Authentic Leadership Models - Literature review Example

Literature Review of Leadership Models Introduction Models that have been used over the past few decades are first introduced and these include transactional, transformational, charismatic, and ethical leadership. Key thinkers in the field are also identified and a selection of leadership development and research institutes listed. This leads to a discussion of the need for a new paradigm of leadership. Three categories of latest leadership models and thinking are then described: (1) authentic and servant leadership, which are adaptations of transformational leadership, (2) collective and complexity leadership, which responds to globalization, and (3) spiritual, holistic and transcendental leadership, which revive universal spiritual ideas to provide holistic and integrated models. “Step beyond what is human, elect for the Divine Word, and establish your leadership, along with all the friends you have.” (Atharva Veda, 7:105) Previous Leadership Models Renowned personalities throughout history have provided role models of leadership, and it is through studying their leadership characteristics that many of the features of leadership models are derived. These include social and political leaders, business leaders, and also spiritual leaders such as prophets and saints. For example, the Bhagvad Gita extols the leadership of Krishna, the Buddha’s leadership demonstrated true compassion, and the Holy Quran (surah 18: 83-98) presents an exemplary model of leadership of Dhul-Qarnayn, believed by some to be either Alexander or Cyrus the Great. Confucius’ ideas also have profound lessons for modern leadership theory. Social learning theory then explains how people learn from the examples of others. In the modern era, Burns’ conceptualization of leadership as either transactional or transformational set a new paradigm in leadership theory a few decades ago. Transactional leaders are described as leading for the sake of simple social exchanges, and transactional leadership models are grounded in self-interest and designed to uphold the status quo. On the other hand, transformational leaders “stimulate and inspire followers to both achieve extraordinary outcomes and, in the process, develop their own leadership capacity” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 3). The following are the components of transformational leadership: 1. Idealized influence - Serving as role models. 2. Inspirational motivation - They inspire and motivate others. 3. Intellectual stimulation - Stimulate innovative efforts and questioning of assumptions to encourage creativity. 4. Idealized consideration - Each follower’s needs are given special attention to support their growth and achievement. Another stronger form of leadership, namely charismatic leadership, is more socialized and constructed to serve collective interests. In the highly personalized form however, it can lead to dominating and authoritarian behavior and self-aggrandizement (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 13). On the other hand, more charismatic styles of leadership have been found to positively correlate with “traditional, collectivist work, self-transcendent, and self-enhancement values” in a major study by Sosik (2005). Other less well known competing models are “the contingency model, the multiple linkage model, ... symbolic leadership [and] socially interactive leadership” (Andriessen & Drenth, 1998. p. 321). A further distinction between transactional, transformational and charismatic leadership shown by Rowold & Heinitz (2007) is that the former has a lower convergent validity based on two instruments used. The latter two were found to augment the impact of transactional leadership in areas of subjective performance but only transformational leadership was also able to augment the impact of both transactional and charismatic leadership in areas of objective performance such as profits. Many leadership models can be described as trait-based because they focus on human aspects such as relationship, communication and other social skills (Riggio et al., 2002, p.65). Models that include a component of ethics deal with issues such as honesty, trust, fairness in action (Brown et al., 2005), and set clear ethical standards for others to follow as well, and so on. This moral dimension is typically a characteristic feature of ethical, transformational, authentic and spiritual leadership models. Brown & Trevino (2006) identify the following elements in their dynamic model of ethical leadership: Individual characteristics (e.g. conscientiousness and moral reasoning) Situational influences (e.g. ethical context and role modelling) Moderating influences (e.g. interaction of above two) Outcomes (e.g. commitment, motivation, satisfaction and ethical decision-making) That moral reasoning is generally associated with transformational and not transactional leadership behaviors, was shown in a quantitative study by Turner et al. (2002). Managers tested for moral reasoning that scored high marks were found to exhibit more transformational leadership behaviors whereas, no relationship was found between the moral reasoning group and transactional leadership behaviors. However, transformational leadership does not necessarily incorporate ethical leadership. Hernez-Broome & Hughes (2004) who reviewed notable trends in leadership development over the past two decades made some interesting observations. There was found to be “a growing recognition of the importance of a leader’s emotional resonance with others” and a move beyond developing individual leaders to a focus “on the context in which leadership is developed, thoughtful consideration about how to best use leadership competencies, and work/life balance issues”. Future trends identified were linked to “globalization, technology, return on investment (ROI), and new ways of thinking about the nature of leadership and leadership development”. Key Thinkers and Leadership Courses Before the modern spate of leadership studies and theories, no doubt Plato was one of the most influential of thinkers in this field (Takala, 1998). Plato’s focus however was on political leadership whereas most modern thinkers have been discussing leadership for management of business organizations. Of these, two influential thinkers (on transformational leadership) in the West were Bernard Bass of the Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton University and James MacGregor Burns of the Academy of Leadership, then at the University of Maryland. Burns presented a model of transactional and transformational leaders in 1978, taking cues from Weber’s earlier model of leadership and authority and Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. In his book on Leadership (Burns, 2010), he details qualities of various transformational leaders. In his seminal book, ‘Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership’, Bass (Bass & Avolio, 1993) presented his model of transactional and transformational leaders, and identified some essential transformational leadership qualities that distinguish this style of leadership from transactional leadership. Although others have also contributed to leadership theory, Bass is widely regarded as its “driving force” (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. viii). Other influential thinkers were Max Weber, Ron Riggio, Bruce Avolio, David Waldman, Robert House, Robert Greenleaf, and more recently Schachter to name a few. House for example, devised the path-goal model (Andriessen & Drenth, 1998. p. 326), Schachter (2007) advises self-cultivation, and Robert Greenleaf devised the theory of servant leadership (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). At the same time, there are also the likes of Peter Senge (2006) and Fairholm (1994) who have presented cultural and holistic models. Senge argued for decentralizing the role of leadership in organizations so as “to enhance the capacity of all people to work toward healthier human systems” (Hesselbein & Goldsmith, 2006, p. 31). Various universities, colleges and other institutions offer courses in leadership. A selection of those that specialise in transformational and similar comprehensive, spiritual or holistic models are listed in the appendix. The Global Institute for Leadership Development (2010) for example, stresses upon the importance for leaders to reflect, provides integrated learning, and focuses on “transformational growth in areas proven to differentiate superior from average leaders”. The Leadership Institute (2010) concentrates on “the advancement and refinement of character, and the development of essential ‘life skills’”. It supports the search for discovering one’s higher sense of purpose and its principles are social, ethical and dynamic ideals. And, Naropa University’s (2010) Authentic Leadership certificate program provides “a transformative learning experience that integrates ancient wisdom with modern, effective, approaches to leadership”. Practical theory, skill building and real-world applications are used to develop both personal and professional abilities. The Need for a New Paradigm of Leadership Leadership models are usually compared in terms of their effectiveness and relevance, but as we live in a dynamic world, simple models tend to have a limited impact and therefore limited lease of life. The need always arises to either adapt existing models or devise entirely new ones. Although transformational leadership is often linked to moral virtues, it can still fall short if it is not guided by a complete spiritual framework. Genghis Khan and Hitler are good examples of successful transformational leaders but many would agree that they are hardly models of virtuousness. Thus, the Buddha laid great stress on ethics to go together with mindfulness and laid down the five moral precepts of Buddhism. Bass & Steidlmeier (1999) too, distinguished between authentic transformational and what they called pseudo-transformational leadership on the basis of the moral character of the leader, ethical values promoted, and morality of the processes followed. Transformational leadership therefore has a lot in common with authentic and spiritual leadership (Brown & Trevino, 2006) discussed further on, but there are also important differences between them in terms of morality and ethical values. Despite the Western concepts of utility, distributive justice and liberty, the prevalent problem of “corporate scandals and managerial malfeasance indicates that a new perspective on leadership is necessary” (Cooper et al., 2005). It is in this endeavor that the newer authentic leadership models adopt a strongly normative approach. However, as Cooper et al. (2005) point out, before designing interventions to uphold authenticity, there are more fundamental questions to ask in order to guarantee practicality and effectiveness, especially for business organizations. Transformational leadership that inclines towards sustaining charismatic leadership are often seen as promoting cultic forms of organisation, which is seen as inappropriate especially in the business environment. It has led to corporate culturism with the aim of gaining competitive advantage. The similarities with cults was examined by Tourish & Pinnington (2002) who concluded that the over concern with achieving corporate cohesion was detrimental to effective decision making because it did not allow for internal dissent. A degree of differences of opinion help to develop new ideas and promote innovation. This firstly suggests the importance of participatory and integrated leadership models, and secondly it highlights the incompatibility of certain business models with certain leadership models. Similarly, in the field of education, transformational leadership alone has been found to be insufficient for improving school performance. For example, a study by Marks & Printy (2003) found that performance only increased when it was combined with more integrated forms of leadership. Moreover, leadership models must not be confined to satisfying narrow business objectives. They should be studied as a field in its own right albeit with applications in the world of business besides others. Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Matcalfe’s (2005) study was significant in revealing what is needed for the new leadership paradigm. This study involved a multi-cultural, gender-inclusive and multi-level sample of more than 3,500 managers and other professionals in the UK. A transformational leadership questionnaire was designed that was considered to be generalizable to various types of organizations. The study led to the development of “an understanding of leadership that goes beyond transformational models” (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Matcalfe, 2005). Using a grounded theory methodology, it incorporated ‘servant leadership’ and focuses on individual needs within the organizational context. Broader inquiries are therefore a key feature of the search for new models, and as suggested by Avolio (2007), these need to emphasize not only attributes and behaviors but also cognitions and contexts. There is a need for leadership theory “to move to the next level of integration - considering the dynamic interplay between leaders and followers, taking into account the prior, current, and emerging context ...” (bidi). In short, this requires a model that can engage in bigger issues (Gunter, 2009), and is more integrated and holistic. Authentic and Servant Leadership Models Authentic transformational leadership is a relatively new construct, and it provides “a more reasonable and realistic concept of self - a self that is connected to friends, family, and community ...” (Ciulla, 2004, p. 177). It involves a process of self-awareness pertaining to fundamental issues such as purpose and values. Not all scholars relate authenticity with self-awareness though. For example, Sparrowe (2005) relates it to the ‘narrative self’ wherein “others play a constitutive role in the self”. However, this externalizes the process, which is contrary to the objective of inner transformation whereas self-awareness involves undergoing a process of inner reflection. Shamir & Eilam (2005) suggest that authentic leadership is concerned with self-knowledge, self-concept clarity, self-concordance, and person-role merger. Authentic leadership models that foster an “ethical, caring and strength-based organizational climate” (Gardner et al., 2005) and help to develop self-regulation and self-awareness also have the advantage of building trust between the leader and followers. In the business environment, this promotes workplace well-being and “veritable, sustainable performance” (ibid). Wong & Cummings (2009) also showed the same, and that this led to creating healthier work environments in nursing practice. Llies et al. (2005) who similarly inquired into authentic leadership and recent theoretical developments, developed a multi-component model based on their findings. This model incorporates authentic behavior, authentic relational orientation, unbiased processing and self-awareness. A more recent international survey lends support for “a higher order, multidimensional model of the authentic leadership construct ... comprising leader self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing” (Walumbwa et al., 2008). A positive relationship was found to exist between authentic leadership and supervisor-rated performance, and the authentic leadership questionnaire devised was found to have greater value for measuring work-related attitudes than the mere transformational or ethical leadership based ones. Another recent model is that of Greenleaf’s value-based ‘servant leadership’. Barbuto & Wheeler (2006) presented a construct of this style of leadership after reviewing data from nearly 400 raters of 80 leaders. Five factors were identified as follows: altruistic calling, emotional healing, persuasive mapping, wisdom, and organizational stewardship. Moreover, these were found to be significantly related to transformational leadership, organisational effectiveness and satisfaction, etc. Servant leadership is therefore similar to transformational leadership in that it is also dynamic, but it differs by focusing on the followers with a subordinate level commitment to organizational objectives whereas transformational leaders are primarily concerned with the organization and only through this do they seek commitment from their followers (Stone et al., 2004). However, it is transformational and to an extent, charismatic leadership, that have captivated the most interest in recent years (Judge et al., 2006). Collective and Complexity Leadership Models Apart from advocating more holistic approaches, another one of the newer developments in recent years in leadership theory has been a move away from singular to collective leadership models (Hadidy & Ospina, 2010). While the former sufficed for centralized organizations of the past, they prove to be inadequate in the context of the present global reality, technological revolutions, participatory culture and diversity. Under the traditional paradigm in which the singular models flourished, the contexts were typically hierarchical, there were personalized relationships, and the organizations were like ‘predictable machines’. “While traditional bureaucracies exist, the structure of many organizations has shifted from the pyramid to the web ...” (ibid). Under the new conditions, only collective leadership models can allow collaborative behavior. Thus, current literature on leadership discusses group properties such as collective, shared, or inclusive. At the same time, other shifts in thinking are in beginning to perceive individual behavior within the context of group tasks, and in propelling leadership into new areas. Complexity theory is also proving very useful to the field of leadership. This is because it can help to frame leadership “as a complex interactive dynamic from which adaptive outcomes emerge” (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Whereas past leadership models suited bureaucratic top-down organisational structures during the industrial age, they are incompetent for the knowledge era. A complexity leadership framework proposed by Uhl-Bien (2008) seeks to exploit the advantages of the dynamic potential of complex adaptive systems by focusing on “identifying and exploring the strategies and behaviors that foster organizational and subunit creativity, learning, and adaptability ...” (p. 187). Although this model accommodates the traditional type of leadership (based on hierarchy and control), it incorporates structures conducive to complex adaptive systems functioning optimally and adaptive leadership. That is, the conceptual framework combines administrative with adaptive and enabling leadership. Spiritual, Holistic and Transcendental Leadership Another perspective on leadership models is to distinguish between those that have focused exclusively on external relationships and those that are mystically inclined which emphasize inner relationships. Yoga and other similar systems have the potential to assist in developing our inner potential, and this is necessary for truly successful leaders (Leadership Yoga, 2010). The concept of ‘mindfulness’ for example, which is the seventh discipline of the Noble Eightfold Path in Buddhism, has a lot to offer for leadership theory (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005, p. 11) as does compassion, hence the ‘resonant leadership’ model based on these two qualities plus hope. Mindfulness can be regarded as a milder form of generating self-awareness. Moreover, Gandhi’s style of leadership, demonstrates that leadership is as much about principles of living than it is about actually leading (Sinclair, 2008, p. xviii). As Thomas Paine stated, “These are the times that try men’s souls” (In Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 14). Holistic leadership integrates all physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual aspects that are fundamental to human existence. It is therefore all-inclusive of other leadership models and dispenses with viewing these separately. Fry (2003) developed a causal theory of leadership (see fig. 1 below) based on “an intrinsic motivation model that incorporates vision, hope/faith, and altruistic love, theories of workplace spirituality, and spiritual survival ... [with the aim] to create vision and value congruence across the strategic, empowered team, and individual levels and, ultimately, to foster higher levels of organizational commitment and productivity”. Fig. 1: Fry’s causal model of spiritual leadership (Source: Fry, 2003) Fry & Matherly (2006) later tested this model in terms of its impact on organizational performance. Organizational commitment and productivity improved significantly while sales also increased. While some have challenged the very construct of spiritual leadership (e.g. Dent et al., 2005), Fernando (2007, p. 26) shows that there is at least a growing recognition of the spiritual dimension in current leadership theory since Fairholm (1996) introduced the term to explain spirituality in the workplace environment. Scholars other than Fry (e.g. Tischler et al., 2002) have proposed more comprehensive variations of the spiritual leadership model to incorporate ideas such as ‘emotional intelligence’. Sanders et al. (2003) introduced transcendental leadership theory by representing it further along a continuum showing the relationship between transactional and transformational leadership (see fig. 2 below). Spirituality here is a common continuum along with locus of control and effectiveness. The transcendental leadership is shown to have a higher degree of spirituality and effectiveness through a more internally directed locus of control than transactional leadership. Transcendental leadership hearkens back to Confucian ideals of the virtuous ruler and other ancient perspectives, so it is by no means an entirely new construct but it is designed to make the current ideas on spiritual leadership more meaningful. There are also distributed leadership models based closely on Confucian philosophy that are being successfully used by multinational businesses under the present day globalised socio-political conditions (Li et al., 2009). Fig. 2: Relationship between transactional, transformational and transcendental leadership (Source: Sanders et al., 2003 in Fernando, 2007) “If you can revive the ancient and use it to understand the modern, then you are worthy to be a teacher.” (Confucius, Analects 2:11) Conclusion Transactional leadership based on social exchange dominated the industrial era but transformational leadership quickly replaced this to improve motivation and other outcomes, and has been very influential in leadership thinking circles. Meanwhile, charismatic leadership has enjoyed some appeal in more socialized contexts albeit limited, and there has also been increasing attention on imbibing ethical values into leadership models. Transformational models however need more than the addition of a moral component. They need to be completely transformed themselves if they are to meet the needs of the global information age, and support the general spiritual evolution of humanity. Thus, newer leadership models necessarily focus on self-awareness, mindfulness, compassion, collective interests, etc. and take an integrated and holistic approach. Mystical systems such as Yoga see people with more interconnected life domains than as mere employees (Nandram, 2009) which is necessary to fully develop and exploit human potential. References Alimo-Metcalfe, B. & Alban-Matcalfe, J. (2005). Leadership: time for a new direction? Leadership, 1(1), 51-71. Andriessen, E. & Drenth, P. (1998). Leadership: theories and models. In Johan, P., Drenth, D., Thierry, H. & Wolff, C. (1998). Handbook of work and organizational psychology: organizational psychology. Second edition. Psychology Press. Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33. Barbuto, J. E. & Wheeler, D. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Improving organization effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage Publications. Bass, B. M. & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217. Bass, B. M. & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Second edition. Routledge. Boyatzis, R. E. & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership: renewing yourself and connecting with others through mindfulness, hope, and compassion. Illustrated edition. Harvard Business Press. Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K. & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective for construct development testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134. Brown, M. E. & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: a review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6). 595-616. Burns, J. M. (2010). Leadership. HarperCollins. Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Second edition. Greenwood Publishing Group. Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A. & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005). Looking forward but learning from our past: potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 16,(3), 475-493. Dent et al. (2005). In Fernando, 2007, p. 25. Fariholm, G. (1994). Leadership and the culture of trust. Praeger Publishers. Fairholm, G. (1996). In Fernando, 2007, p. 26. Fernando, M. (2007). Spiritual leadership in the entrepreneurial business: a multifaith study. Edward Elgar Publishing. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693-727. Fry, L. W. & Matherly, L. L. (2006). Spiritual leadership and organizational performance: an exploratory study. Paper presented at August 2006 meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, Georgia. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://www.tarleton.edu/Faculty/fry/SLTOrgPerf.pdf. Gardner, W. L. et al. (2005). ‘Can you see the real me?’ a self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372. Global Institute for Leadership Development (2010). The Basics. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from http://gild.linkageinc.com. Gunter, H. M. (2009). The leadership delusion. The International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 5(3), 50-54. Hadidy, W. E. & Ospina, S. (2010). Exploring leadership for public wellbeing: new vistas for understanding and fostering leadership. Research Center for Leadership in Action. NYU Abu Dhabi Institute workshop held in February 2010. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://wagner.nyu.edu/leadership/reports/files/ExploringLeadershipforPublicWellbeing.pdf. Hernez-Broome, G. & Hughes, R. L. (2004). Leadership development: past, present, and future. Human Resource Planning, 27. In Zeitschrift fur Arbeits- und Organisationpsychologie (Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology), 50(4), 203-214. Hesselbein, F. & Goldsmith, M. (2006). The leader of the future 2: visions, strategies, and practices for the new era. John Wily and Sons. Judge, T., Woolf, E. F., Hurst, C. & Livingston, B. (2006). Charismatic and transformational Leadership: a review and an agenda for future research. Zeitschrift fur Arbeits- und Organisationpsychologie (Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology), 50, 203-214. Leadership Institute, The. (2010). Retrieved 16 March, 2010 from http://www.leadershipinstitute-inc.com/index.html. Leadership Yoga. (2010). Your leadership faculty. The Leadership Yoga blog. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from http://www.theleadershipyoga.com/?p=518. Li, H. C., Mirmirani, S. & Llacqua, J. A. (2009). Confucius institutes: distributed leadership and knowledge sharing in a worldwide network. The Learning Organization, 16(6), 469-482. Llies, R., Morgeson, F. P. & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: understanding leader-follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373-394. Marks, H. M. & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: an integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397. Nandram, S. S. (2009). The leadership of yoga. Nyerode Business Universiteit. Retrieved March 20, 2010 from http://www.wipro.com/resource-center/wipro-council-for-industry-research/pdf/business_leadership.pdf. Naropa University. (2010). Authentic Leadership. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from http://www.naropa.edu/extend/leadership.cfm. Riggio, R. E., Murphy, S. E. & Pirozzolo, F. J. (2002). Multiple intelligences and leadership, Volume 1999. Routledge. Rowold, J. & Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership: assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 121-133. Sanders, J. E., Hopkins, W. E. & Geroy, G. D. (2003). From transactional to transcendental: toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4). Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Broadway Business. Schachter, D. (2007). The new secrets to success: change, leadership and expertise. Information Outlook, 11(10), 40-41. Shamir, B. & Eilam, G. (2005). What’s your story? A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 395-417. Sinclair, A. (2008). Leadership for the disillusioned: moving beyond myths and heroes to leading that liberates. Illustrated edition. Allen & Unwin. Sosik, J. J. (2005). The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers: a model and preliminary field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 221-244. Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 419-439. Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F. & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: a difference in leader focus. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 349-361. Takala, T. (1998). Plato on leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), 785-798. Tischler et al. (2002). In Fernando, 2007, p. 26. Tourish, D. & Pinnington, A. (2002). Transformational leadership, corporate cultism and the spirituality paradigm: an unholy trinity in the workplace? Human Relations, 55(2), 147-172. Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V. & Milner, C. (2002). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 304-311. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318. Uhl-Bien, M. (2008). Complexity leadership, part 1. Information Age Publishing. Walubwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S. & Peterson, Suzanne. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126. Wong, C. & Cummings, G. (2009). Authentic leadership: a new theory for nursing or back to basics? Journal of Health Organisation and Management, 23(5), 522-538. Scriptural References Atharva Veda, 7:105 Confucius’ Analects 2:11. Quran, Surah 18: 83-98. Appendix A sample list of 31 specialist leadership training or research institutions Institution Description Website American Leadership College “The world’s most refined and respected spiritual programs and courses.” http://www.alcworld.com Brown Leadership Institute, Brown University “Leadership Development for High School Students.” http://www.brown.edu/ce/pre-college/leadership California Institute of Integral Studies Has a Transformative Leadership (TLD) MA Program “designed for students who have a passion for creating positive change in the world”. http://www.ciis.edu Center for Integrative Leadership, University of Minnesota “Dedicated to examining and advancing a new vision for cross-sector leadership by addressing challenging issues of our time for a greater good.” http://www.leadership.umn.edu Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton University “At the forefront of innovative leadership research for over two decades.” http://cls.binghamton.edu Christian Leadership Training Institute “We partner with individual churches to develop leadership from within.” http://www.cltigh.org Christian Leadership University “Bringing the voice of God to every learning experience.” http://www.cluonline.com Frye Leadership Institute “Preparing and developing the next generation of leaders in libraries, information services, and higher education.” http://www.fryeinstitute.org Global Institute for Leadership Development (GILD) “A development experience for leaders and leadership teams that provides transformational growth in areas proven to differentiate superior from average leaders.” http://gild.linkageinc.com Institute for Embodied Wisdom “Exists to serve people who are committed to fulfilling their highest potential in both their personal and professional lives.” http://www.embodiedwisdom.com Institute for Leadership Advancement, Terry College of Business “To develop a new class of business and community leaders.” http://www.terry.uga.edu/leadership Institute for Leadership Research, Texas Tech University “Extending our grasp of leadership knowledge.” http://ilr.ba.ttu.edu Institute of Holistic Leadership “We are here to help YOU create SUCCESS in your life through a variety of opportunities.” http://www.ihlead.com International Institute for Spiritual Leadership “Brought together advances in performance excellence, balanced scorecards, and workplace spirituality with organizational spiritual leadership and developed a spiritual leadership balanced scorecard business model to produce sustainable organizations that maximize the triple bottom line.” http://www.iispiritualleadership.com International Leadership Foundation “Building leaders of integrity to transform Africa.” http://transformingleadership.com John Hopkins University, The Center for Leadership Education “Houses two popular academic programs:  the W.P. Carey Program in Entrepreneurship & Management and the Professional Communication Program.” http://web.jhu.edu/Leadership Leadership Institute, Harvard College “Devoted to fostering the awareness, skills, and values of leadership among Harvard undergraduates.” http://harvardleadership.org Leadership University “Telling the Truth at the speed of life.” http://www.leaderu.com Naropa University Has an Authentic Leadership certificate program to provide “a transformative learning experience that integrates ancient wisdom with modern, effective, approaches to leadership”. http://www.naropa.edu/extend/leadership.cfm New Ark Center for Yoga, Wellness, Spirituality & Leadership “Yoga, Wellness, Spirituality and Leadership.” http://www.newarkyoga.org OMEGA “The Art of Leadership engages our minds and hearts in an intensive process of self-discovery as we learn to empower and engage others in effective action.” http://eomega.org/omega/workshops/db45744c4ad1f6ce91e44cea771f5fae School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University “Regent University students are here to change the world. We’re equipping them to do just that.” http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/home.html Stanford Educational Leadership Institute “SELIs programs, services, and research integrate cutting-edge knowledge from the business and education fields to support current and emerging public sector leaders to design and manage high-performing organizations.” http://seli.stanford.edu The Academy of Leadership (formerly at the University of Maryland) “...transforming leadership and transforming the Academy around the world...” http://www.academyofleadership.org The CMU Leadership Institute, Central Michigan University “Gives students an opportunity to develop their leadership qualities.” http://www.cmich.edu/cmulead/default.htm The Institute for Global Leadership, Tufts University “Thinking beyond boundaries, acting across borders.” http://www.tuftsgloballeadership.org The Institute for Spiritual Leadership Training “An umbrella organization providing seminars, onsite consultation and the web site, SpiritualLead.com.” http://www.spirituallead.com The Leadership Institute “Seeks to develop a new vision of leadership for the 21st century based upon the advancement and refinement of character, and the development of essential “life skills.”” http://www.leadershipinstitute-inc.com/index.html The Muslim Leadership Institute “We are a group of Muslims who have had long Leadership working experience in American Muslim organizations. We have developed a leadership model ...” http://www.muslimleadership.org Transformational Leadership Centre “Exists to see individuals realize their God-given potential for leadership in every sphere of society.” http://www.tlc-centre.com Trust Leadership Institute “The Trust Leadership Institute trains inspired individuals to lead self-trust transformation programs with individuals and groups.” http://www.cocofossland.com/leadership/index.html Read More