The Dark Side of Leadership - Essay Example

 The dark side of leadership Introduction: Good leadership is vital within an organization, in order to ensure that the potential that exists within it is tapped and harnessed effectively in order to generate productivity. Globalization has mandated the amalgamation of cultures, highlighting the need for sensitivity to the cultural norms of other countries. The Management style of the leader of an organization is likely to affect the degree to which it achieves productivity when working in an international climate. In today’s global, competitive framework, changes are a constant feature. As more Companies are becoming multinational and expanding their operations, they become increasingly subject to unknown world influences that may influence their operations. There is a need to plan and anticipate changes and make effective decisions during such periods, so that employees can be motivated to perform well. A good leader can lead an organization and its employees in the right direction, by functioning as a positive force and motivating employees. But leadership also places an individual in a position of power, and there is always scope for the abuse of such power, which can lead to disastrous consequences. Two major types of leadership patterns have been identified – transformational and transactional. The merits and relative efficacy of each type of leadership have been extensively debated, but the scope for abuse of power exists in both kinds of leaders. Transformational leadership styles however, have greater potential for potential abuse, due to the extent of power that a leader has over his or her followers. This study will examine the dark side of leadership –the abuse of power that functions as a negative influence on an organization. In some cases, such an exercise of the dark side of leadership has resulted in grave consequences where harm has been caused by the megalomania of individual leaders who have abused their power to motivate and command obedience from their followers. In the corporate arena, the dark side of leadership has surfaced to cause corporate scandals and illegal operations in an organization. Transformational and transactional leaders: A transformational leader is a charismatic and visionary person. He/she is able to inspire his/her followers in a manner that extends far beyond rewards (Howell and Forst 1989). Transformational leadership transcends daily mundane affairs and works by enhancing the motivation of the follower (Gardner and Avolio 1998) and by impressing upon such a follower the value and meaning of the leader’s goals (Bass 1985). The followers of a transformational leader are expected to think in innovative ways and focus upon upholding certain human values and principles. The transformational leadership style is one that focuses on innovation and creativity and encourages followers to find fresh and new perspectives on things. Transformational leaders are very effective within an organizational context because they are able to inspire their followers to achieve superlative outcomes by providing them with meaning and understanding of what they do, apart from providing them cherished and time honored ideals to follow and espouse. Transformational leaders “stimulate followers to perform beyond the level of expectations.” (Bass, 1985:32). They also provide support, mentoring and coaching for their followers, to infuse them with their own enthusiasm and energy.(Bass 1985). Transactional leadership differs from the transformational in that the leaders are preoccupied with daily affairs and are less bothered with deeper meanings and overarching principles. Transactional leadership tends to be more practical and less idealistic as compared to the transformational. While transformational leadership is based upon a system of social exchange, the system of exchanges and rewards between the transactional leader and follower is based on economic exchanges, where the leader makes promises of certain rewards in return for certain levels of performance and this serves as the motivating factor for the followers, rather than the cherished values of the leader himself (Pillai et al, 1999). Transactional leaders generally manage by exception – they intervene only in exceptional cases and the rest of the time, confine themselves to a supervisory, monitoring role (Avilio and Bass 2002). Spinelli (2006) conducted a study within a hospital to evaluate how effective leadership roles were in influencing perceived outcomes by subordinate managers, through an examination of all the different types of leadership including transformational and transactional leadership styles. The results of his study showed that it is transformational factors that correlated positively with the outcome variable. The more the transformational traits in the leader, the more positively the subordinate viewed him or her and the more effort the subordinate was willing to put in. Thus, transformational leadership styles have a greater sphere of influence over their followers and an abuse of such leadership has a higher potential to produce a negative impact upon an organization. Tracey and Hinkin (1998) have drawn a distinction between transformational and transactional leaders. The transformational leadership pattern motivates followers by appealing to their needs for self-actualization and spurring them on to higher ideals. Transactional leadership on the other hand is not based on the personal charisma of the leader and the ability to inspire followers; rather it is based upon bureaucracy and a system of rewards. Therefore, the extent of influence that a transactional leader has over his or her followers is likely to be less and the scope for negative impact may also be reduced as compared to transformational leaders. Personal qualities of a leader: The personal qualities an individual possess are a very important aspect of leadership. Hemphill and Koons (1957) place a great emphasis on the personal qualities of a manager which are conducive to leadership if he or she possesses the personal ability to direct the activities of the group in such a manner that shared or common organizational objectives are achieved. Warran Bennis (2003) has defined a leader as a person who knows himself/herself, has a strong and well-communicated vision with the ability to inspire trust in his/her followers and is able to take effective action in order to ensure the achievement of his or her own inner potential. Takala (1998) discusses Plato’s views on leadership, wherein Plato has argued that if there is to be a basis of stable power in the state, then it must be bolstered by transcendental abilities in a leader, such that these leaders are almost akin to gods. While this strong reliance on personal qualities can contribute towards the emergence of powerful leaders who are visionary, with attributes superior to those of ordinary human beings, it also leaves room for the abuse of such power. Plato’s views on leaders as extraordinary individuals has implications in modern day leadership theory, where charisma is the quality attributed to visionary leaders that places them on a level superior to other human beings. Charismatic leaders arise during times of crisis, when organizational values come under question and there is a need for something new and extraordinary. Charismatic leadership leads an organization away from everyday events and every day life; it transcends the routine (Takala, 1998). A charismatic leader can motivate and inspire his or her followers to genuine discipleship, so that he or she becomes endowed with the ability to command obedience solely on the basis of the charisma he or she possesses and the devotion and respect he or she is able to inspire in followers. The extraordinary power that charismatic leaders possess to inspire their followers can have a positive effect on an organization, because it can inspire obedience and ensure adherence to organizational values and goals. In a global environment where there is intense competition, organizations are often faced with the need to move beyond old ways of doing business, to look for new and innovative ways to maintain and retain a competitive advantage. In a cross case study of leadership competencies required to succeed in an intensely competitive, global environment, Francis et al (2003) have concluded that the management of transformation in an organization requires extraordinary leadership; it is those organizations which can support innovative decisions of a bold leader that are likely to be successful. Charismatic leadership is very effective in achieving organizational success. According to Nahavandi, charismatic leaders have “unwavering beliefs” and do not doubt themselves, which makes them very self confident and in turn generates a positive, motivational impact on followers.(Nahavandi, 2000:18). The dark side of leadership: The high level of self-confidence and unshakeable faith in oneself that a leader possesses may have a positive impact but it also has a negative side. The lack of self-doubt can also manifest as arrogance and an exaggerated sense of their own self-importance. Frances et al (2003) point out that when the wrong people are chosen as leaders, this can have a negative impact on organizational progress; they have highlighted the views of Slatter (1984) who has shown that a corporation fails most often because of leadership that fails to listen to others but is arrogantly self centered. According to McIntosh and Rima (1997), everyone has a dark side and when the dark side of a leader is evoked, then the results can produce a negative impact. Transformational leadership in particular, has the potential for abuse and a demonstration of the dark side of leadership, because of the degree of devotion and inspiration the transformational leader is able to evoke in followers (Bass and Steidleimer, 1999). The transformational leader imbues his/her followers with his/her own values and appeals to self-actualization needs of the followers. According to Bass and Steidleimer (1999), problems can arise when transformational leaders do not themselves rely upon a strong moral and ethical foundation but seek to inspire and lead their followers; such leadership can constitute “pseudo transformational leadership.” (Bass and Steidleimer, 1999:184). These authors have stated that the effectiveness of true transformational leadership lies in the leader having a solid foundation of morality and ethics, so that ethical decisions are made from the basis of moral choices. This in turn affects the manner in which followers are treated, because a leader who tends to abuse his or her power over followers will not examine too closely, the morality and ethics of decisions made in respect to them. Bass and Steidleimer state that “followers should not be mere ends to self satisfying ends for the leader but should be seen as ends in themselves. We label as inauthentic or ‘pseudo’ that kind of transformational leadership that tramples upon those concerns.” (Steidleimer, 1999:186). A leader who exerts a high level of influence over her/his followers is placed in a position of power over them, therefore how s/he uses that power will play a significant role in terms of whether or not the leadership will produce be a positive influence. The personal qualities possessed by an individual may thus influence the quality of leadership. The issue of whether the positive or the dark side of leadership will be exercised depends upon the level of moral integrity that a leader possesses, which will direct the use of the leader’s power. According to Bass and Steidleimer, transformational leadership “is characterized by high moral and ethical standards.... At the same time it aims to develop the leader as a moral person and creates a moral environment for the organization." (Bass and Steidleimer, 1999:190). This is very helpful in promoting an atmosphere of integrity and accountability within an organization, as well as fostering an equitable working atmosphere. A leader who has a high level of moral integrity will have an inherent understanding of how to treat all people fairly and will ensure that fairness is upheld. (Artebun, 1996). As opposed to this, leaders who lack integrity are likely to use deceitful methods and call upon their influence and power to manipulate their followers so that they are able to accomplish their own agendas, solely for their own benefit. It is at this point that leadership becomes a negative instead of a positive force. The power that a leader possesses is likely to become a danger if leaders do not focus upon their followers but instead focus upon themselves or only upon building of resources to the exclusion of building people.(Bass and Steidleimer, 1999). A leader with integrity is likely to share power among followers and work towards harnessing power and influence towards the achievement of collective organizational goals. Such a distribution of power among various people in an organization may be helpful in ensuring that leaders do not abuse their positions or start taking advantage of the people who follow them. (Hackman and Johnson, 1996). As opposed to this, the dark side of leadership results in an inhibition of such distribution of power, rather the leader becomes the single, undisputed center of power rather than engaging followers in positive power exchanges, which are beneficial to the organization as a whole. Since there is “a lack of internal conflict” within a transformational leader in particular, this may reflect negatively upon his or her moral values, with the impact of the conscience being dimmed or dulled (Nahavandi, 2000:178). The leader who abuses power is unlikely to be overly concerned with the moral repercussions of actions, and will aggregate all power to himself/herself rather than sharing it. In the case of such a negative exercise of transformational leadership, followers are likely to be so strongly inspired and motivated by the leader that s/he is able to command instant and unthinking obedience. A notable example of such an abuse of leadership may be noted in the case of Adolf Hitler, who was able to command the blind obedience of his followers, but where the consequences of such blind obedience to the leader produced results that were devastating from a moral perspective. In effect, transformational leadership has the power to sway followers to the leader’s system of values and beliefs, therefore if the leader’s value and belief system is flawed or morally negative, then it can also motivate followers to follow such morally deficient practices. For example, in the case of followers of leaders such as Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson, the followers were so inspired by their leaders and so loyal to them that they did not hesitate to engage in unspeakable acts because their leaders demanded it of them. Their own ethical and moral standards were dimmed or eclipsed in the face of the great charisma and persuasive power of their leaders. McIntosh and Rima define the dark side of leadership as "inner urges, compulsions, motivations and dysfunctions that drive us toward success or undermine our accomplishments" (McIntosh and Rima, 1997:27). These urges and motivations may not be openly displayed, visible or even acknowledged by an individual on a daily basis. Rather these dark inner urges may remain hidden below the surface of his/her personalities until such time that the individual experiences “an emotional explosion or some other significant problem” which function as the trigger to cause him or her “to search for a reason why." (McIntosh and Rima, 1997: 22). A leader is placed in a position of power and a transformational leader, in particular, may exert a considerable degree of influence upon followers, as a result, the temptation to use that influential power to further selfish ends may function as that trigger that instigates the dark side of a leader, as was the case with Adolf Hitler. One of the greatest dangers of such power and influence is that the leader may slip into the vices of pride and egotism. Under such conditions, a leader becomes overly ambitious and seeks to further his or her own agenda at any cost, disregarding moral and ethical standards wherever necessary, in favor of propagation of self-agrandisement and selfish purposes. McIntosh and Rima (1997) have identified five different ways in which a leader’s dark side may be demonstrated. Firstly, it may manifest as compulsive behavior, where a leader is very conscious of maintaining his or her status and is obsessed with perfection. Such leaders need to always remain in control and will do anything to retain that control. Secondly, a leader may descend into narcissism, where gaining the approval and admiration of others may be the primary force motivating the leader. Such leaders may be overly ambitious and may experience feelings of inferiority and an excessive need for self-affirmation. Thirdly, the dark side may manifest as paranoid behavior, where the leader becomes very suspicious of others, which produces feelings of hostility and mistrust. A fourth effect may be codependency, where the leader tends to take on much more than he or she can effectively handle and tends to repress emotions. Lastly, it may result in a leader who is passive-aggressive or displays anger, stubbornness, sadness or manipulative behavior. When the dark side of a leader surfaces, it may therefore produce certain patterns of behavior, such as arrogance, volatility, eccentric behavior, an unreasonable and compulsive perfectionism, excessive caution and such similar patterns of conduct. Bass and Steidleimer (1999) offer the view that the dark side is present in all of us; a leader must therefore be aware of this dark side and deal with it rather than ignoring it. A failure to deal with the underlying potential for the dark side of leadership to manifest itself can produce intense self-absorption, egotism and pride. But when a leader is able to face up to and deal with his/her dark side, then they can direct its use in positive ways. A leader can make progress in terms of personal growth by making an effort to recognize the existence of such negative characteristics and the potential danger that they represent.(Bass and Steidleimer, 1999). A leader can deflect the potential dangers by ensuring that they remain accountable to the organization they serve. In this way, they can protect themselves from becoming isolated into their own self-pride and egotism, so that they can continue to focus upon their followers. Instituting accountability within an organization functions as a safeguard, to recognize and prevent the dark forces that undermine leadership from taking hold. Within an organization, a leader who is placed in a position of power may be tempted to use that power to engage in corruptive practices for personal gain. Finney and Lesieur (1992) have stated that there are three factors that can lead to corporate corruption and the decision of a leader to engage in illegal practices is one of these factors that lead an organization on the road to corporate corruption. Coleman (1987) has proposed a general theory of organizational crime, which states that crime occurs where there is motive and opportunity. Under such circumstances, leaders may be tempted to misuse the authority they possess in order to produce gains for themselves. Finney and Leisieur (1992) have defined organizational crime as “offenses committed by officers on behalf of the organization.” (Finney and Leiseur, 1992: 259). Both internal and external factors play a role in contributing to such corruption, but executive decision-making is one of the important factors. Leaders who choose to adopt illegal practices are in effect, allowing the dark side of their leadership to predominate. In an organizational context, a transformational leader who has the power to excite and motivate his followers to follow a particular mission and also has the ability to exercise management skill and charm with stakeholders may be particularly susceptible to an awakening of the dark side of leadership. Charismatic leaders are able to project their own excitement on to their supporters and may be able to influence their followers through their own behavior (Conger, 1999). Since charismatic leaders often come into power during a time of crisis, when the need for change is experienced, they may be viewed as the only ones who have the answers to the crisis and can provide a solution; as a result, their influence upon followers and their ability to stimulate action is substantial. (Navahandi, 2000). Charismatic or transformational leaders are able to inspire intense devotion in their followers, so that they experience “profound levels of motivation.” (Conger, 1999:155) The high levels of confidence and the reduced levels of moral accountability in leaders may lead them to lie easily, thus donning a façade that suggests honesty and care in dealings, but which may actually cover an abuse of stakeholder trust and misuse of funds through illegal organizational activities. A leader of an organization is expected to represent the organization to the world and promote its public image, so that stakeholders are able to view the façade that suggests the organization’s fitness in the social sphere (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). As opposed to this public façade, there is also the separate sphere of the daily activities of the organization, which must be carried out in the most efficient manner possible. In some instances however, pressures of time and logistics may prevent the daily activities from being carried out with the requisite degree of efficiency. The internal culture of the organization may rise in conflict with its external faced or image and organizational goals and bottom lines may not be achieved to a level satisfactory to the stakeholders. The organization may then resort to corrupt practices, to create a public aura of organizational objectives being met, while in reality internal processes are being manipulated through corrupt practices and illegal means. Such corrupt practices can be covered up under the cover of a transformational leader’s façade, with the charisma of the leader overpowering the underlying deceptive and corruptive practices. The charisma of the leader helps in maintaining an external organizational façade, while internally the organization is being led into corrupt practices, which are effectively hidden, from the public eye behind the charming veneer of the transformational leader (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Since transformational leaders are able to influence others so easily, and experience lower levels of internal moral conflict, they may initiate corrupt practices or fall prey to an exaggerated sense of pride or self confidence which in turn could produce a negative impact on organizational outcomes by forcing followers to conform to the negative values of the leader and adopt the corrupt practices being advocated by the leader (Hayward and Humbrick, 1997). As Nahavandi (2000) points out, followers of transformational leaders crave change and this aspect may make them particularly non receptive to any kind of information about corrupt practices engaged in by their leader. Transformational leaders are able to capitalize on this need for change that exists in their followers, to motivate them towards the goals they want their followers to achieve. The followers are so caught up in their need for change and their admiration for their leader that they fail to note when corrupt practices are being used to propel them towards the achievement of those goals. The leader’s influence may be so powerful that he or she is able to persuade followers to turn a blind eye to the corrupt practices that are being advocated and practiced within the organization (Nahavandi, 2000). There is an increased risk of the dark side of leaders being awakened within the organizational environment. The assignment of power will play an important role in how the organizational decision-making and power hierarchy is balanced. Folger, Poole and Stuntman (1997) have stated that the flow of power within an organization will impact upon the way in which people within the organization relate to each other. A leader who does not have a highly developed sense of morality will abuse his or her leadership position and the power associated with it, as a part of the organizational hierarchy. When the power systems within an organization are not well distributed, then leaders will find it easier to abuse their positions and take advantage of their followers and the influence they exert over them. Howell and Avolio (1992) are of the view that the nature of transformational leadership is such that it also has a dark side, which when tapped, can lead to unethical behavior on the part of leaders. As a result of the charisma the leader has and the ability to influence followers to the extent that their own reason and good sense are eclipsed, it is possible for a leader to engage in corrupt practices and motivate followers to do the same, thereby escalating unethical behavior within an organization. The transformational leader is able to mask these illegal and corrupt activities by displaying the charming, influential facade to the world. Conclusions: On the basis of the above, it may be concluded that the nature of leadership has a very important role to play in an organization. Transactional leadership styles merely build upon the existing structural elements already present within an organization and are largely dependent upon bureaucracy. Transformational leadership styles on the other hand, promote change and bring about new ways of working and operating within the organization. While transactional leadership systems are based upon rewards, the transformational leader seeks to motivate and inspire followers by appealing to their needs for self-actualization. The transformational leader has a greater level of influence over followers; as a result the scope for abuse of the power and influence enjoyed by a leader is correspondingly greater. Since a leader has a considerable amount of power and influence over his followers and their actions, there is potential for abuse of the leadership position. If a transformational leader does not possess a strong foundation of morality, he or she may easily engage in unethical behavior and also instigate followers to do the same. The power to influence the views of followers by virtue of the leadership position can function as a spur to awaken the dark side, which exists in every individual. This may lead to an abuse of power by the leader to further his or her own purposes instead of adhering to the true mission of a transformational leader, which is to foster the well being and productivity of the followers for the good of the organization. The dark side of leadership can manifest in several forms. Narcissistic behavior, pride and egotism can result due to a leader’s failure to pursue the interests of his or her followers and instead push a selfish agenda. The dark side of leadership can also manifest in the form of a deceitful façade that suggests integrity and honesty in the conduct of organizational affairs, but is no more than a cover for underlying corrupt and illegal practices that must remain hidden from the knowledge of the stakeholders. The scope for abuse of the leadership position arises due to the high levels of self-confidence, which a transformational leader may have, which can lead to decreased accountability and increased arrogance. In some instances, this may go to extremes, as was the case with Adolf Hitler, who was a megalomaniac. Furthermore, when a leader does not already have a well-developed sense of morality, the lack of an adequate amount of internal conflict can further exacerbate the tendency to engage in immoral and unethical acts. The increased interest in furthering one’s own agenda and the lack of an adequate amount of internal conflict produces a situation where a leader may be susceptible to awakening of his or her dark side. The personal characteristics of an individual are extremely important in leadership. Transformational leaders are able to inspire and motivate their followers and imbue them with their own values. This has the potential to produce a very positive effect on the organization, because a transformational leader is especially well suited to help employees adapt well to changes and respond effectively in a crisis. But this same ability to influence and shape the views of followers can also be dangerous and produce a negative effect when the leader’s own sense of morality and ethics are not well developed. The craving for change can make followers blind to the faults in their leader and their intense devotion to the leader makes them adopt the same values, disregarding the question of whether or not they are ethical. This is where the greatest danger is posed, as a result of the surfacing of the dark side of leadership. The ability, power and influence of the leader becomes harnessed towards achieving organizational objectives through corrupt means or achieving the leader’s own selfish objectives, through their ability to sway their followers to the views they are propounding. Such is the power of a transformational leader that the reason and clear thinking of the followers may be obscured, so that they fail to note that they are being guided towards the achievement of goals and objectives which may not necessarily benefit them, or that they are being influenced to use corrupt means in doing so. Leaders can have a profound impact upon an organization. They can enable the organization to respond effectively to changes in the environment and to adopt new ways of thinking and performing which can help the organization to achieve a competitive advantage. They possess vision and charisma and are able to influence their followers, spurring them on to the achievement of high moral and ethical goals rather than restricting them to performance for monetary rewards. Their ability to influence their followers endows them with a great deal of power, which is over and above the power already provided to them by the organization by virtue of their leadership position. Such power, if wisely used, can work for the organization’s benefit and for the benefit of all individuals working for the organization. But the existence of so much power also opens up the potential for its abuse. Everyone has a dark side and the high levels of self-confidence and lack of internal controls of the transformational leader can also lead to arrogance and a somewhat distorted moral sense. The power wielded by the leader provides an opportunity for the individual in a leadership position to advance self interest at the expense of the interests of the organization or establishment served. In the zeal to achieve selfish objectives, leaders may spur their followers on to the achievement of goals and objectives by using corrupt or unethical means. The followers are so blinded by the charisma of the leader that they demonstrate blind obedience and fail to pick up on the unethical, corrupt and immoral practices being used. In extreme cases, the descent into the dark side of leadership can pose a potent threat. This was the case with the followers of Adolf Hitler for example, who committed heinous acts which their sense of morality would normally have prohibited them from engaging in. But their blind obedience and unquestioning loyalty to their leader, Adolf Hitler, was the reason for the unleashing of injustice and unethical actions against their fellow human beings. References: * Avolio, B. J., and Bass, B. M, 2002. “Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X”). Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden. * Bass, B. M., 1985. “Leadership and performance beyond expectations”. New York: Free Press. * Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P, 1999. “Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior”, Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2), pp 181-217. * Bennis, Warren, 2003. “On becoming a leader”, Perseus Publishing * Conger, J.A, 1999. “Charismatic and Transformational Leadership in Organizations: An Insider's Perspective on These Developing Streams of Research”, Leadership Quarterly, 10, pp 145-179 * Finney, H.C., & Lesieur, H.R, 1982. “A contingency theory of organizational crime”, IN Bacharach, S.B, (ed.), “Research in the sociology of organizations: Vol 1”, CT: JAI Press, pp 255-299 * Folger, J., Poole, M. and Stutman, R. (1997). Working through conflict: Strategies for relationships, groups, and organizations. New York: Longman. * Frances, D., Bessant, J and Hobday, M, 2003. “Managing radical organizational transformation”, Management Decision, 41 (1/2), pp 18-32 * Gardner WL, Avolio BJ, 1998. The charismatic relationship: a dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23:32-58 * Hackman, M. and Johnson, C, 1996. “Leadership: A communication perspective”, IL: Waveland Press. * Hayward, MA, & Hambrick, D.C, 1997. “Explaining the premium paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, pp 103-127 * Howell, J.M., and Avolio, BJ, 1992. “The ethics of charismatic leadership: submission or liberation?”, Academy of Management Executive, 6 (2), pp 43-54. * Howell JM, Frost PJ, 1989: “A laboratory study of charismatic leadership”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43:243-269 * McIntosh, G., and Rima, S, 1997. “Overcoming the dark side of leadership: The paradox of personal dysfunction”, MI: Baker Books. * Nahavandi, A, 2000. “The Art and Science of Leadership”, NJ: Prentice Hall * Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A. and Williams, E., 1999. “Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study.” Journal of Management, 25(6), 897-934. * Slatter, S, 1984. “Corporate recovery”, Harmondsworth: Penguin. * Spinelli, Robert J, 2006. “The applicability of Boss’ model of Transformational, Transactional and Laissez faire leadership in the hospital administrative environment.” Hospital Topics, 84(2): 11-19 * Takala, T, 1998. “Plato on leadership”, Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), pp 785-799 Read More