context); (2) reviewing how state-of-the-art
development is being conducted in the
context of ongoing organizational work (practice context); and
(3) summarizing previous research
that has implications for leadership development (research
context). The overall purpose is to
bridge the practice and science of leadership development by
showing the importance of building
both human and social capital in organizations. Specific
practices that are reviewed include 360-
degree feedback and executive coaching, mentoring and
networking, and job assignments and
action learning. Practices and research are framed in terms of a
general need to link leader
development, which is primarily based on enhancing human
capital, with leadership development

2. that emphasizes the creation of social capital in organizations.
In the traditional organization—the organization of the last one
hundred
years—the skeleton or internal structure, was a combination of
rank and
power. In the emerging organization, it has to be mutual
understanding and
responsibility.
—Peter F. Drucker, Managing in Times of Great Change
Interest in leadership development appears to be at its zenith.
One indicator of
this interest is seen in survey results highlighting the increased
attention and re-
sources given to leadership development (The Conference
Board, 1999). Many
organizations are viewing leadership as a source of competitive
advantage and are
investing in its development accordingly (McCall, 1998; Vicere
& Fulmer, 1998).
* Direct all correspondence to: David V. Day, Department of
Psychology, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA 16802; e-mail:
[email protected]
Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613.
Copyright
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 1048-9843
582 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Another indicator of the burgeoning interest in leadership

3. development is the
number of current publications on the topic. One of the most
notable offerings is the
Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership
Development (McCauley,
Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998), which summarizes much of what
Center researchers
and trainers have learned about leadership development over the
past 30 years. In
addition, there are a number of recently published books and
book chapters devoted
to various aspects of leadership development (e.g., Conger &
Benjamin, 1999;
Dotlich & Noel, 1998; Giber, Carter, & Goldsmith, 1999;
Hollenbeck & McCall,
1999; McCall, 1998; Vicere & Fulmer, 1998).
An immediate distinction must be made, however, between
leadership develop-
ment and management development. Literatures between the
two areas are parallel
and do overlap, but there are several key differences. Just as
leadership and manage-
ment are different (but interrelated) concepts (Yukl, 1998), their
respective develop-
ment has unique emphases. Management development primarily
includes manage-
rial education and training (Latham & Seijts, 1998; Mailick,
Stumpf, Grant, Kfir, &
Watson, 1998) with an emphasis on acquiring specific types of
knowledge, skills,
and abilities to enhance task performance in management roles
(Baldwin & Padgett,
1994; Keys & Wolfe, 1988; Wexley & Baldwin, 1986). Another
characteristic feature
of management development is the application of proven

4. solutions to known prob-
lems, which gives it mainly a training orientation.
Leadership development is defined as expanding the collective
capacity of organi-
zational members to engage effectively in leadership roles and
processes (McCauley
et al., 1998). Leadership roles refer to those that come with and
without formal
authority, whereas management development focuses on
performance in formal
managerial roles. Leadership processes are those that generally
enable groups of
people to work together in meaningful ways, whereas
management processes are
considered to be position- and organization-specific (Keys &
Wolfe, 1988). Leader-
ship development involves building the capacity for groups of
people to learn their
way out of problems that could not have been predicted (Dixon,
1993), or that
arise from the disintegration of traditional organizational
structures and the associ-
ated loss of sensemaking (Weick, 1993). In this sense capacity
is thought to be
similar to the notion of cognitive and behavioral complexity in
that expanded
capacity provides for better individual and collective
adaptability across a wide
range of situations (Hooijberg, Bullis, & Hunt, 1999). A
leadership development
approach is oriented toward building capacity in anticipation of
unforeseen chal-
lenges (i.e., development).
The purpose of the present review is to examine leadership

5. development in
context. The use of the term context is meant to be multifaceted
in nature, and
implies that leadership development occurs in various
circumstances. One specific
context is that of developing leaders versus developing
leadership (i.e., conceptual
context). A second context is that of the work itself, and how
state-of-the-art
development is being conducted in the context of ongoing
organizational work (i.e.,
practice context). A third context is related to research that has
direct and indirect
implications for leadership development (i.e., research context).
The present review
does not claim to be exhaustive; rather, it will focus on recent
practices and research
that have been implemented or published, typically within the
past 5 to 10 years.
Furthermore, given the relative dearth of scholarly research
directly on the topic,
Leadership Development 583
most of what is reviewed has implications for leadership
development, as opposed
to being conceptualized primarily within a leadership
development framework. The
research review and discussion is intended to spark interest
among future leadership
development researchers.
CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT: BRIDGING LEADER AND
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

6. Leadership has been traditionally conceptualized as an
individual-level skill. A
good example of this is found in transformational leadership
theory, which proposes
that transformational leaders engage in behaviors related to the
dimensions of
Charisma, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized
Consideration (Bass, 1985).
The corresponding approach to research and theory testing
assumes an individualis-
tic conceptualization of leadership, in which sharp distinction is
drawn between
leaders and followers (e.g., followers evaluate their “leader”
using a number of
behavioral items). Within this tradition, development is thought
to occur primarily
through training individual, primarily intrapersonal, skills and
abilities (Barling,
Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Neck & Manz, 1996; Skarlicki &
Latham, 1997; Stewart,
Carson, & Cardy, 1996). These kinds of training approaches,
however, ignore almost
50 years of research showing leadership to be a complex
interaction between the
designated leader and the social and organizational environment
(Fiedler, 1996).
In addition to building individual leaders by training a set of
skills or abilities
and assuming that leadership will result, a complementary
perspective approaches
leadership as a social process that engages everyone in the
community (Barker,
1997; Drath & Palus, 1994; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). In this
way, each person is

7. considered a leader, and leadership is conceptualized as an
effect rather than a
cause (Drath, 1998). Leadership is therefore an emergent
property of effective
systems design (Salancik, Calder, Rowland, Leblebici, &
Conway, 1975). Leadership
development from this perspective consists of using social (i.e.,
relational) systems
to help build commitments among members of a community of
practice (Wenger,
1998). It is proposed that both individual and relational lenses
are important con-
cerns.
Lester Thurow (1999) has argued: “Businesses must be willing
to destroy the
old while it is still successful if they wish to build the new that
will be successful.
If they don’t destroy themselves, others will destroy them” (p.
59). In building the
leadership capacity necessary continually to reinvent
themselves, organizations need
to attend to both individual leader and collective leadership
development. Further-
more, these approaches must be linked with each other and
connected to a broader
organizational strategy (Hall & Seibert, 1992; Latham & Seijts,
1998) for maximum
return on investment. A summary of the proposed differences
between leader
development and leadership development is presented in Table
1.
Leader Development
One of the primary reasons that organizations invest in training

8. and development
for employees is to enhance and protect their human capital
(Lepak & Snell, 1999).
584 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Table 1. Summary of Differences between Leader Development
and Leadership Development
Development Target
Comparison Dimension Leader Leadership
Capital Type Human Social
Leadership Model Individual Relational
Personal power Commitments
Knowledge Mutual respect
Trustworthiness Trust
Competence Base Intrapersonal Interpersonal
Skills Self-awareness Social awareness
Emotional awareness Empathy
Self confidence Service orientation
Accurate self image Political awareness
Self-regulation Social skills
Self-control Building bonds
Trustworthiness Team orientation
Personal responsibility Change catalyst
Adaptability Conflict management
Self motivation

9. Initiative
Commitment
Optimisim
In the case of leader development, the emphasis typically is on
individual-based
knowledge, skills, and abilities associated with formal
leadership roles. These ac-
quired capabilities enable people to think and act in new ways
(Coleman, 1988).
In this manner, leader development results as a function of
purposeful investment
in human capital. The primary emphasis of the overarching
development strategy
is to build the intrapersonal competence needed to form an
accurate model of
oneself (Gardner, 1993, p. 9), to engage in healthy attitude and
identity development
(Hall & Seibert, 1992), and to use that self-model to perform
effectively in any
number of organizational roles.
Specific examples of the type of intrapersonal competence
associated with leader
development initiatives include self-awareness (e.g., emotional
awareness, self con-
fidence), self-regulation (e.g., self-control, trustworthiness,
adaptability), and self-
motivation (e.g., commitment, initiative, optimism) (Manz &
Sims, 1989; McCauley,
2000; Neck & Manz, 1996; Stewart et al., 1996). These
capabilities contribute to
enhanced individual knowledge, trust, and personal power,
which have been proposed
as the fundamental leadership imperatives (Zand, 1997), at least
from a traditional,

10. individualistic leadership perspective. It is important to
understand this approach if
only because the predominant emphasis in organizational
leadership research has
been on the human capital of individual leaders (Brass &
Krackhardt, 1999).
Leadership Development
In addition to the organizational resources provided as a
function of human
capital, social resources are embedded in work relationships
that take the form of
Leadership Development 585
social capital (Brass & Krackhardt, 1999; Burt, 1992). Unlike
human capital, in
which the focus is on developing individual knowledge, skills,
and abilities, the
emphasis with social capital is on building networked
relationships among individu-
als that enhance cooperation and resource exchange in creating
organizational value
(Bouty, 2000; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). Despite the importance of
social networks
in this approach—and the typical structural approach to social
networks analyses—
social capital is defined more by its function than by its
structure (Coleman, 1988;
Whitener, 2000). That is, social capital is based on
relationships, which are created
through interpersonal exchange (Bourdieu, 1986). In this
manner social capital

11. requires an interpersonal lens that is grounded in a relational
model of leadership
(Drath & Palus, 1994). At the heart of this relational model are
commitments in
the form of mutual obligations, which are supported by
reciprocated trust and
respect (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000).
Commitments, trust, and respect correspond roughly to three
different aspects
of social capital proposed by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998):
structural, relational,
and cognitive. The structural dimension pertains primarily to
social interactions
typically assessed by means of network ties (Tsai & Ghoshal,
1998). The social
structure of interactions—and an actor’s location in relation to
his or her contacts—
has been shown to provide resources to the actor as well as the
organization (Burt,
1992). This structure is formed as a result of the commitments
among all parties in
a given social network. The relational dimension of social
capital refers to functional
assets that are rooted in networked relationships, such as trust
and trustworthiness
(Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998), which describe the kind of personal
relationships developed
through a history of interactions. This is a particularly
interesting dimension.
Whereas trust is an attribute of the relationship, trustworthiness
rests in the intraper-
sonal qualities of the individual (Barney & Hansen, 1994). This
highlights the
importance of developing both intrapersonal and interpersonal
competence, and

12. of linking leader development with leadership development.
The third aspect of social capital is the cognitive dimension,
which refers to
resources embodied in shared representations and collective
meanings among peo-
ple. Expressions of the cognitive dimension to social capital can
be found in organiza-
tion culture or a shared vision based on a set of common values
that produces and
is a product of mutual respect. These facets of social capital
(i.e., structural, rela-
tional, and cognitive) are interrelated and not independent
concerns, and have been
empirically linked to value creation in organizations through
their separate effects
on resource exchange and combination (Bouty, 2000; Tsai &
Ghoshal, 1998).
The primary emphasis in leadership development is on building
and using inter-
personal competence. Gardner (1993) defines interpersonal
intelligence in terms
of the ability to understand people—a basic concern in building
trust, respect, and
ultimately, commitments. Key components of interpersonal
competence include
social awareness (e.g., empathy, service orientation, and
developing others) and
social skills (e.g., collaboration and cooperation, building
bonds, and conflict man-
agement) (Goleman, 1995; McCauley, 2000). The emphasis is
on the social nature
of this competence, and the idea that effective development best
occurs in an
interpersonal (i.e., social) context.

13. The notion of leadership development offered in the present
review focuses on
the interaction between an individual and the social and
organizational environment
586 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
(Fiedler, 1996). As such, it is a more complex endeavor than
one concerned solely
with individual leader development. Although there is still a
need to develop a
sound foundation of intrapersonal and interpersonal skills, it is
proposed that the
most value resides in combining what is considered the
traditional, individualistic
approach to leader development with a more shared and
relational approach.
Another way to conceptualize the distinction is that leader
development can be
interpreted as a form of individual-based differentiation in
terms of helping individu-
als enhance a unique self-understanding and construct
independent identities
(Hall & Seibert, 1992; McCauley et al., 1998). Leadership
development can be
thought of as an integration strategy by helping people
understand how to relate
to others, coordinate their efforts, build commitments, and
develop extended social
networks by applying self-understanding to social and
organizational imperatives.
An overall approach to leadership development as a type of

14. organizational develop-
ment strategy requires a purposeful transformation toward
higher levels of both
leadership integration and differentiation. This is an example of
a move toward
what has been termed “organized complexity” (Gharajedaghi,
1999, pp. 92–93).
The profound changes shaping the competitive business
environment are also
affecting how organizations prepare people for present and
future challenges. One
emphasis has been on investing more intensely in leader and
leadership development
across all organization levels, and to develop leadership
capacity in all employees
and across all organizational systems. Scholarly researchers
potentially have much
to contribute to the understanding and improvement of
leadership development in
organizations. In particular, researchers can help enhance the
purposefulness of
leadership development by examining how various practices and
processes, alone
and in combination, contribute to better leadership. One of the
biggest challenges
facing organizations is reversing a tendency that allows
leadership development to
become a “haphazard process” (Conger, 1993, p. 46), which
results from embedding
development in the ongoing work of an organization without
sufficient notice to
intentionality, accountability, and evaluation.
To be of any help in this endeavor, academic researchers need
to first transcend

15. the outdated notion that leadership development occurs only
through specially
designed programs held in particular locations. Instead, it is a
continuous process
that can take place anywhere (Fulmer, 1997). Leadership
development in practice
today means helping people learn from their work rather than
taking them away
from their work to learn (Moxley & O’Connor Wilson, 1998).
State-of-the-art
leadership development is occurring in the context of ongoing
work initiatives that
are tied to strategic business imperatives (Dotlich & Noel,
1998).
Of course, classroom programs are still widely used by
organizations as one type
of development practice. A 1995 survey sponsored by the
American Society of
Training and Development indicated that 85% of companies that
engage in leader-
ship development activities use formal classroom programs
(American Society for
Training and Development, 1995); however, many organizations
are realizing that
such programs are not enough. Classroom programs suffer from
transfer of training
challenges and high start-up costs, among other limitations. The
real movement is
toward understanding and practicing leadership development
more effectively in
the context of the work itself.
Leadership Development 587

16. PRACTICE AND RESEARCH CONTEXTS: BRIDGING THE
APPLIED AND
ACADEMIC COMMUNITIES
A variety of practices have been developed and implemented in
organizations for
reasons other than leadership development. Most typically,
these practices were pri-
marily intended to improve performance management (e.g., 360-
degree feedback),
facilitate corporate socialization (e.g., mentoring), or enhance
productivity (e.g., job
assignments, action learning). Often the practices are
completely embedded in the
work. In many cases, these practices also form the backbone of
contemporary leader-
ship development systems. The present review will examine the
most popular and
promising practices used to develop leaders and leadership in
the context of ongoing
work in an organization. Each section will contain a brief
overview of the practice,
how it is used for development, and a synthesis of recent theory
and research with
implications for understanding or improving the effectiveness of
leadership develop-
ment in work contexts. Literature from both the practitioner and
academic domains
will be examined. The specific practices to be reviewed (see
Table 2) are 360-degree
feedback and executive coaching, mentoring and networking,
and job assignments
and action learning. These practices are arranged roughly on a
continuum of least
to most embedded in ongoing organizational work.

17. 360-degree Feedback
Overview
360-degree feedback, multi-source feedback, and multi-rater
feedback are all
terms used to describe this method of systematically collecting
perceptions of an
individual’s performance from the entire circle of relevant
viewpoints (Warech,
Smither, Reilly, Millsap, & Reilly, 1998). Rating sources
typically include peers,
direct reports, supervisors, and, occasionally, such external
stakeholders as custom-
ers and suppliers. A purported advantage of such intense,
comprehensive scrutiny
is that a more complete and accurate picture of an individual’s
performance can
be obtained. In terms of the tripartite developmental strategy of
linking assessment,
challenge, and support (Van Velsor, McCauley, & Moxley,
1998), 360-degree feed-
back is strong on assessment but typically weak on challenge
and support.
Practice
The introduction of 360-degree feedback processes has made a
strong mark on
organizations in recent years. For example, 360-degree feedback
has been lauded
as “perhaps the most notable management innovation of the
1990’s” (Atwater &
Waldman, 1998a). Furthermore, nearly all of the Fortune 500
companies currently

18. use or intend to use some form of the practice (London &
Smither, 1995). Some
authors have argued that 360-degree feedback is a source of
competitive advantage
to organizations (London & Beatty, 1993), whereas others see
its growing popularity
as a function of imitation and political concerns (Waldman,
Atwater, & Antonioni,
1998).
An important assumption of this approach is that performance
varies across
contexts, and that someone behaves differently with different
constituencies. An
advantage of the multi-source approach is that it directly
acknowledges differences
588 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
T
ab
le
2.
S
u
m
m
ar
y

19. o
f
S
el
ec
te
d
P
ra
ct
ic
es
in
L
ea
d
er
sh
ip
D
ev
el
o
p

20. m
en
t
P
ra
ct
ic
e
D
es
cr
ip
ti
o
n
D
ev
el
o
p
m
en
t
T

21. ar
ge
t
H
C
S
C
S
tr
en
gt
h
s
W
ea
k
n
es
se
s
36
0-
d
eg

22. re
e
M
u
lt
i-
so
u
rc
e
ra
ti
n
gs
o
f
S
el
f-
k
n
o
w
le

23. d
ge
✓
x
C
o
m
p
re
h
en
si
ve
O
ve
rw
h
el
m
in
g
am
o
u

24. n
t
o
f
fe
ed
b
ac
k
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
,
o
rg
an
iz
ed
B
eh
av

25. io
ra
l
ch
an
ge
p
ic
tu
re
;
b
ro
ad
d
at
a;
n
o
gu
id
an
ce
o

26. n
h
o
w
an
d
p
re
se
n
te
d
to
an
p
ar
ti
ci
p
at
io
n
(A
)

27. to
ch
an
ge
;
ti
m
e
an
d
in
d
iv
id
u
al
ef
fo
rt
(C
,
S
)
C

28. o
ac
h
in
g
P
ra
ct
ic
al
,
go
al
-f
o
cu
se
d
fo
rm
S
el
f-
k

29. n
o
w
le
d
ge
✓
?
P
er
so
n
al
iz
ed
;
P
er
ce
iv
ed
st
ig
m

30. a
o
f
o
n
e-
o
n
-o
n
e
le
ar
n
in
g
B
eh
av
io
ra
l
ch
an

31. ge
in
te
n
si
ve
(C
,
S
)
(r
em
ed
ia
l)
;
ex
p
en
si
ve
C
ar
ee

32. r
d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
t
M
en
to
ri
n
g
A
d
vi
si
n
g/
d
ev
el

33. o
p
m
en
ta
l
B
ro
ad
er
✓
?
S
tr
o
n
g
p
er
so
n
al
P
ee

34. r
je
al
o
u
sy
;
o
ve
r
re
la
ti
o
n
sh
ip
,
u
su
al
ly
w
it

35. h
a
u
n
d
er
st
an
d
in
g.
b
o
n
d
(S
)
d
ep
en
d
en
ce
;

36. (A
,
C
)
m
o
re
se
n
io
r
m
an
ag
er
A
d
va
n
ce
m
en
t
ca

37. ta
ly
st
.
L
es
so
n
s
le
ar
n
ed
/
av
o
id
m
is
ta
k
es
.
N

38. et
w
o
rk
s
C
o
n
n
ec
ti
n
g
to
o
th
er
s
in
B
et
te
r
p

39. ro
b
le
m
-
?
✓
B
u
il
d
s
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
A
d
h
o
c;

40. u
n
st
ru
ct
u
re
d
(A
)
d
if
fe
re
n
t
fu
n
ct
io
n
s
an
d

41. so
lv
in
g.
(S
)
ar
ea
s
L
ea
rn
in
g
w
h
o
to
co
n
su
lt
fo
r

42. p
ro
je
ct
h
el
p
.
S
o
ci
al
iz
at
io
n
Jo
b
A
ss
ig
n
m
en

43. ts
P
ro
vi
d
in
g
“s
tr
et
ch
”
S
k
il
ls
d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
t.

44. ✓
?
Jo
b
re
le
va
n
t;
C
o
n
fl
ic
t
b
et
w
ee
n
as
si
gn
m

45. en
ts
in
te
rm
s
o
f
B
ro
ad
er
ac
ce
le
ra
te
s
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce

46. an
d
d
ev
el
.;
ro
le
,
fu
n
ct
io
n
,
o
r
u
n
d
er
st
an
d

47. in
g
o
f
le
ar
n
in
g
(C
)
n
o
st
ru
ct
u
re
fo
r
le
ar
n
in

48. g
ge
o
gr
ap
h
y
th
e
b
u
si
n
es
s.
(A
,
S
)
A
ct
io
n
L

49. ea
rn
in
g
P
ro
je
ct
-b
as
ed
le
ar
n
in
g
S
o
ci
al
iz
at
io
n

50. ✓
✓
T
ie
d
to
b
u
si
n
es
s
T
im
e
in
te
n
si
ve
;
le
ad
er

51. sh
ip
d
ir
ec
te
d
at
im
p
o
rt
an
t
T
ea
m
w
o
rk
Im
p
le
m

52. en
t
im
p
er
at
iv
es
;
le
ss
o
n
s
n
o
t
al
w
ay
s
cl
ea
r;

53. b
u
si
n
es
s
p
ro
b
le
m
s
st
ra
te
gy
.
ac
ti
o
n
-o
ri
en

54. te
d
o
ve
r-
em
p
h
as
is
o
n
re
su
lt
s
(C
,
S
)
(A
)
N
o

55. te
:
H
C
5
h
u
m
an
ca
p
it
al
;
S
C
5
so
ci
al
ca
p
it
al

56. ;
✓
5
in
te
n
d
ed
d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
ta
l
ta
rg
et
;
x
5
n

57. o
t
an
in
te
n
d
ed
d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
ta
l
ta
rg
et
;
?
5
p

58. o
ss
ib
le
d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
ta
l
ta
rg
et
;
A
5
as
se
ss
m

59. en
t;
C
5
ch
al
le
n
ge
;
S
5
su
p
p
o
rt
.
Leadership Development 589
across sources in the opportunity to observe various aspects of
an individual’s
performance. Research findings corroborate these assumptions
in showing that
ratings across sources correlate only moderately (e.g., Atwater,

60. Ostroff, Yammar-
ino, & Fleenor, 1998; Atwater & Yammarino, 1997; Carless,
Mann, & Wearing,
1998). Rather than being a problem, this finding suggests that
performance may be
different, and may be perceived differently, across various
constituencies. Multi-
source or 360-degree ratings are needed to capture this variety
of behavior and
perspective. It should also be noted that additional research
found little evidence
of within-source rating agreement (Greguras & Robie, 1998),
even among raters
with similar observational opportunities (Van Scotter & Steel,
2000). Thus, using
multiple raters within multiple rating sources makes good
psychometric sense in
terms of enhancing the overall reliability of feedback.
The growing popularity of 360-degree feedback may have
something to do with
a deeper appreciation for the business necessity of self-
understanding. Lack of
self-awareness can jeopardize projects by contributing to sub-
optimal individual
performance, or by creating increased stress and anxiety in
others (Dotlich & Noel,
1998). Other possible reasons for the popularity of 360-degree
feedback include its
effectiveness as a developmental tool, its initial ease of
implementation (although
it is more complicated to manage effectively than many
companies realize), and
that many of the “most-admired” firms have adopted the
practice (Waldman et
al., 1998). A somewhat different explanation for the increased

61. use of 360-degree
evaluations lies with the changing nature of the U.S. industrial
economy. In the
past, the measure of a company’s success was its property, not
its people. Among
leading-edge companies, that ratio is now reversed, and the
majority of the wealth
in many organizations is in its employees (i.e., intellectual
capital). Thus, if a large
portion of that talent becomes frustrated with their co-workers
or bosses and quit
the company, the economic results could be devastating for an
organization. A
substantial amount of value could potentially end up employed
by a competitor,
or—with the attractiveness of entrepreneurial start-ups—
become the competition.
Multi-source feedback can be a useful developmental tool for
building intraper-
sonal competence in the form of self-knowledge and increased
self-awareness of
one’s impact on others, which is connected to building
individual trustworthiness
(Barney & Hansen, 1994). If the feedback process is handled
professionally and
with sensitivity, an individual’s trusting intentions toward
others can be enhanced
(McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998). Because trust
facilitates the cooperation
needed for effective teamwork in organizations (Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998), there
is an indirect link between 360-degree feedback and the
development of social
capital; its primary contribution, however, is on developing
intrapersonal compe-

62. tence associated with enhanced human capital.
Proposition 1a: The use of 360-degree or multi-source feedback
is associated
with the development of human capital (i.e., intrapersonal
competence)
in organizations.
Research
Nothing guarantees that feedback inherently leads to positive
individual change.
Indeed, research indicates that over one-third of the feedback
interventions reported
590 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
in the literature resulted in decreased performance (Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996). One
reason that behavioral change may not follow from feedback is
that most people
have well-developed defense mechanisms that protect them from
feedback that is
perceived as too threatening (Chappelow, 1998). Conversely,
some might recognize
feedback as accurate but do not want to change their behavior.
For any leadership
development effort to be effective—particularly one based on
360-degree feed-
back—a participant must first be willing to accept feedback as
relevant and useful,
and be open to change. They must also be realistic and resilient
in that change is
rarely a simple path forward; a large investment of time and

63. energy is required
before the needed change becomes part of an individual’s
behavioral repertoire.
Recent research findings indicate that what managers do with
their feedback
does matter. Specifically, managers who met with direct reports
to discuss their
upward feedback demonstrated greater change in the form of
performance improve-
ment than managers who did not discuss their feedback (Walker
& Smither, 1999).
Other research found that perceived organization support
enhances the usefulness
of subordinate feedback over and above the overall favorability
of the feedback
(Facteau, Facteau, Schoel, Russell, & Poteet, 1998). Only
favorability predicted the
usefulness of peer ratings.
Another difficulty is that measuring change using 360-degree
survey instruments
has proven to be a challenge, given associated changes in
expectations about a
target as a result of program participation (i.e., beta change),
and changes in thinking
about the constructs being rated (i.e., gamma change). For these
reasons, some
researchers have adopted a retrospective methodology in which
a measure of the
perceived degree of a target’s behavioral change is gathered at
the second wave of
data collection (Martineau, 1998; Peterson, 1993). This
methodology is intriguing
in that it attempts directly to assess the degree of perceived
change rather than

64. basing it on difference scores, which are associated with their
own set of psychomet-
ric challenges. For this reason, the retrospective methodology is
deserving of greater
research attention.
A willingness to accept and use feedback might be insufficient
for change, however,
if the feedback is complex or inconsistent, or if the recipient
lacks the requisite skills
to interpret the data and translate it into behaving in a different
manner. For these
reasons, executive coaching has emerged as a popular
leadership development tool.
Proposition 1b: The effectiveness of 360-degree feedback for
the develop-
ment of social capital development depends on the extent that it
is linked
to follow-up coaching.
Executive Coaching
Overview
Executive coaching involves practical, goal-focused forms of
one-on-one learning
and behavioral change (Hall, Otazo, & Hollenbeck, 1999;
Peterson, 1996). The
objectives of coaching are focused on improving individual
performance and per-
sonal satisfaction, and, consequently, enhancing organizational
effectiveness (Kil-
burg, 1996). The term connotes an ongoing process rather than a
discrete event.
Coaching may be used to improve individual performance,

65. enhance a career, or
Leadership Development 591
work through organizational issues such as culture change (Katz
& Miller, 1996).
It can be a relatively short-term activity aimed at improving
specific leadership
skills or solving specific problems, or a lengthy series of
meetings over an extended
time period (Tobias, 1996). Given that the cost of coaching
provided by an external
consultant ranges from $1,500 for a single day to more than
$100,000 for a multi-
year program (for a single executive), it is understandable why
most firms prefer
to keep this as short-term as possible. The approach, however,
is comprehensive in
terms of integrating assessment, challenge, and support in the
name of development,
especially when linked with 360-degree feedback.
Practice
One area of executive coaching that deserves greater attention
concerns the
underlying models of change adopted by coaches. One proposed
coaching model
consists of four general steps (Saporito, 1996):
1. Setting the foundation and defining the context;
2. Individual assessment, including the 360-degree process;
3. Development planning based on feedback to the individual
and a three-way

66. discussion with the supervisor; and
4. Implementation that focuses coaching around development
experiences.
The Individual Coaching for Effectiveness model at Personnel
Decisions, Inc. (Hel-
lervik, Hazucha, & Schneider, 1992) consists of three major
phases: diagnosis,
coaching, and maintenance/support—similar to the assessment,
challenge, and sup-
port perspective on how to enhance the potency of
developmental experiences
(Van Velsor et al., 1998).
Although it could be argued that nearly anyone would benefit
from coaching,
at least one study has estimated that three-quarters of
participants were in some
danger of derailing when they began a coaching process
(Thompson, 1987). In
addition, the typical motives for participating are remedial in
nature, and usually
associated with interpersonal insensitivity or a lack of influence
ability (Hellervik
et al., 1992). For these reasons, organizations that use
coaches—as well as the
coaches themselves—need to be aware of a possible stigma
associated with being
assigned a coach. Providing a coach to an entire executive
group has the advantage
of placing all recipients on equal footing. When everyone has a
coach, it is not a
secret—neither a stigma nor perceived source of favoritism.
Coaching an entire
team to get one particular executive help, however, without

67. appearing to single
out the individual is almost always transparent to the team, and
can create more
ill-will than if coaching is focused on the one individual who
truly needs it. In
summary, if coaching is not purposefully and strategically
applied, it is a waste of
time and money that dilutes the value of a development
opportunity. Indeed, there
is a risk of doing more harm than good.
Proposition 2a: Coaching effectiveness is enhanced to the
degree that indi-
viduals are carefully selected for coaching, matched with a
compatible
coach, and are willing to change.
592 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Research
There is little published empirical research other than case
studies on the topic
of executive coaching effectiveness (Kilburg, 1996), especially
in terms of how well
it enhances development in addition to improving performance.
Executive coaching
as a follow-up to a training program was shown to increase
productivity by 88% in
public sector managers (Olivero, Bane, & Kopelman, 1997),
which was a significantly
greater gain compared with training alone. No evaluation,
however, was conducted
that addressed the important, but different, issue of leadership

68. development.
Additional research is needed that goes beyond an evaluation of
immediate
productivity improvements. For example, an examination of
social accounts (i.e.,
managerial justifications and excuses used to explain an
individual’s actions) and
the motivated reasoning of coaching participants could be
useful in understanding
the underlying reasons for change or resistance to change.
Recent research that
adopted social accounts and motivated reasoning lenses to
understand reactions to
organizational change has shown that nursing employees hear
different messages
from management depending on the quality of their relationship
with the organiza-
tion (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). It is expected that
interpretations of a coaching
initiative will be related to participants’ change motivation and,
ultimately, to the
extent of behavior change. As in the Rousseau and Tijoriwala
(1999), change
motivation may also be related to trust in the organization and
the level of mutual
commitment established between the coaching participant and
the employer.
Proposition 2b: The quality of an individual’s relationship with
an organiza-
tion is positively associated with the effectiveness of coaching
for devel-
opment for that individual.
Another potentially fruitful line of research involves a social

69. network analysis
of a team or work group in which a coaching participant is
involved. One hypothesis
worth investigating is that coaching increases an individual’s
centrality within a
social network, thus enhancing the structural component of that
person’s social
capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Network centrality results
from strong ties
with others that build loyalty, trust, mutual respect, and
emotional commitments
(Brass & Krackhardt, 1999). If coaching increases individual
self-confidence and
interpersonal effectiveness, it might also be expected to
encourage the formation
of new, non-redundant contacts with others both inside and
outside the organization
(Bouty, 2000). Thus, coaching provided to an individual or
entire group, such as a
top management team, could lead to the creation of a greater
number of nonredun-
dant (i.e., weak) ties (Granovetter, 1973). As noted by Brass
and Krackhardt (1999),
effective leadership requires establishing strong and weak ties,
both of which are
crucial but serve different purposes. Strong ties build loyalty,
trust, and mutual
respect—essentially, commitments among individuals—whereas
weak ties provide
access to novel, unique, and nonredundant information or
resources (Burt, 1992).
Creating value through enhanced social capital is especially
critical in the network
organization (Baker, 1992) in which temporary configurations
are linked mainly by
rapidly changing opportunities. Using executive coaching to

70. provide the challenge
and support in conjunction with the assessment provided by
360-degree feedback
Leadership Development 593
may be an effective means of linking leader and leadership
development by building
both human and social capital.
Proposition 2c: Coaching increases a recipient’s weak and
strong network
ties (i.e., social capital).
Research is needed that goes beyond trying to establish whether
coaching is
effective, to addressing questions such as how does it work,
why does it work, and
for what specific purpose (Campbell, 1989). The answers to
some of these questions
may be found in future studies that examine feedback and
coaching from a social
networks perspective (Brass & Krackhardt, 1999) and adopt a
particular theoretical
lens, such as self-regulation theory (Bandura, 1991; Carver &
Scheier, 1981; La-
tham & Locke, 1991), to try to understand what makes for an
effective feedback
process.
Other possibilities for understanding the how, why, and what of
effective coaching
include the compelling literature on implementation intentions
(Gollwitzer, 1993;

71. Gollwitzer & Brandstatter, 1997). Consistent findings document
that when people
experience difficulty translating their goals into action, they can
use situational cues
to help make their responses relatively effortless and automatic
by forming the
cognitive structure “when situation x arises, I will do y”
(Gollwitzer, 1999, p. 494).
In other words, a person commits to responding to a certain
situation in a specific,
pre-designated manner. By coaching executives in how to link
their development
goals to implementation intentions, there may be ways of
encouraging behavioral
change while also removing the underlying impetus from
conscious control. Imple-
mentation intentions could serve as a behavioral change catalyst
in executive coach-
ing efforts; because the cues for implementing the desired
behaviors are removed
from conscious control, however, some question remains as to
the extent of learning
that occurs through automatically enacted behavior. Clearly,
there is a research
need for a better understanding of the benefits and potential
drawbacks of imple-
mentation intentions in organizational contexts.
Proposition 2d: The use of implementation intentions as part of
coaching
increases the amount and extent of behavioral change observed.
Mentoring
Overview
Formal developmental relationships are a venerable form of on-

72. the-job experi-
ence used for leadership development. There are formal
mentoring programs as
well as informal processes. Formal, planned mentoring
programs are assigned,
maintained, and monitored by the organization (Kram & Bragar,
1992). Informal,
unplanned mentoring is usually encouraged by an organization,
but not initiated
or administered by it. Regardless of the formality of the
mentoring relationship,
effective developmental relationships come about from a mix of
opportunity and
intent (Sherman, 1995). A challenge facing any organization is
how to find the most
appropriate combination of these ingredients. As typically
implemented, mentoring
594 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
programs are heavily skewed toward support, with some
attention to challenge,
but relatively little consideration of assessment.
Practice
Most formal mentoring programs pair a junior manager with a
more senior
executive outside of his or her direct reporting line (McCauley
& Douglas, 1998),
although the pairing can sometimes occur with a peer or an
external consultant
(Douglas, 1997). In the latter cases, the line between mentoring

73. and coaching
becomes blurred. Indeed, coaching has been proposed as one
particular mentoring
role, along with sponsorship, protection, challenging
assignments, and exposure to
senior management thinking (Kram, 1985).
Mentoring is seen as an especially effective component of
development in context.
In a survey of over 350 companies involved in leadership
development, those efforts
reported as most successful included mentoring programs, as
well as action learning
and 360-degree feedback (Giber et al., 1999). The opportunity
to observe and
interact with members of senior management is an especially
critical part of men-
toring because it helps develop a more sophisticated and
strategic perspective on
the organization (i.e., a type of intrapersonal competence).
Despite its apparent
effectiveness at enhancing individual development, formal
research has not been
published on the topic of senior management exposure.
Specifically, what is it about
interacting with senior managers that sparks the development of
more sophisticated
perspectives? One possibility is that it enhances shared mental
representations and
interpretations of important organizational concerns. As such,
mentoring might be
partially effective due to its influence on the cognitive
dimension of social capital.
Proposition 3a: Effective mentoring processes result in
sophisticated mental

74. representations of strategic issues and organizational concerns
on the
part of recipients.
Research
An area of particular research interest has been comparing
formal and informal
mentoring practices. Results indicate that there are differential
outcomes, with
more positive benefits associated with informal mentoring
(Chao, Walz, & Gardner,
1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Research has also demonstrated
the positive effects
of intragroup relations in the context of mentoring (i.e., group
mentoring) on career
outcomes (Dansky, 1996). Another area of interest has been the
area of gender
differences in mentoring outcomes, with results suggesting that
protégés of male
mentors received greater financial reward than those of female
mentors (Dreher &
Cox, 1996). Recent findings suggest a more complex pattern
related to the gender
composition of the dyad (Ragins & Cotton, 1999), with male
protégés of female
mentors having the lowest overall promotion rate; the Ragins
and Cotton study,
however, was limited by a relatively small number of male
protégé/female mentor
dyads (n 5 23). It was both an interesting and disheartening
finding that female
protégés of female mentors had the lowest compensation level
of any of the possible
dyadic combination.

75. There are theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that
women and members
Leadership Development 595
of underrepresented groups experience mentoring relationships
differently than
white men (Murrell, Crosby, & Ely, 1999; Ruderman & Hughes-
James, 1998).
Recent laboratory research has demonstrated that Black and
White students experi-
ence differently critical feedback from a mentor (Cohen, Steele,
& Ross, 1999).
Black students who received critical feedback responded less
favorably than White
students; when the feedback was accompanied by an appeal for
maintaining high
standards and an assurance that the student could attain those
standards, however,
Black students responded as positively as Whites. The Cohen et
al. (1999) study
illustrates not only a need to appreciate how various races might
make sense of
critical feedback provided by a mentor but also that mentoring
itself is a dynamic
and complex mixture of coaching, modeling, and feedback.
Earlier research on
cross-race mentoring relationships demonstrated that a
congruence in the type of
strategy adopted in discussing racial differences was associated
with the develop-
ment of high-quality, supportive relationships (Thomas, 1993).
It is surprising that there are so few studies examining the

76. qualities, characteris-
tics, and behaviors of high-performing mentors in general. An
apparent assumption
exists that all mentors perform identically in terms of the
quality of experience that
is offered. A recent exception to this tendency, however,
attempted to understand
the common characteristics of an ideal mentor using interview
data across five
organizations (Allen & Poteet, 1999). Results of the qualitative
analysis (i.e., content
coding), suggested a number of different dimensions of ideal
mentor characteristics,
such as listening and communication skills, patience, knowledge
of organization
and industry, ability to read and understand others, and honesty
and trustworthiness.
These skills and characteristics could provide the foundation for
a mentoring taxon-
omy for future researchers. To the extent that a mentor is seen
as displaying these
behaviors and characteristics, a more beneficial mentoring
relationship is predicted.
This is potentially a useful research focus because of the
empirical evidence
demonstrating that subordinates do not perceive mentoring to be
distinct from the
quality of their leadership exchange, although supervisors do
make such a distinction
(Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994). From a subordinate’s
perspective, improving the
quality of mentoring would also improve the quality of
leadership experienced.
More attention is needed regarding the apparent overlap
between developing sound

77. mentoring skills and leadership development. Greater intention
can be placed on
what constitutes effective mentoring within broader leadership
development efforts.
In particular, mentoring processes could focus on building
mutual trust and respect
as a means of forging commitments. A potentially interesting
research question
would be to examine the degree that these hypothesized
enhancements in the
social capital of a mentoring relationship generalize beyond the
particular dyadic
boundaries.
Proposition 3b: Attention to developing effective mentoring
skills increases
the amount and quality of informal mentoring, resulting in
greater mutual
trust, respect, and commitments (i.e., social capital).
There is one potential negative issue to be aware of regarding
mentoring pro-
cesses: over-dependence. An unintended side-effect of a close
mentoring relation-
596 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
ship is the possibility that a protégé might become too closely
aligned with a single
senior executive. Others in the organization might come to
resent this relationship,
or question the protégé’s ability to perform autonomously.
Another risk is that if
the senior executive falls from favor, so does the protégé. For

78. these reasons, over-
dependence on a mentor or advocate was identified as one of the
“ten fatal flaws”
originally associated with leader derailment (McCall &
Lombardo, 1983). Although
it is still a potential concern, over-dependence may not be as
career threatening as
a difficulty to change or adapt, or having problems with
interpersonal relationships
(Van Velsor & Leslie, 1995). In sum, the potential
developmental benefits associated
with mentoring far outweigh the risks associated with over-
dependence.
Networking
Overview
As a way of breaking down barriers between functional areas,
some organizations
include development activities aimed at fostering broader
individual networks. An
important goal of networking initiatives is to develop leaders
beyond merely know-
ing what and knowing how, to knowing who in terms of
problem-solving resources.
Networking is also about expanding one’s definition of what
and how through
exposure to others’ thinking, which can challenge basic
assumptions about what
we think we know. It is also a means of encouraging
organization members to form
commitments with others outside of their immediate work
group. In this way,
networking is about investing in and developing social capital
with a primary devel-

79. opmental emphasis on building support.
Practice
Specific networking initiatives that have been implemented with
the goal of
leadership development include efforts at Andersen Consulting
and Motorola. An-
dersen’s Worldwide Organization Executive Program is a five-
day seminar to ad-
dress the development needs of its global partners, including the
chance to meet
and exchange views with partners from all practice areas and all
parts of the world.
The goal is to allow partners to strengthen their personal
networks as a means of
creating entrepreneurial opportunities. At Motorola’s Vice
President Institute, the
three overall goals of the program are to
1. Teach the vice presidents (VPs) about the company’s unique
heritage and
culture;
2. Help the VPs explore new ways to invent new technologies
and businesses;
and
3. Foster networking (Eller, 1995).
Another type of networking involves the interaction of groups
of managers and
executives who have common training or job experiences. These
groups meet regu-
larly over lunches or through electronic dialogue to share their
mutual challenges

80. and opportunities, with the goals of applying their learning or
making their learning
relevant to present leadership challenges on an informal,
ongoing basis. Enhancing
Leadership Development 597
individual networks is believed to be an effective way to
increase managers’ innova-
tion and problem-solving capacities.
Working in a globally dispersed yet technologically
sophisticated organization
presents numerous challenges (and creative opportunities) with
regard to net-
working. Nortel uses its advanced video and data-networking
technologies to air a
Virtual Leadership Academy once a month. The show is
simulcast in offices in 47
countries, with simultaneous translation from English into
Spanish and Portuguese.
Although the technology does not facilitate face-to-face
networking between partici-
pants, managers can call with questions or concerns and get
real-time responses.
The program is geared to reinforce a core Nortel value that
“technology is about
elevating, not replacing, human interaction” (Global reach . . .
virtual leadership,
1999).
Research
One reason why networking is thought to be beneficial to
professional and

81. personal development is because it fosters peer relationships in
work settings. Peer
relationships offer unique value for development because of the
degree of mutual
obligation and the duration of the relationship. Research has
shown that some peer
relationships can span an entire 20- or 30-year career (Kram &
Isabella, 1985), as
compared with a typical mentoring relationship that lasts
between three and six
years (Kram, 1985), or an executive coaching relationship that
generally lasts around
six months (Levinson, 1996). Organizations should consider
peer relationships as
a potentially valuable component of an overall leadership
development system. As
with general mentoring processes, the more effective efforts
will not attempt to
formalize relationships at the expense of informal ones; instead,
formal programs
should mimic the development of informal relationships (Ragins
& Cotton, 1999)
by intentionally making networking opportunities available,
modeling successful
developmental relationships in the organization, and
highlighting the relative bene-
fits of networking.
Proposition 4a: Networking opportunities build peer
relationships across
functional areas, leading to the creation of additional social
capital.
Networking is a prime means of enhancing social capital in an
organization.

82. Managers who build the kinds of networks that allow them to
transcend the organiza-
tion’s formal structure—especially when they form non-
redundant ties with people
in other networks—are most likely to benefit in terms of
information and entrepre-
neurial opportunities (Burt, 1992). Managers embedded in a
limited network with
many redundant ties will not experience these same benefits. Of
course, a manager
needs the appropriate self-awareness, motivation, and self-
regulation skills (i.e.,
intrapersonal competence), in addition to a well-defined set of
developmental and
strategic objectives, to benefit maximally from networking
opportunities. For this
reason, feedback, coaching, mentoring, and networking
processes should be linked
in a way that produces an integrated leadership development
system that covers
all aspects of assessment, challenge, and support. By including
these linked processes
within the context of a developmental job assignment or an
action learning project,
598 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
the link between leader development and leadership
development can be enhanced.
Proposition 4b: When used in conjunction with other
developmental prac-
tices, networking links individual leader development with
collective

83. leadership development.
Job Assignments
Overview
It has long been recognized that experience is among the most
important teachers,
including the development of leadership. Development through
job experiences
pertains to how managers learn, undergo personal change, and
acquire leadership
capacity as a result of the roles, responsibilities, and tasks
encountered in their jobs
(McCauley & Brutus, 1998). Prior to its popularity in the
United States, a number
of practitioners and researchers in the United Kingdom were
engaged in using and
understanding how job experiences enhance development (e.g.,
Davies & Easterby-
Smith, 1984; Mumford, 1980; Stewart, 1984). Job assignments
have been identified
as particularly helpful to managers in learning about building
teams, how to be
better strategic thinkers, and how to gain valuable persuasion
and influence skills
(McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988). The primary
developmental experience,
however, is that of providing challenge and, occasionally,
support. More attention
should be paid to assessment, especially in terms of matching
individuals with the
appropriate developmental assignment.
Proposition 5a: Leadership development is enhanced when
assignments are

84. matched with individuals’ developmental needs.
Practice
An example of where job assignments play a prominent role in a
leadership
development initiative is the Coca-Cola Company, which
transferred more than 300
professional and managerial staff to new countries in one year
under its leadership
development program. Gillette International makes 12- to 36-
month assignments
to take U.S. managers overseas to get broader experience and
exposure to other
countries and operational areas before returning to a U.S.
assignment, usually of
greater authority (Laabs, 1991). Regardless of how potent job
assignments can be
for development, the most challenging or fascinating assignment
in the world may
not teach much unless a person has the latitude to try out
different leadership
approaches as part of the developmental role. Intentionality
must surround leader-
ship development, otherwise the focus of a challenging new
assignment will likely
be on performance with little regard for development.
Organizations can take specific action to promote learning from
experience, and
specific things can impede it. Some types of jobs are more
developmental than
others, and different kinds of developmental assignments are
associated with differ-
ent kinds of learning (McCauley & Brutus, 1998). Jobs that are
more developmental

85. include “stretch” assignments that put a manager in a new
situation with unfamiliar
responsibilities, especially high-responsibility and high-latitude
jobs. Those projects
Leadership Development 599
requiring a manager to bring about change or build relationships
(and commitments)
also tend to be associated with the most meaningful learning.
Negative experiences or hardships tend to promote learning and
trigger self-
reflection (Moxley, 1998). The way in which influential
members of an organization
respond to failure can be instrumental in fostering a learning
climate. Unfortunately,
too few senior executives take a developmental view of failure.
It is far more
common to find top organizational levels populated with those
who push maximum
performance over a concern for development (Hollenbeck &
McCall, 1999), despite
that learning from hardships can help performance in the long
run by enhancing
individuals’ resiliency in the face of challenge and change.
Jack Welch, Chairman and CEO of General Electric (GE), might
be expected
to frame failure in a developmental light. Welch is legendary
for his commitment
to leadership development. It has been reported that Welch
“knows intimately”
the career paths of more than a thousand GE employees (Frost,

86. 1997, p. 335).
During an employee review session, it is common for Welch to
display a willingness
to put a manager in a certain position because it is the right
professional growth
experience for that person, regardless of immediate business
needs. Choosing the
right “stretch” job assignments for people is about using
succession planning for
intentional leadership development by linking individual
learning with organizational
strategy (Hall & Seibert, 1992). Despite the pro-development
approach of someone
like Welch, some jobs may be too important for developmental
assignments (Ohlott,
1998). The difficult task is deciding what are those all-
important jobs.
Research
One study on the role of succession planning for leadership
development reported
that 31% of promotions were considered developmental in
nature (Ruderman &
Ohlott, 1994). Some organizations are more intentional than
others about using
promotions as developmental tools. Citibank makes it a practice
to place high-
potential managers in job assignments for which they are no
more than 60–70%
prepared, thus making it likely that the kinds of challenges that
contribute to
ongoing development will be encountered (Clark & Lyness,
1991). Although a key
element in using job assignments for development is challenge,
the importance of

87. assessment and support should not be overlooked (Ohlott,
1998). Attending to all
three important aspects of assessment, challenge, and support
(Van Velsor et al.,
1998) in job assignments may help foster a learning goal
climate. Taken as an
extension of work on individual motivational patterns (Dweck,
1986), a learning
goal climate is one in which the organization especially values
understanding or
mastering something new. It can be differentiated from a
performance goal climate
in which the emphasis is on gaining favorable (or avoiding
negative) judgments of
competence.
Proposition 5b: Emphasizing the assessment, challenge, and
support aspects
of developmental job assignments fosters a learning goal
environment.
Despite the noted advantages of using job assignments for
development, there has
been relatively little theoretical guidance on how to
conceptualize work experience
within the context of leadership development. Fortunately, work
has recently been
600 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
done in this area. A taxonomy of work experience based on the
dimensions of
measurement mode (amount, time, and type) and level of
specificity (task, job,

88. organizational) was proposed, forming nine categories of work
experience (Qui-
ñones, Ford, & Teachout, 1995). This taxonomy was shown to
be helpful in organiz-
ing the empirical research on the relationships between work
experience and job
performance; the issue of development, however, was not
addressed. Subsequent
conceptual work refined the experience concept further to
differentiate between
the qualitative and quantitative components that operate at
different levels of
specificity (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). These components are
thought to interact and
build over time. Again, they were conceptualized as having
primary implications
for work performance rather than development.
At least one empirical study tried to ascertain the developmental
components
of jobs, and to develop and test a measure for assessing the
developmental potential
of different jobs (McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott, & Morrow,
1994). The Develop-
mental Challenge Profile (DCP) assesses job characteristics
organized into three
general categories: job transitions (e.g., unfamiliar
responsibilities, proving yourself),
task-related characteristics (e.g., creating change, non-authority
relationships), and
obstacles (e.g., adverse business conditions, lack of top
management support). Data
collected from approximately 700 managers across various
organizations and levels
supported the basic premise that challenging jobs are associated
with greater on-

89. the-job learning. Subsequent research using the DCP suggested
that men report
greater task-related developmental challenges than women, and
women report
experiencing more developmental challenges stemming from
obstacles faced on the
job than men (Ohlott, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1994). These
findings highlight the
importance of knowing the developmental components of
various jobs and carefully
matching individuals with jobs that will best develop them (see
Proposition 5a).
Otherwise, subtle patterns of unintentional discrimination in job
assignments could
impede the development of women managers for top-level
positions and contribute
to the broader phenomenon of a glass ceiling (Martell, Lane, &
Emrich, 1996).
Research on the topic of job rotations (i.e., lateral transfers of
employees within
an organization) has revealed that the most common answers to
the question of
what skills are gained through rotation are: broader perspective
on the business
(46% of executive respondents), adaptability and flexibility
(31%), and leadership
skills (19%) (Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994). The first
and second categories
could be construed as cognitive and intrapersonal competence
(e.g., self-regulation);
the third category of leadership probably means very different
things to respondents.
There was no elaboration on the specific kinds of leadership
skills that are suppos-
edly gained.

90. Although job assignments might be considered the epitome of
development in
context, they often lack the kind of intentionality in terms of
implementation and
follow-up to be confident in understanding the amount and type
of development
that has occurred. There is agreement that some types of jobs
are more develop-
mental than others, and different kinds of developmental
assignments are associated
with different kinds of learning (McCauley & Brutus, 1998).
More developmental
types of job assignments put a manager in a new situation with
unfamiliar responsi-
bilities, especially those that go along with high-responsibility
and high-latitude
Leadership Development 601
jobs. Those assignments requiring a manager to bring about
change or build relation-
ships and commitments tend to be associated with significant
learning and develop-
ment, as do negative experiences or hardships. Nonetheless,
additional theoretical
and empirical work is needed to better map the various
dimensions and types of
experience onto individual and organizational development. In
doing so, research
can help inform practitioners on how to match assignments and
developmental
needs on a more scientific basis.

91. Proposition 5c: Linking specific job experiences with desired
developmental
goals enhances the intentionality and effectiveness of leadership
develop-
ment.
Action Learning
Overview
Many organizations realize that the type of traditional, lecture-
based, classroom
training found in most formal leadership development programs
is at best only
partially effective at preparing leaders for 21st-century
problems (Dotlich & Noel,
1998). In particular, the lessons learned from traditional
classroom development
programs do not last much beyond the end of the program. Soon
after the course
ends, people slip back into their previous behavioral patterns,
and little lasting
change or developmental progress is achieved. As a result, the
sponsors of traditional
programs became justifiably frustrated. For these reasons, a
number of organizations
have embraced the action learning process, which can be
described as a continuous
process of learning and reflection, supported by colleagues,
with a corresponding
emphasis on getting things done.
Action learning is based on the assumption that people learn
most effectively
when working on real-time organizational problems (Revans,
1980). This sounds

92. relatively straightforward, but someone who has worked in the
area for almost 20
years put it this way: “Action learning may be a simple idea, but
only at the
philosophical level” (Pedler, 1997, p. 248). Because action
learning is primarily a
generative practice, each application is a unique performance of
sorts in which
participants collectively construct social meanings and shared
realities in a commu-
nity of practice (Drath, 1998; Drath & Palus, 1994). As
typically implemented,
action learning tends to provide a good deal of challenge and
support; more emphasis
is needed on formal assessment, especially in terms of choosing
suitable individuals
for a given project.
Proposition 6a: Using formal assessments to select action
learning project
members will enhance the quality of the developmental
experience and
result in greater leadership development.
Practice
Perhaps the best-known action learning initiative is GE’s
“Work-Out” program.
The origin of the name is allegedly based on a comment made to
Jack Welch to
the effect that: “Now that you have rid yourself of so many
people (more than
602 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000

93. 100,000 employees had been let go at that time) when are you
going to get some
of the work out?” Welch picked up on the multiple meanings of
work-out in terms
of working out problems as well as a fitness metaphor, and
chose it as a prominent
initiative in his culture transformation effort at GE (Vicere &
Fulmer, 1998, p. 289).
An important cultural aspect of Work-Out is its link to a core
management value
at GE: empowered or boundaryless behavior. GE leaders must
have the trust,
respect, and self-confidence to involve others and to be open to
ideas from anywhere.
This effort personifies an attempt to make everyone responsible
for leadership.
Although Work-Out contains a number of critical roles, a key to
implementation
success is the champion. Somebody has to own the idea and
help make it happen.
There is nothing new about having groups of people come up
with ideas and propose
them to management (e.g., quality circles). The only innovative
feature in GE’s
program was the idea of a champion, or somebody in the group
who owns the idea
and is accountable for implementation success. The champion is
the person who
frames the central issue of the Work-Out session, clarifies the
specific topics to
address, and selects the participants for the Work-Out team.
Selection of participants is particularly important. Because
action learning proj-

94. ects are tied to a business imperative, individuals should
carefully be matched to
the core problem at hand. Not every developmental need can be
addressed in every
problem context. Many of the GE action learning projects
focused on sending
managers to foreign countries as a way of accomplishing two
goals: figuring out
how to expand globally and open new markets for GE products,
and developing
a manager’s capability to lead in different cultures. In this
manner the content
of the leadership development effort was linked to important
strategic business
imperatives.
Citibank is another example of an organization that has
successfully used action
learning. In particular, the Citibank case provides a good
overview of how action
learning typically unfolds in an organization (Dotlich & Noel,
1998). The business
imperative at Citibank dealt with the general inability of top
managers to think
with a broad, systems perspective. The issues and participants
were selected using
explicit criteria. Issues were recommended by business heads or
the CEO and had
to be seen as affecting total Citibank performance across the
various businesses.
Participants were chosen globally and had passed an internal
talent inventory review
process. Next there was a three-day, off-site team building and
issue-orientation
session. Data collection followed over the next two or three
weeks, involving travel

95. both inside and outside Citibank. A week was then spent on data
analysis and
developing recommendations. Presentations were made to the
CEO and to business
heads. Each team was given 90 minutes to present its case,
consisting of a 30-minute
formal presentation followed by a 60-minute focused
discussion. Following the
presentation was a one-day debriefing and reflection with a
coach that was structured
around the recommendations, team process, and individual
development opportuni-
ties. Finally, a senior management follow-up was given within
one or two weeks of
the presentation whereby decisions were made regarding
implementation.
The basic action learning process is similar across different
organizations; the
business imperatives that drive the process are different. For
instance, at ARA-
MARK the imperative was one of promoting cross-
organizational awareness of
capabilities and opportunities, whereas Shell Oil’s imperative
stemmed from a
Leadership Development 603
pervasive misperception regarding the company’s financial
strength (Vicere &
Fulmer, 1998). Ameritech was faced with an impending
deregulation and the inabil-
ity of managers to compete in a more challenging environment,
whereas Johnson &

96. Johnson needed to upgrade human resources globally and
develop executive talent
in its leadership pipeline, given its expectations of explosive
growth (Dotlich &
Noel, 1998). Even the U.S. Army uses its own version of action
learning called the
After Action Review as a means of quickly surfacing and
sharing the lessons learned
from battlefield simulations (Baird, Holland, & Deacon, 1999).
Although the business imperatives behind action learning
programs may vary
widely, common catalysts underlie the successes. Perhaps the
most important com-
monality is creating a microworld (Senge, 1990), which enables
learning through
doing. This type of parallel, temporary system is designed to be
realistic yet safe.
People are encouraged to try new things and to trust themselves
and others to stretch
their thinking and behavior. For maximal effect, action should
be accompanied by
reflection about the action; otherwise, there is little structured
guidance for learning
from experience (Froiland, 1994).
Proposition 6b: Leadership development is enhanced to the
extent that struc-
tured opportunities for individual and group reflection are
included as
part of action learning.
Research
Little research has been published on action learning, especially
anything other

97. than qualitative program descriptions. As mentioned, this may
be a function of the
generative nature of the concept. It has been described as an
“idea rather than a
method, capable of taking many forms” (Pedler, 1997, p. 262).
Several research
streams have the potential to advance our practice and
understanding of action
learning. In particular, research in the areas of trust and
empowerment are especially
relevant to action learning.
A recent study of psychological safety in work teams
(Edmondson, 1999) has
important implications for action learning projects. Team
psychological safety is
defined by Edmondson (1999) as “a shared belief that the team
is safe for interper-
sonal risk taking” (p. 354). There is a direct link between
psychological safety and
leadership development stemming from the assumption that
organizations need to
create a climate of psychological safety for individuals to feel
secure and supported
to change (Schein & Bennis, 1965). The concept is similar to
that of respectful
interaction, which has been proposed as a vital component of
resilient organizations
(Weick, 1993). When team psychological safety is high, team
members are more
likely to overcome threats of embarrassment and admit errors,
ask for help, and
discuss problems. This type of climate enhances both the
challenge and support
elements of experience (Van Velsor et al., 1998), and
encourages the type of

98. flexibility that is hypothesized to be an antecedent of team
learning. It also facilitates
a learning goal orientation among team members (Dweck,
1986). Results of qualita-
tive and quantitative analyses based on 51 work teams in a
manufacturing company
indicated that team psychological safety enhanced learning
behavior, which in turn
predicted team performance. In a related study, higher levels of
trust and empow-
erment among members of 43 process improvement work teams
in a Big Three
604 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
automotive firm was shown to be related to team involvement,
which in turn was
related to higher levels of team performance (Spreitzer, Noble,
Mishra, & Coole,
1999). Given that action learning projects typically focus on the
developmental
target of improved teamwork (Day, 1999), and that group
dynamics often are a
key variable in helping executives learn from their project
experiences (Marsick,
1990), much could be gained by facilitating a climate of trust
and psychological
safety (i.e., encouraging interpersonal risk taking) in action
learning project teams.
It has recently been proposed that unconditional trust represents
the most highly
evolved trust state and is based on mutual respect and shared
values (Jones &

99. George, 1998). Unconditional trust is thought to be directly and
indirectly related
(through such interpersonal processes as communal
relationships and free exchange
of information) to interpersonal cooperation and teamwork.
Trust is conceptualized
as an important relational asset of social capital (Tsai &
Ghoshal, 1998); further-
more, the notion of mutual respect based on shared values is the
foundation of the
cognitive dimension of social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998). Thus, designing
action learning projects with the intention of developing trust
among participants
would likely enhance the relational and cognitive dimensions of
social capital.
Depending on the composition of the groups, there is also the
likelihood of action
learning projects enhancing the structural dimension of social
capital. Based on this
hypothesized relationship between action learning and social
capital, and between
social capital and leadership development, how action learning
projects can be used
for effective leadership development in organizations can be
appreciated.
Proposition 6c: High trust and psychological safety among
action learning
project team members is positively related to the social capital
of the
team.
Another recent study with implications for leadership
development adopted a
Personal Projects Analysis methodology to examine the

100. relationship between self-
appraised goal characteristics and the project factors of
happiness and meaning
(McGregor & Little, 1998). It was proposed that goal efficacy
(“doing well”) would
be associated with happiness, whereas goal integrity (“being
yourself”) would be
associated with meaning, defined as a special type of well-
being. Results generally
supported these propositions, and the notion that happiness and
meaning were
found to be independent factors in personal projects. Most
fascinating of all were
the results from archival data in a sample of 110 senior
managers suggesting an
“integrity shift” whereby success either became habituated to or
a source of disen-
chantment. Simply put, doing well was no longer enough. That
left integrity as the
main source of well-being and meaning. From the results of
McGregor and Little’s
study, an optimistic conclusion can be drawn that the
developmental impact of
action learning projects can be improved by emphasizing not
only doing well, but
also being oneself within the project context. In this manner,
action learning can
be use as a process of creating personal meaning in
organizations.
Proposition 6d: Action learning goals that are aligned with
individual goals
result in meaningful developmental experiences.

101. Leadership Development 605
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The proposed distinction between leader development and
leadership development
is more than mere semantics. At the core of the difference is an
orientation toward
developing human capital (leader development) as compared
with social capital
(leadership development). Orientation toward human capital
emphasizes the devel-
opment of individual capabilities such as those related to self-
awareness, self-regula-
tion, and self-motivation that serve as the foundation of
intrapersonal competence
(McCauley, 2000). Orientation toward social capital emphasizes
the development
of reciprocal obligations and commitments built on a foundation
of mutual trust
and respect (Drath, 1998; Whitener, 2000); it rests on a
foundation of interpersonal
competence, but ultimately, it requires enactment. Leadership is
developed through
the enactment of leadership.
The proposed distinction is an essential because the respective
development
approaches are grounded in very different leadership models.
Leader development
is based on a traditional, individualistic conceptualization of
leadership. The under-
lying assumption is that more effective leadership occurs
through the development
of individual leaders. It also assumes that leadership is
something that can be added

102. to organizations to improve social and operational
effectiveness. On the other hand,
leadership development has its origins in a more contemporary,
relational model
of leadership. This model assumes that leadership is a function
of the social resources
that are embedded in relationships. In this manner, leadership is
considered an
emergent property of social systems (Salancik et al., 1975),
rather than something
that is added to existing systems. Leadership emerges with the
process of creating
shared meaning, both in terms of sensemaking and in terms of
value-added. From
this approach everyone is considered to be a leader. Rather than
asking the question
“How can I be an effective leader” the more pertinent question
from the relational
approach is “How can I participate productively in the
leadership process” (Drath &
Palus, 1994). The latter is a more complex way of thinking
about leadership. Because
thinking is for doing (Fiske, 1992), greater complexity in terms
of thinking about
leadership may be a prerequisite for greater behavioral
complexity that is needed
for enhanced adaptability (Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge, 1997;
Jacobs & Jaques, 1987).
The distinction between leader development and leadership
development should
not be taken as edict for organizations to choose one approach
over the other.
Either approach is incomplete by itself. Developing individual
leaders without
concern for reciprocal relations among people or their

103. interactions within a broader
social context ignores the research demonstrating that
leadership is a complex
interaction between individuals and their social and
organizational environments.
Attempting to build shared meaning systems and mutual
commitments among
communities of practice without a proper investment in
individual preparation runs
the risk of placing people in challenging developmental
situations that are too far
over their heads.
The preferred approach is to link leader development with
leadership develop-
ment such that the development of leadership transcends but
does not replace the
development of individual leaders. It has been said that a bridge
must be well
anchored on either side for effective development to occur
(Kegan, 1994). In moving
606 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
toward a vision of the organization that is based on the social
capital imperatives
of mutual understanding and responsibility (Drucker, 1995)
there must also be an
appropriate investment in developing human capital across all
organizational levels.
As with any change effort, success depends on the extent that
people who are
responsible for the success of the effort share the same
assumptions about it and

104. have been prepared appropriately (Schein, 1997).
The practices of 360-degree feedback and executive coaching,
mentoring and
networking, and job assignment and action learning have all
been lauded as benefi-
cial for leadership development in one application or another.
Unfortunately, little
hard evaluation evidence supports those claims. It is probably
safe to conclude that
any of these practices could be effective for leadership
development, and that any
could be ineffective. Effective leadership development is less
about which specific
practices are endorsed than about consistent and intentional
implementation. A
key to effective implementation is having the organizational
discipline to introduce
leadership development throughout the organization, rather than
bounded by spe-
cific (usually top) levels. Another key to effectiveness is
linking initiatives across
organizational levels and in terms of an overall developmental
purpose within the
context of a strategic business challenge.
As proposed earlier, one conceptualization of leadership is that
it emerges as
people rely on their mutual commitments, trust, and respect to
create new meaning
that replaces what has been traditionally provided by formal
structure, planning,
and control. It is this kind of leadership and not simply a
collection of individual
leaders that many contemporary organizations are striving to
develop. Leadership

105. development needs to evolve to a level of contribution whereby
it is considered an
investment in the social capital of the organization, to
complement its human and
intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
Where are the leadership researchers in the midst of these
exciting advances in
the practice of leadership development? It has been noted that
over the past 15
years there has been a “remarkable flowering” in research and
theory on charismatic
and transformational leadership (Conger & Hunt, 1999, p. 121).
It might also be
noted that too many flowers of the same type makes for a
relatively dull garden.
The charismatic and transformational leadership approaches
have merit and should
not be ignored; these approaches, however, do not come close to
representing the
entire depth or complexity of thinking on leadership needed to
design, evaluate,
and improve leadership development efforts for the present and
the future. A
potential lens that is offered in the present review connects the
interrelated concerns
of developing human and social capital in organizations. The
differences between
approaches is proposed as an overarching framework for
conceptualizing leadership
development practice, research, and theory in hopes of
encouraging future research-
ers to contribute, in particular, to a better understanding of this
important topic.
Acknowledgments: Work on this article was supported by the

106. Center for Creative
Leadership and the Army Research Institute. Thanks to Patricia
O’Connor, Kevin
Liu, Cindy McCauley, Alicia Grandey, and participants in the
“Frontiers in Leader-
ship” symposium at the University of Mississippi for their
helpful comments.
Leadership Development 607
REFERENCES
Allen, T. D., & Poteet, M. L. (1999). Developing effective
mentoring relationships: Strategies
from the mentor’s viewpoint. Career Development Quarterly,
48(1), 59–73.
American Society for Training and Development. (1995).
National HRD executive survey.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
Atwater, L., & Waldman, D. (1998a). 360 degree feedback and
leadership development.
Leadership Quarterly, 9, 423–426.
Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. J. (1997). Self-other rating
agreement: A review and model.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15,
121–174.
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W.
(1998). Self-other agreement:
Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51, 577–598.

107. Baird, L., Holland, P., & Deacon, S. (1999). Learning from
action: Imbedding more learning
into the performance fast enough to make a difference.
Organizational Dynamics,
27(4), 19–32.
Baker, W. E. (1992). The network organization in theory and
practice. In N. Nohria & R.
Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and
action (pp. 397–429).
Boston: Harvard Business School.
Baldwin, T. T., & Padgett, M. Y. (1994). Management
development: A review and commen-
tary. In C. L. Cooper, I. T. Robertson, & Associates (Eds.), Key
reviews in managerial
psychology: Concepts and research for practice (pp. 270–320).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation.
Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Barker, R. A. (1997). How can we train leaders if we do not
know what leadership is?
Human Relations, 50, 343–362.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of
transformational leadership
training on attitudinal and financial outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81,
827–832.
Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a
source of competitive advantage.
Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175–190.

108. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson
(Ed.), Handbook of theory
and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New
York: Greenwood.
Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on
informal resource exchanges
between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries.
Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 50–65.
Brass, D. J., & Krackhardt, D. (1999). The social capital of
twenty-first century leaders. In
J. G. Hunt, G. E. Dodge, & L. Wong (Eds.), Out-of-the-box
leadership: Transforming
the twenty-first-century army and other top-performing
organizations (pp. 179–194).
Stamford, CT: JAI.
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model
of relational leadership: The
integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership
Quarterly, 11, 227–250.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of
competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Campbell, J. P. (1989). The agenda for theory and research. In
I. L. Goldstein, & Associates
(Ed.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 469–
486). San Francisco: Jossey-

109. Bass.
Campion, M. A., Cheraskin, L., & Stevens, M. J. (1994).
Career-related antecedents and
outcomes of job rotation. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
1518–1542.
Carless, S. A., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. J. (1998). Leadership,
managerial performance and
360-degree feedback. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 47, 481–496.
608 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-
regulation: A control theory approach
to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and
informal mentorships:
A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with
nonmentored counterparts.
Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–636.
Chappelow, C. T. (1998). 360-degree feedback. In C. D.
McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van
Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of
leadership development
(pp. 29–65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, L. A., & Lyness, K. S. (1991). Succession planning as
strategic activity at Citicorp. In
L. W. Foster (Ed.), Advances in applied business strategy (vol.
2; pp. 25–57). Greenwich,

110. CT: JAI.
Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor’s
dilemma: Providing critical
feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1302–
1318.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human
capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Conger, J. A. (1993). The brave new world of leadership
training. Organizational Dynamics,
21(3), 46–58.
Conger, J. A., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders: How
successful companies develop
the next generation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Hunt, J. G. (1999). Charismatic and
transformational leadership: Taking
stock of the present and future (Part I). Leadership Quarterly,
10, 121–127.
Dansky, K. H. (1996). The effect of group mentoring on career
outcomes. Group & Organiza-
tion Management, 21, 5–21.
Davies, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and
developing from managerial work
experiences. Journal of Management Studies, 21, 169–183.
Day, D. V. (1999). Leadership development: A review of
industry best practices (Tech. Rep.
No. 1141). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Army Research Institute.

111. Dixon, N. M. (1993). Developing managers for the learning
organization. Human Resource
Management Review, 3, 243–254.
Dotlich, D. L., & Noel, J. L. (1998). Action learning: How the
world’s top companies are re-
creating their leaders and themselves (1st ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Douglas, C. A. (1997). Formal mentoring programs in
organizations: An annotated bibliogra-
phy. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Drath, W. H. (1998). Approaching the future of leadership
development. In C. D. McCauley,
R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook
of leadership development (pp. 403–432). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Drath, W. H., & Palus, C. J. (1994). Making common sense:
Leadership as meaning-making
in a community of practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
Dreher, G., & Cox, T. H., Jr. (1996). Race, gender, and
opportunity: A study of compensation
attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships.
Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 81, 297–308.
Drucker, P. F. (1995). Managing in a time of great change. New
York: Truman Talley Books/
Dutton.

112. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.
American Psychologist, 41,
1040–1048.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning
behavior in work teams. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
Eller, D. (1995). Motorola trains VPs to become growth leaders.
HRMagazine,(June), 82–87.
Facteau, C. L., Facteau, J. D., Schoel, L. C., Russell, J. E., &
Poteet, M. L. (1998). Reactions
Leadership Development 609
of leaders to 360-degree feedback from subordinates and peers.
Leadership Quarterly,
9, 427–448.
Fiedler, F. E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and
training: One view of the future.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 241–250.
Fiske, S. T. (1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social
cognition from daguerreotype
to laserphoto. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,
877–889.
Froiland, P. (1994). Action learning: Taming real problems in
real time. Training, 31(1),
27–34.
Frost, P. J. (1997). Bridging academia and business: A
conversation with Steve Kerr. Organi-

113. zation Science, 8(3), 332–347.
Fulmer, R. M. (1997). The evolving paradigm of leadership
development. Organizational
Dynamics, 25(4), 59–72.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in
practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gharajedaghi, J. (1999). Systems thinking: Managing chaos and
complexity. Boston: Butter-
worth Heinemann.
Giber, D., Carter, L., & Goldsmith, M. (Eds.). (1999). Linkage,
Inc.’s best practices in
leadership development handbook. Lexington, MA: Linkage
Press.
Global reach . . . virtual leadership. (1999). Fast Company, 80.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of
intentions. In W. Stroebe & M.
Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (vol. 4;
pp. 141–185). Chiches-
ter, UK: Wiley.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong
effects of simple plans. American
Psychologist, 54, 493–503.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstatter, V. (1997). Implementation
intentions and effective goal
pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186–
199.

114. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American
Journal of Sociology, 78,
1360–1380.
Greguras, G. J., & Robie, C. (1998). A new look at within-
source interrater reliability of
360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83, 960–968.
Hall, D. T., Otazo, K. L., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (1999). Behind
closed doors: What really
happens in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics,
29(Winter), 39–53.
Hall, D. T., & Seibert, K. W. (1992). Strategic management
development: Linking organiza-
tional strategy, succession planning, and managerial learning. In
D. H. Montross & C.
J. Shinkman (Eds.), Career development: Theory and practice
(pp. 255–275). Springfield,
IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Hellervik, L. W., Hazucha, J. F., & Schneider, R. L. (1992).
Behavior change: Models,
methods, and a review of evidence. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.
Hough (Eds.), Hand-
book of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 3; 2nd
ed.; pp. 823–896). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Hollenbeck, G. P., & McCall, M. W., Jr. (1999). Leadership
development: Contemporary
practices. In A. I. Kraut & A. K. Korman (Eds.), Evolving
practices in human resource
management (pp. 172–200). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

115. Hooijberg, R., Bullis, R. C., & Hunt, J. G. (1999). Behavioral
complexity and the development
of military leadership for the twenty-first century. In J. G. Hunt,
G. E. Dodge, & L.
Wong (Eds.), Out-of-the-box leadership: Transforming the
twenty-first army and other
top-performing organizations (pp. 111–130). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership
complexity and development
of the Leaderplex model. Journal of Management, 23, 375–408.
610 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex
systems. In J. Zeidner (Ed.),
Human productivity enhancment (vol. 2; pp. 7–65). New York:
Praeger.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and
evolution of trust: Implications
for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 531–546.
Katz, J. H., & Miller, F., A. (1996). Coaching leaders through
culture change. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 104–114.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of
modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Keys, J. B., & Wolfe, J. (1988). Management education and
development: Current issues

116. and emerging trends. Journal of Management, 16, 307–336.
Kilburg, R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and
definition of executive coach-
ing. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48,
134–144.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback on
performance: A historical
review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 119, 254–284.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental
relationships in organizational life.
Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Kram, K. E., & Bragar, M. C. (1992). Development through
mentoring: A strategic approach.
In D. H. Montross & C. J. Shinkman (Eds.), Career
development: Theory and practice
(pp. 221–254). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives:
The role of peer relationships
in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28,
110–132.
Laabs, J. J. (1991). The global talent search. Personnel Journal,
(August), 38–44.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through
goal setting. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212–247.
Latham, G. P., & Seijts, G. H. (1998). Management
development. In P. J. D. Drenth, H.

117. Thierry, & Associates (Eds.), Handbook of work and
organizational psychology (vol.
3; 2nd ed.; pp. 257–272). Hove, UK: Psychology Press/Erlbaum.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource
architecture: Toward a theory of
human capital allocation and development. Academy of
Management Review, 24, 31–48.
Levinson, H. (1996). Executive coaching. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Re-
search, 48, 115–123.
London, M., & Beatty, R. W. (1993). 360-degree feedback as a
competitive advantage.
Human Resource Management, 32, 353–372.
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multi-source
feedback change perceptions of goal
accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related
outcomes? Theory-based
applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology,
48, 803–839.
Mailick, S., Stumpf, S. A., Grant, S., Kfir, A., & Watson, M. A.
(1998). Learning theory in
the practice of management development: Evolution and
applications. Westport, CT:
Quorum.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1989). SuperLeadership: Leading
others to lead themselves. New
York: Prentice-Hall.
Marsick, V. (1990). Experience-based learning: Executive

118. learning outside the classroom.
Journal of Management Development, 9(4), 50–60.
Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. E. (1996). Male-
female differences: A computer
simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158.
Martineau, J. W. (1998). Using 360-degree surveys to assess
change. In W. W. Tornow, M.
London, & Associates (Eds.), Maximizing the value of 360-
degree feedback (pp. 217–
248). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leadership Development 611
McCall, M. W. (1998). High flyers: Developing the next
generation of leaders. Boston: Harvard
Business School.
McCall, M. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: Why
and how successful executives
get derailed (Tech. Rep. No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988).
The lessons of experience:
How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
McCauley, C. D. (2000). A systemic approach to leadership
development. Paper presented
at the 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychol-
ogy, New Orleans, LA, April.

119. McCauley, C. D., & Brutus, S. (1998). Management
development through job experiences:
An annotated bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
McCauley, C. D., & Douglas, C. A. (1998). Developmental
relationships. In C. D. McCauley,
R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook
of leadership development (pp. 160–193). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R. S., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.).
(1998). The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J.
E. (1994). Assessing the
developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79,
544–560.
McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects,
happiness, and meaning: On doing
well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 494–512.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998).
Initial trust formation in new
organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review,
23, 473–490.
Moxley, R. S. (1998). Hardships. In C. D. McCauley, R. S.
Moxlet, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.),

120. The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership
development (pp. 194–213).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moxley, R. S., & O’Connor Wilson, P. (1998). A systems
approach to leadership development.
In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The
Center for Creative
Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 217–241).
San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Mumford, A. (1980). Making experience pay. Berkshire, UK:
McGraw-Hill.
Murrell, A. J., Crosby, F. J., & Ely, R. J. (Eds.). (1999).
Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental
relationships within multicultural organizations. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual
capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.
Neck, C., & Manz, C. C. (1996). Thought self-leadership: The
impact of mental strategies
training on employee cognition, behavior, and affect. Journal of
Organizational Behav-
ior, 17, 445–467.
Ohlott, P. J. (1998). Job assignments. In C. D. McCauley, R. S.
Moxley, & E. Van Velsor
(Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of
leadership development (pp.
127–159). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

121. Ohlott, P. J., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1994).
Gender differences in managers’
developmental job experiences. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 46–67.
Olivero, G., Bane, D. K., & Kopelman, R. E. (1997). Executive
coaching as a transfer of
training tool: Effects on productivity in a public agency. Public
Personnel Management,
26, 461–469.
Pedler, M. (1997). Interpreting action learning. In J. Burgoyne
& M. Reynolds (Eds.),
Management learning: Integrating perspective in theory and
practice (pp. 248–264).
London: Sage.
Peterson, D. B. (1993). Measuring change: A psychometric
approach to evaluating individual
612 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
training outcomes. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual
Conference of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco,
CA, May.
Peterson, D. B. (1996). Executive coaching at work: The art of
one-on-one change. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 78–86.
Quiñones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The
relationship between work
experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-

122. analytic review. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 887–910.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and
outcomes: A comparison of
men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships.
Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 529–550.
Revans, R. W. (1980). Action learning. London: Blond &
Briggs.
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1999). What’s a good
reason to change? Motivated
reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational
change. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 514–528.
Ruderman, M. N., & Hughes-James, M. W. (1998). Leadership
development across race and
gender. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor
(Eds.), The Center for
Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp.
291–335). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Ruderman, M. N., & Ohlott, P. J. (1994). The realities of
management promotion. Greensboro,
NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Salancik, G. R., Calder, B. J., Rowland, K. M., Leblebici, H., &
Conway, M. (1975). Leadership
as an outcome of social structure and process: A
multidimensional analysis. In J. G.
Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 81–101).
Kent, OH: Kent State

123. University.
Saporito, T. J. (1996). Business-linked executive development:
Coaching senior executives.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 96–
103.
Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member
exchange and supervisor
career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership
research. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 1588–1602.
Schein, E. H. (1997). Organizational culture and leadership
(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. (1965). Personal and organizational
change via group methods.
New York: Wiley.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice
of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Sherman, S. (1995). How tomorrow’s leaders are learning their
stuff. Fortune, 132,(November
27), 90–102.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training in
organizational justice to
increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A
replication. Personnel Psychology,
50, 617–633.
Spreitzer, G. M., Noble, D. S., Mishra, A. K., & Coole, W. N.

124. (1999). Predicting process
improvement team performance in an automotive firm:
Explicating the roles of trust
and empowerment. In R. Wageman (Ed.), Research on managing
groups and teams:
Groups in context (vol. 2; pp. 71–92). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Stewart, G. L., Carson, K. P., & Cardy, R. L. (1996). The joint
effects of conscientiousness
and self-leadership training on employee self-directed behavior
in a service setting.
Personnel Psychology, 49, 143–164.
Stewart, R. (1984). Developing managers by radical job moves.
Journal of Management
Development, 3(2), 48–85.
Leadership Development 613
Tesluk, P. E., & Jacobs, R. R. (1998). Toward an integrated
model of work experience.
Personnel Psychology, 51, 321–355.
The Conference Board. (1999). Developing leaders. HR
Executive Review, 7(1), 1–19.
Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race
developmental relationships. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 38, 169–194.
Thompson, D. A. (1987). A formative evaluation of an
individualized coaching program for
business managers and professionals (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Minnesota,

125. 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(12-A, Pt. 1),
4339.
Tobias, L. L. (1996). Coaching executives. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 48, 87–95.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value
creation: The role of intrafirm
networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464–476.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Steel, R. P. (2000). Is a rater’s opportunity
to observe over-rated? A
test of the effects of observational opportunity on rater
agreement. Paper presented at
the 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychol-
ogy, New Orleanns, LA, April.
Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J. B. (1995). Why executives derail:
Perspectives across time and
cultures. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 62–72.
Van Velsor, E., McCauley, C. D., & Moxley, R. S. (1998). Our
view of leadership develop-
ment. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor
(Eds.), The Center for
Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp.
1–25). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Vicere, A. A., & Fulmer, R. M. (1998). Leadership by design.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School.
Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Antonioni, D. (1998). Has

126. 360 degree feedback gone
amok? Academy of Management Executive, 12(2), 86–94.
Walker, A. G., & Smither, J. W. (1999). A five-year study of
upward feedback: What managers
do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52, 393–
423.
Warech, M. A., Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., &
Reilly, S. P. (1998). Self-
monitoring and 360-degree ratings. Leadership Quarterly, 9,
449–473.
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in
organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University.
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of
practice: The organizational frontier.
Harvard Business Review, (January-February), 139–145.
Wexley, K. N., & Baldwin, T. T. (1986). Management
development. Journal of Management,
12, 277–294.
Whitener, E. M. (2000). The processes of building social capital
in organizations: The integrat-
ing role of trust. Paper presented at the Academy of
Management Annual Meeting,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August.
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.).

127. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Zand, D. E. (1997). The leadership triad: Knowledge, trust, and
power. New York: Oxford
University.
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT:
A REVIEW IN CONTEXT
David V. Day*
The Pennsylvania State University
Interest in leadership development is strong, especially among
practitioners. Nonetheless, there
is conceptual confusion regarding distinctions between leader
and leadership development, as
well as disconnection between the practice of leadership
development and its scientific foundation.
The present review examines the field of leadership
development through three contextual
lenses: (1) understanding the difference between leader
development and leadership development
(conceptual context); (2) reviewing how state-of-the-art
development is being conducted in the
context of ongoing organizational work (practice context); and
(3) summarizing previous research
that has implications for leadership development (research
context). The overall purpose is to
bridge the practice and science of leadership development by
showing the importance of building
both human and social capital in organizations. Specific
practices that are reviewed include 360-

128. degree feedback and executive coaching, mentoring and
networking, and job assignments and
action learning. Practices and research are framed in terms of a
general need to link leader
development, which is primarily based on enhancing human
capital, with leadership development
that emphasizes the creation of social capital in organizations.
In the traditional organization—the organization of the last one
hundred
years—the skeleton or internal structure, was a combination of
rank and
power. In the emerging organization, it has to be mutual
understanding and
responsibility.
—Peter F. Drucker, Managing in Times of Great Change
Interest in leadership development appears to be at its zenith.
One indicator of
this interest is seen in survey results highlighting the increased
attention and re-
sources given to leadership development (The Conference
Board, 1999). Many
organizations are viewing leadership as a source of competitive
advantage and are
investing in its development accordingly (McCall, 1998; Vicere
& Fulmer, 1998).
* Direct all correspondence to: David V. Day, Department of
Psychology, The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA 16802; e-mail:
[email protected]
Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 1048-9843

129. 582 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Another indicator of the burgeoning interest in leadership
development is the
number of current publications on the topic. One of the most
notable offerings is the
Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership
Development (McCauley,
Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998), which summarizes much of what
Center researchers
and trainers have learned about leadership development over the
past 30 years. In
addition, there are a number of recently published books and
book chapters devoted
to various aspects of leadership development (e.g., Conger &
Benjamin, 1999;
Dotlich & Noel, 1998; Giber, Carter, & Goldsmith, 1999;
Hollenbeck & McCall,
1999; McCall, 1998; Vicere & Fulmer, 1998).
An immediate distinction must be made, however, between
leadership develop-
ment and management development. Literatures between the
two areas are parallel
and do overlap, but there are several key differences. Just as
leadership and manage-
ment are different (but interrelated) concepts (Yukl, 1998), their
respective develop-
ment has unique emphases. Management development primarily
includes manage-
rial education and training (Latham & Seijts, 1998; Mailick,
Stumpf, Grant, Kfir, &
Watson, 1998) with an emphasis on acquiring specific types of

130. knowledge, skills,
and abilities to enhance task performance in management roles
(Baldwin & Padgett,
1994; Keys & Wolfe, 1988; Wexley & Baldwin, 1986). Another
characteristic feature
of management development is the application of proven
solutions to known prob-
lems, which gives it mainly a training orientation.
Leadership development is defined as expanding the collective
capacity of organi-
zational members to engage effectively in leadership roles and
processes (McCauley
et al., 1998). Leadership roles refer to those that come with and
without formal
authority, whereas management development focuses on
performance in formal
managerial roles. Leadership processes are those that generally
enable groups of
people to work together in meaningful ways, whereas
management processes are
considered to be position- and organization-specific (Keys &
Wolfe, 1988). Leader-
ship development involves building the capacity for groups of
people to learn their
way out of problems that could not have been predicted (Dixon,
1993), or that
arise from the disintegration of traditional organizational
structures and the associ-
ated loss of sensemaking (Weick, 1993). In this sense capacity
is thought to be
similar to the notion of cognitive and behavioral complexity in
that expanded
capacity provides for better individual and collective
adaptability across a wide
range of situations (Hooijberg, Bullis, & Hunt, 1999). A

131. leadership development
approach is oriented toward building capacity in anticipation of
unforeseen chal-
lenges (i.e., development).
The purpose of the present review is to examine leadership
development in
context. The use of the term context is meant to be multifaceted
in nature, and
implies that leadership development occurs in various
circumstances. One specific
context is that of developing leaders versus developing
leadership (i.e., conceptual
context). A second context is that of the work itself, and how
state-of-the-art
development is being conducted in the context of ongoing
organizational work (i.e.,
practice context). A third context is related to research that has
direct and indirect
implications for leadership development (i.e., research context).
The present review
does not claim to be exhaustive; rather, it will focus on recent
practices and research
that have been implemented or published, typically within the
past 5 to 10 years.
Furthermore, given the relative dearth of scholarly research
directly on the topic,
Leadership Development 583
most of what is reviewed has implications for leadership
development, as opposed
to being conceptualized primarily within a leadership
development framework. The

132. research review and discussion is intended to spark interest
among future leadership
development researchers.
CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT: BRIDGING LEADER AND
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
Leadership has been traditionally conceptualized as an
individual-level skill. A
good example of this is found in transformational leadership
theory, which proposes
that transformational leaders engage in behaviors related to the
dimensions of
Charisma, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized
Consideration (Bass, 1985).
The corresponding approach to research and theory testing
assumes an individualis-
tic conceptualization of leadership, in which sharp distinction is
drawn between
leaders and followers (e.g., followers evaluate their “leader”
using a number of
behavioral items). Within this tradition, development is thought
to occur primarily
through training individual, primarily intrapersonal, skills and
abilities (Barling,
Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Neck & Manz, 1996; Skarlicki &
Latham, 1997; Stewart,
Carson, & Cardy, 1996). These kinds of training approaches,
however, ignore almost
50 years of research showing leadership to be a complex
interaction between the
designated leader and the social and organizational environment
(Fiedler, 1996).
In addition to building individual leaders by training a set of
skills or abilities

133. and assuming that leadership will result, a complementary
perspective approaches
leadership as a social process that engages everyone in the
community (Barker,
1997; Drath & Palus, 1994; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). In this
way, each person is
considered a leader, and leadership is conceptualized as an
effect rather than a
cause (Drath, 1998). Leadership is therefore an emergent
property of effective
systems design (Salancik, Calder, Rowland, Leblebici, &
Conway, 1975). Leadership
development from this perspective consists of using social (i.e.,
relational) systems
to help build commitments among members of a community of
practice (Wenger,
1998). It is proposed that both individual and relational lenses
are important con-
cerns.
Lester Thurow (1999) has argued: “Businesses must be willing
to destroy the
old while it is still successful if they wish to build the new that
will be successful.
If they don’t destroy themselves, others will destroy them” (p.
59). In building the
leadership capacity necessary continually to reinvent
themselves, organizations need
to attend to both individual leader and collective leadership
development. Further-
more, these approaches must be linked with each other and
connected to a broader
organizational strategy (Hall & Seibert, 1992; Latham & Seijts,
1998) for maximum
return on investment. A summary of the proposed differences
between leader

134. development and leadership development is presented in Table
1.
Leader Development
One of the primary reasons that organizations invest in training
and development
for employees is to enhance and protect their human capital
(Lepak & Snell, 1999).
584 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Table 1. Summary of Differences between Leader Development
and Leadership Development
Development Target
Comparison Dimension Leader Leadership
Capital Type Human Social
Leadership Model Individual Relational
Personal power Commitments
Knowledge Mutual respect
Trustworthiness Trust
Competence Base Intrapersonal Interpersonal
Skills Self-awareness Social awareness
Emotional awareness Empathy
Self confidence Service orientation
Accurate self image Political awareness
Self-regulation Social skills

135. Self-control Building bonds
Trustworthiness Team orientation
Personal responsibility Change catalyst
Adaptability Conflict management
Self motivation
Initiative
Commitment
Optimisim
In the case of leader development, the emphasis typically is on
individual-based
knowledge, skills, and abilities associated with formal
leadership roles. These ac-
quired capabilities enable people to think and act in new ways
(Coleman, 1988).
In this manner, leader development results as a function of
purposeful investment
in human capital. The primary emphasis of the overarching
development strategy
is to build the intrapersonal competence needed to form an
accurate model of
oneself (Gardner, 1993, p. 9), to engage in healthy attitude and
identity development
(Hall & Seibert, 1992), and to use that self-model to perform
effectively in any
number of organizational roles.
Specific examples of the type of intrapersonal competence
associated with leader
development initiatives include self-awareness (e.g., emotional
awareness, self con-
fidence), self-regulation (e.g., self-control, trustworthiness,
adaptability), and self-
motivation (e.g., commitment, initiative, optimism) (Manz &
Sims, 1989; McCauley,

136. 2000; Neck & Manz, 1996; Stewart et al., 1996). These
capabilities contribute to
enhanced individual knowledge, trust, and personal power,
which have been proposed
as the fundamental leadership imperatives (Zand, 1997), at least
from a traditional,
individualistic leadership perspective. It is important to
understand this approach if
only because the predominant emphasis in organizational
leadership research has
been on the human capital of individual leaders (Brass &
Krackhardt, 1999).
Leadership Development
In addition to the organizational resources provided as a
function of human
capital, social resources are embedded in work relationships
that take the form of
Leadership Development 585
social capital (Brass & Krackhardt, 1999; Burt, 1992). Unlike
human capital, in
which the focus is on developing individual knowledge, skills,
and abilities, the
emphasis with social capital is on building networked
relationships among individu-
als that enhance cooperation and resource exchange in creating
organizational value
(Bouty, 2000; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). Despite the importance of
social networks
in this approach—and the typical structural approach to social
networks analyses—

137. social capital is defined more by its function than by its
structure (Coleman, 1988;
Whitener, 2000). That is, social capital is based on
relationships, which are created
through interpersonal exchange (Bourdieu, 1986). In this
manner social capital
requires an interpersonal lens that is grounded in a relational
model of leadership
(Drath & Palus, 1994). At the heart of this relational model are
commitments in
the form of mutual obligations, which are supported by
reciprocated trust and
respect (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000).
Commitments, trust, and respect correspond roughly to three
different aspects
of social capital proposed by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998):
structural, relational,
and cognitive. The structural dimension pertains primarily to
social interactions
typically assessed by means of network ties (Tsai & Ghoshal,
1998). The social
structure of interactions—and an actor’s location in relation to
his or her contacts—
has been shown to provide resources to the actor as well as the
organization (Burt,
1992). This structure is formed as a result of the commitments
among all parties in
a given social network. The relational dimension of social
capital refers to functional
assets that are rooted in networked relationships, such as trust
and trustworthiness
(Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998), which describe the kind of personal
relationships developed
through a history of interactions. This is a particularly
interesting dimension.

138. Whereas trust is an attribute of the relationship, trustworthiness
rests in the intraper-
sonal qualities of the individual (Barney & Hansen, 1994). This
highlights the
importance of developing both intrapersonal and interpersonal
competence, and
of linking leader development with leadership development.
The third aspect of social capital is the cognitive dimension,
which refers to
resources embodied in shared representations and collective
meanings among peo-
ple. Expressions of the cognitive dimension to social capital can
be found in organiza-
tion culture or a shared vision based on a set of common values
that produces and
is a product of mutual respect. These facets of social capital
(i.e., structural, rela-
tional, and cognitive) are interrelated and not independent
concerns, and have been
empirically linked to value creation in organizations through
their separate effects
on resource exchange and combination (Bouty, 2000; Tsai &
Ghoshal, 1998).
The primary emphasis in leadership development is on building
and using inter-
personal competence. Gardner (1993) defines interpersonal
intelligence in terms
of the ability to understand people—a basic concern in building
trust, respect, and
ultimately, commitments. Key components of interpersonal
competence include
social awareness (e.g., empathy, service orientation, and
developing others) and
social skills (e.g., collaboration and cooperation, building

139. bonds, and conflict man-
agement) (Goleman, 1995; McCauley, 2000). The emphasis is
on the social nature
of this competence, and the idea that effective development best
occurs in an
interpersonal (i.e., social) context.
The notion of leadership development offered in the present
review focuses on
the interaction between an individual and the social and
organizational environment
586 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
(Fiedler, 1996). As such, it is a more complex endeavor than
one concerned solely
with individual leader development. Although there is still a
need to develop a
sound foundation of intrapersonal and interpersonal skills, it is
proposed that the
most value resides in combining what is considered the
traditional, individualistic
approach to leader development with a more shared and
relational approach.
Another way to conceptualize the distinction is that leader
development can be
interpreted as a form of individual-based differentiation in
terms of helping individu-
als enhance a unique self-understanding and construct
independent identities
(Hall & Seibert, 1992; McCauley et al., 1998). Leadership
development can be
thought of as an integration strategy by helping people

140. understand how to relate
to others, coordinate their efforts, build commitments, and
develop extended social
networks by applying self-understanding to social and
organizational imperatives.
An overall approach to leadership development as a type of
organizational develop-
ment strategy requires a purposeful transformation toward
higher levels of both
leadership integration and differentiation. This is an example of
a move toward
what has been termed “organized complexity” (Gharajedaghi,
1999, pp. 92–93).
The profound changes shaping the competitive business
environment are also
affecting how organizations prepare people for present and
future challenges. One
emphasis has been on investing more intensely in leader and
leadership development
across all organization levels, and to develop leadership
capacity in all employees
and across all organizational systems. Scholarly researchers
potentially have much
to contribute to the understanding and improvement of
leadership development in
organizations. In particular, researchers can help enhance the
purposefulness of
leadership development by examining how various practices and
processes, alone
and in combination, contribute to better leadership. One of the
biggest challenges
facing organizations is reversing a tendency that allows
leadership development to
become a “haphazard process” (Conger, 1993, p. 46), which
results from embedding

141. development in the ongoing work of an organization without
sufficient notice to
intentionality, accountability, and evaluation.
To be of any help in this endeavor, academic researchers need
to first transcend
the outdated notion that leadership development occurs only
through specially
designed programs held in particular locations. Instead, it is a
continuous process
that can take place anywhere (Fulmer, 1997). Leadership
development in practice
today means helping people learn from their work rather than
taking them away
from their work to learn (Moxley & O’Connor Wilson, 1998).
State-of-the-art
leadership development is occurring in the context of ongoing
work initiatives that
are tied to strategic business imperatives (Dotlich & Noel,
1998).
Of course, classroom programs are still widely used by
organizations as one type
of development practice. A 1995 survey sponsored by the
American Society of
Training and Development indicated that 85% of companies that
engage in leader-
ship development activities use formal classroom programs
(American Society for
Training and Development, 1995); however, many organizations
are realizing that
such programs are not enough. Classroom programs suffer from
transfer of training
challenges and high start-up costs, among other limitations. The
real movement is
toward understanding and practicing leadership development

142. more effectively in
the context of the work itself.
Leadership Development 587
PRACTICE AND RESEARCH CONTEXTS: BRIDGING THE
APPLIED AND
ACADEMIC COMMUNITIES
A variety of practices have been developed and implemented in
organizations for
reasons other than leadership development. Most typically,
these practices were pri-
marily intended to improve performance management (e.g., 360-
degree feedback),
facilitate corporate socialization (e.g., mentoring), or enhance
productivity (e.g., job
assignments, action learning). Often the practices are
completely embedded in the
work. In many cases, these practices also form the backbone of
contemporary leader-
ship development systems. The present review will examine the
most popular and
promising practices used to develop leaders and leadership in
the context of ongoing
work in an organization. Each section will contain a brief
overview of the practice,
how it is used for development, and a synthesis of recent theory
and research with
implications for understanding or improving the effectiveness of
leadership develop-
ment in work contexts. Literature from both the practitioner and
academic domains
will be examined. The specific practices to be reviewed (see

143. Table 2) are 360-degree
feedback and executive coaching, mentoring and networking,
and job assignments
and action learning. These practices are arranged roughly on a
continuum of least
to most embedded in ongoing organizational work.
360-degree Feedback
Overview
360-degree feedback, multi-source feedback, and multi-rater
feedback are all
terms used to describe this method of systematically collecting
perceptions of an
individual’s performance from the entire circle of relevant
viewpoints (Warech,
Smither, Reilly, Millsap, & Reilly, 1998). Rating sources
typically include peers,
direct reports, supervisors, and, occasionally, such external
stakeholders as custom-
ers and suppliers. A purported advantage of such intense,
comprehensive scrutiny
is that a more complete and accurate picture of an individual’s
performance can
be obtained. In terms of the tripartite developmental strategy of
linking assessment,
challenge, and support (Van Velsor, McCauley, & Moxley,
1998), 360-degree feed-
back is strong on assessment but typically weak on challenge
and support.
Practice
The introduction of 360-degree feedback processes has made a
strong mark on

144. organizations in recent years. For example, 360-degree feedback
has been lauded
as “perhaps the most notable management innovation of the
1990’s” (Atwater &
Waldman, 1998a). Furthermore, nearly all of the Fortune 500
companies currently
use or intend to use some form of the practice (London &
Smither, 1995). Some
authors have argued that 360-degree feedback is a source of
competitive advantage
to organizations (London & Beatty, 1993), whereas others see
its growing popularity
as a function of imitation and political concerns (Waldman,
Atwater, & Antonioni,
1998).
An important assumption of this approach is that performance
varies across
contexts, and that someone behaves differently with different
constituencies. An
advantage of the multi-source approach is that it directly
acknowledges differences
588 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
T
ab
le
2.
S
u

145. m
m
ar
y
o
f
S
el
ec
te
d
P
ra
ct
ic
es
in
L
ea
d
er
sh
ip
D

146. ev
el
o
p
m
en
t
P
ra
ct
ic
e
D
es
cr
ip
ti
o
n
D
ev
el
o
p

147. m
en
t
T
ar
ge
t
H
C
S
C
S
tr
en
gt
h
s
W
ea
k
n
es
se
s

148. 36
0-
d
eg
re
e
M
u
lt
i-
so
u
rc
e
ra
ti
n
gs
o
f
S
el
f-
k

149. n
o
w
le
d
ge
✓
x
C
o
m
p
re
h
en
si
ve
O
ve
rw
h
el
m
in

150. g
am
o
u
n
t
o
f
fe
ed
b
ac
k
p
er
fo
rm
an
ce
,
o
rg
an
iz

151. ed
B
eh
av
io
ra
l
ch
an
ge
p
ic
tu
re
;
b
ro
ad
d
at
a;
n
o
gu

152. id
an
ce
o
n
h
o
w
an
d
p
re
se
n
te
d
to
an
p
ar
ti
ci
p
at

153. io
n
(A
)
to
ch
an
ge
;
ti
m
e
an
d
in
d
iv
id
u
al
ef
fo
rt
(C

154. ,
S
)
C
o
ac
h
in
g
P
ra
ct
ic
al
,
go
al
-f
o
cu
se
d
fo
rm

155. S
el
f-
k
n
o
w
le
d
ge
✓
?
P
er
so
n
al
iz
ed
;
P
er
ce
iv

156. ed
st
ig
m
a
o
f
o
n
e-
o
n
-o
n
e
le
ar
n
in
g
B
eh
av
io

157. ra
l
ch
an
ge
in
te
n
si
ve
(C
,
S
)
(r
em
ed
ia
l)
;
ex
p
en
si

158. ve
C
ar
ee
r
d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
t
M
en
to
ri
n
g
A
d
vi
si
n

159. g/
d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
ta
l
B
ro
ad
er
✓
?
S
tr
o
n
g
p
er
so

160. n
al
P
ee
r
je
al
o
u
sy
;
o
ve
r
re
la
ti
o
n
sh
ip
,
u
su

161. al
ly
w
it
h
a
u
n
d
er
st
an
d
in
g.
b
o
n
d
(S
)
d
ep
en

162. d
en
ce
;
(A
,
C
)
m
o
re
se
n
io
r
m
an
ag
er
A
d
va
n
ce

163. m
en
t
ca
ta
ly
st
.
L
es
so
n
s
le
ar
n
ed
/
av
o
id
m
is
ta

164. k
es
.
N
et
w
o
rk
s
C
o
n
n
ec
ti
n
g
to
o
th
er
s
in
B

165. et
te
r
p
ro
b
le
m
-
?
✓
B
u
il
d
s
o
rg
an
iz
at
io
n
A

166. d
h
o
c;
u
n
st
ru
ct
u
re
d
(A
)
d
if
fe
re
n
t
fu
n
ct
io

167. n
s
an
d
so
lv
in
g.
(S
)
ar
ea
s
L
ea
rn
in
g
w
h
o
to
co
n

168. su
lt
fo
r
p
ro
je
ct
h
el
p
.
S
o
ci
al
iz
at
io
n
Jo
b
A
ss

169. ig
n
m
en
ts
P
ro
vi
d
in
g
“s
tr
et
ch
”
S
k
il
ls
d
ev
el
o

170. p
m
en
t.
✓
?
Jo
b
re
le
va
n
t;
C
o
n
fl
ic
t
b
et
w
ee
n

171. as
si
gn
m
en
ts
in
te
rm
s
o
f
B
ro
ad
er
ac
ce
le
ra
te
s
p
er

172. fo
rm
an
ce
an
d
d
ev
el
.;
ro
le
,
fu
n
ct
io
n
,
o
r
u
n
d

173. er
st
an
d
in
g
o
f
le
ar
n
in
g
(C
)
n
o
st
ru
ct
u
re
fo
r

174. le
ar
n
in
g
ge
o
gr
ap
h
y
th
e
b
u
si
n
es
s.
(A
,
S
)
A

175. ct
io
n
L
ea
rn
in
g
P
ro
je
ct
-b
as
ed
le
ar
n
in
g
S
o
ci
al

176. iz
at
io
n
✓
✓
T
ie
d
to
b
u
si
n
es
s
T
im
e
in
te
n
si
ve

177. ;
le
ad
er
sh
ip
d
ir
ec
te
d
at
im
p
o
rt
an
t
T
ea
m
w
o
rk

178. Im
p
le
m
en
t
im
p
er
at
iv
es
;
le
ss
o
n
s
n
o
t
al
w
ay

179. s
cl
ea
r;
b
u
si
n
es
s
p
ro
b
le
m
s
st
ra
te
gy
.
ac
ti
o

180. n
-o
ri
en
te
d
o
ve
r-
em
p
h
as
is
o
n
re
su
lt
s
(C
,
S
)

181. (A
)
N
o
te
:
H
C
5
h
u
m
an
ca
p
it
al
;
S
C
5
so
ci
al

182. ca
p
it
al
;
✓
5
in
te
n
d
ed
d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
ta
l
ta
rg
et

183. ;
x
5
n
o
t
an
in
te
n
d
ed
d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
ta
l
ta
rg
et

184. ;
?
5
p
o
ss
ib
le
d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
ta
l
ta
rg
et
;
A
5

185. as
se
ss
m
en
t;
C
5
ch
al
le
n
ge
;
S
5
su
p
p
o
rt
.
Leadership Development 589

186. across sources in the opportunity to observe various aspects of
an individual’s
performance. Research findings corroborate these assumptions
in showing that
ratings across sources correlate only moderately (e.g., Atwater,
Ostroff, Yammar-
ino, & Fleenor, 1998; Atwater & Yammarino, 1997; Carless,
Mann, & Wearing,
1998). Rather than being a problem, this finding suggests that
performance may be
different, and may be perceived differently, across various
constituencies. Multi-
source or 360-degree ratings are needed to capture this variety
of behavior and
perspective. It should also be noted that additional research
found little evidence
of within-source rating agreement (Greguras & Robie, 1998),
even among raters
with similar observational opportunities (Van Scotter & Steel,
2000). Thus, using
multiple raters within multiple rating sources makes good
psychometric sense in
terms of enhancing the overall reliability of feedback.
The growing popularity of 360-degree feedback may have
something to do with
a deeper appreciation for the business necessity of self-
understanding. Lack of
self-awareness can jeopardize projects by contributing to sub-
optimal individual
performance, or by creating increased stress and anxiety in
others (Dotlich & Noel,
1998). Other possible reasons for the popularity of 360-degree
feedback include its
effectiveness as a developmental tool, its initial ease of

187. implementation (although
it is more complicated to manage effectively than many
companies realize), and
that many of the “most-admired” firms have adopted the
practice (Waldman et
al., 1998). A somewhat different explanation for the increased
use of 360-degree
evaluations lies with the changing nature of the U.S. industrial
economy. In the
past, the measure of a company’s success was its property, not
its people. Among
leading-edge companies, that ratio is now reversed, and the
majority of the wealth
in many organizations is in its employees (i.e., intellectual
capital). Thus, if a large
portion of that talent becomes frustrated with their co-workers
or bosses and quit
the company, the economic results could be devastating for an
organization. A
substantial amount of value could potentially end up employed
by a competitor,
or—with the attractiveness of entrepreneurial start-ups—
become the competition.
Multi-source feedback can be a useful developmental tool for
building intraper-
sonal competence in the form of self-knowledge and increased
self-awareness of
one’s impact on others, which is connected to building
individual trustworthiness
(Barney & Hansen, 1994). If the feedback process is handled
professionally and
with sensitivity, an individual’s trusting intentions toward
others can be enhanced
(McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998). Because trust
facilitates the cooperation

188. needed for effective teamwork in organizations (Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998), there
is an indirect link between 360-degree feedback and the
development of social
capital; its primary contribution, however, is on developing
intrapersonal compe-
tence associated with enhanced human capital.
Proposition 1a: The use of 360-degree or multi-source feedback
is associated
with the development of human capital (i.e., intrapersonal
competence)
in organizations.
Research
Nothing guarantees that feedback inherently leads to positive
individual change.
Indeed, research indicates that over one-third of the feedback
interventions reported
590 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
in the literature resulted in decreased performance (Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996). One
reason that behavioral change may not follow from feedback is
that most people
have well-developed defense mechanisms that protect them from
feedback that is
perceived as too threatening (Chappelow, 1998). Conversely,
some might recognize
feedback as accurate but do not want to change their behavior.
For any leadership
development effort to be effective—particularly one based on

189. 360-degree feed-
back—a participant must first be willing to accept feedback as
relevant and useful,
and be open to change. They must also be realistic and resilient
in that change is
rarely a simple path forward; a large investment of time and
energy is required
before the needed change becomes part of an individual’s
behavioral repertoire.
Recent research findings indicate that what managers do with
their feedback
does matter. Specifically, managers who met with direct reports
to discuss their
upward feedback demonstrated greater change in the form of
performance improve-
ment than managers who did not discuss their feedback (Walker
& Smither, 1999).
Other research found that perceived organization support
enhances the usefulness
of subordinate feedback over and above the overall favorability
of the feedback
(Facteau, Facteau, Schoel, Russell, & Poteet, 1998). Only
favorability predicted the
usefulness of peer ratings.
Another difficulty is that measuring change using 360-degree
survey instruments
has proven to be a challenge, given associated changes in
expectations about a
target as a result of program participation (i.e., beta change),
and changes in thinking
about the constructs being rated (i.e., gamma change). For these
reasons, some
researchers have adopted a retrospective methodology in which
a measure of the

190. perceived degree of a target’s behavioral change is gathered at
the second wave of
data collection (Martineau, 1998; Peterson, 1993). This
methodology is intriguing
in that it attempts directly to assess the degree of perceived
change rather than
basing it on difference scores, which are associated with their
own set of psychomet-
ric challenges. For this reason, the retrospective methodology is
deserving of greater
research attention.
A willingness to accept and use feedback might be insufficient
for change, however,
if the feedback is complex or inconsistent, or if the recipient
lacks the requisite skills
to interpret the data and translate it into behaving in a different
manner. For these
reasons, executive coaching has emerged as a popular
leadership development tool.
Proposition 1b: The effectiveness of 360-degree feedback for
the develop-
ment of social capital development depends on the extent that it
is linked
to follow-up coaching.
Executive Coaching
Overview
Executive coaching involves practical, goal-focused forms of
one-on-one learning
and behavioral change (Hall, Otazo, & Hollenbeck, 1999;
Peterson, 1996). The
objectives of coaching are focused on improving individual

191. performance and per-
sonal satisfaction, and, consequently, enhancing organizational
effectiveness (Kil-
burg, 1996). The term connotes an ongoing process rather than a
discrete event.
Coaching may be used to improve individual performance,
enhance a career, or
Leadership Development 591
work through organizational issues such as culture change (Katz
& Miller, 1996).
It can be a relatively short-term activity aimed at improving
specific leadership
skills or solving specific problems, or a lengthy series of
meetings over an extended
time period (Tobias, 1996). Given that the cost of coaching
provided by an external
consultant ranges from $1,500 for a single day to more than
$100,000 for a multi-
year program (for a single executive), it is understandable why
most firms prefer
to keep this as short-term as possible. The approach, however,
is comprehensive in
terms of integrating assessment, challenge, and support in the
name of development,
especially when linked with 360-degree feedback.
Practice
One area of executive coaching that deserves greater attention
concerns the
underlying models of change adopted by coaches. One proposed
coaching model

192. consists of four general steps (Saporito, 1996):
1. Setting the foundation and defining the context;
2. Individual assessment, including the 360-degree process;
3. Development planning based on feedback to the individual
and a three-way
discussion with the supervisor; and
4. Implementation that focuses coaching around development
experiences.
The Individual Coaching for Effectiveness model at Personnel
Decisions, Inc. (Hel-
lervik, Hazucha, & Schneider, 1992) consists of three major
phases: diagnosis,
coaching, and maintenance/support—similar to the assessment,
challenge, and sup-
port perspective on how to enhance the potency of
developmental experiences
(Van Velsor et al., 1998).
Although it could be argued that nearly anyone would benefit
from coaching,
at least one study has estimated that three-quarters of
participants were in some
danger of derailing when they began a coaching process
(Thompson, 1987). In
addition, the typical motives for participating are remedial in
nature, and usually
associated with interpersonal insensitivity or a lack of influence
ability (Hellervik
et al., 1992). For these reasons, organizations that use
coaches—as well as the
coaches themselves—need to be aware of a possible stigma
associated with being
assigned a coach. Providing a coach to an entire executive

193. group has the advantage
of placing all recipients on equal footing. When everyone has a
coach, it is not a
secret—neither a stigma nor perceived source of favoritism.
Coaching an entire
team to get one particular executive help, however, without
appearing to single
out the individual is almost always transparent to the team, and
can create more
ill-will than if coaching is focused on the one individual who
truly needs it. In
summary, if coaching is not purposefully and strategically
applied, it is a waste of
time and money that dilutes the value of a development
opportunity. Indeed, there
is a risk of doing more harm than good.
Proposition 2a: Coaching effectiveness is enhanced to the
degree that indi-
viduals are carefully selected for coaching, matched with a
compatible
coach, and are willing to change.
592 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Research
There is little published empirical research other than case
studies on the topic
of executive coaching effectiveness (Kilburg, 1996), especially
in terms of how well
it enhances development in addition to improving performance.
Executive coaching
as a follow-up to a training program was shown to increase

194. productivity by 88% in
public sector managers (Olivero, Bane, & Kopelman, 1997),
which was a significantly
greater gain compared with training alone. No evaluation,
however, was conducted
that addressed the important, but different, issue of leadership
development.
Additional research is needed that goes beyond an evaluation of
immediate
productivity improvements. For example, an examination of
social accounts (i.e.,
managerial justifications and excuses used to explain an
individual’s actions) and
the motivated reasoning of coaching participants could be
useful in understanding
the underlying reasons for change or resistance to change.
Recent research that
adopted social accounts and motivated reasoning lenses to
understand reactions to
organizational change has shown that nursing employees hear
different messages
from management depending on the quality of their relationship
with the organiza-
tion (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). It is expected that
interpretations of a coaching
initiative will be related to participants’ change motivation and,
ultimately, to the
extent of behavior change. As in the Rousseau and Tijoriwala
(1999), change
motivation may also be related to trust in the organization and
the level of mutual
commitment established between the coaching participant and
the employer.
Proposition 2b: The quality of an individual’s relationship with

195. an organiza-
tion is positively associated with the effectiveness of coaching
for devel-
opment for that individual.
Another potentially fruitful line of research involves a social
network analysis
of a team or work group in which a coaching participant is
involved. One hypothesis
worth investigating is that coaching increases an individual’s
centrality within a
social network, thus enhancing the structural component of that
person’s social
capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Network centrality results
from strong ties
with others that build loyalty, trust, mutual respect, and
emotional commitments
(Brass & Krackhardt, 1999). If coaching increases individual
self-confidence and
interpersonal effectiveness, it might also be expected to
encourage the formation
of new, non-redundant contacts with others both inside and
outside the organization
(Bouty, 2000). Thus, coaching provided to an individual or
entire group, such as a
top management team, could lead to the creation of a greater
number of nonredun-
dant (i.e., weak) ties (Granovetter, 1973). As noted by Brass
and Krackhardt (1999),
effective leadership requires establishing strong and weak ties,
both of which are
crucial but serve different purposes. Strong ties build loyalty,
trust, and mutual
respect—essentially, commitments among individuals—whereas
weak ties provide
access to novel, unique, and nonredundant information or

196. resources (Burt, 1992).
Creating value through enhanced social capital is especially
critical in the network
organization (Baker, 1992) in which temporary configurations
are linked mainly by
rapidly changing opportunities. Using executive coaching to
provide the challenge
and support in conjunction with the assessment provided by
360-degree feedback
Leadership Development 593
may be an effective means of linking leader and leadership
development by building
both human and social capital.
Proposition 2c: Coaching increases a recipient’s weak and
strong network
ties (i.e., social capital).
Research is needed that goes beyond trying to establish whether
coaching is
effective, to addressing questions such as how does it work,
why does it work, and
for what specific purpose (Campbell, 1989). The answers to
some of these questions
may be found in future studies that examine feedback and
coaching from a social
networks perspective (Brass & Krackhardt, 1999) and adopt a
particular theoretical
lens, such as self-regulation theory (Bandura, 1991; Carver &
Scheier, 1981; La-
tham & Locke, 1991), to try to understand what makes for an
effective feedback

197. process.
Other possibilities for understanding the how, why, and what of
effective coaching
include the compelling literature on implementation intentions
(Gollwitzer, 1993;
Gollwitzer & Brandstatter, 1997). Consistent findings document
that when people
experience difficulty translating their goals into action, they can
use situational cues
to help make their responses relatively effortless and automatic
by forming the
cognitive structure “when situation x arises, I will do y”
(Gollwitzer, 1999, p. 494).
In other words, a person commits to responding to a certain
situation in a specific,
pre-designated manner. By coaching executives in how to link
their development
goals to implementation intentions, there may be ways of
encouraging behavioral
change while also removing the underlying impetus from
conscious control. Imple-
mentation intentions could serve as a behavioral change catalyst
in executive coach-
ing efforts; because the cues for implementing the desired
behaviors are removed
from conscious control, however, some question remains as to
the extent of learning
that occurs through automatically enacted behavior. Clearly,
there is a research
need for a better understanding of the benefits and potential
drawbacks of imple-
mentation intentions in organizational contexts.
Proposition 2d: The use of implementation intentions as part of
coaching

198. increases the amount and extent of behavioral change observed.
Mentoring
Overview
Formal developmental relationships are a venerable form of on-
the-job experi-
ence used for leadership development. There are formal
mentoring programs as
well as informal processes. Formal, planned mentoring
programs are assigned,
maintained, and monitored by the organization (Kram & Bragar,
1992). Informal,
unplanned mentoring is usually encouraged by an organization,
but not initiated
or administered by it. Regardless of the formality of the
mentoring relationship,
effective developmental relationships come about from a mix of
opportunity and
intent (Sherman, 1995). A challenge facing any organization is
how to find the most
appropriate combination of these ingredients. As typically
implemented, mentoring
594 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
programs are heavily skewed toward support, with some
attention to challenge,
but relatively little consideration of assessment.
Practice
Most formal mentoring programs pair a junior manager with a
more senior

199. executive outside of his or her direct reporting line (McCauley
& Douglas, 1998),
although the pairing can sometimes occur with a peer or an
external consultant
(Douglas, 1997). In the latter cases, the line between mentoring
and coaching
becomes blurred. Indeed, coaching has been proposed as one
particular mentoring
role, along with sponsorship, protection, challenging
assignments, and exposure to
senior management thinking (Kram, 1985).
Mentoring is seen as an especially effective component of
development in context.
In a survey of over 350 companies involved in leadership
development, those efforts
reported as most successful included mentoring programs, as
well as action learning
and 360-degree feedback (Giber et al., 1999). The opportunity
to observe and
interact with members of senior management is an especially
critical part of men-
toring because it helps develop a more sophisticated and
strategic perspective on
the organization (i.e., a type of intrapersonal competence).
Despite its apparent
effectiveness at enhancing individual development, formal
research has not been
published on the topic of senior management exposure.
Specifically, what is it about
interacting with senior managers that sparks the development of
more sophisticated
perspectives? One possibility is that it enhances shared mental
representations and
interpretations of important organizational concerns. As such,

200. mentoring might be
partially effective due to its influence on the cognitive
dimension of social capital.
Proposition 3a: Effective mentoring processes result in
sophisticated mental
representations of strategic issues and organizational concerns
on the
part of recipients.
Research
An area of particular research interest has been comparing
formal and informal
mentoring practices. Results indicate that there are differential
outcomes, with
more positive benefits associated with informal mentoring
(Chao, Walz, & Gardner,
1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Research has also demonstrated
the positive effects
of intragroup relations in the context of mentoring (i.e., group
mentoring) on career
outcomes (Dansky, 1996). Another area of interest has been the
area of gender
differences in mentoring outcomes, with results suggesting that
protégés of male
mentors received greater financial reward than those of female
mentors (Dreher &
Cox, 1996). Recent findings suggest a more complex pattern
related to the gender
composition of the dyad (Ragins & Cotton, 1999), with male
protégés of female
mentors having the lowest overall promotion rate; the Ragins
and Cotton study,
however, was limited by a relatively small number of male
protégé/female mentor

201. dyads (n 5 23). It was both an interesting and disheartening
finding that female
protégés of female mentors had the lowest compensation level
of any of the possible
dyadic combination.
There are theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that
women and members
Leadership Development 595
of underrepresented groups experience mentoring relationships
differently than
white men (Murrell, Crosby, & Ely, 1999; Ruderman & Hughes-
James, 1998).
Recent laboratory research has demonstrated that Black and
White students experi-
ence differently critical feedback from a mentor (Cohen, Steele,
& Ross, 1999).
Black students who received critical feedback responded less
favorably than White
students; when the feedback was accompanied by an appeal for
maintaining high
standards and an assurance that the student could attain those
standards, however,
Black students responded as positively as Whites. The Cohen et
al. (1999) study
illustrates not only a need to appreciate how various races might
make sense of
critical feedback provided by a mentor but also that mentoring
itself is a dynamic
and complex mixture of coaching, modeling, and feedback.
Earlier research on
cross-race mentoring relationships demonstrated that a

202. congruence in the type of
strategy adopted in discussing racial differences was associated
with the develop-
ment of high-quality, supportive relationships (Thomas, 1993).
It is surprising that there are so few studies examining the
qualities, characteris-
tics, and behaviors of high-performing mentors in general. An
apparent assumption
exists that all mentors perform identically in terms of the
quality of experience that
is offered. A recent exception to this tendency, however,
attempted to understand
the common characteristics of an ideal mentor using interview
data across five
organizations (Allen & Poteet, 1999). Results of the qualitative
analysis (i.e., content
coding), suggested a number of different dimensions of ideal
mentor characteristics,
such as listening and communication skills, patience, knowledge
of organization
and industry, ability to read and understand others, and honesty
and trustworthiness.
These skills and characteristics could provide the foundation for
a mentoring taxon-
omy for future researchers. To the extent that a mentor is seen
as displaying these
behaviors and characteristics, a more beneficial mentoring
relationship is predicted.
This is potentially a useful research focus because of the
empirical evidence
demonstrating that subordinates do not perceive mentoring to be
distinct from the
quality of their leadership exchange, although supervisors do
make such a distinction

203. (Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994). From a subordinate’s
perspective, improving the
quality of mentoring would also improve the quality of
leadership experienced.
More attention is needed regarding the apparent overlap
between developing sound
mentoring skills and leadership development. Greater intention
can be placed on
what constitutes effective mentoring within broader leadership
development efforts.
In particular, mentoring processes could focus on building
mutual trust and respect
as a means of forging commitments. A potentially interesting
research question
would be to examine the degree that these hypothesized
enhancements in the
social capital of a mentoring relationship generalize beyond the
particular dyadic
boundaries.
Proposition 3b: Attention to developing effective mentoring
skills increases
the amount and quality of informal mentoring, resulting in
greater mutual
trust, respect, and commitments (i.e., social capital).
There is one potential negative issue to be aware of regarding
mentoring pro-
cesses: over-dependence. An unintended side-effect of a close
mentoring relation-
596 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
ship is the possibility that a protégé might become too closely

204. aligned with a single
senior executive. Others in the organization might come to
resent this relationship,
or question the protégé’s ability to perform autonomously.
Another risk is that if
the senior executive falls from favor, so does the protégé. For
these reasons, over-
dependence on a mentor or advocate was identified as one of the
“ten fatal flaws”
originally associated with leader derailment (McCall &
Lombardo, 1983). Although
it is still a potential concern, over-dependence may not be as
career threatening as
a difficulty to change or adapt, or having problems with
interpersonal relationships
(Van Velsor & Leslie, 1995). In sum, the potential
developmental benefits associated
with mentoring far outweigh the risks associated with over-
dependence.
Networking
Overview
As a way of breaking down barriers between functional areas,
some organizations
include development activities aimed at fostering broader
individual networks. An
important goal of networking initiatives is to develop leaders
beyond merely know-
ing what and knowing how, to knowing who in terms of
problem-solving resources.
Networking is also about expanding one’s definition of what
and how through
exposure to others’ thinking, which can challenge basic
assumptions about what

205. we think we know. It is also a means of encouraging
organization members to form
commitments with others outside of their immediate work
group. In this way,
networking is about investing in and developing social capital
with a primary devel-
opmental emphasis on building support.
Practice
Specific networking initiatives that have been implemented with
the goal of
leadership development include efforts at Andersen Consulting
and Motorola. An-
dersen’s Worldwide Organization Executive Program is a five-
day seminar to ad-
dress the development needs of its global partners, including the
chance to meet
and exchange views with partners from all practice areas and all
parts of the world.
The goal is to allow partners to strengthen their personal
networks as a means of
creating entrepreneurial opportunities. At Motorola’s Vice
President Institute, the
three overall goals of the program are to
1. Teach the vice presidents (VPs) about the company’s unique
heritage and
culture;
2. Help the VPs explore new ways to invent new technologies
and businesses;
and
3. Foster networking (Eller, 1995).

206. Another type of networking involves the interaction of groups
of managers and
executives who have common training or job experiences. These
groups meet regu-
larly over lunches or through electronic dialogue to share their
mutual challenges
and opportunities, with the goals of applying their learning or
making their learning
relevant to present leadership challenges on an informal,
ongoing basis. Enhancing
Leadership Development 597
individual networks is believed to be an effective way to
increase managers’ innova-
tion and problem-solving capacities.
Working in a globally dispersed yet technologically
sophisticated organization
presents numerous challenges (and creative opportunities) with
regard to net-
working. Nortel uses its advanced video and data-networking
technologies to air a
Virtual Leadership Academy once a month. The show is
simulcast in offices in 47
countries, with simultaneous translation from English into
Spanish and Portuguese.
Although the technology does not facilitate face-to-face
networking between partici-
pants, managers can call with questions or concerns and get
real-time responses.
The program is geared to reinforce a core Nortel value that
“technology is about
elevating, not replacing, human interaction” (Global reach . . .

207. virtual leadership,
1999).
Research
One reason why networking is thought to be beneficial to
professional and
personal development is because it fosters peer relationships in
work settings. Peer
relationships offer unique value for development because of the
degree of mutual
obligation and the duration of the relationship. Research has
shown that some peer
relationships can span an entire 20- or 30-year career (Kram &
Isabella, 1985), as
compared with a typical mentoring relationship that lasts
between three and six
years (Kram, 1985), or an executive coaching relationship that
generally lasts around
six months (Levinson, 1996). Organizations should consider
peer relationships as
a potentially valuable component of an overall leadership
development system. As
with general mentoring processes, the more effective efforts
will not attempt to
formalize relationships at the expense of informal ones; instead,
formal programs
should mimic the development of informal relationships (Ragins
& Cotton, 1999)
by intentionally making networking opportunities available,
modeling successful
developmental relationships in the organization, and
highlighting the relative bene-
fits of networking.
Proposition 4a: Networking opportunities build peer

208. relationships across
functional areas, leading to the creation of additional social
capital.
Networking is a prime means of enhancing social capital in an
organization.
Managers who build the kinds of networks that allow them to
transcend the organiza-
tion’s formal structure—especially when they form non-
redundant ties with people
in other networks—are most likely to benefit in terms of
information and entrepre-
neurial opportunities (Burt, 1992). Managers embedded in a
limited network with
many redundant ties will not experience these same benefits. Of
course, a manager
needs the appropriate self-awareness, motivation, and self-
regulation skills (i.e.,
intrapersonal competence), in addition to a well-defined set of
developmental and
strategic objectives, to benefit maximally from networking
opportunities. For this
reason, feedback, coaching, mentoring, and networking
processes should be linked
in a way that produces an integrated leadership development
system that covers
all aspects of assessment, challenge, and support. By including
these linked processes
within the context of a developmental job assignment or an
action learning project,
598 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
the link between leader development and leadership

209. development can be enhanced.
Proposition 4b: When used in conjunction with other
developmental prac-
tices, networking links individual leader development with
collective
leadership development.
Job Assignments
Overview
It has long been recognized that experience is among the most
important teachers,
including the development of leadership. Development through
job experiences
pertains to how managers learn, undergo personal change, and
acquire leadership
capacity as a result of the roles, responsibilities, and tasks
encountered in their jobs
(McCauley & Brutus, 1998). Prior to its popularity in the
United States, a number
of practitioners and researchers in the United Kingdom were
engaged in using and
understanding how job experiences enhance development (e.g.,
Davies & Easterby-
Smith, 1984; Mumford, 1980; Stewart, 1984). Job assignments
have been identified
as particularly helpful to managers in learning about building
teams, how to be
better strategic thinkers, and how to gain valuable persuasion
and influence skills
(McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988). The primary
developmental experience,
however, is that of providing challenge and, occasionally,
support. More attention

210. should be paid to assessment, especially in terms of matching
individuals with the
appropriate developmental assignment.
Proposition 5a: Leadership development is enhanced when
assignments are
matched with individuals’ developmental needs.
Practice
An example of where job assignments play a prominent role in a
leadership
development initiative is the Coca-Cola Company, which
transferred more than 300
professional and managerial staff to new countries in one year
under its leadership
development program. Gillette International makes 12- to 36-
month assignments
to take U.S. managers overseas to get broader experience and
exposure to other
countries and operational areas before returning to a U.S.
assignment, usually of
greater authority (Laabs, 1991). Regardless of how potent job
assignments can be
for development, the most challenging or fascinating assignment
in the world may
not teach much unless a person has the latitude to try out
different leadership
approaches as part of the developmental role. Intentionality
must surround leader-
ship development, otherwise the focus of a challenging new
assignment will likely
be on performance with little regard for development.
Organizations can take specific action to promote learning from
experience, and

211. specific things can impede it. Some types of jobs are more
developmental than
others, and different kinds of developmental assignments are
associated with differ-
ent kinds of learning (McCauley & Brutus, 1998). Jobs that are
more developmental
include “stretch” assignments that put a manager in a new
situation with unfamiliar
responsibilities, especially high-responsibility and high-latitude
jobs. Those projects
Leadership Development 599
requiring a manager to bring about change or build relationships
(and commitments)
also tend to be associated with the most meaningful learning.
Negative experiences or hardships tend to promote learning and
trigger self-
reflection (Moxley, 1998). The way in which influential
members of an organization
respond to failure can be instrumental in fostering a learning
climate. Unfortunately,
too few senior executives take a developmental view of failure.
It is far more
common to find top organizational levels populated with those
who push maximum
performance over a concern for development (Hollenbeck &
McCall, 1999), despite
that learning from hardships can help performance in the long
run by enhancing
individuals’ resiliency in the face of challenge and change.
Jack Welch, Chairman and CEO of General Electric (GE), might

212. be expected
to frame failure in a developmental light. Welch is legendary
for his commitment
to leadership development. It has been reported that Welch
“knows intimately”
the career paths of more than a thousand GE employees (Frost,
1997, p. 335).
During an employee review session, it is common for Welch to
display a willingness
to put a manager in a certain position because it is the right
professional growth
experience for that person, regardless of immediate business
needs. Choosing the
right “stretch” job assignments for people is about using
succession planning for
intentional leadership development by linking individual
learning with organizational
strategy (Hall & Seibert, 1992). Despite the pro-development
approach of someone
like Welch, some jobs may be too important for developmental
assignments (Ohlott,
1998). The difficult task is deciding what are those all-
important jobs.
Research
One study on the role of succession planning for leadership
development reported
that 31% of promotions were considered developmental in
nature (Ruderman &
Ohlott, 1994). Some organizations are more intentional than
others about using
promotions as developmental tools. Citibank makes it a practice
to place high-
potential managers in job assignments for which they are no
more than 60–70%

213. prepared, thus making it likely that the kinds of challenges that
contribute to
ongoing development will be encountered (Clark & Lyness,
1991). Although a key
element in using job assignments for development is challenge,
the importance of
assessment and support should not be overlooked (Ohlott,
1998). Attending to all
three important aspects of assessment, challenge, and support
(Van Velsor et al.,
1998) in job assignments may help foster a learning goal
climate. Taken as an
extension of work on individual motivational patterns (Dweck,
1986), a learning
goal climate is one in which the organization especially values
understanding or
mastering something new. It can be differentiated from a
performance goal climate
in which the emphasis is on gaining favorable (or avoiding
negative) judgments of
competence.
Proposition 5b: Emphasizing the assessment, challenge, and
support aspects
of developmental job assignments fosters a learning goal
environment.
Despite the noted advantages of using job assignments for
development, there has
been relatively little theoretical guidance on how to
conceptualize work experience
within the context of leadership development. Fortunately, work
has recently been

214. 600 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
done in this area. A taxonomy of work experience based on the
dimensions of
measurement mode (amount, time, and type) and level of
specificity (task, job,
organizational) was proposed, forming nine categories of work
experience (Qui-
ñones, Ford, & Teachout, 1995). This taxonomy was shown to
be helpful in organiz-
ing the empirical research on the relationships between work
experience and job
performance; the issue of development, however, was not
addressed. Subsequent
conceptual work refined the experience concept further to
differentiate between
the qualitative and quantitative components that operate at
different levels of
specificity (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). These components are
thought to interact and
build over time. Again, they were conceptualized as having
primary implications
for work performance rather than development.
At least one empirical study tried to ascertain the developmental
components
of jobs, and to develop and test a measure for assessing the
developmental potential
of different jobs (McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott, & Morrow,
1994). The Develop-
mental Challenge Profile (DCP) assesses job characteristics
organized into three
general categories: job transitions (e.g., unfamiliar
responsibilities, proving yourself),
task-related characteristics (e.g., creating change, non-authority
relationships), and

215. obstacles (e.g., adverse business conditions, lack of top
management support). Data
collected from approximately 700 managers across various
organizations and levels
supported the basic premise that challenging jobs are associated
with greater on-
the-job learning. Subsequent research using the DCP suggested
that men report
greater task-related developmental challenges than women, and
women report
experiencing more developmental challenges stemming from
obstacles faced on the
job than men (Ohlott, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1994). These
findings highlight the
importance of knowing the developmental components of
various jobs and carefully
matching individuals with jobs that will best develop them (see
Proposition 5a).
Otherwise, subtle patterns of unintentional discrimination in job
assignments could
impede the development of women managers for top-level
positions and contribute
to the broader phenomenon of a glass ceiling (Martell, Lane, &
Emrich, 1996).
Research on the topic of job rotations (i.e., lateral transfers of
employees within
an organization) has revealed that the most common answers to
the question of
what skills are gained through rotation are: broader perspective
on the business
(46% of executive respondents), adaptability and flexibility
(31%), and leadership
skills (19%) (Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994). The first
and second categories
could be construed as cognitive and intrapersonal competence

216. (e.g., self-regulation);
the third category of leadership probably means very different
things to respondents.
There was no elaboration on the specific kinds of leadership
skills that are suppos-
edly gained.
Although job assignments might be considered the epitome of
development in
context, they often lack the kind of intentionality in terms of
implementation and
follow-up to be confident in understanding the amount and type
of development
that has occurred. There is agreement that some types of jobs
are more develop-
mental than others, and different kinds of developmental
assignments are associated
with different kinds of learning (McCauley & Brutus, 1998).
More developmental
types of job assignments put a manager in a new situation with
unfamiliar responsi-
bilities, especially those that go along with high-responsibility
and high-latitude
Leadership Development 601
jobs. Those assignments requiring a manager to bring about
change or build relation-
ships and commitments tend to be associated with significant
learning and develop-
ment, as do negative experiences or hardships. Nonetheless,
additional theoretical
and empirical work is needed to better map the various
dimensions and types of

217. experience onto individual and organizational development. In
doing so, research
can help inform practitioners on how to match assignments and
developmental
needs on a more scientific basis.
Proposition 5c: Linking specific job experiences with desired
developmental
goals enhances the intentionality and effectiveness of leadership
develop-
ment.
Action Learning
Overview
Many organizations realize that the type of traditional, lecture-
based, classroom
training found in most formal leadership development programs
is at best only
partially effective at preparing leaders for 21st-century
problems (Dotlich & Noel,
1998). In particular, the lessons learned from traditional
classroom development
programs do not last much beyond the end of the program. Soon
after the course
ends, people slip back into their previous behavioral patterns,
and little lasting
change or developmental progress is achieved. As a result, the
sponsors of traditional
programs became justifiably frustrated. For these reasons, a
number of organizations
have embraced the action learning process, which can be
described as a continuous
process of learning and reflection, supported by colleagues,
with a corresponding

218. emphasis on getting things done.
Action learning is based on the assumption that people learn
most effectively
when working on real-time organizational problems (Revans,
1980). This sounds
relatively straightforward, but someone who has worked in the
area for almost 20
years put it this way: “Action learning may be a simple idea, but
only at the
philosophical level” (Pedler, 1997, p. 248). Because action
learning is primarily a
generative practice, each application is a unique performance of
sorts in which
participants collectively construct social meanings and shared
realities in a commu-
nity of practice (Drath, 1998; Drath & Palus, 1994). As
typically implemented,
action learning tends to provide a good deal of challenge and
support; more emphasis
is needed on formal assessment, especially in terms of choosing
suitable individuals
for a given project.
Proposition 6a: Using formal assessments to select action
learning project
members will enhance the quality of the developmental
experience and
result in greater leadership development.
Practice
Perhaps the best-known action learning initiative is GE’s
“Work-Out” program.
The origin of the name is allegedly based on a comment made to
Jack Welch to

219. the effect that: “Now that you have rid yourself of so many
people (more than
602 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
100,000 employees had been let go at that time) when are you
going to get some
of the work out?” Welch picked up on the multiple meanings of
work-out in terms
of working out problems as well as a fitness metaphor, and
chose it as a prominent
initiative in his culture transformation effort at GE (Vicere &
Fulmer, 1998, p. 289).
An important cultural aspect of Work-Out is its link to a core
management value
at GE: empowered or boundaryless behavior. GE leaders must
have the trust,
respect, and self-confidence to involve others and to be open to
ideas from anywhere.
This effort personifies an attempt to make everyone responsible
for leadership.
Although Work-Out contains a number of critical roles, a key to
implementation
success is the champion. Somebody has to own the idea and
help make it happen.
There is nothing new about having groups of people come up
with ideas and propose
them to management (e.g., quality circles). The only innovative
feature in GE’s
program was the idea of a champion, or somebody in the group
who owns the idea
and is accountable for implementation success. The champion is
the person who

220. frames the central issue of the Work-Out session, clarifies the
specific topics to
address, and selects the participants for the Work-Out team.
Selection of participants is particularly important. Because
action learning proj-
ects are tied to a business imperative, individuals should
carefully be matched to
the core problem at hand. Not every developmental need can be
addressed in every
problem context. Many of the GE action learning projects
focused on sending
managers to foreign countries as a way of accomplishing two
goals: figuring out
how to expand globally and open new markets for GE products,
and developing
a manager’s capability to lead in different cultures. In this
manner the content
of the leadership development effort was linked to important
strategic business
imperatives.
Citibank is another example of an organization that has
successfully used action
learning. In particular, the Citibank case provides a good
overview of how action
learning typically unfolds in an organization (Dotlich & Noel,
1998). The business
imperative at Citibank dealt with the general inability of top
managers to think
with a broad, systems perspective. The issues and participants
were selected using
explicit criteria. Issues were recommended by business heads or
the CEO and had
to be seen as affecting total Citibank performance across the
various businesses.

221. Participants were chosen globally and had passed an internal
talent inventory review
process. Next there was a three-day, off-site team building and
issue-orientation
session. Data collection followed over the next two or three
weeks, involving travel
both inside and outside Citibank. A week was then spent on data
analysis and
developing recommendations. Presentations were made to the
CEO and to business
heads. Each team was given 90 minutes to present its case,
consisting of a 30-minute
formal presentation followed by a 60-minute focused
discussion. Following the
presentation was a one-day debriefing and reflection with a
coach that was structured
around the recommendations, team process, and individual
development opportuni-
ties. Finally, a senior management follow-up was given within
one or two weeks of
the presentation whereby decisions were made regarding
implementation.
The basic action learning process is similar across different
organizations; the
business imperatives that drive the process are different. For
instance, at ARA-
MARK the imperative was one of promoting cross-
organizational awareness of
capabilities and opportunities, whereas Shell Oil’s imperative
stemmed from a
Leadership Development 603

222. pervasive misperception regarding the company’s financial
strength (Vicere &
Fulmer, 1998). Ameritech was faced with an impending
deregulation and the inabil-
ity of managers to compete in a more challenging environment,
whereas Johnson &
Johnson needed to upgrade human resources globally and
develop executive talent
in its leadership pipeline, given its expectations of explosive
growth (Dotlich &
Noel, 1998). Even the U.S. Army uses its own version of action
learning called the
After Action Review as a means of quickly surfacing and
sharing the lessons learned
from battlefield simulations (Baird, Holland, & Deacon, 1999).
Although the business imperatives behind action learning
programs may vary
widely, common catalysts underlie the successes. Perhaps the
most important com-
monality is creating a microworld (Senge, 1990), which enables
learning through
doing. This type of parallel, temporary system is designed to be
realistic yet safe.
People are encouraged to try new things and to trust themselves
and others to stretch
their thinking and behavior. For maximal effect, action should
be accompanied by
reflection about the action; otherwise, there is little structured
guidance for learning
from experience (Froiland, 1994).
Proposition 6b: Leadership development is enhanced to the
extent that struc-
tured opportunities for individual and group reflection are
included as

223. part of action learning.
Research
Little research has been published on action learning, especially
anything other
than qualitative program descriptions. As mentioned, this may
be a function of the
generative nature of the concept. It has been described as an
“idea rather than a
method, capable of taking many forms” (Pedler, 1997, p. 262).
Several research
streams have the potential to advance our practice and
understanding of action
learning. In particular, research in the areas of trust and
empowerment are especially
relevant to action learning.
A recent study of psychological safety in work teams
(Edmondson, 1999) has
important implications for action learning projects. Team
psychological safety is
defined by Edmondson (1999) as “a shared belief that the team
is safe for interper-
sonal risk taking” (p. 354). There is a direct link between
psychological safety and
leadership development stemming from the assumption that
organizations need to
create a climate of psychological safety for individuals to feel
secure and supported
to change (Schein & Bennis, 1965). The concept is similar to
that of respectful
interaction, which has been proposed as a vital component of
resilient organizations
(Weick, 1993). When team psychological safety is high, team
members are more

224. likely to overcome threats of embarrassment and admit errors,
ask for help, and
discuss problems. This type of climate enhances both the
challenge and support
elements of experience (Van Velsor et al., 1998), and
encourages the type of
flexibility that is hypothesized to be an antecedent of team
learning. It also facilitates
a learning goal orientation among team members (Dweck,
1986). Results of qualita-
tive and quantitative analyses based on 51 work teams in a
manufacturing company
indicated that team psychological safety enhanced learning
behavior, which in turn
predicted team performance. In a related study, higher levels of
trust and empow-
erment among members of 43 process improvement work teams
in a Big Three
604 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
automotive firm was shown to be related to team involvement,
which in turn was
related to higher levels of team performance (Spreitzer, Noble,
Mishra, & Coole,
1999). Given that action learning projects typically focus on the
developmental
target of improved teamwork (Day, 1999), and that group
dynamics often are a
key variable in helping executives learn from their project
experiences (Marsick,
1990), much could be gained by facilitating a climate of trust
and psychological
safety (i.e., encouraging interpersonal risk taking) in action

225. learning project teams.
It has recently been proposed that unconditional trust represents
the most highly
evolved trust state and is based on mutual respect and shared
values (Jones &
George, 1998). Unconditional trust is thought to be directly and
indirectly related
(through such interpersonal processes as communal
relationships and free exchange
of information) to interpersonal cooperation and teamwork.
Trust is conceptualized
as an important relational asset of social capital (Tsai &
Ghoshal, 1998); further-
more, the notion of mutual respect based on shared values is the
foundation of the
cognitive dimension of social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998). Thus, designing
action learning projects with the intention of developing trust
among participants
would likely enhance the relational and cognitive dimensions of
social capital.
Depending on the composition of the groups, there is also the
likelihood of action
learning projects enhancing the structural dimension of social
capital. Based on this
hypothesized relationship between action learning and social
capital, and between
social capital and leadership development, how action learning
projects can be used
for effective leadership development in organizations can be
appreciated.
Proposition 6c: High trust and psychological safety among
action learning
project team members is positively related to the social capital

226. of the
team.
Another recent study with implications for leadership
development adopted a
Personal Projects Analysis methodology to examine the
relationship between self-
appraised goal characteristics and the project factors of
happiness and meaning
(McGregor & Little, 1998). It was proposed that goal efficacy
(“doing well”) would
be associated with happiness, whereas goal integrity (“being
yourself”) would be
associated with meaning, defined as a special type of well-
being. Results generally
supported these propositions, and the notion that happiness and
meaning were
found to be independent factors in personal projects. Most
fascinating of all were
the results from archival data in a sample of 110 senior
managers suggesting an
“integrity shift” whereby success either became habituated to or
a source of disen-
chantment. Simply put, doing well was no longer enough. That
left integrity as the
main source of well-being and meaning. From the results of
McGregor and Little’s
study, an optimistic conclusion can be drawn that the
developmental impact of
action learning projects can be improved by emphasizing not
only doing well, but
also being oneself within the project context. In this manner,
action learning can
be use as a process of creating personal meaning in
organizations.

227. Proposition 6d: Action learning goals that are aligned with
individual goals
result in meaningful developmental experiences.
Leadership Development 605
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The proposed distinction between leader development and
leadership development
is more than mere semantics. At the core of the difference is an
orientation toward
developing human capital (leader development) as compared
with social capital
(leadership development). Orientation toward human capital
emphasizes the devel-
opment of individual capabilities such as those related to self-
awareness, self-regula-
tion, and self-motivation that serve as the foundation of
intrapersonal competence
(McCauley, 2000). Orientation toward social capital emphasizes
the development
of reciprocal obligations and commitments built on a foundation
of mutual trust
and respect (Drath, 1998; Whitener, 2000); it rests on a
foundation of interpersonal
competence, but ultimately, it requires enactment. Leadership is
developed through
the enactment of leadership.
The proposed distinction is an essential because the respective
development
approaches are grounded in very different leadership models.
Leader development

228. is based on a traditional, individualistic conceptualization of
leadership. The under-
lying assumption is that more effective leadership occurs
through the development
of individual leaders. It also assumes that leadership is
something that can be added
to organizations to improve social and operational
effectiveness. On the other hand,
leadership development has its origins in a more contemporary,
relational model
of leadership. This model assumes that leadership is a function
of the social resources
that are embedded in relationships. In this manner, leadership is
considered an
emergent property of social systems (Salancik et al., 1975),
rather than something
that is added to existing systems. Leadership emerges with the
process of creating
shared meaning, both in terms of sensemaking and in terms of
value-added. From
this approach everyone is considered to be a leader. Rather than
asking the question
“How can I be an effective leader” the more pertinent question
from the relational
approach is “How can I participate productively in the
leadership process” (Drath &
Palus, 1994). The latter is a more complex way of thinking
about leadership. Because
thinking is for doing (Fiske, 1992), greater complexity in terms
of thinking about
leadership may be a prerequisite for greater behavioral
complexity that is needed
for enhanced adaptability (Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge, 1997;
Jacobs & Jaques, 1987).
The distinction between leader development and leadership

229. development should
not be taken as edict for organizations to choose one approach
over the other.
Either approach is incomplete by itself. Developing individual
leaders without
concern for reciprocal relations among people or their
interactions within a broader
social context ignores the research demonstrating that
leadership is a complex
interaction between individuals and their social and
organizational environments.
Attempting to build shared meaning systems and mutual
commitments among
communities of practice without a proper investment in
individual preparation runs
the risk of placing people in challenging developmental
situations that are too far
over their heads.
The preferred approach is to link leader development with
leadership develop-
ment such that the development of leadership transcends but
does not replace the
development of individual leaders. It has been said that a bridge
must be well
anchored on either side for effective development to occur
(Kegan, 1994). In moving
606 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
toward a vision of the organization that is based on the social
capital imperatives
of mutual understanding and responsibility (Drucker, 1995)
there must also be an

230. appropriate investment in developing human capital across all
organizational levels.
As with any change effort, success depends on the extent that
people who are
responsible for the success of the effort share the same
assumptions about it and
have been prepared appropriately (Schein, 1997).
The practices of 360-degree feedback and executive coaching,
mentoring and
networking, and job assignment and action learning have all
been lauded as benefi-
cial for leadership development in one application or another.
Unfortunately, little
hard evaluation evidence supports those claims. It is probably
safe to conclude that
any of these practices could be effective for leadership
development, and that any
could be ineffective. Effective leadership development is less
about which specific
practices are endorsed than about consistent and intentional
implementation. A
key to effective implementation is having the organizational
discipline to introduce
leadership development throughout the organization, rather than
bounded by spe-
cific (usually top) levels. Another key to effectiveness is
linking initiatives across
organizational levels and in terms of an overall developmental
purpose within the
context of a strategic business challenge.
As proposed earlier, one conceptualization of leadership is that
it emerges as
people rely on their mutual commitments, trust, and respect to
create new meaning

231. that replaces what has been traditionally provided by formal
structure, planning,
and control. It is this kind of leadership and not simply a
collection of individual
leaders that many contemporary organizations are striving to
develop. Leadership
development needs to evolve to a level of contribution whereby
it is considered an
investment in the social capital of the organization, to
complement its human and
intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
Where are the leadership researchers in the midst of these
exciting advances in
the practice of leadership development? It has been noted that
over the past 15
years there has been a “remarkable flowering” in research and
theory on charismatic
and transformational leadership (Conger & Hunt, 1999, p. 121).
It might also be
noted that too many flowers of the same type makes for a
relatively dull garden.
The charismatic and transformational leadership approaches
have merit and should
not be ignored; these approaches, however, do not come close to
representing the
entire depth or complexity of thinking on leadership needed to
design, evaluate,
and improve leadership development efforts for the present and
the future. A
potential lens that is offered in the present review connects the
interrelated concerns
of developing human and social capital in organizations. The
differences between
approaches is proposed as an overarching framework for
conceptualizing leadership

232. development practice, research, and theory in hopes of
encouraging future research-
ers to contribute, in particular, to a better understanding of this
important topic.
Acknowledgments: Work on this article was supported by the
Center for Creative
Leadership and the Army Research Institute. Thanks to Patricia
O’Connor, Kevin
Liu, Cindy McCauley, Alicia Grandey, and participants in the
“Frontiers in Leader-
ship” symposium at the University of Mississippi for their
helpful comments.
Leadership Development 607
REFERENCES
Allen, T. D., & Poteet, M. L. (1999). Developing effective
mentoring relationships: Strategies
from the mentor’s viewpoint. Career Development Quarterly,
48(1), 59–73.
American Society for Training and Development. (1995).
National HRD executive survey.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
Atwater, L., & Waldman, D. (1998a). 360 degree feedback and
leadership development.
Leadership Quarterly, 9, 423–426.
Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. J. (1997). Self-other rating
agreement: A review and model.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15,

233. 121–174.
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W.
(1998). Self-other agreement:
Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51, 577–598.
Baird, L., Holland, P., & Deacon, S. (1999). Learning from
action: Imbedding more learning
into the performance fast enough to make a difference.
Organizational Dynamics,
27(4), 19–32.
Baker, W. E. (1992). The network organization in theory and
practice. In N. Nohria & R.
Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and
action (pp. 397–429).
Boston: Harvard Business School.
Baldwin, T. T., & Padgett, M. Y. (1994). Management
development: A review and commen-
tary. In C. L. Cooper, I. T. Robertson, & Associates (Eds.), Key
reviews in managerial
psychology: Concepts and research for practice (pp. 270–320).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation.
Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Barker, R. A. (1997). How can we train leaders if we do not
know what leadership is?
Human Relations, 50, 343–362.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of
transformational leadership
training on attitudinal and financial outcomes. Journal of

234. Applied Psychology, 81,
827–832.
Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a
source of competitive advantage.
Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175–190.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson
(Ed.), Handbook of theory
and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New
York: Greenwood.
Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on
informal resource exchanges
between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries.
Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 50–65.
Brass, D. J., & Krackhardt, D. (1999). The social capital of
twenty-first century leaders. In
J. G. Hunt, G. E. Dodge, & L. Wong (Eds.), Out-of-the-box
leadership: Transforming
the twenty-first-century army and other top-performing
organizations (pp. 179–194).
Stamford, CT: JAI.
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model
of relational leadership: The
integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership
Quarterly, 11, 227–250.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of
competition. Cambridge, MA:

235. Harvard University Press.
Campbell, J. P. (1989). The agenda for theory and research. In
I. L. Goldstein, & Associates
(Ed.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 469–
486). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Campion, M. A., Cheraskin, L., & Stevens, M. J. (1994).
Career-related antecedents and
outcomes of job rotation. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
1518–1542.
Carless, S. A., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. J. (1998). Leadership,
managerial performance and
360-degree feedback. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 47, 481–496.
608 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-
regulation: A control theory approach
to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and
informal mentorships:
A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with
nonmentored counterparts.
Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–636.
Chappelow, C. T. (1998). 360-degree feedback. In C. D.
McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van
Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of
leadership development

236. (pp. 29–65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, L. A., & Lyness, K. S. (1991). Succession planning as
strategic activity at Citicorp. In
L. W. Foster (Ed.), Advances in applied business strategy (vol.
2; pp. 25–57). Greenwich,
CT: JAI.
Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor’s
dilemma: Providing critical
feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1302–
1318.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human
capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Conger, J. A. (1993). The brave new world of leadership
training. Organizational Dynamics,
21(3), 46–58.
Conger, J. A., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders: How
successful companies develop
the next generation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Hunt, J. G. (1999). Charismatic and
transformational leadership: Taking
stock of the present and future (Part I). Leadership Quarterly,
10, 121–127.
Dansky, K. H. (1996). The effect of group mentoring on career
outcomes. Group & Organiza-
tion Management, 21, 5–21.
Davies, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and

237. developing from managerial work
experiences. Journal of Management Studies, 21, 169–183.
Day, D. V. (1999). Leadership development: A review of
industry best practices (Tech. Rep.
No. 1141). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Army Research Institute.
Dixon, N. M. (1993). Developing managers for the learning
organization. Human Resource
Management Review, 3, 243–254.
Dotlich, D. L., & Noel, J. L. (1998). Action learning: How the
world’s top companies are re-
creating their leaders and themselves (1st ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Douglas, C. A. (1997). Formal mentoring programs in
organizations: An annotated bibliogra-
phy. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Drath, W. H. (1998). Approaching the future of leadership
development. In C. D. McCauley,
R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook
of leadership development (pp. 403–432). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Drath, W. H., & Palus, C. J. (1994). Making common sense:
Leadership as meaning-making
in a community of practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
Dreher, G., & Cox, T. H., Jr. (1996). Race, gender, and
opportunity: A study of compensation
attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships.
Journal of Applied Psy-

238. chology, 81, 297–308.
Drucker, P. F. (1995). Managing in a time of great change. New
York: Truman Talley Books/
Dutton.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.
American Psychologist, 41,
1040–1048.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning
behavior in work teams. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
Eller, D. (1995). Motorola trains VPs to become growth leaders.
HRMagazine,(June), 82–87.
Facteau, C. L., Facteau, J. D., Schoel, L. C., Russell, J. E., &
Poteet, M. L. (1998). Reactions
Leadership Development 609
of leaders to 360-degree feedback from subordinates and peers.
Leadership Quarterly,
9, 427–448.
Fiedler, F. E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and
training: One view of the future.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 241–250.
Fiske, S. T. (1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social
cognition from daguerreotype
to laserphoto. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,
877–889.

239. Froiland, P. (1994). Action learning: Taming real problems in
real time. Training, 31(1),
27–34.
Frost, P. J. (1997). Bridging academia and business: A
conversation with Steve Kerr. Organi-
zation Science, 8(3), 332–347.
Fulmer, R. M. (1997). The evolving paradigm of leadership
development. Organizational
Dynamics, 25(4), 59–72.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in
practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gharajedaghi, J. (1999). Systems thinking: Managing chaos and
complexity. Boston: Butter-
worth Heinemann.
Giber, D., Carter, L., & Goldsmith, M. (Eds.). (1999). Linkage,
Inc.’s best practices in
leadership development handbook. Lexington, MA: Linkage
Press.
Global reach . . . virtual leadership. (1999). Fast Company, 80.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of
intentions. In W. Stroebe & M.
Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (vol. 4;
pp. 141–185). Chiches-
ter, UK: Wiley.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong
effects of simple plans. American
Psychologist, 54, 493–503.

240. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstatter, V. (1997). Implementation
intentions and effective goal
pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186–
199.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American
Journal of Sociology, 78,
1360–1380.
Greguras, G. J., & Robie, C. (1998). A new look at within-
source interrater reliability of
360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83, 960–968.
Hall, D. T., Otazo, K. L., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (1999). Behind
closed doors: What really
happens in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics,
29(Winter), 39–53.
Hall, D. T., & Seibert, K. W. (1992). Strategic management
development: Linking organiza-
tional strategy, succession planning, and managerial learning. In
D. H. Montross & C.
J. Shinkman (Eds.), Career development: Theory and practice
(pp. 255–275). Springfield,
IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Hellervik, L. W., Hazucha, J. F., & Schneider, R. L. (1992).
Behavior change: Models,
methods, and a review of evidence. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.
Hough (Eds.), Hand-
book of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 3; 2nd
ed.; pp. 823–896). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

241. Hollenbeck, G. P., & McCall, M. W., Jr. (1999). Leadership
development: Contemporary
practices. In A. I. Kraut & A. K. Korman (Eds.), Evolving
practices in human resource
management (pp. 172–200). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hooijberg, R., Bullis, R. C., & Hunt, J. G. (1999). Behavioral
complexity and the development
of military leadership for the twenty-first century. In J. G. Hunt,
G. E. Dodge, & L.
Wong (Eds.), Out-of-the-box leadership: Transforming the
twenty-first army and other
top-performing organizations (pp. 111–130). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership
complexity and development
of the Leaderplex model. Journal of Management, 23, 375–408.
610 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex
systems. In J. Zeidner (Ed.),
Human productivity enhancment (vol. 2; pp. 7–65). New York:
Praeger.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and
evolution of trust: Implications
for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 531–546.
Katz, J. H., & Miller, F., A. (1996). Coaching leaders through
culture change. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 104–114.

242. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of
modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Keys, J. B., & Wolfe, J. (1988). Management education and
development: Current issues
and emerging trends. Journal of Management, 16, 307–336.
Kilburg, R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and
definition of executive coach-
ing. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48,
134–144.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback on
performance: A historical
review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 119, 254–284.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental
relationships in organizational life.
Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Kram, K. E., & Bragar, M. C. (1992). Development through
mentoring: A strategic approach.
In D. H. Montross & C. J. Shinkman (Eds.), Career
development: Theory and practice
(pp. 221–254). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives:
The role of peer relationships
in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28,
110–132.
Laabs, J. J. (1991). The global talent search. Personnel Journal,
(August), 38–44.

243. Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through
goal setting. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212–247.
Latham, G. P., & Seijts, G. H. (1998). Management
development. In P. J. D. Drenth, H.
Thierry, & Associates (Eds.), Handbook of work and
organizational psychology (vol.
3; 2nd ed.; pp. 257–272). Hove, UK: Psychology Press/Erlbaum.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource
architecture: Toward a theory of
human capital allocation and development. Academy of
Management Review, 24, 31–48.
Levinson, H. (1996). Executive coaching. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Re-
search, 48, 115–123.
London, M., & Beatty, R. W. (1993). 360-degree feedback as a
competitive advantage.
Human Resource Management, 32, 353–372.
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multi-source
feedback change perceptions of goal
accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related
outcomes? Theory-based
applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology,
48, 803–839.
Mailick, S., Stumpf, S. A., Grant, S., Kfir, A., & Watson, M. A.
(1998). Learning theory in
the practice of management development: Evolution and
applications. Westport, CT:
Quorum.

244. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1989). SuperLeadership: Leading
others to lead themselves. New
York: Prentice-Hall.
Marsick, V. (1990). Experience-based learning: Executive
learning outside the classroom.
Journal of Management Development, 9(4), 50–60.
Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. E. (1996). Male-
female differences: A computer
simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158.
Martineau, J. W. (1998). Using 360-degree surveys to assess
change. In W. W. Tornow, M.
London, & Associates (Eds.), Maximizing the value of 360-
degree feedback (pp. 217–
248). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leadership Development 611
McCall, M. W. (1998). High flyers: Developing the next
generation of leaders. Boston: Harvard
Business School.
McCall, M. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: Why
and how successful executives
get derailed (Tech. Rep. No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988).
The lessons of experience:
How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.

245. McCauley, C. D. (2000). A systemic approach to leadership
development. Paper presented
at the 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychol-
ogy, New Orleans, LA, April.
McCauley, C. D., & Brutus, S. (1998). Management
development through job experiences:
An annotated bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
McCauley, C. D., & Douglas, C. A. (1998). Developmental
relationships. In C. D. McCauley,
R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook
of leadership development (pp. 160–193). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R. S., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.).
(1998). The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J.
E. (1994). Assessing the
developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79,
544–560.
McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects,
happiness, and meaning: On doing
well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 494–512.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998).

246. Initial trust formation in new
organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review,
23, 473–490.
Moxley, R. S. (1998). Hardships. In C. D. McCauley, R. S.
Moxlet, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.),
The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership
development (pp. 194–213).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moxley, R. S., & O’Connor Wilson, P. (1998). A systems
approach to leadership development.
In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The
Center for Creative
Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 217–241).
San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Mumford, A. (1980). Making experience pay. Berkshire, UK:
McGraw-Hill.
Murrell, A. J., Crosby, F. J., & Ely, R. J. (Eds.). (1999).
Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental
relationships within multicultural organizations. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual
capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.
Neck, C., & Manz, C. C. (1996). Thought self-leadership: The
impact of mental strategies
training on employee cognition, behavior, and affect. Journal of
Organizational Behav-
ior, 17, 445–467.

247. Ohlott, P. J. (1998). Job assignments. In C. D. McCauley, R. S.
Moxley, & E. Van Velsor
(Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of
leadership development (pp.
127–159). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ohlott, P. J., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1994).
Gender differences in managers’
developmental job experiences. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 46–67.
Olivero, G., Bane, D. K., & Kopelman, R. E. (1997). Executive
coaching as a transfer of
training tool: Effects on productivity in a public agency. Public
Personnel Management,
26, 461–469.
Pedler, M. (1997). Interpreting action learning. In J. Burgoyne
& M. Reynolds (Eds.),
Management learning: Integrating perspective in theory and
practice (pp. 248–264).
London: Sage.
Peterson, D. B. (1993). Measuring change: A psychometric
approach to evaluating individual
612 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
training outcomes. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual
Conference of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco,
CA, May.
Peterson, D. B. (1996). Executive coaching at work: The art of

248. one-on-one change. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 78–86.
Quiñones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The
relationship between work
experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-
analytic review. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 887–910.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and
outcomes: A comparison of
men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships.
Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 529–550.
Revans, R. W. (1980). Action learning. London: Blond &
Briggs.
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1999). What’s a good
reason to change? Motivated
reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational
change. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 514–528.
Ruderman, M. N., & Hughes-James, M. W. (1998). Leadership
development across race and
gender. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor
(Eds.), The Center for
Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp.
291–335). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Ruderman, M. N., & Ohlott, P. J. (1994). The realities of
management promotion. Greensboro,
NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

249. Salancik, G. R., Calder, B. J., Rowland, K. M., Leblebici, H., &
Conway, M. (1975). Leadership
as an outcome of social structure and process: A
multidimensional analysis. In J. G.
Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 81–101).
Kent, OH: Kent State
University.
Saporito, T. J. (1996). Business-linked executive development:
Coaching senior executives.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 96–
103.
Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member
exchange and supervisor
career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership
research. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 1588–1602.
Schein, E. H. (1997). Organizational culture and leadership
(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. (1965). Personal and organizational
change via group methods.
New York: Wiley.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice
of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Sherman, S. (1995). How tomorrow’s leaders are learning their
stuff. Fortune, 132,(November
27), 90–102.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training in

250. organizational justice to
increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A
replication. Personnel Psychology,
50, 617–633.
Spreitzer, G. M., Noble, D. S., Mishra, A. K., & Coole, W. N.
(1999). Predicting process
improvement team performance in an automotive firm:
Explicating the roles of trust
and empowerment. In R. Wageman (Ed.), Research on managing
groups and teams:
Groups in context (vol. 2; pp. 71–92). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Stewart, G. L., Carson, K. P., & Cardy, R. L. (1996). The joint
effects of conscientiousness
and self-leadership training on employee self-directed behavior
in a service setting.
Personnel Psychology, 49, 143–164.
Stewart, R. (1984). Developing managers by radical job moves.
Journal of Management
Development, 3(2), 48–85.
Leadership Development 613
Tesluk, P. E., & Jacobs, R. R. (1998). Toward an integrated
model of work experience.
Personnel Psychology, 51, 321–355.
The Conference Board. (1999). Developing leaders. HR
Executive Review, 7(1), 1–19.
Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race
developmental relationships. Adminis-

251. trative Science Quarterly, 38, 169–194.
Thompson, D. A. (1987). A formative evaluation of an
individualized coaching program for
business managers and professionals (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Minnesota,
1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(12-A, Pt. 1),
4339.
Tobias, L. L. (1996). Coaching executives. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 48, 87–95.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value
creation: The role of intrafirm
networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464–476.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Steel, R. P. (2000). Is a rater’s opportunity
to observe over-rated? A
test of the effects of observational opportunity on rater
agreement. Paper presented at
the 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychol-
ogy, New Orleanns, LA, April.
Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J. B. (1995). Why executives derail:
Perspectives across time and
cultures. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 62–72.
Van Velsor, E., McCauley, C. D., & Moxley, R. S. (1998). Our
view of leadership develop-
ment. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor
(Eds.), The Center for
Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp.
1–25). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

252. Vicere, A. A., & Fulmer, R. M. (1998). Leadership by design.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School.
Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Antonioni, D. (1998). Has
360 degree feedback gone
amok? Academy of Management Executive, 12(2), 86–94.
Walker, A. G., & Smither, J. W. (1999). A five-year study of
upward feedback: What managers
do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52, 393–
423.
Warech, M. A., Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., &
Reilly, S. P. (1998). Self-
monitoring and 360-degree ratings. Leadership Quarterly, 9,
449–473.
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in
organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University.
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of
practice: The organizational frontier.
Harvard Business Review, (January-February), 139–145.
Wexley, K. N., & Baldwin, T. T. (1986). Management
development. Journal of Management,
12, 277–294.
Whitener, E. M. (2000). The processes of building social capital

253. in organizations: The integrat-
ing role of trust. Paper presented at the Academy of
Management Annual Meeting,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August.
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Zand, D. E. (1997). The leadership triad: Knowledge, trust, and
power. New York: Oxford
University.
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT:
A REVIEW IN CONTEXT
David V. Day*
The Pennsylvania State University
Interest in leadership development is strong, especially among
practitioners. Nonetheless, there
is conceptual confusion regarding distinctions between leader
and leadership development, as
well as disconnection between the practice of leadership
development and its scientific foundation.
The present review examines the field of leadership
development through three contextual
lenses: (1) understanding the difference between leader
development and leadership development
(conceptual context); (2) reviewing how state-of-the-art
development is being conducted in the
context of ongoing organizational work (practice context); and
(3) summarizing previous research

254. that has implications for leadership development (research
context). The overall purpose is to
bridge the practice and science of leadership development by
showing the importance of building
both human and social capital in organizations. Specific
practices that are reviewed include 360-
degree feedback and executive coaching, mentoring and
networking, and job assignments and
action learning. Practices and research are framed in terms of a
general need to link leader
development, which is primarily based on enhancing human
capital, with leadership development
that emphasizes the creation of social capital in organizations.
In the traditional organization—the organization of the last one
hundred
years—the skeleton or internal structure, was a combination of
rank and
power. In the emerging organization, it has to be mutual
understanding and
responsibility.
—Peter F. Drucker, Managing in Times of Great Change
Interest in leadership development appears to be at its zenith.
One indicator of
this interest is seen in survey results highlighting the increased
attention and re-
sources given to leadership development (The Conference
Board, 1999). Many
organizations are viewing leadership as a source of competitive
advantage and are
investing in its development accordingly (McCall, 1998; Vicere
& Fulmer, 1998).
* Direct all correspondence to: David V. Day, Department of
Psychology, The Pennsylvania State

255. University, University Park, PA 16802; e-mail:
[email protected]
Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 1048-9843
582 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Another indicator of the burgeoning interest in leadership
development is the
number of current publications on the topic. One of the most
notable offerings is the
Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership
Development (McCauley,
Moxley, & Van Velsor, 1998), which summarizes much of what
Center researchers
and trainers have learned about leadership development over the
past 30 years. In
addition, there are a number of recently published books and
book chapters devoted
to various aspects of leadership development (e.g., Conger &
Benjamin, 1999;
Dotlich & Noel, 1998; Giber, Carter, & Goldsmith, 1999;
Hollenbeck & McCall,
1999; McCall, 1998; Vicere & Fulmer, 1998).
An immediate distinction must be made, however, between
leadership develop-
ment and management development. Literatures between the
two areas are parallel
and do overlap, but there are several key differences. Just as
leadership and manage-
ment are different (but interrelated) concepts (Yukl, 1998), their

256. respective develop-
ment has unique emphases. Management development primarily
includes manage-
rial education and training (Latham & Seijts, 1998; Mailick,
Stumpf, Grant, Kfir, &
Watson, 1998) with an emphasis on acquiring specific types of
knowledge, skills,
and abilities to enhance task performance in management roles
(Baldwin & Padgett,
1994; Keys & Wolfe, 1988; Wexley & Baldwin, 1986). Another
characteristic feature
of management development is the application of proven
solutions to known prob-
lems, which gives it mainly a training orientation.
Leadership development is defined as expanding the collective
capacity of organi-
zational members to engage effectively in leadership roles and
processes (McCauley
et al., 1998). Leadership roles refer to those that come with and
without formal
authority, whereas management development focuses on
performance in formal
managerial roles. Leadership processes are those that generally
enable groups of
people to work together in meaningful ways, whereas
management processes are
considered to be position- and organization-specific (Keys &
Wolfe, 1988). Leader-
ship development involves building the capacity for groups of
people to learn their
way out of problems that could not have been predicted (Dixon,
1993), or that
arise from the disintegration of traditional organizational
structures and the associ-
ated loss of sensemaking (Weick, 1993). In this sense capacity

257. is thought to be
similar to the notion of cognitive and behavioral complexity in
that expanded
capacity provides for better individual and collective
adaptability across a wide
range of situations (Hooijberg, Bullis, & Hunt, 1999). A
leadership development
approach is oriented toward building capacity in anticipation of
unforeseen chal-
lenges (i.e., development).
The purpose of the present review is to examine leadership
development in
context. The use of the term context is meant to be multifaceted
in nature, and
implies that leadership development occurs in various
circumstances. One specific
context is that of developing leaders versus developing
leadership (i.e., conceptual
context). A second context is that of the work itself, and how
state-of-the-art
development is being conducted in the context of ongoing
organizational work (i.e.,
practice context). A third context is related to research that has
direct and indirect
implications for leadership development (i.e., research context).
The present review
does not claim to be exhaustive; rather, it will focus on recent
practices and research
that have been implemented or published, typically within the
past 5 to 10 years.
Furthermore, given the relative dearth of scholarly research
directly on the topic,

258. Leadership Development 583
most of what is reviewed has implications for leadership
development, as opposed
to being conceptualized primarily within a leadership
development framework. The
research review and discussion is intended to spark interest
among future leadership
development researchers.
CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT: BRIDGING LEADER AND
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
Leadership has been traditionally conceptualized as an
individual-level skill. A
good example of this is found in transformational leadership
theory, which proposes
that transformational leaders engage in behaviors related to the
dimensions of
Charisma, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized
Consideration (Bass, 1985).
The corresponding approach to research and theory testing
assumes an individualis-
tic conceptualization of leadership, in which sharp distinction is
drawn between
leaders and followers (e.g., followers evaluate their “leader”
using a number of
behavioral items). Within this tradition, development is thought
to occur primarily
through training individual, primarily intrapersonal, skills and
abilities (Barling,
Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Neck & Manz, 1996; Skarlicki &
Latham, 1997; Stewart,
Carson, & Cardy, 1996). These kinds of training approaches,
however, ignore almost
50 years of research showing leadership to be a complex

259. interaction between the
designated leader and the social and organizational environment
(Fiedler, 1996).
In addition to building individual leaders by training a set of
skills or abilities
and assuming that leadership will result, a complementary
perspective approaches
leadership as a social process that engages everyone in the
community (Barker,
1997; Drath & Palus, 1994; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). In this
way, each person is
considered a leader, and leadership is conceptualized as an
effect rather than a
cause (Drath, 1998). Leadership is therefore an emergent
property of effective
systems design (Salancik, Calder, Rowland, Leblebici, &
Conway, 1975). Leadership
development from this perspective consists of using social (i.e.,
relational) systems
to help build commitments among members of a community of
practice (Wenger,
1998). It is proposed that both individual and relational lenses
are important con-
cerns.
Lester Thurow (1999) has argued: “Businesses must be willing
to destroy the
old while it is still successful if they wish to build the new that
will be successful.
If they don’t destroy themselves, others will destroy them” (p.
59). In building the
leadership capacity necessary continually to reinvent
themselves, organizations need
to attend to both individual leader and collective leadership
development. Further-

260. more, these approaches must be linked with each other and
connected to a broader
organizational strategy (Hall & Seibert, 1992; Latham & Seijts,
1998) for maximum
return on investment. A summary of the proposed differences
between leader
development and leadership development is presented in Table
1.
Leader Development
One of the primary reasons that organizations invest in training
and development
for employees is to enhance and protect their human capital
(Lepak & Snell, 1999).
584 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Table 1. Summary of Differences between Leader Development
and Leadership Development
Development Target
Comparison Dimension Leader Leadership
Capital Type Human Social
Leadership Model Individual Relational
Personal power Commitments
Knowledge Mutual respect
Trustworthiness Trust
Competence Base Intrapersonal Interpersonal

261. Skills Self-awareness Social awareness
Emotional awareness Empathy
Self confidence Service orientation
Accurate self image Political awareness
Self-regulation Social skills
Self-control Building bonds
Trustworthiness Team orientation
Personal responsibility Change catalyst
Adaptability Conflict management
Self motivation
Initiative
Commitment
Optimisim
In the case of leader development, the emphasis typically is on
individual-based
knowledge, skills, and abilities associated with formal
leadership roles. These ac-
quired capabilities enable people to think and act in new ways
(Coleman, 1988).
In this manner, leader development results as a function of
purposeful investment
in human capital. The primary emphasis of the overarching
development strategy
is to build the intrapersonal competence needed to form an
accurate model of
oneself (Gardner, 1993, p. 9), to engage in healthy attitude and
identity development
(Hall & Seibert, 1992), and to use that self-model to perform
effectively in any
number of organizational roles.
Specific examples of the type of intrapersonal competence
associated with leader

262. development initiatives include self-awareness (e.g., emotional
awareness, self con-
fidence), self-regulation (e.g., self-control, trustworthiness,
adaptability), and self-
motivation (e.g., commitment, initiative, optimism) (Manz &
Sims, 1989; McCauley,
2000; Neck & Manz, 1996; Stewart et al., 1996). These
capabilities contribute to
enhanced individual knowledge, trust, and personal power,
which have been proposed
as the fundamental leadership imperatives (Zand, 1997), at least
from a traditional,
individualistic leadership perspective. It is important to
understand this approach if
only because the predominant emphasis in organizational
leadership research has
been on the human capital of individual leaders (Brass &
Krackhardt, 1999).
Leadership Development
In addition to the organizational resources provided as a
function of human
capital, social resources are embedded in work relationships
that take the form of
Leadership Development 585
social capital (Brass & Krackhardt, 1999; Burt, 1992). Unlike
human capital, in
which the focus is on developing individual knowledge, skills,
and abilities, the
emphasis with social capital is on building networked
relationships among individu-

263. als that enhance cooperation and resource exchange in creating
organizational value
(Bouty, 2000; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). Despite the importance of
social networks
in this approach—and the typical structural approach to social
networks analyses—
social capital is defined more by its function than by its
structure (Coleman, 1988;
Whitener, 2000). That is, social capital is based on
relationships, which are created
through interpersonal exchange (Bourdieu, 1986). In this
manner social capital
requires an interpersonal lens that is grounded in a relational
model of leadership
(Drath & Palus, 1994). At the heart of this relational model are
commitments in
the form of mutual obligations, which are supported by
reciprocated trust and
respect (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000).
Commitments, trust, and respect correspond roughly to three
different aspects
of social capital proposed by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998):
structural, relational,
and cognitive. The structural dimension pertains primarily to
social interactions
typically assessed by means of network ties (Tsai & Ghoshal,
1998). The social
structure of interactions—and an actor’s location in relation to
his or her contacts—
has been shown to provide resources to the actor as well as the
organization (Burt,
1992). This structure is formed as a result of the commitments
among all parties in
a given social network. The relational dimension of social
capital refers to functional

264. assets that are rooted in networked relationships, such as trust
and trustworthiness
(Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998), which describe the kind of personal
relationships developed
through a history of interactions. This is a particularly
interesting dimension.
Whereas trust is an attribute of the relationship, trustworthiness
rests in the intraper-
sonal qualities of the individual (Barney & Hansen, 1994). This
highlights the
importance of developing both intrapersonal and interpersonal
competence, and
of linking leader development with leadership development.
The third aspect of social capital is the cognitive dimension,
which refers to
resources embodied in shared representations and collective
meanings among peo-
ple. Expressions of the cognitive dimension to social capital can
be found in organiza-
tion culture or a shared vision based on a set of common values
that produces and
is a product of mutual respect. These facets of social capital
(i.e., structural, rela-
tional, and cognitive) are interrelated and not independent
concerns, and have been
empirically linked to value creation in organizations through
their separate effects
on resource exchange and combination (Bouty, 2000; Tsai &
Ghoshal, 1998).
The primary emphasis in leadership development is on building
and using inter-
personal competence. Gardner (1993) defines interpersonal
intelligence in terms
of the ability to understand people—a basic concern in building

265. trust, respect, and
ultimately, commitments. Key components of interpersonal
competence include
social awareness (e.g., empathy, service orientation, and
developing others) and
social skills (e.g., collaboration and cooperation, building
bonds, and conflict man-
agement) (Goleman, 1995; McCauley, 2000). The emphasis is
on the social nature
of this competence, and the idea that effective development best
occurs in an
interpersonal (i.e., social) context.
The notion of leadership development offered in the present
review focuses on
the interaction between an individual and the social and
organizational environment
586 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
(Fiedler, 1996). As such, it is a more complex endeavor than
one concerned solely
with individual leader development. Although there is still a
need to develop a
sound foundation of intrapersonal and interpersonal skills, it is
proposed that the
most value resides in combining what is considered the
traditional, individualistic
approach to leader development with a more shared and
relational approach.
Another way to conceptualize the distinction is that leader
development can be
interpreted as a form of individual-based differentiation in

266. terms of helping individu-
als enhance a unique self-understanding and construct
independent identities
(Hall & Seibert, 1992; McCauley et al., 1998). Leadership
development can be
thought of as an integration strategy by helping people
understand how to relate
to others, coordinate their efforts, build commitments, and
develop extended social
networks by applying self-understanding to social and
organizational imperatives.
An overall approach to leadership development as a type of
organizational develop-
ment strategy requires a purposeful transformation toward
higher levels of both
leadership integration and differentiation. This is an example of
a move toward
what has been termed “organized complexity” (Gharajedaghi,
1999, pp. 92–93).
The profound changes shaping the competitive business
environment are also
affecting how organizations prepare people for present and
future challenges. One
emphasis has been on investing more intensely in leader and
leadership development
across all organization levels, and to develop leadership
capacity in all employees
and across all organizational systems. Scholarly researchers
potentially have much
to contribute to the understanding and improvement of
leadership development in
organizations. In particular, researchers can help enhance the
purposefulness of
leadership development by examining how various practices and
processes, alone

267. and in combination, contribute to better leadership. One of the
biggest challenges
facing organizations is reversing a tendency that allows
leadership development to
become a “haphazard process” (Conger, 1993, p. 46), which
results from embedding
development in the ongoing work of an organization without
sufficient notice to
intentionality, accountability, and evaluation.
To be of any help in this endeavor, academic researchers need
to first transcend
the outdated notion that leadership development occurs only
through specially
designed programs held in particular locations. Instead, it is a
continuous process
that can take place anywhere (Fulmer, 1997). Leadership
development in practice
today means helping people learn from their work rather than
taking them away
from their work to learn (Moxley & O’Connor Wilson, 1998).
State-of-the-art
leadership development is occurring in the context of ongoing
work initiatives that
are tied to strategic business imperatives (Dotlich & Noel,
1998).
Of course, classroom programs are still widely used by
organizations as one type
of development practice. A 1995 survey sponsored by the
American Society of
Training and Development indicated that 85% of companies that
engage in leader-
ship development activities use formal classroom programs
(American Society for
Training and Development, 1995); however, many organizations

268. are realizing that
such programs are not enough. Classroom programs suffer from
transfer of training
challenges and high start-up costs, among other limitations. The
real movement is
toward understanding and practicing leadership development
more effectively in
the context of the work itself.
Leadership Development 587
PRACTICE AND RESEARCH CONTEXTS: BRIDGING THE
APPLIED AND
ACADEMIC COMMUNITIES
A variety of practices have been developed and implemented in
organizations for
reasons other than leadership development. Most typically,
these practices were pri-
marily intended to improve performance management (e.g., 360-
degree feedback),
facilitate corporate socialization (e.g., mentoring), or enhance
productivity (e.g., job
assignments, action learning). Often the practices are
completely embedded in the
work. In many cases, these practices also form the backbone of
contemporary leader-
ship development systems. The present review will examine the
most popular and
promising practices used to develop leaders and leadership in
the context of ongoing
work in an organization. Each section will contain a brief
overview of the practice,
how it is used for development, and a synthesis of recent theory

269. and research with
implications for understanding or improving the effectiveness of
leadership develop-
ment in work contexts. Literature from both the practitioner and
academic domains
will be examined. The specific practices to be reviewed (see
Table 2) are 360-degree
feedback and executive coaching, mentoring and networking,
and job assignments
and action learning. These practices are arranged roughly on a
continuum of least
to most embedded in ongoing organizational work.
360-degree Feedback
Overview
360-degree feedback, multi-source feedback, and multi-rater
feedback are all
terms used to describe this method of systematically collecting
perceptions of an
individual’s performance from the entire circle of relevant
viewpoints (Warech,
Smither, Reilly, Millsap, & Reilly, 1998). Rating sources
typically include peers,
direct reports, supervisors, and, occasionally, such external
stakeholders as custom-
ers and suppliers. A purported advantage of such intense,
comprehensive scrutiny
is that a more complete and accurate picture of an individual’s
performance can
be obtained. In terms of the tripartite developmental strategy of
linking assessment,
challenge, and support (Van Velsor, McCauley, & Moxley,
1998), 360-degree feed-
back is strong on assessment but typically weak on challenge

270. and support.
Practice
The introduction of 360-degree feedback processes has made a
strong mark on
organizations in recent years. For example, 360-degree feedback
has been lauded
as “perhaps the most notable management innovation of the
1990’s” (Atwater &
Waldman, 1998a). Furthermore, nearly all of the Fortune 500
companies currently
use or intend to use some form of the practice (London &
Smither, 1995). Some
authors have argued that 360-degree feedback is a source of
competitive advantage
to organizations (London & Beatty, 1993), whereas others see
its growing popularity
as a function of imitation and political concerns (Waldman,
Atwater, & Antonioni,
1998).
An important assumption of this approach is that performance
varies across
contexts, and that someone behaves differently with different
constituencies. An
advantage of the multi-source approach is that it directly
acknowledges differences
588 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
T
ab

271. le
2.
Su
m
m
ar
y
of
Se
le
ct
ed
P
ra
ct
ic
es
in
L
ea
de
rs
hi
p

272. D
ev
el
op
m
en
t
P
ra
ct
ic
e
D
es
cr
ip
tio
n
D
ev
el
op
m
en

273. t
T
ar
ge
t
H
C
SC
St
re
ng
th
s
W
ea
kn
es
se
s
36
0-
de
gr
ee

274. M
ul
ti
-s
ou
rc
e
ra
ti
ng
s
of
Se
lf
-k
no
w
le
dg
e
✓
x
C
om

275. pr
eh
en
si
ve
O
ve
rw
he
lm
in
g
am
ou
nt
of
fe
ed
ba
ck
pe
rf
or
m

276. an
ce
,
or
ga
ni
ze
d
B
eh
av
io
ra
l
ch
an
ge
pi
ct
ur
e;
br
oa
d

277. da
ta
;n
o
gu
id
an
ce
on
ho
w
an
d
pr
es
en
te
d
to
an
pa
rt
ic
ip

278. at
io
n
(A
)
to
ch
an
ge
;t
im
e
an
d
in
di
vi
du
al
ef
fo
rt
(C
,S

279. )
C
oa
ch
in
g
P
ra
ct
ic
al
,
go
al
-f
oc
us
ed
fo
rm
Se
lf
-k
no

280. w
le
dg
e
✓
?
P
er
so
na
liz
ed
;
P
er
ce
iv
ed
st
ig
m
a
of
on

281. e-
on
-o
ne
le
ar
ni
ng
B
eh
av
io
ra
l
ch
an
ge
in
te
ns
iv
e
(C
,S

282. )
(r
em
ed
ia
l)
;e
xp
en
si
ve
C
ar
ee
r
de
ve
lo
pm
en
t
M
en
to

283. ri
ng
A
dv
is
in
g/
de
ve
lo
pm
en
ta
l
B
ro
ad
er
✓
?
St
ro
ng
pe

284. rs
on
al
P
ee
r
je
al
ou
sy
;o
ve
r
re
la
ti
on
sh
ip
,u
su
al
ly
w

285. it
h
a
un
de
rs
ta
nd
in
g.
bo
nd
(S
)
de
pe
nd
en
ce
;(
A
,C
)
m

286. or
e
se
ni
or
m
an
ag
er
A
dv
an
ce
m
en
t
ca
ta
ly
st
.
L
es
so

287. ns
le
ar
ne
d/
av
oi
d
m
is
ta
ke
s.
N
et
w
or
ks
C
on
ne
ct
in
g

288. to
ot
he
rs
in
B
et
te
r
pr
ob
le
m
-
?
✓
B
ui
ld
s
or
ga
ni
za

289. ti
on
A
d
ho
c;
un
st
ru
ct
ur
ed
(A
)
di
ff
er
en
t
fu
nc
ti
on
s

290. an
d
so
lv
in
g.
(S
)
ar
ea
s
L
ea
rn
in
g
w
ho
to
co
ns
ul
t
fo

291. r
pr
oj
ec
t
he
lp
.
So
ci
al
iz
at
io
n
Jo
b
A
ss
ig
nm
en
ts
P

292. ro
vi
di
ng
“s
tr
et
ch
”
Sk
ill
s
de
ve
lo
pm
en
t.
✓
?
Jo
b
re
le

293. va
nt
;
C
on
fl
ic
t
be
tw
ee
n
as
si
gn
m
en
ts
in
te
rm
s
of
B

294. ro
ad
er
ac
ce
le
ra
te
s
pe
rf
or
m
an
ce
an
d
de
ve
l.;
ro
le
,f
un

295. ct
io
n,
or
un
de
rs
ta
nd
in
g
of
le
ar
ni
ng
(C
)
no
st
ru
ct
ur
e

296. fo
r
le
ar
ni
ng
ge
og
ra
ph
y
th
e
bu
si
ne
ss
.
(A
,S
)
A
ct
io

297. n
L
ea
rn
in
g
P
ro
je
ct
-b
as
ed
le
ar
ni
ng
So
ci
al
iz
at
io
n

298. ✓
✓
T
ie
d
to
bu
si
ne
ss
T
im
e
in
te
ns
iv
e;
le
ad
er
sh
ip
di

299. re
ct
ed
at
im
po
rt
an
t
T
ea
m
w
or
k
Im
pl
em
en
t
im
pe
ra
ti

300. ve
s;
le
ss
on
s
no
t
al
w
ay
s
cl
ea
r;
bu
si
ne
ss
pr
ob
le
m
s

301. st
ra
te
gy
.
ac
ti
on
-o
ri
en
te
d
ov
er
-e
m
ph
as
is
on
re
su
lt

302. s
(C
,S
)
(A
)
N
ot
e:
H
C
5
hu
m
an
ca
pi
ta
l;
SC
5
so
ci
al

303. ca
pi
ta
l;
✓
5
in
te
nd
ed
de
ve
lo
pm
en
ta
l
ta
rg
et
;
x
5
no

304. t
an
in
te
nd
ed
de
ve
lo
pm
en
ta
l
ta
rg
et
;
?
5
po
ss
ib
le
de

305. ve
lo
pm
en
ta
l
ta
rg
et
;
A
5
as
se
ss
m
en
t;
C
5
ch
al
le
ng

306. e;
S
5
su
pp
or
t.
Leadership Development 589
across sources in the opportunity to observe various aspects of
an individual’s
performance. Research findings corroborate these assumptions
in showing that
ratings across sources correlate only moderately (e.g., Atwater,
Ostroff, Yammar-
ino, & Fleenor, 1998; Atwater & Yammarino, 1997; Carless,
Mann, & Wearing,
1998). Rather than being a problem, this finding suggests that
performance may be
different, and may be perceived differently, across various
constituencies. Multi-
source or 360-degree ratings are needed to capture this variety
of behavior and
perspective. It should also be noted that additional research
found little evidence
of within-source rating agreement (Greguras & Robie, 1998),
even among raters
with similar observational opportunities (Van Scotter & Steel,
2000). Thus, using

307. multiple raters within multiple rating sources makes good
psychometric sense in
terms of enhancing the overall reliability of feedback.
The growing popularity of 360-degree feedback may have
something to do with
a deeper appreciation for the business necessity of self-
understanding. Lack of
self-awareness can jeopardize projects by contributing to sub-
optimal individual
performance, or by creating increased stress and anxiety in
others (Dotlich & Noel,
1998). Other possible reasons for the popularity of 360-degree
feedback include its
effectiveness as a developmental tool, its initial ease of
implementation (although
it is more complicated to manage effectively than many
companies realize), and
that many of the “most-admired” firms have adopted the
practice (Waldman et
al., 1998). A somewhat different explanation for the increased
use of 360-degree
evaluations lies with the changing nature of the U.S. industrial
economy. In the
past, the measure of a company’s success was its property, not
its people. Among
leading-edge companies, that ratio is now reversed, and the
majority of the wealth
in many organizations is in its employees (i.e., intellectual
capital). Thus, if a large
portion of that talent becomes frustrated with their co-workers
or bosses and quit
the company, the economic results could be devastating for an
organization. A
substantial amount of value could potentially end up employed
by a competitor,

308. or—with the attractiveness of entrepreneurial start-ups—
become the competition.
Multi-source feedback can be a useful developmental tool for
building intraper-
sonal competence in the form of self-knowledge and increased
self-awareness of
one’s impact on others, which is connected to building
individual trustworthiness
(Barney & Hansen, 1994). If the feedback process is handled
professionally and
with sensitivity, an individual’s trusting intentions toward
others can be enhanced
(McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998). Because trust
facilitates the cooperation
needed for effective teamwork in organizations (Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998), there
is an indirect link between 360-degree feedback and the
development of social
capital; its primary contribution, however, is on developing
intrapersonal compe-
tence associated with enhanced human capital.
Proposition 1a: The use of 360-degree or multi-source feedback
is associated
with the development of human capital (i.e., intrapersonal
competence)
in organizations.
Research
Nothing guarantees that feedback inherently leads to positive
individual change.
Indeed, research indicates that over one-third of the feedback
interventions reported

309. 590 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
in the literature resulted in decreased performance (Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996). One
reason that behavioral change may not follow from feedback is
that most people
have well-developed defense mechanisms that protect them from
feedback that is
perceived as too threatening (Chappelow, 1998). Conversely,
some might recognize
feedback as accurate but do not want to change their behavior.
For any leadership
development effort to be effective—particularly one based on
360-degree feed-
back—a participant must first be willing to accept feedback as
relevant and useful,
and be open to change. They must also be realistic and resilient
in that change is
rarely a simple path forward; a large investment of time and
energy is required
before the needed change becomes part of an individual’s
behavioral repertoire.
Recent research findings indicate that what managers do with
their feedback
does matter. Specifically, managers who met with direct reports
to discuss their
upward feedback demonstrated greater change in the form of
performance improve-
ment than managers who did not discuss their feedback (Walker
& Smither, 1999).
Other research found that perceived organization support
enhances the usefulness
of subordinate feedback over and above the overall favorability

310. of the feedback
(Facteau, Facteau, Schoel, Russell, & Poteet, 1998). Only
favorability predicted the
usefulness of peer ratings.
Another difficulty is that measuring change using 360-degree
survey instruments
has proven to be a challenge, given associated changes in
expectations about a
target as a result of program participation (i.e., beta change),
and changes in thinking
about the constructs being rated (i.e., gamma change). For these
reasons, some
researchers have adopted a retrospective methodology in which
a measure of the
perceived degree of a target’s behavioral change is gathered at
the second wave of
data collection (Martineau, 1998; Peterson, 1993). This
methodology is intriguing
in that it attempts directly to assess the degree of perceived
change rather than
basing it on difference scores, which are associated with their
own set of psychomet-
ric challenges. For this reason, the retrospective methodology is
deserving of greater
research attention.
A willingness to accept and use feedback might be insufficient
for change, however,
if the feedback is complex or inconsistent, or if the recipient
lacks the requisite skills
to interpret the data and translate it into behaving in a different
manner. For these
reasons, executive coaching has emerged as a popular
leadership development tool.

311. Proposition 1b: The effectiveness of 360-degree feedback for
the develop-
ment of social capital development depends on the extent that it
is linked
to follow-up coaching.
Executive Coaching
Overview
Executive coaching involves practical, goal-focused forms of
one-on-one learning
and behavioral change (Hall, Otazo, & Hollenbeck, 1999;
Peterson, 1996). The
objectives of coaching are focused on improving individual
performance and per-
sonal satisfaction, and, consequently, enhancing organizational
effectiveness (Kil-
burg, 1996). The term connotes an ongoing process rather than a
discrete event.
Coaching may be used to improve individual performance,
enhance a career, or
Leadership Development 591
work through organizational issues such as culture change (Katz
& Miller, 1996).
It can be a relatively short-term activity aimed at improving
specific leadership
skills or solving specific problems, or a lengthy series of
meetings over an extended
time period (Tobias, 1996). Given that the cost of coaching
provided by an external
consultant ranges from $1,500 for a single day to more than

312. $100,000 for a multi-
year program (for a single executive), it is understandable why
most firms prefer
to keep this as short-term as possible. The approach, however,
is comprehensive in
terms of integrating assessment, challenge, and support in the
name of development,
especially when linked with 360-degree feedback.
Practice
One area of executive coaching that deserves greater attention
concerns the
underlying models of change adopted by coaches. One proposed
coaching model
consists of four general steps (Saporito, 1996):
1. Setting the foundation and defining the context;
2. Individual assessment, including the 360-degree process;
3. Development planning based on feedback to the individual
and a three-way
discussion with the supervisor; and
4. Implementation that focuses coaching around development
experiences.
The Individual Coaching for Effectiveness model at Personnel
Decisions, Inc. (Hel-
lervik, Hazucha, & Schneider, 1992) consists of three major
phases: diagnosis,
coaching, and maintenance/support—similar to the assessment,
challenge, and sup-
port perspective on how to enhance the potency of
developmental experiences
(Van Velsor et al., 1998).

313. Although it could be argued that nearly anyone would benefit
from coaching,
at least one study has estimated that three-quarters of
participants were in some
danger of derailing when they began a coaching process
(Thompson, 1987). In
addition, the typical motives for participating are remedial in
nature, and usually
associated with interpersonal insensitivity or a lack of influence
ability (Hellervik
et al., 1992). For these reasons, organizations that use
coaches—as well as the
coaches themselves—need to be aware of a possible stigma
associated with being
assigned a coach. Providing a coach to an entire executive
group has the advantage
of placing all recipients on equal footing. When everyone has a
coach, it is not a
secret—neither a stigma nor perceived source of favoritism.
Coaching an entire
team to get one particular executive help, however, without
appearing to single
out the individual is almost always transparent to the team, and
can create more
ill-will than if coaching is focused on the one individual who
truly needs it. In
summary, if coaching is not purposefully and strategically
applied, it is a waste of
time and money that dilutes the value of a development
opportunity. Indeed, there
is a risk of doing more harm than good.
Proposition 2a: Coaching effectiveness is enhanced to the
degree that indi-
viduals are carefully selected for coaching, matched with a
compatible

314. coach, and are willing to change.
592 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
Research
There is little published empirical research other than case
studies on the topic
of executive coaching effectiveness (Kilburg, 1996), especially
in terms of how well
it enhances development in addition to improving performance.
Executive coaching
as a follow-up to a training program was shown to increase
productivity by 88% in
public sector managers (Olivero, Bane, & Kopelman, 1997),
which was a significantly
greater gain compared with training alone. No evaluation,
however, was conducted
that addressed the important, but different, issue of leadership
development.
Additional research is needed that goes beyond an evaluation of
immediate
productivity improvements. For example, an examination of
social accounts (i.e.,
managerial justifications and excuses used to explain an
individual’s actions) and
the motivated reasoning of coaching participants could be
useful in understanding
the underlying reasons for change or resistance to change.
Recent research that
adopted social accounts and motivated reasoning lenses to
understand reactions to
organizational change has shown that nursing employees hear

315. different messages
from management depending on the quality of their relationship
with the organiza-
tion (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). It is expected that
interpretations of a coaching
initiative will be related to participants’ change motivation and,
ultimately, to the
extent of behavior change. As in the Rousseau and Tijoriwala
(1999), change
motivation may also be related to trust in the organization and
the level of mutual
commitment established between the coaching participant and
the employer.
Proposition 2b: The quality of an individual’s relationship with
an organiza-
tion is positively associated with the effectiveness of coaching
for devel-
opment for that individual.
Another potentially fruitful line of research involves a social
network analysis
of a team or work group in which a coaching participant is
involved. One hypothesis
worth investigating is that coaching increases an individual’s
centrality within a
social network, thus enhancing the structural component of that
person’s social
capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Network centrality results
from strong ties
with others that build loyalty, trust, mutual respect, and
emotional commitments
(Brass & Krackhardt, 1999). If coaching increases individual
self-confidence and
interpersonal effectiveness, it might also be expected to
encourage the formation

316. of new, non-redundant contacts with others both inside and
outside the organization
(Bouty, 2000). Thus, coaching provided to an individual or
entire group, such as a
top management team, could lead to the creation of a greater
number of nonredun-
dant (i.e., weak) ties (Granovetter, 1973). As noted by Brass
and Krackhardt (1999),
effective leadership requires establishing strong and weak ties,
both of which are
crucial but serve different purposes. Strong ties build loyalty,
trust, and mutual
respect—essentially, commitments among individuals—whereas
weak ties provide
access to novel, unique, and nonredundant information or
resources (Burt, 1992).
Creating value through enhanced social capital is especially
critical in the network
organization (Baker, 1992) in which temporary configurations
are linked mainly by
rapidly changing opportunities. Using executive coaching to
provide the challenge
and support in conjunction with the assessment provided by
360-degree feedback
Leadership Development 593
may be an effective means of linking leader and leadership
development by building
both human and social capital.
Proposition 2c: Coaching increases a recipient’s weak and
strong network
ties (i.e., social capital).

317. Research is needed that goes beyond trying to establish whether
coaching is
effective, to addressing questions such as how does it work,
why does it work, and
for what specific purpose (Campbell, 1989). The answers to
some of these questions
may be found in future studies that examine feedback and
coaching from a social
networks perspective (Brass & Krackhardt, 1999) and adopt a
particular theoretical
lens, such as self-regulation theory (Bandura, 1991; Carver &
Scheier, 1981; La-
tham & Locke, 1991), to try to understand what makes for an
effective feedback
process.
Other possibilities for understanding the how, why, and what of
effective coaching
include the compelling literature on implementation intentions
(Gollwitzer, 1993;
Gollwitzer & Brandstatter, 1997). Consistent findings document
that when people
experience difficulty translating their goals into action, they can
use situational cues
to help make their responses relatively effortless and automatic
by forming the
cognitive structure “when situation x arises, I will do y”
(Gollwitzer, 1999, p. 494).
In other words, a person commits to responding to a certain
situation in a specific,
pre-designated manner. By coaching executives in how to link
their development
goals to implementation intentions, there may be ways of
encouraging behavioral
change while also removing the underlying impetus from

318. conscious control. Imple-
mentation intentions could serve as a behavioral change catalyst
in executive coach-
ing efforts; because the cues for implementing the desired
behaviors are removed
from conscious control, however, some question remains as to
the extent of learning
that occurs through automatically enacted behavior. Clearly,
there is a research
need for a better understanding of the benefits and potential
drawbacks of imple-
mentation intentions in organizational contexts.
Proposition 2d: The use of implementation intentions as part of
coaching
increases the amount and extent of behavioral change observed.
Mentoring
Overview
Formal developmental relationships are a venerable form of on-
the-job experi-
ence used for leadership development. There are formal
mentoring programs as
well as informal processes. Formal, planned mentoring
programs are assigned,
maintained, and monitored by the organization (Kram & Bragar,
1992). Informal,
unplanned mentoring is usually encouraged by an organization,
but not initiated
or administered by it. Regardless of the formality of the
mentoring relationship,
effective developmental relationships come about from a mix of
opportunity and
intent (Sherman, 1995). A challenge facing any organization is

319. how to find the most
appropriate combination of these ingredients. As typically
implemented, mentoring
594 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
programs are heavily skewed toward support, with some
attention to challenge,
but relatively little consideration of assessment.
Practice
Most formal mentoring programs pair a junior manager with a
more senior
executive outside of his or her direct reporting line (McCauley
& Douglas, 1998),
although the pairing can sometimes occur with a peer or an
external consultant
(Douglas, 1997). In the latter cases, the line between mentoring
and coaching
becomes blurred. Indeed, coaching has been proposed as one
particular mentoring
role, along with sponsorship, protection, challenging
assignments, and exposure to
senior management thinking (Kram, 1985).
Mentoring is seen as an especially effective component of
development in context.
In a survey of over 350 companies involved in leadership
development, those efforts
reported as most successful included mentoring programs, as
well as action learning
and 360-degree feedback (Giber et al., 1999). The opportunity
to observe and

320. interact with members of senior management is an especially
critical part of men-
toring because it helps develop a more sophisticated and
strategic perspective on
the organization (i.e., a type of intrapersonal competence).
Despite its apparent
effectiveness at enhancing individual development, formal
research has not been
published on the topic of senior management exposure.
Specifically, what is it about
interacting with senior managers that sparks the development of
more sophisticated
perspectives? One possibility is that it enhances shared mental
representations and
interpretations of important organizational concerns. As such,
mentoring might be
partially effective due to its influence on the cognitive
dimension of social capital.
Proposition 3a: Effective mentoring processes result in
sophisticated mental
representations of strategic issues and organizational concerns
on the
part of recipients.
Research
An area of particular research interest has been comparing
formal and informal
mentoring practices. Results indicate that there are differential
outcomes, with
more positive benefits associated with informal mentoring
(Chao, Walz, & Gardner,
1992; Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Research has also demonstrated
the positive effects
of intragroup relations in the context of mentoring (i.e., group

321. mentoring) on career
outcomes (Dansky, 1996). Another area of interest has been the
area of gender
differences in mentoring outcomes, with results suggesting that
protégés of male
mentors received greater financial reward than those of female
mentors (Dreher &
Cox, 1996). Recent findings suggest a more complex pattern
related to the gender
composition of the dyad (Ragins & Cotton, 1999), with male
protégés of female
mentors having the lowest overall promotion rate; the Ragins
and Cotton study,
however, was limited by a relatively small number of male
protégé/female mentor
dyads (n 5 23). It was both an interesting and disheartening
finding that female
protégés of female mentors had the lowest compensation level
of any of the possible
dyadic combination.
There are theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that
women and members
Leadership Development 595
of underrepresented groups experience mentoring relationships
differently than
white men (Murrell, Crosby, & Ely, 1999; Ruderman & Hughes-
James, 1998).
Recent laboratory research has demonstrated that Black and
White students experi-
ence differently critical feedback from a mentor (Cohen, Steele,
& Ross, 1999).

322. Black students who received critical feedback responded less
favorably than White
students; when the feedback was accompanied by an appeal for
maintaining high
standards and an assurance that the student could attain those
standards, however,
Black students responded as positively as Whites. The Cohen et
al. (1999) study
illustrates not only a need to appreciate how various races might
make sense of
critical feedback provided by a mentor but also that mentoring
itself is a dynamic
and complex mixture of coaching, modeling, and feedback.
Earlier research on
cross-race mentoring relationships demonstrated that a
congruence in the type of
strategy adopted in discussing racial differences was associated
with the develop-
ment of high-quality, supportive relationships (Thomas, 1993).
It is surprising that there are so few studies examining the
qualities, characteris-
tics, and behaviors of high-performing mentors in general. An
apparent assumption
exists that all mentors perform identically in terms of the
quality of experience that
is offered. A recent exception to this tendency, however,
attempted to understand
the common characteristics of an ideal mentor using interview
data across five
organizations (Allen & Poteet, 1999). Results of the qualitative
analysis (i.e., content
coding), suggested a number of different dimensions of ideal
mentor characteristics,
such as listening and communication skills, patience, knowledge
of organization

323. and industry, ability to read and understand others, and honesty
and trustworthiness.
These skills and characteristics could provide the foundation for
a mentoring taxon-
omy for future researchers. To the extent that a mentor is seen
as displaying these
behaviors and characteristics, a more beneficial mentoring
relationship is predicted.
This is potentially a useful research focus because of the
empirical evidence
demonstrating that subordinates do not perceive mentoring to be
distinct from the
quality of their leadership exchange, although supervisors do
make such a distinction
(Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994). From a subordinate’s
perspective, improving the
quality of mentoring would also improve the quality of
leadership experienced.
More attention is needed regarding the apparent overlap
between developing sound
mentoring skills and leadership development. Greater intention
can be placed on
what constitutes effective mentoring within broader leadership
development efforts.
In particular, mentoring processes could focus on building
mutual trust and respect
as a means of forging commitments. A potentially interesting
research question
would be to examine the degree that these hypothesized
enhancements in the
social capital of a mentoring relationship generalize beyond the
particular dyadic
boundaries.
Proposition 3b: Attention to developing effective mentoring

324. skills increases
the amount and quality of informal mentoring, resulting in
greater mutual
trust, respect, and commitments (i.e., social capital).
There is one potential negative issue to be aware of regarding
mentoring pro-
cesses: over-dependence. An unintended side-effect of a close
mentoring relation-
596 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
ship is the possibility that a protégé might become too closely
aligned with a single
senior executive. Others in the organization might come to
resent this relationship,
or question the protégé’s ability to perform autonomously.
Another risk is that if
the senior executive falls from favor, so does the protégé. For
these reasons, over-
dependence on a mentor or advocate was identified as one of the
“ten fatal flaws”
originally associated with leader derailment (McCall &
Lombardo, 1983). Although
it is still a potential concern, over-dependence may not be as
career threatening as
a difficulty to change or adapt, or having problems with
interpersonal relationships
(Van Velsor & Leslie, 1995). In sum, the potential
developmental benefits associated
with mentoring far outweigh the risks associated with over-
dependence.
Networking

325. Overview
As a way of breaking down barriers between functional areas,
some organizations
include development activities aimed at fostering broader
individual networks. An
important goal of networking initiatives is to develop leaders
beyond merely know-
ing what and knowing how, to knowing who in terms of
problem-solving resources.
Networking is also about expanding one’s definition of what
and how through
exposure to others’ thinking, which can challenge basic
assumptions about what
we think we know. It is also a means of encouraging
organization members to form
commitments with others outside of their immediate work
group. In this way,
networking is about investing in and developing social capital
with a primary devel-
opmental emphasis on building support.
Practice
Specific networking initiatives that have been implemented with
the goal of
leadership development include efforts at Andersen Consulting
and Motorola. An-
dersen’s Worldwide Organization Executive Program is a five-
day seminar to ad-
dress the development needs of its global partners, including the
chance to meet
and exchange views with partners from all practice areas and all
parts of the world.
The goal is to allow partners to strengthen their personal

326. networks as a means of
creating entrepreneurial opportunities. At Motorola’s Vice
President Institute, the
three overall goals of the program are to
1. Teach the vice presidents (VPs) about the company’s unique
heritage and
culture;
2. Help the VPs explore new ways to invent new technologies
and businesses;
and
3. Foster networking (Eller, 1995).
Another type of networking involves the interaction of groups
of managers and
executives who have common training or job experiences. These
groups meet regu-
larly over lunches or through electronic dialogue to share their
mutual challenges
and opportunities, with the goals of applying their learning or
making their learning
relevant to present leadership challenges on an informal,
ongoing basis. Enhancing
Leadership Development 597
individual networks is believed to be an effective way to
increase managers’ innova-
tion and problem-solving capacities.
Working in a globally dispersed yet technologically
sophisticated organization

327. presents numerous challenges (and creative opportunities) with
regard to net-
working. Nortel uses its advanced video and data-networking
technologies to air a
Virtual Leadership Academy once a month. The show is
simulcast in offices in 47
countries, with simultaneous translation from English into
Spanish and Portuguese.
Although the technology does not facilitate face-to-face
networking between partici-
pants, managers can call with questions or concerns and get
real-time responses.
The program is geared to reinforce a core Nortel value that
“technology is about
elevating, not replacing, human interaction” (Global reach . . .
virtual leadership,
1999).
Research
One reason why networking is thought to be beneficial to
professional and
personal development is because it fosters peer relationships in
work settings. Peer
relationships offer unique value for development because of the
degree of mutual
obligation and the duration of the relationship. Research has
shown that some peer
relationships can span an entire 20- or 30-year career (Kram &
Isabella, 1985), as
compared with a typical mentoring relationship that lasts
between three and six
years (Kram, 1985), or an executive coaching relationship that
generally lasts around
six months (Levinson, 1996). Organizations should consider
peer relationships as

328. a potentially valuable component of an overall leadership
development system. As
with general mentoring processes, the more effective efforts
will not attempt to
formalize relationships at the expense of informal ones; instead,
formal programs
should mimic the development of informal relationships (Ragins
& Cotton, 1999)
by intentionally making networking opportunities available,
modeling successful
developmental relationships in the organization, and
highlighting the relative bene-
fits of networking.
Proposition 4a: Networking opportunities build peer
relationships across
functional areas, leading to the creation of additional social
capital.
Networking is a prime means of enhancing social capital in an
organization.
Managers who build the kinds of networks that allow them to
transcend the organiza-
tion’s formal structure—especially when they form non-
redundant ties with people
in other networks—are most likely to benefit in terms of
information and entrepre-
neurial opportunities (Burt, 1992). Managers embedded in a
limited network with
many redundant ties will not experience these same benefits. Of
course, a manager
needs the appropriate self-awareness, motivation, and self-
regulation skills (i.e.,
intrapersonal competence), in addition to a well-defined set of
developmental and
strategic objectives, to benefit maximally from networking

329. opportunities. For this
reason, feedback, coaching, mentoring, and networking
processes should be linked
in a way that produces an integrated leadership development
system that covers
all aspects of assessment, challenge, and support. By including
these linked processes
within the context of a developmental job assignment or an
action learning project,
598 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
the link between leader development and leadership
development can be enhanced.
Proposition 4b: When used in conjunction with other
developmental prac-
tices, networking links individual leader development with
collective
leadership development.
Job Assignments
Overview
It has long been recognized that experience is among the most
important teachers,
including the development of leadership. Development through
job experiences
pertains to how managers learn, undergo personal change, and
acquire leadership
capacity as a result of the roles, responsibilities, and tasks
encountered in their jobs
(McCauley & Brutus, 1998). Prior to its popularity in the

330. United States, a number
of practitioners and researchers in the United Kingdom were
engaged in using and
understanding how job experiences enhance development (e.g.,
Davies & Easterby-
Smith, 1984; Mumford, 1980; Stewart, 1984). Job assignments
have been identified
as particularly helpful to managers in learning about building
teams, how to be
better strategic thinkers, and how to gain valuable persuasion
and influence skills
(McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988). The primary
developmental experience,
however, is that of providing challenge and, occasionally,
support. More attention
should be paid to assessment, especially in terms of matching
individuals with the
appropriate developmental assignment.
Proposition 5a: Leadership development is enhanced when
assignments are
matched with individuals’ developmental needs.
Practice
An example of where job assignments play a prominent role in a
leadership
development initiative is the Coca-Cola Company, which
transferred more than 300
professional and managerial staff to new countries in one year
under its leadership
development program. Gillette International makes 12- to 36-
month assignments
to take U.S. managers overseas to get broader experience and
exposure to other
countries and operational areas before returning to a U.S.

331. assignment, usually of
greater authority (Laabs, 1991). Regardless of how potent job
assignments can be
for development, the most challenging or fascinating assignment
in the world may
not teach much unless a person has the latitude to try out
different leadership
approaches as part of the developmental role. Intentionality
must surround leader-
ship development, otherwise the focus of a challenging new
assignment will likely
be on performance with little regard for development.
Organizations can take specific action to promote learning from
experience, and
specific things can impede it. Some types of jobs are more
developmental than
others, and different kinds of developmental assignments are
associated with differ-
ent kinds of learning (McCauley & Brutus, 1998). Jobs that are
more developmental
include “stretch” assignments that put a manager in a new
situation with unfamiliar
responsibilities, especially high-responsibility and high-latitude
jobs. Those projects
Leadership Development 599
requiring a manager to bring about change or build relationships
(and commitments)
also tend to be associated with the most meaningful learning.
Negative experiences or hardships tend to promote learning and
trigger self-

332. reflection (Moxley, 1998). The way in which influential
members of an organization
respond to failure can be instrumental in fostering a learning
climate. Unfortunately,
too few senior executives take a developmental view of failure.
It is far more
common to find top organizational levels populated with those
who push maximum
performance over a concern for development (Hollenbeck &
McCall, 1999), despite
that learning from hardships can help performance in the long
run by enhancing
individuals’ resiliency in the face of challenge and change.
Jack Welch, Chairman and CEO of General Electric (GE), might
be expected
to frame failure in a developmental light. Welch is legendary
for his commitment
to leadership development. It has been reported that Welch
“knows intimately”
the career paths of more than a thousand GE employees (Frost,
1997, p. 335).
During an employee review session, it is common for Welch to
display a willingness
to put a manager in a certain position because it is the right
professional growth
experience for that person, regardless of immediate business
needs. Choosing the
right “stretch” job assignments for people is about using
succession planning for
intentional leadership development by linking individual
learning with organizational
strategy (Hall & Seibert, 1992). Despite the pro-development
approach of someone
like Welch, some jobs may be too important for developmental
assignments (Ohlott,

333. 1998). The difficult task is deciding what are those all-
important jobs.
Research
One study on the role of succession planning for leadership
development reported
that 31% of promotions were considered developmental in
nature (Ruderman &
Ohlott, 1994). Some organizations are more intentional than
others about using
promotions as developmental tools. Citibank makes it a practice
to place high-
potential managers in job assignments for which they are no
more than 60–70%
prepared, thus making it likely that the kinds of challenges that
contribute to
ongoing development will be encountered (Clark & Lyness,
1991). Although a key
element in using job assignments for development is challenge,
the importance of
assessment and support should not be overlooked (Ohlott,
1998). Attending to all
three important aspects of assessment, challenge, and support
(Van Velsor et al.,
1998) in job assignments may help foster a learning goal
climate. Taken as an
extension of work on individual motivational patterns (Dweck,
1986), a learning
goal climate is one in which the organization especially values
understanding or
mastering something new. It can be differentiated from a
performance goal climate
in which the emphasis is on gaining favorable (or avoiding
negative) judgments of
competence.

334. Proposition 5b: Emphasizing the assessment, challenge, and
support aspects
of developmental job assignments fosters a learning goal
environment.
Despite the noted advantages of using job assignments for
development, there has
been relatively little theoretical guidance on how to
conceptualize work experience
within the context of leadership development. Fortunately, work
has recently been
600 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
done in this area. A taxonomy of work experience based on the
dimensions of
measurement mode (amount, time, and type) and level of
specificity (task, job,
organizational) was proposed, forming nine categories of work
experience (Qui-
ñones, Ford, & Teachout, 1995). This taxonomy was shown to
be helpful in organiz-
ing the empirical research on the relationships between work
experience and job
performance; the issue of development, however, was not
addressed. Subsequent
conceptual work refined the experience concept further to
differentiate between
the qualitative and quantitative components that operate at
different levels of
specificity (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). These components are
thought to interact and
build over time. Again, they were conceptualized as having

335. primary implications
for work performance rather than development.
At least one empirical study tried to ascertain the developmental
components
of jobs, and to develop and test a measure for assessing the
developmental potential
of different jobs (McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott, & Morrow,
1994). The Develop-
mental Challenge Profile (DCP) assesses job characteristics
organized into three
general categories: job transitions (e.g., unfamiliar
responsibilities, proving yourself),
task-related characteristics (e.g., creating change, non-authority
relationships), and
obstacles (e.g., adverse business conditions, lack of top
management support). Data
collected from approximately 700 managers across various
organizations and levels
supported the basic premise that challenging jobs are associated
with greater on-
the-job learning. Subsequent research using the DCP suggested
that men report
greater task-related developmental challenges than women, and
women report
experiencing more developmental challenges stemming from
obstacles faced on the
job than men (Ohlott, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1994). These
findings highlight the
importance of knowing the developmental components of
various jobs and carefully
matching individuals with jobs that will best develop them (see
Proposition 5a).
Otherwise, subtle patterns of unintentional discrimination in job
assignments could
impede the development of women managers for top-level

336. positions and contribute
to the broader phenomenon of a glass ceiling (Martell, Lane, &
Emrich, 1996).
Research on the topic of job rotations (i.e., lateral transfers of
employees within
an organization) has revealed that the most common answers to
the question of
what skills are gained through rotation are: broader perspective
on the business
(46% of executive respondents), adaptability and flexibility
(31%), and leadership
skills (19%) (Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994). The first
and second categories
could be construed as cognitive and intrapersonal competence
(e.g., self-regulation);
the third category of leadership probably means very different
things to respondents.
There was no elaboration on the specific kinds of leadership
skills that are suppos-
edly gained.
Although job assignments might be considered the epitome of
development in
context, they often lack the kind of intentionality in terms of
implementation and
follow-up to be confident in understanding the amount and type
of development
that has occurred. There is agreement that some types of jobs
are more develop-
mental than others, and different kinds of developmental
assignments are associated
with different kinds of learning (McCauley & Brutus, 1998).
More developmental
types of job assignments put a manager in a new situation with
unfamiliar responsi-

337. bilities, especially those that go along with high-responsibility
and high-latitude
Leadership Development 601
jobs. Those assignments requiring a manager to bring about
change or build relation-
ships and commitments tend to be associated with significant
learning and develop-
ment, as do negative experiences or hardships. Nonetheless,
additional theoretical
and empirical work is needed to better map the various
dimensions and types of
experience onto individual and organizational development. In
doing so, research
can help inform practitioners on how to match assignments and
developmental
needs on a more scientific basis.
Proposition 5c: Linking specific job experiences with desired
developmental
goals enhances the intentionality and effectiveness of leadership
develop-
ment.
Action Learning
Overview
Many organizations realize that the type of traditional, lecture-
based, classroom
training found in most formal leadership development programs
is at best only
partially effective at preparing leaders for 21st-century

338. problems (Dotlich & Noel,
1998). In particular, the lessons learned from traditional
classroom development
programs do not last much beyond the end of the program. Soon
after the course
ends, people slip back into their previous behavioral patterns,
and little lasting
change or developmental progress is achieved. As a result, the
sponsors of traditional
programs became justifiably frustrated. For these reasons, a
number of organizations
have embraced the action learning process, which can be
described as a continuous
process of learning and reflection, supported by colleagues,
with a corresponding
emphasis on getting things done.
Action learning is based on the assumption that people learn
most effectively
when working on real-time organizational problems (Revans,
1980). This sounds
relatively straightforward, but someone who has worked in the
area for almost 20
years put it this way: “Action learning may be a simple idea, but
only at the
philosophical level” (Pedler, 1997, p. 248). Because action
learning is primarily a
generative practice, each application is a unique performance of
sorts in which
participants collectively construct social meanings and shared
realities in a commu-
nity of practice (Drath, 1998; Drath & Palus, 1994). As
typically implemented,
action learning tends to provide a good deal of challenge and
support; more emphasis
is needed on formal assessment, especially in terms of choosing

339. suitable individuals
for a given project.
Proposition 6a: Using formal assessments to select action
learning project
members will enhance the quality of the developmental
experience and
result in greater leadership development.
Practice
Perhaps the best-known action learning initiative is GE’s
“Work-Out” program.
The origin of the name is allegedly based on a comment made to
Jack Welch to
the effect that: “Now that you have rid yourself of so many
people (more than
602 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
100,000 employees had been let go at that time) when are you
going to get some
of the work out?” Welch picked up on the multiple meanings of
work-out in terms
of working out problems as well as a fitness metaphor, and
chose it as a prominent
initiative in his culture transformation effort at GE (Vicere &
Fulmer, 1998, p. 289).
An important cultural aspect of Work-Out is its link to a core
management value
at GE: empowered or boundaryless behavior. GE leaders must
have the trust,
respect, and self-confidence to involve others and to be open to

340. ideas from anywhere.
This effort personifies an attempt to make everyone responsible
for leadership.
Although Work-Out contains a number of critical roles, a key to
implementation
success is the champion. Somebody has to own the idea and
help make it happen.
There is nothing new about having groups of people come up
with ideas and propose
them to management (e.g., quality circles). The only innovative
feature in GE’s
program was the idea of a champion, or somebody in the group
who owns the idea
and is accountable for implementation success. The champion is
the person who
frames the central issue of the Work-Out session, clarifies the
specific topics to
address, and selects the participants for the Work-Out team.
Selection of participants is particularly important. Because
action learning proj-
ects are tied to a business imperative, individuals should
carefully be matched to
the core problem at hand. Not every developmental need can be
addressed in every
problem context. Many of the GE action learning projects
focused on sending
managers to foreign countries as a way of accomplishing two
goals: figuring out
how to expand globally and open new markets for GE products,
and developing
a manager’s capability to lead in different cultures. In this
manner the content
of the leadership development effort was linked to important
strategic business
imperatives.

341. Citibank is another example of an organization that has
successfully used action
learning. In particular, the Citibank case provides a good
overview of how action
learning typically unfolds in an organization (Dotlich & Noel,
1998). The business
imperative at Citibank dealt with the general inability of top
managers to think
with a broad, systems perspective. The issues and participants
were selected using
explicit criteria. Issues were recommended by business heads or
the CEO and had
to be seen as affecting total Citibank performance across the
various businesses.
Participants were chosen globally and had passed an internal
talent inventory review
process. Next there was a three-day, off-site team building and
issue-orientation
session. Data collection followed over the next two or three
weeks, involving travel
both inside and outside Citibank. A week was then spent on data
analysis and
developing recommendations. Presentations were made to the
CEO and to business
heads. Each team was given 90 minutes to present its case,
consisting of a 30-minute
formal presentation followed by a 60-minute focused
discussion. Following the
presentation was a one-day debriefing and reflection with a
coach that was structured
around the recommendations, team process, and individual
development opportuni-
ties. Finally, a senior management follow-up was given within
one or two weeks of
the presentation whereby decisions were made regarding

342. implementation.
The basic action learning process is similar across different
organizations; the
business imperatives that drive the process are different. For
instance, at ARA-
MARK the imperative was one of promoting cross-
organizational awareness of
capabilities and opportunities, whereas Shell Oil’s imperative
stemmed from a
Leadership Development 603
pervasive misperception regarding the company’s financial
strength (Vicere &
Fulmer, 1998). Ameritech was faced with an impending
deregulation and the inabil-
ity of managers to compete in a more challenging environment,
whereas Johnson &
Johnson needed to upgrade human resources globally and
develop executive talent
in its leadership pipeline, given its expectations of explosive
growth (Dotlich &
Noel, 1998). Even the U.S. Army uses its own version of action
learning called the
After Action Review as a means of quickly surfacing and
sharing the lessons learned
from battlefield simulations (Baird, Holland, & Deacon, 1999).
Although the business imperatives behind action learning
programs may vary
widely, common catalysts underlie the successes. Perhaps the
most important com-
monality is creating a microworld (Senge, 1990), which enables

343. learning through
doing. This type of parallel, temporary system is designed to be
realistic yet safe.
People are encouraged to try new things and to trust themselves
and others to stretch
their thinking and behavior. For maximal effect, action should
be accompanied by
reflection about the action; otherwise, there is little structured
guidance for learning
from experience (Froiland, 1994).
Proposition 6b: Leadership development is enhanced to the
extent that struc-
tured opportunities for individual and group reflection are
included as
part of action learning.
Research
Little research has been published on action learning, especially
anything other
than qualitative program descriptions. As mentioned, this may
be a function of the
generative nature of the concept. It has been described as an
“idea rather than a
method, capable of taking many forms” (Pedler, 1997, p. 262).
Several research
streams have the potential to advance our practice and
understanding of action
learning. In particular, research in the areas of trust and
empowerment are especially
relevant to action learning.
A recent study of psychological safety in work teams
(Edmondson, 1999) has
important implications for action learning projects. Team

344. psychological safety is
defined by Edmondson (1999) as “a shared belief that the team
is safe for interper-
sonal risk taking” (p. 354). There is a direct link between
psychological safety and
leadership development stemming from the assumption that
organizations need to
create a climate of psychological safety for individuals to feel
secure and supported
to change (Schein & Bennis, 1965). The concept is similar to
that of respectful
interaction, which has been proposed as a vital component of
resilient organizations
(Weick, 1993). When team psychological safety is high, team
members are more
likely to overcome threats of embarrassment and admit errors,
ask for help, and
discuss problems. This type of climate enhances both the
challenge and support
elements of experience (Van Velsor et al., 1998), and
encourages the type of
flexibility that is hypothesized to be an antecedent of team
learning. It also facilitates
a learning goal orientation among team members (Dweck,
1986). Results of qualita-
tive and quantitative analyses based on 51 work teams in a
manufacturing company
indicated that team psychological safety enhanced learning
behavior, which in turn
predicted team performance. In a related study, higher levels of
trust and empow-
erment among members of 43 process improvement work teams
in a Big Three

345. 604 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
automotive firm was shown to be related to team involvement,
which in turn was
related to higher levels of team performance (Spreitzer, Noble,
Mishra, & Coole,
1999). Given that action learning projects typically focus on the
developmental
target of improved teamwork (Day, 1999), and that group
dynamics often are a
key variable in helping executives learn from their project
experiences (Marsick,
1990), much could be gained by facilitating a climate of trust
and psychological
safety (i.e., encouraging interpersonal risk taking) in action
learning project teams.
It has recently been proposed that unconditional trust represents
the most highly
evolved trust state and is based on mutual respect and shared
values (Jones &
George, 1998). Unconditional trust is thought to be directly and
indirectly related
(through such interpersonal processes as communal
relationships and free exchange
of information) to interpersonal cooperation and teamwork.
Trust is conceptualized
as an important relational asset of social capital (Tsai &
Ghoshal, 1998); further-
more, the notion of mutual respect based on shared values is the
foundation of the
cognitive dimension of social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998). Thus, designing
action learning projects with the intention of developing trust
among participants
would likely enhance the relational and cognitive dimensions of

346. social capital.
Depending on the composition of the groups, there is also the
likelihood of action
learning projects enhancing the structural dimension of social
capital. Based on this
hypothesized relationship between action learning and social
capital, and between
social capital and leadership development, how action learning
projects can be used
for effective leadership development in organizations can be
appreciated.
Proposition 6c: High trust and psychological safety among
action learning
project team members is positively related to the social capital
of the
team.
Another recent study with implications for leadership
development adopted a
Personal Projects Analysis methodology to examine the
relationship between self-
appraised goal characteristics and the project factors of
happiness and meaning
(McGregor & Little, 1998). It was proposed that goal efficacy
(“doing well”) would
be associated with happiness, whereas goal integrity (“being
yourself”) would be
associated with meaning, defined as a special type of well-
being. Results generally
supported these propositions, and the notion that happiness and
meaning were
found to be independent factors in personal projects. Most
fascinating of all were
the results from archival data in a sample of 110 senior
managers suggesting an

347. “integrity shift” whereby success either became habituated to or
a source of disen-
chantment. Simply put, doing well was no longer enough. That
left integrity as the
main source of well-being and meaning. From the results of
McGregor and Little’s
study, an optimistic conclusion can be drawn that the
developmental impact of
action learning projects can be improved by emphasizing not
only doing well, but
also being oneself within the project context. In this manner,
action learning can
be use as a process of creating personal meaning in
organizations.
Proposition 6d: Action learning goals that are aligned with
individual goals
result in meaningful developmental experiences.
Leadership Development 605
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The proposed distinction between leader development and
leadership development
is more than mere semantics. At the core of the difference is an
orientation toward
developing human capital (leader development) as compared
with social capital
(leadership development). Orientation toward human capital
emphasizes the devel-
opment of individual capabilities such as those related to self-
awareness, self-regula-
tion, and self-motivation that serve as the foundation of

348. intrapersonal competence
(McCauley, 2000). Orientation toward social capital emphasizes
the development
of reciprocal obligations and commitments built on a foundation
of mutual trust
and respect (Drath, 1998; Whitener, 2000); it rests on a
foundation of interpersonal
competence, but ultimately, it requires enactment. Leadership is
developed through
the enactment of leadership.
The proposed distinction is an essential because the respective
development
approaches are grounded in very different leadership models.
Leader development
is based on a traditional, individualistic conceptualization of
leadership. The under-
lying assumption is that more effective leadership occurs
through the development
of individual leaders. It also assumes that leadership is
something that can be added
to organizations to improve social and operational
effectiveness. On the other hand,
leadership development has its origins in a more contemporary,
relational model
of leadership. This model assumes that leadership is a function
of the social resources
that are embedded in relationships. In this manner, leadership is
considered an
emergent property of social systems (Salancik et al., 1975),
rather than something
that is added to existing systems. Leadership emerges with the
process of creating
shared meaning, both in terms of sensemaking and in terms of
value-added. From
this approach everyone is considered to be a leader. Rather than

349. asking the question
“How can I be an effective leader” the more pertinent question
from the relational
approach is “How can I participate productively in the
leadership process” (Drath &
Palus, 1994). The latter is a more complex way of thinking
about leadership. Because
thinking is for doing (Fiske, 1992), greater complexity in terms
of thinking about
leadership may be a prerequisite for greater behavioral
complexity that is needed
for enhanced adaptability (Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge, 1997;
Jacobs & Jaques, 1987).
The distinction between leader development and leadership
development should
not be taken as edict for organizations to choose one approach
over the other.
Either approach is incomplete by itself. Developing individual
leaders without
concern for reciprocal relations among people or their
interactions within a broader
social context ignores the research demonstrating that
leadership is a complex
interaction between individuals and their social and
organizational environments.
Attempting to build shared meaning systems and mutual
commitments among
communities of practice without a proper investment in
individual preparation runs
the risk of placing people in challenging developmental
situations that are too far
over their heads.
The preferred approach is to link leader development with
leadership develop-

350. ment such that the development of leadership transcends but
does not replace the
development of individual leaders. It has been said that a bridge
must be well
anchored on either side for effective development to occur
(Kegan, 1994). In moving
606 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
toward a vision of the organization that is based on the social
capital imperatives
of mutual understanding and responsibility (Drucker, 1995)
there must also be an
appropriate investment in developing human capital across all
organizational levels.
As with any change effort, success depends on the extent that
people who are
responsible for the success of the effort share the same
assumptions about it and
have been prepared appropriately (Schein, 1997).
The practices of 360-degree feedback and executive coaching,
mentoring and
networking, and job assignment and action learning have all
been lauded as benefi-
cial for leadership development in one application or another.
Unfortunately, little
hard evaluation evidence supports those claims. It is probably
safe to conclude that
any of these practices could be effective for leadership
development, and that any
could be ineffective. Effective leadership development is less
about which specific
practices are endorsed than about consistent and intentional

351. implementation. A
key to effective implementation is having the organizational
discipline to introduce
leadership development throughout the organization, rather than
bounded by spe-
cific (usually top) levels. Another key to effectiveness is
linking initiatives across
organizational levels and in terms of an overall developmental
purpose within the
context of a strategic business challenge.
As proposed earlier, one conceptualization of leadership is that
it emerges as
people rely on their mutual commitments, trust, and respect to
create new meaning
that replaces what has been traditionally provided by formal
structure, planning,
and control. It is this kind of leadership and not simply a
collection of individual
leaders that many contemporary organizations are striving to
develop. Leadership
development needs to evolve to a level of contribution whereby
it is considered an
investment in the social capital of the organization, to
complement its human and
intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
Where are the leadership researchers in the midst of these
exciting advances in
the practice of leadership development? It has been noted that
over the past 15
years there has been a “remarkable flowering” in research and
theory on charismatic
and transformational leadership (Conger & Hunt, 1999, p. 121).
It might also be
noted that too many flowers of the same type makes for a

352. relatively dull garden.
The charismatic and transformational leadership approaches
have merit and should
not be ignored; these approaches, however, do not come close to
representing the
entire depth or complexity of thinking on leadership needed to
design, evaluate,
and improve leadership development efforts for the present and
the future. A
potential lens that is offered in the present review connects the
interrelated concerns
of developing human and social capital in organizations. The
differences between
approaches is proposed as an overarching framework for
conceptualizing leadership
development practice, research, and theory in hopes of
encouraging future research-
ers to contribute, in particular, to a better understanding of this
important topic.
Acknowledgments: Work on this article was supported by the
Center for Creative
Leadership and the Army Research Institute. Thanks to Patricia
O’Connor, Kevin
Liu, Cindy McCauley, Alicia Grandey, and participants in the
“Frontiers in Leader-
ship” symposium at the University of Mississippi for their
helpful comments.
Leadership Development 607
REFERENCES
Allen, T. D., & Poteet, M. L. (1999). Developing effective

353. mentoring relationships: Strategies
from the mentor’s viewpoint. Career Development Quarterly,
48(1), 59–73.
American Society for Training and Development. (1995).
National HRD executive survey.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
Atwater, L., & Waldman, D. (1998a). 360 degree feedback and
leadership development.
Leadership Quarterly, 9, 423–426.
Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. J. (1997). Self-other rating
agreement: A review and model.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15,
121–174.
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J., & Fleenor, J. W.
(1998). Self-other agreement:
Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51, 577–598.
Baird, L., Holland, P., & Deacon, S. (1999). Learning from
action: Imbedding more learning
into the performance fast enough to make a difference.
Organizational Dynamics,
27(4), 19–32.
Baker, W. E. (1992). The network organization in theory and
practice. In N. Nohria & R.
Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and
action (pp. 397–429).
Boston: Harvard Business School.
Baldwin, T. T., & Padgett, M. Y. (1994). Management
development: A review and commen-
tary. In C. L. Cooper, I. T. Robertson, & Associates (Eds.), Key

354. reviews in managerial
psychology: Concepts and research for practice (pp. 270–320).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation.
Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Barker, R. A. (1997). How can we train leaders if we do not
know what leadership is?
Human Relations, 50, 343–362.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of
transformational leadership
training on attitudinal and financial outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81,
827–832.
Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a
source of competitive advantage.
Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175–190.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson
(Ed.), Handbook of theory
and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New
York: Greenwood.
Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on
informal resource exchanges
between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries.
Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 50–65.

355. Brass, D. J., & Krackhardt, D. (1999). The social capital of
twenty-first century leaders. In
J. G. Hunt, G. E. Dodge, & L. Wong (Eds.), Out-of-the-box
leadership: Transforming
the twenty-first-century army and other top-performing
organizations (pp. 179–194).
Stamford, CT: JAI.
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model
of relational leadership: The
integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership
Quarterly, 11, 227–250.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of
competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Campbell, J. P. (1989). The agenda for theory and research. In
I. L. Goldstein, & Associates
(Ed.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 469–
486). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Campion, M. A., Cheraskin, L., & Stevens, M. J. (1994).
Career-related antecedents and
outcomes of job rotation. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
1518–1542.
Carless, S. A., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. J. (1998). Leadership,
managerial performance and
360-degree feedback. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 47, 481–496.
608 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000

356. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-
regulation: A control theory approach
to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and
informal mentorships:
A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with
nonmentored counterparts.
Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–636.
Chappelow, C. T. (1998). 360-degree feedback. In C. D.
McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van
Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of
leadership development
(pp. 29–65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, L. A., & Lyness, K. S. (1991). Succession planning as
strategic activity at Citicorp. In
L. W. Foster (Ed.), Advances in applied business strategy (vol.
2; pp. 25–57). Greenwich,
CT: JAI.
Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor’s
dilemma: Providing critical
feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1302–
1318.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human
capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Conger, J. A. (1993). The brave new world of leadership
training. Organizational Dynamics,
21(3), 46–58.

357. Conger, J. A., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders: How
successful companies develop
the next generation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Hunt, J. G. (1999). Charismatic and
transformational leadership: Taking
stock of the present and future (Part I). Leadership Quarterly,
10, 121–127.
Dansky, K. H. (1996). The effect of group mentoring on career
outcomes. Group & Organiza-
tion Management, 21, 5–21.
Davies, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and
developing from managerial work
experiences. Journal of Management Studies, 21, 169–183.
Day, D. V. (1999). Leadership development: A review of
industry best practices (Tech. Rep.
No. 1141). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Army Research Institute.
Dixon, N. M. (1993). Developing managers for the learning
organization. Human Resource
Management Review, 3, 243–254.
Dotlich, D. L., & Noel, J. L. (1998). Action learning: How the
world’s top companies are re-
creating their leaders and themselves (1st ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Douglas, C. A. (1997). Formal mentoring programs in
organizations: An annotated bibliogra-
phy. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Drath, W. H. (1998). Approaching the future of leadership

358. development. In C. D. McCauley,
R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook
of leadership development (pp. 403–432). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Drath, W. H., & Palus, C. J. (1994). Making common sense:
Leadership as meaning-making
in a community of practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
Dreher, G., & Cox, T. H., Jr. (1996). Race, gender, and
opportunity: A study of compensation
attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships.
Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 81, 297–308.
Drucker, P. F. (1995). Managing in a time of great change. New
York: Truman Talley Books/
Dutton.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.
American Psychologist, 41,
1040–1048.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning
behavior in work teams. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
Eller, D. (1995). Motorola trains VPs to become growth leaders.
HRMagazine,(June), 82–87.
Facteau, C. L., Facteau, J. D., Schoel, L. C., Russell, J. E., &
Poteet, M. L. (1998). Reactions

359. Leadership Development 609
of leaders to 360-degree feedback from subordinates and peers.
Leadership Quarterly,
9, 427–448.
Fiedler, F. E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and
training: One view of the future.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 241–250.
Fiske, S. T. (1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social
cognition from daguerreotype
to laserphoto. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,
877–889.
Froiland, P. (1994). Action learning: Taming real problems in
real time. Training, 31(1),
27–34.
Frost, P. J. (1997). Bridging academia and business: A
conversation with Steve Kerr. Organi-
zation Science, 8(3), 332–347.
Fulmer, R. M. (1997). The evolving paradigm of leadership
development. Organizational
Dynamics, 25(4), 59–72.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in
practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gharajedaghi, J. (1999). Systems thinking: Managing chaos and
complexity. Boston: Butter-
worth Heinemann.
Giber, D., Carter, L., & Goldsmith, M. (Eds.). (1999). Linkage,
Inc.’s best practices in

360. leadership development handbook. Lexington, MA: Linkage
Press.
Global reach . . . virtual leadership. (1999). Fast Company, 80.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of
intentions. In W. Stroebe & M.
Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (vol. 4;
pp. 141–185). Chiches-
ter, UK: Wiley.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong
effects of simple plans. American
Psychologist, 54, 493–503.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstatter, V. (1997). Implementation
intentions and effective goal
pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186–
199.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American
Journal of Sociology, 78,
1360–1380.
Greguras, G. J., & Robie, C. (1998). A new look at within-
source interrater reliability of
360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83, 960–968.
Hall, D. T., Otazo, K. L., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (1999). Behind
closed doors: What really
happens in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics,
29(Winter), 39–53.
Hall, D. T., & Seibert, K. W. (1992). Strategic management

361. development: Linking organiza-
tional strategy, succession planning, and managerial learning. In
D. H. Montross & C.
J. Shinkman (Eds.), Career development: Theory and practice
(pp. 255–275). Springfield,
IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Hellervik, L. W., Hazucha, J. F., & Schneider, R. L. (1992).
Behavior change: Models,
methods, and a review of evidence. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.
Hough (Eds.), Hand-
book of industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 3; 2nd
ed.; pp. 823–896). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Hollenbeck, G. P., & McCall, M. W., Jr. (1999). Leadership
development: Contemporary
practices. In A. I. Kraut & A. K. Korman (Eds.), Evolving
practices in human resource
management (pp. 172–200). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hooijberg, R., Bullis, R. C., & Hunt, J. G. (1999). Behavioral
complexity and the development
of military leadership for the twenty-first century. In J. G. Hunt,
G. E. Dodge, & L.
Wong (Eds.), Out-of-the-box leadership: Transforming the
twenty-first army and other
top-performing organizations (pp. 111–130). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership
complexity and development
of the Leaderplex model. Journal of Management, 23, 375–408.
610 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000

362. Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex
systems. In J. Zeidner (Ed.),
Human productivity enhancment (vol. 2; pp. 7–65). New York:
Praeger.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and
evolution of trust: Implications
for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 531–546.
Katz, J. H., & Miller, F., A. (1996). Coaching leaders through
culture change. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 104–114.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of
modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Keys, J. B., & Wolfe, J. (1988). Management education and
development: Current issues
and emerging trends. Journal of Management, 16, 307–336.
Kilburg, R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and
definition of executive coach-
ing. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48,
134–144.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback on
performance: A historical
review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 119, 254–284.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental
relationships in organizational life.

363. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Kram, K. E., & Bragar, M. C. (1992). Development through
mentoring: A strategic approach.
In D. H. Montross & C. J. Shinkman (Eds.), Career
development: Theory and practice
(pp. 221–254). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives:
The role of peer relationships
in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28,
110–132.
Laabs, J. J. (1991). The global talent search. Personnel Journal,
(August), 38–44.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through
goal setting. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212–247.
Latham, G. P., & Seijts, G. H. (1998). Management
development. In P. J. D. Drenth, H.
Thierry, & Associates (Eds.), Handbook of work and
organizational psychology (vol.
3; 2nd ed.; pp. 257–272). Hove, UK: Psychology Press/Erlbaum.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource
architecture: Toward a theory of
human capital allocation and development. Academy of
Management Review, 24, 31–48.
Levinson, H. (1996). Executive coaching. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Re-
search, 48, 115–123.
London, M., & Beatty, R. W. (1993). 360-degree feedback as a

364. competitive advantage.
Human Resource Management, 32, 353–372.
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multi-source
feedback change perceptions of goal
accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related
outcomes? Theory-based
applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology,
48, 803–839.
Mailick, S., Stumpf, S. A., Grant, S., Kfir, A., & Watson, M. A.
(1998). Learning theory in
the practice of management development: Evolution and
applications. Westport, CT:
Quorum.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1989). SuperLeadership: Leading
others to lead themselves. New
York: Prentice-Hall.
Marsick, V. (1990). Experience-based learning: Executive
learning outside the classroom.
Journal of Management Development, 9(4), 50–60.
Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. E. (1996). Male-
female differences: A computer
simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158.
Martineau, J. W. (1998). Using 360-degree surveys to assess
change. In W. W. Tornow, M.
London, & Associates (Eds.), Maximizing the value of 360-
degree feedback (pp. 217–
248). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

365. Leadership Development 611
McCall, M. W. (1998). High flyers: Developing the next
generation of leaders. Boston: Harvard
Business School.
McCall, M. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off the track: Why
and how successful executives
get derailed (Tech. Rep. No. 21). Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988).
The lessons of experience:
How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
McCauley, C. D. (2000). A systemic approach to leadership
development. Paper presented
at the 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychol-
ogy, New Orleans, LA, April.
McCauley, C. D., & Brutus, S. (1998). Management
development through job experiences:
An annotated bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
McCauley, C. D., & Douglas, C. A. (1998). Developmental
relationships. In C. D. McCauley,
R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook
of leadership development (pp. 160–193). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R. S., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.).
(1998). The Center for Creative

366. Leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J.
E. (1994). Assessing the
developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79,
544–560.
McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects,
happiness, and meaning: On doing
well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 494–512.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998).
Initial trust formation in new
organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review,
23, 473–490.
Moxley, R. S. (1998). Hardships. In C. D. McCauley, R. S.
Moxlet, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.),
The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership
development (pp. 194–213).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moxley, R. S., & O’Connor Wilson, P. (1998). A systems
approach to leadership development.
In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The
Center for Creative
Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 217–241).
San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Mumford, A. (1980). Making experience pay. Berkshire, UK:
McGraw-Hill.
Murrell, A. J., Crosby, F. J., & Ely, R. J. (Eds.). (1999).

367. Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental
relationships within multicultural organizations. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual
capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.
Neck, C., & Manz, C. C. (1996). Thought self-leadership: The
impact of mental strategies
training on employee cognition, behavior, and affect. Journal of
Organizational Behav-
ior, 17, 445–467.
Ohlott, P. J. (1998). Job assignments. In C. D. McCauley, R. S.
Moxley, & E. Van Velsor
(Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of
leadership development (pp.
127–159). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ohlott, P. J., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1994).
Gender differences in managers’
developmental job experiences. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 46–67.
Olivero, G., Bane, D. K., & Kopelman, R. E. (1997). Executive
coaching as a transfer of
training tool: Effects on productivity in a public agency. Public
Personnel Management,
26, 461–469.
Pedler, M. (1997). Interpreting action learning. In J. Burgoyne
& M. Reynolds (Eds.),
Management learning: Integrating perspective in theory and
practice (pp. 248–264).

368. London: Sage.
Peterson, D. B. (1993). Measuring change: A psychometric
approach to evaluating individual
612 LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 11 No. 4 2000
training outcomes. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual
Conference of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco,
CA, May.
Peterson, D. B. (1996). Executive coaching at work: The art of
one-on-one change. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 78–86.
Quiñones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The
relationship between work
experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-
analytic review. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 887–910.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and
outcomes: A comparison of
men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships.
Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 529–550.
Revans, R. W. (1980). Action learning. London: Blond &
Briggs.
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1999). What’s a good
reason to change? Motivated
reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational

369. change. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 514–528.
Ruderman, M. N., & Hughes-James, M. W. (1998). Leadership
development across race and
gender. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor
(Eds.), The Center for
Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp.
291–335). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Ruderman, M. N., & Ohlott, P. J. (1994). The realities of
management promotion. Greensboro,
NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Salancik, G. R., Calder, B. J., Rowland, K. M., Leblebici, H., &
Conway, M. (1975). Leadership
as an outcome of social structure and process: A
multidimensional analysis. In J. G.
Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 81–101).
Kent, OH: Kent State
University.
Saporito, T. J. (1996). Business-linked executive development:
Coaching senior executives.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 96–
103.
Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member
exchange and supervisor
career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership
research. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 1588–1602.
Schein, E. H. (1997). Organizational culture and leadership
(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-

370. Bass.
Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. (1965). Personal and organizational
change via group methods.
New York: Wiley.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice
of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Sherman, S. (1995). How tomorrow’s leaders are learning their
stuff. Fortune, 132,(November
27), 90–102.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training in
organizational justice to
increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A
replication. Personnel Psychology,
50, 617–633.
Spreitzer, G. M., Noble, D. S., Mishra, A. K., & Coole, W. N.
(1999). Predicting process
improvement team performance in an automotive firm:
Explicating the roles of trust
and empowerment. In R. Wageman (Ed.), Research on managing
groups and teams:
Groups in context (vol. 2; pp. 71–92). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Stewart, G. L., Carson, K. P., & Cardy, R. L. (1996). The joint
effects of conscientiousness
and self-leadership training on employee self-directed behavior
in a service setting.
Personnel Psychology, 49, 143–164.
Stewart, R. (1984). Developing managers by radical job moves.
Journal of Management

371. Development, 3(2), 48–85.
Leadership Development 613
Tesluk, P. E., & Jacobs, R. R. (1998). Toward an integrated
model of work experience.
Personnel Psychology, 51, 321–355.
The Conference Board. (1999). Developing leaders. HR
Executive Review, 7(1), 1–19.
Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race
developmental relationships. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 38, 169–194.
Thompson, D. A. (1987). A formative evaluation of an
individualized coaching program for
business managers and professionals (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Minnesota,
1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(12-A, Pt. 1),
4339.
Tobias, L. L. (1996). Coaching executives. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 48, 87–95.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value
creation: The role of intrafirm
networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464–476.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Steel, R. P. (2000). Is a rater’s opportunity
to observe over-rated? A
test of the effects of observational opportunity on rater
agreement. Paper presented at

372. the 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychol-
ogy, New Orleanns, LA, April.
Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J. B. (1995). Why executives derail:
Perspectives across time and
cultures. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 62–72.
Van Velsor, E., McCauley, C. D., & Moxley, R. S. (1998). Our
view of leadership develop-
ment. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor
(Eds.), The Center for
Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp.
1–25). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Vicere, A. A., & Fulmer, R. M. (1998). Leadership by design.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School.
Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Antonioni, D. (1998). Has
360 degree feedback gone
amok? Academy of Management Executive, 12(2), 86–94.
Walker, A. G., & Smither, J. W. (1999). A five-year study of
upward feedback: What managers
do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52, 393–
423.
Warech, M. A., Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., &
Reilly, S. P. (1998). Self-
monitoring and 360-degree ratings. Leadership Quarterly, 9,
449–473.
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in
organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster.

373. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,
meaning, and identity. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University.
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of
practice: The organizational frontier.
Harvard Business Review, (January-February), 139–145.
Wexley, K. N., & Baldwin, T. T. (1986). Management
development. Journal of Management,
12, 277–294.
Whitener, E. M. (2000). The processes of building social capital
in organizations: The integrat-
ing role of trust. Paper presented at the Academy of
Management Annual Meeting,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August.
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Zand, D. E. (1997). The leadership triad: Knowledge, trust, and
power. New York: Oxford
University.
117
Journal of Business Studies Quarterly

374. 2014, Volume 5, Number 4
ISSN 2152-1034
Situational, Transformational, and Transactional Leadership and
Leadership Development
Jim Allen McCleskey
Abstract
In order to advance our knowledge of leadership, it is necessary
to understand where the study
of leadership has been. McCleskey (2014) argued that the study
of leadership spans more than
100 years. This manuscript describes three seminal leadership
theories and their development.
Analysis of a sampling of recent articles in each theory is
included. The manuscript also
discusses the concept of leadership development in light of
those three seminal theories and
offers suggestions for moving forward both the academic study
of leadership and the practical
application of research findings on the field.

375. Keywords: Leadership, Situational Leadership, Transactional
Leadership, Transformational
Leadership, Development, Review
Introduction
This manuscript analyzes three seminal leadership theories:
situational leadership,
transformational leadership (TL), and transactional leadership.
It begins with introductory
comments about the academic field of leadership, continues
with a look at the three theories
including their history and development, and proceeds to a
micro-level, examining several recent
published studies in each area. It presents a comparison and
contrast of the key principles of
each. The manuscript also discusses modern leadership
challenges and leadership development
in the context of all three theories. First, a brief history of
leadership follows.
Leadership Theory
One of the earliest studies of leadership, Galton’s (1869)

376. Hereditary Genius emphasized
a basic concept that informed popular ideas about leadership
(Zaccaro, 2007). The idea is that
leadership is a characteristic ability of extraordinary
individuals. This conception of leadership,
known as the great man theory, evolved into the study of
leadership traits, only to be supplanted
later the theories under discussion here (Glynn & DeJordy,
2010). Before discussing leadership,
it is useful to define the term. The question of the correct
definition of leadership is a nontrivial
matter. Rost (1993) discovered 221 different definitions and
conceptions of leadership. Some of
those definitions were narrow while others offered broader
conceptions. Bass (2000; 2008)
argued that the search for a single definition of leadership was
pointless. Among multiple
118
definitions and conceptions, the correct definition of leadership

377. depends on the specific aspect of
leadership of interest to the individual (Bass, 2008). This
manuscript focuses on three specific
conceptions of leadership: situational, transformational, and TL.
The next section begins with
situational leadership.
Situational leadership
Situational leadership theory proposes that effective leadership
requires a rational
understanding of the situation and an appropriate response,
rather than a charismatic leader with
a large group of dedicated followers (Graeff, 1997; Grint,
2011). Situational leadership in
general and Situational Leadership Theory (SLT) in particular
evolved from a task-oriented
versus people-oriented leadership continuum (Bass, 2008;
Conger, 2010; Graeff, 1997; Lorsch,
2010). The continuum represented the extent that the leader
focuses on the required tasks or
focuses on their relations with their followers. Originally
developed by Hershey and Blanchard
(1969; 1979; 1996), SLT described leadership style, and
stressed the need to relate the leader’s

378. style to the maturity level of the followers. Task-oriented
leaders define the roles for followers,
give definite instructions, create organizational patterns, and
establish formal communication
channels (Bass, 2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969; 1979; 1996;
1980; 1981). In contrast,
relation-oriented leaders practice concern for others, attempt to
reduce emotional conflicts, seek
harmonious relations, and regulate equal participation (Bass,
2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969;
1979; 1996; 1980; 1981; Shin, Heath, & Lee, 2011). Various
authors have classified SLT as a
behavioral theory (Bass, 2008) or a contingency theory (Yukl,
2011). Both conceptions contain
some validity. SLT focuses on leaders’ behaviors as either task
or people focused. This supports
its inclusion as a behavioral approach to leadership, similar to
the leadership styles approach
(autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire), the Michigan
production-oriented versus employee-
oriented approach, the Ohio State initiation versus consideration
dichotomy, and the directive
versus participative approach (Bass, 2008; Glynn & DeJordy,
2010). It also portrays effective

379. leadership as contingent on follower maturity. This fits with
other contingency-based leadership
theories including Fiedler’s contingency theory, path-goal
theory, leadership substitutes theory,
and Vroom’s normative contingency model (Glynn & DeJordy,
2010; Bass, 2008; Yukl, 2011).
Both conceptualizations of SLT admit that task-oriented and
relation-oriented behaviors are
dependent, rather than mutually exclusive approaches. The
effective leader engages in a mix of
task and relation behaviors (Cubero, 2007; Graeff, 1997; Shin et
al., 2011; Yukl, 2008; 2011;
Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). The level of maturity (both job and
psychological maturity) of
followers determines the correct leadership style and relates to
previous education and training
interventions (Bass, 2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). Some
scholars criticize SLT specifically
and situational leadership in general.
Criticisms of situational leadership
SLT was a popular conception of leadership; however, as
experience with the original

380. Hersey & Blanchard model accrued, problems with the construct
appeared. Nicholls (1985)
described three flaws with SLT dealing with its consistency,
continuity, and conformity. Bass
(2008) agreed, noting lack of internal consistency, conceptual
contradictions, and ambiguities.
Other scholars suggested additional weaknesses of SLT (Bass,
2008; Glynn & DeJordy, 2010).
Research revealed that no particular leadership style was
universally effective and behavioral
theories relied on abstract leadership types that were difficult to
identify (Glynn & DeJordy,
2010). A number of recent studies utilized the situational
leadership approach. Next, this
manuscript describes two of them.
119
Research articles on situational leadership
Paul and Elder (2008) presented a guide for the analysis of
research articles. Paul and

381. Elder (2008) suggested that the examination of an article
explicitly consider the purpose,
question, information, concepts, assumptions, inferences, point
of view, and implications in the
study. Arvidsson, Johansson, Ek, and Akselsson (2007), used a
situational leadership framework
in the study of air traffic control employees. Arvidsson et al.
(2007) set out to investigate how
leadership styles and adaptability differ across various
situations, conditions, structures, and
tasks in the air traffic control arena. The authors asked a
variety of research questions about the
relationship between leadership adaptability, task-orientation of
the leader, leadership style,
working situation, operational conditions, organizational
structure, and level of leadership
experience (Arvidsson et al., 2007). The information contained
in the article included a
discussion of the literature linking leadership and safety and a
relationship between leadership
and reduced stress levels. The article described the SLT model,
the study, methods, results, and
discussion. The specific concepts presented included leadership
and SLT. The authors’ implicit

382. assumptions included a relationship between effective
leadership and workplace safety as well as
a relationship between leadership effectiveness and stress and
between stress and poor workplace
performance. The authors also assumed that differences among
coworkers require leaders to
exhibit sensitivity to and the ability to diagnose varying levels
of maturity or readiness among
employees (Arvidsson et al, 2007). The point of view of the
article is quantitative, positivist, and
objectivist. The authors hypothesize a correlation between
independent and dependent variables
and then set out to investigate and confirm that relationship
(Creswell, 2009). Arvidsson et al.
(2007) discussed implications of their work. In particular,
despite the fact that previous research
indicated that relation-oriented leadership is preferred over
task-oriented leadership, task-
orientation is suitable in some situations. Assigning tasks and
job roles, specifying procedures,
and clarifying follower expectations result in increased job
satisfaction (Arvidsson et al., 2007).
The next section examines another recent study.
Larsson and Vinberg (2010) conducted a study to identify

383. common leadership behaviors
at a small group of successful companies and to organize those
behaviors into suitable categories
to discuss theoretical implications of situational aspects of
effective leadership. The study
attempted to uncover common leadership behaviors as they
related to quality, effectiveness,
environment, and health perceptions. The implicit questions
included which leadership
behaviors relate to outcomes, situational aspects, effectiveness,
productivity, quality, and job
satisfaction (Larsson & Vinberg, 2010). The information in the
article covered situational
leadership theories, theoretical constructs of effectiveness, and
a description of four case studies
of effective organizations. The study addressed the concepts of
leadership effectiveness, task
orientation, relation orientation, change leadership, and case
study methodology. Larsson and
Vinberg (2010) started from the position of endorsing the
relationship between leadership and
organizational success. Then they sought to identify the
behaviors common to successful
leadership across four subject organizations. Larsson and

384. Vinberg conducted the study from a
qualitative, comparative, positivist point of view (2010). The
authors discuss the implications as
well as the need for additional research. Larsson and Vinberg
(2010) conclude that successful
leadership includes both universally applicable elements (task-
oriented) and contingency
elements (relation and change-oriented). The authors suggest
additional research in leadership
and quality, and in leadership and follower health outcomes
(Larsson & Vinberg, 2010). The
next section presents the transformational leadership theory.
120
Transformational leadership (TL)
Over the past 30 years, TL has been “the single most studied
and debated idea with the
field of leadership” (Diaz-Saenz, 2011, p. 299). Published
studies link TL to CEO success (Jung,

385. Wu, & Chow, 2008), middle manager effectiveness (Singh &
Krishnan, 2008), military
leadership (Eid, Johnsen, Bartone, & Nissestad, 2008), cross-
cultural leadership (Kirkman, Chen,
Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009), virtual teams (Hambley, O’Neill, &
Kline, 2007), personality
(Hautala, 2006), emotional intelligence (Barbuto & Burbach,
2006), and a variety of other topics
(Diaz-Saenz, 2011). Burns (1978) operationalized the theory of
TL as one of two leadership
styles represented as a dichotomy: transformational and
transactional leadership. While distinct
from the concept of charismatic leadership (see Weber,
1924/1947), charisma is an element of
TL (Bass, 1985; 1990; 2000; 2008; Bass & Riggio, 2006;
Conger, 1999; 2011; Conger & Hunt,
1999; Diaz-Saenz, 2011). Burns (1978) defined a
transformational leader as “one who raises the
followers’ level of consciousness about the importance and
value of desired outcomes and the
methods of reaching those outcomes” (p. 141). The
transformational leader convinced his
followers to transcend their self-interest for the sake of the
organization, while elevating “the

386. followers’ level of need on Maslow's (1954) hierarchy from
lower-level concerns for safety and
security to higher-level needs for achievement and self-
actualization” (Bass, 2008, p. 619).
Based on empirical evidence, Bass (1985) modified the original
TL construct. Over time, four
factors or components of TL emerged. These components
include idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration. Researchers
frequently group the first two components together as charisma
(Bass & Riggio, 2006). The
transformational leader exhibits each of these four components
to varying degrees in order to
bring about desired organizational outcomes through their
followers (Bass 1985; 1990; 2000;
Bass & Riggio, 2006). Idealized influence incorporates two
separate aspects of the follower
relationship. First, followers attribute the leader with certain
qualities that followers wish to
emulate. Second, leaders impress followers through their
behaviors. Inspirational motivation
involves behavior to motivate and inspire followers by
providing a shared meaning and a

387. challenge to those followers. Enthusiasm and optimism are key
characteristics of inspirational
motivation (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Intellectual stimulation
allows leaders to increase their
followers’ efforts at innovation by questioning assumptions,
reframing known problems, and
applying new frameworks and perspectives to old and
established situations and challenges (Bass
& Riggio, 2006). Intellectual stimulation requires openness on
the part of the leader. Openness
without fear of criticism and increased levels of confidence in
problem solving situation combine
to increase the self-efficacy of followers. Increased self-
efficacy leads to increased effectiveness
(Bandura, 1977). Individualized consideration involves acting
as a coach or mentor in order to
assist followers with reaching their full potential. Leaders
provide learning opportunities and a
supportive climate (Bass & Riggio, 2006). These four
components combine to make leaders
transformational figures. In spite of significant empirical
support, a number of criticisms of TL
theory exist.

388. Criticisms of transformational leadership
Empirical research supports the idea that TL positively
influences follower and
organizational performance (Diaz-Saenz, 2011). However, a
number of scholars criticize TL
(Beyer, 1999; Hunt, 1999; Yukl, 1999; 2011). Yukl (1999) took
TL to task and many of his
criticisms retain their relevance today. He noted that the
underlying mechanism of leader
influence at work in TL was unclear and that little empirical
work existed examining the effect of
TL on work groups, teams, or organizations. He joined other
authors and noted an overlap
121
between the constructs of idealized influence and inspirational
motivation (Hunt, 1999; Yukl,
1999). Yukl suggested that the theory lacked sufficient
identification of the impact of situational
and context variables on leadership effectiveness (1999; 2011).
Despite its critics, an ongoing

389. and vibrant body of research exists on TL and an analysis of
two recent articles follows below.
Recent articles on transformational leadership
Gundersen, Hellesoy, and Raeder (2012) studied TL and
leadership effectiveness in
international project teams facing dynamic work environments.
As noted previously, Paul and
Elder (2008) presented guidelines for the analysis of research
articles. The article presented an
examination of the relationship between TL and work
adjustment including the mediating role of
trust. The research questions created included the relationship
between TL and team
performance, the mediating role of trust, the moderating role of
a dynamic work environment,
the relationship between TL and work adjustment, and the
relationship between TL and job
satisfaction. Information contained in the article included brief
reviews of TL, team
performance, dynamic work environment, trust, work
adjustment, and job satisfaction. The
article also discussed the study sample, measures, statistical
procedures, limitations, future

390. research suggestions, implications, and overall conclusion. The
specific concepts presented
included TL, trust, dynamic work environment, team
performance, work adjustment, and job
satisfaction. The assumptions of the authors included three
explicit premises. The suitability of
TL varies according to context, the need for additional
empirical work on the relationship
between TL and team outcomes exists, and no previous
empirical studies on work adjustment in
international settings as an outcome of leader behaviors exists
(Gundersen et al., 2012). The
authors write from a quantitative, positivist, objectivist
viewpoint with a confirmatory purpose.
The authors hypothesized a correlation between independent
and dependent variables and then
set out to investigate and confirm that relationship (Creswell,
2009). Gundersen et al. (2012)
argue that their study increases knowledge of the drivers of
organizational effectiveness.
Specifically, TL behaviors affect performance on international
assignments in a variety of
complex projects by contributing to work adjustment and
positive outcomes. These implications

391. apply to high-stakes organizational outcomes including
selection of organizational leaders.
Another TL study follows below.
Hamstra, Yperen, Wisse, and Sassenberg (2011) studied
transformational (and
transactional) leadership style in relation to followers’ preferred
regulatory style, workforce
stability, and organizational effectiveness. The authors
intended to address a gap in the
leadership literature by addressing regulatory fit in the context
of turnover intentions, while
integrating both transformational and transactional leadership
and examining both promotion and
prevention focused regulatory strategies (Hamstra et al., 2011).
The research addressed the
relationship between TL and turnover intentions, given a
promotion-focused regulatory strategy,
given a prevention-focused regulatory strategy; and the
relationship between transactional
leadership and turnover intentions given a promotion-focused
regulatory strategy, and given a
prevention-focused regulatory strategy. Information contained
in the article included a brief
discussion of TL, transactional leadership, workforce turnover

392. intentions, regulatory strategy,
participants and procedures, measures used, results, and a
general discussion of the research
findings. The specific concepts enumerated above include
transactional and TL style, and
followers’ regulatory focus. The authors assumed that
leadership influences followers turnover
intentions, that a match between followers self-regulatory
strategy influences organizational
outcomes, and that leadership style preferences may fit with
regulatory style preferences. The
authors worked from a positivist, objectivist, and confirmatory
point of view. The authors
122
hypothesized a correlation between independent and dependent
variables and then set out to
investigate and confirm that relationship (Creswell, 2009).
Hamstra et al. (2011) discussed
several implications of the study including the idea that
tailoring specific leadership behaviors or

393. styles to followers prefer self-regulatory orientation may
improve employee retention,
organizational stability, and the engagement of followers. The
authors recommended further
research on the relationship between leadership style, turnover
intention, and follower
commitment. The authors also suggested additional research on
preferred self-regulatory
orientation and other organizational outcomes variables. The
next section of the manuscript
explores transactional leadership theory.
Transactional leadership
Transactional leadership focuses on the exchanges that occur
between leaders and
followers (Bass 1985; 1990; 2000; 2008; Burns, 1978). These
exchanges allow leaders to
accomplish their performance objectives, complete required
tasks, maintain the current
organizational situation, motivate followers through contractual
agreement, direct behavior of
followers toward achievement of established goals, emphasize
extrinsic rewards, avoid
unnecessary risks, and focus on improve organizational

394. efficiency. In turn, transactional
leadership allows followers to fulfill their own self-interest,
minimize workplace anxiety, and
concentrate on clear organizational objectives such as increased
quality, customer service,
reduced costs, and increased production (Sadeghi & Pihie,
2012). Burns (1978) operationalized
the concepts of both transformational and transactional
leadership as distinct leadership styles.
Transactional leadership theory described by Burns (1978)
posited the relationship between
leaders and followers as a series of exchanges of gratification
designed to maximize
organizational and individual gains. Transactional leadership
evolved for the marketplace of
fast, simple transactions among multiple leaders and followers,
each moving from transaction to
transaction in search of gratification. The marketplace demands
reciprocity, flexibility,
adaptability, and real-time cost-benefit analysis (Burns, 1978).
Empirical evidence supports the
relationship between transactional leadership and effectiveness
in some settings (Bass, 1985;
1999; 2000; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Bass &

395. Riggio, 2006; Hater & Bass, 1988;
Zhu, Sosik, Riggio, & Yang, 2012). Today, researchers study
transactional leadership within the
continuum of the full range of leadership model (Bass & Riggio,
2006). Some researchers
criticize transactional leadership.
Criticisms of transactional leadership
Burns (1978) argued that transactional leadership practices lead
followers to short-term
relationships of exchange with the leader. These relationships
tend toward shallow, temporary
exchanges of gratification and often create resentments between
the participants. Additionally, a
number of scholars criticize transactional leadership theory
because it utilizes a one-size-fits-all
universal approach to leadership theory construction that
disregards situational and contextual
factors related organizational challenges (Beyer, 1999; Yukl,
1999; 2011; Yukl & Mahsud,
2010). Empirical support for transactional leadership typically
includes both transactional and
transformational behaviors (Gundersen et al., 2012; Liu, Liu, &
Zeng, 2011). Next, this

396. manuscript reviews two recent articles featuring transactional
leadership theory.
123
Recent articles on transactional leadership
Liu et al. (2011) looked at the relationship between
transactional leadership and team
innovativeness. The authors focused on the potential
moderating role of emotional labor and
examined a mediating role for team efficacy. The authors
intended to contribute to the
leadership field by closing an identified gap in the literature
with the introduction of emotional
labor and team efficacy as important factors in the existing
relationship between transactional
leadership and team innovativeness. The authors predicted a
significant negative relationship

397. between transactional leadership and team innovativeness. The
article included an overview
discussion of teams, innovativeness, transactional leadership,
emotional labor, and team efficacy.
The authors assumed that transactional leadership could foster
team innovativeness in some
settings. The authors also assumed that emotional labor was a
moderating factor in that
relationship. Liu et al. (2011) conducted the study from the
quantitative, positivist, objectivist,
and confirmatory point of view. The authors hypothesized a
correlation between independent
and dependent variables and then set out to investigate and
confirm that relationship (Creswell,
2009). Liu et al. (2011) discussed several implications of their
findings. Emotional labor acts as
a boundary condition on the relationship between transactional
leadership and team
innovativeness. This knowledge helps deepen the understanding
of the context in which
transactional leadership leads to organizational effectiveness.
Liu et al. (2011) recommended
additional research on transactional leadership and other
positive organizational outcomes, and

398. additional research on other possible boundary conditions. The
next section addresses another
study on transactional leadership.
Groves and LaRocca (2011) studied both transactional and TL
in the context of ethical
behavior. In contrast to the full range of leadership model view
of transactional leadership as
part of a continuum of behaviors, Groves and LaRocca see
transactional leadership and TL as
distinct constructs underpinned by separate ethical foundations.
Specifically, transactional
leadership flows from “teleological ethical values
(utilitarianism)” and TL flows from
“deontological ethical values (altruism, universal rights,
Kantian principle, etc.)” (Groves &
LaRocca, 2011, p. 511). While an in-depth discussion of ethics
is outside the scope of this
manuscript, it is noteworthy that other authors (Bass &
Steidlmeier, 1999; Singh & Krishnan,
2008) also discussed the relationship between ethics and
transactional leadership. The concepts
presented by Groves and LaRocca (2011) include corporate
social responsibility, ethics, TL,
transactional leadership, and managerial decision-making. The

399. authors examined ethics in
relation to leadership style and its impact on follower values
and corporate social responsibility.
The point of view presented by the authors is quantitative,
positivist, objective, and confirmatory
as evidenced by a research design that hypothesizes a
correlation between independent and
dependent variables and then set out to investigate and confirm
that relationship (Creswell,
2009). Liu et al. (2011) confirmed empirical support for their
view. Author identified
limitations included: results oriented toward leaders description
of what they would do rather
than actual behavior, omission of measures designed to identify
social desirability, and inability
to generalize findings to the larger population. Additional
limitations mentioned included
potential common source and common method bias, lack of
longitudinal data, follower response
bias, and an inability to separate personal ethics from preferred
leadership style (Liu et al., 2011).
The authors suggested additional research to address these
limitations. Next, this manuscript
summarizes the key concepts in situational, transformational,

400. and transactional leadership.
124
Situational, Transformational, and Transactional Leadership
This manuscript analyzes three seminal leadership theories:
situational leadership, TL,
and transactional leadership. Situational leadership emphasized
leadership behaviors along a
continuum between task-orientation in relation-orientation.
Situational leadership also
emphasized the level of maturity, or readiness of the followers
as a contingency or context that
leaders need to account for in order to establish the correct fit
between the leader and follower
(Bass, 2008). In TL, leaders achieve results by employing
idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration (Bass, 2000; 2008; Bass &

401. Riggio, 2006). The transformational leader exhibits each of
these four components to varying
degrees in order to bring about desired organizational outcomes
through their followers (Bass &
Riggio, 2006). Transformational leaders share a vision, inspire
followers, mentor, coach, respect
individuals, foster creativity, and act with integrity (Bass, 1990;
1999; 2008; Bass & Riggio,
2006).
Transactional leadership involves exchanges between leaders
and followers designed to
provide benefits to both. Leaders influence followers through
contingent rewards and negative
feedback or corrective coaching. Despite originating as distinct
constructs, transactional and TL
exist as parts of another leadership model, the full range of
leadership model (Bass & Riggio,
2006). One notable difference between these three leadership
theories involves the subject of
charisma (Conger, 1999; 2011; Conger & Hunt, 1999; Hunt,
1999; Shamir & Howell, 1999).
Many scholars combine idealized influence and inspirational
motivation under the
heading charismatic-inspirational leadership or simply

402. charismatic leadership (Bass, 2008; Bass
& Riggio, 2006; Hunt, 1999; Shamir & Howell, 1999). The
concept of charisma in entered the
social sciences from religion through the work of Max Weber
(1924/1947). In contrast to TL,
both situational and transactional leadership theories ignore the
role of individual differences
between leaders (Bass, 2008). Charisma is a key example of
one such individual difference.
Summary of key differences and similarities
As described above, similarities exist between task-oriented
leadership and transactional
leadership (Bass, 1985; 1990; 1999; Bass & Riggio, 2006;
Burns, 1978). Both focus on the
exchange between leaders and followers and both emphasize
work products or outcomes.
Relation-oriented leadership compares to TL (Bass 1985; 1990;
1999; Burns 1978; Conger,
2011), authentic leadership (Avolio, 2010; Bass, 2008; Caza &
Jackson, 2011), and servant
leadership (Bass, 2008). Relation-oriented leadership is people
focused, inspirational,
persuasive, and intellectually stimulating (Bass, 2008). Both

403. situational leadership theory and
transactional leadership focus on leadership behaviors to the
exclusion of leadership traits or
individual differences, while TL looks at leadership behaviors
and individual differences.
Transactional and TL theories involve universal approaches to
leadership. TL applies to a wide
range of situations and contexts and evidence suggests TL fits a
variety of diverse cultural
contexts (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, &
Dorfman, 1999; Leong, 2011;
Rowold & Rohmann, 2009; Tsai, Chen, & Cheng, 2009; Zhu et
al., 2012). In contrast,
situational leadership theories and contingent leadership
approaches advocate for the right
leadership style and behaviors for the context and situation
faced by the organization (Bass,
2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969; 1979; 1996; Yukl, 1999,
2008; 2011). Transformational and
transactional leadership theories, and the corresponding full
range of leadership theory, continue
to add to an impressive 30-year history of empirical support
(Diaz-Saenz, 2011; Gundersen et al.,
2012; Hamstra et al., 2011; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Leong,

404. 2011; Reichard, Riggio, Guerin,
Oliver, Gottfried, & Gottfried, 2009; Yukl; 2011). However, 30
years of history does not
125
guarantee that transformational and transactional leadership
adequately address the challenges
facing the modern field of leadership.
Contemporary Leadership Challenges and the Future of
Leadership Development
A vital challenge to the academic leadership field involves the
need to develop leaders
and leadership. Day (2011) argued that over time, some leaders
developed “the erroneous belief
that leadership develops mainly in leadership development
programs” (p. 37). Historically,
leadership development targeted specific skills and
competencies, while focusing on diffusion of
best practices. For example, leadership development programs
target self-management

405. strategies, social competencies, and work facilitation (Day,
2009). Day (2011) suggested a
transition in leadership development beyond the best practices
orientation. Day argued for a
more scientific approach to developing leaders and leadership.
Modern leadership requires a
new focus on developing leadership expertise (Day, 2009), new
perspectives on the role of leader
identity (Day & Harrison, 2007), and the development of
adaptive leadership capacity (DeRue &
Wellman, 2009). Each of the three leadership theories
discussed in this manuscript approaches
the subject of leadership development differently.
Situational leadership theory advocates matching the leader to
the situation if possible or
matching the leadership orientation (task versus relation) to the
follower maturity (Hersey &
Blanchard, 1969; 1979; 1996). Leadership development efforts
aimed at improving
organizational effectiveness should use instruments designed to
gauge the level of task-
orientation and relation-orientation of the leader in order to
establish a fit with the current level
of follower maturity. Existing leaders should receive skills and

406. competency training aimed at
developing their task-oriented or relational-oriented skill
deficits. Previous empirical research
indicated that level of follower maturity related to previous
education and training interventions
(Bass, 2008; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969; 1979; 1996).
Bass & Riggio (2006) suggested that TL development could not
focus on specific, narrow
skills. Bass (2008) argued for TL as a reflection of the “whole
integrated person and their deeply
held values and self-concepts” (p. 1106). Development in TL
requires a broadly established
educational process. Burns (1978) agreed, advocating for the
joint involvement of facilitators
and students in an effort to reach "higher stages of moral
reasoning" and higher levels of
individual judgment (Burns, 1978, p. 449). Based on these
recommendations for a broad
educational process, targeting the leader’s values and self-
concepts, aimed at higher stages of
moral reasoning, it is reasonable to doubt whether TL
development is possible. This represents
another key difference between TL and situational leadership.

407. The extant leadership literature provides little guidance on
transactional leadership
development. This may stem from the fact that most leaders do
not need development to behave
transactionally with their followers. Transactional leadership is
traditional leadership (Burns,
1978). As Weber (1924/1947) indicated, a system of operation
and coordination is called
“traditional” if it is part of an existing system of control, and if
the leader enjoys authority based
on status and on the existence of personal loyalty created
through a process of education (p. 341).
This process of education is transactional leadership
development. Real-world examples,
available practice, and on-the-job training opportunities abound
for the leader attempting to
develop their transactional leadership behaviors. This
manuscript closes with a brief description
of the future of leadership.
Bass (2008) predicted the continued importance of both
personal traits and situations to
leadership. Bass argued that large, purely transactional
organizations would give way to
transformational ones as modern leaders become more

408. innovative, responsive, flexible, and
126
adaptive (Bass, 2008). The study of leadership marches on
toward follower-centered approaches
(Bligh, 2011), hybrid configurations (Gronn, 2011), complexity
theory (Uhl-Bien & Marion,
2011), and a variety of other arenas. The increase in theoretical
pluralism, evident since the 90s,
continues as the academic field of leadership continues its
search for the truth (Bryman,
Collinson, Grint, Jackson, & Uhl-Bien, 2011). Leadership
scholars must continue to engage in
thorough and thoughtful research into the connections between
development and efficacy,
organizations and outcomes, and between leaders and followers.
That is both the future
challenge and the historical past of leadership.
References

409. Arvidsson, M., Johansson, C. R., Ek, Å., & Akselsson, R.
(2007). Situational leadership in air
traffic control. Journal of Air Transportation, 12(1), 67-86.
Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscoh
ost.com.library.capella.ed
u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=25644644&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Avolio, B. J. (2010). Pursuing authentic leadership
development. In N. Nohria, & R. Khurana
(Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp. 739-
765). Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best.
Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40.
doi:10.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational
leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscoh
ost.com.library.capella.ed

410. u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9607211357&site=ehost
-live&scope=site
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development
in transformational leadership.
European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(1),
9-32.
doi:10.1080/135943299398410
Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning
organizations. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 7(3), 18-40.
doi:10.1177/107179190000700302
Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory,
research, & managerial
applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003).
Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal
of Applied Psychology,
88(2), 207-218. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational
leadership (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and

411. authentic transformational
leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.
doi:10.1016/S1048-
9843(99)00016-8
Beyer, J. M. (1999). Taming and promoting charisma to change
organizations. The Leadership
Quarterly, 10(2), 307-330. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00019-3
Bligh, M. C. (2011). Followership and follower-centered
approaches. In A. Bryman, D.
Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of leadership
(pp. 425-436). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Grint, K., Jackson, B., & Uhl-Bien,
M. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE
handbook of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
127
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Caza, A., & Jackson, B. (2011). Authentic leadership. In A.
Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B.

412. Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
leadership (pp. 352-364).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational
leadership in organizations: An insider's
perspective on these developing streams of research. The
Leadership Quarterly, 10(2),
145-179. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00012-0
Conger, J. A. (2011). Charismatic leadership. In A. Bryman, D.
Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson
& M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp.
86-102). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Conger, J. A., & Hunt, J. G. (1999). Charismatic and
transformational leadership: Taking stock
of the present and future (part i). The Leadership Quarterly,
10(2), 121-127. doi:
10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00017-X
Creswell, J. H. (2009). Research design: Qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cubero, C. G. (2007). Situational leadership and persons with

413. disabilities. Work, 29(4), 351-356.
Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscoh
ost.com.library.capella.ed
u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=27621294&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Day, D. V. (2009). Executive selection is a process not a
decision. Industrial & Organizational
Psychology, 2(2), 159-162. doi:10.1111/j.1754-
9434.2009.01126.x
Day, D. V. (2011). Leadership development. In A. Bryman, D.
Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson &
M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 37-
50). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-
based approach to leadership
development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4),
360-373.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.007
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-
Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W.
(1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable

414. implicit leadership theories:
Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership
universally endorsed? The
Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219-256. doi:10.1016/S1048-
9843(99)00018-1
DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via
experience: The role of
developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback
availability. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(4), 859-875. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscoh
ost.com.library.capella.ed
u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=42838422&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Diaz-Saenz, H. R. (2011). Transformational leadership. In A.
Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B.
Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
leadership (pp. 299-310).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Bartone, P. T., & Nissestad, O. A.
(2008). Growing transformational
leaders: Exploring the role of personality hardiness. Leadership
& Organization

415. Development Journal, 29(1), 4-23. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1108/014377308108452
70
Glynn, M. A., & DeJordy, R. (2010). Leadership through an
organizational behavior lens: A look
at the last half-century of research. In N. Nohria, & R. Khurana
(Eds.), Handbook of
leadership and practice (pp. 119-158). Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Press.
128
Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory:
A critical review. The
Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153-170. doi:10.1016/S1048-
9843(97)90014-X
Grint, K. (2011). A history of leadership. In A. Bryman, D.
Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson & M.
Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 3-14).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Gronn, P. (2011). Hybrid configurations of leadership. In A.

416. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B.
Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
leadership (pp. 437-454).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Groves, K. S., & LaRocca, M. A. (2011). An empirical study of
leader ethical values,
transformational and transactional leadership, and follower
attitudes toward corporate
social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(4), 511-
528. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1007/s10551-011-0877-y
Gundersen, G., Hellesoy, B. T., & Raeder, S. (2012). Leading
international project teams: The
effectiveness of transformational leadership in dynamic work
environments. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 46-57.
doi:10.1177/1548051811429573
Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. B. (2007).
Virtual team leadership: The effects of
leadership style and communication medium on team interaction
styles and outcomes.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
103(1), 1-20.

417. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.004
Hamstra, M. R. W., Van Yperen, N. W., Wisse, B., &
Sassenberg, K. (2011). Transformational-
transactional leadership styles and followers’ regulatory focus:
Fit reduces followers’
turnover intentions. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(4),
182-186. doi:10.1027/1866-
5888/a000043
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superior's evaluations and
subordinates' perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-
702. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscoh
ost.com.library.capella.ed
u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5111775&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Hautala, T.M. (2006). The relationship between personality and
transformational leadership.
Journal of Management Development, 25(8), 777-794.
doi:10.1108/02621710610684259
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of
leadership. Training & Development

418. Journal, 23(5), 26. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscoh
ost.com.library.capella.ed
u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7465530&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1979). Life cycle theory of
leadership. Training & Development
Journal, 33(6), 94. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscoh
ost.com.library.capella.ed
u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9067469&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1980). The management of
change. Training & Development
Journal, 34(6), 80. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscoh
ost.com.library.capella.ed
u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9072349&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1981). So you want to know
your leadership style? Training &
Development Journal, 35(6), 34. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscoh

419. ost.com.library.capella.ed
u/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7471134&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
129
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1996). Great ideas revisited:
Revisiting the life-cycle theory of
leadership. Training & Development Journal, 50(1), 42.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership's
transformation of the field: An
historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-144.
doi:10.1016/S1048-
9843(99)00015-6
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(5), 755-768.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Jung, D., Wu, A., & Chow, C. W. (2008). Towards
understanding the direct and indirect effects

420. of CEOs' transformational leadership on firm innovation. The
Leadership Quarterly,
19(5), 582-594. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.007
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Chen, Z., & Lowe, K. B.
(2009). Individual power
distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational
leaders: A cross-level,
cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal,
52(4), 744-764.
doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669971
Larsson, J., & Vinberg, S. (2010). Leadership behaviour in
successful organisations: Universal or
situation-dependent? Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 21(3), 317-334.
doi:10.1080/14783360903561779
Leong, L. Y. C. (2011). Is transformational leadership
universal? A meta-analytical investigation
of multifactor leadership questionnaire means across cultures.
Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 18(2), 164-174.
doi:10.1177/1548051810385003
Liu, J., Liu, X., & Zeng, X. (2011). Does transactional
leadership count for team innovativeness?

421. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 282-298.
doi:10.1108/09534811111132695
Lorsch, J. W. (2010). A contingency theory of leadership. In N.
Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.),
Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp. 411-432).
Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York,
NY: Harper.
Nicholls, J. R. (1985). A new approach to situational leadership.
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 6(4), 2.
Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2008). The miniature guide to critical
thinking. ( No. 520m).
www.criticalthinking.org: Foundation for Critical Thinking
Press. Retrieved from
http://courseroom2.capella.edu/webct/RelativeResourceManager
/Template/OM8004/Cour
se_Files/cf_Miniature_Guide_to_Critical_Thinking-
Concepts_and_Tools.pdf
Reichard, R. J., Riggio, R. E., Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H.,
Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E.
(2011). A longitudinal analysis of relationships between

422. adolescent personality and
intelligence with adult leader emergence and transformational
leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22(3), 471-481. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.005
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership development in the new
millennium. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 1(1), 91-110.
doi:10.1177/107179199300100109
Rowold, J., & Rohmann, A. (2009). Transformational and
transactional leadership styles,
followers' positive and negative emotions, and performance in
German nonprofit
orchestras. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20(1), 41-59.
doi:10.1002/nml.240
Sadeghi, A., & Pihie, Z. A. L. (2012). Transformational
leadership and its predictive effects on
leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Business and
Social Science, 3(7), 186-
197.
130

423. Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and
contextual influences on the emergence
and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 10(2), 257-283.
doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00014-4
Shin, J., Heath, R. L., & Lee, J. (2011). A contingency
explanation of public relations
practitioner leadership styles: Situation and culture. Journal of
Public Relations Research,
23(2), 167-190. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2010.505121
Singh, N., & Krishnan, V. R. (2008). Self-sacrifice and
transformational leadership: Mediating
role of altruism. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 29(3), 261-274.
Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1108/014377308108613
17
Tsai, W., Chen, H., & Cheng, J. (2009). Employee positive
moods as a mediator linking
transformational leadership and employee work outcomes.
International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 20(1), 206-219.
doi:10.1080/09585190802528714

424. Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2011). Complexity leadership
theory. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson,
K. Grint, B. Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of leadership (pp. 468-
482). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic
organization (T. Parsons Trans.). New
York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published in 1924)
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in
transformational and charismatic
leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
doi:10.1016/S1048-
9843(99)00013-2
Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational
effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly,
19(6), 708-722.
Yukl, G. (2011). Contingency theories of effective leadership.
In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K.
Grint, B. Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook
of leadership (pp. 286-
298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive
leadership is essential. Consulting

425. Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 81-93.
doi:10.1037/a0019835
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership.
American Psychologist, 62(1), 6-
16. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6
Zhu, W., Sosik, J.J., Riggio, R.E. & Yang, B. (2012).
Relationships between transformational
and active transactional leadership and followers' organizational
identification: The role of
psychological empowerment. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 13(3), 186.
The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
Milton Friedman
The New York Times Magazine
September 13, 1970
When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the "social
responsibilities of business in a
free-enterprise system," I am reminded of the wonderful line
about the Frenchman who
discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all

426. his life. The businessmen
believe that they are defending free enterprise when they
declaim that business is not
concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting
desirable "social" ends; that business
has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities
for providing employment,
eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever
else may be the catchwords of
the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are--or would
be if they or anyone else took
them seriously--preaching pure and unadulterated socialism.
Businessmen who talk this way
are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been
undermining the basis of a free
society these past decades.
The discussions of the "social responsibilities of business" are
notable for their analytical
looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that
"business" has responsibilities?
Only people have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial
person and in this sense may
have artificial responsibilities, but "business" as a whole cannot
be said to have
responsibilities, even in this vague sense. The first step toward
clarity in examining the
doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask
precisely what it implies for whom.
Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are
businessmen, which means
individual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the
discussion of social responsibility
is directed at corporations, so in what follows I shall mostly
neglect the individual proprietors

427. and speak of corporate executives.
In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate
executive is an employee of the
owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his
employers. That responsibility is to
conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which
generally will be to make as
much money as possible while conforming to their basic rules of
the society, both those
embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of
course, in some cases his
employers may have a different objective. A group of persons
might establish a corporation
for an eleemosynary purpose--for example, a hospital or a
school. The manager of such a
corporation will not have money profit as his objectives but the
rendering of certain services.
In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a
corporate executive, the manager is the
agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish
the eleemosynary institution,
and his primary responsibility is to them.
Needless to say, this does not mean that it is easy to judge how
well he is performing his task.
But at least the criterion of performance is straight-forward, and
the persons among whom a
voluntary contractual arrangement exists are clearly defined.
Of course, the corporate executive is also a person in his own
right. As a person, he may have
many other responsibilities that he recognizes or assumes

428. voluntarily--to his family, his
conscience, his feelings of charity, his church, his clubs, his
city, his country. He may feel
impelled by these responsibilities to devote part of his income
to causes he regards as worthy,
to refuse to work for particular corporations, even to leave his
job, for example, to join his
country's armed forces. If we wish, we may refer to some of
these responsibilities as "social
responsibilities." But in these respects he is acting as a
principal, not an agent; he is spending
his own money or time or energy, not the money of his
employers or the time or energy he
has contracted to devote to their purposes. If these are "social
responsibilities," they are the
social responsibilities of individuals, not business.
What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a
"social responsibility" in his
capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric,
it must mean that he is to act in
some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For
example, that he is to refrain from
increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the
social objective of preventing
inflation, even though a price increase would be in the best
interests of the corporation. Or
that he is to make expenditures on reducing pollution beyond
the amount that is in the best
interests of the corporation or that is required by law in order to
contribute to the social
objective of improving the environment. Or that, at the expense
of corporate profits, he is to
hire "hardcore" unemployed instead of better qualified available
workmen to contribute to the
social objective of reducing poverty.

429. In each of these cases, the corporate executive would be
spending someone else's money for a
general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his
"social responsibility" reduce
returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as
his actions raise the price to
customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his
actions lower the wages of
some employees, he is spending their money.
The stockholders or the customers or the employees could
separately spend their own money
on the particular action if they wished to do so. The executive is
exercising a distinct "social
responsibility," rather than serving as an agent of the
stockholders or the customers or the
employees, only if he spends the money in a different way than
they would have spent it.
But if he does this, he is in effect imposing taxes, on the one
hand, and deciding how the tax
proceeds shall be spent, on the other.
This process raises political questions on two levels: principle
and consequences. On the level
of political principle, the imposition of taxes and the
expenditure of tax proceeds are
governmental functions. We have established elaborate
constitutional, parliamentary and
judicial provisions to control these functions, to assure that
taxes are imposed so far as
possible in accordance with the preferences and desires of the
public--after all, "taxation
2

430. without representation" was one of the battle cries of the
American Revolution. We have a
system of checks and balances to separate the legislative
function of imposing taxes and
enacting expenditures from the executive function of collecting
taxes and administering
expenditure programs and from the judicial function of
mediating disputes and interpreting
the law.
Here the businessman--self-selected or appointed directly or
indirectly by stockholders--is to
be simultaneously legislator, executive and jurist. He is to
decide whom to tax by how much
and for what purpose, and he is to spend the proceeds--all this
guided only by general
exhortations from on high to restrain inflation, improve the
environment, fight poverty and so
on and on.
The whole justification for permitting the corporate executive to
be selected by the
stockholders is that the executive is an agent serving the
interests of his principal. This
justification disappears when the corporate executive imposes
taxes and spends the proceeds
for "social" purposes. He becomes in effect a public employee,
a civil servant, even though he
remains in name an employee of a private enterprise. On
grounds of political principle, it is
intolerable that such civil servants--insofar as their actions in
the name of social responsibility
are real and not just window-dressing--should be selected as

431. they are now. If they are to be
civil servants, then they must be elected through a political
process. If they are to impose
taxes and make expenditures to foster "social" objectives, then
political machinery must be set
up to make the assessment of taxes and to determine through a
political process the objectives
to be served.
This is the basic reason why the doctrine of "social
responsibility" involves the acceptance of
the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market
mechanisms, are the appropriate way
to determine the allocation of scarce resources to alternative
uses.
On the grounds of consequences, can the corporate executive in
fact discharge his alleged
"social responsibilities"? On the one hand, suppose he could get
away with spending the
stockholders' or customers' or employees' money. How is he to
know how to spend it? He is
told that he must contribute to fighting inflation. How is he to
know what action of his will
contribute to that end? He is presumably an expert in running
his company--in producing a
product or selling it or financing it. But nothing about his
selection makes him an expert on
inflation. Will his holding down the price of his product reduce
inflationary pressure? Or, by
leaving more spending power in the hands of his customers,
simply divert it elsewhere? Or,
by forcing him to produce less because of the lower price, will
it simply contribute to
shortages? Even if he could answer these questions, how much
cost is he justified in imposing

432. on his stockholders, customers and employees for this social
purpose? What is his appropriate
share and what is the appropriate share of others?
And, whether he wants to or not, can he get away with spending
his stockholders', customers'
or employees money? Will not the stockholders fire him?
(Either the present ones or those
who take over when his actions in the name of social
responsibility have reduced the
corporation's profits and the price of its stock.) His customers
and his employees can desert
3
him for other producers and employers less scrupulous in
exercising their social
responsibilities.
This facet of "social responsibility" doctrine is brought into
sharp relief when the doctrine is
used to justify wage restraint by trade unions. The conflict of
interest is naked and clear when
union officials are asked to subordinate the interest of their
members to some more general
purpose. If the union officials try to enforce wage restraint, the
consequence is likely to be
wildcat strikes, rank-and-file revolts and the emergence of
strong competitors for their jobs.
We thus have the ironic phenomenon that union leaders--at least
in the U.S.--have objected to
Government interference with the market far more consistently
and courageously than have
business leaders.

433. The difficulty of exercising "social responsibility" illustrates, of
course, the great virtue of
private competitive enterprise--it forces people to be
responsible for their own actions and
makes it difficult for them to "exploit" other people for either
selfish or unselfish purposes.
They can do good--but only at their own expense.
Many a reader who has followed the argument this far may be
tempted to remonstrate that it is
all well and good to speak of Government's having the
responsibility to impose taxes and
determine expenditures for such "social" purposes as controlling
pollution or training the
hard-core unemployed, but that the problems are too urgent to
wait on the slow course of
political processes, that the exercise of social responsibility by
businessmen is a quicker and
surer way to solve pressing current problems.
Aside from the question of fact--I share Adam Smith's
skepticism about the benefits that can
be expected from "those who affected to trade for the public
good"--this argument must be
rejected on the grounds of principle. What it amounts to is an
assertion that those who favor
the taxes and expenditures in question have failed to persuade a
majority of their fellow
citizens to be of like mind and that they are seeking to attain by
undemocratic procedures
what they cannot attain by democratic procedures. In a free
society, it is hard for "evil" people
to do "evil," especially since one man's good is another's evil.
I have, for simplicity, concentrated on the special case of the

434. corporate executive, except only
for the brief digression on trade unions. But precisely the same
argument applies to the newer
phenomenon of calling upon stockholders to require
corporations to exercise social
responsibility (the recent G.M. crusade, for example). In most
of these cases, what is in effect
involved is some stockholders trying to get other stockholders
(or customers or employees) to
contribute against their will to "social" causes favored by
activists. Insofar as they succeed,
they are again imposing taxes and spending the proceeds.
The situation of the individual proprietor is somewhat different.
If he acts to reduce the
returns of his enterprise in order to exercise his "social
responsibility," he is spending his own
money, not someone else's. If he wishes to spend his money on
such purposes, that is his right
and I cannot see that there is any objection to his doing so. In
the process, he, too, may impose
4
costs on employees and customers. However, because he is far
less likely than a large
corporation or union to have monopolistic power, any such side
effects will tend to be minor.
Of course, in practice the doctrine of social responsibility is
frequently a cloak for actions that
are justified on other grounds rather than a reason for those
actions.

435. To illustrate, it may well be in the long-run interest of a
corporation that is a major employer
in a small community to devote resources to providing
amenities to that community or to
improving its government. That may make it easier to attract
desirable employees, it may
reduce the wage bill or lessen losses from pilferage and
sabotage or have other worthwhile
effects. Or it may be that, given the laws about the deductibility
of corporate charitable
contributions, the stockholders can contribute more to charities
they favor by having the
corporation make the gift than by doing it themselves, since
they can in that way contribute an
amount that would otherwise have been paid as corporate taxes.
In each of these--and many similar--cases, there is a strong
temptation to rationalize these
actions as an exercise of "social responsibility." In the present
climate of opinion, with its
widespread aversion to "capitalism," "profits," the "soulless
corporation" and so on, this is one
way for a corporation to generate goodwill as a by-product of
expenditures that are entirely
justified on its own self-interest.
It would be inconsistent of me to call on corporate executives to
refrain from this hypocritical
window-dressing because it harms the foundation of a free
society. That would be to call on
them to exercise a "social responsibility"! If our institutions,
and the attitudes of the public
make it in their self-interest to cloak their actions in this way, I
cannot summon much
indignation to denounce them. At the same time, I can express
admiration for those individual

436. proprietors or owners of closely held corporations or
stockholders of more broadly held
corporations who disdain such tactics as approaching fraud.
Whether blameworthy or not, the use of the cloak of social
responsibility, and the nonsense
spoken in its name by influential and prestigious businessmen,
does clearly harm the
foundations of a free society. I have been impressed time and
again by the schizophrenic
character of many businessmen. They are capable of being
extremely far-sighted and clear-
headed in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are
incredibly short-sighted and
muddle-headed in matters that are outside their businesses but
affect the possible survival of
business in general. This short-sightedness is strikingly
exemplified in the calls from many
businessmen for wage and price guidelines or controls or
income policies. There is nothing
that could do more in a brief period to destroy a market system
and replace it by a centrally
controlled system than effective governmental control of prices
and wages.
The short-sightedness is also exemplified in speeches by
businessmen on social responsibility.
This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to
strengthen the already too prevalent
view that the pursuit of profits is wicked and immoral and must
be curbed and controlled by
external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces
that curb the market will not be
the social consciences, however highly developed, of the
pontificating executives; it will be

437. 5
the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and
wage controls, businessmen
seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse.
The political principle that underlies the market mechanism is
unanimity. In an ideal free
market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any
other, all cooperation is
voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need
not participate. There are not
values, no "social" responsibilities in any sense other than the
shared values and
responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of
individuals and of the various groups
they voluntarily form.
The political principle that underlies the political mechanism is
conformity. The individual
must serve a more general social interest--whether that be
determined by a church or a
dictator or a majority. The individual may have a vote and say
in what is to be done, but if he
is overruled, he must conform. It is appropriate for some to
require others to contribute to a
general social purpose whether they wish to or not.
Unfortunately, unanimity is not always feasible. There are some
respects in which conformity
appears unavoidable, so I do not see how one can avoid the use
of the political mechanism
altogether.

438. But the doctrine of "social responsibility" taken seriously would
extend the scope of the
political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ
in philosophy from the most
explicitly collective doctrine. It differs only by professing to
believe that collectivist ends can
be attained without collectivist means. That is why, in my book
Capitalism and Freedom, I
have called it a "fundamentally subversive doctrine" in a free
society, and have said that in
such a society, "there is one and only one social responsibility
of business--to use its resources
and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long
as it stays within the rules of
the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition
without deception or fraud."
6