Running head: DYNAMIC LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 1

Running head: DYNAMIC LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 1

Dynamic Leadership Philosophy

Herman J. Najoli

Indiana Wesleyan University

DOL 860B: Advanced Seminars and Praxis in Leadership

Professor: Dr. Joanne Barnes

November 16, 2008

First Revised: May 10, 2009

Second Revision: November 22, 2009

Third Revision: March 21, 2010

Fourth Revision: June 1, 2010

Final Revision: July 21, 2010


Table of Contents

Towards Dynamic Leadership ........................................................................................................3

The Quest for a Definition of Leadership ...................................................................................4

Orientation: The Domains of Leadership ....................................................................................5

Conceptual Framework for a Dynamic Philosophy of Leadership .............................................5

The Personal Dimension of Leadership ..........................................................................................6

Worldview and Leadership .........................................................................................................7

Life Purpose, Calling, and Mission .............................................................................................9

Personal Vision and Core Values in Leadership .......................................................................11

Personal Capabilities and Gaps in Leadership ..........................................................................12

The Nature of Persons ...............................................................................................................14

Personal Growth and Leader Development ...............................................................................15

Spiritual Formation ...................................................................................................................17

The Organizational Dimension of Leadership ..............................................................................18

Followership in Organizations ..................................................................................................19

Nature and Culture of Organizations .........................................................................................20

Change in Organizations ...........................................................................................................21

Learning in Organizations .........................................................................................................24

Characteristics of the Effective Organization ...........................................................................27

Characteristics of the Effective Organizational Leader ............................................................28

The Global Dimension of Leadership ...........................................................................................28

Globalization, Multiculturalism, and Leadership in the 21 Century .........................................29

Vision, Values, and Characteristics of the Global Leader ........................................................30

Ethics and the Global Organization ..........................................................................................30

Multi-Domain Expertise, Exhibits, and the Implications for Best Practices ................................31

References .....................................................................................................................................34


Dynamic Leadership Philosophy

As society advances, the number and complexity of challenges facing leaders continues

to increase (De Geus, 1997). Many of the collapses within organizational entities like families,

teams, groups, corporations, and national economies stem from character failures in leadership

(Klann, 2007; Rhode, 2006). Unethical practices, abuses of rank, personal indecencies, and lack

of basic leadership skill are just some of the problems that hamper an individual from exercising

good leadership. Effective leaders understand the need for a guiding philosophy that underpins

leader action and facilitates engagement in morally responsible organizations (Johnson, 2007).

Though leadership skills may manifest at a young age, a process of continuous development is

essential for continued success (McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004). A sound philosophy of

leadership should be grounded in empirical research, be applicable to multiple segments of

society, and address the complexities of a turbulent world (Bass & Bass, 2008, Rost, 1993). This

treatise endeavors to develop a dynamic philosophy with clear guideposts for lasting leadership.

Towards Dynamic Leadership

The essence of leadership has been explored by many researchers (Yukl, 2002) and

though a variety of definitions have been advanced, the field has not settled for a clear definition

of terms (Bass & Bass, 2008). The quest for a unified theory and definition of leadership has

been problematic for many scholars and researchers in leadership studies (Goethals & Sorenson,

2006). Based on an analysis of leadership literature, Rost (1993) identifies 221 definitions of

leadership and argues that various writers and researchers derive different conclusions on the

meaning of leadership. Any analysis of the definitions of leadership should arrive at a dynamic

and multidisciplinary integration of thought (Wren, 2006). An accurate definition recognizes that

all the different contributions advanced so far “talk about leadership as some kind of process, act,


or influence that in some way gets people to do something” (Ciulla, 2004, p. 11). In other words,

a good definition will show that there is a structure or framework within which leadership is

perceived. This structure serves as a basis for developing mutual understanding of leadership.

The quest for a definition of leadership. A suitable definition that meets these criteria is

Rost‟s (1993) view of leadership as “an influence relationship among leaders and their

collaborators who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes” (p. 99). Leaders engage

in actions that encourage others to work with them in bringing about specific outcomes in society

and, in this case, real change. This definition is considered suitable for developing foundational

assumptions about leadership based on the fusion of followership and leadership as a

collaborative relationship. Rost (1993) argues that this definition “is consistent with what many

futurists and forward-looking commentators believe are the core values of the new overarching

paradigm of the new millennium” (pp. 98-99). Burns (2006) views leadership as

an influence process, both visible and invisible, in a society inherited, constructed, and

perceived as the interaction of persons in human (and inhuman) conditions of inequality

– an interaction measured by ethical and moral values and by the degree of realization of

intended, comprehensive, and durable change. (p. 239, emphasis in original)

These definitions imply that leadership is a dynamic interactive process between humans

and their environments. This treatise explores the concepts of leadership amongst individuals,

within organizations, and in the global community, in light of an understanding that “leadership

is a universal phenomenon” (Bass & Bass, 2008, p. 7). An encompassing philosophy of

leadership appreciates different disciplines. The historical development of leadership studies has

produced many facets of leadership (Yukl, 2002). This effort incorporates diverse arguments on

the nature of leadership into an effective philosophy that is framed around key domains.


Orientation: The domains of leadership. Contemporary business literature provides

many books on leadership that influenced this writer immensely prior to his quest for a scholarly

understanding of leadership. Authors that served most to orient this writer to leadership include

Covey (1990), Munroe (1993), and Maxwell (1998). These works provided this writer with an

early basis for establishing a leadership orientation but have since proved problematic since the

ideas propounded by these popular authors have little or no validity and are based on superficial

research (Rost, 1993). This writer‟s journey as a doctoral student has produced a reorientation

that facilitated the crafting a philosophy of leadership based on selected domains of leadership

rather than popular literature.

The theoretical underpinning of this writer‟s current understanding of leadership is based

on the core philosophy of Indiana Wesleyan University‟s doctoral program, which aims to

facilitate the learner‟s “development as a servant leader who has mastered seven domains of

knowledge: personal authenticity; organizational learning; organizational theory and research;

change, innovation, and entrepreneurship; globalization and multiculturalism; governance and

ethics; [and] servant leader as world changers” (Organizational Leadership – Curriculum, n.d.).

This new orientation that focuses on domains rather than popular fads will enable this writer to

integrate peer-reviewed scholarly research and personal experiences into his development as a

leader. This will enable the identification of critical competencies that facilitate what Rost (1993)

has referred to as “serious and authentic leadership development” (p. 93). The formulation of this

philosophy is rooted in this new understanding of organizational leadership.

Conceptual framework for a dynamic philosophy of leadership. Modern scholars of

leadership view the concept‟s progress as “evolving and expanding” (Bass & Bass, 2008, p. 24).

Leadership is dynamic, meaning that it is “marked by usually continuous and productive activity


and change” (dynamic, 2009). The advancement of research and empirical knowledge continues

to produce new understandings of leadership. Personal insights continue to mature based on new

thinking which sometimes alters established concepts and allows for the continual examination

of one‟s understanding of the subject. A dynamic philosophy of leadership analyzes leadership at

three levels: the personal leadership dimension, the organizational leadership dimension, and the

global leadership dimension. In this analysis, leadership occurs in interpersonal influence

between individuals, in group interactions at the organizational level, and across cultures and

international value systems. The implication of this framework is that a dynamic philosophy of

leadership views the leader‟s role as engaging with individuals, organizations, and the global

environment by acting within and applying the seven domains of leadership. Following is a

discussion of the dimensions in relation to the domains of leadership.

The Personal Dimension of Leadership.

Early leadership theorists saw personal traits and qualities such as age, stature, physique,

appearance, intelligence, and personality as determinants of leadership ability but this

perspective diminished as “studies of adults in formal organizations increased and the proportion

dealing with children and adolescents in informal groups decreased” (Bass & Bass, 2008, p. 97).

Formal studies in organizations led to the rise of situational and contingency theories of

leadership but trait theories are experiencing a renewal with the resurgence of concepts like

wisdom, intelligence, and creativity (Sternberg, 2009; 2005; 1986), emotional intelligence

(Cherniss, Extein, Goleman, & Weissberg, 2006; Goleman, 1995), and personality attributes

(McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005). According to Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) traits matter in

personal leadership because they “help the leader acquire necessary skills: formulate an


organizational vision and an effective plan for pursuing it: and take the necessary steps to

implement the vision in reality” (p. 48).

Personal dimensions of leadership may also be interpreted through leader behavior, with

the two main categories being identified as task-oriented behavior and people-oriented behavior

(Blake & Mouton, 1964). According to this classification, task-oriented leaders are more

effective when involved in activities that do not require interaction with others whereas people-

oriented leaders work best when their role requires interaction with others. Additional research

has suggested that leaders develop a personal style that reflects the situational context of their

circumstances (Fiedler, 1972). It is through this personal style that leaders develop relationships

which enable them to direct individual followers and guide teams towards the accomplishment of

organizational objectives (Blake & McCanse, 1991).

The cultivation of leadership skill is a personal journey in which the aspiring leader must

manage oneself and construct a narrative that facilitates learning, change and growth (Bennis,

2004; Drucker, 1999; Ibarra & Lineback, 2005). Leadership development is impacted by a

variety of themes including the leader‟s worldview (Sire, 2004), life purpose, vision and values

(Lee & King, 2001; Roberts, Spreitzer, Dutton, Quinn, Heaphy, & Barker, 2005), capabilities

(Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2001), human nature (Boa, 2004), commitment to growth

(McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004), and spiritual formation (Boa, 2001; Zohar, 2005). A dynamic

philosophy of leadership requires an examination of these major themes of leader development.

Worldview and leadership. Worldview has been defined as “the fundamental

perspective from which one addresses every issue of life” (Sire, 2004, p. 24). This perspective is

formed early in life and impacts a leader‟s approach to life issues. This view is supported by

Bass and Bass (2008) who argue that “how we think and behave as leaders and followers when


we reach adulthood is still likely to be affected by our earlier relations with our parents, as well

as by our genetic makeup” (p. 3). This writer‟s worldview is founded on Judeo-Christian

principles, a cultural upbringing in Africa, and experiences based on living in the United States.

A Judeo-Christian worldview emphasizes the biblical God as “prime reality” (Sire, 2004,

p. 55) and serving Him as the essence of life. Jesus Christ, the historical founder of the Christian

movement, advises to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and

with all your mind… [and to] love your neighbor as you love yourself” (Mt. 22:37-39, NIV).

This writer‟s core values are rooted in a desire to follow this commandment and serve as a leader

out of love that emanates from God‟s unconditional love for mankind. Boa (2001) refers to this

as “relational spirituality” (p. 21) and views it as a key component in the journey towards

discovering ourselves and cultivating a passion for people.

Similarly, an African cultural upbringing advocates a collectivist approach to life

(Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) which emphasizes “the power of the group” (p. 74). This approach

challenges the leader to look beyond personal interests and focus on accomplishments which

benefit the wider group. Exposure to other cultures enables the leader to develop multicultural

skills that are essential in becoming a global leader (Mendenhall, Osland, Bird, Oddou, &

Maznevski, 2008). Judeo-Christian principles, cultural upbringing, and cross-cultural interactions

have helped shape this writer‟s belief system. Ruderman and Rogolsky (2001) argue that “living

a life that is fully connected to one‟s belief system” (p. 3) enables authentic leadership.

One of the earliest thinkers on leadership, Machiavelli (1515) recognized that groups

(which he called „dominions‟) were accustomed to living under a prince. Every society has

within it individuals who rise to serve as leaders. Bass and Bass (2008) noted, “no societies are

known that do not have leadership in some aspects of their social life” (p. 3). Certain individuals


within every society sense an obligation to inspire others to achieve group goals. This obligation

ought to be rooted in a heart for service (Greenleaf, 2002). Personal leadership starts with a

desire to serve. Such a desire must be authentic (Ruderman & Rogolsky, 2001).

According to George, Sims, McLean, and Mayer (2007) “authentic leaders demonstrate a

passion for their purpose, practice their values consistently, and lead with their hearts as well as

their heads. They establish long-term, meaningful relationships and have the self-discipline to get

results. They know who they are” (p. 130). By establishing meaningful relationships, leaders

engender trust in the organization, which is the foundation of leadership and the key to

credibility with followers (Kouzes & Posner, 1993). Credibility is attained when the leader puts

aside personal desires for the sake of authentic service. Authentic service requires selflessness

where one is “seen as servant first” (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 21). The leader must commit to service

that regards others as worthy, a task that stems from understanding of personal life purpose,

calling, and mission, along with personal vision and values (Lee & King, 2001).

Life purpose, calling, and mission. Leaders have an obligation “to develop a sense of

their „personal best‟ in order to increase their future potential” (Roberts et al., 2005). According

to Senge (2006) “people with a high level of personal mastery…. have a special sense of purpose

that lies behind their visions and goals. For such a person, a vision is a calling rather than

simply a good idea” (p. 132, emphasis in original). Given that “leaders learn primarily through

their experiences” (Van Velsor & McCauley, 2004, p. 3), the potential and capacity for

leadership exists in all humans. Those who ultimately emerge as leaders do so because they

discover their credo and live a life that models commitment to principles (Kouzes & Posner,

1993). Leadership skill emerges as one develops an awareness of self and engages in supportive

environments which provide feedback and room for personal development.


The Judeo-Christian worldview advocates a pursuit of one‟s purpose, calling, and

mission in life. Munroe (1993) defines purpose as “the original intent or predetermined result for

an individual” (p. 50). This is reflected in the Scriptural understanding of man‟s calling where

the Scriptures state, “before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set

you apart” (Jer. 1:5, NIV). Stanley (1999) has even argued that “until we discover his [God‟s]

purpose – and follow through – there will always be a hole in our soul” (p. 13). Boa (2001)

argues that the leader who embraces a biblical worldview ought to live “a life that is integrated

and centered around Christ” (p. 222) as the reason for living. Purpose provides the leader with a

mission and mandate that enables full engagement and bold action (Stanley, 1999).

Discovering one‟s purpose, calling, and mission in life is akin to knowing oneself. Bennis

(1989) suggests that “until you truly know yourself, strengths and weaknesses, know what you

want to do and why you want to do it, you cannot succeed in any but the most superficial sense

of the word” (p. 40). Leaders are hampered in the development of the personal dimensions of

leadership when they fail to develop an adequate understanding of self. Knowledge of our

strengths and weaknesses enables us to develop a plan for specific actions enable us to “tap into

unrecognized and unexplored areas of potential” (Roberts et al., 2005, p. 76). Personal

experiences that are reflected on (Schön, 1983) and carefully assessed (Van Velsor & McCauley,

2004) enable the leader to begin cultivating an understanding of self. A helpful tool for assessing

personal strengths is the Reflected Best Self (RBS) exercise (Roberts et al., 2005).

The RBS exercise is designed to uncover an individual‟s positive attributes through “a

constructive, systematic process for gathering and analyzing data about your best self” (Roberts

et al., 2005, p. 76) Leaders can use the tool to collect feedback from individuals who know them

best. The feedback focuses on the key strengths and contributions that a leader has made in the


past. The leader then uses the feedback to search for common themes and construct a self-

portrait, which should be used as “an insightful image…of your previous contributions and as a

guide for future action” (p. 78). The strengths identified become key components for identifying

competences that best serve the leader. In this writer‟s case, the RBS exercise identified strengths

that include being visionary, inspirational, and optimistic; having a passion for people,

collaborating with others, and personal character. These were helpful in defining areas for

continued growth and outlining a personal vision and values.

Personal vision and core values. Effective leadership is facilitated by the

conceptualization, development, communication, and integration of a vision that guides action

(Sashkin, 1988). Visions motivate action because “they provide a road map to the future with

emotional appeal to followers” (Bass & Bass, 2008, p. 629). Personal vision empowers the leader

with the courage to pursue and champion a cause. Bennis and Nanus (1997) interviewed 90

leaders and found that all of them “had an agenda, an unparalleled concern with outcome” (p.

26, emphasis in original). According to Harari (1997) the leader‟s vision must be “pragmatically

and unabashedly bifocal: It must simultaneously paint a picture of the opportunities today and

the „best bets‟ of tomorrow” (p. 26). Vision introduces “creative tension” (Senge, 2006, p. 132)

that enables personal mastery and learning in the leader‟s life. Personal mastery in leadership

should aim at fulfilling one‟s potential and not gaining domain over others (Senge, 2006).

The leader‟s values dictate the vision that drives action (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). Leaders

influence followers significantly through the values that they promote. Heifetz (1994) argues that

effective followers turn what leaders say “into values that orient their professional lives” (p. 26).

A similar argument has been made by O‟Toole (1996) who advocates for values-based

leadership and defines it as “a philosophy of leadership that is always and at all times focused on


enlisting the hearts and minds of followers through inclusion and participation” (p. 11). Values

guide decision making, enable the cultivation of credibility, and establish clear boundaries for

leaders (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 1993). Leaders and followers, however, must

not jump at every opportunity to pursue a noble vision but should ask questions that enable the

detection of toxicity in the values that underlie the vision (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).

Berson, Shamir, Avolio, and Popper (2001) found that the inspirational strength of a

vision statement that is tied to instrumental goals “may be able to move even the most resistant

followers toward achieving the vision” (p. 67). Personal leadership is enhanced by the

development of a vision statement that captures the leader‟s goals (Gardner, 1990). This writer‟s

vision is to be an authentic transformational leader whose values are guided by biblical principles

that inspire ethical leadership, facilitate continued learning, and motivate productive change at

the personal, organizational, and global level. This vision is informed by the writer‟s worldview

and by specific values identified through personal experiences and assessed by a variety of tools,

including the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (McCauley, 1990), the Reflected Best Self exercise

(Roberts, et al., 2005), and the Leadership Practices Inventory (Kouzes & Posner, 1997). These

tools have enabled the writer to identify the motives that guide personal values and develop an

understanding of capabilities and gaps in his leadership potential.

Personal capabilities and gaps in leadership. Leaders need to be adaptive and

responsive to the realities and context of the moment (Heifetz, 1994; Berson, et al., 2001). The

leader‟s style of leadership should be grounded in theoretical foundations that suit the

continuously emerging vision for the organization and its followership. Senge (2006) warns

however that “emerging visions can also die because people get overwhelmed by the demands of

current reality and lose their focus on the vision” (p. 213). The leader should develop an


awareness of what‟s possible based on current capabilities and initiate a system for addressing

gaps that limit future potential. This requires commitment to a process that closes the gaps in

leader potentialities and enables an increase in one‟s capacity for higher possibilities.

A sound process of leader development enables the leader to continually recognize the

personal competencies that reside within and enable success (Bennis, 1989). One tool that has

been helpful for this writer in establishing an understanding of self is Kouzes‟ and Posner‟s

(1995) Leadership Practices Inventory – Individual Contributor (LPI-IC). The LPI-IC is a

feedback intensive tool that provides 360-degree feedback and is utilized by non- managers in

positions where they lead teams. The purpose of the tool is to identify one‟s personal best

leadership practice through a series of questionnaires that observers complete regarding one‟s

leadership. Scores for this writer have consistently revealed that observers see him as a leader

who “inspires a shared vision” (Kouzes & Posner, 1995). This writer‟s goal is to play to his

strengths (Roberts, et al., 2005) by continually developing competencies for inspiring shared

vision. Part of this process is facilitated by a commitment to continuous learning.

Leaders who excel in personal leadership embrace “learner‟s mindset” (McCauley &

Wakefield, 2006, p. 7) that facilitates consistent assessment of current strengths, continuous

exposure to stretching assignments, and reception of support that solidifies new capabilities.

Domjan (2005) posits that “all learning is identified by some kind of behavior change” (p. 2).

The leader‟s learning enables behavioral changes that close performance gaps. Senge (2006)

points out that “the gap between vision and current reality is also a source of energy” (p. 139)

which, when resolved, leads to behavior change. Behavior is driven by the “quest for optimal

gratification of instincts within the context of society” (Boa, 2004, p. 85). The mastery and

gratification of instincts requires an understanding of personal nature in relation to human nature.


The nature of persons. Boa‟s (2004) comparative study of theological and psychological

perspectives of human nature indicates that the human condition is governed by an innate

potential for survival that seeks fulfillment. Theological models view this as “the fallen state

with spiritual, personal, and social alienation” (p. 172) from God which is resolved by the grace

of God “in the redemptive work of Christ” (p. 173). Conversely, leaders will not attain their full

potential without the liberating and restorative experience of conversion and transformation into

Christlikeness (Willard, 2002). Dalla Costa (1998) asserts that “genuine conversion shifts the

very meaning of life” (p. 304). This is supported by the Scriptures, which point out that “if

anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Cor. 5:17,

NIV). By the grace of God this writer has embraced this new identity in Christ, enabling inner

transformation that motivates a desire to serve.

According to Boa (2004) psychological models also view “the experience of guilt and

estrangement in light of the quest for identity” (p. 173) but recommend either psychosocial

adaptation or intrinsic self-actualization as pivotal means for coping. One common instrument is

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a self-administered questionnaire that generates four

scores that match individuals with their psychological type (McCaulley, 1990). Bass & Bass

(2004) point out that using the MBTI, “leaders are: (1) extroverted or introverted, (2) sensing or

intuitive, (3) thinking or feeling, (4) judging or perceiving” (p. 36). For instance, a self-test by

this writer indicated a preference for extroverted, intuitive, thinking, and judging (ENTJ) type.

This is characterized by being decisive and assuming leadership readily, quickly seeing illogical

and inefficient procedures and policies, long-term planning and goal setting, being well-informed

and well read, enjoying learning and sharing knowledge, and presenting creative ideas. Knowing

oneself in such a manner enables a leader to identify potential areas of effectiveness.


Arguing that ethics is the heart of leadership, Ciulla (2004) contends that “the definition

question in leadership studies is not really about the question, „what is leadership?‟ It is about the

question, „what is good leadership?‟…. [meaning] morally good and effective [leadership]” (p.

17-18). An elaborate philosophy of leadership should have moral ends that define the leader‟s

success in terms that include ethical and social responsibility (Burns, 1978; Rhode, 2006).

Leaders must undertake a realistic assessment of self and “acknowledge our potential to do harm

as well as do good” (Johnson, 2007, p. 32). Leaders who excel in times of challenge and

controversy live by values and principles that model sound ethical judgment and commitment to

exercise moral courage (Kidder, 2005; Messick, 2006) that makes the leader a positive influence.

According to Johnson (2007) “the exercise of ethical influence is founded on an

understanding of power, the capacity to control the behavior of others” (p. 116). Leadership

conveys power to the one in a position of authority. Neider and Schriesheim (2004) define power

as “the potential ability for one individual to exert influence over the attitudes and behavior of

others” (p. 1248). Followers who resist immoral authority display moral courage which enables

them to resist the allure of toxic leaders (Kidder, 2005; Lipman-Blumen, 2005, Messick, 2006).

Power is given for a purpose – to serve those being led (Greenleaf, 2002). With great power

comes great responsibility for its wise use in empowering others (Johnson, 2007). Personal

leader development requires an orientation to always do what is right, a consistent “dedication to

deepen ethical capacities through learning and practice” (Dalla Costa, 1998, p. 29).

Personal growth and leader development. The skills and competencies of good and

effective leadership are critical aspects of growth that leaders should continually develop if they

are to lead their followers and organizations using prosocial motives that uphold moral principles

(Batson, 2006). Personal growth and leader development facilitate the acquisition of new skills.


Van Velsor and McCauley (2004) define leader development as “the expansion of a person‟s

capacity to be effective in leadership roles and processes” (p. 2). Effectiveness stems from a

consistent practice of self-improvement. Kouzes and Posner (1995) advise leaders to spend “at a

minimum, 50 hours (six days) annually on…personal and professional development” (p. 332).

This writer‟s growth has been shaped by consistent investment in skill development.

Leadership performance is enhanced by engaging in developmental experiences that

facilitate continued growth. Van Velsor and McCauley (2004) suggest that personal development

should include “situations that stretch an individual and provide both feedback and a sense of

support” (pp. 3-4). This correlates with Klann (2007) who argues that “leadership character

education should be as practical as possible and based on many real-world how-to examples as

can be found” (p. 90). Leaders who engage in these developmental situations excel in leading

effective organizations and having a positive impact beyond the organization.

Dalla Costa (1998) emphasizes that “we may be citizens of a country, members of a

specific community, adherents to a particular religion, but we are increasingly joint participants –

as workers and consumers of products and information – of a single, interwoven, interdependent

economy” (p. xi). Both within and without their countries, leaders are interacting more with

culturally different others. In an increasingly interconnected world, the leader must develop the

cultural intelligence necessary for working across cultures effectively (Earley & Ang, 2003).

According to Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) national cultures differ significantly. Leaders should

frequently assess their adaptability to other cultures and engage in programs that facilitate

intercultural skill (Mendenhall, Osland, Bird, Oddou, & Maznevski, 2008). An interconnected

world creates pluralism, “the side-by-side existence of worldviews that are at least partially

contradictory” (Sire, 2004, p. 121). This raises the need for spiritual formation of the leader.


Spiritual formation. As noted earlier, leaders can improve their ability to fulfill personal

potential by developing a sense of calling and purpose. Hicks (2003) maintains that “spirituality

is assumed to be a dimension of the human being that is shared by all persons” (p. 50). Bruce and

Plocha (1999) observe that many individuals today are experiencing a “gentle guiding towards

seeking meaning” (p. 327) in life at work, based either on their response to a transcendent power

for those who are religious or on a desire to “work for the greater good” (p. 330) for those who

are atheists. According to Zohar (2005) leaders must cultivate a new paradigm, spiritual capital,

which addresses “what an individual or an organization exists for, believes in, aspires to, and

takes responsibility for…. a new paradigm [of intelligence] that requires that we radically change

our mind-set about the philosophical foundations and practices of leadership” (para. 5). This

requires that the leader look beyond rational resources or emotional resources for answers.

The energy for this new paradigm corresponds to spiritual intelligence which is defined

as “an ability to access higher meanings, values, abiding purposes, and unconscious aspects of

the self and to embed these meanings, values, and purposes in living a richer and more creative

life” (Zohar, 2005, para. 9). Spiritual intelligence requires the use of energies that are not ego-

oriented. Henry (2009) uses the term „leading with soul‟ and identifies six leadership traits that

are essential for a leader to lead with soul: being purpose driven, having the courage of

conviction, pursuing a whole, embracing empowerment, ensuring succession planning, and

modeling emotional intelligence. Hoppe (2005) suggests that “discovering who we are by

looking deep inside ourselves sets the compass for the search for truth and meaning as

individuals and as leaders” (p. 85). This inner work is particularly important for the leader who

subscribes to a biblical worldview. Willard (2002) points out that for a leader who identifies


himself as Christian there must be a continual process of inner transformation. This inner

transformation is initiated by a conversion process. Dalla Costa (1998) emphasizes that,

The word „conversion‟ is important because it involves more than intellect and more than

a change of heart. Conversion takes the totality of an individual – reason, emotion, body,

and spirit – and redirects fully that person‟s beliefs and behaviors. With conversion, there

are no halfway measures. Life pivots to such a degree that discontinuity with the past is

not an issue because the past no longer makes sense. (p. 304)

Spiritual leaders lead on the basis of a deeply transformed personality that facilitates

moral leadership. Bass and Bass (2008) contend that “leaders need to get in touch with the core

values of their followers and communicate these values through vision and personal action to

create a sense of spiritual survival” (p. 214). A leader who is open to the continuous inner work

of spiritual formation can have a significant effect on followers. Hoppe (2005) concludes that

“the inner journey leads one first to a sense of self and meaning and then to an acknowledgment

that connectedness is essential for wholeness in our lives” (p. 87). Leaders will have little impact

at the organizational level if they are not effectively connected to those whom they lead.

The Organizational Dimension of Leadership.

Humans exist in relation with other humans, engaging in social actions and behavior that

is “meaningfully oriented to that of others” (Weber, 1947, p. 113). Social action is conducted in

community with others for specific objectives within an organization. Organizations are vibrant

entities in which the flow of interactions is guided by “rational orientation” (p. 115).

Organizations exist for a purpose that relies on the cooperation of the people within them and

drives both the leader‟s actions and those of other functionaries who specialize in different

aspects of the organization‟s mission (Barnard, 1938, cited in Bass & Bass, 2008, p. 58).


According to Yukl (2002) organizational leadership may be viewed as either a specialized role,

in which one person designated as the „leader‟ guides the actions of „followers‟ in carrying out

the organization‟s objectives, or as a shared influence process, in which leadership is diffused

within a group and “any member of the social system may exhibit leadership at any time” (p. 4).

Rost (1993) argues that “the number one problem with leadership development during the 20th

Century is that it – leadership development – has been equated with leader development” (p. 97)

whereby researchers focused on leaders and overlooked other vital roles within the organization.

This analysis has spearheaded a new focus on followership within the organization.

Followership in organizations. The concept of shared influence process is supported by

Maroosis (2008) who views followership as “a shared discipline of reciprocal response-abilities”

(p. 18) that works in tandem with leadership in realizing the organization‟s objectives. Chaleff

(1995) contends that it is difficult to dissociate followership from leadership and followers can

help leaders avoid excesses. Kelley (2004) defines followership as the process of “active

engagement in helping an organization or a cause succeed while exercising independent, critical

judgment of goals, tasks, potential problems, and methods” (p. 505). A similar view holds that

followership is “an interactive role that may complement and support the leadership role”

(Howell & Mendez, 2008, p. 27). This requires strong commitment to the organization.

Followers play a critical role in organizational effectiveness. Riggio and Conger (2007)

maintain that team members are “likely to be highly knowledgeable and talented, [and therefore]

it is critical for the leader to allow his or her followers to take an active role in setting course and

in making decisions” (p. 342). Chaleff (2008) identifies four types of organizational cultures that

reflect varying relationships and follower styles, as: (1) low support/low challenge cultures

predominantly have followers who only do the bare minimum to maintain their role; (2) low


support/high challenge cultures have individualist followers who will only voice their concerns

when others are silent; (3) low challenge/high support cultures are likely to have followers who

will implement their tasks but not hold the leader accountable; and (4) high support/high

challenge cultures in which followers partner with leaders in taking responsibility for the

organization‟s mission. An organization‟s success depends on having motivated followers.

Nature and culture of organizations. Organizations are open systems (Katz & Kahn,

1966) that are organic and allow for the implementation of new ideas through flexibility of

thought (Morgan, 1997). Rigid or closed systems hinder the implementation of new ideas and

new learning. An organic system is an arena of liberty, where each employee can effectively

contribute to group performance (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Organizations must find new ways for

opening up their processes and empowering workers with a spirit for excellence. Morgan (1997)

emphasizes that “the challenge now is to imaginize: to infuse the process of organizing with a

spirit of imaginization.…to find creative ways of organizing…using new images and ideas as a

means of creating shared understandings” (p. xxix). Long established paradigms of thought limit

the learning and development of concepts that facilitate a better understanding of organizations

(Argyris, 1990). Healthy organizations have a culture that adapts to the external environment.

In many organizations, different groups are reflected in the departments and functional

reporting relationships of staff. Mintzberg (1981) identified five basic parts of an organization:

top management, the operating core, middle line management, technical support staff, and

administrative support staff. Functional departments form unique subcultures in an organization.

Schein (2004) suggests three occupational cultures that form in the organization: (1) the

engineering culture; (2) the executive culture; and (3) the operator culture. Operators rely on

human interaction, and require high levels of communication, trust, and teamwork to get work


done, engineers are concerned about innovations than daily operations, and executive culture

exercises responsibility and accountability for the organization. These subcultures provide a

means of understanding underlying forces that operate within the organization. Each culture

operates on different assumptions. Incentives are different across the organization. Operators

may subvert executive efforts to improve productivity. Engineers can be impatient with the

operators' resistance to implementing new initiatives. Executives may end up engaging in non-

productive management of other managers who think like them (Schein, 2004).

Contemporary organizations operate in complex environments due to the turbulence of

today‟s society (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001). As an organization adapts to the external

environment, it should not overlook the internal environment. Organizational structure could

degenerate into conflicting units if not carefully monitored. Lencioni (2006) identified these

conflicting units as silos, defining them as “barriers that exist between departments within an

organization, causing people who are supposed to be on the same team to work against one

another” (p. 175). Organizations should provide opportunities and events that enable the

development of camaraderie and friendships amongst their members. This creates a sense of

togetherness and belongingness. Communication should be encouraged amongst individuals

within the organization (Bennis & Nanus, 1997). Leaders and their collaborators should work to

ensure that the organization focuses on attaining its goals. This keeps individual members, units,

or departments from acting on their own and forming silos that hinder effective change.

Change in organizations. Leaders lead organizational change (De Caluwè & Vermaak,

2003, Kotter, 1996; O‟Toole, 1996). Poole and Van De Ven (2004) define organizational change

as “a difference in form, quality, or state over time in an organizational entity” (p. xi). Porras and

Silvers (1991) posit that “organizational change is typically triggered by a relevant


environmental shift that, once sensed by the organization, leads to an intentionally generated

response” (p. 52). These responses may be planned or unplanned. Planned change requires

careful preparation by the change agents or actors in a deliberate and intentional manner (Kanter,

Stein, & Jick, 1992) whereas unplanned change is “a consequence of the inherent potential for

development associated with every entity” (p. 9). The former has its source as the actions of

human agency and can be controlled while the latter is rooted in the natural unfolding of new

states, of which humans have little control and may not be able to intervene (Poole, 2004).

Kanter (1991) points out that the consideration of change as “an abrupt disjunction, a

clean break - does not always match the reality of change” (p. 8) within the organization. Leaders

resist change due to organizational realities that entice them to conform to old cultures (Bass &

Bass, 2008). Changing old cultures might require a phased approach to change, an example

being Kotter‟s (1996) eight-step strategy for change: increase urgency; build guiding teams; get

the vision right; communicate for buy-in; enable action; create short-term wins; don‟t let up; and

anchor change in the culture. According to De Caluwè and Vermaak, (2003) change is initiated

through the development of specific outcomes that become the focus of the organization.

Outcomes consist of the final element of the change process, the ultimate result. Other elements

of change include: outcome, history, actors, phases, communication, and steering. The

organization‟s past plays a critical role in determining what triggered the need for change and

identify those who will be involved in driving the effort - the change actors. Actors include

initiators who generate the idea, sponsors who legitimize it, orchestrators who set up the change,

implementers who share responsibility, and champions who coordinate the change effort “in

multiple successive phases” (De Caluwè and Vermaak, 2003, p. 86).


Schaffer and Thomson (1992) argue that successful change begins with the outcomes,

hence the need for a results-driven approach. O‟Toole (1996) calls for values-based leadership

that does not overlook the core principles of those within the organization, stating that leaders

“who succeed at bringing about effective and moral change believe in and act on the inherent

dignity of those they lead – in particular, in their natural human capacity to reason” (p. 37).

Acting on the dignity of followers and the organization stems from an ethical understanding of

the purpose of change. Both leaders and their collaborators stay on the forefront of the group‟s

mission by maintaining the group‟s focus on a better future, based on a shared vision. Burns

(1978) described the goal of transformational leadership as recognizing and exploiting “existing

need or demand” (p. 4) in society. In this sense, the leader is an agent of moral change.

Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, and Flowers (2004) argue that leaders must see from

the whole in order to bring about profound change. Black and Gregersen (2008) posit that

“people will not change if they fail to see the need and they often fail to see the need for change

because they are blinded by the light of what they already see” (p. 40). An organization‟s

commitment and its leader‟s commitment to seeing the whole enables the collective to recognize

the need for change. De Caluwè and Vermaak (2003) state, “if people learn collectively, the

organization learns and as a result change takes place” (p. 43). Leading organizational change

enables leaders to embed the desired culture in the organization and create a climate that

facilitates the attainment of organizational objectives (Schein, 2004). Leadership, after all, is

about enacting changes that enable an organization to fulfill its objectives (Kotter, 1999). The

leader‟s challenge is to guide an organization from its current realities to a future desired state

(Senge, 1996). The process is further enhanced when learning takes place in the organization.


Learning in organizations. As stated earlier, change correlates to learning in the

organization. Schwartz and Marquardt (2000) proffer a model of organizational learning that is

deemed suitable for a dynamic philosophy of leadership because it “incorporates the concept of

the dependency of change on the capacity of the organization (the collective) to learn – to learn

as an entity, not merely as the sum of the individual learning of its members” (p. 25). This

model, the Organizational Learning Systems Model (OLSM) integrates “multiple theories into a

coherent picture of the dynamic learning of the organization” (p. 53). OLSM propounds four

subsystems that advance learning: the environmental interface subsystem allows or disallows

learning input into the organization; the action/reflection subsystem facilitates knowledge

creation and acquisition; the dissemination and diffusion subsystem enables the movement of

information within the organization‟s structures; and the meaning and memory subsystem

interprets action, classifies knowledge, and stores information for future use.

The entry of new information into the organization‟s environmental interface may be

hampered by defensive reasoning whereby individuals hold onto invalid premises, make

unfounded inferences, or generate shoddy conclusions (Argyris, 1990). Defensive reasoning

hinders new action or reflection on organizational information which is essential for new

knowledge to be integrated into the learning system. Inappropriate environmental screening,

insufficient environmental scanning, and managerial cognitive schemas that do not allow new

knowledge into the organization will limit an organization‟s learning capacity (Schwandt &

Marquardt, 2000). Poor learning capacity affects performance levels in the organization. Senge

(2006) notes that “the common definition of learning within the SoL [Society for Organizational

Learning] has been learning is a process of enhancing learner‟s capacity, individually and

collectively, to produce results they truly want to produce” (p. 364).


Argyris and Schön (1996) contend that “an important species of organizational learning

consists in an organization‟s improvement of its task performance over time” (p. 4). Key

outcomes of learning, improved results and increased performance, do not occur when defensive

reasoning prevails. Defensive reasoning inhibits learning capacity because it fails to resolve the

errors of invalid premises, unfounded inferences, or shoddy conclusions (Argyris, 1990). Though

the organization may be able to resolve presenting problems, it fails to correct the causes of these

problems, a phenomenon described as “single-loop learning” (p. 92). Single loop learning is

“changes strategies of action or assumptions underlying strategies in ways that leave the values

of a theory of action unchanged” (Argyris & Schön, 1996, p. 20). To correct the causes of the

errors identified the organization has to engage in a higher level of learning - “double-loop

learning…[meaning] learning that results in a change in the values of theory-in-use , as well as in

its strategies and assumptions” (p. 21). In double-loop learning the mental models that govern

actions are altered. This facilitates systems thinking where organizations are able to see wholes

and identify interrelationships or patterns that affect learning (Senge, 2006)

Leaders have an obligation to build and maintain learning organizations that succeed in

the long-term. This requires the development of communities of practice that can implement

generative learning (Senge, 2006; Wenger, 1998). According to Wenger (1998) a community of

practice facilitates the exchange and interpretation of information, retains knowledge, exercises

stewardship of competences, and provides a home for the learning group‟s identity. Within such

a community individuals should focus on uncovering the underlying causes of behavioral

patterns and generate new thinking that facilitates learning, changing, and growing (Senge,

2006). This is impossible if organizations and the individuals within them hold onto outdated

patterns of thinking. Head (1997) says, “Organizations need to tear down the old, steep hierarchy


with layers of management control and put in place one that allows employees to learn, share

ideas and experiment” (p. 141). Leaders are activists, who observe trends, potential opportunities

and challenges to overcome in advancing learning in the organization.

The fundamental beliefs, values, and understanding of the members of a community of

practice play a critical role in determining the learning that takes place. This is supported by both

Argyris (1990), who argues that holding onto baseless premises inhibits learning, and Senge

(2006) who emphasizes that deeply ingrained assumptions and generalizations influence our

ability to act on information. A change of these baseless premises and ingrained assumptions

requires “metanoia – a shift of mind” (Senge, 2006, p. 13) that alters how we perceive our world

and facilitates, generative learning, “learning that enhances our capacity to create” (p. 14).

Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, and Flowers (2004) point out that inner personal work is required if

leaders are going to be able to suspend long established ways of seeing and model new courage.

The inner work of personal development enables spiritual formation. Bierly, Kessler, and

Christensen (2000) argue that “spirituality in an organization is a driver of wisdom” (p. 606)

since it provides a foundation for ingrained beliefs and assumptions held by individuals, and

enables a sense of partnership and unity throughout the organization. A spiritual atmosphere and

values within the organization serve to enhance learning. Burns (2003) points out that “values

play a central role in binding would-be leaders and followers, broadening moral frames of

reference, and serving variously as a needed unifying and dividing force” (p. 212). Bruce and

Plocha (1999) argue that learning is inhibited in a “value-neutral, dehumanized workplace” (p.

333). Workplaces that promote transforming values enhance learning.

Individual experience, spirituality, and passion for learning enhance individual wisdom,

which is “transformed into organizational wisdom through several means, three of the most


important being: (1) transformational leadership; (2) organizational culture and structure; and (3)

knowledge transfer” (Bierly, et al., 2000, p. 609). The authors argue that transformational leaders

facilitate the diffusion of wisdom, a culture of “strong belief systems” (p. 611) and “liberating

structures” (p. 612) enhances the impartation of wisdom, and effective transmission mechanisms

allow for the spread of wisdom in organizations. As organizations enhance their wisdom, they

will be able to make better judgments on how to apply their knowledge (Bierly, et al., 2000).

Eventually, the goal of the organizational leader is to enhance effectiveness in the organization.

Characteristics of the effective organization. Every organization has an inherent

structure and strategy that determines its effectiveness at accomplishing group objectives

(Mintzberg, 1983). An understanding of both is essential since modern organizations operate in

complex environments (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001). Structure refers to the form of organization.

In any form or structure, there has to be a right mix of design characteristics (Mintzberg, 1981).

Bennis and Nanus (1997) point out that excellent organizations are those in which leaders “align

the internal and external environments of the organizations over time and space” (p. 145). These

organizations are open systems that learn from their environments and position themselves in a

manner that facilitates learning and long-term survival. The turbulence of the modern

organizational environment necessitates organizations that have a hybrid structure since it leads

to “more efficient decision-making and planning processes” (Ackerman, 1982, p. 52)

Structure determines how efficient an organization will be in accomplishing its purpose.

There has to be effective organizational communication in the white spaces (Rummler & Brache,

1991). This requires transformation of work-spaces into learning spaces whereby (1) other

departments are viewed as partners rather than enemies, and; (2) members move from function to

process performance (Rummler & Brache, 1991). Poor organizational structure leads to divisive


silos, politics, and turf wars that hinder effective operations (Lencioni, 2006). Leaders must

avoid the political squabbles that hinder organizations from accomplishing their objectives.

Organizational structure will determine the success of a company‟s operations.

Characteristics of the effective organizational leader. Leaders connect with groups,

not only intellectually but also emotionally, to inspire group action. Leaders should be sensitive

to subordinates in order to guide them in accomplishing the organization‟s mission. Goleman

(1995) posits that the attitude which believes leaders must be “emotionally aloof” so as to make

the difficult business decisions is “outmoded, a luxury of a former day” (p. 149). Leaders must

show that they care. The idea of caring has not been widely explored because leadership has

traditionally had a masculine focus while caring is considered to be a feminine characteristic.

Leadership perspectives like transformational and charismatic leadership advocate for

competencies like encouraging the heart (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) and individualized

consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Leaders who use emotional intelligence achieve greater

success than those who rely on technical intelligence. A leader‟s perspective is reflected in the

organization‟s strategy. Organizational strategy enables a leader to have impact both within the

organization and with outside groups in the external environment. The leader should be a

designer, teacher, and steward who focuses on bringing people together based on common values

(Senge, 2006). This becomes a challenging task as interactions across cultures and countries

increase, hence the need for a global dimension of leadership.

The Global Dimension of Leadership.

As a direct beneficiary of globalization, this writer appreciates the need for a global

dimension to leadership. This has prompted him to develop networks through social mediums

that have added tremendous value to his leadership skills. The world is increasingly becoming a


small village (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005) thus requiring leaders and organizations to deal across

boundaries and borders (Mendenhall, Osland, Bird, Oddou, & Maznevski, 2008). This requires

global vision, an understanding of culture, and ethical global values.

Globalization, multiculturalism, and leadership in the 21st Century. Leadership in

the modern age requires an understanding of the forces of globalization and multiculturalism.

Today‟s world is much more complex than that of past years which were simpler and less

challenging. Today‟s world is characterized by rapid global change even as the world becomes

smaller and smaller. As the world becomes more complex, it is at the same time becoming a

“global village” (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, p. 11) in which local persons are having

international experiences within their own societies. Brewster (2002) noted that “it is a truism to

point out that the world is becoming more international” (p. 126), thus presenting new challenges

to leaders in all societies. This understanding correlates with Mendenhall, Osland, Bird, Oddou,

and Maznevski (2008) who suggest that the growth of global leadership stems from “the advent

of globalization as a new reality in international business” (p. 13).

Global leaders face the challenge of navigating cultural norms, developing appropriate

leadership styles for different cultures, and responding to other cultures appropriately. Friedman

(1994) described this challenge by saying, “it has by now become obvious to many researchers in

the human and social sciences that there is a very large and virtually uncontrollable world

system” (p. 1). As leaders venture into this world system, they are confronted with the need to

employ practical approaches that produce desired results. The skills for influencing and

interacting cross-culturally have become essential in almost every organization. The rapid rate of

globalization continues to drive organizations towards services, and products that fill a global

demand and employees who possess a multi-cultural perspective. National and global migration


patterns have meant that society is now more diversified and integrated than ever before – a

multicultural world. The quest for diversity is now a trend in many organizations. Modern

leaders must factor cultural aspects and dimensions in their organizational initiatives.

Vision, values, and characteristics of the global leader. The global leader has a

uniquely different mindset from that of any other leader (Mendenhall, Osland, Bird, Oddou, &

Maznevski, 2008). This mindset is revealed in the vision, values, and characteristics modeled by

such leaders. Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) refer to values as “the deepest manifestations of

culture” (p. 6). Global leaders endeavor to manifest values that appeal to diverse cultures.

According to Hofstede (1980) differences in cultures are measured by the values of the collective

through the use of dimensions. A dimension is “an aspect of a culture that can be measured

relative to other cultures” (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, p. 23). Research conducted at IBM‟s

global companies has been utilized to identify four unique characteristics or dimensions of

cultures: power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance. Related

research in China produced a fifth dimension, long-term versus short-term orientation (Hofstede

& Bond, 1988). The global leader adjusts personal values so that they are suitable for working

effectively in other cultures (Earley & Ang, 2003).

Ethics and the global organization. Given the diverse cultures on the global landscape,

differences exist in values across cultures. The global leader navigates these differences by

embracing global values that demonstrate respect for other cultures through ethical behavior.

Ethics is the code of moral principles and values that govern human behavior with respect to

what is right or wrong (Geisler, 1989). Ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong. Global

organizations have an obligation to conduct themselves in a manner that contributes to society‟s

welfare and interest. Ethically transformed organizations are places where values, principles, and


practices are applied with the effect of “significantly altering attitudes, thinking, communication,

behavior, culture, and systems” (Johnson, 2007, p. xv). These organizations are driven by the

desire to do what is right and good. Organizational interaction in international environments

requires leadership that values the ethical foundations of other cultures. For the Judeo-Christian

leader, right and wrong are defined by God‟s Word through Scripture. Worldview, therefore,

becomes an essential component of the leader‟s toolkit for global engagement.

Leaders who model transformational and ethical behavior facilitate changes that elevate

the quality of life for their followers. Burns (1978) alludes to this when he says that a leader

“recognizes and exploits an existing need or demand” (p. 4) in society. Leaders help groups to

achieve common goals by defining expectations and clearly outlining the performance targets for

the group‟s effectiveness. Kouzes and Posner (1995) say, “the most admired leaders speak

unhesitatingly and proudly of mutual ethical aspirations. They know that people aspire to live up

to the highest moral standards”. (p. 133). A focus on mutual ethical aspirations at the global level

allows leaders to exercise good governance by making decisions for a global audience. To this

end, the global leader and organization should not wait for external pressure to force right action

but rather be motivated by the moral good of ethical service.

Multi-Domain Expertise, Exhibits, and the Implications for Best Practices

According to Gardner (1995), “the attainment of expertise in various domains” is a

crucial ingredient “to the explication of leadership” (p. 29). Expertise as a leader comes from a

grasp of practical and empirically tested leadership theory. The leader develops a robust

knowledge of self, of followers, of organizations, and of organizational interrelationships in the

global environment through consistent research, application and execution of sound leadership

principles. Leadership not only “draws on who we are” (Harvey, 2006, p. 39) but it also draws


on the domains that a leader embodies. Leaders stimulate and influence followers intellectually

by displaying an authoritative grasp of issues within that domain. Effective leadership is more

about influencing rather than controlling (Lore, 1998).

The development of leadership exhibits has been a primary component in this writer‟s

advancement of a personal philosophy of leadership. The process of developing a dynamic,

iterative philosophy of leadership has enabled the progressive acquisition of tools for

consistently applying leadership while integrating and building on acquired knowledge. This

process has provided this writer with expertise and skill for navigating the complexities of

personal, organizational, and global leadership. Each phase of iteration has been a qualitative

journey towards advanced leadership skill. The development of new understanding of servant

leadership and application of the concepts has further cemented a personal passion for service to

society. Such service must be established on an authentic expression of personal best qualities

that are accurately reflected in interactions with leaders and followers alike. As a member of a

purposeful organization, the leader‟s focus must be geared towards subscribing to the

organization‟s rules, standards of operation and codes of conduct. This writer‟s ability to model

learning in these areas influences others in the organization and leads to corporate learning.

The organizational change processes that have been implemented over the course of

developing this philosophy reveal three themes. First, the leader must develop and communicate

a clear strategic direction. Leaders must formulate a unique strategy that establishes the need for

changes that follower‟s will embrace. Second, leaders must build top management support for

the change effort. The organization‟s leadership and managerial team is the driving force for

change in the organization. Lastly leaders must establish new cultural values that anchor the

change process (Kotter, 1996). This writer has demonstrated this in applied change processes.


As a sojourner originally from Kenya and currently living in the United States, the

writer‟s ability to adjust to the cultural norms, values, and beliefs of the United States as a host

country has had a significant impact on applied leadership efforts (Early and Ang, 2003). The

development of a scholarly understanding of globalization and ethics, along with application of

leadership concepts has enabled the writer to appreciate the acculturation process and the need

for a global ethic that crosses national boundaries. Kouzes and Posner (1995), “the most admired

leaders speak unhesitatingly and proudly of mutual ethical aspirations. They know that people

aspire to live up to the highest moral standards” (p. 133). Overall, the cultivation of a dynamic

philosophy of leadership has been instrumental in nurturing a theoretical foundation that

facilitates application of tested leadership concepts and ideas. The principles outlined herein

have empowered this writer with tools for consistently applying leadership while integrating

knowledge from continually developing research. This has been critical for the sharpening of

expertise and skill for navigating the complexities of personal, organizational, and global

leadership. This writer‟s objective is to consistently apply these principles in daily leadership and

develop an unending pursuit of advanced leadership skill.


References

Ackerman, L. (1982). Transition management: An in-depth look at managing complex change.

Organizational dynamics, 11(1), 46-66. Retrieved from Business Source Premier.

Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial

applications (4th Ed.). New York: Free Press.

Batson, C. D. (2006). Orchestrating prosocial motives. In D. L. Rhode (Ed), Moral leadership:

The theory and practice of power, judgment, and policy (pp. 197-212). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bennis, W. G. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bennis, W. G. (2004). The seven ages of the leader. Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 46-53.

Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.

Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1997) Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper

Collins Publishers.

Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B., & Popper, M. (2001). The relationship between vision

strength, leadership style, and context. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 53-73.

doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00064-9.


Bierly, P. E., Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organizational learning, knowledge

and wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(6), 595. Retrieved from

Business Source Premier Database.

Black, J. S. & Gregersen, H. B., (2008). It starts with one: Changing individuals changes

organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.

Blake, R. R., & McCanse, A. A.. (1991). Leadership dilemmas: Grid solutions. Houston: Gulf.

Boa, K. (2001). Conformed to his image. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Boa, K. (2004). Augustine to Freud: What theologians and psychologists tell us about human

nature (and why it matters). Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.

Brewster, C. (2002). Human resource practices in multinational companies. In M. J. Gannon, &

K. L. Newman (Eds.). The Blackwell handbook of cross-cultural management (pp. 126-

141). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Bruce, W., & Plocha, E. (1999). Reflections on maintaining a spirituality in the government

workplace: What it means and how to do it. international journal of organization theory

& behavior, 2(3/4), 325. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.

Burns, J. M. (2006). Afterword. In G.R. Goethals, & G.L.J Sorenson (Eds.), The quest for a

general theory of leadership (pp. 234 – 239). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: The pursuit of happiness. New York: Atlantic

Monthly Press.

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

Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San Francisco,

CA: Berrett-Koehler.


Chaleff, I. (2008). Creating new ways of following. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-

Blumen (Eds.). The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and

organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (pp. 67-87).

Cherniss, C., Extein, M., Goleman, D., & Weissberg, R. (2006). Emotional intelligence: What

does the research really indicate? Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 239-245.

doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4104_4.

Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. In J. B. Ciulla (ed.), Ethics, the

heart of leadership, (2nd Ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Covey, S. R. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Dalla Costa, J. (1998). The ethical imperative: Why moral leadership is good business. Reading,

MA: Addison Wesley.

De Caluwé, L., & Vermaak, H. (2003). Learning to change: A guide for organizational change

agents. London: Sage Publications.

De Geus, A. (1997). The living company: Habits for survival in a turbulent business

environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Domjan, M. (2005). The essentials of conditioning and learning, (3rd Ed.). Belmont, CA:

Thomson Wadsworth.

Drucker, P. (1999). Managing oneself. Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 64-74. Retrieved from


dynamic. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynamic

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.


Friedman, J. (1994). Cultural identity and global processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. Hammersmith, London.

HarperCollins Publishers.

Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Free Press.

Geisler, N. L., (1989). Christian ethics: Options and issues. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books.

George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A. N. & Mayer, D. (2007). Discovering your authentic leadership.

Harvard Business Review, 85 (2), 129-138. Retrieved from Business Source Premier.

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

Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York:

Bantam Books.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A. (2001). Primal leadership: The hidden driver of great

performance. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 42-51. Retrieved from Business Source

Premier Database.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power &

greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Harari, O. (1997). Looking beyond the `vision thing'. Management review, 86(6), 26. Retrieved

from Business Source Premier Database.

Harvey, M. (2006). Leadership and the human condition. In G.R. Goethals, & G.L.J Sorenson

(Eds.), The quest for a general theory of leadership (pp. 39 – 45). Northhampton, MA:

Edward Elgar.

Head, C. W. (1997). Beyond corporate transformation. Portland, OR. Productivity Press.


Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard

University Press.

Henry, K. (2009). Leading with your soul. Strategic Finance, 90(8), 44-51. Retrieved from


Hicks, D. A. (2003). Religion and the workplace: Pluralism, spirituality, leadership. Cambridge,

U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.

London: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic

growth. Organizational dynamics, 16(4), 5-21. Retrieved from Business Source Premier.

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, (2nd

Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Hoppe, S. (2005). Spirituality and leadership. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (104),

83-92. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.

Howell, J. & Mendez, M. (2008). Three perspectives on followership. In Riggio R., Chaleff I. &

Lipman-Blumen J. (Eds.). The art of followership: How great followers create great

leaders and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (pp. 25-40).

Ibarra, H., & Lineback, K. (2005). What's your story? Harvard Business Review, 83(1), 64-71.

Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.

Johnson, C. E. (2007) Ethics in the workplace: Tools and tactics for organizational

transformation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jones, L.B. (1996). The path: Creating your mission statement for work and life. New York:

Hyperion.


Kanter, R. M. (1991). Change: Where to begin. Harvard Business Review, 69(4), 8-9. Retrieved

from Business Source Premier Database.

Kanter, R. M., Stein, B., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change: How

companies experience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley

Kelley, R. E. (2004). Followership. In G. R. Goethals, G. J. Sorenson, & J. M. Burns (Eds.).

Encyclopedia of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (pp. 504-513).

Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral courage. New York; HarperCollins Publishers.

Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Executive (19389779), 5(2),

48-60. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database

Klann, G. (2007). Building character: Strengthening the heart of good leadership. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it and why

people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary

things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Books.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1997). Leadership practices inventory: Individual contributor

[LPI-IC]. (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lee, R. J. & King, S. N. (2001). Discovering the leader in you: A guide to realizing your

personal leadership potential. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lencioni, P. (2006). Silos, politics, and turf wars: A leadership fable about destroying the

barriers that turn colleagues into competitors. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and

corrupt politicians – and how we can survive them. New York: Oxford.

Lore, J. S. (1998). Servant-leadership in a Christian organization: The sisters of St. Joseph health

system. In L. C. Spear. (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and

servant-leadership (pp. 297-307). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Machiavelli, N. (1515). The prince. Retrieved August 13, 2008 from

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232.txt

Maroosis, J. (2008). Leadership: A partnership in reciprocal following. In R. E. Riggio, I.

Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.). The art of followership: How great followers create

great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (pp. 17-24). (

Maxwell, J. C. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership: Follow them and people will

follow you. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

McCauley, C. D. & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2004). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook

of leadership development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McCauley, C., & Wakefield, M. (2006). Talent management in the 21st century: Help your

company find, develop, and keep its strongest workers. Journal for quality &

participation, 29(4), 4-7. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.

McCaulley, M. (1990). The Myers-Briggs type indicator: A measure for individuals.

Measurement & evaluation in counseling & development (American Counseling

Association), 22(4), 181. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier Database.

McCrae, R., Costa Jr., P., & Martin, T. (2005). The NEO–PI–3: A more readable revised NEO

personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(3), 261-270.

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05.


Mendenhall, M. E., Osland, J. S., Bird, A., Oddou, G. R., & Maznevski, M. L. (2008). Global

leadership: Research, practice & development. New York: Routledge

Messick, D. (2006). Ethical judgment and moral leadership. In D. L. Rhode (Ed), Moral

leadership: The theory and practice of power, judgment, and policy (pp. 95-110). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mintzberg, H. (1981). Organization design: Fashion or fit? Harvard Business Review, 59(1),

103-116. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.

Morgan, G. (1997) Imaginization: New mindsets for seeing, organizing and managing. San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Munroe, M. (1993). Becoming a leader: Everyone can do it. Lanham, MD: Pneuma Life.

Neider L. L. & Schriesheim C. A. (2004). Power: Overview. In Encyclopedia of Leadership

(Vol. 3. Pp. 1248-1251). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Organizational Leadership – Curriculum (n.d.). Indiana Wesleyan University Website. Retrieved

November 19, 2009 from http://doctorate.indwes.edu/curriculum.htm

O‟Toole, J. (1996). Leading change: The argument for values-based leadership. New York:

Ballantine Books.

Poole, M. S.(2004). Central issues in the study of change and innovation. In M. S. Poole, & A.

H. Van De Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation. New York:

Oxford University Press, (pp. 3-29).

Poole, M. S., & Van De Ven, A. H. (2004). Theories of organizational change and innovation

processes. In M. S. Poole, & A. H. Van De Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational

change and innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, (pp. 374-402).


Porras, J., & Silvers, R. (1991). Organization development and transformation. Annual Review of

Psychology, 42(1), 51. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.

Riggio, R. E., & Conger, J. A. (2007). Getting it right: The practice of leadership. In J. A.

Conger, & R. E. Riggio, (Eds.). The practice of leadership: Developing the next

generation of leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (pp. 331-344).

Rhode, D. L. (2006). Introduction: Where is the leadership in moral leadership? In D. L. Rhode

(Ed), Moral leadership: The theory and practice of power, judgment, and policy (pp. 1-

53). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Roberts, L.M., Spreitzer, G., Dutton, J., Quinn, R., Heaphy, E., & Barker, B. (2005). How to

play to your strengths. Harvard Business Review. 83(1), 75-80. Retrieved from Business

Source Premier Database.

Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership development in the new millennium. The Journal of Leadership

Studies. 1(1), 92-110. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.

Ruderman, M. N. & Rogolsky, S. (2001). Getting real: How to lead authentically. Leadership in

action, 21(3), 3-7. Retrieved November 14, 2009 from

http://www.centerforcreativeleadership.com/leadership/pdf/publications/lia/lia2103authe

ntically.pdf

Rummler, G., & Brache, A. (1991). Managing the white space on the organization chart.

Supervision, 52(5), 6. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.

Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in

organizational effectiveness (pp. 122-160). San Francisco, CA US: Jossey-Bass.

Retrieved from PsycINFO Database.


Schaffer, R., & Thomson, H. (1992). Successful change programs begin with results. Harvard

Business Review, 70(1), 80-89. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.

Schein, E. H. (1996). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning. Sloan

Management Review, 38(1), 9-21. Retrieved from Academic One File.

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd Ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:

Basic Books.

Schwandt, D. R. & Marquardt, M. J. (2000). Organizational learning: From world -class

theories to global best practices. Boca Raton: St. Lucie Press.

Senge, P.M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New

York: Currency Doubleday.

Senge, P., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J. & Flowers, B. S. (2004). Presence: An exploration of

profound change in people, organizations, and society. New York: Doubleday.

Sire, J. W. (2004). Naming the elephant: Worldview as a concept. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press.

Stanley, A. (1999). Visioneering: God’s blueprint for developing and maintaining personal

vision. Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers.

Sternberg, R. (2009). Wisdom, intelligence & creativity synthesized. School Administrator,

66(2), 10-14. Retrieved from Professional Development Collection Database.

Sternberg, R. (2005). A model of educational leadership: Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity,

synthesized. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(4), 347-364.

doi:10.1080/13603120500156088.


Sternberg, R. (1986). Intelligence, wisdom, and creativity: Three is better than one. Educational

Psychologist, 21(3), 175. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.

Van Velsor, E. & McCauley, C. D. (2004). Our view of leadership development process. In

McCauley, C. D. & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.) (2004). Handbook of Leadership Development

(2nd Ed.). pp. 1-22. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Weber, M. (trans.1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T.

Parsons 1947 translation of part I of Max Weber's Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft). New

York: Oxford University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Retrieved from

http://www.open.ac.uk/ldc08/sites/www.open.ac.uk.ldc08/files/Learningasasocialsystem.

pdf

Willard, D. (2002). Renovation of the heart: Putting on the character of Christ. Colorado

Springs, CO: Navpress.

Wren, J. T. (2006). The quest for a grand theory of leadership. In G. R. Goethals & G. L. J.

Sorenson (Eds.), The quest for a general theory of leadership (pp. 1-38). Cheltenham,

UK: Edward Elgar.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Zaccaro, J. S. & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership: An introduction.

In Zaccaro, J. S. & Klimoski, R. J. (2001) (Eds.). The nature of organizational

leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today’s leaders. pp.

3-41. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Zohar, D. (2005). Spiritually intelligent leadership. Leader to Leader, 38. 45-51. Retrieved from

http://www.pfdf.org/knowledgecenter/journal.aspx?ArticleID=84

Running head: DYNAMIC LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 1

Documents

Transcript of Running head: DYNAMIC LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 1