DEVELOPING A PERSONAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

JAMES E. WILEY

LDRS 812

FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY

ABSTRACT

Leadership as an academic discipline is still in its development stage. As a field of study,

leadership is relatively young yet already rich in information. Before a personal theory of

leadership can be considered, a working definition of leadership should be established. It is

within the framework of this definition that the elementary components of leadership may be

found. Leadership is a transactional relationship between a leader and a follower or followers,

in which their individual traits blend in varying situations, for the purpose of achieving mutually

beneficial objectives. The following is an attempt to connect leadership as a recognized

academic discipline to the development of a personal theory, what components a personal

theory of leadership may consist of, and what the practical applications of a personal theory of

leadership may be. To substantiate the components of a personal theory of leadership, past

and present leadership studies will be taken into consideration.

1
 COMPONENTS OF AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE RELATING TO LEADERSHIP

As we undertake the work of developing a personal theory of leadership, identifying the

constituents of an academic discipline can be helpful. Why should we make a connection

between the academic characteristics of leadership studies and a personal theory of

leadership? It is hoped that a personal theory of leadership will begin to emerge as we consider

the elements of leadership as an academic discipline. After identifying the components of

academic discipline, we can then ask whether leadership studies meets these criteria and if so,

what we can derive about the essential elements of a personal theory of leadership. According

to a study at Mountain State University by White and Hitt (Chen 2009), there is a widespread

consensus that once academic disciplines are formed they “have become authoritative

communities of expertise.” It is in the environment of this community of expertise that a

personal theory of leadership will be discovered.

According, to White, there are four modern systems used to classify disciplines; codification,

level of paradigm development, level of consensus, and The Biglan model. The codification

system arranges knowledge in a systematic order. The level of paradigm development suggests

that as a discipline matures their paradigms become more defined. The level of consensus asks

whether there is an agreed on set of goals, agreement of professional judgment by scholars,

agreement on the body of knowledge, and a system to produce future scholars in the field.

(Chen 2009). The Biglan Model is based on three dimensions of academia; “the degree to which

a paradigm exists”, “the extent to which subject matter is practically applied”, and “the extent

to which the field is involved with living or organic matter.” (Chen 2009) From these criteria we

2
can identify the central qualifiers of the academic discipline of leadership. The following is not a

comprehensive list of opinions concerning the components of academic discipline and there

continues to be debate over what the essential elements may be. However, the most common

elements are:

1) A set of theories identified as belonging to the discipline

2) Distinctive methods of inquiry

3) An identifiable community of scholars of the discipline

4) A tradition of scholarly activity and inquiry

(Chen 2009)

Using these four components of an academic discipline, we can begin to consider the

question. In the field of leadership studies, are the essential criteria met to validate it as an

academic discipline which will help in the establishment of a personal theory of leadership? If

the outcome of this evaluation is in the affirmative and leadership continues to grow as an

academic discipline, then the possibility of a personal theory is greatly increased.

The first criterion is whether there is a set of theories identified as belonging to the

discipline. There are numerous theories and sub categories of theories that have been develop

over the past one hundred to one hundred and fifty years. A few examples would be Fiedler’s

Contingency Theory, Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory, House’s Path-Goal Theory, and

Vroom, Yetton, and Jago’s Normative Decision Making Theory. (Howell et al, 2006) In addition

to these behavioral theories is Stogdill’s Trait Theory developed in the late 1940’s and revisited

in the 1970’s. (Crawford et al, 2000) As Fred Fiedler stated, “There are almost as many

3
definitions of leadership as there are leadership theories—and there are almost as many

theories of leadership as there are psychologists working in the field.” (Fiedler 1971) To say that

leadership meets the first element of an academic would be an understatement considering the

extensive research, study, and theory development that has taken place over the past century.

The second criterion asks whether there are distinctive methods of inquiry. All of the

theories mentioned have distinctive methods of inquiry, some more qualitative as in the study

of traits, and others quantitative as in the study of emotional intelligence. (Northouse 2010)

The third element to consider in academic disciplines is the scholars themselves who are

researching the field. There is an extensive list of individuals from various disciplines who have

contributed to the study of leadership. Among these are individuals who have been pioneers of

thought in leadership like Stogdill, Feidler, Vroom, and House. (Chemers 1997)

With more than sixty universities offering doctoral programs relating to leadership, the

fourth element of an academic discipline, a history of scholarly activity, has without doubt,

been established. As mentioned earlier, there are a multitude of theories from diverse

perspectives that comprise the field. It is well within reason to agree that leadership studies

sufficiently satisfy all the criteria of an academic discipline. This being true, we can now take the

elements of the academic discipline of leadership criteria and extract the pieces that will

provide a framework for a personal theory of leadership.

Such an attempt was made by James MacGregor Burns. Over a five year period

beginning in 2001, Burns pulled together a group of scholars for the express purpose of

developing what he called a personal theory of leadership. (Goethals et al 2006) Even after

4
eight separate meetings, each one lasting several days, the assembly fell short of their declared

purpose. This is not to diminish the considerable progress that was made in identifying some

essential elements of a personal theory of leadership. (2006) We can draw from the abundant

research of recognized scholars and identify 1) consistencies in study outcomes and, 2)

congruent philosophies which work in concert though they are often categorized as individual

theories.

COMPONENTS OF A PERSONAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP

For the purpose of laying a foundation for a personal theory of leadership we need to

identify the major theory concepts that have been discovered during the span of leadership

study. I would contend that all studies and sub-theories of leadership can be categorized in one

of the following three major “houses” of leadership theory: 1) Behavioral / Trait, 2) Contingency

/ Situational, 3) Transformational / Transactional. There is some overlap in these components

with some discoveries serving as a portal to the next era. A good example of this is Stogdill’s

trait studies which led him to believe that traits alone do not explain the effectiveness of a

leader, rather effectiveness is a combination of both leader’s characteristics and variables of the

situation, followers, and goals which led to the era of contingency / situational theory.

(Chemers 1997) These overlaps can be seen as covered breezeways where ideas and

applications are shared. While there is bountiful research from many scholars in each of these

approaches to leadership studies, for the sake of practicality, only the central elements of these

three building blocks will be discussed. As other studies are taken into consideration, it

becomes clear that they are in fact, sub-facets of the major theories.

5
 Behavioral / Trait Component of Leadership Theory

Trait theory was considered antediluvian as contingency theories emerged, however,

there has been a reemergence of the study of traits as evidenced by articles like Personality And

Leadership: A Qualitative And Quantitative Review, in the Journal of Applied Psychology by

Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt. (Day et al, 2008) We cannot overlook the consideration of an

individual’s composition of character as the first building block of leadership in a personal

theory of leadership. Early studies of leadership were almost exclusively focused on traits held

by the individual leader. Though trait theory resulted in frustration due to an inability to reach

consistent outcomes, and the inconsistency of the studies themselves, later work in the 1980’s

by Stephen Zaccaro indicated, “Stable aspects of a leader can indeed have predictive validity.”

(Chemers, 1997) By this we understand that it is possible to predict with some reasonable

expectancy of outcome, the long term effectiveness of an individual in a leadership role if they

possess certain traits. Another way to state this is if an individual is deficient in certain traits,

their leadership effectiveness is predictably minimized if not nullified altogether. Whether

learned by environmental influence or innate, every effective leader exhibits personal

characteristics which contribute to the process. While there could be thousands of words to

describe leader traits, we can select the major traits that are consistent in past studies.

Based on past and present studies of trait theory, there are five reoccurring traits that

have an impact on leadership: Cognitive Intelligence, Resilience, Charisma, Integrity, and

Social Intelligence. Although the terminology may be interchangeable, the essence of at least

6
one, if not several, of these five traits was noted as leadership traits in six major trait studies,

including Stogdill (1948), Mann (1959), Stogdill (1974), Lord, Devader, and Alliger (1986),

Kirkpatrick and Locke (1981), and Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2004). (Northouse, 2010)

Cognitive intelligence includes “perceptual processing, information processing, personal

reasoning skills, creative and divergent thinking capacities, and memory skills.” (Northouse

2010) If the leader’s cognitive intelligence is significantly lower than followers, the

effectiveness of their leadership is diminished greatly. Locke argued that cognitive ability is

valuable to leaders given their responsibility to gather and process large amounts of

information. (Locke 1991)

Resilience can be defined as the ability to recover and adjust to difficult situations,

especially when they embody hardship and suffering. Resilience not only gets a leader through

tough situations, it can actually increase productivity helping the leader learn how to deal with

adversity in the future. (Sutcliffe 2003)

Charisma, as defined by Weber (1947), is a “special personality characteristic that gives

a person superhuman or exceptional powers and is reserved for a few, is of divine origin, and

results in the person being treated as a leader.” A wonderful example of a charismatic leader

would be Martin Luther King Jr., whose inspirational speeches motivated the masses toward

social change during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s. Charismatic leadership is

effective because it links followers and their belief about themselves to the identity of the

organization or movement. (Northouse 2010)

7
 Integrity is a trait that is usually not noticed except when absent. The leader follower

relationship is one of trust. According to Chrislip and Larson, in order for leaders and followers

to collaborate successfully over a long period of time, it is essential that an atmosphere of

openness and trust be established and sustained. (Chrislip et al 1994) The power of the

leadership position is deeply affected by the level of trust between leader and follower. Leaders

who have the trust of their followers have more power and need less power to lead. Contrarily,

leaders who do not have the trust of their followers have less power and need more power to

lead. The combination of faith and security in the integrity of a leader is indeed powerful.

(Goethals 2006)

Social intelligence “capacities refer to a leader’s understanding of the feelings,

thoughts, and behaviors of others in a social domain and his or her selection of the responses

that best fit the contingencies and dynamics of that domain.” (Zaccaro et al 2004) Social

intelligence knows how to get along with people in varying situations and create the best

opportunity for the individual and the organization to benefit from the relationship. Dale

Carnegie’s book, How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936), is an excellent tutorial on

how to develop social intelligence without being manipulative or controlling. As Carnegie

eloquently points out, “Dealing with people is probably the biggest problem you will face,” and

about 85% of one’s financial success is, “Due to skill in human engineering – to personality and

the ability to lead people.” (Carnegie 1936)

Situational / Contingency Component of Leadership Theory

8
 In 1948, Stogdill acknowledged that leadership theory would not be complete unless it

included a combination of the leader’s personality and the situation the leader found

themselves in. Contingency / Situational theories blend the behavioral tendencies of the leader

with the leader situations or scenarios they encounter or create. (Chemers 1997) Fred Fiedler’s

Contingency theory is the most widely researched model on leadership. (Bass, 1990)

Contingency theory based on the Least Preferred Co-worker scale, addresses what type of

leaders respond well in particular situations. Fiedler describes the leadership phenomenon in

three dimensions, the leader-member relations, task structure, and leader’s positional power.

Fiedler’s model, showed that low LPC (task-oriented) leaders performed better when leader-

member relations, task structure, and leader’s positional power were highly favorable or

unfavorable to the leader. High LPC leaders, (relationship-oriented), performed better when the

three dimensions of leadership were not high or low, but moderate. (Bass, 1990) Fiedler found

that low LPC (task-oriented) leaders were more likely to perform in a dominant manner

regardless of the leadership dimensions. Using this scale, R.W. Rice further refined the LPC

categorizing 1,445 relationships that exist within the LPC model. Rice found that leader LPC

scores, whether high or low, stayed fairly consistent. (Rice 1983) Being able to predict the type

of situation a leader was best suited for allows for the potential of pre-planning where to place

a leader given their strengths. Additionally, if the possibility of adjusting the work situation to

either a more task orientation or relational orientation exists, then a leader can modify the

situation to fit their personal leadership strengths. The more comfortable a leader is in a given

situation, it is more likely their leadership will be effective. According to Chemers, when a

“psychological state characterized by excitement, confidence, and personal responsibility”

9
exists, there is a greater possibility that a “positive environment for productivity and effective

leadership” will exist as well. (Chemers 1997)

Hersey and Blanchard build on the task-oriented or directive behavior, and the

relationship-oriented or supportive behavior of leaders in their situational leadership theory.

They developed a four quadrant model. Quadrant 1, called Telling consists of highly-directive

and low supportive style of leadership. Quadrant 2 called Selling consists of a highly-directive

and highly supportive style of leadership. Quadrant 3 called Participating consists of a low-

directive and highly-supportive style leadership. Quadrant 4 called Delegating consists of low-

directive and low-supportive leadership style. According to Hersey and Blanchard, quadrant 1

represents a low follower readiness, meaning the follower has a low ability and low willingness

to accomplish a task. Quadrant 2 represents those followers who have a high willingness but a

low ability. Quadrant 3 represents followers who have a high ability but a low willingness.

Quadrant 4 represents followers who have a high ability and a high willingness to accomplish a

task. (Hersey 2008) The simplicity of this theory makes it inviting for easy application, however,

subsequent research has failed to show consistent results, especially in the Telling and

Delegating quadrants. (Howell 2008)

Another significant theory that is housed in the Contingency / Situational family, is the

Normative Decision Making Theory (NDMT) first developed by Vroom and Yetton and later

revised by Vroom and Jago. Some studies leading up to the NDMT were House’s Path Goal

Theory and Yukl’s Multiple Linkage Theory. However, though these studies served to make a

connection between leadership styles and the situational factors, they were not specific enough

10
to be tested in a reliable manner and therefore made predictions difficult and inconclusive.

(Howell 2008)NDMT “contends that the effectiveness of a decision depends on applying a

decision-making style that matches the situation.” (Howell 2008) That is to say, that the five

decision making styles: Decide, Consult Individually, Consult Group, Facilitate, and Delegate as

identified in the NDMT, if appropriately applied to situations will determine the effectiveness of

the leader’s decisions in six ways: Decision Acceptance, Decision Quality, Decision Timeliness,

Costs of Decision Making, and Follower’s Development. (Howell 2008) There is evidence

according to Vroom and Jago that the NDMT is predictably accurate, however, there has been

limited research to verify it. The drawback of the NDMT model is that it is somewhat complex,

and not all leaders are likely to have the capacity to apply all five of the decision making styles.

One thing we can be reasonably sure of is Contingency / Situational theory needs to be included

as one of the foundational components of a personal theory of leadership.

Transformational / Transactional Component of Leadership Theory

To say that leadership/behavioral traits and situational/contingencies equate leadership

falls short of the leadership definition. Leadership is a transactional process between the leader

and followers. Perhaps the most substantiated study in leadership can be identified as

transactional / transformational theory. Transactional leadership could be described as an

informal exchange or transaction between leaders and followers in which the follower provides

a competent effort, and the leader provides directive influence. (Howell, 2006) Within the

context of transactional leadership are multiple factors that contribute to the relationship of

leader and follower. Bass’s (1995) Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire is a tool that has been

11
used to measure transactional leadership relationships. Bass’s conceptualization of

transactional and transformational leadership included seven leadership factors, which he

labeled Charisma, Inspirational, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized Consideration,

Contingent Reward, Management-By-Exception and Laissez-Faire Leadership. (Avolio et al,

2010) The distinction between transactional and transformational leadership is based on what

is being exchanged between leader and follower. In transactional leadership, the leader is

offering reward for productivity. Transactional leadership takes place when "one person takes

the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things."

(Burns 1978) Transformational leadership refers to the leader’s inspiration of followers to

“achieve extraordinary outcomes and, in the process, develop their own leadership capacity.”

As Burns points out, there is a moral element in transformational leadership, whereas

transactional leadership is equivalent to a politician providing benefits in exchange for votes.

(Bass et al, 2006) Burns (1978) asserts “The result of transforming leadership is a relationship of

mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders

into moral agents.” Transactional / transformational theory must be included in a personal

theory of leadership because it is an overarching covering for all leader/follower interactions.

Housed in the theory of transactional / transformational leadership we can categorize

many studies in. Some notable categories of leadership studies that qualify for this component

of leadership theory are Power/Influence Leadership, Servant Leadership, Team Leadership,

Collaborative Leadership, Directive Leadership, Supportive Leadership, And Transcendent

Leadership. A closer look at each of these leadership relationships is highly dependent on

exchanges between leader and follower. The interactive aspect of leader follower relationships

12
substantiates the fact that they can be consolidated under the umbrella of

transactional/transformational leadership.

In the Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Stone et al (2004) posit there is

a difference in the focus of the leader in transformational leadership and servant leadership.

However, the servant leader, while being concerned with the follower’s success, must

recognize that there is a direct link to the organization’s success and that is critical to their

survival.

Team leadership and collaborative leadership are closely related as demonstrated in

LeFasto’s Team Excellence and Collaborative Team Leader Surveys. The survey asks seven

questions that deal with team effectiveness, structure, and health of the team. The next six

questions deal with leadership effectiveness. (Northouse, 2010) To further emphasize the

similarities of team and collaborative leadership, effective team leaders make certain there is a

collaborative atmosphere which makes communication safe, demands and rewards

collaborative behavior, guides team’s problem solving, and manages their own need of control

without being overbearing. (LaFasto et al 2002) The difference in team leadership and

collaborative leadership is the size of the group. Teams are smaller and more intimate, while

collaborative leadership can occur in large segments of society for a common cause.

Collaborative leadership is one which can be applied to entire communities and regions.

(Chrislip et al 1994) The relationship between leader and follower in teams and in collaborative

situations is critical to successful outcomes and is a vivid picture of transactional /

transformational leadership.

13
 Directive leadership occurs when the leader defines both the objectives and the

methods for a group to accomplish specific performance goals. (Hellriegel et al 1998) The

transaction between leader and follower, though less negotiable, is none the less transactional.

Supportive leadership is recognized as a leader concerns themselves with the development of

the follower by demonstrating a caring and understanding disposition. (Howell et al 2006)

Supportive leadership meets the second highest human need as defined by Maslow’s Hierarchy

of Needs, the need for esteem. (Maslow 1943)

Perhaps the most progressive element of transformational/transactional leadership is

transcendent leadership. As author John Jacob Gardiner states, “The transcendent leader

invites others into a consciousness of the whole.” (Gardiner 2006) A transcendent leader not

only helps others accomplish self-actualization, but communicates values in such a way that

followers take on those same values, visions, and purpose and become part of the whole. There

are six necessary steps for transcending leadership to be complete; a climate of trust,

information sharing, meaningful participation, collective decision making, protecting divergent

views, and redefining roles by recognizing all members are leaders. Transcendent leadership,

though new to the paradigm of leadership studies, still is categorically a relational exchange

falling under the greater umbrella of transactional/transformational leadership. Again, in each

of these relationships, an exchange has taken place between leader and follower for the sake of

achieving a mutually beneficial goal.

The one other major component of transactional / transformational leadership is the

power/influence. Power is the potential ability of one person to influence other people to bring

14
about desired outcomes using either hard or forced power, or soft power based on influence.

Influence refers to the effect a person’s actions have on the attitudes, values, beliefs, or actions

of others. Whereas power is the capacity to cause a change in a person, influence may be

thought of as the degree of actual change that the person embraces. However, power, whether

hard or soft, is still the ability to affect change through a transactional or transformational

exchange between leader and follower.

According to the 1959 study by French & Raven, there are five bases of power: referent

power, expert power, legitimate power, reward power, and coercive power. (Northouse 2010)

Each of these bases can be readily identified with either power or influence. Coercive power is

most likely to be related to hard power – the ability to force behavior. Legitimate power could

also be identified with hard power because their position gives them the authority to exact

judgments without the necessity of cooperative agreement, however, it is can also be

administered as soft power depending on the disposition of the leader. Expert power, referent

power and reward power are all based on a relationship of influence rather than force. They are

examples of power through influence or soft power. David Ingram states, “Transactional leaders

use disciplinary power and an array of incentives to motivate employees to perform at their

best.” (Ingram) This is in direct correlation with a combination of legitimate power and reward

power which is behaving in a transactional manner to lead an organization. The parallels of

transactional/transformational leadership and power/influence leadership are so closely

related that housing them under the same pavilion of a personal theory of leadership is both

functional and logical.

15
 According to Atwater and Yammarino, their study of the relatedness between

transactional/transformational leadership and power revealed that referent and expert power

were related to transformational leadership. Transformational leadership also indicates a

correlation with reward and legitimate power, although as one may expect, not with coercive

power. The study seems to imply that leaders who behave in a transformational manner are

likely to possess positive bases of power. There is further indication that transformational

leaders are effectively influence group members as the members recognize their referent power

base. According to Atwater there is significant support for the interrelatedness of

transformational/transactional leadership and power. (Atwater 1996)

Summary of Major Components of Leadership Theory

What we have proposed is that there are three houses or families of leadership theory.

Within each house are numerous studies and sub-theories that explore the complexities of

human relationships as relating to leadership. These three houses are interconnected yet each

one houses specific families of thought concerning leadership theory. Together they form a

community of leadership.

Community is a portmanteau of common and unity. The term community is appropriate

for a personal theory of leadership. The commonality is present in that while there are unique

components of theory, they have in common the central theme of effective leadership. Unity of

16
purpose and a personal agreement by scholars in the field is a key to reaching a personal theory

which will be widely accepted, recognized, and adopted.

It should not be misconstrued that this article has included every important study or

theory of leadership. What can be understood is that every study of leadership theory can be

found under the covering of one of these three roofs. For example, though not explicitly

mentioned, power, mentoring / coaching, equity, gender, ethics, and many other topics are

woven in the fabric of one or more of the above houses. As experts in the academic discipline

of leadership come to a personal agreement about the major components of leadership theory,

the possibility of a personal theory of leadership will be within reach. For the moment, it

appears that the criterion for the academic discipline of leadership has proven to be effective in

development of a personal theory; however, the arduous task of finding agreement from

diverse scholars is still before us.

The three houses of leadership theory that we have identified are: Behavioral / Trait,

Contingency / Situational, and Transactional / Transformative. Housed in each family are

multiple studies and sub theories that often overlap and complement each other. Below is a

graphic that helps to visualize the community of leadership theories.

17
 Community of Leadership Theory

Behavioral / Contingency /
Trait Situational

Cognitive Intelligence R.W. Rice – Refined LPC

Resilience Hersey & Blanchard – 4
Charisma Quadrant model
Integrity Vroom & Yetton - NDMT
Social Intelligence

Transactional /
Transformational
Servant Leadership
Team Leadership
Collaborative Leadership
Directive Leadership
Supportive Leadership
Transcendent Leadership
Power/Influence Leader

18
 Applying a General Theory of Leadership

What might be the purpose of developing a general theory of leadership? Burns primary

goal as he called together a collection of scholars from multiple disciplines for the purpose of developing

this general theory of leadership, was to hopefully prevent the fragmentation of leadership studies and

in the process create a sense of intellectual unity and coherence to the field of leadership. In this way,

Burns believed that there would be less inclination of some skeptics to trivialize the study of leadership,

viewing it as “ill-defined.” (Goethals 2006) Burns further addresses his quest for a personal theory

of leadership stating that he hoped to, “provide people studying or practicing leadership with a

personal guide or orientation- a set of principles that are universal which can be then adapted

to different situations.” (Goethals 2006)

Lynham and Chermack believe that there is growing demand on leadership to address

post modern issues in business. These would include a shortage of skilled labor, globalization of

business, and balancing people and performance needs. A general theory of leadership could

help to “make sense” of the current theories, and increase their performance. (Lynham 2006)

Certainly the successful application and practice of leadership principles is the goal of theory

development. Study for the sake of study in a field of leadership is like running in circles, at some point

we need to get off the merry-go-round of rumination and move on to application. Not to say this is not

already the case, however, by establishing a widely accepted personal theory of leadership, the

processes of application will become more prolific. Leadership is about effecting real change. It is the

nature of mankind to become more effective, productive, and progressive. Our quest is for more than

theories that meet certain standards of scientific credibility. We are on a quest to better ourselves, our

organizations, and our world.

19
References:

A. Gregory Stone, Robert F. Russell, Kathleen Patterson, (2004) "Transformational versus

servant leadership: a difference in leader focus", Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol.25 Iss: 4, pp.349 - 361

Atwater, L. and Yammarino, J., “Bases of Power in Relation to Leader Behavior: A

Field Investigation,” Journal of Business and Psychology, Fall 1996, pp. 3-22.

Avolio, B., Bass, B., Jung, D., Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (1999), 72,
pp. 441–462 Printed in Great Britain Ó 1999 The British Psychological Society

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial

applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. (2nd ed. ed.). Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row

Carnegie, D. (1936). How to win friends and influence people. New York: Gallery Books.

Crawford, C. B., Brungardt, C., & Maughan, M. (2000).Understanding leadership behavior. (pp.

31-35). Longmount: Rocky Mountain Press.

Chrislip, D., & Larson, C. (1994). Collaborative leadership. (1st ed. ed.). San Francisco: Joossey-

Bass Publishers.

Day, D., & Antonakis, J. (n.d.). Leadership: Past, present, and future. (2008). Sage Publications,

7, 8. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/41161_1.pdf

20
Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Leadership. Morristown, NJ: Personal Learning

Gardiner, J. J., “Transactional, Transformational, and Transcendent Leadership: Metaphors

Mapping The Evolution Of The Theory And Practice Of Governance,” Kravis Leadership

Institute Leadership Review, Vol. 6, 2006. pp. 62-76.

Goethals, G. R., & Sorenson, G. L. J. (2006). The quest for a personal theory of leadership.

Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.W. Jr., Woodman, R.W. (1998). Organizational Behavior, 8th ed.

Cincinnati, Ohio: Southwestern.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. (2008).Management of organizational behavior. (10th

ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Howell, J. Costley, D. (2006). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership. (2nd ed., pp. 41-

59). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Ingram, David. "Transformational Leadership Vs. Transactional Leadership Definition." Chron.

n.d. n. page. Print. <http://smallbusiness.chron.com/transformational-leadership-vs-
transactional-leadership-definition-13834.html>.

LaFasto, F. M. J., & Larson, C. E. (2002). When teams work best, 6,000 team members and

leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Locke, E. A. (1991). The essence of leadership. New York: Lexington Books.

Lynham, S.A. , Chermack , T. J - Responsible Leadership for Performance: ATheoretical Model and

Hypotheses, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2006, Vol. 12, No. 4

21
Maslow A.H., A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review 50(4) (1943):370-96.

Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership, theory and practice. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Rice, R. W., & Kastenbaum, D. R. (1983). The contingency model of leadership: Some current
issues. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4(4), 373-392.

Sutcliffe, K.M., & Vogus, T. 2003. Organizing for resilience. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E.
Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship, 94-110. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (T. Parsons, Trans.). New
York: Free Press

Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. In J Antonakis, A.T.
Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (p. 115). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

22