Uploaded by sawicka_paulina

Developing A Personal Theory of Leadership

LDRS 812
Leadership as an academic discipline is still in its development stage. As a field of study,
leadership is relatively young yet already rich in information. Before a personal theory of
leadership can be considered, a working definition of leadership should be established. It is
within the framework of this definition that the elementary components of leadership may be
found. Leadership is a transactional relationship between a leader and a follower or followers,
in which their individual traits blend in varying situations, for the purpose of achieving mutually
beneficial objectives. The following is an attempt to connect leadership as a recognized
academic discipline to the development of a personal theory, what components a personal
theory of leadership may consist of, and what the practical applications of a personal theory of
leadership may be. To substantiate the components of a personal theory of leadership, past
and present leadership studies will be taken into consideration.
As we undertake the work of developing a personal theory of leadership, identifying the
constituents of an academic discipline can be helpful. Why should we make a connection
between the academic characteristics of leadership studies and a personal theory of
leadership? It is hoped that a personal theory of leadership will begin to emerge as we consider
the elements of leadership as an academic discipline. After identifying the components of
academic discipline, we can then ask whether leadership studies meets these criteria and if so,
what we can derive about the essential elements of a personal theory of leadership. According
to a study at Mountain State University by White and Hitt (Chen 2009), there is a widespread
consensus that once academic disciplines are formed they “have become authoritative
communities of expertise.” It is in the environment of this community of expertise that a
personal theory of leadership will be discovered.
According, to White, there are four modern systems used to classify disciplines; codification,
level of paradigm development, level of consensus, and The Biglan model. The codification
system arranges knowledge in a systematic order. The level of paradigm development suggests
that as a discipline matures their paradigms become more defined. The level of consensus asks
whether there is an agreed on set of goals, agreement of professional judgment by scholars,
agreement on the body of knowledge, and a system to produce future scholars in the field.
(Chen 2009). The Biglan Model is based on three dimensions of academia; “the degree to which
a paradigm exists”, “the extent to which subject matter is practically applied”, and “the extent
to which the field is involved with living or organic matter.” (Chen 2009) From these criteria we
can identify the central qualifiers of the academic discipline of leadership. The following is not a
comprehensive list of opinions concerning the components of academic discipline and there
continues to be debate over what the essential elements may be. However, the most common
elements are:
1) A set of theories identified as belonging to the discipline
2) Distinctive methods of inquiry
3) An identifiable community of scholars of the discipline
4) A tradition of scholarly activity and inquiry
(Chen 2009)
Using these four components of an academic discipline, we can begin to consider the
question. In the field of leadership studies, are the essential criteria met to validate it as an
academic discipline which will help in the establishment of a personal theory of leadership? If
the outcome of this evaluation is in the affirmative and leadership continues to grow as an
academic discipline, then the possibility of a personal theory is greatly increased.
The first criterion is whether there is a set of theories identified as belonging to the
discipline. There are numerous theories and sub categories of theories that have been develop
over the past one hundred to one hundred and fifty years. A few examples would be Fiedler’s
Contingency Theory, Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory, House’s Path-Goal Theory, and
Vroom, Yetton, and Jago’s Normative Decision Making Theory. (Howell et al, 2006) In addition
to these behavioral theories is Stogdill’s Trait Theory developed in the late 1940’s and revisited
in the 1970’s. (Crawford et al, 2000) As Fred Fiedler stated, “There are almost as many
definitions of leadership as there are leadership theories—and there are almost as many
theories of leadership as there are psychologists working in the field.” (Fiedler 1971) To say that
leadership meets the first element of an academic would be an understatement considering the
extensive research, study, and theory development that has taken place over the past century.
The second criterion asks whether there are distinctive methods of inquiry. All of the
theories mentioned have distinctive methods of inquiry, some more qualitative as in the study
of traits, and others quantitative as in the study of emotional intelligence. (Northouse 2010)
The third element to consider in academic disciplines is the scholars themselves who are
researching the field. There is an extensive list of individuals from various disciplines who have
contributed to the study of leadership. Among these are individuals who have been pioneers of
thought in leadership like Stogdill, Feidler, Vroom, and House. (Chemers 1997)
With more than sixty universities offering doctoral programs relating to leadership, the
fourth element of an academic discipline, a history of scholarly activity, has without doubt,
been established. As mentioned earlier, there are a multitude of theories from diverse
perspectives that comprise the field. It is well within reason to agree that leadership studies
sufficiently satisfy all the criteria of an academic discipline. This being true, we can now take the
elements of the academic discipline of leadership criteria and extract the pieces that will
provide a framework for a personal theory of leadership.
Such an attempt was made by James MacGregor Burns. Over a five year period
beginning in 2001, Burns pulled together a group of scholars for the express purpose of
developing what he called a personal theory of leadership. (Goethals et al 2006) Even after
eight separate meetings, each one lasting several days, the assembly fell short of their declared
purpose. This is not to diminish the considerable progress that was made in identifying some
essential elements of a personal theory of leadership. (2006) We can draw from the abundant
research of recognized scholars and identify 1) consistencies in study outcomes and, 2)
congruent philosophies which work in concert though they are often categorized as individual
For the purpose of laying a foundation for a personal theory of leadership we need to
identify the major theory concepts that have been discovered during the span of leadership
study. I would contend that all studies and sub-theories of leadership can be categorized in one
of the following three major “houses” of leadership theory: 1) Behavioral / Trait, 2) Contingency
/ Situational, 3) Transformational / Transactional. There is some overlap in these components
with some discoveries serving as a portal to the next era. A good example of this is Stogdill’s
trait studies which led him to believe that traits alone do not explain the effectiveness of a
leader, rather effectiveness is a combination of both leader’s characteristics and variables of
the situation, followers, and goals which led to the era of contingency / situational theory.
(Chemers 1997) These overlaps can be seen as covered breezeways where ideas and
applications are shared. While there is bountiful research from many scholars in each of these
approaches to leadership studies, for the sake of practicality, only the central elements of these
three building blocks will be discussed. As other studies are taken into consideration, it
becomes clear that they are in fact, sub-facets of the major theories.
Behavioral / Trait Component of Leadership Theory
Trait theory was considered antediluvian as contingency theories emerged, however,
there has been a reemergence of the study of traits as evidenced by articles like Personality And
Leadership: A Qualitative And Quantitative Review, in the Journal of Applied Psychology by
Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt. (Day et al, 2008) We cannot overlook the consideration of an
individual’s composition of character as the first building block of leadership in a personal
theory of leadership. Early studies of leadership were almost exclusively focused on traits held
by the individual leader. Though trait theory resulted in frustration due to an inability to reach
consistent outcomes, and the inconsistency of the studies themselves, later work in the 1980’s
by Stephen Zaccaro indicated, “Stable aspects of a leader can indeed have predictive validity.”
(Chemers, 1997) By this we understand that it is possible to predict with some reasonable
expectancy of outcome, the long term effectiveness of an individual in a leadership role if they
possess certain traits. Another way to state this is if an individual is deficient in certain traits,
their leadership effectiveness is predictably minimized if not nullified altogether. Whether
learned by environmental influence or innate, every effective leader exhibits personal
characteristics which contribute to the process. While there could be thousands of words to
describe leader traits, we can select the major traits that are consistent in past studies.
Based on past and present studies of trait theory, there are five reoccurring traits that
have an impact on leadership: Cognitive Intelligence, Resilience, Charisma, Integrity, and
Social Intelligence. Although the terminology may be interchangeable, the essence of at least
one, if not several, of these five traits was noted as leadership traits in six major trait studies,
including Stogdill (1948), Mann (1959), Stogdill (1974), Lord, Devader, and Alliger (1986),
Kirkpatrick and Locke (1981), and Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2004). (Northouse, 2010)
Cognitive intelligence includes “perceptual processing, information processing, personal
reasoning skills, creative and divergent thinking capacities, and memory skills.” (Northouse
2010) If the leader’s cognitive intelligence is significantly lower than followers, the
effectiveness of their leadership is diminished greatly. Locke argued that cognitive ability is
valuable to leaders given their responsibility to gather and process large amounts of
information. (Locke 1991)
Resilience can be defined as the ability to recover and adjust to difficult situations,
especially when they embody hardship and suffering. Resilience not only gets a leader through
tough situations, it can actually increase productivity helping the leader learn how to deal with
adversity in the future. (Sutcliffe 2003)
Charisma, as defined by Weber (1947), is a “special personality characteristic that gives
a person superhuman or exceptional powers and is reserved for a few, is of divine origin, and
results in the person being treated as a leader.” A wonderful example of a charismatic leader
would be Martin Luther King Jr., whose inspirational speeches motivated the masses toward
social change during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s. Charismatic leadership is
effective because it links followers and their belief about themselves to the identity of the
organization or movement. (Northouse 2010)
Integrity is a trait that is usually not noticed except when absent. The leader follower
relationship is one of trust. According to Chrislip and Larson, in order for leaders and followers
to collaborate successfully over a long period of time, it is essential that an atmosphere of
openness and trust be established and sustained. (Chrislip et al 1994) The power of the
leadership position is deeply affected by the level of trust between leader and follower. Leaders
who have the trust of their followers have more power and need less power to lead. Contrarily,
leaders who do not have the trust of their followers have less power and need more power to
lead. The combination of faith and security in the integrity of a leader is indeed powerful.
(Goethals 2006)
Social intelligence “capacities refer to a leader’s understanding of the feelings,
thoughts, and behaviors of others in a social domain and his or her selection of the responses
that best fit the contingencies and dynamics of that domain.” (Zaccaro et al 2004) Social
intelligence knows how to get along with people in varying situations and create the best
opportunity for the individual and the organization to benefit from the relationship. Dale
Carnegie’s book, How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936), is an excellent tutorial on
how to develop social intelligence without being manipulative or controlling. As Carnegie
eloquently points out, “Dealing with people is probably the biggest problem you will face,” and
about 85% of one’s financial success is, “Due to skill in human engineering – to personality and
the ability to lead people.” (Carnegie 1936)
Situational / Contingency Component of Leadership Theory
In 1948, Stogdill acknowledged that leadership theory would not be complete unless it
included a combination of the leader’s personality and the situation the leader found
themselves in. Contingency / Situational theories blend the behavioral tendencies of the leader
with the leader situations or scenarios they encounter or create. (Chemers 1997) Fred Fiedler’s
Contingency theory is the most widely researched model on leadership. (Bass, 1990)
Contingency theory based on the Least Preferred Co-worker scale, addresses what type of
leaders respond well in particular situations. Fiedler describes the leadership phenomenon in
three dimensions, the leader-member relations, task structure, and leader’s positional power.
Fiedler’s model, showed that low LPC (task-oriented) leaders performed better when leadermember relations, task structure, and leader’s positional power were highly favorable or
unfavorable to the leader. High LPC leaders, (relationship-oriented), performed better when the
three dimensions of leadership were not high or low, but moderate. (Bass, 1990) Fiedler found
that low LPC (task-oriented) leaders were more likely to perform in a dominant manner
regardless of the leadership dimensions. Using this scale, R.W. Rice further refined the LPC
categorizing 1,445 relationships that exist within the LPC model. Rice found that leader LPC
scores, whether high or low, stayed fairly consistent. (Rice 1983) Being able to predict the type
of situation a leader was best suited for allows for the potential of pre-planning where to place
a leader given their strengths. Additionally, if the possibility of adjusting the work situation to
either a more task orientation or relational orientation exists, then a leader can modify the
situation to fit their personal leadership strengths. The more comfortable a leader is in a given
situation, it is more likely their leadership will be effective. According to Chemers, when a
“psychological state characterized by excitement, confidence, and personal responsibility”
exists, there is a greater possibility that a “positive environment for productivity and effective
leadership” will exist as well. (Chemers 1997)
Hersey and Blanchard build on the task-oriented or directive behavior, and the
relationship-oriented or supportive behavior of leaders in their situational leadership theory.
They developed a four quadrant model. Quadrant 1, called Telling consists of highly-directive
and low supportive style of leadership. Quadrant 2 called Selling consists of a highly-directive
and highly supportive style of leadership. Quadrant 3 called Participating consists of a lowdirective and highly-supportive style leadership. Quadrant 4 called Delegating consists of lowdirective and low-supportive leadership style. According to Hersey and Blanchard, quadrant 1
represents a low follower readiness, meaning the follower has a low ability and low willingness
to accomplish a task. Quadrant 2 represents those followers who have a high willingness but a
low ability. Quadrant 3 represents followers who have a high ability but a low willingness.
Quadrant 4 represents followers who have a high ability and a high willingness to accomplish a
task. (Hersey 2008) The simplicity of this theory makes it inviting for easy application, however,
subsequent research has failed to show consistent results, especially in the Telling and
Delegating quadrants. (Howell 2008)
Another significant theory that is housed in the Contingency / Situational family, is the
Normative Decision Making Theory (NDMT) first developed by Vroom and Yetton and later
revised by Vroom and Jago. Some studies leading up to the NDMT were House’s Path Goal
Theory and Yukl’s Multiple Linkage Theory. However, though these studies served to make a
connection between leadership styles and the situational factors, they were not specific enough
to be tested in a reliable manner and therefore made predictions difficult and inconclusive.
(Howell 2008)NDMT “contends that the effectiveness of a decision depends on applying a
decision-making style that matches the situation.” (Howell 2008) That is to say, that the five
decision making styles: Decide, Consult Individually, Consult Group, Facilitate, and Delegate as
identified in the NDMT, if appropriately applied to situations will determine the effectiveness of
the leader’s decisions in six ways: Decision Acceptance, Decision Quality, Decision Timeliness,
Costs of Decision Making, and Follower’s Development. (Howell 2008) There is evidence
according to Vroom and Jago that the NDMT is predictably accurate, however, there has been
limited research to verify it. The drawback of the NDMT model is that it is somewhat complex,
and not all leaders are likely to have the capacity to apply all five of the decision making styles.
One thing we can be reasonably sure of is Contingency / Situational theory needs to be included
as one of the foundational components of a personal theory of leadership.
Transformational / Transactional Component of Leadership Theory
To say that leadership/behavioral traits and situational/contingencies equate leadership
falls short of the leadership definition. Leadership is a transactional process between the leader
and followers. Perhaps the most substantiated study in leadership can be identified as
transactional / transformational theory. Transactional leadership could be described as an
informal exchange or transaction between leaders and followers in which the follower provides
a competent effort, and the leader provides directive influence. (Howell, 2006) Within the
context of transactional leadership are multiple factors that contribute to the relationship of
leader and follower. Bass’s (1995) Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire is a tool that has been
used to measure transactional leadership relationships. Bass’s conceptualization of
transactional and transformational leadership included seven leadership factors, which he
labeled Charisma, Inspirational, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized Consideration,
Contingent Reward, Management-By-Exception and Laissez-Faire Leadership. (Avolio et al,
2010) The distinction between transactional and transformational leadership is based on what
is being exchanged between leader and follower. In transactional leadership, the leader is
offering reward for productivity. Transactional leadership takes place when "one person takes
the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things."
(Burns 1978) Transformational leadership refers to the leader’s inspiration of followers to
“achieve extraordinary outcomes and, in the process, develop their own leadership capacity.”
As Burns points out, there is a moral element in transformational leadership, whereas
transactional leadership is equivalent to a politician providing benefits in exchange for votes.
(Bass et al, 2006) Burns (1978) asserts “The result of transforming leadership is a relationship of
mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders
into moral agents.” Transactional / transformational theory must be included in a personal
theory of leadership because it is an overarching covering for all leader/follower interactions.
Housed in the theory of transactional / transformational leadership we can categorize
many studies in. Some notable categories of leadership studies that qualify for this component
of leadership theory are Power/Influence Leadership, Servant Leadership, Team Leadership,
Collaborative Leadership, Directive Leadership, Supportive Leadership, And Transcendent
Leadership. A closer look at each of these leadership relationships is highly dependent on
exchanges between leader and follower. The interactive aspect of leader follower relationships
substantiates the fact that they can be consolidated under the umbrella of
transactional/transformational leadership.
In the Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Stone et al (2004) posit there is
a difference in the focus of the leader in transformational leadership and servant leadership.
However, the servant leader, while being concerned with the follower’s success, must
recognize that there is a direct link to the organization’s success and that is critical to their
Team leadership and collaborative leadership are closely related as demonstrated in
LeFasto’s Team Excellence and Collaborative Team Leader Surveys. The survey asks seven
questions that deal with team effectiveness, structure, and health of the team. The next six
questions deal with leadership effectiveness. (Northouse, 2010) To further emphasize the
similarities of team and collaborative leadership, effective team leaders make certain there is a
collaborative atmosphere which makes communication safe, demands and rewards
collaborative behavior, guides team’s problem solving, and manages their own need of control
without being overbearing. (LaFasto et al 2002) The difference in team leadership and
collaborative leadership is the size of the group. Teams are smaller and more intimate, while
collaborative leadership can occur in large segments of society for a common cause.
Collaborative leadership is one which can be applied to entire communities and regions.
(Chrislip et al 1994) The relationship between leader and follower in teams and in collaborative
situations is critical to successful outcomes and is a vivid picture of transactional /
transformational leadership.
Directive leadership occurs when the leader defines both the objectives and the
methods for a group to accomplish specific performance goals. (Hellriegel et al 1998) The
transaction between leader and follower, though less negotiable, is none the less transactional.
Supportive leadership is recognized as a leader concerns themselves with the development of
the follower by demonstrating a caring and understanding disposition. (Howell et al 2006)
Supportive leadership meets the second highest human need as defined by Maslow’s Hierarchy
of Needs, the need for esteem. (Maslow 1943)
Perhaps the most progressive element of transformational/transactional leadership is
transcendent leadership. As author John Jacob Gardiner states, “The transcendent leader
invites others into a consciousness of the whole.” (Gardiner 2006) A transcendent leader not
only helps others accomplish self-actualization, but communicates values in such a way that
followers take on those same values, visions, and purpose and become part of the whole. There
are six necessary steps for transcending leadership to be complete; a climate of trust,
information sharing, meaningful participation, collective decision making, protecting divergent
views, and redefining roles by recognizing all members are leaders. Transcendent leadership,
though new to the paradigm of leadership studies, still is categorically a relational exchange
falling under the greater umbrella of transactional/transformational leadership. Again, in each
of these relationships, an exchange has taken place between leader and follower for the sake of
achieving a mutually beneficial goal.
The one other major component of transactional / transformational leadership is the
power/influence. Power is the potential ability of one person to influence other people to bring
about desired outcomes using either hard or forced power, or soft power based on influence.
Influence refers to the effect a person’s actions have on the attitudes, values, beliefs, or actions
of others. Whereas power is the capacity to cause a change in a person, influence may be
thought of as the degree of actual change that the person embraces. However, power, whether
hard or soft, is still the ability to affect change through a transactional or transformational
exchange between leader and follower.
According to the 1959 study by French & Raven, there are five bases of power: referent
power, expert power, legitimate power, reward power, and coercive power. (Northouse 2010)
Each of these bases can be readily identified with either power or influence. Coercive power is
most likely to be related to hard power – the ability to force behavior. Legitimate power could
also be identified with hard power because their position gives them the authority to exact
judgments without the necessity of cooperative agreement, however, it is can also be
administered as soft power depending on the disposition of the leader. Expert power, referent
power and reward power are all based on a relationship of influence rather than force. They are
examples of power through influence or soft power. David Ingram states, “Transactional
leaders use disciplinary power and an array of incentives to motivate employees to perform at
their best.” (Ingram) This is in direct correlation with a combination of legitimate power and
reward power which is behaving in a transactional manner to lead an organization. The parallels
of transactional/transformational leadership and power/influence leadership are so closely
related that housing them under the same pavilion of a personal theory of leadership is both
functional and logical.
According to Atwater and Yammarino, their study of the relatedness between
transactional/transformational leadership and power revealed that referent and expert power
were related to transformational leadership. Transformational leadership also indicates a
correlation with reward and legitimate power, although as one may expect, not with coercive
power. The study seems to imply that leaders who behave in a transformational manner are
likely to possess positive bases of power. There is further indication that transformational
leaders are effectively influence group members as the members recognize their referent power
base. According to Atwater there is significant support for the interrelatedness of
transformational/transactional leadership and power. (Atwater 1996)
Summary of Major Components of Leadership Theory
What we have proposed is that there are three houses or families of leadership theory.
Within each house are numerous studies and sub-theories that explore the complexities of
human relationships as relating to leadership. These three houses are interconnected yet each
one houses specific families of thought concerning leadership theory. Together they form a
community of leadership.
Community is a portmanteau of common and unity. The term community is appropriate
for a personal theory of leadership. The commonality is present in that while there are unique
components of theory, they have in common the central theme of effective leadership. Unity of
purpose and a personal agreement by scholars in the field is a key to reaching a personal theory
which will be widely accepted, recognized, and adopted.
It should not be misconstrued that this article has included every important study or
theory of leadership. What can be understood is that every study of leadership theory can be
found under the covering of one of these three roofs. For example, though not explicitly
mentioned, power, mentoring / coaching, equity, gender, ethics, and many other topics are
woven in the fabric of one or more of the above houses. As experts in the academic discipline
of leadership come to a personal agreement about the major components of leadership theory,
the possibility of a personal theory of leadership will be within reach. For the moment, it
appears that the criterion for the academic discipline of leadership has proven to be effective in
development of a personal theory; however, the arduous task of finding agreement from
diverse scholars is still before us.
The three houses of leadership theory that we have identified are: Behavioral / Trait,
Contingency / Situational, and Transactional / Transformative. Housed in each family are
multiple studies and sub theories that often overlap and complement each other. Below is a
graphic that helps to visualize the community of leadership theories.
Community of Leadership Theory
Behavioral /
Contingency /
R.W. Rice – Refined LPC
Hersey & Blanchard – 4
Quadrant model
Vroom & Yetton - NDMT
Cognitive Intelligence
Social Intelligence
Transactional /
Servant Leadership
Team Leadership
Collaborative Leadership
Directive Leadership
Supportive Leadership
Transcendent Leadership
Power/Influence Leader
Applying a General Theory of Leadership
What might be the purpose of developing a general theory of leadership? Burns primary
goal as he called together a collection of scholars from multiple disciplines for the purpose of developing
this general theory of leadership, was to hopefully prevent the fragmentation of leadership studies and
in the process create a sense of intellectual unity and coherence to the field of leadership. In this way,
Burns believed that there would be less inclination of some skeptics to trivialize the study of leadership,
viewing it as “ill-defined.” (Goethals 2006) Burns further addresses his quest for a personal theory
of leadership stating that he hoped to, “provide people studying or practicing leadership with a
personal guide or orientation- a set of principles that are universal which can be then adapted
to different situations.” (Goethals 2006)
Lynham and Chermack believe that there is growing demand on leadership to address
post modern issues in business. These would include a shortage of skilled labor, globalization of
business, and balancing people and performance needs. A general theory of leadership could
help to “make sense” of the current theories, and increase their performance. (Lynham 2006)
Certainly the successful application and practice of leadership principles is the goal of theory
development. Study for the sake of study in a field of leadership is like running in circles, at some point
we need to get off the merry-go-round of rumination and move on to application. Not to say this is not
already the case, however, by establishing a widely accepted personal theory of leadership, the
processes of application will become more prolific. Leadership is about effecting real change. It is the
nature of mankind to become more effective, productive, and progressive. Our quest is for more than
theories that meet certain standards of scientific credibility. We are on a quest to better ourselves, our
organizations, and our world.
A. Gregory Stone, Robert F. Russell, Kathleen Patterson, (2004) "Transformational versus
servant leadership: a difference in leader focus", Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol.25 Iss: 4, pp.349 - 361
Atwater, L. and Yammarino, J., “Bases of Power in Relation to Leader Behavior: A
Field Investigation,” Journal of Business and Psychology, Fall 1996, pp. 3-22.
Avolio, B., Bass, B., Jung, D., Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (1999), 72,
pp. 441–462 Printed in Great Britain Ó 1999 The British Psychological Society
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial
applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. (2nd ed. ed.). Lawrence
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row
Carnegie, D. (1936). How to win friends and influence people. New York: Gallery Books.
Crawford, C. B., Brungardt, C., & Maughan, M. (2000).Understanding leadership behavior. (pp.
31-35). Longmount: Rocky Mountain Press.
Chrislip, D., & Larson, C. (1994). Collaborative leadership. (1st ed. ed.). San Francisco: JoosseyBass
Day, D., & Antonakis, J. (n.d.). Leadership: Past, present, and future. (2008). Sage Publications,
7, 8.
Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/41161_1.pdf
Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Leadership. Morristown, NJ: Personal Learning
Gardiner, J. J., “Transactional, Transformational, and Transcendent Leadership: Metaphors
Mapping The Evolution Of The Theory And Practice Of Governance,” Kravis Leadership
Institute Leadership Review, Vol. 6, 2006. pp. 62-76.
Goethals, G. R., & Sorenson, G. L. J. (2006). The quest for a personal theory of leadership.
Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.W. Jr., Woodman, R.W. (1998). Organizational Behavior, 8th ed.
Cincinnati, Ohio:
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. (2008).Management of organizational behavior. (10th
ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Howell, J. Costley, D. (2006). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership. (2nd ed., pp. 4159). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Ingram, David. "Transformational Leadership Vs. Transactional Leadership Definition." Chron.
n.d. n. page. Print. <http://smallbusiness.chron.com/transformational-leadership-vstransactional-leadership-definition-13834.html>.
LaFasto, F. M. J., & Larson, C. E. (2002). When teams work best, 6,000 team members and
leaders tell what it takes to succeed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Locke, E. A. (1991). The essence of leadership. New York: Lexington Books.
Lynham, S.A. , Chermack , T. J - Responsible Leadership for Performance: ATheoretical Model and
Hypotheses, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2006, Vol. 12, No. 4
Maslow A.H., A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review 50(4) (1943):370-96.
Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership, theory and practice. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Rice, R. W., & Kastenbaum, D. R. (1983). The contingency model of leadership: Some current
issues. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4(4), 373-392.
Sutcliffe, K.M., & Vogus, T. 2003. Organizing for resilience. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E.
Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship, 94-110. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (T. Parsons, Trans.). New
York: Free Press
Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. In J Antonakis, A.T.
Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (p. 115). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.