Triangulating freedom & leadership

Triangulating Freedom and Leadership Development

by

Allen Carn [email protected]

Program: PhD in Applied Management and Decision Sciences

Specialization: Leadership and Organizational Change

KAM Assessor: Dr. Branford McAllister [email protected]

Faculty Mentor: Dr. Duane Tway [email protected]

Walden University

June 6, 2012

i

Abstract

Breadth

In comparing and contrasting various leadership development theories, transformational

leadership was supposed to be the pinnacle of leadership development. However, as the leader

develops, he or she should never discard process-oriented lessons learned as being a situational

or a transactional leader. Situations and events may require the leader to react in an appropriate

manner that is either situational or transactional. Furthermore, a transformational leader does not

transform societies to fit his or her personal desires at the expense of its citizens. It is a

transformational leader’s moral responsibility to transform a society by enacting a vision of

positive social change. He or she completes this life goal by transforming those in their personal

sphere of influence to aspire to the highest levels of moral development. In addition, the process-

oriented moral leader provides the constituent the necessary freedom and opportunity to learn

and choose.

ii

Abstract

Depth

The focal point of the depth was to review leadership theories in current scholarly literature that

could enhance the premise of process-oriented moral leadership. The literature included various

leadership theories, but the focus was on situational, contingency, transactional, and

transformational. The examination of the various leadership theory encapsulated in the literature

included the key concepts found in process-oriented moral leadership. These concepts included:

the driving force of change, competition, and positive social change. Because of this analysis, the

concept of process-oriented moral leadership is enhanced in terms of looking for opportunities

and avoiding threats that help leaders achieve their primary purpose, serving and inspiring those

they lead to be more than they thought capable.

iii

Abstract

Application

In an effort to triangulate freedom, equal opportunity, and positive social change concerning

leadership development, three iconic leaders provided invaluable information to assist potential

process-oriented moral leaders in implementing their version of leadership development and

organizational change. In his self-proclaimed arrogance, Alinsky provided a method to develop

organizers and leaders through continual societal upheaval. Iacocca announced that everyone has

leadership potential; it just takes a mentor, knowledge, and hard work to develop his nine

characteristics of a good leader. This mentoring belief is similar to King’s belief in the unlimited

potential of individuals to achieve the height dimension of life, which includes leadership

development principles and the concept of interrelatedness. Interrelatedness provides the best

example why Alinsky and Iacocca believed that leaders were supposed to serve the needs of all

individuals.

iv

Table of ContentsSynopsis 1

Breadth 4

Contingency and Situational Leadership 4

Potential POML Positives. 5

Potential POML Negatives. 8

Transactional 9



Transformational 14



Summary 28

Leadership Development 28

Morality 30

Leader-Follower Relationship 32

Conclusion 36

Annotated Bibliography 38

Literature Review Essay 58

Reaction-Based Premises 60



Exchange Premises 69

Potential POML Positives.

v


Amoral Transformational 77



Moral Transformational 83



Summary 91

Driving Force for Change 91

Competition 96

Positive Social Change 99

Conclusion 102

Application 107

Analysis 110

Leadership Development 111

Morality 115

Leader-Follower Relationship 124

riving Force for Change 128

Competition 134

Positive Social Change 141

Conclusion 147

1

Leadership Development: Discovering a Morally Efficient Process to Achieve Positive Social

Change

Synopsis

Process-oriented moral leadership (POML) derived from empowering individual

development concepts that suggest an individual should focus on the journey and not the result.

This empowering journey of self-discovery provides the starting point for POML. From this

starting point, Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed, “to encourage initiative in others, training is

crucial to build self-efficacy and to encourage initiative. Training is one form of preparation:

another effective way to prepare is mental stimulation” (pp. 170-171). Mental stimulation

requires a “powerful heuristic strategy for making people confident that they can act when the

situation requires” (p. 171). This strategy in developing others to become POMLs has six basic

concepts that were analogous Kouzes and Posner’s belief in empowerment leadership. POML

concepts include leadership development, morality, leader-follower relationship, driving force

for change, competition, and positive social change. This fundamental leadership development

strategy serves as the starting point used to define the concept of POML. This process defines a

development path that requires current leaders to relinquish power to empower. However, it also

requires aspiring leaders to classify and be committed to their core principles. These core

principles and ethics serve as the aspiring leader’s foundation; consequently, the aspiring leader

should never abandon them as they progress in their leadership development process. Finally, as

the individual develops they increase their leadership potential to serve their constituents in a

manner that allows them to develop and maximize their potential.

In the breadth, the tactic is to focus on the foundational strategic concepts that include

leadership development, morality, and leader-follower relationship. These fundamental concepts

2

offer insight on contingency and situational theories, transactional theories, and transformational

theories. According to Bass (1985) and Burns (1978), leadership development is the engine that

drives a vision of transformational change. Morality to Kouzes and Posner (2007) is the bedrock

of understanding to systematic and efficient change while Burns believed the leader-follower

relationship is the lubrication that sustains a vision. Consequently, a collaborative theory evolves

that promotes POML as the breadth compares and contrasts various leadership theories.

Using this essential POML leadership foundation developed in the breadth, the depth will

enhance and sharpen the POML process by analyzing the driving forces for change, competition,

and positive social change using current leadership literature. The driving force for change stems

from a source generating a need as Bass (1985) alluded to in his theory. More importantly, this

concept identifies the source of that need, and its use to promote change. Kouzes and Posner

(2007) believed that competition is a powerful force that drives win-win solutions while Bennis

and Ward-Biederman (1997) believed competition was the key to survival and a win at any cost

mentality. According to Kouzes and Posner, winning at any cost is antithetical to positive social

change; furthermore, they believed that leadership development is the key to positive social

change because it ultimately requires empowerment. It completes the development of one leader,

while providing leadership development opportunities for a multitude of other aspiring leaders;

as a result, it generates a force multiplying effect for positive social change. In the process of

using leadership development to generate positive social change, the analysis suggests the leader

has to protect freedom and other ingredients necessary for leadership development. Ultimately,

the leader must do no harm to the mechanisms necessary to leadership development and positive

social change.

3

In the application, this article ends with an analysis of three iconic leader’s methods of

leadership development; the iconic leaders were Saul Alinsky, Lee Iacocca, and Dr. Martin

Luther King, Jr. The analysis encompasses the positives and negatives of each leader’s

perspective as it concerns the six critical aspects of empowering leadership. The six aspects were

leadership development, morality, leader-follower relationship, driving forces for change,

competition, and positive social change. Alinsky’s (1989) perspective was admittedly efficient in

expressing contradictory claims of social change. Uncaringly, Alinsky sought contradiction as

means to amass power and hateful zealots. Unlike Alinsky, who was at least consistent in his

beliefs, Iacocca (2007) was inconsistent in his book that seeks to answer the question where have

all the leaders gone. Iacocca intertwined cronyism with soulful thoughts about mentoring. King

(1986) was consistent in his belief in the interrelatedness of the individual and the unlimited

leadership development potential and power that comes with it. With great power comes great

individual responsibility, which is in line with the POML maxim, first, do no harm, and then

seek positive social change.

4

Breadth

AMDS 8512: Classical and Emerging Paradigms of Leadership

Introduction

In the breadth, the method used to refine a collaborative theory that promotes POML

involves comparing and contrasting various leadership theories authored by Bass; Bennis and

Ward-Biederman; Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi; Burns; Ibbotson; and Kouzes and Posner.

The comparison focuses on three foundational elements of POML: they are leadership

development, morality, and the leader-follower relationship. The POML analysis begins with an

examination of the positive and negatives of contingency, situational, transactional, and

transformational leadership development theories. The analysis includes the methodology of

POML used to compare and contrast each theory in order to ascertain the effectiveness of each in

developing holistic leaders. The comparison includes the process of developing a leader, the

fundamental morality of the theory, and its perspective on the leader-follower relationship. This

analysis focuses on the intrinsic aspects of the leader and his or her direct sphere of influence.

Furthermore, this analysis provides the first portion of the answer that advances the notion that a

process-oriented moral leader is something more than just another transformational theory.

Contingency and Situational Leadership

As noted by Kouzes and Posner (2007), contingency and situational leadership have

many similarities since both require the leader to adapt to a follower’s reactions to an external

stimulus. Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi (1985) best explained this notion as they extolled the

virtues of contingent and situational leadership-styles. They believed that one leadership-style

cannot effectively respond to an infinite number of follower responses; consequently, they

thought that contingent or situational leadership-style was the prudent choice in leadership

5

development. However, there was one main difference between Ibbotson’s (2008) contingent

theory and Blanchard et al.’s situational theory. According to Ibbotson, a contingency theory

attempts to assess the follower’s ingenuity in responding to an external stimulus, while

Blanchard et al. situational theory has a narrower perspective. Situational theory requires the

leader and the follower to measure the follower’s responses to external stimuli. This section will

analyze contingency theory and situational theory simultaneously while determining what each

theory does or does not do well with respect to the leadership development process, morality,

and leader-follower relationship.


One of the critical strengths in either contingency or situational leadership

development is flexibility, as noted by both Ibbotson (2008) and Blanchard et al. (1985).

Ibbotson suggested using a creative cross-functional team that had a strong and well-

developed leader to harvest spontaneous creativity as the team handled various tasks.

From within the team, a leader develops as they became experienced in spotting desired

outputs from other individuals in the work team. In total, Ibbotson thought the leadership

profession is a learnable skill. A creative leader’s capability determines the level of

expertise in which they create situations to produce the correct or spontaneous result.

From Ibbotson’s perspective, leadership has to be more directive than democratic.

On the subject of situational leadership, Blanchard et al. (1985) had a different outlook on

leadership development, which contrasted sharply from Ibbotson (2008). Blanchard et al.

believed that a leader strives to be more democratic than directive. However, the leader’s

approach or style with respect to follower depends upon the follower’s measurable level of

performance. There are “four leadership styles” within situational leadership theory; the

6

leadership styles were “directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating” (p. 31). A leader uses

the appropriate style that matches the level of measurable performance from the follower. As the

follower progresses in understanding while achieving an agreed upon level of output, the leader

switches his or her style of leadership to match a followers’ measured output. A leader

delegating responsibility to the follower is the highest level of achievement. Blanchard et al.

believed that a followers’ ability to achieve a consistent level of performance is the only true

measure of performance with regard to “competence and commitment” (p. 60).

In a diverse culture, Ibbotson’s (2008) believed that morality is a potent force that derives

from the leader’s ability to “balance power and humility” (p. 10). This position appears to be

neutral as it relates to any social moral norm and is dependent upon the leader defining morality.

With respect to balancing power and humility, it requires a self-effacing leader knowing he or

she does not have all of the answers. As a result, the leader must be humble and provide his or

her followers enough freedom to be unimpeded in expressing an opinion or idea. This requires a

strong mutually dependent bond between the leader and the follower that is comparable to an

ethic of reciprocity. However, it is the leader’s responsibility to manipulate and then harvest that

open-minded natural act. Thus, the freedom of expression is dependent on the authoritarian

leader’s level of humility concerning their imposed morality.

As with Ibbotson (2008), Blanchard et al. (1985) had a neutral position concerning any

socially set morality. The organization or the leader advocates their interpretation of morality.

Whatever the source providing moral guidance, Blanchard et al. believed it is the leader’s

responsibility to maintain a high level of moral understanding throughout the organization.

Consequently, this high level of moral understanding made situational leadership development

theory more stringent than Ibbotson’s creative based contingency theory. Blanchard et al.

7

reemphasizes this disciplined approach to morality when stating leaders need to be constantly

evaluating the follower's understanding of organizational morality. This means that a concept of

fairness revolves around organizational and societal rules, ethics, and morals. The follower’s

ability to follow them is a part of the overall evaluation. Since the leader evaluates the follower

in a continuous manner, the leader’s leadership style varies as the follower develops competence

and commitment. This also ensures that the follower’s moral and ethical code adheres to the

standard set by the leader.

Since morality was not a priority to Ibbotson (2008), the leader-follower relationship has

to have well-defined roles and boundaries between leader and follower. Having defined roles is

comparable to Blanchard et al.’s (1985) belief in leader needing to know a follower’s level of

development. However, Ibbotson also believed that a leader could take away the boundaries

when needed. For example, if the leader sets up a brainstorming event that encourages

spontaneity, he or she would temporarily eliminate the boundary between the leader and the

follower. As a result, this newly appointed freedom encourages the follower to react to the

leader’s predetermined stimulus and event boundaries. As the followers react to the stimulus, the

leader coaches, mentors, facilitates, or even participates to encourage the continued development

of the followers. As soon as the event between the leader and follower ends with the harvesting

of creative ideas, the boundaries between leader and follower would resurface. The follower

would reassume their previous role.

Similarly, Blanchard et al. (1985) had well defined relationship boundaries. Unlike

Ibbotson’s (2008) approach, Blanchard et al. used an approach that focuses on the continuous

flow of small victories. This differed significantly from Ibbotson’s creative bursts of

development energy. Continuous small victories are a method that promotes positive

8

reinforcement, which helps increase the level of confidence and trust between the leader and

follower (Blanchard et al.). Consequently, not only did small victories serve as a continuous

approach to leadership development, they also strengthen the relationship between leader and

follower on a continual basis.

Potential POML Negatives.

The positive found in Ibbotson’s (2008) leadership development theory was his

belief in the level of freedom the leader bestows upon the follower. This freedom

provides the energy for dynamic, creative bursts of ideas while simultaneously providing

the best opportunity for development. However, as soon as the creative burst subsides,

the leader falls back into the role of project manager or director, while the follower

resumes a more subservient role. Contrastingly, one of Blanchard et al.’s (1985) strengths

were a series of small victories as the follower developed; however, this concept relegates

the follower to a need to know basis which means they only know what is necessary to

complete their assigned tasks. This differed greatly from Ibbotson’s belief, since seeing

the overall goal is an essential ingredient as the leader shapes the brainstorming event.

Blanchard et al. (1985) determined that it was immoral to treat followers the same when

they are at different levels of development within a status level. The original weakness with this

concept is the subjectivity of the leader to determine the appropriate level the follower is at in his

or her development. Blanchard et al. tried to use “SMART – Specific, Measurable, Attainable,

Relevant, and Trackable” (pp. 89-90) goals to reduce this weakness. The concept of

personalizing levels of development contrasts sharply with Ibbotson’s (2008) belief that leaders

should provide equal treatment to all individuals within a status level. Ibbotson despised

hierarchy. Ironically, Ibbotson offered SMART goals as a means to achieve better performance

9

in followers. Bass (1985), on the other hand, thought that SMART goals were just another form

of the “carrot or the stick” (p. 130) approach to leadership development. Concerning Bass, he

used SMART goals to aid the followers to become better managers of goals rather than

developing into leaders. Kouzes and Posner (2007) offered caution when using a reward or

punishment approach when dealing with morality and leadership development. The authors

thought it limited the follower’s perspective in regards to their hierarchy of needs; consequently,

it would impede their development.

The primary drawback to Ibbotson’s (2008) leader-follower relationship as it related to

his contingency theory is his dependence on the power-humility ratio that requires a strong

mutually dependent bond. As Burns (1978) noted, the core issue concerning power in the leader-

follower relationship is the mission or function of the exchange between the leader and follower.

Since Ibbotson was morally neutral, there is little guidance to where the leader could take the

follower. The only firewall to protect the follower is the leader’s humility. However, Burns re-

issued Lord Acton’s warning about power being a corruptible force. Humility offers little solace

to the follower as the leader has the potential to act as an ambivalent dictator. Blanchard et al.’s

perspective suffers from the same weakness as Ibbotson’s; the leader-follower relationship is still

dependent upon the leader’s interpretation of the organizational or community morality. As Bass

(1985) declared, a leader could mislead, promote ignorance, or encourage negative activism

within the follower. Concerning Blanchard et al.’s and Ibbotson’s perspective on leadership,

there continues to be a fragile link to the greater good.

Transactional

Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) shared similar views of transactional leadership. They both

believe it is an inescapable stepping-stone in the process of a leader evolving into a

10

transformational leader. The difference between the two is that Burns believed that transactional

leadership is a part of a linear evolution towards transformational leadership, while Bass had a

dynamic opinion of transactional leadership. For Bass, leadership development theories such as

transactional theory are tools in a toolbox, used as necessary by a transformational leader guided

by experience and knowledge. In some ways, transactional leadership is similar to contingency

or situational leadership, since Bass and Burns both believed that transactional leadership is an

agreed upon exchange. Nevertheless, the analysis in the next section will compare Bass and

Burns’ interpretation of that exchange in terms of positive and negatives as they relate to POML.

In doing so, it will break down each author’s theory with respect to the leadership development

process, morality, and the leader-follower relationship.


Bass (1985) viewed the exchange between a leader and follower as an assessment of

needs, with an exchange occurring if both parties met the other’s negotiated need. Transactional

leadership, in terms of leadership development, is just another exchange. The leader receives an

increase in output while the follower receives tutelage in spotting opportunities, negotiating

skills and a small portion of the leader’s power or the promise of power in the near future.

Dissimilarly, Burns (1978) viewed the exchange as an item for item transference, such as work

for pay. If the leader wants more work, then he or she has to provide greater benefits. For Burns,

transactional leadership development occurs when a leader provides insight concerning a work

topic, identifies a follower’s transactional needs, and helps the follower spot transactional needs

in others. This could mean more power for the follower while reducing the leader’s burden of

work and responsibility. One of the positives, found in both author’s leadership development

theories, is the simplicity in the item for item exchange using a pseudo market bartering system

11

of leadership development. The first step for the follower in leadership development is the act of

bartering to receive greater responsibilities.

According to Burns (1978), the level of mutual understanding identifies the terms of the

exchange and determines the level of morality. Increasing the level of understanding between the

two parties makes the exchange between leader and follower more moral. It is imperative that the

leader provides as much clarification as possible in a scope of work, instructions on how to

perform the work, expected output, and the expected reward after achieving a certain output.

Bass (1985) had a slightly different take on transactional morality. He viewed a transactional

leader as an individual that works within the confines of the law or social-moral ethos. The

transactional leader never transforms or alters the terms of understanding. The moral strength,

according to Bass, is the leader or follower being unwilling to alter the terms of the exchange

unless both parties are mutually willing to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. The

dependability in knowing that the leader or follower would not alter this understanding is

reassuring to both parties.

For both Bass (1985) and Burns (1978), the relationship between leader and follower is a

shrewd exchange of needs and desires. The POML positive in this exchange is the level of

communication necessary to create a moral and mutually beneficial agreement. The act of

creating this agreement also breeds confidence in a trusting relationship that has the potential to

be a lasting professional friendship. The exchange of needs offers the opportunity for the leader

and the follower to inject personal observations and opinions. This exchange provides both the

leader and follower the opportunity to grow professionally and to learn. The relationship positive

for Bass and Burns, as well as any other leadership theory, occurs when both parties actively

communicate and exchange information. As the level of open and honest communication

12

increases, the level of trust increases with the leader and follower strengthening the bond

between them.


The agreement in transactional leadership determines the level of development.

However, as Bass (1985) asserted, POML negatives occur when “compromise, intrigue,

and control” (p. 13) mask a leader’s hidden agenda. This misdirection of intentions

carried out by the leader would encourage the follower to be ignorant of the harm they

are doing to their own long-term development. At this point, the follower would either

become despondent or learn negative life skills. Another negative that Bass noted occurs

when a leader would set unrealistic goals, setting the follower up to fail instead of

succeeding. This could destroy the follower’s confidence in his or her own abilities.

Lastly, Bass thought transactional leadership focuses too much on the process and not

enough on broad issues that influence the world around them. This meant that leaders

should steer followers away from the process and fundamental issues; instead, followers

should be inspired to focus more on societal issues. In a comparable manner, Burns

(1978) thought transactional leadership development is a disservice to the follower since

it did not inspire the follower to be more than they were capable of negotiating. Burns

noted that another potential negative occurs when the follower could not present his or

her terms in an effective manner. The leader could then determine that the follower is

weak, unrefined, or uneducated. He thought the problem is more with the listening skills

of the leader and not the communication skills of the follower.

Bass (1985) expressed concern that if the language in the agreement is brief or

ambiguous, then the rational response by the follower is that the leader is purposely being

13

unscrupulous or vague in order to achieve a greater level of control or output. This lack

of communication could make an honest leader appear scheming and divisive. However,

Bass was just as concerned with a leader being purposefully manipulative by injecting

ambiguous or confusing language into an agreement. Another concern of Bass’ occurred

when a leader would carry out the letter of the agreement while committing unethical acts

outside the social moral norm. This would undermine the development of the follower,

organization, or community the leader represents for his or her own personal gain. Burns

(1978) had a similar view concerning the moral weakness in transactional leadership.

This moral weakness occurs when a leader fails to project trustworthiness, use power

competently, correctly apply the follower’s output to the stated goal, or act appropriately

when action is necessary. This moral weakness hinders the moral development of the

follower.

Both Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) thought that as the morality of the agreement

broke down, the leader-follower relationship would begin to degrade. For Bass, the first

mistake a transactional leader makes is to take punitive action when a follower has an

occurrence where he or she generated less than optimum output. If this occurs, a

transactional leader would force the follower to regress downward in Maslow’s hierarchy

of needs. Bass believed that this would only ensure a response that often has unintended

consequences, which fractures the understanding in the agreement as well as the

relationship between leader and follower. Burns had a different take on the leadership-

follower relationship, the intended reward for the output given often leads to a breakdown

in the relationship. This misunderstanding often leads to a degree of unintended effects

generating negative (punitive) fluctuations in the leader’s use of power, which in turn

14

causes the follower to produce nothing more than the minimum requirement.

Unfortunately, the leader views this cause and effect response as a loss in output and the

cycle would repeat. For Burns, the inability of a transactional to be more proactive than

what the status quo requires often causes the transactional leader to be reactionary. As a

result, this generates unnecessary stress upon the leader-follower relationship.

Transformational

According to Burns (1978), the primary limitation in most leadership theories is the

absence of a transformational perspective that encourages the leader to be an agent of social

change. The actual social change agent is where the author’s began to differ; Bass (1985) and

Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) believed that a transformational leader could promote

change that is negative as well as a positive. In this analysis, Bass represented the traditional

perspective while Bennis and Ward-Biederman represented the emerging paradigm in leadership

development. Meanwhile, Burns, who represented the traditional perspective, agreed with

Kouzes and Posner (2007), who represented the emerging paradigm, they believed that a

transformational leader promotes positive social change. The initial overall premise concerning

transformational leadership is the same between the two groups; a transformational leader is

perceptive in understanding the needs and desires of their followers. However, the first group

made up of Bass, Bennis, and Ward-Biederman believe it is acceptable for a transformational

leader to manipulate their follower’s needs for selfish reasons. Meanwhile, Burns, Kouzes, and

Posner thought a transformational leader is an agent of positive social change and uses their

followers’ needs to gain a greater understanding of the world around them. As a result, the noted

authors had sharp contrasts in their opinions concerning positive social change. Since positive

social change is a critical function of POML, the next section compares and contrasts all of the

15

transformational theoretical perspectives as they relate to POML concepts of leadership

development process, morality, and leader-follower relationship.


According to Bass (1985), a transformational leader intellectually stimulates the

creative desires in followers so that they actively seek leadership development. Bass

believed transformational leadership is an output and not the process. Consequently, to

Bass it appears that a transformational leader often emerges in times of tumult and

societal upheaval. As a transformational leader, the leader's skill at manipulating events

to hide their selfish desires often determines the level of their success. Bass’s

transformational theory incorporates two concepts. The first was similar to Burns’ (1978)

description of a transformational leader being a change agent. The second differed from

Burns’ belief that a transformational leader does not have to be a great person to produce

societal change results. Bass thought transformational leaders have to be great men and

solve problems systematically while inspiring their followers to push the limits of societal

change. Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) had a similar belief as Bass; leadership

development of followers occurs when they enact a leader’s vision as they dramatically

alter the boundaries of societal norms. Unlike Bennis and Ward-Biederman, Bass’

version of a transformational leader requires the leader to have a transactional concern

about the leadership development of devout followers while promoting radical social

change. Development occurs as followers aspire to emulate the leader. Leadership

development for the followers of the transformational leader requires the leader to seek

them out and cultivate them to challenge the status quo. As the leader demonstrates a

desire to know the needs of the followers, it is only a means to achieve some form of

16

political or socio-economic power, so the transformational leader could achieve his or her

ends.

Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) had a similar approach where the

transformational leader seeks highly talented change agents with similar beliefs to create

a different tomorrow. However, Bennis and Ward-Biederman believed that the

transformational leader has a more participative role, which differed significantly from

Bass (1985). This participative role occurs as the leader relinquishes some of his or her

power to the team. This power allows talented individuals to operate freely while trying

to solve some societal issue of considerable importance. As the group of talented

individuals solves the problem, the leader facilitates internal disagreements and protects

the talented group from outside interference. This differed greatly from Bass’s concept

while it had some similarities to Kouzes and Posner (2007) belief that a transformational

leader adapts to the needs of his or her followers while serving them. One of the

differences in Bennis and Ward-Biederman’s concept is that every member in the group

has to be talented, strong, and assertive. If not, the strongest members in the group

consume or discount the ideas of lesser team members. Development within the group is

often the result of imagination, intelligence, and determination of the individual. The

measure of success for the transformational leader comes in their ability to cultivate the

groups’ creative energy. Leadership development is a case of the survival of fittest for

those strong and intelligent enough to be a visionary creator and inspirational leader.

Burns’ (1978) transformational theory had a different take all together. Leaders

and followers have to be rooted in the fundamental belief that there are societal

expectations, and there are responsibilities in achieving those societal expectations. The

17

transformational leader’s reward is to “achieve mutually valued outcomes” (p. xiii). This

differed greatly from Bass’s (1985) belief that the leader shapes the outcome and the

other extreme offered by Bennis and Ward-Biederman’s (1997) where the group shapes

the outcome. According to Burns, transformational leaders serve their followers;

consequently, transformational leadership development is a variation of that same basic

premise. The leader in this instance mimics Bass’s belief about surveying the needs of his

or her followers; however, Burns believed that a transformational leader searches for a

win-win solution between him or herself and the follower. Societal change to Burns is

mutually beneficial to everyone, and the output produces something greater than the

Golden Rule. This differed greatly from Bass’s concept of transformational leader. For

example, Bass thought Hitler was a transformational leader while Burns thought

otherwise.

Like Burns (1978), Kouzes and Posner (2007) had a positive societal perspective

to their concept of a transformational leader. Kouzes and Posner believed a

transformational leader needs to lead by example, encourage followers to aspire to higher

levels of development, legitimately challenge the status quo, empower those with a desire

to improve, and appreciate their efforts because as they win, society wins. Kouzes and

Posner believed that anyone has the potential to be a transformational leader. Moreover,

leadership is a learnable skill honed by experience and continuing education. It is the

transformational leader’s responsibility to encourage and empower the follower to be

more than their self-imposed limitations. Through leadership development, societal

change occurs as leaders and followers interact with a community. Kouzes and Posner

had much the same belief in leadership development as Burns; leadership development is

18

a one of the primary responsibilities of the transformational leader. Unfortunately,

leadership development is a circuitous process for Bass (1985), as well as Bennis and

Ward-Biederman (1997), since development only occurs during the act of a leader or

group achieving some formidable task. As the transformational leader amasses power, he

or she needs subordinate leaders to carry out their will.

Bass’s (1985) concept of a transformational leader requires the leader to create a

moral code to avoid organizational confusion. However, the moral code is in line with the

leader’s perception of right and wrong, not societal good or evil. For instance, a leader

has to account for societal norms; to act contrary would undermine the leader’s ability to

transform society. This did not mean the leader agreed with societal norms. He or she

changes them in an incremental manner with followers aspiring to be leaders piloting the

way. As with Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997), the concept of a societal greater good

is not a burden for their concept of a transformational leader. Bass’s moral thoughts were

more in line with the premise that the leader establishes their concept of right and wrong.

As soon as the leader installs their version of morality, the leader should not vary as

consistency in thought made the leader and followers more in tune with one another,

making them more effective as change agents.

Similarly, Bennis and Ward-Biederman’s (1997) moral constructs did not have any

connections to a society's established moral norms. Bennis and Ward-Biederman believed that

solving the monumental problem provides its own moral clarity. It is society’s problem to

determine if the results are socially acceptable. To Bennis and Ward-Biederman, great groups

fought “holy wars” (P. 204) or involved in a “crusade” (p. 206) for all ages. Morality within the

group requires the highest levels of dedication. Dedication to the task requires personal

19

sacrifices. As the individual increases their level of dedication to the project, the individual

appears to generate a higher moral clarity in the eyes of the transformational leader and team

members. The fanatical transformational energy generated from these groups alters the conscious

of humanity for decades. Kouzes and Posner (2007) believe it is immoral to generate change in

spite of the cost.

Burns’ (1978) perception of transformational leadership is something greater than the

greatest achievement by any of Bennis and Ward-Biederman’s (1997) transformational great

groups. According to Burns, he believed that universal moral development requires a leader to

serve and work to encourage the development of others. Burns’ point of view stands in stark

contrast with Bass (1985) while paralleling the beliefs of Kouzes and Posner (2007). Burns went

further to state that some theorists fail to understand behavioral motifs of followers and the

primary reasons why some societies prosper. Without a fundamental belief in a moral structure

that makes all individuals equal in opportunity and responsibility, societies flounder and leaders

become tyrannical. This fundamental moral belief provides the best opportunity for leaders to

inspire followers to achieve the highest levels of development.

Helping followers achieve the highest levels of development is something Kouzes and

Posner (2007) considered when they wrote about a transformational leader needing to establish a

set of ethics and values. The transformational leader must lead by example and not deviate from

what they preach. The establishment of ethics, morals, and values must be a compilation the

follower and leader’s moral norms derived from society. As soon as there is an agreement on the

ethical and moral constructs, the leader needs to embody and promote the agreement. Kouzes

and Posner's concept of a greater good and win-win relationship philosophy is more similar to

20

Burns (1978) than Bass (1985) or Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997). This dissimilarity

concerning morality carried forward in the leader-follower relationship.

In Bass’s (1985) theory of transformational leadership, the leader-follower relationship is

a process of the leader listening to and potentially incorporating the follower’s beliefs to build a

working relationship. This is an inclusive concept that had a similar construct to Burns (1978), as

well as Kouzes and Posner (2007). In doing so, Bass provided the appearance that the

transformational leader is listening and empowers the follower. Consequently, this inspires the

follower to increase his or her output. It is from this understanding that the transformational

leader drew his or her power. As the transformational leader builds this bond with the follower,

the connection enables the leader to make holistic societal changes.

Similarly, a strong leader-follower relationship was something Bennis and Ward-

Biederman’s (1997) believed to be necessary for the leader and follower to achieve their separate

goals in solving the societal problem. The relationship has to have a strong bond, which is

similar to Bass’s (1985). However, the relationship between the leader and the group has the

leader serving the group’s needs while protecting it from outside influences. This increases the

level of empowerment within the group and allows them to solve the most perplexing of societal

problems. Those followers not involved in the transformational group, according to Bennis and

Ward-Biederman’s theory, did not have their needs addressed. As a result, the indirect followers

are dependent upon the moral makeup and output of both the transformational leader and group.

This separation between leader, group, and the rest of society was something Burns (1978) and

the collaborative effort of Kouzes and Posner (2007) discouraged in their theories about the

transformational leader-follower relationships.

21

Burns (1978), as with Kouzes and Posner (2007), believed a transformational leader has

to be very responsive to all stakeholders. This relationship with their followers flows through the

direct group of followers and has a positive impact on society as a whole. This is especially true

since the transformational leader encourages his or her direct followers to create a similar

mutually beneficial bond between the followers and other members of society. This act is in

itself a leadership development activity. In doing so, it was Kouzes and Posner’s conviction that

this would promote a generational environment of positive social change that dwarfs any output

created by transformational leaders and groups as described by Bass (1985) or Bennis and Ward-

Biederman (1997). The premise behind Burns, Kouzes, and Posner’s similar theories is to

increase the level of involvement and empowerment of all people; thereby, making societal

responses to positive change or problems highly dynamic and adaptive to any situation.


The positive found in the theory offered by Bass (1985) is that it is dependent upon a

dynamic and strong leader understanding the needs of his or her followers. The negative in what

he had offered, when compared to Burns (1978) and Kouzes and Posner (2007), is that

leadership development of followers is truly an afterthought; consequently, it makes positive

social change difficult from a generational standpoint. Bass did bring to light some “Leadership

Developmental Orientation” (pp.84-85) techniques, but the main goal of his belief in

transformational leadership is about selfish desires of the leader. The transformation leader uses

charisma and rhetoric to align followers to serve his or her needs as they transform an

organization or society. A transformational leader did allow followers limited freedom to search

out and expand as long as the expansion aligned itself with the mission and values of the leader.

However, since Hitler was an example of one of Bass’s transformational leaders, a follower’s

22

unaligned development has potentially dire consequences. Ultimately, a transformational leader

as defined by Bass is more rare than common. Contrastingly, Burns, Kouzes, and Posner created

robust systems of leadership development that has the potential to make transformational

leadership a standardized approach to societal improvement.

As with leadership development, according to Bass (1985), morality is a secular construct

based on rhetoric with minimal ties to societal norms. A true transformational leader may be

required to shape morality to meet his or her needs while attempting to be consistent in the

application. This paradox of inconsistency helps explain why a transformational leader could

declare some social moral norms as immoral and require them to be changed. In addition, this

also explains why Bass is not overly concerned about a follower’s higher hierarchal needs, since

necessity dictates whether a transformational leader needs to alter a follower’s lower level needs

to attain the desired output. Burns, Kouzes, and Posner have a diametrically opposite opinion to

Bass’s interpretation of morality and the concept of a Hitler-like transformational leader.

The negativity found in Bass’s (1985) transformational theory as it relates to leader-

follower relationship, required the leader to understand the follower’s needs and desires. In doing

so, the leader could manipulate their needs and desires to achieve the leader’s perceived greater

good. Bass’s view of the leader-follower relationship, it is cold and calculating. Contrastingly,

Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner’s (2007) believed the relationship is genuine and an inviting

win-win scenario. The win-win scenario occurs when the follower eventually adapts his or hers

needs to match the needs of the transformational leader. A follower bending their wishes and

desires to be in line with the leaders was something that conflicted with Bennis and Ward-

Biederman's (1997) concept. Alarmingly, Bass admitted the manipulation of needs and desires

fuels resentment. This resentment allows an up and coming revolutionary leader to harvest the

23

angst in order to build his or her power base. Furthermore, the revolutionary leader routinely

represents the next change and not a new concept in societal development. As a result, the

leader-follower relationship becomes a tool for the revolutionary leader to implement this

change.

As with Bass’s (1985) concept of leadership development, Bennis and Ward-

Biederman’s (1997) concept of developing leaders as a function of leadership is the exception

and not the norm. The transformational group has a leader that bestows equality to the group

while attempting to solve a problem that has a transformational impact on society. The leader

assembles a group that is talented and self-driven. Since technical prowess provided the reason to

assemble the group, each member comes to the group with a different level of leadership

development and style. The team becomes a creative gathering where dominant leaders within

the group separate themselves at the expense of others in the group. The dominant leaders

provide guidance to the group while updating the team leader on progress and the group’s needs.

In some of the examples offered by Bennis and Ward-Biederman, if either the team leader or the

dominant leaders within the group are unscrupulous, then the group will commit unscrupulous

acts. This process of leadership development is the antithesis to the leadership development

processes created by Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner (2007).

Since Bennis and Ward-Biederman’s (1997) leader development process is absent of any

specific moral construct, morality is not a priority for the group. In some instances, the absence

of morality is often unavoidable; Bennis and Ward-Biederman used the Manhattan Project and

the development of a nuclear bomb as examples of amoral projects. However, as with the lauded

Black Mountain Experiment, morality was the victim of “anti-institutional” (p. 170) de-

evolvement. Leaders encouraged this anti-institutional belief, which warped the perception of

24

followers to view shoplifting and other petty crimes as a badge of ingenuity and courage. To

Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner (2007), if the lowest common denominator found in amoral

behavior is the best example of societal progress, then the failure of the Black Mountain

Experiment was inevitable. A constantly changing moral landscape prevented individuals from

working together. The experiment used a pseudo-institutional construct; however, the

experiment’s anti-institutional belief system trapped leaders and followers in a self-destructive

loop of lawlessness and anarchy.

The leadership-follower relationship as described by Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997)

requires both to sacrifice everything, which usually means that the emotionally spent leaders and

followers depart the project with shattered personal lives. As a reward, the authors believed that

the satisfaction in completing the task offsets the shattered lives and relationships. In addition,

any relationship within the group paled when compared to output of the project. Some trusting

relationships do form within the team; however, the relationships are a by-product of individual

alliances made during the team's storming phase. Bass’s (1985) theory failed to generate trusting

leader-follower relationships since they were not one of his primary objectives. Trusting

relationships evolve out of necessity during the leader or group’s development. As with morality,

Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner’s (2007) theory on transformational leadership had a different

take on the leader-follower relationship. The strength of their relationship often has positive

transformational outputs for both the leader and the follower. Furthermore, sacrifice is the

exception and not the rule.

Burns’s (1978) positive take on transformational leadership development differed greatly

from Bass (1985), Bennis, and Ward-Biederman (1997). However, the transformational leader as

described by Burns was in a tenuous position. Burns questioned this when he wrote about a

25

transformational leader becoming too involved when wanting to relate and understand his

followers. This appears to put the leader in a position of micromanaging the follower’s affairs. If

so, then the leader could inadvertently stunt the leadership potential of the individual. If the

leaders avoids involvement, does the leader neglect follower development duties? Burns offered

a small group solution that was similar to Bennis and Ward-Biederman’s; however, the proper

solution may require a transformational leader to use situational or contingency techniques as

suggested by Bass (1985); Blanchard et al. (1985); and Kouzes and Posner (2007). Different

problems require different leadership techniques to provide maximum flexibility for the

transformational leader and the development of the follower.

Burns (1978) believed that moral-character is a necessary ingredient in the development

of transformational leader, which conflicts with Burns own thoughts about highly developed

transformational leaders being able to transcend the limits found in the ethic of reciprocity or the

Golden Rule. Kouzes and Posner (2007) tendered a word of caution with regard to those

individuals thinking they have a level of wisdom that transcends time. To think an individual

leader or group of leaders has a grander idea than freedom is the folly of fools, especially as their

hubris assumes they have all of the answers as they micromanage their fellow human beings. In

the end, they only marginalize their leadership power as they eventually become out of touch

with the needs of their constituents. Making the simple complex has often led to disagreement,

the eventual breakdown in the social moral norms, and a loss of freedom within a society. This

was one of Kouzes and Posner’s concerns in a leader shaping morality; he or she could do it at

the long-term detriment of society.

Burns's (1978) viewpoint has a fundamental weakness in the leader-follower relationship

that occurs as the transformational leader works to achieve the highest levels of moral

26

development. The weakness occurs as the transformational leader loses focus on the details to

leadership development. Burns's perspective of highly developed leader is that he or she often

overlooks the little details in life. Contrastingly, Blanchard et al. (1985) pointed out that within

those details are many of life’s problems and moments of inspiration. Consequently, if a leader

ignores the details it often meant repeating mistakes not knowing the sources of failure. This

over indulgence concerning macro-level issues is an error duplicated in Bass (1985), Bennis and

Ward-Biederman’s (1997) theories. However, Bass did offer the solution of using other

leadership theories such as contingency and situational leadership to offset this weakness.

In evaluating weaknesses, Kouzes and Posner (2007) hinted to other leadership

development techniques; however, they did not define them for what they were. For example,

they discussed a concept of “fostering hardiness” (pp. 208 -209). This appeared to be an

abbreviated description of Blanchard et al’s. (1985) concept of situational leadership. Which

reiterated the weakness found in Burn’s description of transformational leadership development,

a good transformational leader has to know when to step in to help a subordinate, to let them

struggle to learn, or leave them alone because they are both competent and confident. If the

leader incorrectly assesses the subordinate’s ability in being competent and confident, leaving

the individual alone may appear as leader ignoring the needs of the subordinate.

Transformational leadership theories alone do not address this issue.

Kouzes and Posner (2007), as with Burns (1978), believed that a transformational leader

has to have an established moral foundation in order to communicate a reasonable vision of the

future. For followers to believe in the communicated vision, followers need historical precedent

to help them believe. The weakness in Kouzes and Posner’s belief that morality is a necessary

ingredient in the development of a transformational leader is time and communication. To

27

establish a history and lead by example requires an aspiring leader to have time to prove he or

she is capable in delivering their vision. If a situation does not allow the leader enough time to

evaluate the aspiring leader effectively, then it becomes a matter communication. As stated by

Kouzes and Posner, open and honest communication provides the best chance of success.

Anything less than open and honest communication will have the follower wondering, if the

leader is intentionally deceiving him or her which would separate the follower from the leader’s

vision.

Kouzes and Posner (2007) also required a strong leader-follower relationship in order for

it to be successful. This is analogous to Burns’ (1978) reference to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

and where those that achieve in meeting the highest stages of development are often the most

dependent upon those striving to improve. This concept is similar to the weakness noted in the

analysis of Burns’ theory on transformational leadership development. The weakness, in this

respect, occurs as the transformational leader or follower becomes too dependent on the other.

Kouzes and Posner suggested that the relationship needed a level of independence between the

leader and followers in order to avoid groupthink, inefficient replication, and other ruinous

habits.

In concluding the comparison and contrast analysis, there were four groups of

contrastingly different leadership theories analyzed. These four groups provided an assortment of

varying analysis; however, in aligning an author to a theoretical classification of the leadership

theory the following systematic breakdown occurred. The reactive leadership development group

consisted of the theories offered by Blanchard et al. (1985) and Ibbotson (2008). The

transactional or exchange-based group consists of Bass (1985) and Burns (1978). They propose

exchanges that address the follower’s lower level needs. The third group was an amoral

28

transformational group that sought a leader’s self-fulfillment this included the analysis of Bass

and the controversial theories of Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997). Finally, the fourth group

was the moral transformational group promoting leadership development. It consisted of Burns

(1978) and more recently Kouzes and Posner (2007). The next section will summarize and

provide some concluding analysis concerning the four leadership theories noted in the preceding

analysis.

Summary

In the final analysis, Kouzes and Posner (2007) presented a picture of moral leadership

that implied that Hitler (Bass), Mao (Burns), and Lenin (Burns) should not represent the pinnacle

of leadership since the deaths of millions occurred when they assumed and then maintained

power. Were their movements transformational, as Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) pointed out,

the answer to all of them was a definitive yes. However, in providing evidence that ends did

justify the means, Bass and Burns would have a difficult time to define their transformations as

positive. Consequently, Kouzes and Posner believed that leadership has to be something more

than wielding power to quench a thirst for monumental change. A portion of the answer resides

within analyzing three POML concepts; leadership development, morality, and leader-follower

relationships. These three concepts used in the analysis of the noted leadership theories emanated

from thoughts espoused by Kouzes and Posner. In addition, they serve as a foundation in

creating an empowering form of POML. This summary highlights each aspect and provides a

synthesized version of important qualities taken from the leadership theories that include

situational, contingency, transactional, and transformational. These essential qualities define the

foundational concepts of POML.

Leadership Development

29

One of the most important aspects a leader should consider as they look to the future and

serve their followers is the process of leadership development. If anything, leadership

development serves as a force-multiplier as a leader works to instill his or her vision while

fulfilling the needs of the followers. The key qualities of leadership development start with the

leader leading by example. As Kouzes and Posner (2007) noted, with a firm understanding of

their moral foundational makeup a leader should be an example of honest self-assessments,

empower followers to act, and appreciate the efforts of others with humility. As the follower

develops, the leader must employ excellent communication skills that include being an active

listener as noted by all of the authors in the breadth. When communicating with followers, the

leader must identify with the followers needs in a manner that Burns (1978) described as

mutually valued outcomes. These leadership qualities offer the follower an example to emulate.

The process portion of leadership development includes establishing goals for

incremental follower success (Blanchard et al., 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; and Bass, 1985)

based on input concerning the needs derived from followers. As Bass noted, this intellectually

stimulates the followers and offers the followers the opportunity for dynamic change and growth.

However, this transformation requires a morally repeatable process to provide equal opportunity

despite development being unique to each aspiring leader. For example, in using a morally

repeatable process, it requires the leader to be flexible, adaptive, and detailed oriented (Ibbotson,

2008) in order to accommodate the needs of the individual. This requires the leader to use

diverse leadership styles; Blanchard et al. provided four examples. They were “Directive,

Coaching, Supporting, and Delegating” (p. 30). Ibbotson (2008, p. 92) and Blanchard et al.

(1985, p. 81) all suggested that the leader use a measurable goal oriented process called

“SMART” to help the leader to objectively evaluate the follower’s progress and help the

30

follower to understand what it takes to be a leader. In order to make the development process

truly transformational, the leader needs to be positive, help the follower envision their role in the

leader’s vision, and empower the follower to complete his or her portion of this vision. In doing

so, as Kouzes and Posner noted, the leader stimulates the follower creatively which offers the

follower the opportunity of dynamic leadership development.

Of the key weaknesses noted when reviewing the leadership potential of the four theories

analyzed, some of the theories ignore the destruction of leadership potential wrought by some

leaders as a follower attempts to improve their current situation. First, if a leader is disingenuous

while setting false expectations, goals, or targets he or she will destroy their personal integrity

(Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; and Kouzes and Posner, 2007). Bass added if a leader is disingenuous,

then he or she habitually changes organizational expectations and goals. As a result, the immoral

leader warps and hinders the development potential of the aspiring leader while the organization

suffers constant upheaval. During these periods of turmoil, as Kouzes and Posner explained,

Machiavellian power plays begin while aspiring leaders fend for themselves as they attempt to

survive. Bass believed that the aspiring leader no longer seeks development. This predicament

forces the aspiring leader to develop survivalist skills, which makes them a good leader that

knows how to survive and not a leader that knows how to inspire and promote positive social

change.

Morality

As the leader leads by example, he or she develops followers and aspiring leaders. As

Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) noted, the process of developing followers requires the leader to

work within the confines of organizational or social moral norms. Burns went further by adding,

while working within the confines of the social moral norms, the leader morally works to

31

increase the level of understanding of the follower, so they may become examples to others.

Within the social moral confines, Blanchard et al. (1985) suggested the leader explain and

demonstrate fairness. Fairness requires the consistent application of organizational or social

morals, ethics, values, rules, and laws. Blanchard et al. continued this thought by adding, if

change is necessary the change must occur in a systematic manner within the societal structure.

Any change that occurs outside the socially accepted moral norms is anarchy inspired by amoral

transformational and revolutionary leaders (Bass). If a leader acts narcissistically or inspires

amoral behavior, Ibbotson (2008) suggested that the leader must self-correct and act with

humility in order to use his or her power judiciously. This judicious use of power falls within

Kouzes and Posner (2007) concept of a leader being a humble servant of the people. As a moral

servant, he or she works to inspire others, the moral leader works protect the future freedom and

opportunity of future generations.

To be amoral, Blanchard et al. (1985) cautioned, requires the inconsistent application of

social morals, ethics, values, rules, and laws. All of the authors reaffirmed this broad theme. For

instance, Bass (1985) suggested that some inconsistency occurs because of improper

communication or failing to communicate to increase understanding. If improper communication

occurs, the follower may perceive this failure to communicate as impropriety. Burns (1978) went

further and wrote that failing to communicate, lead by example, or act in a morally acceptable

manner as the situation dictates exemplified amoral leadership characteristics. Bass expounded

this last thought when he added that erratic behavior is a result of a secular belief in ethical

relativism, in which the amoral leader communicates using rhetoric and ambiguity. Some authors

promoted amoral behavior. For example, Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) thought morality

was an obstruction to creative thought. They condoned and promoted individuals acting in an

32

amoral manner. Regardless, for leaders to operate outside the boundaries, Kouzes and Posner

(2007) thought this typified a leader’s arrogance in believing that morals do not apply to them,

they only apply to followers. This ruling class mentality is antithetical to process-oriented moral

leadership.

Leader-Follower Relationship

To counter a ruling class mentality, POML requires leaders who are humble and are

willing to create strong and trusting bonds between them and their constituents. Bass (1985) was

succinct in pointing out that this bond must include open and honest communication. Bass

continued by stating that as the bond grows it cultivates a working inclusive arrangement that

requires the leader to empower the follower, so he or she may act, learn, and develop into a

leader. A part of this trusting relationship requires the leader to encourage spontaneity. As

Ibbotson (2008) suggested, one way to encourage spontaneity is to conduct brainstorming or role

playing events. During these events, the leader collects the actionable ideas to either solve a

problem or use them to build group unity. Blanchard et al. (1985) thought that the leader needed

to transform the ideas into tasks in order to provide the best opportunity to generate a series of

small victories that would build competence and confidence, which only strengthens the bond of

trust.

As implied in the brainstorming event, which Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) also

wrote about, the leader serves the group by providing information and the tools to succeed so the

group could generate small victories. As Burns (1978) noted, the leader has to maintain a macro-

level perspective while aligning the small victories with the larger group goals that ultimately fit

within his or her vision. In order for the leader to get the follower to believe his or her actions

add value, the leader educates the follower about the macro-level perspective while explaining

33

how the small victories fulfill the leader’s vision. Kouzes and Posner (2007) thought that the

macro-level perspective must include various expected inputs and outputs of all stakeholders. In

the act, of sharing the vision, the leader mentors, facilitates, coaches, and directs the followers

(Blanchard et al., 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 2007).

As the leader becomes inclusive to and empowers the followers, Kouzes and Posner

(2007) were implicit by requiring the leader to be firm with the equal application of the rules and

social moral norms. Equal application of the rules protects the group from anarchy and turmoil.

Ultimately, the leader protects the group from itself. The act of protecting the group from

internal and external conflict ensures the follower can focus on higher-level needs while building

trust and confidence in the leader.

The act of protecting the group and the follower, as Bass (1985) injected, requires the

leader to include corrective actions. As Kouzes and Posner (2007) cautioned, a leader should

conduct corrective action to protect rules, moral norms, or use them as a preventive measure

such as a learning event to thwart future inappropriate actions. However, Bass warned against

any corrective action carried out in an immoderate manner will force the follower to focus on

their lower level needs; consequently, reducing the follower’s output and the leader’s power.

Burns offered a similar perspective; he thought reactive or punitive leadership is the carrot or the

stick approach to leadership that hinders the leader-follower relationship making it inefficient

with respect to output and growing a power base. The process-oriented moral leader has to be

concerned with rules and corrective actions in order to be morally correct and fair. However,

Kouzes and Posner thought that the best way to avoid the need to use punitive action is through

education. This education must include preventative measures that increase social awareness and

interrelatedness.

34

Growing a power base built on a strong leader-follower relationship has potential pitfalls

for the leader as Ibbotson (2008); Bass (1985); Burns (1978); and Kouzes and Posner (2007)

illustrated in their theories. Burns cautioned leaders about the corruptible nature of power.

Power's corruptible nature makes Ibbotson’s self-assessing process based on the power-humility

ratio suspect and dependent upon the strength of leader’s moral character. If the leader were

morally weak, as Burns warned, he or she could manipulate the leader-follower relationship to

encourage the follower to carry out activities that were counter intuitive to the social need.

When leaders amass power, a follower risks losing their identity as they become

captivated by the leader’s vision. Kouzes and Posner (2007) made this point; furthermore, they

thought a loss of self-identity created an environment where systems of hate could develop. For

example, as Bass (1985), Bennis, and Ward-Biederman (1997) noted those followers within the

leader’s sphere of influence become zealots carrying out acts with a Machiavellian crusade

mentality. As a result, the leader-follower relationship de-evolves into groupthink and an abusive

bi-polar carrot and stick approach to maintain output or group cohesiveness. Any dissenting

thought that is contrary to the leader’s vision requires corrective or punitive action. Since

negative action identifies individuals left outside of the leader’s sphere of influence, these

followers become targets of abuse. As resentment builds in the targets of abuse, the abused wait

for the next revolutionary leader to save those individuals forced to follow the amoral leader

(Bass). In this example, as Bass noted, the leader has destroys incentive in the targeted group.

The leader and his or her zealots will reduce the output of followers by forcing them to be

concerned about their lower level needs that include survival.

In the final analysis, the leadership development answer found by analyzing positives and

negatives of the four leadership theories provides a synthesized version of leadership

35

development that culminates in a developed process-oriented moral leader. This process-oriented

moral leader focuses on the positives found in leadership development, morality, leader-follower

relationship, by finding a mutually beneficial driving force for change, competition, and positive

social change while avoiding the negatives of each. Simply, the process-oriented moral leader

looks at the leadership development theories as tools in a toolbox. When used appropriately, the

knowledge contained within each theory can inspire followers, depending upon the situation, to

become force-multipliers as they propagate the concept of positive social change via POML.

Positive social change in this analysis is working to inspire dormant and apathetic

individuals to be become societal leaders that protect freedom and opportunity. In doing so, with

proper education, future leaders will not have to relearn the lessons of the past, future leaders

will have the opportunity to lead changes necessary for a better tomorrow. Consequently, to

make the change process more efficient, positive social change must occur with some societal

understanding of right and wrong. As Bass (1985) noted with his examples, social moral norms

have to be something greater than laws, for the excessive abuses found within them often lead to

softer versions of tyranny. However, Kouzes and Posner (2007) alluded to societal norms

needing to be adaptable. When societal norms need changed, the change has to occur on a

societal level, so everybody knows the new standard for growth and future leadership

development. After any necessary changes, Kouzes and Posner believed that when the leader and

the follower works within the re-established social moral norms: they both win when carrying

out positive social change. In addition, the community wins as well when apathetic individuals

become self-leaders. The reality to our development and interrelatedness is that the answers to

universal questions are within all of us.

36

Conclusion

After analyzing the POML positives and negatives of different leadership theories, there

were numerous leadership qualities discovered enhancing the concept of POML. POML is a

leadership development concept that emphasizes a process-oriented philosophy to produce

justifiable results while encouraging moral, positive social change notions of mutual-cooperation

and the continual improvement of all stakeholders. Even though, positive social change

transformation is the goal, the compilation of theories used in the analysis does not presume one

theory better or worse as Burns (1978) implied in his conceptual beliefs. Rather each theory

incorporates useful tools that a process-oriented moral leader could use in a manner that Bass

(1985), Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997), Ibbotson (2008), and Kouzes and Posner (2007)

suggested. This concept of using the correct situational approach in response to a situation was

something Blanchard et al. (1985) wrote about in their situational leadership theory.

A process-oriented moral leader does not transform a society to fit his or her vision or

values as Bass endorsed; a process-oriented moral leader transforms by getting a group of

individuals to push their potential and boundaries for the benefit of all stakeholders as Kouzes

and Posner proposed. Furthermore, since the realm of the leader is the future, a process-oriented

moral leader must protect freedom and promote individual responsibility. Kouzes and Posner

believe it is necessary for leaders to have the freedom to choose and act upon those decisions.

Understanding freedom's frailty, the authors also thought leaders have to have a moral

foundation. As a result, leaders need to know societal right from wrong, to understand why it is

important to take responsibility for any improprieties, and the wisdom to know they are only an

interrelated servant to the greater good of positive social change. The process-oriented moral

37

leader works to secure the potential of future leaders, in doing so he or she secures their legacy

as a transformational agent of positive social change.

In searching for the positives and negatives in the four theories as they relate to the

concept of POML, leadership development, morality, and leader-follower relationship are

consistent with regards to one basic concept. This fundamental concept instructs leaders to be

mentors of future leaders and prioritize the needs of their people first. A leader uses his or her

vision, philosophy, and leadership developmental understanding to augment the developmental

needs of followers as they develop into leaders. Morality comes into play in understanding right

and wrong, according to Kouzes and Posner (2007) knowing right from wrong provides a

foundation to identify positive social change issues, which enables future leaders to endure and

overcome obstacles to positive social change. This fundamental concept touches on three other

criteria used to evaluate POML; they were identifying a rationale for change, harnessing

competitive nature of humanity, and clarifying the concept of positive social change. In

analyzing current research, the depth will expand the last three criteria concerning the premise of

POML by providing a point of reference used to compare and contrast current research with

other current research and theories established in the breadth.

38

Depth

AMDS 8522: Current Research on Leadership Development

Annotated Bibliography

Barbuto, Jr. J. E. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational

leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies; 11,

26-40. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100403.

Barbuto’s (2005) work focused on five hypotheses. The first hypothesis tried to establish

a positive relationship between the intrinsic factors of “heteronymous morality, impulsive need,

and pre-operational need” (p. 28-29) with charismatic and transformational leadership behaviors.

The second hypothesis dealt with contractual or well-defined goals and rewards providing a

theorized positive increase in a leader’s internal motivation. The third hypothesis implied that the

positive relationship between a leader’s popularity within a community and transactional and

charismatic leadership behaviors. The fourth hypothesis focused in on a leader’s self-image as

positively related to charismatic and transformational leadership behaviors. The fifth hypothesis

dealt with the process on how a leader processed intrinsic goals determined the constructive

relationship to transformational leadership behaviors. Using relatively obvious hypotheses,

Barbuto determined that there were testable antecedents that a firm or organization could test for

in order to find the right-fit candidate qualities to fill leadership positions.

This leadership motivational “profiling” (Barbuto, 2005, p. 37) appeared to be fraught

with developmental subjectivity and legal ramifications by stereotyping individuals and setting

artificial limits. Barbuto appeared to have excluded the possibility of future developmental

epiphanies thereby relegating leaders of today and tomorrow to their current paradigm in both

motivation and leadership development. Furthermore, the study was very dependent upon

39

whether the subjects or future job candidates responded to the questions truthfully and did not

offer what the test person thought was the correct response. In essence, Barbuto’s study was

simple and transactional in nature; consequently, it was not surprising that he had difficulties in

identifying strong correlations with an antecedent and transformational leadership.

Fairhurst, G. T. (2005). Reframing the art of framing: Problems and prospects for leadership.

Leadership, 1, 165 doi: 10.1177/1742715005051857.

Fairhurst (2005) hoped to provide reasons as to why some leaders were both willing and

capable concerning the concept of framing as a communication tool while other leaders seemed

unwilling or incapable. The first reason, offered by Fairhurst, centered on a leader’s natural,

philosophical makeup. Some leaders had a predominant relativistic or essentialist interpretation

of events, which hindered their ability to process the dynamic skill of framing conversations. As

determined by the author, the focal point of the second reason was the leader’s ability to use

“Message Design Logics” (p. 173). The manner in which a leader communicated consisted of

three levels, which were expressive, conventional, and rhetorical. Expressive was blunt and to

the point. The conventional level was utilitarian and based upon social upon social norms of

communication. The third level of communication was the rhetorical level. It was the ability to

shape the exchange of ideas to fit a strategic need. If a leader displayed lower level logic, he or

she was less apt to understand the concept of framing conversation. Fairhurst believed that the

skill of framing was teachable; however, the level of understanding was dependent upon the

intrinsic abilities of the leader.

As a result of an extensive revelation, Fairhurst (2005) identified four impediments to the

understanding the skill of framing. All four impediments resided within a student’s information

processing paradigm. The four Fairhurst identified were the inexplicable disorders of “arrogance,

40

conduit thinking, authenticity concerns, and the absence of a moral framework” (p.175). Most

important was the absence of a moral framework, since framing was a tool, it could empower the

most virtuous of activities or promote hateful surreptitious activities that destroy the good that

resides in humanity’s conscious. The absence of a moral framework would allow an amoral

leader to use it to promote social change that destroys. Fairhurst was explicit in the importance of

establishing a moral framework because framing has subcomponents called “metaphor,

jargon/catchphrases, contrast, spin, and stories” (p. 168). When used inappropriately, framing

can legitimize the inexplicable and cause social harm using the best of intentions.

Gorlorwulu, J. & Rahschulte, T. (2010). Organizational and leadership implications for

transformational development. Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic

Mission Studies, 27, 199 – 208. doi: 10.1177/0265378810369955.

The authors identified five features of Christian based transformational development.

First, and most importantly, an individual must know them self as he or she analyzed their

actions in relation to the established moral norm. Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) thought the

second feature required an individual to seek “positive change” as a leader with regards to the

three dimensions of a complete life, “materially, socially, and spiritually” (p. 202). The third

feature described the act of a leader being a servant of the people while focusing on the first two

features as being a “steward” (p. 200) for the people. The fourth feature required a total

commitment from the transformational leader to the concept of transformational development as

a life choice while serving the people. The authors’ perceptions on the fifth feature included the

concept of a calling as it related to transformational leadership. It required a leader to assist

individuals to find their true calling in order to maximize their efforts and be efficient

contributors to their community. The authors believed that change was an integral part of

41

leadership; as a result, they believed that their transformational development concept should be

included for both profit and non-profit business entities.

The unfortunate stance that Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) took was to declare that

true transformational development was a Christian only concept of spirituality. In doing so, the

authors choose to ignore other secular and religious entities in pursuit of the same singularity in

development. Furthermore, they took a pessimistic stance concerning the individuals they hoped

to help. Instead of improving the condition of poverty by harnessing the abundance of potential

in all individuals, they choose classify their endeavor as reducing poverty through “resource

scarcity” (p. 203) management and organizational efficiency. With that said, many of their

beliefs were similar to King’s, especially the notion that a person seeking transformational

development was on a quest to search for the “wholeness” (p. 201) of life which drew many

parallels to King’s three dimensions of a complete life.

Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of ‘leadership’. Human

Relations, 58, 1467-1494. doi: 10.1177/0018726705061314.

Grint (2005) started the article by dispelling the notion of “context determining

leadership response” (p. 1490), as found in the great man, contingency, and situational theories,

since it limited the leader’s options when resolving the problem in a systematic manner. Grint

offered a different approach that required the leader to be keenly aware of the situation and the

context in which the problem developed because a problem could either be “wicked, tame, or

critical” (p. 1472-1477). Each problem required a different response by the leader. For example,

if the situation were a wicked problem, then the leader would use leadership skills that build a

consensus in order to do root cause analysis and resource delegation. If the problem were a tame,

it would require routine managerial skills to resolve the problem. Finally, if the problem were

42

critical, it would require a military style commander using coercion as they controlled others to

resolve the problem. As a result, an effective leader stayed ahead of the problem by reclassifying

the context of the problem in order to maximize political gain or lessen the damage to his or her

power base.

The article’s premise focused on the maxim of never letting a good problem go to waste.

Ironically, Grint (2005) concedes that leaders routinely lusted for power, corrupted by power,

and were unable to admit mistakes. As a solution, he offered an amoral construct that instructed a

leader to frame the context of a problem in a manner that mitigated any negative effects and

maximized the positive effects in order to implement a social agenda. Upon taking office, a

leader arranges a host of predetermined responses to implement a social agenda that may be

intractable or even unwanted by his or her constituents. When a problem occurs, the leader

quickly frames it as wicked, tame, or critical with a matching predetermined response that may

have nothing to do with resolving the problem that triggered a need for a response. In almost

automatic fashion concerning the manner of appreciative inquiry, bureaucratic managers pick up

the predetermined response and begin implementation. Depending on the initial results, the

leader can reclassify the problem in order to deflect blame or to seize maximum power. On the

surface, this amoral construct appeared completely reactionary; however, this changed

dramatically as the leader implements a proactive social agenda. The construct is in conflict with

moral leadership. Moral leadership requires a leader to navigate through the tumult of the change

event, while consuming the least amount of resources in order to achieve a socially agreed upon

objective.

43

Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership behaviors and

subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 2-14. doi:

10.1177/107179190501100202.

Using optimism as a control variable, Harland, Harrison, Jones, and Reiter-Palmon

(2005) tested two hypotheses to determine if there were key ingredients a leader needed in order

to improve resilience in their subordinates. The first hypothesis theorized that the “five

transformational leadership dimensions (attributed charisma, idealized influence, inspirational

motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration)” and the transactional

dimension of contingent reward “would be positively associated with resilience” (p. 9). While

monitoring the five dimensions and manipulating optimism, inspirational motivation was the

only dimension “not significantly correlated with resilience” (p. 9). As expected, in the second

hypothesis the author controlled optimism with respect to management-by-exception-active,

management-by-exception-passive, and laissez-faire dimensions and there was no significant

correlation with “subordinate resilience” (p. 9). When looking at the study in its totality and the

constant state of change found in current events, which political pundits have portrayed as a

harbinger of doom, the results of this study suggested that it would take visionary

transformational leaders to see the good and unlimited potential in their subordinates to navigate

the tumult.

Surprisingly, Harland et al. (2005) delved in to a topic that had relatively little research

conducted. In fact, they had to use research from other fields to assemble a definition for

resilience that was similar to coping. Concerning both resilience and coping, Harland et al. listed

some protective factors when predicting if an individual would be resilient or not. Interestingly

enough, if a transformational leader could develop and foster these protective factors in their

44

subordinates, then the leader would have developed a dynamic group or team that could adapt,

improvise, and overcome any obstacle. The protective factors noted were “external supports (e.g.

good role models, trusted family and non-family members), inner strengths (e.g. likability,

optimism, empathy, a sense of purpose), and interpersonal and problems solving skills” (p. 3).

The interpersonal and problem solving factor included being creative when searching out for

new ideas, knowing when a follower needs help, humility, perseverance, and be appreciative. In

essence, in order to be a transformational force-multiplier for positive social change, the leader

must be an external support for others while exhibiting the other protective factors. The leader

truly leads by example.

Harms, P.D. & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional

leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 5-17.

doi: 10.1177/1548051809350894.

The inspiration for the authors of this meta-analysis concerned the growing debate with

reference to the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and aspects of transactional or

transformational leadership. Unfortunately, the study produced correlations that were weak, to

non-existent. In spite of the results, Harms and Credé (2010) made some interesting suggestions

for future research about EI and its links to more complex styles of leadership. First, according to

the authors, EI was a fundamental leadership principle best tested using a “self-reporting” (p. 13)

format coupled with the external performance “measures of personality and cognitive

intelligence” (p. 7). Second, future studies needed to include enhanced validity controls when

testing for relationships between EI and various leadership theories that go beyond “intelligence

and personality” (p. 13). Third, EI was a western concept. Consequently, there were relatively

few studies involving test subjects from non-English speaking countries. This led to researchers’

45

to suggest that there was a void in the available research. This void required more research to

determine if EI were a plausible concept in countries where strong leadership traits such as

machismo were the norm. Finally, research needs conducted to determine if a leader’s age,

gender, and socially expected emotional control skews the level of perceived EI.

The inconclusive results of the study suggested that EI was a subcomponent of a

transformational leader’s makeup. The definition of EI reinforced this point when it included key

components such as, emotion management, empathy, self-awareness, self-confidence, self-

evaluation, and an “adherence to professional or moral standards” (Harms and Credé, 2010, p.

7). These key components were ingredients that Kouzes and Posner (2007) elaborated upon in

their description of a transformational leader. Since EI was just a subcomponent of the

transformational leader concept, then perceived EI would only become prominent as a leader

used those skills. This could offer an explanation to the nature of the meta-analytic hit and miss

results from a plethora of studies. Furthermore, transformational leadership was an assortment of

different skills sets. For example, depending on the need of the change event, an effective

transformational leader could be a remarkable agent for positive change while having EI skills

that were weak to average.

Hetland, H., Sandal, G. M., & Johnsen, T. B. (2008). Followers' personality and leadership.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 322- 331. doi:

10.1177/1548051808315550.

When evaluating the relationship between leaders and followers, Hetland, Sandal, and

Johnsen (2008) studied the personality traits of subordinates in order to determine if a

relationship existed between positive subordinate personality traits and transformational

leadership. More specifically, when using the five-factor personality model they hypothesized

46

that low levels of neuroticism and high levels of agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness,

and openness would equate to a relationship were the leader would have positive

transformational leadership ratings. Despite the researchers best efforts, the results of the study

demonstrated a weak relationship “between personality characteristics of subordinates and

leadership ratings” (p. 329). In fact, Hetland et al. discovered that personality relationship

between a leader and subordinates were highly complex making bias and the effect of extraneous

variables problematic for the study. The ratings were unique to each test subject; consequently,

they would vary from subject to subject.

The study captured the unique nature and difficulties of leadership (Hetland et al., 2008).

For example, the authors' generated a result that included a relatively strong relationship between

a hypothesized subordinate’s personality traits and a passive-avoidant leader. When paraphrasing

Bass (1990), Hetland et al. described passive-avoidant leaders as weak when compared to

transactional or transformational leaders. In addition, passive-avoidant leaders were easy to

satisfy and gain recognition for substandard work. Meanwhile, a transactional or

transformational leader work to maximize the subordinates utility and potential. This required

the leader to push the subordinate out of their comfort zone in a manner where he or she

developed in to becoming more competent and confident. A leader pushing the subordinate

required patience as the trial and error learning opportunities had the potential to generate angst

in the subordinate. The variety of emotions generated by the learning opportunities was a

potential factor in the weak relationship between subordinate personality traits and

transformational leadership.

47

Houghton, J. D. & Yoho, S. K. (2005). Toward a contingency model of leadership and

psychological empowerment: When should self-leadership be encouraged? Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 65-83. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100406.

Houghton and Yoho (2005) created a model that suggested an organization or leader

should encourage self-leadership. They noted that the three-contingency factors of “follower

development, situational urgency, and task structure” (p. 71) determined which leadership

approach should be taken to address the contingency factors. The four-leadership theories used in

the model were directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering. In addition,

depending on the contingent factor that dictated the leadership approach, a “predictable follower

outcome” (p. 71) could be ascertained. The predicted follower outcomes include “commitment,

dependence, creativity, and psychological empowerment” (p. 71). These outcomes were

dependent upon the amount of power or control the leader judiciously delegated to the follower.

It was surprising to note that according to the Houghton and Yoho model, the transformational

leader did not inspire independent thought and rated as being mixed or moderate concerning

creativity and psychological empowerment.

One of the reasons why Houghton and Yoho (2005) thought that transformational leaders

had a mixed or moderate score in promoting the predictable outcomes of creativity and

psychological empowerment was due to Bass’s (1985) definition of a transformational leader.

According to Bass, a transformational leader could be amoral or moral. The authors believed an

amoral transformational leader does not relinquish power because the amoral leader typically has

a zero-sum approach to power, where amassing power is linear. For example, when an amoral

transformational leader gives up control or power, they have less. While another leader will

accumulate proportionately more control and power. On the other hand, a moral transformational

48

leader was more apt to relinquish control and power to let the followers develop independently.

Consequently, this was why Houghton and Yoho included an empowering leadership approach

because power was a dynamic concept. A leader did not lose power; they cultivated something

new in a follower that made empowering leadership a force multiplier.

Karriker, J. H. (2005). Cyclical group development and interaction-based leadership emergence

in autonomous teams: An integrated model. Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 11, 54-64. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100405.

Karriker (2005) began by explaining why she reduced a five-stage model of group

development to the three cyclical stages of development identified as storming, norming, and

performing. Of the three, the author determined that the storming phase was the most important

because potential leaders asserted their intentions; in addition, a potential leader’s behavior

attracted or rejected followers as the potential leader gathered their input. From the chaotic

activity that made up the storming phase, Karriker defined the norming phase as the stage where

the team’s leader or leaders emerge. It was at this point the team’s structure, social moral norms,

and task assignment occurred. As soon as the team started working to complete task assignments,

the team entered the performing stage where routine activities found within the tasks and

operation of the team occurs within the established rules and guidelines. If the team loses a

member, or if the team’s purpose, scope, or goals change, the team re-enters the storming phase.

In what seemed to be a contradiction, Karriker (2005) highlighted the importance of an

organizational structure whether fluid or traditional. With structure, it brought about a

fundamental code of cooperation; the newly formed team became a quasi-organization with its

own structure, rules, and social norms. However, Karriker decided to drop the forming and

adjourning stages in team development because they were linear stages while the other three

49

stages were cyclical. Furthermore, the author iterated that the norming stage was now the point

where the formation of social norms and structure occurred. In other words, the highly prized

cyclical process had no beginning or ending. Despite the authors noting that the forming stage

was important because it defined the context in which the cyclical process was to evolve and

work to improve. The forming stage preceded the storming stage where chaos reigned. Next, the

norming phase suppressed any animosity generated by the storming phase. It appeared that the

norming process in the previous cycle became the forming stage for the current teaming cycle.

With that said, Karriker noted two key points about leadership development. Teams are an

excellent environment for leadership development. She also provided a process to maximize

leadership potential for the greater good of the team, organization, or community.

Keller, J. W. & Yang, Y. E. (2008). Leadership style, decision context, and the poliheuristic

theory of decision making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52,

687-712. doi: 10.1177/0022002708320889.

In the hope of improving poliheuristic theory, Keller and Yang (2008) chose to close a

perceived gap found in the subjective first stage. As a decision making process, poliheuristic

theory had two stages that included a political prescreening process that eliminated potential

decisions to a problem based on the leader’s unease about his or her power base. The second

stage included a cognitive cost-benefit analysis to determine the best solution concerning the

remaining options. The subjective gap became apparent during extreme situations that

challenged a leader’s philosophical constructs, these included “task vs. interpersonal emphasis,

need for power, belief in the ability to control events, and self-monitoring” (p. 691 – 692). As a

result, the leader’s intrinsic orientation towards “distrust and military orientation” would override

his or her philosophical construct. It was Keller and Yang’s ultimate desire to eliminate some of

50

the theory’s subjective flaws while providing a more “explanatory and predictive power” (p.

687) in decision-making.

What Keller and Yang (2008) sought in this article was a tool that could be used to

develop leaders as they executed the decision making process. In addition, the tool had a dual

purpose; constituents could use it to predict a leader’s response as a method to increase

institutional accountability. Unfortunately, profiling and information gathering techniques have

improved in recent years. These improvements make the predictability that a leader develops a

potential weakness greater. If a leader develops a level of predictability as the authors posited, a

hostile competitor could frame and coax a leader into predictable responses forcing their intrinsic

distrust and military orientation to take over. In essence, the negative aspects of theory have been

in practice for some time. Various leaders throughout the world have used espionage, spying,

feints, and actual military movements to assess the character strengths of other leaders. The

information generated allows the adversarial leader to form a version of poliheuristic theory that

forces the targeted leader to react in a predictable manner. In the past, military strategists such as

Machiavelli called this information gathering process as testing the mettle of the leader.

Muczyk, J. P. & Holt, D. T. (2008). Toward a cultural contingency model of leadership. Journal

of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 277-286. doi: 10.1177/1548051808315551.

With a multitude of leadership theories, leadership was never a one-style fits all thought

process. However, as Muczyk and Holt (2008) noted, the application of western methodologies

to leadership in a multinational or global arena has had mixed results. These mixed results

pertaining to effectiveness have had prominent business executives complaining about shortages

in plant level leaders being able to adapt to global demands. Muczyk and Holt identified the

inadequacy as global leaders lacking adaptive knowledge to match the leadership style with

51

cultural leadership expectations of the host nation. The adaptive knowledge had 11-factors the

leader needed to consider before taking a business leadership opportunity in a foreign land.

These factors included “assertiveness, future orientation, gender differentiation, uncertainty

avoidance, power distance, collectivism versus individualism, in-group collectivism,

performance orientation, humane orientation, internal versus external environmental orientations,

and perceived role of hierarchy and acceptability of bypassing chain of command” (p. 279).

Muczyk and Holt created a simplified table where they generalized regional stereotypes in order

to make it practical for use. Once the leader learned the regional expectation, the leader needed

to complete further research and adapt to the social setting that the business resided to become an

adaptable global leader.

This article removed the verbose superlatives and delivered a basic description of

leadership; in addition, it explained the manner in which leadership style was to be contingent

and based on regional setting. In the process, Muczyk and Holt (2008) promoted a universal

leadership style and factors that transcend regional differences. The authors thought that

transformational leadership was an international style since it promoted commitment with a

vision that required the follower to exceed established expectations. The personal attributes of

the transformational leader that were universal were “trustworthiness, integrity, just, honesty,

having a positive attitude, dynamic, encouraging, motivational, and an informed team builder”

(p. 280). In addition, the authors noted that “foresight and planning ahead” (p. 280) were the

necessities of a visionary. Universal impediments included the leader being an asocial loner that

was a non-cooperative irritable dictator. In reviewing the article in total, Muczyk and Holt

implied that leadership was a teachable skill; furthermore, the various leadership styles were

52

tools that the leader used on a contingent basis. Depending on the culture and circumstances, the

leader applied the correct behavior and style to the given situation.

Scandura, T. A. & Pellegrini, E. K. (2008). Trust and leader member exchange: A closer look at

relational vulnerability. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies; 15, 101-110.

doi: 10.1177/1548051808320986.

In the study, Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) challenged the traditional predisposition that

the leader-member exchange was “unidimensional” (p. 101). The authors identified three phases

of the leader-member exchange theory (LMX) based on trust. Trust may be either the precursor

or successor to both the leader and follower advancing to the next stage in the theory. The first

phase of LMX was “role-taking” (p. 102). Role-taking was transactional and displayed much of

the calculus-based trust dimension. Calculus-based trust was a strict exchange and both parties

had little willingness to expose themselves to risk and provided an output that met the minimum

requirement. The second phase was “role-making” (p. 102). During this phase, the leader and

follower develop beyond the transactional need of the relationship and incorporate some

transformational qualities. When this occurs, calculus-based trust becomes less prominent, and

the relationship evolves towards the identification-based trust dimension. The identification-

based trust dimension was where the leader and follower willingly exchange ideas, beliefs, and

output that go beyond the confines of the contract. The third phase was “role-routinization” (p.

102). It was where the relationship develops high levels of identification-based trust.

Subsequently, the follower becomes empowered allowing the leader to delegate responsibility. It

was at this point in the study the authors determined that the leader-member exchange became

“multidimensional” (p. 103) because the trust dimension in the exchange was not a constant.

53

Trust was hard to earn and easy to lose. When a leader lost a follower's trust, the relationship

degraded back to being very transactional.

From the leadership development standpoint, trust was a compilation of integrity,

competence, and commitment. Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) implied that, as the strength in the

level of trust increased from calculus-based trust to identification-based trust, the follower

progressed from transactional, through transformational, potentially to develop empowerment

leadership traits. Ironically, Scandura and Pellegrini viewed delegation and empowerment as

“leadership risk-taking behaviors” (p. 102). This was ironic because the authors stressed the

multidimensional aspects of trust, yet take a linear and predictable approach to risk. Especially,

as previously noted, a highly developed relationship exposed the follower to higher stress levels

when taking on extra responsibilities and the potential to be conned with no contractual

protection or reward for their extra effort. Trust and risk appeared to be perpetually at odds with

another.

Schröder, T. & Scholl, W. (2009). Affective dynamics of leadership: An experimental test of

affect control theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72( 2), 180-197.

The quest to predict social interactions concerning leadership was what Schröder and

Scholl (2009) attempted in their study. The goal of the quest had two parts. The first part of the

goal was simply to use Affect Control Theory (ACT) in a leadership environment using a virtual

company with fictitious employees. The second part of the goal required that ACT generates a

mathematical model. The model requires a human subject to interact correctly with the virtual

environment concerning a social action and emotion hypotheses. The social action hypothesis

predicted that subjects would choose behaviors that generated low "affective deflection" (p. 184)

scores. In addition, the emotion hypothesis predicted that these subjects would tag their

54

“experiences with emotion concepts having low Euclidean distances to those predicted by ACT”

(p. 184). The results of the study were not as strong as Schröder and Scholl had predicted. ACT

seemed to act like a predictor; however, ACT was less than 66% correct in predicting the

experiment’s virtual events. In addition, there was a less than average strength concerning the

associated correlations of social action and emotion. Given the situation, which was a highly

controlled environment, the authors expected a stronger correlation and a much higher rate of

prediction.

Upon completion of the study, Schröder and Scholl (2009) had some doubts to whether

their simulation eliminated enough bias and other extraneous variables to say they met their

intended goal for the study. A virtual study with fictitious employees using a mathematical

model sets a finite number of possible solutions to any problem. With little chance of true

retribution for failure when faced with an organizational dilemma, the structure of the study

prevented subjects from conducting any root cause analysis. The authors noted this as the

primary concern along with a few other methodological problems that plagued the study. The

authors restricted the leadership styles in the study to either authoritarian or democratic. This

restriction could have skewed results. Given the limited amount of options, a rudimentary coin

flip, the results may generate a false positive concerning the first hypothesis.

Van Breukelen, W., Schyns, B., and Le Blanc, P. (2006). Leader-member exchange theory and

research: Accomplishments and future challenges. Leadership, 2, 295-316. doi:

10.1177/1742715006066023.

In this article, Van Breukelen, Schyns, and Le Blanc (2006) attempted an awkward

defense of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. The article began with the authors defining

LMX. Then they contrasted LMX with transactional, trait, leader behavior approach, vertical

55

dyad linkage theory, and situational or contingency theories. Van Breukelen et al. concluded that

LMX was a personally adaptive theory. It required leaders to treat subordinates equally in order

to attain high-quality relationships between the leader and his or her subordinates. Despite the

authors stating that the dyad was a unit of measurement of an exchange relationship, they

surmised that LMX did not have “clear definitions and measurements” (p. 310). In addition, they

thought that leader and member exchanges had to be equally fair and just to all of the followers

despite the quality of the exchange. The authors seem preoccupied in grouping all subordinates

in to one egalitarian group without differentiating between subordinates; as a result, the equality

of subordinates meant shop floor employees, low, and mid-level managers were one potential

group. Finally, as soon as an advocate LMX theorist cleaned up the definition, methods of

measurement, and concept of equal fairness they believed LMX could facilitate the creation of

high-quality relationships.

In using nuance, Van Breukelen et al. used the term “prescriptive” (p. 297) to describe

contingency and situational theories. The context in which the authors used prescriptive made it

a tactical term in which leaders would develop high-quality relationships based on the setting,

commitment, and competence of the subordinate. This prescriptive concept was similar to

SMART objectives. As Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi (1985) noted, a leader created SMART

objectives on an individual basis to drive improvement for the situational leader. In addition,

LMX strove to achieve high-quality relationships in a manner that Van Breukelen et al.

described as “descriptive” (p. 297). Descriptive had a strategic context as LMX strived to search

out for group antecedents facilitating high-quality exchanges. In what appeared to be a

contradiction, the authors then suggested that a leader practicing LMX searched out to find the

precursors and inhibitors to high-quality relationships on an individual and not a communal

56

basis. After the leader has gathered data, he or she analyzes it in order to define organizational

antecedents to promote organizational high-quality relationships. Unfortunately, in the process of

coming up with a comprehensive plan explaining why LMX misses the mark as the authors

noted in their conclusion. The tactical nature of leader and member exchanges do not always

transfer into strategic action plans; consequently, some individuals within the organization will

not have their needs addressed. These individuals will not develop high-quality relationships.

Vecchio, R. P., Bullis, R. C., & Brazil, D. M. (2006). The utility of situational leadership theory:

A replication in a military setting. Small Group Research, 37, 407-424. doi:

10.1177/1046496406291560.

Like LMX, situational theory lacked empirical predictability; consequently, Vecchio,

Bullis, and Brazil tried to take a different approach in predicting a subordinate’s need for

supervision. This contrasting approach included a subordinate’s opinions on his or her

performance, quality of the leader-member exchange, and “satisfaction with supervision” (p.

411). The study used military cadets with the same level of maturity. The authors hoped to test

cadets in leadership roles to determine their effectiveness by measuring numerical outputs

generated from the subordinate. According to Vecchio et al., the subjective component in testing

the theory occurred when the leader evaluated the subordinate’s readiness to take on new

challenges. The leader must evaluate the subordinate’s competence, commitment, and ability to

be self-directed. Unfortunately, for the authors, they can neither control the subjectivity in the

leader’s decisions nor the environmental context that influenced a leader’s decision. Much like

Van Breukelen et al. LMX results, Vecchio et al. had mixed results with a low to mid-range

strength in both regression and omnibus tests.

57

Vecchio et al. admittedly took a snap shot in time concerning a dynamic situation. The

subordinates in this snap shot were at different levels of development while tackling the

challenges of their current leadership level. As a result, testing subordinate feedback ended up

being reflective of the cadet’s sensitivity to their current developmental situation and the punitive

nature of the training. Positives from the study included results from those cadets needing

structured supervision, cadets involved in the supervisor’s inner circle, and when the leader

demonstrated flexibility when using the input from a subordinate. However, the study produced

some inconsistent results that were not significant. To rectify inconsistencies in the study, the

authors suggested that future researchers combine a leader’s opinions with a subordinate’s

measurable improvement. Another reality the authors discovered concerned the fact that

situational theory was a small group concept as evident in the inner circle results. The

researchers suggested that leaders fail to lead when try to become all things to everyone; it puts

leaders in an impossible position where they cannot satisfy the needs of everyone. Their best

opportunity to succeed required them to build a consensus around their vision and develop

individuals to form a core group. After the formation of the core group, they reach out and

develop others wanting to share and implement the leader’s vision.

58

Literature Review Essay

As Bass (1985) believed, when a researcher creates and defines a leadership theory, the

author has established criteria for leadership development. The breadth reviewed several key

leadership theories that included contingency, situational, transactional, and transformational.

These provided the leadership development structure for the breadth. However, this structure is

inefficient when incorporating modern research with divergent thought in the analysis. As a

result, the implied action generated by a theory provides the basis for the structure in the depth.

This promotes a more effective method to compare and contrast theories in the breadth and depth

in order to refine the process-oriented moral leadership (POML) concept. For example,

contingency and situational have read and react components that exist in various premises that

include the affect control theory (ACT), leadership-member exchange (LMX), and interaction-

based leadership (IBL). As a result, the reaction-based premises section analyzes theories that

have read and react components. Furthermore, the exchange-based premises section consists of

transactional and other current leadership theories that have the follower exchanging labor or

information concerning their need in order to achieve a negotiated leadership response to fulfill

that need. The final sections of analysis, prior to the summary and conclusion, focus on two

contrasting aspects of transformational leadership. The criterion used to separate

transformational leadership was the inclusion or exclusion of a social moral element.

Accordingly, these final sections of analysis use the headers amoral transformational and moral

transformational. As noted in the breadth, Bass (1985), Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997)

provided the amoral perspective while Burns (1978), Kouzes and Posner (2007) provided the

moral perspective. Current literature will help refine these perspectives as they relate to POML.

59

The process of analyzing reaction-based premises, exchange premises, amoral and moral

transformational premises in order to refine the concept of POML requires each section to be

analyzed in terms of POML positives and negatives. As previously noted in the breadth, Kouzes

and Posner’s (2007) characteristics of empowering leadership serves as the foundation or starting

point to evaluate each positive and negative. However, the criteria used to distinguish the

difference between a POML positive or negative goes beyond determining if a premise promotes

or discourages empowering leadership and POML development. It also determines whether an

authored premise is a POML positive or negative by assessing the following. Does the premise

protect the social and economic freedom of followers to provide them the opportunity to develop

into future leaders? In addition, the premise must be inclusive to social moral norms and ethical

standards that encourage interrelatedness. Finally, does any change the premise attempts to gain

avoid infringing upon the previous conditions while promoting social win-win scenarios that

Kouzes and Posner believed necessary for positive social change? The action-based section

headers establish the theoretical link between the breadth and depth, while the POML positive

and negative sub-section headers guide the analysis to refine the concept of POML.

In order to build beyond the foundation that included leadership development, morality,

and leader-follower relationship, the content of the literature review will breakdown each POML

positive and negative using Kouzes and Posner’s (2007) remaining characteristics of

empowering leadership. The remaining characteristics, which include the driving force for

change, competitive interaction, and positive social change, are action-oriented and align

themselves well with the overall action-oriented structure of the literature review. These

characteristics will help create concentrated aspects of the quintessential POML elements as they

relate to each section. The driving force for change analyzes the manner in which a developing

60

leader instigates change. For example, the driving force for change evaluates the sources and

methods a developing leader uses to initiate an event that propels or inspires an aspiring leader to

seize an opportunity and create a change movement. The competition criterion is the method in

which a developing leader handles perceived internal and external competition. This analysis

focuses on relationships that are within and outside the leader’s direct sphere of influence.

Finally, the positive social change component is the manner a developing leader uses to attain

positive social change. This analysis delves into positive social change; explicitly, it identifies

which theories make it possible for a society to thrive. As Kouzes and Posner (2007) noted, long-

term positive social change thinking ensures that a win-win scenario exists between individuals

and societal demands. The summary compiles the information and concludes with the notion that

the POML concept is a highly adaptive and empowering style of leadership.

Reaction-Based Premises

Contingency, situational, affect control theory (ACT), leadership-member exchange

(LMX), and interaction-based leadership (IBL) theories have read and react techniques that

require an aspiring leader to study in order to develop as a leader or help a follower develop.

Read and react development has systematic goals. Systematic goals include mutually agreed

upon individual performance targets. When applicable, this includes team outputs that the

follower works with others in a team environment to achieve. For example, VanBreukelen,

Schyns, and Le Blanc (2006) described LMX as a method to understand and develop leaders

using various inputs. The leader or developing leader must understand organizational need,

constraints, the follower’s preparedness, and the resources required to aid the follower in

meeting the organizational need. The level of success guides the leader or aspiring leader’s next

61

action in meeting the organizational need. This concept is similar to Blanchard et al.’s (1985)

situational theory and Ibbotson’s (2008) contingency theory.

In reviewing reaction-based theories, this section will evaluate the POML positives and

negatives of two macro-level contingency theories written by two different sets of authors

(Houghton & Yoho, 2005; Muczyk & Holt, 2008). It also includes a communication-based

theory called ACT (Schröder & Scholl, 2009), an IBL using teams as a primordial stew for

leadership development (Karricker, 2005), and a LMX theory that was more contingency-based

than transactional (Van Breukelen et al., 2006). As previously mentioned, the following will

analyze the research material in terms of POML positives and negatives. The comparative

analysis of each POML positive and negative includes the manner in which a developing leader

is suppose to drive change, address competitiveness, and his or her positive social change

approach.


According to Houghton and Yoho (2005), as soon as a developing leader

establishes a vision, being able to identify and seize upon opportunity is a necessary trait

of an effective reactionary leader. This is similar to all reaction-based leadership theories.

In addition, as noted by Schröder and Scholl (2009), they are all heavily dependent upon

communication and require developing leaders to learn the traits and needs of followers

in order to maximize productivity by spotting opportunities for improvement. Much like

Ibbotson’s (2008) contingency-based creative leadership theory, Vecchio, Bullis, and

Brazil (2006) discovered that a leader could introduce a controlled stimulus in a team

environment to generate efficient and creative reactions in followers. Consequently, both

theories require a skillful leader to frame an appropriate stimulus in order to determine

62

the general direction in which the anticipated change should take. Their theory was

comparable to Van Breukelen et al. (2006), the reactionary leadership development

opportunity comes as the leader evaluates the leadership potential of the followers as they

respond to the stimulus. The difference between the three sets of authors was the

theoretical POML positive generated from group responses. Van Breukelen et al. and

Vecchio et al. sought mutually beneficial outcomes. Contrastingly, Schröder and Scholl

focused in on the benefits a leader attains.

Ibbotson’s (2008) theory is open to the unpredictability and the creative nature of change.

The positives from Vecchio et al. and Van Breukelen et al. require the leader to use a composite

of measured inputs in order to find the most efficient response. Concerning the leadership

development opportunity, all of the authors used a method that requires potential leaders to

gather information, share the information in a team environment, and help develop and defend

reaction plans submitted by the group to the leader. Reaction-based theories incorporate

reactionary development tendency while attempting to achieve an organizational goal. When

comparing the authors identified in this paragraph, the POML positive is the level of effective

communication needed to make the reaction-based theory operative in order to develop future

leaders.

In reviewing each reaction-based theory, the rationale for change stemmed either from a

leader’s vision, a team-based decision incorporating a leader’s input, or in reaction to an external

stimulus. A leader’s vision served as the driving force for change in Blanchard et al. (1985) and

Ibbotson’s (2008) theories; consequently, leadership development centered on improving an

aspiring leader’s vision. Muczyk and Holt (2008) had a contrasting perception when they created

a cultural contingency model that matched leadership style with leadership positions in non-

63

western cultures using a team-based approach. To develop or find the right fit to fill the vacancy

requires an upper management team that has a thorough understanding of the local culture. The

upper management determines the local leadership need. The situational model aids leadership in

filling or developing that need with an aspiring leader.

Karricker (2005) and Vecchio et al. (2006) were more inclusive than previous the authors

since the driving force for change could emanate from either the leader or a team environment.

In using multiple sources to aid with problem resolution, a team concept provides the authors an

opportunity for a comprehensive understanding of a dilemma, potentially a more creative

response, and the occasion to evaluate and develop leadership potential in followers. Houghton

and Yoho (2005) had a different take all together; they created a model that aids aspiring leaders

in matching the correct leadership style with the nature and urgency of the task. In this instance,

the problem defined the opportunity and the reaction selection process aided leadership

development. Regardless of the reasoning behind the various theories, any driving force for

change required an enhanced understanding of the subject matter. When the importance and

urgency of the task permits, POML requires leaders to be force-multipliers. As Vecchio et al.

noted, a team environment provided the best opportunity to develop numerous leaders.

Ibbotson (2008) viewed competition with cautious optimism; the real opportunity in

competition is in the understanding and comradeship that fuels a respectful form of competition.

In worse case situations, Ibbotson suggested using it as a last resort in order to reshape the

paradigm of thought and push the boundaries of innovation. Vecchio et al. (2006) had a

comparable perspective; they suggested creating small and flexible teams to handle diverse

situations as the primary tool for leadership development. They believed that competition exists

within both the team and external forces such as other cadets. In dealing with competitive forces

64

within the team, Karricker’s (2005) perspective offered a win-win scenario that was analogous to

Vecchio et al. Karricker described the performing stage in team development as providing the

organization with a win as the individual or team overcomes a tactical or strategic issue. In

overcoming the issue, the leader and the team win as they develop competence and confidence.

Despite Karricker’s (2005) and Vecchio et al. (2006) team-based approaches differing

significantly from Houghton and Yoho’s (2005) individual-centric leadership development, they

all had a similar concept. When focusing on the topic of competition, all were comparable in

achieving organizational goals and targets meant to develop competence and confidence in

aspiring leaders. Whether occurring in an individual or team environment, Blanchard et al.’s

(1985) believed that human’s natural competitive instinct in completing tasks and achieving

development goals allowed leaders to harness the positive nature of competition while presenting

the greatest opportunity for organizational success and leadership development. To avoid

negative competition in a team environment, Muczyk and Holt (2008) took preventive-norming

measures in order to avoid negative competition as they matched a leader to the team’s societal

cultural norms. In referring to ethics, laws, and social moral norms, all of the reaction-based

theories noted in this paragraph were comparable as they provided a team or an individual a

structured opportunity to maximize the POML potential found in the competitive learning event.

As evident in Muczyk and Holt’s (2008) article, reaction-based theories as a whole

typically do not strive for social change, let alone positive social change as goal. Societal change

only becomes a goal or a target if the leader, team, or the context of the problem is inclusive to a

societal need. However, all of the reaction-based theories incorporate the ingredients for positive

social change. Ibbotson (2008) believed a great team approach was extremely creative in

generating a paradigm shifts. However, his social change perspective and achieving a positive

65

outcome is dependent upon the leader’s moral character, vision, and communication skills.

Blanchard et al. (1985) subscribed to followers achieving positive social change goals more

efficiently when they have a firm understanding of their expectations and a moral code in which

to operate. In using LMX, Vecchio et al. would promote Blanchard et al’s belief that leaders

could become force-multipliers in change when they empower aspiring leaders. Karricker (2005)

had a comparable outcome, except she based her outcome on IBL principles. Houghton and

Yoho (2005) encouraged self-leadership in alignment with societal norms and needs as means to

promote social change, which suggested that leadership is a learnable skill. Muczyk and Holt

(2008) also believed leadership as a learnable opportunity, especially when they expected new

hires to adapt to cultural peculiarities of their assignment. As it relates to positive social change,

they expected the leader to achieve an understanding of the cultural needs that could drive

positive social change. More importantly, even though positive change was not the primary goal

for any of the authors previously noted, when applying key aspects of leadership development,

their concepts of leadership development offer the potential to be a POML positive.


Ibbotson (2008) described a potential leader’s developmental opportunity as occurring

when they serve as the catalyst for inspiration and enact the leader’s vision. The antithesis to

development, as Ibbotson described, emanates from the leader’s “persistence and single-

mindedness” (p. 8) in pursuit of a vision. Persistence and single-mindedness could denote a

problem with the leader’s vision, the method of communication, the preparedness of the

followers, a failed process, or all of the above. Muczyk and Holt’s (2008) results mimicked

Ibbotson’s concept; in addition, a leader’s single-minded pursuit hinders his or her ability to

develop followers. If single-mindedness turns into habitual obstinate behavior, the leader loses

66

respect and adoration of the team, which serves as the greatest risk to the leader. Comparably, as

Karricker (2005) noted, this occurs as the leader forgoes social structure and understanding in

lieu of a selfish pursuit. This is an example of one POML negative, other negatives for reactive-

based leadership theories are exclusion, poor communication, and compromising on principals,

which only breeds confusion in followers (Vecchio et al., 2006).

When focusing on driving forces for change as a POML negative, Houghton and Yoho

(2005) thought the antithesis to follower development is a leader ignoring the follower’s

developmental status, misunderstanding situational urgency of a change event, or failing to

prepare an appropriate task structure with resources in order to respond to the change event. As

analogous, Vecchio et al. (2006) believed that any of the previously mentioned failure modes

meant the leader would lose respect and understanding of the follower. Blanchard et al. (1985)

also believed that the leader risks losing the follower’s respect when the leader fails to

understand their needs. Simply, the leader did not prepare the follower to succeed when a change

event became apparent.

To compound a failure in preparation, Ibbotson (2008) noted the inability to

communicate accurately in a coherent manner often had detrimental consequences to the leader-

follower relationship. In addition, Muczyk and Holt (2008) offered caution in a similar manner

by noting that if a leader lacks the visionary necessities to be an “informed team builder” (p. 280)

while being able to plan or predict the future, then the leader has the potential to lose any

positives found in the change event. Vecchio et al. had a similar outcome; the only contrast was

that they included the possibility that a leader would willingly ignore the follower’s needs during

a change event. Karricker (2005) produced similar results. She believed that when a leader uses a

team to address the driving force for change and fails to address the team forming requirements

67

such as rules, social norms, and expectations, then confusion and an abnormally long storming

period follows. Abnormally long storming phase during team formation delays leadership

development opportunities that come with the change event.

As highlighted in the review of POML positives, both Ibbotson (2008) and Blanchard et

al. (1985) had contrasting opinions concerning the potential positives and negatives found in

competition. Unlike Blanchard et al., Ibbotson viewed competition as a tool of last resort. He

found competition disconcerting since it would lead to hierarchal roles, bureaucracy, and

ultimately it would lead to incoherent outputs that prohibit creativity while reducing leadership

development potential. This result was dissimilar to Houghton and Yoho’s (2005) zero-sum

leadership development approach where positives and negatives eventually balance out over

time. Comparable to Ibbotson, Muczyk and Holt (2008) thought that when a leader failed to

anticipate an oncoming external stimulus that jeopardizes his or her vision, the leader becomes

reactive to competition and change events. The leader repeatedly vitiates into defensive,

inefficient, and predictable behaviors making it difficult to balance out the negatives with

positives. As a result, leadership development suffers.

This outcome was analogous to the results generated by Vecchio et al.’s (2006) study that

suggested the fracturing of team unity would result. Competition in this instance had team

members viewing other members as aggressive competitors. As the team begins to fracture, the

disintegration reduces team member input, productivity, and ultimately leadership development

potential. This occurs as individuals on the team begin to feel isolated and put in a position

where they are more concerned for their own self-interests than the team’s. Similarly, Karricker

(2005) declared that this often happens when a team forms incorrectly without rules, ethics, and

social moral norms, they cannot not focus on the external competition efficiently or coherently.

68

Which goes back to the point made by Ibbotson, if the only output coming from the leader is an

ambiguous goal, target, or castigation, then the leader has systematically limited the development

potential of their constituents. Furthermore, while followers are chasing indiscreet goals and

targets, it prevents the leader’s organization or community to see any impending trouble

generated by external change events or competition. Ultimately, this has a negative impact the

leadership potential of future leaders.

When a leader makes shortsighted competitiveness a habit, then he or she risks effecting

social change negatively. This occurs when amoral goals and shortsighted tendencies become a

part of the leader’s vision (Kouzes and Posner, 2007). For instance, Bass (1985) used Hitler as an

example of shortsighted competitiveness combined with an amoral predisposition. As a result,

Hitler misled followers in doing horrific acts for the sake of shortsighted tendencies tied to the

protection of lower level needs. This ultimately was the problem with Muczyk and Holt (2008),

Ibbotson (2008), and Blanchard et al.’s (1985) theories on leadership development. As identified

by Houghton and Yoho (2005), systems of positive social change built on reaction-based

leadership theories cannot become too dependent on leaders willfully relinquishing power. There

has to be an end game that empowers potential leaders and avoids hindering their growth.

To offer clarification, Karricker (2005) believed that if organizations and teams form

with ambiguous rules, ethics, and social norms, this process-oriented failure creates amoral or

illogical leaders making positive change difficult. To affirm Karricker’s perspective, Vecchio et

al. (2006) wrote about amoral leaders attempting to use pacification as a means to generate social

change. In this example, the authors thought that leaders who lack an appropriate moral

foundation while trying to be all things to everyone would fail to lead anyone and become the

quintessential illogical leader. As Bass (1985) noted comparably, they lack the big picture social

69

change perspective by assuming they can control every aspect of leadership development. In two

contrastive studies, Vecchio et al., Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) surmised that some of the

reasons why reaction-based theories fail to generate consistent correlational results were because

they assume total control. For example, a researcher manipulating a leadership trait that served as

a control variable did not produce a reliable result in a group of followers. A likely reason

offered by the authors is that singular leadership trait or ability could not consistently address all

of the followers’ dynamic needs. According to Houghton and Yoho (2005), to achieve any

consistency, the leader had to be flexible and allow the followers to be self-leaders. This meant

the leader had to relinquish power in order to promote positive social change. In doing so, this

provides the aspiring leader with individual freedom and power to address their individual needs

efficiently. In order to be effective self-leaders, they have to have social normalcy as identified

by Karricker.

Exchange Premises

The preeminent exchange theory has been transactional leadership. As both Bass (1985)

and Burns (1978) suggested, the concept of a transactional leader is just another stepping-stone

to a more advanced form of leadership style; moreover, this leadership style is holistic in

addressing a multitude of situations. As with reactive leadership development, transactional

leadership focused on the follower’s lower level needs with the intention of tying them to a

larger organizational need or social issue. For example, a leader uses contingent rewards with

social change contract language to entice followers into social change activities (Harland,

Harrison, Jones, & Reiter-Palmon, 2005). As Kouzes and Posner (2007) pointed out, this concept

captures both the positive and negative aspects of transactional leadership concerning leadership

development. Because, as Barbuto (2005) identified, it attaches one of Maslow’s lower level

70

needs to a societal issue thereby limiting the leadership development and positive social change

potential of the individual. These differing views will carry forward in the analysis of the POML

positives and negatives with respect to reasons for typical change, competition, and positive

social change.


For Bass (1985), the typical reason for change is a result of effective

communication. This occurs as the leader gathers details from the followers as they

contractually perform to the agreed upon levels. This system incorporates an opportunity

to make incremental changes in order to attain continual improvement and a successful

adaptive system. Unfortunately, this improvement has limitations. Transactional leaders,

according Bass, thrive in the status quo while only making minor systematic changes.

Harland et al. (2005) reiterated Bass’s perspective when they addressed exchange-based

resilience and by Harms and Credé (2010) as they suggested a transactional leader needs

to improve their emotional intelligence (EI) in order to become a transformational leader.

Dissimilarly, Van Breukelen, Schyns, and Le Blanc (2006) wrote about LMX. They

thought an exchanged-based leader could bring significant change, open-ended

performance, and opportunity. Their theory consisted of stretch goals tied to leadership

development that provides a contingency-based expectation with a corresponding reward.

The goal of the exchange and change event is the mutual quest for high-quality

relationships. As a result, the mutual quest for high-quality relationships provides a

transactional leadership development opportunity while becoming a POML positive.

Like Bass, Burns (1978) understood that transactional leadership is an agreement of

utilitarian need and requires a leader to reward a follower for an agreed upon output. This

71

utilitarian need serves as the engine that drives organizational or social change. The positive

POML opportunity for the follower is being able to meet lower level needs efficiently while

learning leadership skills such as goal setting, responsibility, and trustworthiness while working

to surpass leadership’s expectations. Comparably, Scandura and Pellegrini’s (2008) LMX study

noted that surpassing expectations are one method for a follower to earn a leader’s trust.

Developing trust was a major factor that drove change in the LMX study. The contrasting

difference between the theorists was Barbuto (2005) and Bass believed in a rigid exchange while

measuring the efficiency in the follower to achieve the desired outcome. For Scandura and

Pellegrini, the outcome was the minimum requirement and they suggested rewarding followers

for going beyond this minimum expectation. Going beyond the minimum is the driving force for

change and leadership development. Keller and Yang (2008) had a slightly different take when

they wanted to use rhetoric to increase efficiency or protect their power base as an external

stimulus or change event forced the leader to take action. In contrast to all of the leader centric

sources of change, Burns, as well as Harland et al. (2005) thought input ascertained from various

stakeholders is the best method for social change and leadership development. In this example,

all stakeholders have a stake in a successful outcome. Similarly, Kouzes and Posner (2007) also

believed in using cross-functional team sources of change in non-emergency situations to

provide the best opportunity for development. This, in turn, provides the best POML

development opportunity.

Moral constructs did not impede Bass’s (1985) opportunity for competitive advantage.

With the use of stretch goals and a firm understanding of the minimum legal requirement, Bass

believed a leader and follower had more room to maneuver for the purpose of competitive

advantage. Similarly, Barbuto’s (2005) assumption implied leadership thrives on competition;

72

thereby, making competition and leadership inseparable while making morality optional. This

was significantly different from Burns (1978) and Harms and Credé (2010). Burns, Harms, and

Credé believed using competitive opportunity to meet planned goals, self-imposed targets, and

ultimately leadership development. This positive take on meeting the transactional requirement

builds competence and confidence in the follower. By increasing competence and confidence,

Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) thought it would change the trust between a leader and follower

from a calculus based trust, which is strictly transactional, to an identification-based trust that is

empowering and provides leadership development opportunities. Van Breukelen et al. (2006)

had a contrasting opinion; the opportunity in harnessing a competitive advantage lies within the

follower and a systematic moral construct. Especially in instances where followers are

competing amongst themselves or working to attain organizational goals, Van Breukelen et al.

believed that a leader has to treat everyone equally. This institutionalized equality generates

organizational harmony. In the preceding examples, Harms and Credé (2010) would describe

them as win-win scenarios that imply competition, change, and leadership development are a

certain and potentially potent combination.

For Bass (1985), the best positive social change and leadership development opportunity

emanating from the leader occurs incrementally; unfortunately, it is highly dependent upon the

moral character of the leader. Harms and Credé (2010) had a contrasting opinion while

suggesting that a leader with EI must adhere to social or professional ethics and moral standards.

In their study, they produced some correlational links suggesting a leader’s amoral character had

dire social change consequences since a follower’s development was subject to the leader’s

impulsive need to violate contractual arrangements. Comparably, Scandura and Pellegrini (2008)

contended, when a leader is attempting to establish empowering identification-based trust to

73

promote positive change and leadership development they must have a firm moral

understanding. During the process of leaders helping aspiring leaders, Van Breukelen et al.

(2006) suggested that a leader needs to establish socially based morality and ethical standards, so

followers can become self-leaders, team, or organizational leaders. In addition, they assisted

future leaders by guiding them in making the best possible social change decisions while

ensuring there is a level of self-regulating accountability.

To continue to contrast Bass, Barbuto (2005) cautioned, leaders who fall prey to their

popularity within the community, only provide the appearance of being a conscious driven leader

providing insignificant contractual change. Positive social change requires what Harland et al.

(2005) called optimism and resilience. This requires an endowed moral standard and a

transparent contractual arrangement for a leader to be true visionary leader that inspires a vast

majority of constituents to maximize their freedom, and leadership development potential.

Burns’ (1978) understanding was comparable to Barbuto and Harland et al.; a leader’s moral use

of power requires a measurable change in the output of followers. Subsequently, it produces

positive social change and leadership development opportunities that are measurable. Since

Burns thought a society defines positive social change, then measurable acts of positive social

change requires leaders and aspiring leaders to be involved in the community creating

transactional measurable gains that provide the leader, aspiring leaders, and the community with

a win-win-win scenario.


If communication offers the greatest opportunity for change and generates force-

multipliers in a contractual exchange arrangement, then incorporating wrong or purposely-

distorted information poses as the greatest threat to leadership development and the benefits of

74

change. Bass (1985) wrote about the positives of an effective leader and the need for multiple

avenues of informational flow. Ironically, for a theorist that composed a leadership development

theory that is morally neutral, he also wrote about detrimental effects of “negative inspirational

practices that included false promises, unobtainable goals, arousing competitive feelings,

encouraging conflict, and coercing the followers” (p. 73 – 74). The principle of the preceding

passage is comparable to a belief generated by Van Breukelen et al. (2006) who described a

negative inspirational leader as an individual that is routinely disingenuously attempting to

befriend followers as to manipulate their needs for the leader’s political or organizational change

benefit. Often these cold political calculations, as expounded by Barbuto (2005), lead to

compromise and consensus causing honest followers with high EI to regress into calculus-based

trust as Keller and Yang (2008) had warned. As a result, a substantial loss in trust led to cold

transactional relationships curtailing leadership development as Scandura and Pellegrini (2008)

had predicted.

In stark contrast, Burns (1978) believed a negative inspirational leader did not exist. He

believed that a morally corrupt individual could only hold a title of leader because he or she

never developed beyond their lower level needs. In these instances, the leader never develops

enough of what Harms and Credé (2010) described as EI. Consequently, as Burns noted, these

incomplete leaders may perform acts that are transactional or transformational. They just never

develop to a point where they are consistent in their application to help others develop. This

meant that they posed as some of the greatest threats to change, communication, and leadership

development.

Burns (1978) deemed that competition in an exchange environment and its adverse

effects are a result of a leader lacking moral clarity. What was important to Burns is the manner

75

in which a person develops, if at all, and not the title or achieved goal. To understand how a

leader might react to competition Barbuto (2005) suggested organizations create a behavioral

profile of prospective or current leaders to anticipate their actions. However, Kouzes and Posner

(2007) had a contrasting opinion. Their concern focused on categorizing, stereotyping, or

profiling followers. The leader sets artificial limits that have the potential to inhibit the

leadership development of the followers. Profiling an individual is difficult; profiling a team on

how they react to the leader in the face of competition is something several studies had a difficult

time in predicting. For example, Harland et al. (2005) noted external competition could assist the

team to overcome an internal team forming issue, by forcing them to band together. The team

survives on the condition that the internal competition and the dysfunctional nature of the team

did not destroy it first.

Negative team performance in the face of competition is comparable to Harms and Credé

(2010) belief that the dysfunctional nature of the team stems from the leader being inconsistent

with their emotions and application of team rules, social norms, and terms of the contractual

exchange. Similarly, Van Breukelen et al. (2006) highlighted sources of dysfunctionality

emanating from a leader could include belittling, micromanaging, poor communication skills,

and lacking moral clarity. As result, Keller and Yang (2008) believed a dysfunctional team

impeded follower leadership development. Correspondingly, Scandura and Pellegrini (2008)

equated a dysfunctional team as a loss in trust. They cautioned that the trust a leader gains by

demonstrating confidence and competence in overcoming obstacles is hard to achieve and easy

to lose. That is why moral clarity as a means to generate trust was so important to Fairhurst

(2005). The lack of morality and a leader being unscrupulous in the face of competition opens

the door to negative social change, or at the very least, it destroys leadership potential as the

76

followers feverishly work to adhere to the leader’s changing amoral beliefs. Consequently, a

response to any competitive activity has to work within social moral norms. A leader working

within social norms establishes a consistency that allows a follower to look beyond their lower

level needs and develop leadership skills. A leader does this by working to maintain a follower’s

lower level needs of social order, civility, and honoring the terms of the exchange.

Plainly, positive social change was not Bass’s (1985) goal when he wrote about

transactional leadership. He also implied that a society using capitalism and democracy based on

a constitutional government was conservative and representative of a transactional form of

leadership. While, authoritarian and central planning systems symbolized a higher order of

leadership that was transformational. Surprisingly, Bass admitted that a constitutional

government represented a higher degree of freedom, leadership development, and consistent

social change. Keller and Yang (2008) made a claim that collaborated Bass’s assertion. Keller

and Yang implied that authoritarian and central planning systems were heavily dependent on

political transactional decisions. It was their belief, those transactional decisions rarely promoted

positive social change or leadership development. Keller and Yang’s version of a transactional

political leader was one that responded to action. As a result, the political leader made reactive

political decisions that had nothing to do with the form of government because their decisions

emanated from the leader’s character and the manner in which he or she developed.

Harland and Credé (2010) offered a proportionate response as they pointed out; it is

difficult to affect positive change when political decisions are often reactive and unresponsive to

future needs as set out in terms of the exchange. Worse, Barbuto (2005) hinted that leaders who

use social change to generate a façade hiding a leader’s intrinsic political desires courts ruinous

results. In the best of circumstances, as Van Breukelen et al. (2006) emphasized, political

77

decisions that thrive in ambiguity makes social change vague and obscures the intent of

leadership development. The most alarming provocation came from Scandura and Pellegrini

(2008) as they viewed delegation and empowerment, necessary ingredients to social change, as

risk taking by a political leader. Burns (1978) offered a contrasting opinion; the threat to positive

social change for a transactional leader is a leader limiting his or her perspective to political

calculations. Furthermore, if a leader actively works to create positive social change through

leadership development, then they would begin evolving into a moral transformational leader.

Amoral Transformational

As defined by Grint (2005), this form of leadership spawns a form of development that is

absent of any social moral construct. Similarly, Bass (1985) believed the only requirement that

defines an individual as a transformational leader is the level of success that he or she have while

enacting a social change vision. This often requires the transformational leader to encourage the

follower to become an apostle of his or her vision, where the needs of making the vision come to

fruition rise above the needs of the follower. The highest form of amoral leadership development

requires the follower to make the leader’s vision his or her highest need thereby transforming the

apostle into a zealot. In doing so, Bass (1985) believed the leader empowers the aspiring leader

to propagate that vision to other potential followers. The only time morality became an issue is

when aspiring leaders fail to align themselves correctly with the transformational leader’s vision.


Hetland et al. (2008) suggested that change, even in amoral transformational situations,

should emanate from followers, aspiring leaders, and society as a whole, this differed greatly

from Bass’s (1985) perspective. For Bass, real transformational change requires a series of

diminutive successful empowering actions that build lasting bonds between the leader and

78

aspiring leaders enabling the followers to implement the leader’s vision of dramatic holistic

change. Bass defined the process of taking small steps to build to a climax as “Incrementalism”

(p. 73). Similar to Grint’s (2005) perspective, the leader’s vision is the primary reason for change

irrespective of follower insight, social norms, and contractual arrangements. As noted, this

contrasted sharply from Hetland et al.’s approach as they suggested that the leader gathered

insight from his or her followers in order to build a consensus to implement the leader’s vision of

change. Comparably, Schröder and Scholl (2009) suggested that the leader should address a

follower problem by manipulating the follower’s emotions during the problem's framing process.

The proper framing of the problem is an integral part of Schröder and Scholl’s version of ACT.

They believed a leader could calm followers to prevent over-reaction or incite the masses into

action. Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) had a slightly different take for their intent was to

create dramatic transformational change using a highly talented group that has a leader serving as

the group’s facilitator and protector. The positive from this group concept is the group’s ability

and dedication to solving a problem that appeared to be insurmountable. This team concept is

similar to a notion mentioned by Barbuto (2005). Barbuto thought an effective team consists of

high-energy talented self-leaders and change is an intrinsic part of the teams’ psychological

makeup. Leadership development occurs as the aspiring leaders, and followers, implement the

leader’s vision.

As identified by Barbuto (2005), both internal and external competition is a necessary

component of leadership; however, there are differing approaches noted in the research that

attempt to handle competition as a method for leadership development. Schröder and Scholl

(2009) proposed that competition should be dealt with in a positive social atmosphere in order to

increase the predictability of the outcome while reducing the “affective deflection” (p. 184). In

79

essence, Hetland et al. (2008) reaffirmed their outcome. Hetland et al. recommended the use of

consensus during the debate of competing ideas. The only time the leader uses social norms

during the internal competition is to mitigate over-reaction. Consequently, leadership

development occurs during the process of creating and presenting a competing idea.

Similarly, a competitive event for Bass (1985) as his premise relates to a transformational

leader, leadership development, and Incrementalism, offers the leader an opportunity pit

devotees against other devotees in order to assess a follower's leadership potential and level of

commitment to the vision. Any follower determined to be a nonbeliever required reevaluation or

rooted out of the transformational leader’s implementation group. Bennis and Ward-Biederman

(1997) had the same fanatical approach to transformational groups and leadership development.

They believed that participation in the group requires complete dedication to the cause. Anything

less than 100% dedication is immoral. Consequently, competition within the group has to be

about theory and ideas in order to solve the problem. Those with the best ideas become leaders.

In addition, the leader encourage competition with entities outside the group to “boost

creativity” (p. 208) within the group as they work with an “us against the world” (p. 208)

mentality. Concerning consensus, Incrementalism or the fanatical team approach, Grint (2005)

had an analogous suggestion, a leader could have aspiring leaders aid in framing problems and

potential responses to either encourage or suppress emotions in other followers. In doing so, it

helps leaders stay ahead of internal and external competition in relation to a problem or social

change issue.

Circumventing obstacles to change (Grint, 2005) is the predominant leadership

development and positive social change opportunity for amoral transformational leader.

According to Grint, the main obstacle preventing development and change is a society’s moral

80

norms. For instance, Hetland et al (2008) believed a leader needs to use transformative

leadership traits in order to generate “agreeableness and emotional stability” (p. 330) in aspiring

leaders when attempting to change organizational norms, structure, and goals. In doing so, this

will aid the leader in circumventing social obstacles by generating a force-multiplier effect by

agitating the masses thereby making holistic-social changes more efficient. Another additive to

the force-multiplier effect was Barbuto’s (2005) premise that includes profiling the leadership

characteristics of a leader or potential leader to initiate the change. If aligned correctly to

organization’s need, the leadership change generates an immediate opportunity to make a

holistic-social change.

When an organization attempts to make sweeping change by replacing the leader, the

incoming leader must sell the effective potential in their vision in order to initiate a change.

However, positive social change and any leadership development is a secondary outcome, if it

happened at all, since the change is either a result of the moral composition of the organization,

leader’s vision, or the nature of the problem. Bass (1985), Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997)

encouraged any individual to step away from the usual groupthink and challenge a perceived

negative moral norm. Comparably, Ibbotson (2008) described this as challenging the boundaries

of the known and unknown. The goal of a transformational leader or group challenging a

perceived wrong is often dramatic change of the social or economic system.


As stated, Bass (1985), Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) believed the event or leader

initiates change. More importantly, a successful outcome of the change event is their primary

concern. A leader or team is only successful after they implemented their change. Potentially

damaging, the change a leader or team implements may have nothing to do with the leader's

81

stated reasons in responding to a change event. Simply stated, the results justified the means

while leadership development suffers. As found in a comparable version of ACT authored by

Schröder and Scholl’s (2009), their speculation has the appearance of being reactionary, it

subscribes to a notion of a leader generating numerous emotional responses as he or she gathers

input from followers. After the leader generates numerous responses, the leader selects a

response that is similar to the leader's allowing him or her to implement their vision of change.

This premise held true for Barbuto (2005) as well since he suggested that it was necessary to

exclude aspiring leaders in the initiation of change. Another analogous source for amoral change

is popular or opinion polls used to generate the illusion of consensus. Grint (2005) endorsed this

opinion by suggesting that polls and consensus mislead followers in a manner that allows a

leader to shape any problem as a reason for change in order to fulfill a political need at the

follower’s expense. Contrastingly, Burns (1978), Kouzes, and Posner (2007) all noted, change at

any cost typically has societal costs that go beyond leadership development. Consequently, the

threat is that any amoral change negatively affects the follower’s lower level needs as the

leader’s vision comes to fruition and becomes a follower’s nightmare.

All of the authors analyzed thought competition, to one degree or another, is healthy.

However, Grint (2005) best captured the amoral perspective. Competition is always necessary; it

is the source of all problems, which absolves the leader of his or her moral responsibility.

Contrastingly, Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed amoral competition tears at the internal,

societal framework of a society or organization because it threatens the freedom to choose and

leadership development potential of all.

Concerning amoral competition, Barbuto (2005) presented another competitive extreme.

He wrote about profiling to find a right fit for leadership positions to avoid internal competition.

82

The drawback in the arena of ideas came when an organization selected a like-minded

individual, which increases the potential of groupthink or consensus thinking. Consensus may be

a practical tool (Hetland et al., 2008), but as Vecchio et al. (2006) pointed out, it has a time and a

place. To gather a consensus takes time; as a result, gathering a consensus can be

counterproductive in the face of immediate competitive pressure. Although, Hetland et al. (2008)

implied that consensus promotes fairness. Fairhurst (2005) provided a counter argument by

suggesting that fairness is an output of rhetoric. In addition, consensus is a tool for amoral

transformational leaders to buy time. The additional time allows an amoral transformational

leader to reframe their tactical position in relation to a change event. At its societal worse,

Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed that consensus during an emotional event could generate a

mob mentality, which is only another form of groupthink. In these instances, mob mentality and

groupthink often make moral objectivity its first casualty. According to Burns (1978), systems of

leadership development require consistent assumptions, if there is no consistency then a leader

has a comparatively small chance to become a transformational leader. Like win at any cost

competition, consensus at any cost destroys a society’s moral cohesiveness. Kouzes and Posner

believed the destruction of this moral fabric poses as the greatest threat to leadership

development.

In the face of competition and social change, Keller and Yang (2008) thought that the

general populace had to hold a leader accountable for his or her actions in order to increase the

potential for leadership development and positive social change. Comparably Schröder and

Scholl (2009) elaborated, with no fear of retribution or the opportunity to understand the lessons

learned from failure or defeat, an aspiring leader will continue to repeat the same mistakes and

take the easiest path despite the dire consequences of his or her actions. This explains why

83

Fairhurst’s (2005) concept of framing problems has the potential to allow leaders and aspiring

leaders to reframe their failures in order to escape blame. According to Barbuto (2005), during

the reframing of the problem process, the leader's team creates a façade of the leader being

emotionally involved. This emotional involvement includes the appearance that the leader is

willing to make the necessary changes as aligned with the input gathered from the followers.

To contrast Barbuto, Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) offered caution concerning the

negative potential an amoral leader has on positive social change and leadership development.

The harm begins and increases as the lower level need of self-preservation consumes the amoral

leader’s thoughts. Self-preservation encourages the leader to avoid responsibility; consequently,

it becomes easier for him or her to alter social morals, standards, and expectations to explain

failures. Similarly, Fairhurst cautioned about a leader’s selfish façade ultimately corrupting

social change and leadership development as the leader manufactures societal needs to induce

group delusions to preserve the leader’s appearance of being important and involved. As a result,

Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed the amoral leader never develops beyond their most basic

materialistic needs. The amoral leader only displays transformational qualities, while his or her

selfish desire is to reshape the world to match their distorted vision while preserving their

position of power. They were never transformational as Bass (1985) had argued. Kouzes and

Posner believed they never advanced past being a transactional or situational leader. In addition,

as Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte contested, an amoral transformational leader often poses as some

of the greatest threats to humanity; let alone leadership development.

Moral Transformational

Kouzes and Posner (2007) thought the difference between moral and amoral leadership is

a leader’s desire to include an “ethical dimension” (p. 346) to their responsibilities that amoral

84

leadership theories excluded. Fairhurst (2005) reframed the concept of the ethical dimension as

ethical framework in her article on leadership and communication. She warned mentors and

educators about the need to establish a firm understanding of the social moral norms before

teaching the art of leadership and communication. She felt that the starting point of a good and

moral foundation was humility, making it necessary for the student to understand and appreciate

the responsibility of leadership. For Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010), they thought that

leadership in its natural state is amoral; to become transformational meant the pursuit of a higher

calling such as positive social change. At the very least, a moral transformational leader is a

positive example for future leaders to emulate. This act of leading by example requires the

consistent application of values, ethics, or morals that are in itself transformational because it

transforms those in the leader’s sphere of influence to search out and understand their impact on

society. As Houghton and Yoho (2005) discovered, transformational leaders in training will

search to find their moral clarity and voice. In doing so they often discover the best that society

has to offer, they become empowering practitioners of positive social change; consequently, it is

leadership development via empowerment, built upon a moral foundation, which generates the

greatest potential for positive social change.


According to Kouzes and Posner (2007), a moral transformational leader’s reasons for

change were righteous and driven by the leader’s moral understanding of societal or

organizational need. This righteousness stems from understanding and communicating with

constituents, which supply the reasons for change. In turn, the leader provides followers with

leadership development opportunities. Harms and Credé (2010) thought that understanding

begins with a leader developing EI in order to have the empathetic aptitude to understand the

85

needs of followers and aspiring leaders. From a different perspective, Fairhurst (2005) believed,

a leader needs to communicate effectively to understand the needs of his or her followers.

Communication in this instance is a leader’s ability to frame a social issue in a confident and

knowledgeable manner in order to motivate follower to act is what Harland et al. (2005) would

call optimism. When using resilient action to reinforce optimism, the combination becomes the

most efficient form of communication and leadership development example. These concepts do

suggest that a leader is the centric reason for change. On the other hand, as Harland et al.

explained, they also require that the leader develop EI and communication skills to gather

information from both aspiring leaders and followers. The leader then works to employ a socially

agreeable vision that generates optimism and resilience. Optimism and resilience assists aspiring

leaders and followers in the community to find their professional and spiritual calling as

Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) had theorized.

As the individual finds their calling in life, they become self-leaders as Houghton and

Yoho (2005) had predicted. In contrast to self-driven leadership development, Scandura and

Pellegrini (2008) suggested a process where the leader provides mentoring to help an individual

develop leadership traits. As a result, the mentor develops a trusting bond with the aspiring

leader. Within this bond of trust, Scandura and Pellegrini surmised that the leader providing

mentoring assistance offers empowerment to the aspiring leader in a manner that they become a

self-sufficient leader of positive social change. Despite the slight differences, all of the authors

noted there must be societal need in order to implement positive change. For example, Harms

and Credé (2010) thought the leader must understand the need, effectively create an open-

minded approach to respond to it, and then communicate a response in the form of a reaction

plan. Followers must be able to understand the importance of the need and the response.

86

Similarly, Harland et al. (2005) believed that resilience develops when a leader develops a

values-based systematic approach with a measurable resolution concerning the specified need.

As the process unfolds all involved need to understand their role, importance, and the level of

societal interrelatedness. This process serves as the leader development example.

The need for competition in the arena of ideas is a highly desirable characteristic of the

transformational theory espoused by Kouzes and Posner (2007). Leadership development occurs

in the creation, formulation, and presentation of competing ideas. In this instance, individuals

searching for a calling will undoubtedly cross paths with those that have a competing idea. This

competition provides leadership development opportunity. As analogous, Gorlorwulu and

Rahschulte (2010) believed in a concept of competing ideas. Their belief involves individuals in

a society generating competing ideas built upon a moral understanding. The moral understanding

component protects the same freedom that allows the ideas themselves to germinate. As a result,

a society has the greatest potential for prosperity when the best societal idea initiates a positive

social change event. The leaders circulating the competing ideas must understand their

follower’s needs while accepting the humility that their ideas may not be all encompassing.

Similarly, Fairhurst (2005) noted, to be moral, the competing ideas should never

propagate hate or dependency. As Harland et al. (2005) suggested, competing ideas should be

“positive, intellectually stimulating, and considerate” (p. 9). Comparably, the leaders of the

competing ideas acting in a manner as prescribed Harland et al. are demonstrating a high levels

of EI as defined by Harms and Credé (2010). Kouzes and Posner (2007) were specific, leaders

must adhere to a consistent set of moral codes and expectations when creating a positive-

competitive atmosphere and an environment of trust. This builds identification-based trust and

lasting personal connections (Scandura and Pellegrini, 2008) between leaders, followers, and

87

even competitors. If not, the competing ideas develop amoral transformational qualities; making

Machiavellian power struggles an unfortunate necessity.

When a leader identifies a problem while promoting a societal defined honorable solution

to the change event, the leader increases the potential for positive social change. According to

Burns, a follower’s “authentic need” (1978, p. 4) helps a leader identify the problem,

hypothetical adversary, and the honorable solution. Comparably Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte

(2010) defined authentic need as something that meets the criteria of promoting self-leadership

and leadership development in general. This is similar to a concept promoted by Houghton and

Yoho (2005). They believed a leader should empower an individual with morally correct

responsibility that does not infringe upon the freedom of other individuals. Equally, Fairhurst

(2005) believed that positive social change has to be morally correct with a focus on the

development of the individual. When the social change is positive, intellectually stimulating, and

considerate of individual freedom, optimism and resilience builds in the individual. Optimism

and resilience were key components of Harland et al.’s (2005) assumption in building a dynamic

group that can overcome obstacles. As a result, empowering leadership then becomes the

pinnacle of leadership since it not only becomes a force-multiplier of positive social change; it

builds Scandura and Pellegrini’s (2008) societal identification-based trust. Kouzes and Posner

(2007) believed that the only way societal identification-based trust was to come about was when

leaders promote understanding, courage, and selfless-dedication to all stakeholders both present

and especially the future.


According to Kouzes and Posner (2007), the negative consequences of power and

leadership occur when amoral action, which includes indecision and purposeful inaction,

88

consume the leader’s thoughts there by muddling the reasons used to initiate positive social

change. This muddling has two negative leadership development effects. First, Harland et al.

(2005) noted that negative or amoral actions destroy optimism and resilience. Indirectly, it also

fosters dependency. For example, as Harms and Credé (2010) surmised, a leader with a false

sense of EI who promotes dependency will cripple a follower’s optimism and resilience by

making them dependent on something other than them self as they strive to become a self-leader.

Second, it destroys Scandura and Pellegrini’s (2008) identification-based trust and fosters a

calculus-based trust, which is transactional and forces the individual to focus on their own

personal needs instead of developing higher order leadership skills. The destruction of trust

occurs when a leader fails to be intellectually honest when framing an issue. This form of amoral

action occurs as the leader uses ambiguous platitudes, discursive logic, or deceit during the

framing process. As a result, Kouzes and Posner’s statement about the consequences of power

needs to include token and trifling responses to a follower’s perceived need. Regardless of the

positive reasons for change, as Scandura and Pellegrini noted, a lack of perceived intellectual

integrity will promote transactional, situational, and Machiavellian behaviors in followers while

limiting leadership development potential.

Bass’s (1985) concern about an amoral leader manufacturing reasons for change for his

or her benefit also includes a need to create pseudo internal or external competition between an

illegitimate claim and a fictitious adversary. To create pseudo competition meant the leader

targets and then polarizes a group or person, then persuades those within the leader’s control that

this is a win-lose adversary. Ultimately, the leader wastes positive leadership development

potential on a negative event. That was why Fairhurst (2005) had an opposing opinion; a leader

must frame his or her competition in morally correct terms that meets the needs of the greater

89

societal good and not political gamesmanship with a win at any cost mentality. From a utilitarian

perspective, Harland et al. (2005) theorized that external competition is a reality that an

individual or group only overcomes if it has a moral consistency that allows it to pacify internal

team issues. Consequently, why waste resources and time on something external, when the issue

is morally and obviously internal unless the amoral leader does it for their own personal gain.

However as Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) elaborated, creating pseudo competition within the

group only ensures transactional Machiavellian power struggles which redirects the group

member’s focus on the internal conflict, distracting them from external issues and making

internal pseudo competition another tactic that could prove beneficial to the amoral leader. As a

result, the leader limits positive change and wastes leadership development opportunities.

Harms and Credé (2010) had a different take on negative competition, concerning

external competition and EI, a leader that continually compromises his or her principals and

morality did not have them from the start and appeared weak in eyes of followers. As a result,

the leader destroys any trust gained making defeat of the competition more difficult. Even worse,

Harms and Credé also noted that a leader with low EI has a tendency to generate negative

competition within the leader’s own group, which parallels Harland et al’s (2005) point. A leader

must meet competition with balance and coordination, wasting resources in an amoral pursuit

only ensures that hate has a foothold in the development processes of leaders and followers.

Burns (1978) would go further; progressive amoral social change destroys the leadership

development of those dissenting voices while molding future leaders to comply with shifting

values of the new regime or force future leaders to be counterrevolutionary in a world where hate

begets hate. Leadership development suffers in an amoral world.

90

As Bass (1985) extolled, the act of a leader creating contrived competition often comes in

the guise of promoting or protecting societal good. This was antithetical to the “Norms of

Reciprocity” and “cooperative goals” (2007, p. 234) as espoused by Kouzes and Posner. In

contrast to Bass, Fairhurst (2005) cautioned, a leader could use the tools for positive social

change, such leadership development and framing issues, for both moral and amoral purposes.

That was why Fairhurst was so concerned about the moral temperament of the leader.

Two competing examples highlighted the importance of leadership development while in

pursuit of positive change. Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) produced an example of

questionable social change. They thought reducing poverty was a concept of resource scarcity

and required centralized management. Concerning poverty, Harland et al. (2005) believed that

when a leader focuses primarily on the management of scarcity and not the abundance found in

the unlimited potential of empowering autonomous individuals, their actions will prevent those

who aspire to be leaders or in search of positive change from becoming optimistic and resilient.

Another example came from Scandura and Pellegrini (2008); they viewed delegation and

empowerment as risk-taking behaviors by the leader. However, as Harms and Credé (2010)

believed, when a leader has educated, empowered, and delegated responsibility, the leader has

demonstrated profound EI while encouraging leadership development and positive social change.

If not, future leaders will lose their freedom to choose the best way to maximize their potential;

moreover, they will lose their individual responsibility that comes with freedom. Similarly,

Kouzes and Posner (2007) noted, a continual belief in scarcity of outcome only breeds

dependence on an ever-growing need for equalized outcome. In turn, it creates an opportunity for

the rebel leader, as suggested by Burns (1978). Unfortunately, this warps the mind of the most

91

able individual who is ripe with positive leadership potential and makes them into an instrument

of amoral change.

Summary

Recent leadership development research conducted by Harms and Credé’s (2010)

determined that transformational leadership cannot be the pinnacle of leadership. Even Bass

(1985) and Burns (1978) suggested that transformational leadership has the potential to destroy

an individual’s development potential as much as it can inspire or expand it. When expanding

upon Harms and Credé’s theorized EI, an empowering style of leadership comes to the forefront

since it works to inspire passive or apathetic followers to become what Houghton and Yoho’s

(2005) described as self-leaders. According to Harland et al. (2005), self-leaders have the drive

and determination to develop optimism and resilience making drive and determination intrinsic

individual characteristics. These individuals also have the potential to be so much more when

they establish identification-based trust (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008) with a leader or mentor

that practices empowering leadership. As these aspiring individuals work to develop empowering

leadership skills, they become living examples and practitioners of positive social change as

suggested by Kouzes and Posner (2007). In addition, they also become force-multipliers because

within them is where the future of positive social change resides. Through mentoring and

coaching, each aspiring leader will know their intrinsic approach in being a driving force for

change, harnessing the power of the competitive spirit, and implementing non-dependent

positive change.

Driving Force for Change

A reason for change can emanate from a source that is either within a leader’s sphere of

influence, external to the sphere of influence, or a combination of the two sources. For example,

92

if the motive or reason for change derives from some societal dire need, that is an external source

driving change. In that example, Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) suggested a leader needed

to create a team whose mission is to generate and implement solutions. This is similar to Vecchio

et al. (2006) who suggested assembling a team to address a purposeful need. Furthermore, they

also suggested it requires the leader to load the team with highly talented people that have skills

and expertise that match the level of need. Houghton and Yoho (2005) suggested that the leader

get the group together, brainstorm, and then the leader lays out a plan of action to counter the

external source. It is at this point that Bennis and Ward-Biederman thought the leader would then

play a supportive facilitating role as the team responds to the external diving force. However, in

the face of an external source of change, a leader becomes a manager when he or she is reacting

to event (Muczyk & Holt, 2008). According to Vecchio et al., leadership consists of working

with constituents in assuming responsibility for actions while anticipating events, and generating

proactive or preemptive solutions. All of the authors noted thought leadership development

opportunity emanates from the experience gained in society’s continual improvement.

Nevertheless, Harland et al. (2005) believed reactive leadership offered poor leadership

development methodologies, tendencies, and opportunities.

If acquisition and maintenance of the leader’s power is the motivation for change, then it

becomes an example of an internal driving force for change. This was as Bass (1985) had

theorized and Keller and Yang (2008) reiterated in their article. This source of change requires

the leader to seize upon external sources of change as opportunities to institute their vision or

manipulate the rate of change within the leader’s group. Similarly, Barbuto (2005) implied that

all socially accepted change is a façade generated by a leader in search of power. With a thirst

for power, the driving force of change emanates from the leader through his or her followers. To

93

fuel the thirst for power, according to Grint (2005), a leader had to understand and manipulate

the needs or deficiencies of his followers, in doing so the followers provide obedience, which is

the source of an amoral leader’s power. Carrying out the leader’s vision provides the leadership

development opportunity.

Schröder and Scholl (2009) had a comparable premise. They believed that when a leader

combines his or her vision with the follower’s needs and deficiencies, the combination provides

opportunities to generate small victories needed to form a coalition that can create radical

transformational change. As aspiring leaders participate and complete tasks, the aspiring leader

gains leadership experience. Grint also thought that small victories shaped by the leader’s vision

require a theoretical trial and error approach. This is similar to what Bass (1985) had defined as

Incrementalism. Like Bass, Grint’s attempt to provide a multistep resolution to address a need

for change still restrained leadership development potential of followers. Grint’s premise has a

flaw in it when contrasted with Kouzes and Posner’s (2007) philosophy. Kouzes and Posner

believed authentic leadership development requires the leader to relinquish power in order to

allow the aspiring leader to develop his or her own vision.

In reference to internal change, all of the authors analyzed offered various types of

warnings about a leader unleashing an amoral change movement upon a society. Their primary

concern is the leader’s amoral character. Especially since the majority of the societal threats

emanate from a leader’s licentious thoughts as they drove change aligned to their misrepresented

vision. For example, Bass (1985) thought the source providing the excuse for change was

inconsequential, since any reason for change provides an opportunity for the aspiring or

revolutionary leader to seize power. Contrastingly, Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) stated,

that when a leader became consumed with self-indulgence or even narcissism, it often meant that

94

he or she suffers from a flawed vision unaligned with established social norms and aspirations.

The failure of the internalized vision often meant the vision communicated to followers suffers

from a combination of shortsightedness, incoherent explanations, or a hidden agenda with self-

serving goals. Similarly, Fairhurst (2005) thought these flaws would ultimately destroy the force-

multiplier effect by wasting the leadership potential of followers requiring them to chase

illusions of grander or folly. In relation to Bass’s point, having follower’s waste leadership

potential in pursuit of token issues and lower level needs is an ineffective means for a leader to

protect his or her power base.

Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) offered an example of a specious pretense when

implementing purposeful change. This change generated dire consequences. The example the

authors wrote about was the Black Mountain Experiment and the promotion of anarchical

change. When the experiment eventually failed, the leadership potential of the surrounding

community was one of its many casualties since the students pillaged the local area to survive. In

addition, this anarchic change generated systematic hate forcing followers to focus on their lower

level needs and ultimately distrust leadership, as Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) had theorized.

The Black Mountain Experiment was an example of a leader creating a false reason for change,

which required him to mislead the ignorant into obedience while destroying an observant

followers’ willful compliance and contradictory beliefs. As they lost their individual

responsibility to serve others, they lost their leadership development potential to promote

positive social change.

The last driving force for change is a combination of the two; the source for change could

emanate from a societal need or be a perceived need initiated by the leader and his or her

followers. Karriker (2005) thought this blended approach was the best system to provide an

95

answer to the societal need and leadership development. In addition, she thought the most

efficient societal change occurred when a leader was proactive in identifying a need for a change,

instead of reacting to it. As a result, the leader offered a rough plan of action and then elicited

help from all stakeholders to fill the voids within the plan in order to accomplish its main

objectives. As aspiring leaders help fill in the gaps in the plan, they learn leadership skills. In a

similar manner, Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) thought a leader’s power emanated from societal

empowerment. A leader had to inspire and empower those that he or she served in order to

enlighten the masses while encouraging righteous change in order to build mutual trust.

Empowerment is the key to leadership development.

Despite the leader being a servant of the people, a leader has to stand for what was

morally right and not settle for what is easiest and self-serving. As a result, Scandura and

Pellegrini thought empowerment was a risk that could weaken a leader’s power base.

Contrastingly, Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed it to be a requirement of leadership. Kouzes

and Posner also defined true power as righteous societal need or more specifically as values-

based systematic change. Analogous, Harms and Credé (2010), defined EI as the empathic

ability to identify righteous societal need. It occurs when a leader connects an external source of

broad societal need in a positive manner to his or her vision. From that point, the leader has to

explain how his or her plan of action connected with the follower’s needs. This connection

provides the opportunity to generate a force-multiplier effect as the leader works to develop

aspiring leaders. A leader working to develop more leaders is what Harland et al. (2005) alluded

to in their article. This exponentially effective change occurs as a leader empowers followers

with positive societal transformational opportunities thereby changing dormant followers in to

96

active resilient aspiring leaders. The result is more individuals working as a cohesive empowered

group in search of positive social change.

Competition

Humanity’s natural inclination is to survive, which means humanity is naturally

competitive (Barbuto, 2005; Burns, 1978). Which is why Hetland et al. (2008) thought it is

advantageous when leaders manipulate this natural inclination in order to amass power via

leadership development. However, competition has a potential to create both positive and

negative change. (Karriker, 2005; Vecchio et al., 2006). For example, Scandura and Pellegrini

(2008) thought understanding and trust fueled an inner, personal level of competition that could

produce win-win results while developing leaders. A win-win scenario is equivalent to a win for

the leader and a win for the majority in a society or organization. A win-lose scenario produces

results that are a method of last resort as they generate calculus-based trust and focus on a

marginalizing groups within a society or organization. Win-win, as posed by Kouzes and Posner

(2007), offers the best societal solution as leaders develop and is a measure of positive change.

As Scandura and Pellegrini admitted, win-win results build positive leadership potential in

followers; consequently, this positive leadership potential increases the level of trust between a

leader and follower making empowerment less risky.

Vecchio et al. (2006) and Harland et al. (2005) believed that a leader could achieve win-

win results by getting the follower to focus his or her natural competitive instinct inwards as in a

manner of self-assessing actions, meeting time lines, and achieving organizational goals.

Similarly, Houghton and Yoho (2005) wrote about another source for win-win results that

involve a competition from within the organization stemming from a task. This competition

occurs in the arena of ideas where two or more followers or group of followers exchange ideas in

97

a manner that not only finds the best one, but also offers those involved a self-leadership

opportunity as they defend their point of view. The leader forces the followers to use empirical

or pragmatic evidence when offering competitive designs. This keeps the debate between

followers positive and a productive leadership development opportunity. Kouzes and Posner

(2007) thought the competition that occurs in the arena of ideas by leaders could be a tool used to

push the boundaries of social change in a positive manner. Using leadership development, they

suggested a balanced approach, which looks at ethical or moral value of the change and compare

it with the analytical or an identifiable social need.

There were two last resort methods of competitive leadership development, which Bennis

and Ward-Biederman (1997) prescribed after the leader expends all other options. The first is a

win-lose competition with entities that reside outside the leader-follower sphere of influence.

Grint (2005) thought this to be a highly motivational leadership development tool to get

followers to perform at extra-ordinary levels. The other occurs in a similar fashion; Hetland et al

(2008) believed it requires the leader and followers to search for an amoral solution to a social

problem through consensus after removing the boundaries of ethics and morality. The leader

would acquire a competitive advantage since he or she would be able to generate solutions

unimpeded by traditionalist thought. The exploration of new paradigms provides the leadership

development opportunity. As stated, these amoral approaches to attain competitive advantages

are to be used sparingly and not as a standard operating procedure. If the latter became true,

Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed they would shroud the organization in hate and destroy

leadership development potential.

Likewise, Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) thought an amoral competitive system

creates confusion as well as hate. The confusion occurs as followers try to achieve organizational

98

win-win solutions while attempting to understand and adhere to the leader’s ever-changing

amoral activities. In this example, an ever-shifting standard of success and morality makes

determining an outcome as a win difficult. Correspondingly, Blanchard et al. (1985) believed

that this do as I say, not as I do leadership approach to competition and organizational issues

often means aspiring leaders have to work on shortsighted goals. According to Vecchio et al.

(2006), these shortsighted goals may not be in line with organizational goals. Moreover, these

shortsighted goals encourage the aspiring leader to develop lower level survivalist tactics and not

leadership skills making the follower’s response counterproductive in terms leadership

development.

Van Breukelen et al. (2006) revealed that as leaders create contradictory mechanisms to

inspire pseudo win-win competition, the leader forces individuals to ignore the search for

competitive opportunity and settle for equalized output. As individuals settle for an equalized

output, systems of hate begin to fester feeding the illusion of inequality. According to Fairhurst

(2005), if humanity has a natural inclination to be competitive, then equality is the unlimited

potential found within the individual. Ensuring equal opportunity is the only way to ensure equal

fairness. As Van Breukelen et al. implored, it is a leader’s duty to ensure equal fairness and

promote leadership development.

In the effort to create systems that are antithetical to an individual’s intrinsic competitive

spirit while ensuring equalized output, it forces a leader to hoard information in order to control

the rate of societal or organizational change. In turn, restricting information impedes leadership

development. This was evident in Van Breukelen et al’s (2006) study on developing high quality

relationships. Hoarding knowledge ultimately erodes a leader’s power as Schröder and Scholl

(2009) inadvertently discovered when researching affective leadership dynamics. A leader who

99

hoards information will limit the competitive and leadership development potential of the

follower, which in turn limits a follower’s output and positive social change potential. This

ultimately slows the rate of change and converts willful compliance of the follower, into

obedient groupthink. Hence, the erosion of a leader’s power as the leader has converted an

aspiring leader into apathetic follower. Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed that the way to get

power is through the use of informed empowerment, which unleashes the competitive nature of

the individual with their unlimited leadership development potential. Thereby making systems of

hate as found in most amoral transformational theories an antiquated and ineffective notion of

leadership development.

Positive Social Change

Positive social change meant many things to many theorists; as Bass (1985) noted,

perspective has always determined the level of effectiveness of change. As a result, positive

social change has a highly subjective quality. As with Kouzes and Posner (2007), Scandura and

Pellegrini (2008) attempted to define it as a societal inspired vision that liberates and empowers

passive individuals into becoming active aspiring leaders rallied around an authentic cause or

need. Kouzes and Posner believed that the leader’s role was to isolate the need and then promote

win-win scenarios. In addition, Harland et al. (2005) believed that a leader must be positive as he

or she demonstrates courage, understanding, integrity, and selfless dedication to the need. In

turn, this builds optimism and resilience in followers as they become what Houghton and Yoho’s

(2005) described as self-leaders or even the aspiring leaders depicted by Harms and Credé

(2010). As the leader empowers the aspiring leaders, these leaders in training inspire other

followers to take charge and lead by example. The positive social change in this example is the

process of building societal identification based trust (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008) and high

100

quality relationships (Van Breukelen et al., 2006) to solve any societal need. For a moral leader

to take charge, as Blanchard et al. (1985) defined positive change, a leader efficiently uses his or

her power to attain meaningful leadership development through an alignment of social morals

and values with a societal need. In accomplishing this, as King (1986) noted, a leader will

manufacture a force-multiplication effect while knowing where he or she stands in times of

challenge and controversy; thereby, ensuring leadership development and positive social change

advances.

However, Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) noted that some social change advocates

who claim to be advancing societal good often-implemented theories that were antithetical to the

norms reciprocity by promoting equalized output and thereby increasing dependency on a

societal level. In doing so, King (1986) cautioned that equalized output separates individuals into

classes. As a result, the well-intentioned leader that Harland et al. (2005) wrote about loses sight

of the bigger picture of equalized opportunity and freedom, while unintentionally destroying

optimism, resilience, and leadership development. Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) wrote

about a concept of equalized output that instituted limits on freedom, potential, and opportunity

of leadership development by changing the abundance found in potential and opportunity into

the scarcity of equalized resources requiring socially punitive laws and an over abundance of

regulations to ensure equal outcome. This opens the societal door to condone amoral forms of

social justice, which is often, portrayed as positive social change. As predicted by Keller and

Yang’s (2008) research on poliheuristic theory, when social justice fails to promote the truly

charitable equalized opportunity and freedom it becomes a segregated form of social injustice.

Especially as those promoting social justice exaggerate claims as poliheuristic theory alludes to,

forcing leaders into publicly and politically unattainable situations forcing a predictable outcome

101

as a form of extortion. Those caught up in the social injustice lose leadership development

opportunities. The exaggeration is what Grint (2005) suggested a leader should do, while

Fairhurst (2005) cautioned leaders about when framing problems for amoral purposes since it

promotes societal hate and destroys leadership development opportunities.

In Muczyk and Holt’s (2008) article, they discussed the importance of finding the correct

leader to match a culture’s social moral norms in order to be effective. This contrasted

significantly from Bass (1985), Bennis, and Ward-Biederman (1997) who found it acceptable

when a leader disseminates false promises and generates pseudo social need while ignoring

social norms. False need allows the leader to portray their actions as positive social change. As

Schröder and Scholl (2009) discovered, this occurs when a leader no longer fears the retribution

that comes with failure and deceit. In these situations, leadership adopts a ruling class mentality

where established social norms no longer apply to them. In terms that Vecchio et al. (2006) used,

the leader fails to apply moral consistency with the situational leadership response and in turn

destroys social stability and leadership development opportunity. Equally, as noted by Bennis

and Ward-Biederman, they offered several examples of amoral leadership that threatened social

stability when leaders exchanged power for group delusions and manufactured pseudo need

while promoting positive social change. If the change event either hinders the equality of

opportunity, freedom, or human potential in any manner; then Kouzes and Posner (2007)

believed, that leadership development would suffer and the social change would ultimately have

negative repercussions.

From a different social change perspective, there is another leadership practice generating

inconsistent results, it is a leader in search of continual consensus on a variety of issues. As

Vecchio et al. (2006) discovered continuous consensus is not leading, but managing a mob and

102

limiting leadership development. Understanding the needs of one’s followers and getting their

input is beneficial in developing the high quality relationships as Van Breukelen et al. (2006) had

theorized. Furthermore, consensus is a crucial component of moral leadership, which provides an

abundance of positive social change potential. Although this has to have defined limits as

Harland et al. (2005) alluded, a leader always has his or her eye on the future direction of their

organization, which may run contrary to prevailing opinion. In these instances, a leader educates

and reforms consensus using empowerment and leadership development. Contrastingly, constant

consensus and compromise provides poor social change and leadership development

opportunities by failing to address issues in the arena of ideas.

When creating consensus, Grint (2005) suggested that leaders use outside influences to

manufacture emotion to sway popular opinion in one direction or another as a form of spurious

consensus. In turn, reaffirming Keller and Yang’s (2008) adaptation of poliheuristic theory, in

this instance the mob forces the leader in an unattainable situation limiting the leader to

predictable responses. If a moral structure does not guide the mob, then leadership development

and positive social change is at the mercy of the mob or the next revolutionary leader.

Concerning the next revolutionary leader, Hetland et al. (2008) looked at any amoral consensus-

based problem as an opportunity to generate social change, which the mob in this example, may

end up regretting. Hetland et al. believed that radical social change in this instance was rarely, if

at all, positive while destroying an aspiring leader’s development potential.

Conclusion

The reoccurring theme found in the leadership development research was balance. The

essence of being a leader is about serving while resisting a desire that demands the servitude of

others. A leader is always in the process of receiving some form of instruction as well as

103

teaching those within his or her sphere of influence to become leaders. A leader needs to

stimulate an individual’s competitive nature while avoiding the win at any cost mentality. A

leader is to encourage leadership development and positive social change, while not creating

dependency and being the sole source for change. In a similar fashion to a medical practitioner’s

Hippocratic Oath, an empowering leader’s motto should be, first, do no harm, and then seek

positive social change. Some leadership theories require a leader to implement change in order to

be successful. However, change for the sake of change often has negative consequences. That is

why the leader needs to find balance between doing no harm to the environment of leadership

development and using leadership development to promote positive social change.

Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) thought effective leadership development derives from a

trusting relationship that requires a leader’s adherence to a moral code, which is the starting point

for the concept of do no harm. Similarly, Harland et al. (2005) believed that optimism and

resilience in those that the leader serves could only germinate when there is consistency in an

equal application of social moral norms that Van Breukelen et al. (2006) equated to being a form

of equal fairness. Concerning optimism and resilience, both require the follower to have the

freedom to act and assert a high level of control over their life as Vecchio et al. (2006) surmised

in their study on situational leadership. While optimism is a construct of opportunity in a free

society, a developing leader is only hopeful when they have limited power to enact change; they

become optimistic when they are a stakeholder with unlimited potential when enacting change.

The minute difference between hope and optimism is action. It serves as the foundation in

Houghton and Yoho’s (2005) theories about self-leadership, which are about inspiring the

apathetic into responsible self-motivated action. Vecchio et al. also mentioned that in order to

promote responsible self-motivation, a leader should never create systems of dependency that

104

rob an aspiring leader’s self-reliance, dignity, motivation, and any opportunity to change their

lives as they see fit. Eventually, systems of dependency based on equalized output destroy the

high levels of trust needed to promote positive social change because they force all parties to be

transactional. Simply, systems of dependency require naïve obedience to the shifting demands of

amoral leaders making leadership development and positive change ineffective.

It is at this point some leadership development ideas congeal into an interrelated concept

that an empowering leader should do no harm. Humbly, an empowering leader make every

attempt to be consistent in the application of a society’s moral norms. In doing so, they promote

a form of reassuring consistency that makes protecting both freedom and leadership development

opportunity understandable. Reassuring consistency also provides an understanding of what went

wrong which is the prerequisite to potential solutions, potential solutions breeds’ optimism and

resilience for the visionary empowering leader. On the other hand, when a leader promotes

systematic equalized fairness and output, as Van Breukelen et al. (2006) suggested, the leader

inadvertently creates systems of dependency. According to Kouzes and Posner (2007), these

systems only generate apathy and hate while destroying optimism, resilience, and leadership

development potential. When seeking positive social change, the empowering leader must form

high-quality relationships through openness and the exchange of information, which was

something Van Breukelen et al. also prescribed in the same article that addresses leadership

development and future challenges. Similarly, Houghton and Yoho (2005) noted it takes

knowledge, mentoring, and a reassuring consistency to develop an individual into a self-leader.

Depending on the self-leader’s calling, Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) believed a

self-leader could develop into a communal leader that understands that he or she serves others.

According to Harms and Credé (2010), EI is what separates a self-leader and a communal or

105

organizational leader. In addition, when the leader promotes freedom, it serves as the foundation

of a leader’s EI. This form of EI is what converts a transactional or transformational leader to

become an empowering leader. When a leader combines high-quality relationships, socially

correct moral mentoring, EI, and a multitude of followers in search of a calling, according to

Kouzes and Posner (2007), society gets force-multipliers for positive social change.

As the leader balances the concepts of doing no harm and achieving measurable positive

social change, they will encounter leadership styles that promote some form of harm. What

follows is an example of doing harm for the sake of social change and leadership development.

In this example, the alternative to empowering leadership is transactional or transformational

leadership and their potential to create systematic hate. Burns (1978), Kouzes and Posner (2007)

thought the source for most systematic hate occurs when leaders promote centralized planning

solutions to societal needs. Consequently, as Bass (1985) noted, the leaders separate themselves

and the rest of the followers into three classes. The leaders made up the ruling class. The target

group of the social need becomes the victims, while the rest of the followers became the alleged

transgressors. In this example, only one of the three classes becomes engaged in providing

leadership development opportunities while representing a minor portion of the population. The

victims disengage becoming dependent on the ruling class, at the same time ruling class devalues

transgressor input. In addition, Bass believed this class-warfare mentality classifies a large

portion of the population as transgressors. In doing so, it makes any solution to the societal need

unproductive since it will require more power to control the transgressors in order to address the

bureaucratically fostered dependent needs of the victims. As hate breeds hate in a centralized

bureaucracy, inefficiency breeds more inefficiency. Ultimately, this counterproductive leadership

development and social change opportunity produces less optimism and more obedience or

106

disenchantment. Disenchantment is the source of opportunity and power for the revolutionary

leader.

Positive social change is creating systems that inspire or assist in the act of changing

apathetic individuals into engaged self-leaders or aspiring leaders that seek to empower others

(Van Breukelen et al.). As Fairhurst (2005) surmised, positive social change is difficult. This

makes an empowering leader’s task of positive social change more difficult than other leadership

theories, since transformational and transactional theories suggest a leader should tell a follower

what to do with their life. Empowering leaders have to lead, inspire, communicate, educate, and

believe in the aspiring leader when the individual’s belief in them self may have faltered. All of

this work instigates individuals into action, self-reliance, and optimism. As the individual

overcomes internal and external obstacles, they develop into a leader themselves. Inevitably, this

makes empowering leadership one of the last and more crucial skills for a leader to develop in

order to become a process-oriented moral leader. There by making the motto of the process-

oriented moral leader: first, do no harm, and then seek positive social change. When analyzing

the beliefs and writings of Alinsky, Iacocca, and King, the before mentioned motto and the

concepts of POML will form the criteria of evaluation. Finally, this will form the basis of the

scholarly essay, suitable for publication, which explores the iconic leadership styles of Iacocca,

King, and Alinsky and their relationship to process-oriented moral leadership.

107

Application

AMDS 8532: Professional Practice Application of a Theory of Leadership Development

Introduction

In the breadth, and depth, analysis focused on various iterations of reaction-based,

exchange-based, and transformational premises providing a developmental path for an aspiring

leader to become a Process-Oriented Moral Leader (POML), which is an empowering form of

leadership. Specifically, POML is a leadership development concept that emphasizes a process-

oriented philosophy to produce justifiable results while encouraging moral, positive social

change notions of mutual-cooperation and the continual improvement of all stakeholders. The

breadth, during the process of synthesizing various theories, confirmed an assumption promoting

POML; furthermore, it asserts that aspiring leaders need freedom to act and learn. Furthermore,

Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed, leaders need to know societal right from wrong, to

understand why it is important to take responsibility for any improprieties, and the wisdom to

know they are only an interrelated servant to the greater good of positive social change. The key

ingredients in making that assessment are the results synthesized from the review of POML

positives and negatives concerning the topics of leadership development, morality, and the

leader-follower relationship. These topics, found in the breadth, were three of six that were

critical leadership aspects set forth by Kouzes and Posner in their book, The Leadership

Challenge. They were critical in assessing the issues, problems, or needs to develop a morally

responsible leader as defined by the leadership theories found in the breadth. The depth

addressed the three remaining critical leadership aspects.

As with the breadth, the depth examined concepts that refine the notion of POML. The

difference was that the depth included current research and grouped theories based on a leader’s

108

expected action as a POML positive and negative while addressing Kouzes and Posner’s (2007)

remaining three critical leadership aspects for each POML positive and negative. The remaining

three critical leadership aspects were action-oriented. The aspects were the driving force for

change, competition, and positive social change. The POML deliverable generated from the

analysis and the actions a leader takes was balance. The maxim--first, do no harm, and then seek

positive social change-- exemplifies this concept of balance.

This maxim assumes that leadership development is a critical function of positive social

change, since Houghton and Yoho (2005) believed that society’s apathetic masses could be

motivated into becoming responsible self-leaders. As these self-leaders develop confidence and

competence in a free society, Vecchio et al. (2006) believed that many could become advocates

of positive social change. According to Van Breukelen et al. (2006), these advocates form high-

quality relationships through openness and the exchange of information based on morally sound

principle that protects the leadership development potential of all individuals within the society.

The first part of the maxim, do no harm, captures Van Breukelen et al.’s morally sound principal

protecting an individual’s freedom to develop as captured in their concept about equal fairness.

Harland et al. (2005) reinforced this moral necessity when they wrote about optimism and

resilience being dependent on the equal application of social moral norms. Ensuring freedom

through the equal application of social moral norms to all of a society’s members was the

equivalent to the concept of equal fairness. In doing no harm, a leader does not infringe upon the

social moral fabric that assists in maintaining freedom and freedom itself.

As the maxim relates to the application, Martin Luther King (1986) once suggested there

is good in everything only if an individual opens their mind to it. However, King would caution,

if any individual searches for the good or positive in life, then he or she must establish criteria of

109

what is good or not. The maxim--first, do no harm and then seek positive social change--

becomes the guiding principle of POML and the point of analysis in the application. It also

establishes a criterion of acceptable behavior. In this instance, first, do no harm, suggests a leader

must not infringe upon an individual’s freedom thereby protecting the opportunity any individual

to develop as they see fit. This concept, which Alinsky (1989) endorsed, has the theoretical root

of equalized opportunity. Iacocca profoundly captured the quest for positive social change with

his statement, “have a mentor, be a mentor” (Iacocca & Whitney, p. 234). Positive social change

in this instance is maximizing the leadership potential in all individuals, which ensures that this

collaborative effort became a force multiplier for positive social change in whatever socially

acceptable form individuals decide to pursue. In its totality, it fits within the moral concept of the

Law of Reciprocity (King).

The deliverable for this application is a scholarly essay, suitable for publication, which

explores the iconic leadership styles of Iacocca, King, and Alinsky and their relationship to

POML. The reason I selected works authored by Alinsky, Iacocca, and King was due to their

iconic stature in relation to leadership as well as organizational and social change. Specifically,

they wrote books that encouraged leadership and worked to bring about social change. Alinsky’s

(1989) book, Rules for Radicals, was an example of amoral social change as it attempted to

inspire individuals to become organizers. An organizer is Alinsky’s version of a leader assigned

the task of organizing a group of individuals to incite social change. Iacocca, on the other hand,

in his book Where Have All the Leaders Gone (Iacocca & Whitney, 2007), established a set of

criteria designed to find leaders and evaluate their effectiveness in rejuvenating a society in

decline. Finally, King; the books that best capture his work that inspired the apathetic to become

active agents and leaders promoting social equality and change were the Testament of Hope

110

(1986) and The Measure of a Man (1988). Finally, these authors had varying levels of success in

implementing their version of change. The focus of the analysis will be their intentions and plans

for change using leadership development.

Evaluating three iconic leaders and analyzing their intentions for change helps triangulate

and demonstrate that POML provides a sound foundation that assists aspiring leaders and current

leaders trying to effect positive social change. Consequently, those individuals in search of an

empowering leadership style become the intended audience and beneficiaries of this research. In

using a macro-analysis to evaluate the theoretical, as found in the breadth and depth, and the

experiences gained from proven leaders, as in the application, the knowledge gleaned from a

cross-functional group of sources provides the audience generational wisdom concerning the

subject matter of leadership development. More specifically, the application identifies what it

takes to be an empowering leader promoting POML while being an agent of positive social

change. King (1986) believed that those who take on the challenge of being a morally guided

empowering leader are champions of light in the world that at times becomes shrouded in the

darkness as described by Bass (1985) and Alinsky (1989).

Analysis

From the maxim, I used six comparison criteria extracted from both the breadth and

depth to evaluate the leadership styles of Alinsky, Iacocca, and King. The criteria included

leadership development, morality, leader-follower relationship, driving force for change,

competition, and positive social change. For example, I used each criterion to break down

Alinsky’s admittedly contradictory beliefs that promoted amoral-transformational systematic

hate and anarchy in the guise of freedom. Ironically, Alinsky used America’s Declaration of

Independence as an example of the freedom he sought. The application continues by evaluating

111

Iacocca’s transactional leadership style and his recent discovery of transformational altruism

upon his retirement. Finally, the application appraises King’s belief in the individual and the

manner in which equal opportunity and individual responsibility promotes a form of moral

transformation, empowerment, and self-leadership. Ultimately, the compilation of differing

thoughts from three iconic leaders provides a sound foundation that assists aspiring POML’s in

effecting positive organizational change.

Leadership Development

As noted by Alinsky (1989), Iacocca (2007), and King (1986), leadership development is

the engine that enables a leader to implement his or her vision. For example, Alinsky believed in

cultivating acolytes to become organizers of a never-ending societal implosion. Iacocca

recommended that the leader finds talented individuals and mentor them, so they can carry out

the leader’s vision. Similarly, King suggested a leader has to develop “intelligent, courageous,

and dedicated leadership” (p. 143) that serves the societal greater good. Leadership development

is one of the primary obligations that a leader needs to perform in order to become an efficient

servant of his or her followers. The process of development varies from one author to another

author; however, there are two consistent aspects of leadership development woven into each

author’s idea concerning the development of followers. The critical aspects of leadership

development include the ability of a leader to communicate and then educate the follower on the

key aspects of his or her vision. Other similar key aspects are curiosity and creativity; however, it

is at this point the authors varied in their descriptions of leadership development.

In the process of creating societal upheaval, Alinsky (1989) identified ten characteristics

that help a mentor develop an aspiring organizer. The characteristics include: “curiosity,

irreverence, imagination, a sense of humor, a bit of blurred vision of a better world, an organized

112

personality, a well-integrated political schizoid, ego; a free and open mind [concerning] political

relativity, and constantly creating new out of the old” (pp. 71-80). The process of converting an

organizer into a leader is simple, “repetitiveness” (p. 80). This meant the organizer builds a

power base to serve his or her need, instead of serving the needs of his or her followers. Serving

the needs of his or her followers was the supposed goal of the organizer. However, once the

organizer has amassed power via an organization in which he or she had worked hard to create,

the relinquishing of that power proves difficult as Alinsky alluded to in quoting Lord Acton and

his belief about power being a corruptible force. Similarly, Burns (1978) and King (1986)

offered caution as both wrote about the corruptible nature of power and the amoral

transformation it generates. This amoral approach to organizational power and change is what

Alinsky sought to develop in leaders and organizers.

Regardless of the moniker in an Alinsky style social change event, leader or organizer,

the individual guiding the movement is still its leader. Ironically, in order for an organizer to

resist the urge to become a leader in a movement, the organizer must place an extra emphasis on

becoming a “well-integrated political schizoid” (p. 78) as the organizer develops. Being a

schizoid was Alinsky’s safeguard to prevent the aspiring leader from becoming narcissistic.

Narcissism begins when a leader believes their amoral rhetoric to the point where it consumes

their reality. Alinsky’s safeguard highlights the amoral and even contradictory nature of his

thoughts. It was also an understatement to say that Iacocca’s (2007) and King’s (1986) views on

leadership development differ greatly from Alinsky. Both Iacocca and King believed an aspiring

leader has to be humble while leading by example. Similarly, Ibbotson (2008) thought humility

is a requirement of leadership development. The leader has to live their vision, which includes

being humble enough to know the vision may need some modification according to societal

113

needs and to accept responsibility if it suffers any shortcomings. Consequently, as King noted,

amoral leadership development via amoral change was equivalent to hate begetting hate and fails

to meet any standard of positive social change while potentially harming the leadership potential

of developing leaders.

In a similar fashion to Alinsky’s (1989) ten characteristics, Iacocca (2007) created the

“Nine C’s of leadership” (pp. 6-10). The Nine C’s were curiosity, creativity, communication,

character, courage, conviction, charisma, competence, and common sense. Of the nine, the only

significant difference from a leadership development perspective, as previously noted in the

analysis of Alinsky, was character. According to Iacocca, not only does character include leading

by example; it also requires a leader to exhibit a sense of morality. The leader has to know right

from wrong in order to do what is best for society as a whole; in addition, he or she must avoid

pacifying groups of individuals seeking some form of segregated social justice within the

society. King (1986) and Kouzes and Posner (2007), reiterated Iaccoca’s point about a leader’s

moral character being a critical component of the leader’s development. Especially since, the

Nine C’s were about a leader or individual earning the right to be a leader while exhibiting moral

clarity.

In looking at the foundation that sets up the leadership development process, there were

significant differences among the three authors. Alinsky admittedly set his system up based on

class warfare, the eternal amoral transformational conflict between the “Haves” and “Have-Nots”

(p. 3) and systems of hate that this eternal conflict spawns. Iacocca’s Nine C’s of leadership

incorporated the transactional concept of “pay for performance” (Iacocca & Whitney, p. 139)

while ensuring a certain level of accountability for failure and a potential that the leader

developed some transformational qualities. Although Iacocca developed Nine C’s to prevent any

114

harm coming to the leadership potential of aspiring leaders, the Nine C’s fall short in the positive

social change aspect because positive change is not inherently woven into them. In stark contrast,

King’s (1986) view of leadership development and positive social change included the concepts

of agape, the dimensions of complete life, and the moral transformational qualities that empower

aspiring leaders to become servants of the people.

Comparable to Alinsky (1989) and Iacocca (2007), King (1986) created a list of

characteristics that the aspiring leader and mentor worked together to improve in each other. The

list included key characteristics such as being: intelligent, courageous, altruistic, committed, a

person of integrity, calm in the face of turmoil, creative while avoiding groupthink, a positive

social change agent; and having a genuine love of humanity. The development of these

characteristics occurs as the aspiring leader makes his or her way through “the three dimensions

of a complete life” (King, 1988, p. 37). The complete life includes creating a movement based on

a vision that serves the greater good.

In creating a movement, an aspiring leader does not search out for compromise. He or she

anticipates, educates, and reshapes any need to compromise to fit the greater need of societal

good. Simply, the aspiring leader only searches for consensus after he or she had marshaled

enough support through various means of communication and education to form a majority. As a

result, this provides opportunities for the aspiring leader to set the timeline and terms for

compromise or consensus. Fairhurst (2005) defined this as the ability to frame problems as

opportunities for development. Alinsky (1989) and Iacocca (2007) reiterated this need of framing

and shaping consensus; it was a necessary component of being a leader as noted in the majority

of leadership development theories found in the breadth and depth. Fairhurst’s warning identified

the difference, framing that promotes positive social change requires a leader with integrity. As a

115

result, the moral foundation aids in the leadership development aspect of positive social change

becomes critical. More specifically, this holistic concept of leadership development being

inclusive to morality and positive social change is what separates the different leadership

development theories of Alinsky, Iacocca, and King.

In reviewing Alinsky (1989), Iacocca (2007), and King (1986), all of their premises

involved leadership development theories such as situational, contingency, and even

transactional behaviors. However, the three authors differed as the aspiring leader developed

transformational and empowering behaviors. Alinsky’s theory was amoral from the outset;

making transformation development amoral and not necessarily dependent upon a societal need;

thereby making positive change an afterthought. In addition, empowerment was dependent upon

the organizer relinquishing his or her amoral power to the aspiring leader. Iaccoa’s development

path, in the sense of right and wrong, was more structured and transactional. However, like

Alinsky, if an aspiring leader wishes to develop transformational and empowering leadership

qualities, it is a process based on luck as the mentee searches out for a mentor. It is an implied or

an assumed goal, not stated goal in the development path. For example, Iacocca did not develop

altruistic, transformational, or empowering qualities until after his retirement. Prior to his

retirement, transactional need was the motive behind any public service. For King, and his three

dimensions of a complete life, the stated goals were moral transformation and empowerment.

Leadership development to King was a lifelong process as the roles of mentor and mentee

become interchangeable, especially as the challenges of life prevent anyone person from being

all knowing. King believed in doing no harm while promoting positive social change; thereby

making him the quintessential POML.

Morality

116

Morality is a key feature in POML. Since it serves as a foundation in the development of

followers, it requires a leader to educate the aspiring leader to work within the confines of social,

organizational, or cultural moral norms. According to King (1986), morality allows mutual-

cooperation to exist where members in a society can work together and determine right from

wrong. Furthermore, it serves as a baseline for continued systematic societal improvement. In

these instances, a society ensures the possibility that individuals within a society can maximize

their potential by equally applying the requirement of adherence to social moral norms. King

believed that life included both good and evil. An individual's life presented a plethora of

opportunities for the individual to falter and accept evil into his or her life. Social moral norms

provided aspiring leaders a code in which they must learn and try to live up to in order to lead by

example and teach others. Ultimately, King warned, if an aspiring leader focuses on the outcome,

and not the moral process, it prevented the aspiring leader from learning. As a result, the aspiring

leader replicates humanity’s worse qualities. Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte (2010) added in their

analysis, amoral development curtails positive social change potential, which is a necessary

component of POML.

According to King (1986), morality and its tacit code prevent two societal extremes. The

first extreme centers on the issue of freedom as it related to an individual participating in society

without self-imposed control. Without self-imposed control and individual responsibility, a

society would ultimately require a centralized entity to impose physical and psychological

control. As the central entity attempts to create a stable or irreversible condition, it eliminates

individual responsibility and freedom. However, this stable or irreversible condition generates

the second extreme as it opens the door to perpetual revolution as predicted by Alinsky (1989).

According to King, the perpetual revolution was an eye for an eye concept that destroyed the

117

leadership development potential of the masses. Alinsky also believed that the path to tyranny, as

represented in the two extremes is often subtle. For example, as both King and Iacocca (2007)

suggested, leaders set the standard. If a leader uses purposeful ambiguity to pollute that standard,

then those who aspire to be more or follow no longer need to honor the trust established through

mutual-cooperation. This weakens the bond of civility. According to Alinsky (1989), in the

process of weakening civility that was masquerading as justified freedom, these amoral leaders

offer amorality and anarchy to those that they lead. Ultimately, as Keller and Yang (2008) noted

in their premise concerning poliheuristic theory, amoral leaders have to impose laws and

regulations on those who fail to adhere to rules that they no longer follow as an attempt to

reclaim societal order. As King warned, if leaders choose to play by one set of rules while

subjugating those that follow with a different set, they have established a ruling class. In this

instance, without morality, laws that ordinarily protect aspiring leaders and productive citizens

become playthings for tyrants and fools as Alinsky hoped to maximize in his design of sustained

societal upheaval.

King’s (1986) and Iacocca’s (2007) Judeo-Christian background served as the foundation

to their descriptions of morality. On the other hand, Alinsky (1989) viewed any morality tainted

with “Christian dogma” (p. 88), or any dogma for that matter, as “the enemy of human freedom”

(p. 4). Alinsky then contradicted himself and conceded that there was strength in numbers of

individuals cooperating, if not working together, to achieve some mutually agreed upon goal. For

Alinsky, the intelligent mutually agreed upon goal is equalized output, since it is morally correct

for one individual to be “his brother's keeper” (p. 23). Furthermore, altruism and self-sacrifice

should be an individual’s daily goal, if not service to the rest of humanity. If that individual fails

to understand Alinsky’s version of a righteous life, then it was morally acceptable to kill that

118

individual since it was the only means that humankind, as a species, would escape extinction.

The greater good justifies the death of an individual or a group of individuals since “the most

unethical of all means is the non-use of any means” (p.26). This line of thinking allowed Alinsky

(1989) to create 11-rules pertaining to the “ethics of means and ends” (pp 27–45). To sum up

Alinsky’s 11-rules in to one expression, Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) offered a concept

suggesting morality is your enemy’s problem; moreover, it is immoral to limit your options. To

support his own logic that it is immoral to be moral, and that morality is an illusion, Alinsky

provided examples where morality changed to serve the egocentric needs of a society.

Alinsky (1989) attacked morality since it posed as the greatest danger to his version of

freedom; his version of reality believed a centralized-bureaucratic entity distributes earned

freedom. Bass (1985) identified the contradiction that purposefully permeates through Alinsky’s

theory about social change; as soon as freedom and power become centralized, it offers the next

revolutionary leader the opportunity to advance their version of social change. Alinsky believed

all previous and current socio-economic systems have inherent flaws; thereby, it is only through

perpetual chaos can a society discover the best possible societal solution. Alinsky’s belief in a

centralized system being the focal point of chaos and control conflicted with King (1986) and

Iacocca’s (2007) conviction in a decentralized moral concept. King and Iacocca based their

belief on the necessity of using a moral foundation to promote equal opportunity and economic

freedom making a strong centralized-bureaucratic power unnecessary. By focusing on the

individual, King and Iacocca believed their method generates the most social stability and

dynamic, positive social change. Strangely, Alinsky promoted the American Revolution as the

key to freedom and decentralized power; however, his disdain for humanity generated a

perception that a moral civilization, not a centralized power, poses as the greatest threat to

119

freedom. Consequently, Alinsky’s optimum solution encourages a centralized entity to increase

their control on freedom in the hope that the next revolutionary leader solves humanity’s

problem that humanity itself poses upon itself.

King’s perspective on morality is a polar opposite to Alinsky. Morality, as in mutual-

cooperation and the Law of Reciprocity never changes. However, the understanding in its

intended application requires continual improvement for the greater good in order to equalize

opportunity. Furthermore, as King alluded, humanity’s demise occurs when it discards morality,

which opens the door to perpetual chaos and the forced servitude of the people. Ironically,

Alinsky conceded this point when he wrote about humanity repeating a continuous cycle of

growth, revolution, rebirth, and then growth. This never-ending cycle of destruction and harm to

freedom and leadership development reinforces King’s point. Kouzes and Posner (2007) also

suggested that the quelling of chaos, similar to what Alinsky described, only occurs when there

is a common understanding and equal application in ethics and morality. In addition, it allows a

moral leader promoting leadership development as a means of positive social change to develop

as aligned with the maxim promoting POML.

Iacocca’s (2007) belief about morality is more in-line with King’s (1986) perspective

than Alinsky's (1989). Especially since, it is an imperative of leadership and leadership

development when dealing with adversity, to “understand the difference between good and bad

or right and wrong” (p. 226). It is at this point in his book that Iacocca muddied the concept of

morality when he began to extol the benefits of crony capitalism. For example, he thought it was

acceptable for his father to bribe an official at Ellis Island in order to expedite the process of a

loved one gaining access to the United States. This “minor corruption” (Iacocca & Whitney, p.

225) seemed to support Alinsky’s (1989) belief that the concept of morality is nothing more than

120

societal nonsense, especially when an individual encounters a dilemma between the need of

doing what is morally right and some other theoretically greater need. The greater need usually

wins. The real difference between Alinsky and Iacocca’s thoughts on morality went back to one

crucial notion. For Iacocca, it is imperative that a leader or an aspiring leader needing to

understand the moral consequences of his or her actions. It was this understanding of

consequences that King (1986) and Fairhurst (2005) defined as an individual’s moral conscious.

Coincidentally, a moral conscious is one of the greatest impediments to the development of

Alinsky’s version of an organizer and an aspiring leader. This helped explain why Alinsky

denounced religious-based morality and created the "ethics of means and ends"(p. 27 – 45). The

ethics of means and ends is a system designed to obliterate an aspiring leader’s moral conscious.

Like Alinsky (1989) and Iacocca (2007), King (1986) believed legitimate societal

advancement required mutual-cooperation. As defined by Burns (1978), mutual-cooperation

occurs when individuals treat one another in a socially acceptable manner. Likewise, King

believed that righteous behavior is the definition of mutual-cooperation. This formed the basis of

his definition of morality. King purposely did not specify an exact moral construct used in his

definition; he only suggested that individuals and leaders should follow the path of the “Good

Samaritan” (p. 30) since other belief systems had similar constructs such as the Golden Rule or

the Law of Reciprocity. However, he was very specific when defining righteous behavior. An

individual or leader promoting righteous behavior acts with “intelligence and goodness” (p. 47).

Furthermore, righteous behavior requires all to seek enlightenment, act with compassion, and

educate others while making agape a life style. Without brotherly love, the cycle of violence and

chaos as predicted by Alinsky would come to fruition. This led King to suggest that since hate

121

would only beget more hate and societal destruction, then love would open the door to more

love, and it is love that provides the greatest opportunity for societal improvement.

King (1988) laid out a path for aspiring leaders choosing to participate in a moral and

open society called the “three dimensions of any complete life” (p. 40). Gorlorwulu and

Rahschulte (2010) created the five characteristics to Christian-based transformation that had

many similarities to King’s dimensions of a complete life. The first step in King’s path to a

complete life requires an aspiring leader or individual to responsibility to seek knowledge and a

professional calling. The second step challenges the same individual or aspiring leader to choose

a method of cooperation with their fellow humans and actively live it. The first two steps in the

path to a complete life ensure that individuals or aspiring leaders are making informed choices

and being individually responsible. The last step is similar to Iacocca’s (2007) concept

concerning mentoring; it requires action in helping, teaching, mentoring, and serving others.

King believed it is hateful or immoral when an individual hoards information. Consequently, it

makes those who choose to distribute information as courageous leaders to the people as these

leaders battle for truth and dignity. By empowering others with the truth, these courageous

leaders are practitioners of King’s concept of agape and an aspiring POML’s best friend.

There are aspects concerning morality and leadership development that Alinsky (1989),

Iacocca (2007), and King (1986) dealt with using different methods. These aspects force an

individual to respond to others who refuse to act morally or the individual encounters a morally

untenable situation. An untenable situation develops when a morally influenced individual

encounters a forced-choice between two or more immoral actions that the individual finds

objectionable. As King and to a lesser extent Iacocca asserted, morality is only important when a

society adheres to it during the most inconvenient of times when responding to amoral

122

individuals or untenable situations. From Alinsky’s perspective, the organizer works to create

untenable moral situations as a method to ambush the opposition’s leaders since they are easily

exploitable as the untenable moral situations provide the opportunity to point out class

differences. Consequently, Alinsky’s protégés are an example of amoral individuals actively

working to destroy the social bonds that form a society. This group also includes other

individuals or leaders, who refuse to engage other individuals with in a society in a moral

transformational or empowering manner. They, for whatever reason according to Bass (1985),

only act in a situational, transactional, or a confrontational manner.

King (1986) suggested when aspiring leaders encounter amoral individuals they need to

treat these individuals with dignity and respect in accordance with the Law of Reciprocity. The

Christian approach King mentioned includes turning and exposing the other cheek when slapped

in the face. However, King “tried to embrace a realistic pacifism” (p. 39), which is the choice

and selection of the lesser evil between two or more. This approach includes being patient and

accepting discord as an opportunity for improvement. Conversely, Alinsky (1989) perceived this

acquiescence to discord as an exploitable weakness in any leader. If a target tries to be patient

when pressed, the identified target provides the organizer an opportunity to increase the fervor of

rhetoric and deploy other vehicles of communication such as civil disobedience. The organizer

hopes that those involved in the civil disobedience suffer some punitive reaction as a method to

identify and separate classes. In these instances, Alinsky defined success as either forcing an

opposing leader to abandon their concept of morality or have his target use their sense of

morality in a punitive fashion as a means to separate individuals into haves and have-nots.

King’s approach searches for understanding in the difference of opinions. Alinsky, on the other

hand, tries to create class stagnation and harvest the hate if fomented to generate conflict, and

123

ultimately class warfare. All of which, harm freedom and destroy positive social change

opportunities that promote POML development. To King, class status is what an individual

works to achieve in a free society, making class movement, up or down, essential. Class status is

just a snapshot in time of a free individual’s current predicament, and class movement denotes a

healthy society.

Alinsky (1989) designed his tactics with the goal to trap the opposition’s leader in

morally untenable situations. According to King (1986), hate-based tactics are shortsighted and

indifferent to societal destruction. King also believed morally untenable situations are avoidable

and often self-induced due to flaws in the leader or aspiring leader’s character or development. In

response to an untenable situation, King and Iacocca (2007) both believed it requires action in

the form of humility, accountability, and a personal realignment to social moral norms. The

acceptance of failure by the leader is just the first step. The realignment, learning from failure,

and ultimately devising an empowering plan of attack is the only way to survive an untenable

situation. Consequently, the only way to survive an Alinsky inspired ambush is to fight for the

morally right reason through it. At times, this requires the leader to fight using any means

possible as Alinsky had hoped. Hence, as King noted, a realistic pacifist would suggest the path

of the lesser evil. That is why King stressed that leaders and aspiring leaders need to take a

proactive course that includes anticipation and preemption. He also believed that positive social

change is the best method to anticipate and preempt systematic hate because hate grows from

ignorance. Positive social change requires communication and the exchange of knowledge. As a

result, followers and aspiring leaders offer the leader diverse opportunities to avoid the morally

untenable situations. This makes mutually beneficial exchanges of information morally correct

and necessary for both the mentor and the mentee.

124

Leader-Follower Relationship

In building upon leadership development and morality, a strong mentoring leader-

follower relationship assists and potentially speeds up the aspiring leader’s development to

become an empowering leader. From a POML perspective, this mentoring relationship should be

mutually beneficial to both parties; this is similar to King’s (1986) love begets love and is

comparable to Kouzes and Posner’s (2007) win-win scenario. Equalized opportunities along with

open and honest communication are the requirements for a positive leader-follower relationship

because they assist in the development of competence and confidence. According to Scandura

and Pellegrini (2008), competence and confidence leads to “role-routinization” and

“identification-based trust” (p. 102) that rewards spontaneity. Fairness in this instance is the

moral and equal application of organizational rules, social norms, and laws. King strove to create

an environment where leader-follower relationships as laid out become force-multipliers for

positive social change. Unfortunately, as some leaders amass power to implement a vision; these

leaders view empowerment as an impediment. Power concerning the leader-follower relationship

is information, and Alinsky (1989) was the self-admitted master at hoarding and manipulating it

in order to instigate a revolution.

To begin with, Alinsky (1989) created an utopist list of “the ten ideal elements of an

organizer” (pp. 71-80). The ideal elements list includes critical items that make the leader-

follower relationship potentially troublesome and ripe with negativity. First, Alinsky’s list

included conflicting criteria that he admitted to being unattainable. For example, Alinsky

believed that the organizer must examine the vast expanse of life’s ambiguity to find useful

“contradictions” (p. 75) in order to generate discourteous accusations, class envy, agitation, hate,

and potentially violent action. As this occurs, Alinsky was expecting the organizer in training to

125

be both open and close-minded to input from followers. The organizer must be open to the

abundance of potential discontent and yet maintain “a bit of blurred vision of a better world” (p.

76) in order to manipulate followers to achieve class distinctions. To add emphasis to this

contradictory relationship between a leader and follower, Alinsky wrote that nothing annoys a

follower more than “arrogance, vanity, impatience, and personal egotism” (p. 61). This was

paradoxical since he classified himself as the preeminent organizer while describing himself as

arrogant, vain, impatient, and egotistical. This do as I say, not as I do attitude creates a negative

relationship that the follower must endure. This subsequently harms the leadership development

potential of the aspiring leader and the subsequent positive social change potential.

For King (1986) and Iacocca (2007), they considered these contradictory relationships

similar to those as Alinsky defined as confusing, inefficient, and eventually destructive to any

organization. As further evidence, Scandura and Pellegrini (2008) believed these relationships

forced an aspiring leader to regress to a form of “calculus-based trust” (p. 103) where the

aspiring leader becomes urgently concerned with lower level needs; thereby, limiting or

destroying positive social change potential. However, in order to discover a better world, Alinsky

(1989) believed the results justified the means and the expected societal implosion would be a

temporary condition and the negative leader-follower relationship is a byproduct of the continual

social chaos initiated by an organizer ripe with hate and full of contradictions. Alinsky foretold

the eventual destruction of the relationship between the leader and follower in element two of his

ideal organizer requirements. Eventually, the follower must “challenge, insult, agitate, and

discredit” (p. 71) any contradiction. This includes contradictions emanating from the leader or

mentor, since the organizer needs to have a well-defined different vision of the future.

126

Iacocca (2007) had a series of mentoring experiences that aided him in his leadership

development path. Consequently, he believes that the leader-follower relationship is to be

fostering and full of mentoring by the leader. These experiences eventually prompted Iacocca to

coin the concept of “have a mentor, be mentor” (p. 234). The concepts of mentoring and

empowering are something that both Alinsky (1997) and King (1986) incorporated in their

differing notions of an effective leader-follower relationship. This agreement between the

authors concerning conceptual mentoring and empowering is only theoretical. As previously

noted, Alinsky created a contradictory leadership development premise that suggests an

organizer could forgo mentoring aspiring leaders if justified by the results. Like Alinsky, Iacocca

was inconsistent with this concept because it was not until after his retirement that he developed

this enlightened perspective. A good portion of the book talked about a series of different

mentors he had that helped him with different aspects of his life. During his career, his emphasis

was on hiring the right people to help him shape his future vision of the company. Hiring instead

of developing led him to pick a successor to become the next chief executive officer (CEO) of

Chrysler. He described this decision as his worse, as his successor led Chrysler to the merger

with Daimler. Iacocca’s inconsistency with developing a mentoring leader-follower relationship

is noteworthy since it is absent in his “Nine C’s of Leadership” (p.6 -10) and his thoughts on

leadership responsibilities to rebuild the United States.

In stark contrast to the contradictions and inconsistencies of Alinsky (1989) and Iacocca

(2007), King (1986) establishes consistency in his belief of the positive potential found in the

interrelatedness of individuals. Furthermore, he believed that interrelatedness is dependent upon

the continued growth of all individuals in a society, making the leader-follower relationship

extremely important. A strong leader-follower relationship was something Vecchio et al. (2006)

127

promoted in their article on situational leadership. However, King built his premise of an

effective leader-follower relationship on the Biblical concept of the “Good Samaritan” (p. 285)

and the Greek concept of “agape” (p. 8). He notes that the biblical and Greek concepts are

equivalent to the Law of Reciprocity with an emphasis on brotherly love. He elaborated by

stating that if two individuals want to get along then good begets good making the inverse true,

which is “hate begets hate” (p. 449). The link between the leader and follower is an empowering

relationship in which both assist the other to achieve the highest aspirations of life. This

approach is similar to the method Blanchard et al. (1985) described in their theories concerning

situational leadership. In assisting the follower to achieve the height of life, the leader must

understand that they serve the follower by providing information, guidance, and assistance as

necessary to cultivate the development of the follower as the leader progresses through the three

dimensions of a complete life. To be successful, achieving the height or highest aspiration of life

includes the mentoring of others.

To achieve King’s (1986) perspective of the height of life, both the leader and follower

have to earn the right, not given, to pursue this dimension. Consequently, the follower must earn

their experience and place in life, whereas the leader must only mentor and guide as needed.

According to King, by practicing responsibility in a free society and refusing to harm the

freedom that comes with it, leaders and aspiring leaders earn respect, dignity, and integrity.

King’s perspective differed greatly from Alinsky (1989). Alinsky fomented underachievement in

followers as means to differentiate between classes. This weakens the traditional leader-follower

relationships in order to generate class warfare. When comparing King’s concepts to Alinsky and

Iacocca (2007), Alinsky’s leadership-follower relationship thrived on provoking hate, which

made manipulation and deception a common practice between the follower and leader. While

128

Iacocca’s better-late-than-never approach to empowerment and mentoring mimicked King’s, it

lacks commitment since it is not a key component of his nine C’s of leadership.

To one degree or another, hate or agape, the common thread between the three authors

included the interrelatedness of all individuals. Furthermore, all three also believed that the

leader-follower relationship serves an integral part of leadership, organizational, and individual

development. As a result, proper cultivation of this relationship is essential to leadership

development and positive social change. The main difference between the three authors is the

method used to cultivate a relationship. There was Alinsky’s (1989) contradictory method, which

was both amoral and transformational. Despite being inconsistent, Iacocca’s (2009) was mostly

transactional that had a transformational and empowering ending. Finally, there was King’s

method that was moral, transformational, and eventually empowering. Dependent upon the

follower’s acceptance of responsibility, it made empowerment a requirement of leadership.

Kouzes and Posner (2007) provided a level of affirmation to this premise in their book. Also in a

similar fashion to Kouzes and Posner, King’s method serves as the baseline for POML since it

inspires a consistent thought that leadership is not about what individual acquires as a leader. It is

about the competence and confidence that the leader earns through education, communication,

and action as the leader develops other aspiring leaders. Positive social change occurs when a

society of individuals peacefully promotes morally sound leader-follower relationships in order

to develop other leaders, to earn an enriched life, and participate in a productive society.

Driving Force for Change

Alinsky (1989), Iacocca (2007), and King (1986) understood that change is constant

making organizational and individual development necessary to embrace change and ensure

prosperity, if not survival. The difference between the three authors is the source driving the

129

change and the manner in which they expect a leader to interpret and respond to a change event.

The source driving the anticipated response to the change could be either the leader, the

followers within the leader’s sphere of influence, or a varying combination of both as determined

by the urgency of the change. In addition, the manner of interpretation meant their overarching

leadership philosophy often predetermined their response. From a POML perspective, depending

on the time constraint, the leader uses varying sources of inputs from multiple levels of followers

and aspiring leaders to provide the best proactive response to a change event. The response,

when possible, should be proactive rather than reactive since proactive responses customarily

provide a deeper understanding of the event. Keller and Yang (2008) noted; reaction and crisis

often lead to hurried action and mistakes. Alinsky (1989) thrived on forcing civic leaders in

making rash decisions that only increased the likelihood of strategic or tactical errors. Any

mistake is an exploitable amoral opportunity for social change. Finally, the crucial aim of a

POML should be positive social change; therefore, any solution to change should lead to equal

opportunity, empowerment, individual responsibly, and the reaffirmation of freedom.

Change was an integral ingredient to everything that Alinsky (1989) wrote about in his

book Rules for Radicals. The book’s goal is to instigate a never-ending anarchic battle between

output-based haves and have-nots. Alinsky believed there would always be a disparity in output;

consequently, he came up with a convoluted mechanism called an organizer to agitate this never-

ending need for change and segregated social justice. Since the change was an omnipresent

reality to Alinsky, he instructed organizers to harness change and drive wedges between societal

classes. An example of a wedge issue is the disparity in resources generated from societal output

and identifying them is one of the primary tasks of the organizer. The organizer instigates a

wedge issue by setting the tone and perspective to generate movement based on a manufactured

130

or perceived inequality. Fairhurst (2005) described this as framing an issue with the potential to

create abhorrent amoral consequences. As the organizer addresses a social inequity, the social

inequity has the appearance to be the motivation for change. For Alinsky, the social inequity is a

means to an end, a simple hand tool used to implement his dark version social change while

destroying freedom and leadership potential of all individuals not in the core group of agitators.

At the outset, the organizer is the sole source for change. As soon as the organizer

successfully grooms followers and an eventual leader in using Machiavellian style hate-based

tactics to address the inadequacies in output, the leader may or may not include the followers in

addressing subsequent change events. An organizer releasing control of the movement is

conditional; according to Alinsky (1989), the organizer never relinquishes control to the leader

and his or her protégées until they demonstrate a high level of commitment to the necessity of

their actions in relation to the movement. Consequently, this makes the organizer as the central

force and his or her handpicked protégées a secondary force driving change.

Societal change was at the root of any Alinsky (1989) activity; the organizer

manufactures short-term incremental opportunities that had a dual purpose of generating societal

discontent in the form of conflict and team building exercises aligned with the grand societal

change plan (Bass, 1985). In essence, the organizer continually generates short-term reactive

emergencies aligned with an amoral proactive long-term vision. Moreover, Alinsky mentioned

freedom as being his goal in order to establish a system of equalized output, but he admits that

his system creates amoral leaders thus making the goal of equalizing output as an admitted

illusion. As a result, the real driving force for change starts and ends with the first organizer

making Alinsky’s book a source for perpetual chaos. Any leadership development opportunities

found in the societal change only happened as an incidental necessity. Either as a part of the

131

organizer’s grand scheme or, as Bass noted, when the next revolutionary organizer identifies the

inequities in the previous organizer’s vision. In turn, harm and negative change become the norm

as predicted in Keller and Yang’s (2008) analysis on poliheuristic theory.

Much like Alinsky (1989) using a leader and a small team with limited leadership

development potential to drive change, Iacocca (2007) had a similar construct to drive change.

Another similarity that Iacocca had when compared to Alinsky; Iacocca believed crisis was the

crucible used to create leaders. A majority of Iacocca’s career ignored the leadership

responsibility to develop talent, especially during the most successful stages of his life. His

preferred method to fill an open position on his staff involved handpicking a leader via talent-

based review and an interview process. A process Bennis and Ward-Biederman (1997) praised in

their book concerning the establishment of great teams. This practice of handpicking led Iacocca

to make what he would describe as his worse business decision. It occurred when he selected a

person outside of Chrysler to replace him as CEO. Later in the book, he offered the concept of

mentoring to drive leadership development and proactive change. As a result, the concept of

mentoring softens his previous reactive position of using crisis and handpicked teams to drive

change. The concept of mentoring and using it as a force-multiplier to drive positive change is

similar to King’s (1986) belief in “all life being interrelated” (p. 20). Iacocca incorporated this

concept of interrelatedness when he wrote about leadership “being part of a bigger picture” (p.

245) and “advance the common good” (p. 23). Yet, when comparing Iacocca with King,

Iacocca’s inconsistency stands out. Iacocca wanted to use mentoring to drive change, but his life

is an example of him leading a small highly talented team to drive change. Unfortunately,

Iacocca’s inconsistencies and Alinsky’s contradictions make the authors more similar than not.

132

The important difference between King (1986), Alinsky (1989) and Iacocca (2007), is the

belief in the individual. For King, the real driving force for change is an enlightened populace

that practices agape, individual responsibility, and personal continual improvement. King’s

method requires the leader to serve the followers by assisting them in maximizing their potential

as the leader and followers work together to solve a societal need. As a result, the driving force

for change is truly a compilation of inputs from an abundance of individuals with varying levels

of development and experiences. Kouzes and Posner (2007) defined this as a cross-functional

approach to positive social change. The inputs from a variety of sources help identify the need or

problem. In addition, the inputs should always offer a solution. Contrary to the King’s proactive

approach, reactive leadership is the continual use of crisis in which Keller & Yang (2008)

deemed to be predictable and inefficient. However, crisis to Alinsky provided a reason to change

since he wanted to create and manipulate it in order to implement an action that may or may not

have anything to do with any previously stated reason for social change. Even worse, as Iacocca

noted, when the change agenda is in direct opposition to the social norms of society, the failure

in leadership becomes an example of an amoral leader. Alinsky's use of crisis and leaders always

involved in crisis supplied King with examples that led him to believe that leaders who

continually react to change are an example of amoral or failed leadership, making them

detrimental to leadership development.

In noting a similar outcome, as identified by Keller and Yang (2008), Iacocca admitted

that even though crisis creates leaders, crisis also generates hate and fear in both leaders and

followers. Decisions based on fear and hate often restricts the amount of options to overcome the

crisis, which in turn generate poor leadership development opportunities. Those leaders using

crisis as means to generate change are flirting with disaster. This led King (1986) to believe that

133

reactive responses to change rarely produce positive social change opportunities. To use King’s

belief that hate begets hate, so does fear as fear begets fear and Alinsky style manipulation, hate,

and societal ignorance. That is why King countered fear, ignorance, hate, and eventual

manipulation with education, love, the Law of Reciprocity, and the search for a complete life

making the individual the driving force for change and the leader a servant to that necessity. As

the leader serves, they inspire. After they inspire others to serve, they have fostered an

environment of positive social change and the force-multiplier effect. Leaders and aspiring

leaders become what King would describe as beacons of light and the consummate POML.

In using the driving force for change criteria, which includes proactive responses to social

need requiring input from multiple individuals at differing levels of development to enact

positive social change, all three authors had varying success in meeting this criteria. Alinsky’s

(1989) perspective included reactive and proactive responses to an organizer’s manufactured

need in order to generate a crisis. This crisis influences others, defined as have-nots, to believe

that Alinsky’s perspective is correct. With the organizer identifying an actual or pseudo-

legitimate societal need, it provides justification for the have-nots to take from the haves, since it

has been the haves committing crimes of social injustice; thereby, the have-nots become victims’

outcome inequality. As a result, it limits the types of input and coerces groupthink throughout the

have-nots. Change is the goal, positive or negative change is an irrelevant concept to Alinsky.

For those that Alinsky defined as the haves, their eventual destruction is the long-term goal.

Like Alinsky, Iacocca (2007) had a centralized plan to drive change via crisis since he

believed crisis is necessary to forge leaders. Crisis requires a great leader and a small team of

highly talented individuals to react to the necessity of change that might produce outputs

beneficial to the society in general. Mentoring and being a force multiplier for change is an

134

option; however, it is dependent upon the necessity of the crisis. Unlike Alinsky and Iacocca’s

centralized plan that focused on the leader as being the driving force for change, King (1986) had

a decentralized approach that focuses on the individual. Not only was King’s belief in the

individual different, he also believed in the individual’s potential and the potential to be

responsible in a socially acceptable manner. His inclusive methodology has the greatest potential

to protect freedom and drive positive social change.

Competition

As a part of the human condition, Alinsky (1989), Iacocca (2007), and King (1986) noted

that change is a constant. In order to survive this constant change, Alinsky believed that humans

had to develop a competitive instinct that was integral to their survival. Furthermore, Alinsky

also believed that an efficient leader or organizer has to manipulate this competitive spirit in

order to grow and maintain a power base. Manipulation to inspire either action or inaction came

in various forms. King, and to a lesser extent Iacocca, tried to incorporate an individual’s

competitive desire into proactive responses to anticipated competition. However, responses to

competition ranged from Alinsky’s version of polarizing win-lose scenarios to King’s positive

change win-win scenarios. Whether polarizing or positive, each author’s perspective had

differing effects on the leader, those followers within the leader’s organizational sphere of

influence and those outside the leader’s sphere of influence. Consequently, the POML

perspective to competition strives to achieve a win, win, and win scenario. In a win, win, and win

scenario, a positive outcome must occur for the leader, those individuals in the leader’s operative

group, and those indirectly affected by the action.

In Alinsky's (1989) Machiavellian-style perception of a world with haves and have-nots,

a win-win result is the exception and not the rule. The acquisition of power and its maintenance

135

require a reactive polarized enemy that aids the organizer to rally his or her followers and recruit

others to the cause. An organizer uses amoral tactics that include, but not limited to social

disobedience, lying, withholding information, intimidation, blackmail, extortion, and even

violence. As the organizer goes about instigating change, Alinsky thought it is more immoral for

the organizer to fail than to worry about the social moral implications of his or her actions. This

win at any cost mentality meant the aspiring leader has to pursue an amoral transformational

leadership style that has a transactional quality. It is transactional because it manipulates lower

level needs of followers within the organization. As an exchange for the necessities of life, the

manipulation mobilizes the followers against an enemy identified by the organizer that represents

a social inequity. The transformational quality occurs after the defeat of the identified enemy

thereby discrediting a social entity of the haves and forcing it to concede power to the organizer.

Consequently, this provides the organizer or leader of the movement more opportunities for

societal change, while the unending conflict prevents the organizer or leader to reach their

maximum development potential since the eternal search for new ideas is always in direct

competition with improving and developing the old ones.

Continuously tearing down the old paradigms meant the organizer or leader rarely builds

anything of consequence since it meant the establishment of a new order of haves. In Alinsky’s

(1989) world vision, it means the newly created paradigms become a despised enemy of the

newly ordained have-nots. That is why Alinsky believed it was morally acceptable to purge the

newly created have-nots from society since they represent the old system. Purging the

competition in the form of an enemy from the newly created society is a practice that Bass

(1985) identified as transformational when extolling the virtues of Hitler. Burns (1978) offered

confirmation when complimenting the transformational qualities of Stalin and Mao. The purge in

136

this instance buys the new leader time to establish their version of order and create systems to

suppress competition and rival societal ideas. In maximizing the negativity of this action and

converting followers into eternal victims of the previous regime, the negative social constructs

prohibit any growth or development since the alternative is to become an identified enemy. For

those deemed as enemies, their total financial, emotional, and even physical destruction is of

little consequence.

The great contradiction that Alinsky (1989) poses in his concepts that supposedly create a

new world order occur at the outset, he framed his ideas on social change as radical, new,

intelligent, and socially invigorating. Alinsky concedes he created his system based on a

Machiavellian power-system that is more than 500-years old. It means Alinsky used a zero-sum

approach to power and competition as identified by Houghton and Yoho (2005), which is not

radical, new, and socially invigorating. In the zero-sum approach to leadership, leadership is not

dynamic or transformational; it is transactional as leader searches to eliminate competition that

may erode the leader’s power-base. In total, when compared to King’s (1986) competition

perspective, an Alinsky style competition is a loss for the leader since it encourages long-term

negativity, a loss for the followers since they will always be a victim of some change event, and

he designed his system to destroy any internal or external competition. It purposely harms

freedom and any dynamic leadership potential because they pose as the greatest threat to

Alinsky’s Machiavellian-based system. It is ironic that Alinsky portrayed his book as the quest

for freedom.

Iacocca (2007) had an ambivalent or erratic take on the concept of competition.

Competition is a necessity that drives leadership to improve. Especially when Iacocca believed, a

leader only demonstrates greatness when he or she crushes the opposition. However, his book

137

revealed other inconsistencies. For example, Iacocca demanded competitive fairness in the

marketplace. Conversely, he asked the U.S. government to tip the scales of fairness in his

company’s favor when the government bailed out Chrysler. As a form of crony capitalism, if a

leader uses a political connection to provide anomalous resources, then King (1986) defined that

form of competitive-fairness as another form of tokenism. Since competition makes or breaks the

leader from Iacocca’s perspective, much like Alinsky (1989), the only measure of success is the

scale to which a leader achieves a stated goal despite the long-term consequences of the process

used to attain it. In addition, a successful outcome did not always equate into a win for those in

the leader’s sphere of influence. Much like the rise and fall of Chrysler, after Iacocca’s departure,

those in the leader’s sphere of influence only experienced a short-term victory before embracing

failure.

Hollow short-term victories reinforced King’s (1986) point about establishing long-term

processes of success that involves leadership development and harnessing humanity’s

competitive nature. The consequence to this dynamic potential is that it requires the leader to

relinquish power. At Chrysler, to Iacocca’s own admission, he and his leadership team failed to

relinquish enough power needed to set up long-term systems of success. According to King and

even Alinsky’s (1989) principles about leadership development and competition, this meant that

Iacocca should have relinquished some control of Chrysler long before his departure. Iacocca

confirmed this reality when he admitted to making a mistake in handpicking a successor instead

of investing the time and power to develop a successor. Despite Iacocca’s best intentions in

transcending differences and promoting collaboration, he did not develop what Harland et al.

(2005) would call a multitude of dynamic teams ripe with competing ideas and leadership

potential. Unfortunately, Iacocca’s short-term successful outcome obscured the needs of

138

individuals outside of Iacocca leadership team’s direct sphere of influence. Since Iacocca

restricted information to his hand selected leadership team, Van Breukelen et al (2006) noted that

this restricts leadership development. Instead of doing root-cause analysis to determine why

Chrysler eventually failed, Iacocca’s book turned into a search for a scapegoat questioning his

successor’s and President George W. Bush’s leadership abilities. Failing to setup self-reliant

leadership development systems meant short-term wins turned into long-term losses. For

example, when comparing King to Iacocca, Iacocca promoted innovation and empowerment via

the competitive spirit but was inconsistent in backing it up with a consistent long-term inclusive

vision because he was always chasing his next impressive victory. On the other hand, King

promoted innovation and empowerment via the competitive spirit, as captured in his long-term

vision that emphasizes the individual as King defined in a dream. Using positive action, this

dream became a win for humanity in general.

As previously mentioned, King (1986) in many ways was a polar opposite of Alinsky

(1989), despite struggling with his own consistency issues that had the potential to ensnare the

leader in a trap of their own making. King based his theories on nonviolence, the Good

Samaritan, and agape; in turn, they epitomized the classic win-win competitive scenario. A

leader’s obligation is to assist others and thereby him or herself. Unlike Alinsky, who exploited

differences, King believed a functional leader must understand the differences and work to

appreciate them in every one of his followers instead of emphasizing the differences as an

anarchical righteous cause. In using the Tower of Babel example, King believed the

understanding of differences did not require conformity and standardization. For King, every

person in a society held a portion of the ultimate truth. Consequently, he meant it as a method to

share knowledge while emphasizing competitiveness in the arena of ideas. He encouraged

139

individuality as a means to discourage groupthink. Analogous to Karricker’s (2005) perspective,

this diversity of thought generates an abundance of dynamic information and ideas, which are a

boon for the aspiring leader. Furthermore, in a similar fashion to Iacocca’s (2007) have a mentor,

be a mentor, the opportunity to inform, be involved, encourage responsible action and empower

offers those in and outside the leader’s direct sphere of influence the maximum potential for

leadership development. King extended an overture of freedom to those external and

philosophically different from the leader’s sphere of influence. This inclusive overture includes

the leader turning to the other cheek if offended during any clash of ideas or beliefs.

In these instances of conflict or competitive disagreement, a leader or aspiring leader

encounters the first of two potential pitfalls. For example, the first potential pitfall as King

(1986) admitted, self-defense is acceptable and understandable for the realistic pacifist.

However, preemptive action encourages Alinsky style hate since there is an ever-present

potential for preemption to turn into revenge and revenge into successive preemption. Bass

(1985) believed preemptive action encouraged conflict when dealing with transactional or

traditional amoral leaders with a narcissistic facade of being transformational. As soon as

preemption disintegrates in to open conflict, as defined by Bass, it has harmed the freedom of all

involved in the conflict and restricted leadership development to Machiavellian and subsequently

Alinsky (1989) style subservient leaders as Houghton and Yoho (2005) had predicted.

Despite follower dependency being the goal of most transformational leaders, as

Houghton and Yoho (2005) believed, King (1986) admitted that his belief in selflessness and

servitude had its drawbacks, which ultimately led to dependency and the second potential pitfall.

King cautioned these individuals who desire acceptance into the leader’s sphere of influence,

these individuals do so at the risk of surrendering their own competitive individuality. This

140

submissive action comes as an exchange as the individual offers their individuality and

competitive spirit, in exchange for a reduction in individual responsibility while increasing the

leader's power-base. King thought the leader exacerbates the situation when in an effort of

selfless servitude to win individuals over and avoid conflict; the leader creates systems of

redistribution to equalize outcomes making it desirable for the individual to cede their

competitive spirit and individuality. However, as Fairhurst (2005) surmised, framed conflict

avoidance, redistribution, and outcome based equality only ensures that a potential follower

becomes dependent as the follower loses their competitive spirit, responsibility, dignity, and

eventually their freedom. Houghton and Yoho (2005) thought dependence upon the leader only

strengthens the leader’s power at the expense of the individual.

Finally, when comparing King’s (1986) beliefs concerning competitive self-reliance with

systems that generate dependency, as espoused by various authors, King believed dependency

opened the door to societal horrors. For example, King thought that if a leader works to increase

a follower’s dependency, the leader reduces the follower’s individualistic moral clarity.

Poignantly, reducing a follower’s moral clarity is a stated goal of both Alinsky (1989) and Bass

(1985) and their amoral transformational theories. Alinsky thought it made the follower pliable

when carrying out the leader’s vision and eliminating competition. In turn, as King warned, this

undoubtedly makes the followers unprepared for the extremes of life and setting them up to

become an amoral leader’s beast of burden. As a result, domination by destroying the

individual’s willpower or lavishing them with undeserving love will only open the door to apathy

and hate while destroying their leadership development potential.

Competition will always be the leader’s constant companion, especially as the leader

develops beyond the selfish constraints found in a transformational leader and adopts

141

empowering and POML attributes. As King (1986) believed, it is the individual’s responsibility

to evaluate the outcome of a competitive event on whether it was positive, negative, or an

opportunity for improvement regardless of the outcome. The competitive event could be many

things: for example, a personal goal, defeating an opponent or achieving a mutually agreeable

outcome. The competitive concepts of Alinsky (1989) and Iacocca (2007) present a certain

reality as described by King; the ugliness found in their systems of hate will force a leader and

his or her followers to make convenient choices during times of great turmoil and inconvenience.

The best of leaders will see convenient choices for what they are and anticipate them in order to

mitigate their negative impact, thereby producing a win, win, and winnable scenarios. Alinsky,

Iacocca, and King fully agreed on one crucial topic from their differing points of view. If a

leader, or a developing leader, makes a decision based on personal convenience when faced with

a competitive adversary they are amoral from a societal point of view; in addition, the leader has

exposed them self to various forms of manipulation. Consequently, as King alluded to, they

become examples of failed leadership because they presented their competitors a weakness. Any

reaction to an exploited weakness without a humble acceptance usually compounds the failure.

In turn, they open the door to societal harm and put positive social change at risk.

Positive Social Change

Alinsky (1989), Iacocca (2007), and King (1986) had various approaches to encouraging

individuals to become a factor in implementing their version of social change. From a POML

perspective, the concept of positive social change has subjective qualities that question whether

the change generated by the authors was positive. The subjective aspects found in the authors’

work involved the change event. Did it promote the positive development of others? In some

instances, an author appeared to be developing a leader that promoted change that destroyed

142

others in order to grow a power base. Much like the change described by the three authors, the

positive social change aspect a POML focuses on is a society’s authentic need, which is the

development of others. This need has to be a liberating and empowering motive for an individual

to become a force-multiplier of social change. However, as King illustrated several times, hate

has always provided a follower the illusion of need as it generates pseudo liberation and

empowerment. That is why the POML has to include criteria such as protecting freedom,

encouraging morally inclusive individual responsibility and seeking to develop and empower

leadership throughout society. It is the holistic POML leadership concept that helps separate the

authors and adds clarity to the intent of their social change premises.

Social change was one of Alinsky’s (1989) main objectives in his book Rules for

Radicals. In the book, Alinsky wrote about positive social change as returning to the concepts

that drove the American Revolution in the late 1700’s. However, he also included an equalized

outcome concept that King (1986) classified as a prerequisite to class warfare and generating

systems of hate. This contradiction was a part of Alinsky’s perception of reality, which is a

never-ending struggle between haves and have-nots. Dissimilar to King and Iacocca (2007),

Alinsky believed that central planning is necessary to develop a “smaller, simpler, and more

orderly world” (p. xv) and “the greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself”

(p. xxiv). Iacocca believed that there is nothing smaller and simpler about central planning.

Concerning freedom, King thought freedom without morality and laws is anarchy, which

supports Alinsky’s statement. However, Alinsky did not believe in socially structured morality,

except the moral code he created for organizers. Moreover, laws are tools Alinsky used to burden

and eventually trap targets of opportunity using rhetoric and contradiction. Lastly, even though

143

Alinsky sought to develop and empower leadership, the group he allowed to develop was often

relatively small, mostly made up of potential organizers and future leaders.

King (1986) was very concerned about the destruction of morality; its demise indirectly

allows restrictions on information and freedom to occur. In addition, the absence of morality

limits the leadership development potential of all individuals. He would go further and describe

the act of a leader promoting a change activity as being positive when it destroys morality as

tokenism. For example, Alinsky (1989) used hate-based systems that offered the token

development and empowerment found in collectivism. According to Gorlorwulu and Rahschulte

(2010), these systems force the individual to surrender their power in the form of personal

responsibility and moral clarity to manipulating controlling entities that refocus their competitive

spirit to support systems of hate. Similarly, Van Breukelen et al. (2006) thought systems that

restrict information are counterintuitive to positive social change since it restricts the expansion

of high quality relationships necessary for leadership development to a select group in the

leader’s inner circle. Alinsky, to his own admission, designed his version of social change to be

highly selective and was content with the reality that he reclassified the masses as an expendable

commodity. Alinsky knew he could not save everyone; those deemed as targets or an undesirable

societal fit are the first to go in a societal purge. In the process of purging the undesirables, it will

be necessary to sacrifice some of his followers for his version of the greater good. According to

King, this concept of the masses being an expendable commodity is equivalent to those who

suffered under fascist or communist rule; these systems convert individuals into beasts of burden.

While Alinsky (1989) developed a long-term perspective that purposely-jeopardized

humanity, Iacocca (2007) created limited short-term concepts that made lasting positive social

change difficult. For example, his system to rebuild America has holistic long-term concepts

144

similar to Alinsky’s, such as create emergencies, the equalized output concept of shared

sacrifice, social simplification, and eliminating systematic inefficiencies. In his book, Iacocca

decided to target the automotive industry as the only means of America’s revival. As a result, his

rebuilding of America concept fell short in solving the issue of failed leadership that his own

book attempted to address. This became evident when comparing Iacocca’s thoughts to King’s

(1986) continual improvement notions that included the three dimensions of a complete life.

Furthermore, Iacocca’s shortsightedness carried over into his belief in the Nine C’s of leadership,

which has more to do with defining the qualities of a narcissistic leader than helping an aspiring

individual to become a better leader.

In essence, Iacocca’s book questioned leadership while attempting to provide insights to

significant social change using leadership; however, the crux of what he had to offer would fall

into what King described as tokenism. Iacocca’s theories attempted to address leadership and

social change, but lacked any real substance to help the follower get there and take ownership of

their own life. Only as an afterthought did Iacocca attempt to encourage readers to practice

something similar to King’s belief in agape and the search for a complete life. Despite Iacocca’s

stances on individual responsibility, mentoring, and a tepid acceptance of morality, it is not

surprising that his belief in leaders needing to take control of a situation had more information

about taking control than leading a positive social change movement that promotes freedom,

empowerment, and long-term systematic improvement.

In sharp contrast to Alinsky (1989) and to a lesser extent Iacocca (2007), King (1986)

promoted social change that focuses on the individual and a theory of nonviolence similar to

Gandhi’s beliefs. Alinsky scoffed at Gandhi’s theories of nonviolence; he asserted that in 1930’s

Hitler’s goons would have executed him. As a result, Gandhi’s theories on nonviolence were

145

impractical to Alinsky. Alinsky using Hitler as an example serves King’s point; amoral social

change only creates amoral systems of dependency, hate and eventually the general population’s

servitude. In a similar manner, to Alinsky’s point, Iacocca (2007) hoped leaders with moral

clarity would take charge during periods of great turmoil and change. This served another one of

King’s point about an informed populace made up of individuals proactively driving the focus of

social change; using agape, the individuals within a society would avoid periods of significant

turmoil and dramatic change. As a result, King suggested measured proactive improvement is

better than turmoil when trying to identify a competent leader. Consequently, it makes a great

leader to be unnecessary because the changes they impose during times of turmoil have a

negative effect on leadership development and positive social change. As Van Breukelen et al.

(2006) noted, any societal turmoil only forces individuals to focus on their lower level needs.

With individuals focusing on their lower level needs, high quality relationships disintegrate

forcing the great leader to gather power in to a central planning system. As a result, this becomes

a predictable poliheuristic outcome (Keller & Yang, 2008). King would continue by suggesting

any social change based on a great leader promoting ignorance, equalized outcome, segregated

social justice, and centralized planning as madness. The great leader’s actions only encourage the

most abhorrent of human emotions. As evidence, Alinsky designed his system of amoral social

change to feed off the great leaders and systems that Iacocca promoted in his book.

Three things that Iacocca (2007) brought forward that had similarities to King’s (1986)

writings included: leaders have to be accountable for their actions, leaders need to be morally

sound, and they need to be mentors. These similarities served as the leadership development

foundation that drove King’s approach to the Civil Rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

King elaborated by noting that leaders need to educate, empower other potential leaders, and

146

continue to receive education in order to prevent a positive social change movement from

faltering into a social change event. As King repeated several times, it is the process and not the

outcome that profoundly establishes lasting positive social change. By energizing the apathetic

and ill informed into becoming leaders of positive change, King hoped to create a force-

multiplier effect built on love and a complete life of continual improvement. Furthermore, he

built his concept of positive social change on the holistic qualities of love, freedom, equalized

opportunity, learning, individual responsibility, the search for a calling, mentoring, and

empowerment, which all support his version of leadership development. Furthermore, as Kouzes

and Posner (2007) noted, it is a leader's responsibility to protect and improve those qualities for

future generations of potential leaders. This belief is strikingly different from Alinsky (1989). It

was Alinsky’s belief that the organizer is the focal point of what he described as a centralized

entity, systematically endorsing and promoting hate that infringed upon the holistic rights of

individuals. This profound difference in the concept of positive social change is why King

believed social change could not be vindictive. Social change must be inclusive rather than

exclusive in order for a society to experience lasting and positive change.

Positive social change as laid out by Alinsky (1989), Iacocca (2007), and King (1986) all

have some inclusive qualities. Alinsky and Iacocca’s social change approach starts as an

inclusive event; however, it becomes leader centric as soon as the manufactured emotional social

need identifies a centrally engineered social change reaction. According to King, as soon as the

driving force of change becomes leader centric, it excludes groups of people. Furthermore, the

problem with an emotional reaction to social need, as Schröder and Scholl (2009) noted, emotion

provides the potential for manipulation, and the emotional actions carried out are often corrosive

to freedom while being intolerable to laws or morality. Conversely, King’s approach is always

147

about the inclusiveness of the individual especially as it pertains to interrelatedness. For social

change to become effective, it must avoid the exclusive tendencies that include equalized

outcome, segregated social justice, politically correct education, and centralized planning. These

tendencies often lead to what King would define as tokenism and eventual systems of hate.

Effective positive social change must have inclusive qualities that include agape, morality,

individual responsibility, freedom, equalized opportunity, and the search for a calling. For a

social system to span generations, its design must include a system that protects the basic

qualities that promote positive social change, which includes the transference of knowledge

concerning the system, leadership development, and empowerment. For King, he believed that

love, knowledge, the exchange of knowledge, and an individual having the freedom to act on that

knowledge are integral to his dream of a better society.

Conclusion

The application focused on the theories espoused by Alinsky, Iacocca, and King.

However, empowering leadership traits provided by Kouzes and Posner (2007) as identified in

the breadth serve as the foundation for the entire KAM; consequently, they also serve as the

introductory POML concepts used in the analysis of each section. The analysis in the breadth

examined several primary leadership theories. The analysis used three of the six empowering

leadership traits as root concepts of leadership development. Moreover, these empowering

leadership traits help establish POML as a grounded concept. The empowering leadership traits

used as POML concepts were leadership development, morality, and the leader-follower

relationship. Research on leadership development continued in the depth, I used the remaining

empowering leadership traits to analyze current literature. In this instance, the empowering

leadership traits used as POML concepts were the driving force for change, competition, and

148

positive social change. From a POML perspective, these empowering leadership traits are action-

oriented as well as empowering, making them necessary rudiments of leadership development.

The POML concepts used in the breadth and depth also serve as section headers in the

application. Furthermore, they provided direction in analyzing, identifying relevant POML

concepts, and rule out divergent thoughts that were antithetical to POML development and

positive social change. This process enhanced the concept of POML to the point where it was

possible to synthesize the maxim: first, do no harm and then seek positive social change. The

maxim assumes that leadership development is the force-multiplier for positive social change.

The application uses this maxim, and the compilation of analysis from the breadth and depth to

compare three iconic authors. Their differing approach to social change was the method used to

select Alinsky, King, and Iacocca.

The application used the maxim and the opposing concepts espoused by Alinsky (1989),

Iacocca (2007), and King (1986) to triangulate an enhanced version of POML theory promoting

positive social change. The triangulation process included analyzing the perspectives of Alinsky,

Iacocca, and King concerning leadership development, morality, leader-follower relationship,

their driving force for change, competition, and positive social change. The wisdom provided by

the authors described in this application reinforces the analysis that generated the maxim

described in the conclusion of the depth. The maxim, first, do no harm, then seek positive social

change captures the overarching premise used to define what an enhanced version of POML

becomes since it incorporates King’s substantive belief in humanity. Ironically, Alinsky’s hate-

based chaos tempered the consistency and resiliency of maxim and then Iacocca’s belief in

mentoring quenched it to obtain a force-multiplier effect. Most importantly, when combining the

perspectives, this maxim evolves in to a Hippocratic Oath for empowering leaders. Especially as

149

it incorporates King’s desire to protect the future of all individuals from the ravages generated by

the Machiavellian power plays as described by Alinsky and Iacocca. In addition, it also promotes

the premise of mutual-cooperation that generates a moral understanding, which eventually opens

the door to brotherly love that King and the ancient Greeks described as agape. The promotion of

mutual-cooperation fosters an environment of social success encouraging individuals to become

leaders, force-multipliers, and ambassadors of positive social change. The output generated from

three iconic leaders strengthens and reinforces the maxim: first, do no harm, and then seek


Doing no harm is a social preventive maintenance concept designed to ensure future

generations have the same basic freedoms available as Alinsky (1989) described when writing

about the first great American revolution. Unlike Alinsky’s version, which includes concepts that

incorporate class warfare and systems of dependency that foment hate, King (1986) and Iacocca

(2007) spoke of equalized opportunity. King was specific in stating equalized opportunity meant

the elimination or reduction in centralized regulations restricting free enterprise and an

individual’s search for a calling. Centralized planning often produces, the inequities found in

segregated social justice, systems of equalized output, and most importantly, systematic

ignorance often found in politically guided public education. Not surprisingly, these same

impediments to opportunity became targets of opportunity for Alinsky. As King noted that of

these impediments to development, overcoming systematic ignorance and an apathetic attitude of

victimization through self-education is the most important aspect to sustaining freedom.

To offset the manipulation fomented by proponents of Alinsky (1989), King (1986)

believed learning had to include social survival skills such as a socially agreed upon language,

writing, history, social self-regulation, math, science, and economics. Since the greatest teacher

150

in life is the experience in doing, the student must understand and appreciate the bitterness of

failure and the fruits of success. With an emphasis on communication and interrelatedness, the

learning must encourage and maximize an individual’s creativity and curiosity. For King, doing

no harm meant the leader works to ensure the individual has the freedom to make choices to

improve their living conditions; to learn as much as each indivdual desires; to teach when called

upon; and as important to lead by serving as an example. Both King and to a lesser extent

Iacocca (2007) believed that a moral understanding is the first step to freedom. Specifically,

King thought the socially acceptable moral understanding aids individuals with similar beliefs to

overcome obstacles and failures because it promotes mutual-cooperation as incorporated in the

Law of Reciprocity. From mutual-cooperation, King thought a group of individuals has the

potential and opportunity to develop open and honest communications along with agape.

Consequently, the concept of doing no harm captures the Hippocratic Oath's requirement that a

leader has to protect an individual’s opportunity to develop in a free society and compel the

leader to abstain from activities that may infringe or harm an individual’s equal opportunity to

succeed. Whether the harm is purposeful or not, doing no harm constrains leaders from creating

contradictory systems that Alinsky sought to exploit.

In doing no harm, the leader is a practitioner of freedom in which the concept serves as a

prerequisite in the evaluation of any social change activity. When building upon the preventive

maintenance survival skills, the leader becomes more than a practitioner of freedom they become

its emissary. According to King (1986), a leader aids in the search for positive social change by

maximizing the concept of freedom using a set of proactive criteria to become a harbinger of

light. This criterion includes assisting individuals in becoming a self-leader; aid others in their

search for a calling; promote continual improvement through formal and experienced-based

151

education; emphasize accountability and the moral equivalent to mutual-cooperation; maintain

an open-minded approach to the interchangeable roles of mentor and mentee, and embrace

interrelatedness in order to avoid the pitfalls of life.

First, as both Alinsky (1989) and King (1986) introduced in their writings, the individual

must develop into becoming responsible and self-sufficient which aids the individual to develop

as a self-leader. Humility enters this process as individual learns and appreciates their

interrelatedness to others in society. This was similar to a theory authored by Houghton and

Yoho (2005); they thought a self-leader needed to have an appetite for learning and the desire to

search out for a calling. A calling, as defined by King, is a professional meaning to life. It can

only exist in an environment where an individual is free to choose a socially acceptable

professional career that makes them happiest. This freedom also allows the individual to make

best use of their opportunity to become the best at it. As the individual pursues their calling, the

individual has a greater potential to develop from an apathetic state of awareness to a self-leader

or even a leader. As this awareness and leadership ability develops, the individual embodies

positive social change. According to King, this personification of positive social change occurs

when the aspiring leader humbly inspires others to maximize their potential while emphasizing

accountability, freedom, and the moral understanding of right and wrong. Similar to Iacocca’s

(2007) belief in an aspiring leader needing to find a mentor and be a mentor, the aspiring leader

serves and learns from those that are in search of their own calling while striving to be leaders, as

well.

The most important lessons a mentor and mentee must learn, according to King (1986), is

that if doing something wrong at a time of inconvenience for the sake of expediency because

doing it right is more difficult, then they will be setting themselves up for systematic failure. In

152

addition, if leaders, aspiring leaders, and self-leaders avoid the pitfalls in life that exploit their

limited belief in themselves, then they will truly have access to their unlimited potential. In

taking the path least travelled, King believed that individuals would naturally follow a path of

light and become force-multipliers of positive social change. In becoming beacons of light while

serving their fellow humans, their actions will not only provide guidance as these POML's lead

by example; their actions automatically become socially proactive maintenance measures against

societal decline.

Alinsky (1989) engineered social destruction by attacking interrelationship using a series

of contradictory logic that emphasizes hate in the form of radicalized freedom. He believed “life

is the story of contradictions” (p. 11) and the future organizer must seek them out and act upon

them since they were the steppingstones to victory. In essence, they provide a path to induce

societal destruction rather than an opportunity to improve. Instead of taking the positive, he

encouraged his followers to pursue the negative. However, the inversion of his perspective

provides profound insight into morally fundamental freedom and positive change. Life is a series

of similarities and diverse thought; a leader must seek them out to aid others. As King (1986)

believed, similarities include interrelatedness, morality, learning, and equalized opportunity as

found in freedom. Diverse thought offers all stakeholders involved in an exchange of ideas the

opportunity to embrace teachable moments. These teachable moments provide opportunities for


To contrast Alinsky, Iacocca (2007) provided an impassioned perspicacity in what was

necessary to be a self-centered great leader. However, Iacocca did concede that the positive

leadership development qualities of interrelatedness and mentoring where necessary for a

complete life. This confirmed King’s (1986) belief in setting up a foundation of holistic

153

leadership development; he wanted to maximize the great potential that exists within every

person in a society. He accomplished leadership development through win-win competition

where everyone can be a self-leader and eventually a POML. As King stressed, it is the

development process that allows an individual to maximize their opportunity in order to become

an emissary of positive change. It was also King’s belief that as an individual blazes a moral path

out of the infinite possibilities; the leader’s responsibility is to ensure that the self-serving

pettiness of those enamored with and the use of power do not impede other individuals’ journeys

of self-discovery. While serving as enablers of freedom, the leader strives to achieve a level of

positive social change that inspires others to find the untapped potential that resides within them.

‘First, do no harm, and then seek positive social change’ for POML is a maxim that promotes the

best in humanity as captured in King’s dream.

As laid out in this essay, positive social change and the concept of POML are

synonymous. It was King’s (1986) belief that all types of leaders have the potential to be

practitioners of positive social change. All these leaders need to do is be morally humble in their

expressions of agape, which requires action that exceeds the standard of being a Good Samaritan.

In addition, it requires the responsible pursuit of a complete life. The spiritual aspect of this

pursuit is simple; it is the pursuit of an understanding that allows an individual to overcome any

adversity with optimism and resilience. It is the belief that we, as a society, can use our diverse

individualism to overcome obstacles and that the greater good is our interrelated collective

intelligence. Being a POML and being a practitioner of the maxim, first, do no harm, and then

seek positive social change; I hope to live positive social change every day of my life. The path I

take is difficult, because it is difficult to get individuals to believe in themselves and that they

have enormous potential. It is the path least taken; a point made by Bass (1985) when he noted, it

154

has been humanity's historical inclination concerning leadership where leaders order some

individuals to provide for others. I choose to help those to provide for themselves, so everyone

can have the opportunity to learn more about them self, our interrelatedness, and the universe we

live. This is my path to positive social change as I develop as a leader in search of a complete life

while practicing the POML maxim. I will endeavor to persevere in becoming one of King’s

beacons of light.

155

References

Alinsky, S. D. (1989). Rules for radicals: A pragmatic primer for realistic radicals. New York,

N.Y.: Vintage Books.

Barbuto, Jr. J. E. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and transformational

leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies; 11,

26-40. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100403.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free

Press.

Bennis, W. & Ward-Biederman, P. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative

collaboration. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the One Minute Manager.

New York, NY: William Morrow Co.

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

Fairhurst, G. T. (2005). Reframing the art of framing: Problems and prospects for leadership.

Leadership, 1, 165. doi: 10.1177/1742715005051857.

Gorlorwulu, J. & Rahschulte, T. (2010). Organizational and leadership implications for

transformational development. Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic

Mission Studies, 27, 199 – 208. doi: 10.1177/0265378810369955.

Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of ‘leadership’. Human

Relations, 58, 1467-1494. doi: 10.1177/0018726705061314.

Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership behaviors and

subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 2-14. doi:

10.1177/107179190501100202.

156

Harms, P.D. & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional

leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 5-17.

doi: 10.1177/1548051809350894.

Hetland, H., Sandal, G. M., & Johnsen, T. B. (2008). Followers' personality and leadership.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 322- 331. doi:

10.1177/1548051808315550.

Houghton, J. D. & Yoho, S. K. (2005). Toward a contingency model of leadership and

psychological empowerment: When should self-leadership be encouraged? Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 65-83. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100406.

Iacocca, L. & Whitney, C. (2007). Where have all the leaders gone? New York, NY: Scribner.

Ibbotson, P. (2008). The illusion of leadership: Directing creativity in business and the arts.

Great Britain: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Karriker, J. H. (2005). Cyclical group development and interaction-based leadership emergence

in autonomous teams: An integrated model. Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 11, 54-64. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100405.

Keller, J. W. & Yang, Y. E. (2008). Leadership style, decision context, and the poliheuristic

theory of decision making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52,

687-712. doi: 10.1177/0022002708320889.

King, M. L. (1986). A testament of hope: The essential writings and speeches of Martin Luther

King, Jr. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

King, M. L. (1988). The measure of a man. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

157

Muczyk, J. P. & Holt, D. T. (2008). Toward a cultural contingency model of leadership. Journal

of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 277-286. doi: 10.1177/1548051808315551.

Scandura, T. A. & Pellegrini, E. K. (2008). Trust and leader member exchange: A closer look at

relational vulnerability. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 101-110.

doi: 10.1177/1548051808320986.

Schröder, T. & Scholl, W. (2009). Affective dynamics of leadership: An experimental test of

affect control theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72 ( 2), 180-197.

Van Breukelen, W., Schyns, B., and Le Blanc, P. (2006). Leader-member exchange theory and

research: Accomplishments and future challenges. Leadership, 2, 295-316. doi:

10.1177/1742715006066023.

Vecchio, R. P., Bullis, R. C., & Brazil, D. M. (2006). The utility of situational leadership theory:

A replication in a military setting. Small Group Research, 37, 407-424. doi:

10.1177/1046496406291560.

Triangulating freedom & leadership

Documents

Transcript of Triangulating freedom & leadership