The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Developing the theory and practice of leadership development: A

relational view
Cynthia D. McCauley ⁎, Charles J. Palus
Center for Creative Leadership, One Leadership Place, Greensboro, NC 27410, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Organizations are demanding leadership development that is more sensitive to context and supportive of orga-
Received 29 November 2018 nizational transformation, and critics of current leadership development practices claim they are too narrowly
Received in revised form 21 June 2020 construed to yield meaningful results. Relational views of leadership may be the disruptive idea that helps recon-
Accepted 20 August 2020
struct leadership development in ways that meets these concerns. To better understand how these relational
Available online 29 September 2020
views can impact the practice of leadership development, we examined the use a specific relational framework
Keywords:
in one leadership development organization. We found that leadership development professionals used the
Leadership framework to convey a relational point of view on leadership to their participants, to facilitate collective identi-
Leadership development fication and action on leadership issues, to develop leadership by focusing on leadership culture, and to enable
Relational leadership the democratization of leadership development. We use these findings to advance a constructive-
Collective leadership developmental perspective on the development of leadership development.
Constructive-development theory © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction
As leadership development made its way into the 21st century,
change was underway. In addition to developing individual leaders,
leadership development programs in large organizations increasingly
focused on fostering shared values and visions among those in leader-
ship roles and on accelerating major strategic changes (Conger &
Benjamin, 1999). These programs were less generic, becoming more
closely tied to the strategic aims of the organization and customized
around its own ideas of effective leadership (APQC, 2006; Burgoyne &
Turnbull, 2001). At the same time, organizations found themselves in
the midst of complex challenges brought about by globalization, rapid
technological innovation, political disruption, and societal shifts.
Forward-looking organizations began to question the sustainability in
this new environment of a slow-moving hierarchical system with com-
partmentalized expertise. They saw the need for leaders at all levels
who collaborated to reinvent the organization. Leadership development
efforts responded by reaching into lower levels of the organization and
by connecting people across the organization to tackle challenges to-
gether (Charan, Drotter, & Noel, 2001; Dotlich & Noel, 1998). Formal
leadership development has continued to evolve as a means for
supporting the collective development of the organization (Harvard
Business Publishing, 2016; Sinar et al., 2018).
Yet, another narrative about leadership development was emerging,
asserting that many leadership development programs had little impact
and that perhaps the whole leadership development industry was
⁎ Corresponding author at: 3311 Terrault Drive, Greensboro, NC 27410, United States.
E-mail address: mccauley@ccl.org (C.D. McCauley).
failing (Beer, Finnstrom, & Schrader, 2016; Feser, Nielsen, & Rennie,
2017; Gurdjian, Halbeinsen, & Lane, 2014; Kaiser & Curphy, 2013;
Kellerman, 2012; Pfeffer, 2015; Rowland, 2016). Arguments were
made that organizations were heavily investing in leadership develop-
ment with little evidence that leaders were more effective. Senior exec-
utives worried about their leadership pipelines, employees were
disengaged, and confidence in public and private sector leaders was
low. The critics—most of whom were deeply involved in leadership ed-
ucation and development—pointed to numerous factors contributing to
the problem: Leadership development programs overlook context and
teach leadership as if one size fits all. Leadership development focuses
on changing behavior rather than addressing underlying mindsets
that are at the root of problematic behavior. The field is leader-centric,
ignoring the power shifts in society that elevates the role of followers.
Organizations assess leadership effectiveness primarily via individual
competencies or job performance; they rarely include collective con-
cerns like workgroup climate or team performance. Senior executives
do not make necessary changes in organizational systems to support in-
dividual change. In sum, the bulk of leadership development was seen
as too narrowly construed to have the kind of impact that organizations
and society require.
Meanwhile, leadership scholars were exploring new ways of under-
standing leadership and leadership development. A noticeable trend in
the scholarly literature in the new century was an increasing emphasis
on leadership as a collective phenomenon that is shared among people
(Denis, Langley, & Sergi, 2012; Lord, Day, Zaccaro, Avolio, & Eagly, 2017).
From this perspective, the target of leadership development moves be-
yond the singular focus on individuals to developing relationships,
teams, networks, and organizations (Day, 2000; Day, Gronn, & Salas,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101456
1048-9843/© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus
2004; Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004). One of the most disruptive collec-
tive leadership ideas is the relational notion that individual leaders are
not the fundamental source of leadership, and that leadership is an
emergent property of interactions among people working together for
collective outcomes (Denis et al., 2012).
In this article, we explore whether leadership development itself is
ripe for a developmental leap. After more than two decades of
stretching, doubting, and exploring, can leadership development recon-
struct itself into a more complex and comprehensive practice? The nec-
essary drivers appear to be present: leading-edge organizations seeking
to innovate their leadership development initiatives in response to a
rapidly-changing strategic context, critics within the leadership devel-
opment ranks expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo, and new
and disruptive views of leadership bubbling up from leadership
scholars.
We focus on a growing non-traditional stream in leadership theory—
relational views of leadership—and examine the impact of this stream
on leadership development professionals and their practice. These lead-
ership development practitioners are at the nexus of demanding organi-
zations, the experiences of their leadership development participants,
and disruptive ideas from the field. They are well-positioned to adapt
emerging theories to present-day challenges while reconstructing the
practice of leadership development. They can serve as a bridge
connecting theoretical and practical knowledge, and they can translate
and develop adaptive new understandings as these worlds intersect
(Boudreau & Rice, 2015; Ungureanu & Bertolotti, 2018). We use a case
study strategy to examine the adoption and application of a particular
relational view of leadership, the Direction-Alignment-Commitment
(DAC) Framework (Drath et al., 2008), in a community of leadership de-
velopment practitioners. We use the findings from this case to reflect on
and inform a perspective on the development of leadership develop-
ment which is grounded in constructive-developmental theory.
Relational views of leadership
The vast body of leadership research and theory, both traditional and
contemporary, focuses almost exclusively on individual leaders and
their asymmetrical influence on followers toward the attainment of
shared goals (Drath et al., 2008). Leadership is viewed as a property of
individuals and their interactions with followers. Yet the recent leader-
ship literature is increasingly populated by talk of leadership as “a col-
lective phenomenon that is distributed or shared among different
people, potentially fluid, and constructed in interaction” (Denis et al.,
2012, p. 212). These collective approaches seek to understand leader-
ship as a property of teams, networks, business units, and organizational
systems (Ospina, Foldy, Fairhurst, & Jackson, 2020; Yammarino, Salas,
Serban, Shirreffs, & Shuffler, 2012).
Denis et al. (2012) identified four main streams of research on col-
lective or “plural leadership.” Three of these streams view collective
leadership as a form of leadership that can be observed in certain con-
texts: (a) shared leadership in teams where members lead one another
through mutual influence processes, (b) constellations of leaders at the
top of organizations who pool their influence to jointly lead an organi-
zation, and (c) the distributed exercise of influence over time by a series
of individuals, each of whom takes on and then hands off leadership re-
sponsibility to achieve an organizational outcome. Much of the work in
these streams focuses on understanding leadership in settings where
individuals interact more as peers (e.g., self-managing teams, cross-
functional teams of knowledge workers, top management teams) or in
organizations with dual authority structures (e.g., professional organi-
zations, education, healthcare), that is, in contexts where more lateral
influence is called for.
The fourth stream of research differs from and is more disruptive
than the others because it directly challenges the taken-for-granted no-
tion that individuals (either alone or in collectives) are the fundamental
source of leadership. In this stream, leadership is understood as an
2
The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456
emergent property of relations—a view that decenters individuals. Indi-
viduals are still understood as active participants in leadership, but they
are not the “containers” of leadership (Denis et al., 2012). Thus, leader-
ship is not sometimes collective but is fundamentally collective. In other
words, in this stream, collective leadership is not viewed as a form or
type of leadership, but rather as a lens for understanding leadership as
a phenomenon (Ospina et al., 2020). Although various researchers and
theorists have used different labels for this perspective on leadership,
relational leadership is gaining momentum as the label that best cap-
tures this emerging work. This label fits with its roots in relational the-
ory and marks a “relational turn” in the leadership field—a post-modern
shift observed across a number of scholarly fields (Ospina & Uhl-Bien,
2012).
Relational theory is grounded in a constructionist epistemology
which holds that meaning (i.e., how people make sense of themselves
and the world) is generated and sustained in the context of ongoing re-
lationships (Gergen, 1994). Individuals are not merely independent en-
tities who enter into relationships. Rather, individuals are relational
constructions; the self is made and remade in unfolding relational pro-
cesses (Crevani & Endrissat, 2016). From this perspective, leadership is
emergent and contextual, and located in the relational processes that fa-
cilitate the collective achievements of organizing, cooperating, and
adapting.
Relational views of leadership have been advanced by a number of
leadership scholars. Drath (2001) offered relational leadership as a
new view that “pays attention to the whole system of relations as the
creative ground for leadership” (p. xv) and views leadership as a com-
munal achievement. Uhl-Bien's (2006) comprehensive review of rela-
tional perspectives on leadership yielded a definition of relational
leadership as a “social influence process through which emergent coor-
dination (i.e., evolving social order) and change (i.e., new values, atti-
tudes, approaches, behaviors, and ideologies) are constructed and
produced” (p. 668). Hosking (1988, 2007) argued for a change in
focus for leadership research from the traits and behaviors of individuals
identified as leaders to relational processes through which social order
is negotiated, while emphasizing that the construction of leadership is
local and culturally-historically situated. Crevani, Lindgren, and
Packendorff (2007) and Cunliffe and Eriksen (2011) expanded on
these ideas, emphasizing that leadership is dynamic, created and con-
tinually unfolding in mundane and everyday discourse and interactions.
Uhl-Bien and Ospina (2012a) provided a forum for examining a
range of perspectives on the study and practice of relational leadership.
They identified commonalities across perspectives, but also surfaced
distinct differences between those who take a more traditional entity
perspective and those who take a more disruptive constructionist per-
spective on relational leadership. For example, from the entity perspec-
tive, leadership is located in the individual leader's skills and abilities for
developing effective leader-follower relationships. In contrast, from the
constructionist perspective, leadership is located in relational processes
and mutually constructed through communication, negotiation, and
sense-making. This constructionist-relational view is aligned with the
“leadership as an emergent property of relations” stream of research
identified by Denis et al. (2012). Research in this stream continues to
draw attention to the collective leadership work of organizing and pur-
suing common goals accomplished through on-going conversation, so-
cial interaction, organizational practices, and emergent processes
(Crevani, 2018; Holm & Fairhurst, 2018; Van De Mieroop, Clifton, &
Verhelst, 2020).
A relational view of leadership has implications not only for how
leadership is conceptualized and studied in the leadership field, but
also for how leadership development is practiced in organizations, com-
munities, and educational settings. Instead of focusing leadership devel-
opment solely on the development of individuals (particularly those in
positions of authority), a relational perspective advocates for collectives
(e.g., teams, workgroups, networks, and organizations) as a critical tar-
get of leadership development. Hence, a distinction is made between
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus
building a person's capacity to be effective in leadership roles and pro-
cesses (i.e., leader development) and building a collective's capacity to
produce leadership (i.e., leadership development) (Day, 2000; Van
Velsor & McCauley, 2004). A relational lens can still be applied to indi-
vidual leader development by enhancing individuals' capacity to partic-
ipate in relational processes for producing leadership (Day, 2000;
Fletcher, 2012). For example, Gergen and Hersted (2016) described a
training process for strengthening dialogue skills that involves
experimenting with communication and action options while role
playing challenging interpersonal episodes from one's organizational
experiences.
Relational views also point to situating leadership development
within the real-time settings where these relational interactions are
happening, for example, through joint reflection on current relational
processes within or across groups, the use of multiple voices to generate
local leadership practices, and the adoption of collective action-and-re-
flection strategies when people engage with one another on mutual
problems (Cullen-Lester, Maupin, & Carter, 2017; Denyer & James,
2016; Hosking, 2007; Kennedy, Carroll, Francoeur, & Jackson, 2012;
Raelin, 2016). Any number of collective learning techniques and pro-
cesses (e.g., after-action reviews, action learning projects, communities
of practice, shared immersive experiences, and system-in-the-room
workshops) provide a rich setting for experimenting with and co-
developing enhanced relational processes for negotiating and
renegotiating social order.
Direction-Alignment-Commitment Framework
We now turn to a particular constructionist-relational view of lead-
ership which is the focus of our case study. The DAC Framework (see
Fig. 1) is grounded in a view that leadership encompasses a full range
of human activity (including but not limited to leaders influencing fol-
lowers) whose purpose is to bring members of a collective into the con-
ditions required for the achievement of their mutual goals (Drath et al.,
2008). In this view, the basic elements that mark the occurrence of lead-
ership are three socially-produced leadership outcomes that enable indi-
viduals to work together to achieve strategic results: (1) direction:
agreement in a collective on overall goals, (2) alignment: coordination
of work in a collective, and (3) commitment: mutual responsibility for
the success and wellbeing of the collective. Thus, leadership is the
The Direction-Alignment-Commitment (DAC) Framework
Beliefs Direction
Alignment
Practices
Leadership Culture Leadership Outcomes
Fig. 1. Direction-Alignment-Commitment (DAC) Framework.
3
The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456
human activity that produces direction, alignment, and commitment
among people with shared work.
The DAC Framework assumes that people with shared work develop
beliefs and practices for producing DAC. Leadership beliefs include be-
liefs about the need for DAC (e.g., a shared goal is needed for team effec-
tiveness), beliefs about how individuals enhance or hinder the
production of DAC (e.g., people on a team need to be unselfish), or be-
liefs about practices that produce DAC (e.g., it is a duty to obey the com-
mands of a superior officer). Some leadership beliefs are instantiated in
practice. A leadership practice is a pattern in the behavior of a collective
aimed at producing DAC. Practices are understood as collective enact-
ments, such as patterns of conversation or organization routines.
Every member of a collective is understood as a participant in leadership
practices and is thus a contributor to the production of DAC. For exam-
ple, the offering of a vision and the embracing of that vision by others
are both important for producing direction. Likewise, the creation of a
project plan and efforts to adhere to that plan are both needed to gener-
ate alignment. The effectiveness of practices in producing DAC shapes
and reshapes shared beliefs and practices, in time yielding a relatively
stable system of beliefs-and-practices. This system of beliefs about
how to produce DAC and the linked practices aimed at producing DAC
can be the thought of as the leadership culture of a collective. From the
perspective of the DAC Framework leadership development is a process
by which the leadership culture becomes increasingly adequate for pro-
ducing the DAC needed for a collective to work together as a cohesive
unit to achieve mutual goals. Such development requires both the de-
velopment of individuals and the development of the collective as a
whole.
The framework further assumes that leadership can be assessed in
the short-term by the degree of DAC being produced. Longer-term con-
sequences are the leadership effects. The contribution of DAC to the at-
tainment of strategic results represents the intentional effects of
leadership. However, DAC can also contribute to unintended effects.
For example, an agreed upon direction may end up being flawed and
thus create longer-term deficits rather than gains for a collective, or
strong commitment could strengthen a collective's boundaries such
that it does not partner well with allies.
In general, and especially with respect to leadership beliefs and prac-
tices, the DAC Framework is relational. It locates the making of leader-
ship not simply in the behaviors of certain individuals, but rather in
the ongoing pattern of interactions in the collective, thus
Strategic
Results
Commitment Unintended
Results
Leadership Effects
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus
conceptualizing leadership as an achievement of the collective. It recog-
nizes leadership in terms of collective outcomes—agreement on direc-
tion, coordinated work, mutual responsibility—that exist between
people. The framework also makes use of constructive-developmental
theory, a stream of work in psychology that concerns itself with the or-
ganizing principles that regulate how people make sense of themselves
and the world, and how those regulative principles are re-constructed
and grow more complex over time (Kegan, 1994). Applied to leader-
ship, this theory contends that what people understand leadership to
be is socially constructed and develops over time to become increas-
ingly adequate in the face of diverse and complex phenomena. The
DAC Framework itself is understood as a constructive-developmental
step in which a relational worldview transcends yet includes (rather
than replaces) an individualistic worldview. Among relational views of
leadership, the DAC Framework perhaps more strongly embraces
pragmatism's commitment to the grounding of concepts in their practi-
cal consequences revealed through their enactment in the world
(Martela, 2015), thus focusing leadership theory at its most basic level
on outcomes and effects.
Current study
To better understand how relational views of leadership impact the
practice of leadership development, we undertook a case study of the
adoption and use of the DAC Framework at the Center for Creative Lead-
ership (CCL). The DAC Framework was developed at CCL and is regularly
used in its leadership development work around the world. The primary
research questions we pursue in the case study are: In what ways has
the DAC Framework impacted CCL leadership development profes-
sionals' understanding of leadership and practice of leadership develop-
ment? How and for what purposes do staff members use the DAC
Framework in their work? To gain insights about how leadership devel-
opment professionals experience using a relational framework in their
work, we also explore the benefits and limitations that staff members
encounter in using the DAC Framework.
Methods
We chose a case study strategy because it is ideal for investigating a
contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-world setting,
particularly when the case setting contains contextual conditions im-
portant for understanding the phenomenon (Yin, 2018). The present
study focuses on the adoption and application of the DAC Framework
at the Center for Creative Leadership. By focusing on the introduction
of a particular relational leadership framework in an organization
whose primary mission is leadership development, we can gain insights
about how such frameworks can impact the practice of leadership de-
velopment. Case studies are particularly useful for answering “how”
and “why” research questions that seek to understand social or organi-
zational processes (Hartley, 2004; Yin, 2018) and for generating practi-
cal, contextualized knowledge (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Case study
research seeks to develop an in-depth understanding of the case by
collecting multiple forms of data (Creswell, 2012).
The present study is limited to CCL staff and the programs, products,
and services they deliver, and it only peripherally touches on adoption
and applications outside of CCL. The study relies on multiple sources
of data and the triangulation of evidence across those sources. Data
were collected on staff members' perceptions of the framework and
its impact on their own ways of thinking about leadership, how and
for what purposes they use the DAC Framework in their work, and the
perceived benefits and shortcomings of the framework. The researchers
secured the support of CCL's executive team to conduct the study, feed-
back the results to the organization for its own collective learning, and
disseminate our findings to the broader field.
4
The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456
The case setting
The Center for Creative Leadership is a nonprofit educational organi-
zation whose mission is to advance the understanding, practice, and de-
velopment of leadership for the good of society worldwide. Founded in
1970 in Greensboro, North Carolina, it has sought to fulfill its mission
through development programs and coaching for leaders, products
and services to support leadership development, and the dissemination
of evidence-based knowledge about leadership. Today, its offerings
reach a worldwide audience through campuses in North America,
Europe, Asia, and Africa. Although it has a global reach, about three-
fourths of its 700 full-time employees are located in the U.S. The organi-
zation was primarily influenced by psychologists in its formative years
yet is now populated by professional staff from a variety of disciplines
across social science, education, and business disciplines. CCL's develop-
ment programs offer concepts and models for various intrapersonal and
interpersonal aspects of leading (e.g., resilience, influencing, conflict
management) with an emphasis on stimulating new insights and ac-
tions through experiences, feedback, dialogue, and reflection.
The DAC Framework emerged over time at CCL as a group of col-
leagues worked to articulate a broader understanding of leadership
and its development. Influenced by constructionist and relational
ideas, they experimented with shifting the conversation from leader-
ship as the actions of leaders toward followers to leadership as the inter-
actions and relations that create meaning among people with shared
work (Drath, 2001; Drath & Palus, 1994). Spurred by clients who saw
leadership development as a lever for large-scale organizational change,
they began to describe how leadership capacity in an organization was
not just embedded in organizational members but also in the relation-
ships, systems, and culture of the organization (O'Connor & Quinn,
2004). As work in organizations and communities increasingly relied
on peer collaboration, for example, in cross-functional teams or joint
initiatives across organizations, they saw the need for a bigger “leader-
ship tent” that would allow for new expressions of leadership while
not negating the value of more traditional expressions (Drath et al.,
2008).
The DAC Framework is now considered the official perspective on
leadership at CCL. It is the central leadership framework woven
throughout The CCL Handbook of Leadership Development (Van Velsor,
McCauley, & Ruderman, 2010). Publications and products aimed at in-
troducing individuals to the framework and how they can use it are
part of CCL's portfolio. It is regularly used in CCL's development pro-
grams and client proposals. The adoption of the framework appears to
have been the result of both its intentional incorporation into specific
leadership development initiatives and its more organic diffusion
(Rogers, 2003) as early adopters used it in their own work and shared
it with colleagues.
The researchers
The researchers are long-time employees of CCL and have spent
most of their careers there in the research and development function.
Clearly, we are insiders in relation to our organizational case and are
invested in the DAC Framework. We were members of the authorship
team for the original DAC article in Leadership Quarterly. There are rec-
ognized benefits and disadvantages of insider research (Brannick &
Coghlan, 2007; Greene, 2014). Inside researchers have ready access to
the research site and participants, knowledge and insights about organi-
zational dynamics, and established relationships that can foster natural
interactions and open exchanges. On the other hand, their familiarity
with the context can narrow their perceptions and leave assumptions
untested. Their biases can affect who they gather data from and how
they interpret data, and their normally open colleagues may be less
forthcoming in an official data-gathering context. In an effort to maxi-
mize the advantages and minimize the disadvantages, we employed
best practices for conducting insider case studies: seeking participation
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus
from a diverse set of employees, using multiple methods for collecting
data (including the option of anonymous data), triangulation, member
checking, reflecting on our own biases, and challenging one another in
the interpretation of data.
Data collection
Three primary methods of data collection were employed: a survey
of client-facing staff, focus groups of individuals in client-facing roles
who worked together in the same function or geographic region, and
a review of archival material related to the DAC Framework. The survey
offered a way to collect individual perspectives from a large number of
staff members with the option of maintaining anonymity. The focus
groups afforded the opportunity to hear from individuals in more
depth, was more conducive to story-telling, and allowed participants
to compare and build on each other's perspectives. The archival material
allowed us to review the public face of the DAC Framework and its usage
in publications and in materials shared with CCL program participants
and clients. Several interviews were also conducted with individuals
to obtain more details on examples that they shared on the survey or
during focus group discussions.
Staff survey
A survey was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data from
staff members about (a) their use of the DAC Framework (i.e., in what
types of leadership development work, which aspects of the frame-
work), (b) their perceptions of the impact of the framework on their
own understanding of leadership and on the practice of leadership de-
velopment at CCL, and (c) their perceptions of the benefits and limita-
tions of the framework. Respondents were informed that the survey
was part of a research project to document and reflect on CCL's use of
the DAC Framework, that their individual responses were confidential,
and that an organizational-level summary of the data would be pro-
vided back to all members of the organization. Respondents were
asked to identify their functional group and their tenure at CCL. Survey
respondents could choose to identify themselves by name on the survey
or respond anonymously.
The survey asked respondents:
• How frequently (regularly, occasionally, or never) they use the DAC
Framework in each of 13 types of typical client-facing work at CCL
(e.g., I share the framework in discussions or presentations with client
stakeholders; I teach the framework in the classroom as CCL's view of
leadership; I use the framework in working with or coaching teams).
For each situation, respondents could indicate that they were not
responding because they were not involved in that particular type of
work.
• How frequently (regularly, occasionally, or never) they use each of
five common graphics depicting the DAC Framework. Two of the
graphics focused only on the three leadership outcomes
(i.e., direction, alignment, and commitment). The other three graphics
depicted the full framework, which includes the causal role of leader-
ship culture and the effects of leadership.
• The extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each of three pos-
itive statements about the framework (the DAC Framework is the
right framework for CCL to use in its leadership development work;
the DAC Framework works well across different types of organiza-
tions; the DAC Framework works well across different global cul-
tures), three negative statements about the framework (the DAC
Framework has one or more important shortcomings; I have used
leadership frameworks that I like better than the DAC Framework;
the only reason I use the DAC Framework is because it is required at
CCL), and six statements about the impact of the framework
(e.g., the DAC Framework has changed my own perspective on leader-
ship; the DAC Framework has helped broaden CCL's practice to in-
clude team development). A 5-point response scale from strongly
5
The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456
disagree to strongly agree was used.
• Open-ended questions about the shortcomings of the DAC Frame-
work, ways in which the respondent's view of leadership has changed
since introduced to the DAC Framework, and examples of how the
DAC Framework has impacted CCL's programs and services, partici-
pants, or client organizations.
An invitation to participate in the research and a link to the elec-
tronic survey was emailed to all 177 full-time staff members who
(a) design, deliver, and manage leadership development interventions
(129), or (b) develop business, sell interventions, and manage client re-
lationships (48). Leadership development interventions include stan-
dard and customized training programs, individual and team
coaching, online leadership development tools, and organizational de-
velopment interventions. All of these staff members were college-
educated, with the majority holding advanced degrees. Eighty were
males and 97 were females. They were located in Africa (11), Asia
(17), Europe (21), and North America (128). Completed surveys were
received from 124 staff members (70% response rate). There were no
significant differences in response rates by organizational role or geo-
graphic location. Thirty-eight respondents had worked more than ten
years at CCL, 37 had worked five-ten years, 25 had worked two-five
years, and 24 had worked less than two years.
Focus groups
After the staff survey collection was complete, those invited to par-
ticipate in the survey were also invited to join focus group sessions facil-
itated by the researchers. To better capture their shared experiences,
focus groups were organized by geographic location. Participation in
the focus group was voluntary. Two focus groups were conducted
with staff in Africa, one in Asia, one in Europe, and seven in North
America. Fifty-six staff members participated in a focus group, with
group size ranging from 3 to 10 participants (M = 5.1).
All focus group attendees were briefly reminded of the purpose of
the research. The focus group discussions were semi-structured. The fa-
cilitators noted the four topics they would like to hear about from the
focus group members (although input related to additional topics was
welcome): stories about the impact of the DAC Framework on their
leadership development work, their views of the benefits and limita-
tions of the framework, and ways in which they used the leadership cul-
ture element of the framework (i.e., the most relational aspect of the
framework). Typically, a focus group member would start sharing his
or her input related to one of these topics and others would follow
suit. The facilitators would interject to ask clarifying questions and to
move the conversation to a new topic. All focus group sessions were re-
corded and transcribed.
Archival material
Publications by CCL staff that made use of the DAC Framework were
collected and reviewed. These publications were an additional source of
information about how the framework is being talked about and applied
to leadership development work. In addition, material in CCL's online
content management system was used to review the use of the DAC
Framework in program materials (e.g., slideshows, workbooks, hand-
outs) in the 2018 calendar year.
Data analysis
Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and frequencies)
were calculated for the 30 rated items on the survey. An inductive ap-
proach was used to identify themes in the qualitative data.
For each of two open-ended survey questions (shortcomings of the
framework, changes in the respondent's view of leadership), one of
the coauthors reviewed all responses, identified potential themes across
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus
the responses, and then coded each response into a theme. The second
co-author reviewed the categories and individual responses coded to
each category, noting additional insights that were incorporated into
the category descriptions. This review led to small adjustments in the
thematic categories and coding of individual responses. Two additional
researchers then independently coded each of the responses into one of
the thematic categories. Interrater coding agreement was 85% for the
shortcomings question and 87% for the changes in view of leadership
question. Initial disagreements were discussed and resolved. For the
third open-ended question seeking examples of DAC Framework
usage, the coauthors reviewed all responses and identified several cate-
gories of usage. The examples shared in the survey were typically not
detailed, thus more in-depth descriptions of usage were sought from
the focus group discussions, in several follow-up interviews with indi-
vidual staff members, and from publications by CCL authors that in-
cluded descriptions of how the DAC Framework was used in a specific
leadership development context.
Each co-author analyzed a subset of the focus group transcripts. The
inductive analysis of each transcript began by reading and highlighting
text related to each of the four topics of interest (i.e., impact of the DAC
Framework on leadership development, framework benefits, frame-
work limitations, and use of leadership culture). The relevant text was
then organized by topic, and themes were identified within each
topic. An overview of the content of each focus group was written.
The overview and the relevant text organized by topic and theme
were shared with focus group members. They were asked to individu-
ally review the analysis of their focus group conversation and indicate
whether it was consistent with their perceptions of that conversation
or, if not, to share anything they thought had been misinterpreted or
miscategorized. Forty-one focus group members (73%) indicated that
the analysis was consistent with their perceptions, three (5%) added
or suggested edits to the summary, and the remaining twelve (22%)
did not respond to the review request. One of the co-authors summa-
rized overall themes (by topic) across the 11 focus groups. The second
co-author then organized text from each focus group transcript into
these overall themes. Several themes were further clarified as a result
of this step.
The data analysis output was organized by our main research ques-
tions: In what ways has the DAC Framework impacted CCL leadership
development professionals' understanding of leadership and practice
of leadership development? How and for what purposes do staff mem-
bers use the DAC Framework in their work? What benefits and limita-
tions do they encounter in using the DAC Framework? Triangulation
across data sources and methods allowed us to compare and integrate
multiple sources of evidence.
Results
To capture the narrative emerging from the case study, we first pres-
ent findings on the use of the DAC Framework by leadership develop-
ment professionals at CCL: the extent to which they use the
framework in various types of leadership development work, the use
of various versions of the framework, and the acceptance and perceived
benefits of using the framework. We then examine the impact of the
framework on the professional staff's understanding of leadership and
their practice of leadership development. We end with findings on the
perceived limitations of the framework.
Use of the DAC Framework
The DAC Framework is used most frequently in training programs
and in interactions with client stakeholders. Seventy-five percent or
more of survey respondents involved in this type of work said that
they regularly share the framework in client discussions and proposals
and that they teach the framework in the classroom as CCL's view of
leadership, as part of modules on specific leadership topics, and
6
The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456
throughout the curriculum of multi-session programs. The framework
is used less frequently, but still regularly by over 50% of survey respon-
dents in assessing and coaching groups and teams, in needs assessments
with client organizations, in promoting CCL products, and in external
presentations (see Appendix A for detailed results).
We did find variation in what “the framework” refers to in practice.
The survey presented several of the most common graphics in use and
asked for frequency of usage by the respondent. Eighty-six percent
(107) of respondents reported that they regularly use a simple Venn di-
agram graphic depicting the three leadership outcomes (i.e., direction,
alignment, and commitment). Each of three variations of the full frame-
work (which also includes leadership culture and leadership effects) is
used regularly by a much smaller percent of respondents (8% - 24%);
however, 36% (45) regularly use and 54% (67) occasionally use at least
one of the full framework depictions. From reviewing materials used
in CCL's leadership development interventions and from focus group
discussions, we observed that the Venn diagram tends to be used
more frequently in basic programs with an emphasis on individual
leader development. The full framework tends to be used in contexts
of group or organizational development while working systemically
with the idea of leadership as a collective phenomenon.
Acceptance and perceived benefits of the framework
Survey respondents indicated a high acceptance of the framework.
Fifty-seven percent (71) strongly agreed and 32% (40) agreed with the
statement “The DAC Framework is the right framework for CCL to use
in its leadership development work,” while only 8% (10) agreed that
they had used frameworks they liked better than the DAC Framework,
and 6% (7) agreed that the only reason they use the framework is be-
cause it is required at CCL.
In the focus group discussions, we sought to learn more about the
reasons for these high acceptance rates by asking staff members about
the benefits of using the framework, identifying four broad themes in
their responses. One theme was related to the content of the frame-
work: positioning leadership as a collective phenomenon. The three
other themes were about overall qualities of the framework: simplicity,
breadth, and face validity across contexts.
Positions leadership as a collective phenomenon
Although leadership has often been described as a social process,
talk of leadership has strongly focused on characteristics and actions
of individuals identified as leaders. Staff members noted that the DAC
Framework encourages a shift in this mental model about leadership:
from what leaders do to what leadership produces, from leadership
that “happens inside people” to leadership that “happens between peo-
ple,” from heroic leaders to “leadership coming from anywhere,” from
focusing on individuals to focusing on individuals and collectives:
One of the things that I really appreciate about DAC is it helps me
shift—particularly within the leading-the-function level leaders—
their thinking around what a leader does versus what a group has.
So really getting at that organizational outcome rather than the indi-
vidual skillset.
Some staff members also noted that the framework identifies lead-
ership culture as the driver or “operating system” for DAC, which helped
them shift the leadership conversation with clients to the collective
level.
Simple framework with underlying complexity
Staff described the DAC Framework as a simple model that is easy for
people to understand, remember, and apply in their lives. Its simplicity
creates a “viral quality” about the framework, making it “sticky with cli-
ents” and “shaping the organization's language around leadership.”
Others added that the framework takes “a really rich, deep concept
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus
like DAC…and puts it into forms that are accessible to pretty much any-
one.” Making the framework “simple but not simplistic” allows “a facil-
itator to go as deeply as they want or to stay at a meaningful but more
surface level.”
Broad point of view
Staff also described the DAC Framework as a “point of view” and as a
“meta-theory.” Having this larger framework for understanding leader-
ship allowed them to use DAC as the core idea that other concepts and
models could “hang from” or “connect to.” That breadth allows for flex-
ibility in working with different clients:
When I did get really creative and combined it with the other theo-
ries and strands and really put the specific interpretation at the point
of the client, that's when it really grew on me because it gives you so
much flexibility. For me, I just had to get comfortable using all that
space it gave me because it's basically a meta-theory.
Several commented that the framework, unlike leader competency
models or the latest leadership fad, allows organizations to build effec-
tive leadership “without having to change the model every few years.”
The DAC Framework as a broad point of view is also reflected in staff
publications where practices for generating leadership in specific con-
texts are tied to the framework: boundary-spanning leadership (Ernst
& Chrobot-Mason, 2011), strategic leadership (Hughes, Beatty, &
Dinwoodie, 2014), leadership in teams (Morgeson, Lindoerfer, &
Loring, 2010), and leadership for organizational change (McGuire &
Rhodes, 2009; Palus, McGuire, & Ernst, 2012).
Face valid across contexts
Staff experience the DAC Framework as having high face validity
across different sectors (e.g., business organizations, NGOs, healthcare,
and schools) and leadership contexts (e.g., executive teams, front-line
leaders, and communities). Those staff who work around the world
have used the DAC Framework as a “mechanism through which we
can actually talk about [leadership] without asserting cultural biases.”
They describe the framework as “culturally neutral,” allowing for a
wide range of beliefs and practices for achieving DAC across country cul-
tures. On the staff survey, 94% (116) of respondents agreed that the DAC
Framework works well across different types of organizations, and 74%
(92) agreed that it works well across different global cultures.
Impact on understanding of leadership
On the staff survey, a large majority of individuals agreed that the
DAC Framework has changed their own perspective on leadership
(see Table 1). Eighty-one of the 100 respondents who indicated a
change described that change in more detail in response to an open-
ended question on the survey. Nearly half of them (36) expressed
how they now have a more collective view of leadership:
Table 1
Perceived impact of the DAC Framework.
The DAC Framework has…
Changed my own perspective on leadership.
Changed the way I talk about leadership with clients and/or participants.
Impacted the design of leadership development initiatives in my group or campus.
Helped broaden CCL’s practice of leadership development to include team development.
Helped broaden CCL’s practice of leadership development to include leadership culture development.
Helped broaden CCL’s practice of leadership development to include societal development.
7
The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456
My mindset shifted from the heroic leader to understanding the so-
cial process of leadership.Thinking of leadership as a collective pro-
cess rather than the actions of a specific individual is an
enlightening shift.I more fully recognize the collective aspects of
leadership and see it as the product of cooperation among group/
team/organization members.
Others (23) described a shift to evaluating leadership in terms of col-
lective outcomes rather than individual actions, or developing a more
systemic view that includes the role of shared leadership beliefs and
practices in producing leadership. A few respondents (14) pointed out
that the framework has given them simple language for a complex phe-
nomenon, better language for a view they already held, or a way of in-
tegrating their ideas about leadership.
Impact on practice of leadership development
On the staff survey, a substantial majority of respondents agreed that
the DAC Framework has impacted the design of leadership develop-
ment initiatives in their group and has helped broaden CCL's practice
beyond individual development to include team, leadership culture,
and (to a less extent) societal development (see Table 1). We examined
the relationship between frequency of use of the framework and per-
ceived impact. Staff members' average frequency of use across types of
leadership development work (listed in Appendix A) was significantly
correlated with four of the six statements about impact: changed the
way I talk about leadership (r = 0.27, p < .01), impacted the design of
leadership development initiatives (r = 0.31, p < .001), helped broaden
practice to include leadership culture development (r = 0.33, p < .001),
and helped broaden practice to include societal development (r = 0.23,
p < .01).
A review of the three editions of The CCL Handbook of Leadership De-
velopment also illustrated how the emergence of the DAC Framework
coincided with the expansion of the organization's leadership develop-
ment practices. The first edition (McCauley, Moxley, & Van Velsor,
1998), which predates the development of the framework, defines lead-
ership development as the expansion of a person's capacity to be effec-
tive in leadership roles and processes, and focuses entirely on
development methods and organizational processes for developing in-
dividuals. In the second edition (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004), DAC
as the outcomes of leadership appears, along with a distinction between
leader (individual) development and leadership (collective) develop-
ment. Yet only two of fourteen chapters focus on practices for collective
development, both focused at the organizational level. In the third edi-
tion (Van Velsor et al., 2010), the full DAC Framework appears. Five of
fourteen chapters focus on practices for collective development, includ-
ing team, organization, and societal development.
Examples of how staff currently use the DAC Framework in their
leadership development work—drawn from responses to an open-
ended survey question, focus group discussions, and archival documen-
tation of work with clients—illustrated four main ways in which the
Frequency, n (%)
Strongly Disagree Neither agree or Agree Strongly
disagree disagree agree
3 (2%) 6 (5%) 15 (12%) 64 (52%) 36 (29%)
2 (2%) 4 (3%) 5 (4%) 63 (51%) 50 (40%)
1 (1%) 2 (2%) 27 (22%) 59 (47%) 35 (28%)
1 (1%) 4 (3%) 31 (25%) 55 (44%) 33 (27%)
1 (1%) 0 (0%) 28 (23%) 58 (47%) 37 (30%)
0 (0%) 1 (1%) 51 (41%) 45 (36%) 27 (22%)
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus
framework is impacting their leadership development practice: (1) con-
veying an outcome-focused, relational framework as CCL's point of view
on leadership, (2) facilitating collective identification and action on
leadership issues, (3) developing leadership by focusing on leadership
culture, and (4) enabling the democratization of leadership develop-
ment.
Conveying an outcome-focused, relational framework as CCL's point of
view on leadership
The most frequent and basic use of the DAC Framework is sharing
the framework with clients and program participants as CCL's perspec-
tive on leadership. The framework is often introduced at the beginning
of programs. In addition to defining the elements of the framework and
their relationships, staff members typically ask participants to apply the
framework in some way, for example, sharing stories about times they
experienced high levels of direction, alignment, or commitment; engag-
ing in a group task and then reflecting on the experience through the
DAC lens; or evaluating DAC in a back-home group.
Staff members report emphasizing how this view of leadership is
different from how leadership is typically talked about:
I tend to contrast DAC with what many people walk into the room
with, which is the leader-follower model, and that this is a dramatic
shift that they have to think about differently.When I introduce DAC,
I say notice that what we're talking about when we define leader-
ship. We're talking about the outcome of the leadership versus the
input to leadership.I use a lead-in storyline emphasizing that CCL is
not trying to pin the tail on the donkey in terms of a definition for
leadership, but we can look for specific outcomes as evidence of
leadership. DAC are common denominators that we can all be
looking for, and we can share in the practice of producing them.
Returning to the framework throughout the program is seen by staff
as a best practice for reinforcing the framework and providing opportu-
nities to practice using it. One way this is accomplished is by linking the
content of the program (e.g., communication, influence, managing con-
flict) back to the framework. Another tactic is using the framework dur-
ing the debriefing of group exercises throughout the program. One staff
member described using the DAC Framework during a midpoint debrief
of a half-day group exercise:
When we do the exercise, we test their understanding of the three
leadership outcomes. During the midpoint check-in, the first thing
we ask them to do is to grab their journals and to write down what
they think their direction was for the afternoon. What does success
look like? At the end of this, what will they have achieved? Then
we ask for several people to share and it's fascinating. I have yet to
run a program where participants' answers are the same. It points
out how people can think they are clear about their objective, but of-
ten are not. We then get them to reflect and talk about the state of
alignment and commitment. They use those reflections to discuss
what to do differently for the second half of the exercise.
Staff members who deliver leadership development interventions in
the nonprofit and educational sectors find the DAC Framework particu-
larly useful for talking about leadership. In these contexts, individuals
regularly find themselves working across boundaries as peers, with no
one in a formal leadership role, for example, when several community
organizations come together to jointly tackle a social issue or when uni-
versity administrators and faculty work together in a shared governance
model. The framework often resonates with them in terms of how they
need to think about leadership, as one staff member explained:
It hit the nerve center of how really effective social sector leadership
happens, especially when we're talking about in communities, be-
cause it is a shared leadership situation. They have to behave that
way. And the DAC Framework gave an organizing principle to that,
8
The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456
what was already happening—a way to name it, a way to talk about
it. They resonated immediately.
Client interest in using the framework more broadly in their organi-
zations led to the creation of two types of “workshop kits” by CCL staff:
one for professionals to use in teaching the framework as part of formal
training programs and one for managers to use in teaching and applying
the framework with their teams.
Facilitating collective identification and action on leadership issues
Staff members use the DAC Framework to focus a group's attention
on generating leadership (i.e., direction, alignment, and commitment).
They see it as a “good central framework for groups to talk about
where they need to go, what results they need to get, and what's getting
in the way.” The group could be a management team, a functional unit,
an action learning team working on a strategic initiative, or a student
team working on a joint project.
The process starts by getting group members to produce a group-
level assessment of the current state of DAC in the group. Members eval-
uate current DAC individually, then combine their evaluations and to-
gether review their collective assessment. This exercise affords a
group the opportunity to see their level of agreement about current
DAC, explore why there may be disagreement, and, if an outcome is
lower than desired, to begin diagnosing contributing factors. Group
members are encouraged to think about potential contributing factors
from a broad systemic perspective, considering individual skills and mo-
tivations, group composition and structure, interactions and relation-
ships in the group, formal group processes, shared beliefs and values,
and the group's relationship with its external environment (McCauley
& Fick-Cooper, 2015). Groups move from diagnosing to enhancing
DAC by identifying action steps or new practices to experiment with,
as well as a plan for monitoring progress.
An example shared by one staff member illustrates this type of inter-
vention. At the request of the college president, he facilitated a session
with the president and her extended cabinet of 25 staff members to ex-
amine ways in which they could accomplish their shared work more ef-
fectively. Before the session each cabinet member had assessed current
levels of DAC in the group. In reviewing and discussing their combined
ratings, they identified alignment as the outcome that needed their at-
tention and then pinpointed several issues related to their communica-
tion and decision making processes as major contributors to their
shared sense of low alignment, for example, a lack of clarity about
who is responsible for various types of decisions. A subgroup was tasked
with moving the work of addressing these issues forward. The result of
focused study and discussion yielded a set of guiding questions for cab-
inet members to use to better coordinate their actions and a compre-
hensive “communication matrix” that articulates who takes
responsibility, who is consulted, and who needs to be informed about
decisions in specific domains (e.g., safety, community relations) and
effecting particular groups (e.g., students, faculty).
This type of collective-level intervention allows groups to examine
leadership as a social outcome produced by shared practices rather
than simply by the actions and influence of an individual in a position
of authority. It encourages groups to surface different perspectives
among members as well as taken-for-granted shared assumptions
about how people do and should work together to achieve collective
aims. It frames efforts to enhance direction, alignment, and commit-
ment as a shared responsibility.
Because the process of using the DAC Framework as a diagnostic tool
serves as a lever for producing more DAC, staff members also see value
in assessing a group's DAC over time to monitor changes:
I worked with a team in Norway and we assessed DAC at the begin-
ning of a two-day session and then at the end. They were excited to
see movement just in the work we did together those two days. They
then asked us to re-assess DAC three months later (at the team
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus
level), and they use it as a gauge and continual discussion starter for
the team.
Developing leadership by focusing on leadership culture
A growing number of CCL staff members use the DAC Framework to
develop leadership by focusing on leadership culture. The CCL Organiza-
tional Leadership (OL) practice area was established for the purpose of
enacting the full DAC Framework by working systemically in organiza-
tions and identifying how leadership culture can be intentionally
evolved or even transformed to more effectively address strategic chal-
lenges.
The OL practice uses the full DAC Framework. It's an imperative be-
cause that's the whole story, the bigger picture. It demonstrates the
depth and rigor of the framework. It explains why executive teams
need to focus on developing the leadership culture to achieve higher
outcomes. It works because you're talking about the organization
and how they can create the leadership culture through those prac-
tices.
This work was supported by the creation and testing of a three-stage
model grounded in constructive-developmental theory that articulates
how leadership cultures develop toward greater complexity and sys-
temic inter-connectedness (Drath, Palus, & McGuire, 2010; see
Table 2). Each stage represents a revised set of beliefs and practices for
how DAC is produced. In this three-stage progression, the cultural
view of “what is leadership” begins with command and control (depen-
dent), which is superseded by one of mutual influence (independent),
which in turn is superseded by a view of leadership as a fundamentally
collective activity (interdependent). Each subsequent stage transcends
and transforms (rather than replaces) the beliefs and practices in the
earlier stages. A series of organizational case studies reinforced the va-
lidity and utility of this model and began to influence how staff under-
stood and practiced leadership development (McCauley et al., 2008).
The DAC Framework and three-stage model of leadership culture is
currently used to satisfy client requirements for the transformation of
their cultures in support of new strategies and capabilities within a dis-
ruptive environment. An example of leadership culture transformation
work is the XYZ Company (details disguised). XYZ has a long, successful,
and tradition-based legacy in professional services. The CEO and execu-
tive team wanted to build on current success and also become more
agile in the face of industry-wide disruptions. Historically they had
done extensive individual leader development but now they sensed
that they had reached the limits of that approach. The traditions of the
organization, while still an overall strength, were sometimes getting in
the way of innovation and positive change. The executive team im-
mersed themselves in learning about new approaches to leadership de-
velopment and were attracted to the idea of creating a more inclusive,
agile, and interdependent leadership culture.
Table 2
DAC in dependent, independent, and interdependent leadership cultures.
Developmental stage of How do we agree on our direction?
leadership culturea
Dependent: Direction results from compliance with
People in authority are authority.
responsible for leadership
Independent: Direction results from discussion, mutual
Leadership is based on influence, and compromise.
individual expertise and
action
Interdependent: Direction results from shared exploration
Leadership is a collective and the emergence of revised perspectives.
activity
a
Each successive stage transcends and includes the earlier ones.
The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456
Staff members worked with the executive team of XYZ to explore
how they currently created DAC within their own leadership culture.
An historical timeline for the organization was co-constructed in a live
session. The past evolutions of the leadership culture were identified,
from its origins in a command-and-control hierarchy established by
the founders (dependent), to geographic and functional silos (indepen-
dent), to the current shift toward flattening hierarchy and working
across boundaries (interdependent).
The executive team reflected on their shared beliefs and practices for
creating DAC, and how they might shift those in order to become a more
interdependent leadership culture. For example, they identified an im-
portant category of “how we talk to each other.” Their existing belief
was something like “people here feel safe talking with their leaders.”
After reflecting on evidence they gathered, the revised belief was “psy-
chological safety is often missing when we talk to each other and we
need to create a safer environment in which people can make mistakes
and take risks.” In order to put this belief into practice, the idea of rela-
tional dialogue (Palus & Drath, 2001) was introduced. They applied the
dialogical moves of framing, advocating, illustrating, and inquiring
(Torbert & Associates, 2004) to a series of urgent, yet sensitive, strategic
challenges in the organization. The simple move to sitting in a circle
without a table increased mutual awareness and vulnerability. The on-
going practice of dialogue drew attention to the power of conversational
habits and the need for psychological safety.
The executive team began to map out their mutually desired future
leadership culture in terms of the beliefs and practices for being more
interdependent in the creation of DAC. CCL staff members worked
with the executive team to co-facilitate relational dialogue among the
next level of 50 leaders as a “culture team,” starting with their own
DAC assessment and comparing their perceptions of DAC with the per-
ceptions of the executive team. Working across organizational bound-
aries, these 50 leaders started defining how a more interdependent
leadership culture would work in practical terms. For example, they
met regularly to share their stories, engage in dialogue, and apply the in-
sights to their everyday work. Each was equipped with a DAC kit for use
with their own workgroups to assess DAC and discuss the implications.
Staff report that DAC has become a shared language in the organization
used to diagnose and discuss leadership and performance issues.
Enabling the democratization of leadership development
The DAC Framework was developed in the same time period as the
CCL initiative Leadership Beyond Boundaries (LBB). The objective of LBB
was to reach under-served and economically-disadvantaged popula-
tions around the world by democratizing leadership development,
that is, redesigning it as an inclusive process to reach leaders from all
walks of society (Altman, Rego, & Harrison, 2010; Palus, Harrison, &
Prasad, 2016). LBB staff report that the DAC Framework has been instru-
mental for innovating their approaches to leadership development to
the aims of democratization. The results of this innovation have been
twofold: More people are able to see themselves as effective
How do we coordinate to align our work? How do we mutually commit to the collective?
Alignment results from fitting into the Commitment results from loyalty to the source of
expectations of the larger system. authority or to the community.
Alignment results from negotiation among Commitment results from evaluating the benefits
self-responsible people. to self while benefiting the larger community.
Alignment results from ongoing mutual Commitment results from engagement in a
adjustment among system-responsible developing community.
people.
9
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus
participants in leadership processes, and more people are able to facili-
tate effective leadership development experiences as non-professionals.
The first prototypes for LBB were created and tested at a new CCL of-
fice in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, with a critical awareness that the theory
and practice of leadership development is embedded in Western cul-
tural assumptions. In East Africa, the term “leader” denotes formal
power and authority. “Leadership” usually means a ruling cadre of elites
who are often divorced from the lives of the populace. Few people as-
pire to be leaders and the connotations tend to be negative. Most partic-
ipants in the LBB programs did not identify themselves as leaders in this
way. Typically, they were citizens, students, and members of their vari-
ous communities who desired to achieve better lives for themselves and
for each other.
Staff in Addis began testing the DAC Framework as an inclusive per-
spective that emphasizes how participation in sociocultural processes
creates the outcomes of leadership. In their workshops, they engaged
participants in a reflective exercise about their own experiences of lead-
ership, then introduced a simple model of DAC as “the three-legged
stool” (a traditional cultural artifact in Ethiopia) that defines when lead-
ership is happening. What ensues is a lively discussion about where DAC
comes from, what it looks like, the status of DAC in their own organiza-
tions or communities, and their individual roles in creating and main-
taining DAC. A key message was that people who were not formal
leaders could nonetheless participate effectively in the processes that
create DAC, a message that tends to be received positively:
The thing that we are seeing people make in terms of a leap is from
the idea that it's something that happens inside them, like a charac-
ter trait, to something that happens between them as a collective act.
Once they understand leadership that way, they immediately see
their own power. It just changes everything; the conversation, it dis-
pels tensions, they're less skeptical, they see themselves in it.
The second key result from LBB has been that more people are able
to facilitate effective leadership development experiences as non-
professionals. One of the explicit principles of LBB is that the ideas and
exercises are potentially viral. Participants are supported in “taking
this home” to share with peers and work groups. As they refined the
LBB methods, staff began running train-the-trainer sessions to propa-
gate the capabilities for basic leadership development among the popu-
lations being served. Staff report that these capabilities are reasonably
widespread and that the LBB sequence for “teaching DAC” (as reported
above) is “good for beginners” and an attractive starting place for non-
professionals in the field:
I think we've repeated that exercise to probably more than a half a
million people. I was talking to the European Center for Electoral
Support, and realizing that they've trained almost 200,000 people
with our direction, alignment, and commitment exercises without
us. Well over 750,000 people have now likely used this same meth-
odology and have direction, alignment, commitment burned into
their brain.
Perceived limitations of the framework
Although the DAC Framework was being widely used at CCL, 32%
(40) of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the frame-
work has one or more important shortcomings, and elaborated on
these shortcomings in an open-ended question. Framework limitations
were also expressed in all focus groups in response to direct probes.
Across the survey and focus group responses, we identified four main
categories of perceived limitations. The two most frequently expressed
concerns were perceived deficiencies in how staff understand and teach
the framework, and the lack of prescriptive guidance for generating DAC
in groups and organizations. Two less-voiced concerns were the ab-
sence of concepts that staff members saw as relevant to leadership
10
The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456
and limited empirical support for the relationship between DAC and
group results.
Deficiencies in how the DAC Framework is understood and taught
Staff members observed considerable variance in how colleagues
understand and teach the framework. Much of this variance is viewed
as sub-optimal rather than adaptive. Some believe that others do not
fully understand the framework and its nuances. For example, some re-
spondents observed that it was used simplistically (“just a description of
the three components”) while lacking the systemic and dynamic as-
pects of the full framework (“very little understanding of the full
power of the DAC model… maybe a passing familiarity or understand-
ing of beliefs and practices.”). Others observed that colleagues do not
fully address the relational underpinnings of the framework or its ef-
forts to “transcend and include” the traditional leader-follower view of
leadership:
Understanding that leadership happens in the space between peo-
ple, rather than necessarily in one individual … is something that's
really hard to get across and has been hard to get across to our
own colleagues.
A particular concern is the challenge of holding a view of leadership
that is both individual and collective. On the one hand, CCL has tradi-
tionally taught leadership from an individual leader perspective, and
in that tradition, some staff use the DAC Framework to describe what in-
dividual leaders do (e.g., set direction, create alignment). Others see this
as a “fundamental disconnect” with the framing of DAC as “an outcome
of collective activity.” On the other hand, even those who do understand
the relational nature of the framework express the need for a more “ex-
plicit link between the individual and collective.”
Lack of prescriptive guidance for enacting the framework
A number of staff members perceive shortcomings in the framework
because it does not offer prescriptive guidance for how to enhance DAC
in groups:
The framework itself is fine, but we fail to give inspiration for con-
crete actions to drive DAC. We explain the framework, we help peo-
ple assess DAC, that's it.
Some noted that this is “not a limitation so much as a recognition
that DAC is an outcome-based framework.” However, they still thought
“we could be more explicit about what drives these outcomes.” Others
note that this limitation requires them to supplement the DAC Frame-
work with other models that more specifically address practices. This
shortcoming is consistent with criticism of the framework by relational
theorists who see its outcome focus as detracting from a closer exami-
nation of relational processes (Crevani, Lindgren, & Packendorf, 2010;
Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011).
Not addressing particular concepts relevant to leadership
A number of concepts which are often part of the leadership conver-
sation are not explicitly called out in the DAC Framework. Some staff re-
ported that they do not have ready answers for participants who “want
to know where power plays into DAC” or give the framework a “harsh
review” because it is seen as “ignoring equity, diversity, and inclusion is-
sues.” The framework also does not “overtly incorporate ethical consid-
erations,” for example, whether people uniting for purposes seen by
many as unethical should be viewed as effective leadership. A related
concern was the need to be more explicit about the role of context in
how DAC is manifested and how it is produced so that we “recognize
the nuances of DAC with different populations of people.”
Limited empirical support linking DAC to collective results
It is not uncommon for a client to want evidence that a leadership
framework is supported by research, and a few staff members expressed
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus
concerns about whether there was rigorous research evidence linking
DAC to outcomes important to organizations:
I haven't been challenged by this explicitly, but it is a potential chal-
lenge to say, “Okay, you say DAC is good. We should have DAC, but
can you prove that organizations that have DAC do perform better
in the marketplace?” Maybe this answer exists somewhere in the lit-
erature, but I don't know it.
Others noted that they are unable to answer participant questions
about how much DAC is needed for success (e.g. how tight does our co-
ordination need to be for us to have good alignment?) or that better
documentation is needed about how groups have benefitted from
higher DAC.
Discussion
Our broad aim was to understand how relational views of leadership
impact leadership development professionals and their practice. In our
case study, we examined the impact of a specific relational framework
on a community of leadership development professionals' understand-
ing of leadership and their practice of leadership development. We ex-
plored how and for what purposes these professionals use the
framework in their work, as well as the benefits and limitations they en-
counter in using the framework.
We found that the use and acceptance of the framework was wide-
spread in the case organization, and a majority of staff members agreed
that it had changed their perspective on leadership. However, we ob-
served variability in how these individuals appeared to make sense of
the framework. There was often talk of a “more collective view of lead-
ership” but with different points of emphasis. Some emphasized seeing
leadership as a social process involving everyone in a group rather than
the actions of an individual. Others emphasized leadership as an out-
come that is collectively produced. A smaller subgroup emphasized
the systemic role of leadership culture in the production of leadership.
These differences were reflected in the various visuals used to depict
and explain the framework. The differences also created some friction
within the community of professionals. For instance, those who regu-
larly highlighted the role of leadership culture felt that those who did
not do so were not fully understanding the relational underpinnings
of the framework. Others were concerned that a heavy emphasis on
the relational aspects of the framework were potentially obscuring the
role of individuals in producing leadership. These variations and ten-
sions are similar to those among leadership researchers who explore
leadership from a relational lens. For example, some researchers see
leadership as residing in social processes within bounded groups,
while others see it residing in systemic patterns at the organizational
level (Ospina et al., 2020). Researchers also differ in whether they
view relational leadership as individuals engaging in collective pro-
cesses or as an emergent property of collective processes (Uhl-Bien &
Ospina, 2012b).
Many staff made use of the framework in traditional leadership pro-
grams, teaching it as the organization's formal perspective on leadership
and contrasting it with leader-centric perspectives. Given the existing
emphasis in these programs on developing interpersonal skills, talking
about leadership as a collective process did not appear to be a big leap
for those promoting and facilitating the programs. Facilitators did ex-
press gaining the ability to bring a broad lens on leadership to any num-
ber of interpersonal topics (e.g., communication, conflict management,
and team development), thus creating program experiences that were
more cohesive for participants. And by emphasizing that leadership is
best assessed in terms of collective outcomes, facilitators were promot-
ing leadership monitoring and improvement as a shared responsibility
within the context of ongoing collective work. These experienced bene-
fits of the framework, along with the positive reactions of participants
11
The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456
and clients, reinforced use of the framework in individual development
programs.
Yet, relational views illuminate the need to expand development ini-
tiatives beyond individual development, making the development of
collectives a critical aspect of leadership development (Drath et al.,
2008; Uhl-Bien & Ospina, 2012b). The case study participants did report
that the DAC Framework helped their organization expand its leader-
ship development practice to include team, organization, and societal
development. These targets represented a small yet growing proportion
of the organization's leadership development interventions. Leadership
development practices aimed at collective development often started
with group members collectively assessing the current state of leader-
ship outcomes (i.e., direction, alignment, and commitment) and exam-
ining the social system for insights about shared processes, structures,
beliefs, and practices that bolstered or undermined these outcomes.
There was an emphasis on individuals seeing their own role in the pro-
duction of DAC and together experimenting with new practices. Al-
though leadership development professionals typically facilitated the
initial developmental work with a group, there was often a desire and
expectation that group members could themselves facilitate similar
processes throughout a larger collective. By being less leader-centric, fo-
cusing on collective concerns in evaluating leadership, and accentuating
systemic change, these practices were tackling some of the critiques of
traditional leadership development.
Focusing on a single case study limits our ability to make strong as-
sertions about the causal role of relational views of leadership on the
evolution of leadership development practices. We did not collect longi-
tudinal data, compare our case with one in which a relational view of
leadership had not been introduced, or examine a counterfactual case
(in which leadership development practices were not changing) that
could illuminate what factors might enable change (Gerring &
McDermott, 2007). However, within our case study, there was evidence
that leadership development professionals experienced the DAC Frame-
work as impactful. By asking study participants about changes in their
perspectives and practices, we were asking them to take a longitudinal
view. A large majority of them experienced the framework as having an
impact on their understanding of leadership and practice of leadership
development. They could describe specific ways in which their thinking
changed and how those changes altered their practice in beneficial
ways, and we could identify commonalities in these changes consistent
with the tenets of a relational perspective. Also, the more regularly lead-
ership development professionals used the framework in their own
work, the stronger was their belief that it was impacting their and the
institution's practice. Finally, an archival review of three editions of
CCL's codification of its leadership development work also demon-
strated how this community's increasingly relational perspective on
leadership and its development practices co-evolved. To us, this pattern
of results points to the DAC Framework as an important enabler of the
development of CCL's leadership development practice. Staff found
that the framework's relational perspectives could be utilized to help
clients who were seeking more collaborative approaches to work and
better strategies for organizational change, as well as in efforts to
make leadership development more broadly available and relevant for
everyone. It is this instrumental value that attracted adopters of the
framework. This is not to say that other, less-relational frameworks
could not have served as an enabler for the broadening of CCL's leader-
ship development practice, but rather that a relational perspective on
leadership did appear to serve that function in this case.
Leadership development practice: A developmental trajectory
Taken together, the case study findings suggest that the emerging
relational paradigm for understanding leadership is challenging and
stretching the established individual paradigm. To further reflect on
the pattern of findings from the case study in the context of broader
changes observed in the leadership development field, we used
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456

constructive-developmental theory to make sense of how leadership
development is itself developing. According to constructive-
developmental theory, people construct meaning and take action in
the world through comprehensive worldviews which develop in stages
(Kegan, 1994). The process is one in which a later, more complex and
integrated worldview replaces an earlier, simpler and more limited
worldview which has reached its limits of utility in the face of increas-
ingly complex challenges. Although typically used to describe individual
development, constructive-developmental theory has also been applied
to collective development (Torbert & Associates, 2004) and to how peo-
ple understand leadership development (Kjellström, Stålne, &
Törnblom, 2020).
As we theorize about the development of the beliefs and practices of
leadership development among the professionals in our field, we posit a
constructive-developmental shift in which the relational paradigm
transcends the individual paradigm, while still including it as a special
case in a more complex and integrated form. Table 3 shows this move-
ment from the established paradigm to the developing paradigm. The
developing paradigm that we observe in the field of leadership develop-
ment is a hybrid that consists of both the fully relational paradigm (on
the far right) and a complexified version of the established paradigm
(the middle column). Complexification is brought about by the need
to stretch current understanding to account for changes in the contexts
calling for forms of leadership that are increasingly peer-like, with mu-
tual and distributed power and influence. Disruption is brought about
by the radically different perspectives entering the field, which we
broadly theorize as the relational view.
There are three threads of development represented in Table 3. One
thread is the shift from understanding leadership development as solely
the development of individuals to understanding it as the development
of collectives (that include individuals). In the established paradigm,
leaders influencing followers is seen as the source of leadership. Thus,
individual leaders are the target of leadership development interven-
tions—particularly elite individuals in positions of power. The effective-
ness of these interventions is evaluated by assessing improvements in
the skills and achievements of leaders. In the developing paradigm, mu-
tual influence and relational meaning-making in a collective is seen as
the source of leadership. Thus, the target of leadership development in-
terventions is expanded to include teams and leadership cultures, and
participation is more inclusive. Individuals are still an important focus,
but individuality itself is complexified by its relational underpinnings.
A second developmental thread is from leadership development that
is universal and generic to leadership development that is local and
highly contextualized. In the established paradigm, there are universal
principles of leadership. Thus, the content of leadership development
is generic (i.e., the same for all participants). Participants typically en-
gage with this content in settings separate from their work, with their
learning facilitated by leadership development professionals with spe-
cialized knowledge and skills. In the developing paradigm, leadership
principles are constructed locally, for example, in organizations, com-
munities, or societal cultures. Development interventions may still be
separate in space and time from the ongoing work; however, the con-
tent of these interventions is more intentionally shaped by locally-
constructed leadership principles or new principles emerge in the
course of the intervention. These interventions might be facilitated by
professionals who do not see themselves as leadership development
specialists (e.g., high school teachers, organizational learning practi-
tioners) or by local leaders. In the developing paradigm, universal and
generic aspects of leadership development are still asserted, but these
are now more closely criticized, filtered, and shaped with respect to
local contingencies.
The third development thread is from leadership development de-
signed to enhance conformity and the status quo, to leadership develop-
ment designed to increase diverse participation and to disrupt the
status quo. In the established paradigm, leaders are developed to func-
tion in hierarchies according to a pre-existing set of norms and values,
and dependent leadership cultures are normative. In the developing
paradigm, pre-existing norms and values are called into question and
a large degree of change is an explicit part of the strategy. The abilities
to navigate and thrive in “permanent whitewater” (Vaill, 1996), that
is, in an environment of ongoing transformation and interdependence,
are increasingly valued at both the individual and collective levels and
form the new rationale of leadership development.
We observed the developing paradigm in our case study. Leadership
development professionals described their own views of leadership as
being less leader-centric, as understanding leadership as mutually gen-
erated and an achievement of the collective. Aspects of complexifying
the established paradigm were particularly evident in their practices.
For example, they were teaching and reinforcing a more collective
view of leadership in individual development programs. They were
working more with teams, but not by prescribing generic approaches
to improving leadership. Instead, they were facilitating the team's col-
lective assessment of its leadership outcomes and its own discovery
and experimentation with new practices. They were also equipping in-
dividual leaders to facilitate this type of leadership development work
with their own teams. Aspects of disrupting the established paradigm
were also apparent in the case study. The Organizational Leadership
practice focused on the development of more interdependent leader-
ship cultures in organizations seeking transformation. In these organi-
zations, development was being integrated into ongoing strategic

Table 3
The development of leadership development.

Aspects of leadership Established paradigm Developing paradigm

development

Complexifying the established paradigm Disrupting the established paradigm

Source of leadership
Target of leadership development
Typical participants in leadership
development
Evaluating leadership
development
Generalization of leadership
development
Relationship between
development and work
Leadership development
practitioners
Strategic aims of leadership
development
Desired state of leadership
cultures
Leaders influencing followers
Individual leaders
Elites
Assess the skills and
achievements of leaders
Leadership development is
generic
Development is separate from
work
Leadership development
professionals
Conformity
Dependent
Mutual influence between leaders and followers Relational meaning-making in a collective
Individuals and teams Leadership cultures
A more diverse and inclusive population Potentially everybody
Assess teamwork and team performance Assess the ability of the leadership culture to
create strategic results
Leadership development has generic aspects shaped Leadership development emerges from local
by local contingencies contingencies
Development is shaped by work Development is embedded in work
Diverse professionals and leaders Potentially everybody
Evolution Transformation
Independent Interdependent

12
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus
work of the organization. The Leadership Beyond Boundaries initiative,
as well as those working in the nonprofit and educational sectors, were
bringing leadership development to diverse populations, well beyond
CCL's traditional focus on elites. The LBB initiative in particular was
empowering citizens to facilitate leadership development with others.
There is also evidence of the developing paradigm in the broader
field of leadership development. Practitioners' conceptualizations of
leadership development extend beyond a singular focus the develop-
ment of individuals who occupy positions of authority (Kjellström
et al., 2020). Employees at all levels of organizations are more regularly
involved in leadership development activities (Harvard Business
Publishing, 2016; Pillans, 2015). There is also a growing mandate for in-
stitutions of higher education to purposefully develop leaders (Dugan &
Komives, 2007) and for all college students to learn how to participate
in the process of leadership (Sessa, 2017). Developing collective leader-
ship in teams has become a more frequent target of leadership develop-
ment (Hawkins, 2011). Under the label of “organizational learning,”
practices have emerged that integrate and blur the lines between indi-
vidual and collective development to generate greater cooperation
and adaptation in organizations, for example, communities of practice
(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) and whole-system-in-the-
room processes (Weisbord & Janoff, 2010).
Leadership development is also becoming more contextualized and
localized. It is common for practitioners to work closely with organiza-
tional stakeholders to customize the goals and content of leadership de-
velopment programs to support the strategic aims of the organization
and to help participants with the challenges encountered in their daily
work environments (Bersin by Deloitte, 2017). Action learning, in
which participants work together on a strategic project and give atten-
tion to learning from their shared experience, has become a popular
leadership development approach (O'Neill & Marsick, 2007). These ini-
tiatives assume that leadership development is best embedded in the
settings where leadership is happening and where groups of leaders
learn how to address and solve their own problems (Raelin, 2016). Or-
ganizations have increasingly put more responsibility for leadership de-
velopment in the hands of line managers, expecting them to mentor and
coach employees and to partner with leadership development profes-
sionals in facilitating formal development programs (Thomas, Jules, &
Belin, 2014). Some organizations actively support the capturing and
sharing of leadership stories and insights from their own organizational
members rather than relying on generic advice or best practices from
other organizations (Allen, 2014; Bly & Kizilos, 2014).
Finally, leadership development is increasingly aimed at the trans-
formation of organizational cultures in a disruptive environment
(Harvard Business Publishing, 2018). Some organizations are intention-
ally cultivating radical levels of interdependence through mutual ad-
justment among system-responsible people (Laloux, 2014).
Widespread digital disruption is forcing many organizations to rapidly
evolve their cultures and capabilities toward digital fluency and analytic
agility in which all systems are interconnected, interdependent, and on-
line (Bughin, 2017). In these environments, leadership development
and culture transformation is based in real-time learning embedded in
new ways of working together.
Future directions
The reconstruction of leadership development into a more complex
and comprehensive practice is the work of both leadership scholars and
leadership development practitioners. How might leadership scholars
have a greater impact on this reconstruction of leadership develop-
ment? This is a question that holds personal relevance for us, particu-
larly in terms of partnering with leadership development practitioners
in our own and in client organizations to test and advance relational
views of leadership in the practice of leadership development. Certainly
leadership scholars have critiqued established leadership development
paradigms and brought forward disruptive ideas that challenge the
13
The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456
established paradigm, and should continue to do so. Yet it is the space
in between—complexifying the established paradigm—that is intrigu-
ing. In our own experience, we have tended to work alongside practi-
tioners who are already committed to the disrupting paradigm and
who were working with organizations attracted to these new ideas.
These opportunities to test the relevance of relational views in applied
settings and to co-produce language for communicating these ideas
have proven invaluable, and we encourage other scholars to pursue
such opportunities. However, by working with practitioners who are
less committed to the disrupting paradigm, who are concerned about
its shortcomings, or who are working with organizations more comfort-
able with the established paradigm, we anticipate deeper learning
about what others see as confusing, limiting, or wrong-headed about re-
lational views, and find ways to frame and use these views that also
honor the more established views.
Another strategy that leadership development scholars can pursue is
creating opportunities for practitioners interested in disruptive ideas to
share and learn from one another. One of us has been active in manag-
ing a community of practice focused on applying relational views to the
practice of leadership development. Practitioners both inside and out-
side of CCL discuss work they are engaged in and the insights being gen-
erated. In conducting focus groups for the case study, we discovered
pockets of experimentation we were unaware of in our own organiza-
tion that should be shared more broadly via a community of practice.
A related idea is to engage colleagues who raised thorny issues about
applying relational views of leadership in action-learning teams to
deepen our understanding of these issues and co-produce potential so-
lutions. For example, we observed a tension in the CCL practitioner com-
munity between wanting to provide collectives with prescriptive advice
for improving DAC and wanting collectives to discover together how to
improve DAC. Another tension is between privileging the individual and
privileging the collective in talk of leadership. Those with strong rela-
tional views would sometimes ask, “Why talk about individual
leaders?” while those who valued aspects of the established paradigm
would ask, “How can the role of individuals just disappear?” A team
with diverse views on these types of issues could not only explore the
different perspectives, but experiment with practices that take different
perspectives into account.
Continued research that takes a relational view of leadership is also
needed to reconstruct leadership development. First, the notion that
leadership is produced not by individual leaders but by shared practices
needs better illustration through field studies. Useful examples include
research by Ospina and Foldy (2010) in social change organizations
that uncovered five leadership practices which created the conditions
for collaborative work among diverse actors, and Huffaker's (2017) re-
search that identified patterns in the daily activities, types of relation-
ships, and ways of interacting that drove the development of a
collaborative leadership culture in one organization. This research
should also heed the call for more attention on the micro-processes
that unfold as individuals interact and co-construct meaning in the mo-
ment (Crevani et al., 2007; Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011). Research also
needs to closely examine the consequences, both intended and unin-
tended, of relationally-produced leadership outcomes, such as direction
and coordination; otherwise, relational views of leadership may fall
prey to the same romantic views of leadership that established views
of leadership are often accused of (Sergi, Denis, & Langley, 2012). Fi-
nally, there is the critical task of evaluating leadership development
that takes a relational view. What is the impact on participants and
their organizations and communities? Does the development of leader-
ship development deliver better results?
A final important consideration is a legitimate concern raised about
relational views of leadership: diluting the distinctiveness of leadership
as a phenomenon (Denis et al., 2012; Shamir, 2012). By opening up the
boundary of leadership to include mutual influence and relational
meaning-making, the question becomes how is leadership different
from other social processes? Our own work, as well as the work of
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456

others (e.g., Crevani et al., 2007; Fletcher, 2012; Uhl-Bien, 2006), sug-
gests that the boundary can be redrawn by recognizing leadership in
terms of the relational outcomes that enable people to combine their ef-
forts in service of collective goals (e.g., direction, coordinated action).
Yet, there is little discussion or consensus around this issue among
those who are advancing a relational view of leadership. More attention
needs to be given to why or in what contexts it is useful to integrate var-
ious social processes that have been understood as distinct
(e.g., leadership, teamwork, collaboration, organizational change) and
understand them as forms of a broader social process category.
Relational views of leadership are enabling new directions for the
practice of leadership development. These new directions hold promise
for addressing the demand from organizations for leadership develop-
ment that is more sensitive to context and supportive of organizational
transformation. Yet any major reconstruction of the leadership
development practice is in its early stages. A constructive-
developmental lens on leadership development offers a way forward
that brings both established and disruptive views into a more complex
paradigm for leadership development. Such a paradigm appears critical
for helping individuals and collectives adapt and thrive in an increas-
ingly complex and interdependent world.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Special Issue Editor David Day and
four anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback during the re-
view process. We are also indebted to our colleagues at the Center for
Creative Leadership who engaged with us in the case study research.
A special note of appreciation goes to Bill Drath, who continued to pro-
voke our thinking during the writing of this manuscript.

Appendix A. Use of the DAC Framework in different types of leadership development work by CCL leadership development professionals
Leadership development work Frequency, n (%)

Regularly Occasionally Never Not involved

a

I teach the framework in the classroom as CCL's view of leadership. 84 (88%) 12 (12%) 0 28
(0%)
I share the framework in discussions or presentations with client stakeholders. 93 (81%) 21 (18%) 1 9
(1%)
I include the framework in proposals to prospective clients. 89 (80%) 21 (19%) 1 13
(1%)
I teach the framework as part of modules on specific leadership topics (e.g., boundary spanning leadership, team effectiveness). 71 (76%) 21 (23%) 1 31
(1%)
I make the framework a fundamental concept in the development initiative, returning to it and weaving it through the 77 (75%) 25 (24%) 1 21
curriculum. (1%)
I use the framework in debriefing group exercises. 66 (66%) 31 (31%) 3 24
(3%)
I use the framework in working with or coaching intact teams. 55 (66%) 27 (32%) 2 40
(2%)
I ask individuals to assess their group using the DAC Framework. 68 (63%) 39 (36%) 1 16
(1%)
I use the framework in discovery work with clients. 66 (63%) 36 (35%) 2 20
(2%)
I promote or sell products that make use of the framework. 59 (58%) 38 (38%) 4 23
(4%)
I include the framework in presentations to external audiences. 53 (55%) 41 (42%) 3 27
(3%)
I use the framework as part of developing the groups I'm a member of at CCL. 49 (46%) 50 (47%) 8 17
(7%)
I design products that make use of the framework. 38 (46%) 39 (48%) 5 42
(6%)

n = 124.
a
For each type of leadership development work, respondents could indicate that they
were not involved in that type of work. In calculating the percentage of respondents who used the DAC Framework in a particular type of work, those who were not involved in that type of
work were not included. This allows for a clearer comparison of the percentages across types of work.

References
Allen, N. (2014). CompanyCommand: A peer-to-peer learning forum. In C. D. McCauley,
D. S. DeRue, P. R. Yost, & S. Taylor (Eds.), Experience-driven leader development
(pp. 279–285). Wiley.
Altman, D. G., Rego, L., & Harrison, S. D. (2010). Democratizing leadership development. In
E. Van Velsor, C. D. McCauley, & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), The Center for Creative Lead-
ership handbook of leadership development (pp. 221–250) (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
American Productivity and Quality Center (2006). Leadership development strategy:
Linking strategy, collaborative learning, and individual leaders. APQC.
Beer, M., Finnstrom, M., & Schrader, D. (2016, October). Why leadership training fails—
And what to do about it. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 50–57.
Bersin by Deloitte (2017). The new leadership framework: Building sustainable leadership
growth. Bersin by Deloitte.
Bly, P. R., & Kizilos, M. (2014). Building organization-specific knowledge about key devel-
opmental experiences. In C. D. McCauley, D. S. DeRue, P. R. Yost, & S. Taylor (Eds.),
Experience-driven leader development (pp. 37–44). Wiley.
Boudreau, J., & Rice, S. (2015, July-August). Bright shiny objects and the future of HR: How
Juniper Networks tests and integrates the most valuable new approaches. Harvard
Business Review, 93(7), 72–78.
Brannick, T., & Coghlan, D. (2007). In defense of being “native”: The case for insider aca-
demic research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 59–74.
Bughin, J. (2017). The best response to digital disruption. MIT Sloan Management Review,
58(4), 80–86.
Burgoyne, J. G., & Turnbull, J. K. (2001). Leadership development: Best practice guide for or-
ganisations. Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership.
Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2001). The leadership pipeline: How to build the leadership
powered company. Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Benjamin, B. (1999). Building leaders: How successful companies develop the
next generation. Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantita-
tive and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
Crevani, L. (2018). Is there leadership in a fluid world? Exploring the ongoing production
of direction in organizing. Leadership, 14(1), 83–109.
Crevani, L., & Endrissat, N. (2016). Mapping the leadership-as-practice terrain. In J.
A. Raelin (Ed.), Leadership-as-practice: Theory and application (pp. 21–49).
Routledge.
Crevani, L., Lindgren, M., & Packendorf, J. (2010). Leadership, not leaders: On the study of
leadership as practices and interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(1),
77–86.
Crevani, L., Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2007). Shared leadership: A postheroic per-
spective on leadership as a collective construction. International Journal of
Leadership Studies, 3(1), 40–67.
Cullen-Lester, K. L., Maupin, C. K., & Carter, D. R. (2017). Incorporating social networks
into leadership development: A conceptual model and evaluation of research and
practice. Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 130–152.
Cunliffe, A. L., & Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64(11),
1425–1449.

14
C.D. McCauley and C.J. Palus
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11
(4), 581–613.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. Leadership Quarterly,
15(6), 857–880.
Denis, J., Langley, A., & Sergi, V. (2012). Leadership in the plural. Academy of Management
Annals, 6(1), 211–283.
Denyer, D., & James, K. T. (2016). Doing leadership-as-practice development. In J. A. Raelin
(Ed.), Leadership-as-practice: Theory and application (pp. 262–283). Routledge.
Dotlich, D. L., & Noel, J. L. (1998). Action learning: How the world’s top companies are re-
creating their leaders and themselves. Jossey-Bass.
Drath, W. H. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Drath, W. H., McCauley, C. D., Palus, C. J., Van Velsor, E., O’Connor, P. M. G., & McGuire, J. B.
(2008). Direction, alignment, commitment: Toward a more integrative ontology of
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 635–653.
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.
Drath, W. H., Palus, C. J., & McGuire, J. B. (2010). Developing an interdependent leadership
culture. In E. Van Velsor, C. D. McCauley, & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), The Center for Cre-
ative Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 405–428) (3rd ed.). Jossey-
Bass.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college students:
Findings from a national study. A report from the multi-institutional study of leadership.
National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.
Ernst, C., & Chrobot-Mason, D. (2011). Boundary spanning leadership. McGraw-Hill.
Feser, C., Nielsen, N., & Rennie, M. (2017). What’s missing in leadership development?
McKinsey Quarterly, 2017(3) August 1 https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-
insights/leadership/whats-missing-in-leadership-development.
Fletcher, J. K. (2012). The relational practice of leadership. In M. Uhl-Bien, & S. M. Ospina
(Eds.), Advancing relational leadership research: A dialogue among perspectives
(pp. 83–106). Information Age Publishing.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Harvard
University Press.
Gergen, K. J., & Hersted, L. (2016). Developing leadership as dialogic practice. In J. A. Raelin
(Ed.), Leadership-as-practice: Theory and application (pp. 178–197). Routledge.
Gerring, J., & McDermott, R. (2007). An experimental template for case study research.
American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 688–701.
Greene, M. J. (2014). On the inside looking in: Methodological insights and challenges in
conducting qualitative insider research. The Qualitative Report, 19(29), 1–13.
Gurdjian, P., Halbeinsen, T., & Lane, K. (2014, January 1). Why leadership-development
programs fail. McKinsey Quarterly, 2014(1). https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-
insights/leadership/why-leadership-development-programs-fail.
Hartley, J. (2004). Case study research. In C. Cassel, & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to
qualitative research methods in organizations (pp. 323–333). Sage.
Harvard Business Publishing (2016). The state of leadership development. Harvard Business
Publishing.
Harvard Business Publishing (2018). The 2018 state of leadership development: Meeting the
transformation imperative. Harvard Business Publishing.
Hawkins, P. (2011). Leadership team coaching: Developing collective transformational lead-
ership. Kogan Page.
Holm, F., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2018). Configuring shared and hierarchical leadership through
authoring. Human Relations, 71(5), 692–721.
Hosking, D. M. (1988). Organizing, leadership, and skillful process. Journal of Management
Studies, 25(2), 147–166.
Hosking, D. M. (2007). Not leader, not followers: A post-modern discourse of leadership
processes. In J. R. Meindl, & B. Shamir (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leader-
ship: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 243–263). Information Age Pub-
lishing.
Huffaker, J. S. (2017). Me to we: How collaborative leadership culture developed in an orga-
nization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Fielding Graduate University.
Hughes, R. L., Beatty, K. C., & Dinwoodie, D. L. (2014). Becoming a strategic leader (2nd
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Kaiser, R. B., & Curphy, G. (2013). Leadership development: The failure of an industry and
the opportunity for consulting psychologists. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
and Research, 65(4), 294–302.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University
Press.
Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. HarperCollins.
Kennedy, F., Carroll, B., Francoeur, J., & Jackson, B. (2012). A tale of two perspectives: An
account of entity and social constructionist approaches to “conflict” in leadership de-
velopment. In M. Uhl-Bien, & S. M. Ospina (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership re-
search: A dialogue among perspectives (pp. 175–202). Information Age Publishing.
Kjellström, S., Stålne, K., & Törnblom, O. (2020). Six ways of understanding leadership de-
velopment: An exploration of increasing complexity. Leadership, 16(4), 434–460.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715020926731.
Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing organizations: A guide to creating organizations inspired by
the next stage in human consciousness. Nelson Parker.
Lord, R. G., Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., Avolio, B. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2017). Leadership in applied
psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102
(3), 434–451.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage.
Martela, F. (2015). Pragmatism as an attitude. In U. Zackariasson (Ed.), Action, belief and
inquiry: Pragmatist perspectives on science, society, and religion (pp. 187–207). Nordic
Pragmatism Network.
McCauley, C. D., & Fick-Cooper, L. (2015). Direction, alignment, commitment: Achieving bet-
ter results through leadership. Center for Creative Leadership.
15
The Leadership Quarterly 803 (2021) 101456
McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (1998). The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook of leadership development. Jossey-Bass.
McCauley, C. D., Palus, C. J., Drath, W. H., Hughes, R. L., McGuire, J., O’Connor, P. M. G., &
Van Velsor, E. (2008). Interdependent leadership in organizations: Evidence from
six case studies. Research report no. 190. Center for Creative Leadership.
McCauley, C. D., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2004). The Center for Creative Leadership
handbook of leadership development (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
McGuire, J. B., & Rhodes, G. B. (2009). Transforming your leadership culture. Jossey-Bass.
Morgeson, F. P., Lindoerfer, D., & Loring, D. J. (2010). Developing team leadership capacity.
In E. Van Velsor, C. D. McCauley, & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 285–312) (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
O’Connor, P. M. G., & Quinn, L. (2004). Organizational capacity for leadership. In C. D.
McCauley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of lead-
ership development (pp. 417–437) (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
O’Neill, J., & Marsick, V. J. (2007). Understanding action learning. AMACOM.
Ospina, S. M., & Foldy, E. (2010). Building bridges from the margins: The work of leader-
ship in social change organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 292–307.
Ospina, S. M., Foldy, E. G., Fairhurst, G. T., & Jackson, B. (2020). Collective dimensions of
leadership: Connecting theory and method. Human Relations, 73(4), 441–463.
Ospina, S. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Exploring the competing bases for legitimacy in contem-
porary leadership studies. In M. Uhl-Bien, & S. M. Ospina (Eds.), Advancing relational lead-
ership research: A dialogue among perspectives (pp. 1–40). Information Age Publishing.
Palus, C. J., & Drath, W. H. (2001). Putting something in the middle: An approach to dia-
logue. Reflections, 3(2), 28–39.
Palus, C. J., Harrison, S., & Prasad, J. (2016). Developing relational leadership in Africa. In K.
G. Schuyler (Ed.), Leadership for a healthy world: Creative social change (pp. 181–196).
International Leadership Association.
Palus, C. J., McGuire, J. B., & Ernst, C. (2012). Developing interdependent leadership. In S.
Snook, N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), The handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing,
doing, and being (pp. 467–492). Sage.
Pfeffer, J. (2015). Leadership BS: Fixing workplaces and careers one truth at a time.
HarperCollins.
Pillans, G. (2015). Leadership development: Is it fit for purpose? Corporate Research Forum.
Raelin, J. A. (2016). Introduction to leadership-as-practice. In J. A. Raelin (Ed.), Leadership
as practice: Theory and application (pp. 1–17). Routledge.
Rogers, G. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Rowland, D. (2016, October 14). Why leadership development isn’t developing leaders.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/10/why-leadership-development-
isnt-developing-leaders.
Sergi, V., Denis, J., & Langley, A. (2012). Opening up perspectives on plural leadership.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 403–436.
Sessa, V. I. (2017). College student leadership development. Routledge.
Shamir, B. (2012). Leadership research or post-leadership research? Advancing leader-
ship theory versus throwing the baby out with the bath water. In M. Uhl-Bien, & S.
Ospina (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership research: A dialogue among perspectives
(pp. 477–500). Information Age Publishing.
Sinar, E., Wellins, R. S., Canwell, A. L., Ray, R. L., Neal, S., Abel, A. L., ... Cotton, T. (2018).
Global leadership forecast 2018. Developmental Dimensions International, The Confer-
ence Board, and Ernst & Young Global Limited. https://www.ey.com/Publication/
vwLUAssets/ey-the-global-leadership-forecast/$FILE/ey-the-global-leadership-foreca
st.pdf.
Thomas, R. J., Jules, C., & Belin, J. (2014). Leaders coaching leaders: Cascading leadership
development through the organization. In C. D. McCauley, D. S. DeRue, P. R. Yost, &
S. Taylor (Eds.), Experience-driven leader development (pp. 333–340). Wiley.
Torbert, W., & Associates (2004). Action inquiry: The secret of timely and transforming lead-
ership. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of lead-
ership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Ospina, S. M. (Eds.). (2012). Advancing relational leadership research: A di-
alogue among perspectives. Information Age Publishing.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Ospina, S. M. (2012b). Paradigm interplay in relational leadership: A way
forward. In M. Uhl-Bien, & S. M. Ospina (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership re-
search: A dialogue among perspectives (pp. 537–580). Information Age Publishing.
Ungureanu, P., & Bertolotti, F. (2018). Building and breaching boundaries at once: An explo-
ration of how management academics and practitioners perform boundary work in ex-
ecutive classrooms. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17(4), 425–452.
Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a way of being: Strategies for survival in a world of permanent
white water. Jossey-Bass.
Van De Mieroop, D., Clifton, J., & Verhelst, A. (2020). Investigating the interplay between
formal and informal leaders in a shared leadership configuration: A multimodal con-
versation analytical study. Human Relations, 73(4), 490–515.
Van Velsor, E., & McCauley, C. D. (2004). Our view of leadership development. In C. D.
McCauley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of lead-
ership development (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Van Velsor, E., McCauley, C. D., & Ruderman, M. N. (Eds.). (2010). The Center for Creative
Leadership handbook of leadership development (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S. (2010). Future search: Getting the whole system in the room for
vision, commitment, and action (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A
guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press.
Yammarino, F. J., Salas, E., Serban, A., Shirreffs, K., & Shuffler, M. L. (2012). Collectivistic
leadership approaches: Putting the “we” in leadership science and practice.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 382–402.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.