Examine Successful Organizational Leaders
OLB 7004, Assignment 3
DuBose, Justin Z.
Dr. Rosa Cassell
28 January 2018
Tony Hsieh seems to possess a combination of leadership characteristics to include transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, and situational leadership (Landis, 2014). Hsieh has managed to radically transform not only the online shoe company, Zappos.com, but an entire area of downtown Las Vegas. He has taken advantage of a unique situation and, using his charismatic personality to inspire and motivate his workforce, he has transformed their working environment.
This transformation took place despite a tremendous cut in Hsieh’s working force upon his arrival as CEO of Zappos. In an article published by Business Insider, Feloni (2016) reported that 18% of Zappos employees took severance packages and left the company when faced with working under Hsieh’s “holacracy” where each employee is self-managed and traditional structures and titles are eliminated. This new working environment, while cutting almost one-fifth of his workforce, drastically transformed both employees and overall production.
Hsieh also undertook a project which fits his leadership style of transformational and charismatic leadership: a $350 million renovation of downtown Las Vegas which would transform the area into “a mecca for entrepreneurs” (Guzman, 2016).
Anderson (2017) notes that transformational leadership is characterized primarily by four leadership factors: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Idealized influence attracts followers who want to be like them. Inspirational motivation casts a vision which motivates followers to participate. Intellectual stimulation is a providing of challenges which increase creativity and development. Lastly, individualized consideration leads them to consider and attend to the needs of their followers and encourage personal growth. In each of these categories, Hsieh’s transformational leadership is evident in his influence of employees and ideas, his motivation of workers to meaningfully contribute, his stimulation by freeing employees under his “holacracy”, and his consider of each individual in his workforce.
Leadership Categorization Theory
The study of Leadership Categorization Theory (LCT) and Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) began with the research of Robert Lord in the 1980’s. Lord (1984) began studying how followers categorized typical and ideal leaders as well as how leaders categorized typical and ideal leaders. This led to Lord et al (1984) conducting three separate studies on leadership categorization. In synthesizing the results of his research, and related results of similar studies, he observed that leaders should endeavor to understand the implicit theories held by their followers in order to maximize and improve performance appraisals. In other words, Lord et al (1984) discovered that followers hold implicit theories about what constitutes good leadership and internally categorize leaders accordingly. Therefore, it behooves the leader to understand the implicit leadership theories held by their followers in order to improve their own appraisals and evaluations.
Perception of Leader Success
LCT and ILT have everything to do with perception. A leader seeks to understand how each follower perceives success in order not only to lead well, but to increase the confidence of the follower and the leader and, ultimately, increase their performance as well. Research has supported this notion of ILT and its impact of follower perception of leader success, and such perception has consistently been proven to be a powerful, albeit subjective, criteria for analysis. Junker (2014) observed that followers often do not rate or judge leaders based on actual behavior and results, but rather on their own subjective impressions of leadership which may or may not accurately reflect the leader in his/her context. Similarly, it was reported that followers experience a higher degree of satisfaction in their jobs when the leader fits their own implicit theories of leadership.
In studying LCT and ILT, researchers have discovered several common traits and characteristics generally held by followers which contribute to their perception of leadership success. Junker (2014) notes that very few studies “have investigated implicit followership theories”, but that studies have revealed certain characteristics as being embedded within implicit leadership theories of the typical and ideal leader. Among such characteristics are “a masculine face and being tall” which “give the image of being competitive”. Whether these categorizations by followers of leadership are completely accurate or entirely false, they are strong enough to influence both leader and follower and should not be ignored by those in positions of leadership within organizations. The research of Junker (2014) concluded that the importance of implicit theories regarding leadership and followership cannot be overstated as such theories have been proven to influence not only how leaders and followers interpret one another’s behavior, but how they actually behave toward one another.
Effectiveness of Leadership Categorization
Since LCT and ILT, while rooted in the subjective perception of both leaders and followers, has been proven to impact performance and relationships, the issue of its effectiveness continues to gain momentum in research. In particular, the application of LCT and ILT in leading different generations of followers has been documented. Generational change highlights the effectiveness of LCT and ILT due to the changing perceptions and expectations of different generations. The research of Anderson (2016) suggests that examinations of leadership theories are necessitated by generational differences; that with each successive generational change comes the need for an examination of leadership theories.
As an example, Anderson notes a study by Laird, Harvey, and Lancaster (2015) which demonstrates that although Millennials “have a greater sense of entitlement, they are also more likely to appreciate accountability and feedback from supervisors”. This openness and even welcoming of accountability and feedback from supervisors changes the way that leaders of a previous generation must interact with such a workforce. In an article written for Inc.com, Peter Economy notes that communication for the modern leader is imperative. Specifically, he notes that providing and welcoming feedback is one of the most positively impactful ways to effect change (Economy, 2014).
Likewise, in an interview with Valarle Willis, the question was posed regarding the effectiveness of authoritarian leadership as compared to influential leadership when leading a workforce of Generation X and Y employees. Valarle responded, in part, that “while authoritative leadership only has room for one leader, influential leadership allows the leader in everyone to be brought forward. In today's fast-paced, rapidly changing environment, everyone has to be a leader.” (Willis, 2015) Glenn Llopis, a consultant who deals with workforce development and business strategy took the idea of leadership communication to a greater depth by not only noting that leaders must be great communicators, but they must use their presence to create a workplace atmosphere of open communication. Llopis states that leaders are “experts at making others feel safe to speak-up and confidently share their perspectives and points of view. They use their executive presence to create an approachable environment.” (Llopis, 2013)
This issue of generational differences in leadership categorization and perception is just one example of the effectiveness of employing LCT by examining the ILT of followers within an organization. Research continues to conclude that LCT is an effective tool for productive and successful leadership.
Implications of Categorization
While LCT has proven to be an effective tool that should be utilized by leaders, its utilization carries with it several implications. Firstly, it requires that leaders constantly evaluate themselves based upon their present context, both the mission in front of them and the followers behind them. Leadership, as observed by Lord et al (1984), is evaluated and categorized by those followers present with the leader, and their appraisal of leadership will be based upon present circumstances according to their own ILT and LCT. This observation is important in that it makes every leadership situation unique and based in the exclusive context of a leader and followers in a particular situation at a particular point in time.
Like Lord et al (1984), Raisio (2015) studied three senior leaders and observed that each leader was able to successfully navigate their own complex work environment and has used that unique to context to shape their own leadership style. The importance of implicit leadership theory is that it is never detached from a localized context and that each group of followers will have their own ideas, images, and theories on leadership which have been shaped and influenced by that context. Therefore, if a leader wishes to achieve success by any measurable standard, they must assess their followers and their implicit leadership theories.
An additional implication of LCT is that the modern workplace and workforce is dynamic and constantly changes. Consequently, not only due demands of a leader evolve, but so do the expectations and ILT’s of those within the organization. Venters et al (2012) studied the impact of LCT of a multi-generational workforce where technology was increasingly integrated into the workforce. In this research, Venters et al (2012) notes that studies have repeatedly concluded that generational differences cause serious strain as it relates to communication and technology. Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers occupy the same workplaces as Gen-Y and Millennials, which makes for serious communication and leadership challenges for organizational leaders. Thus, within the same workforce exist multiple LCT’s and ILT’s to which the leader must constantly adjust and adapt.
These workplace paradoxes were studied by Waldman & Bowen (2016) and the implications they hold for organizational leaders. Their research stressed that leaders be cognizant of implicit leadership theories due to these increasing workplace paradoxes. Leaders must be aware of balancing these paradoxes in order to lead organizations effectively. For example, their research highlights the paradox of “maintaining a strong sense of self while simultaneously maintaining humility” and the paradox of “stressing continuity while simultaneously stressing change”. To best maintain balance between these two poles requires an awareness of not only their own pursuit of these ends, but also how followers perceive their success in these efforts. Additionally, each generational categorizes leaders and their behavior differently and their success in balancing these paradoxes. This is a huge implication of LCT for twenty-first century organizational leaders.
Leadership Categorization Theory and Implicit Leadership Theory have profound effects on leaders and provide a well-balanced sense of the weighty burden of successful leadership. Since leadership can take a variety of forms (transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, servant leadership, transactional leadership, situational leadership, etc.), and since it is always exercised in a unique context and situations, it is imperative that leaders constantly be aware of those whom they are leading and how each follower views leadership. The brief analysis of Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos, demonstrates the potential success of considering the implicit leadership theories of those within the organization and how they individually and collectively categorize their leaders. Hsieh concluded that while 18% of his workforce would not be compatible under his leadership, the other 78% would function well. Thus, he made a calculated and strategic decision to change direction organizationally and the results continue to be positive. A failure in the opposite direction by leaders to successfully evaluate the perceptions of their followers could also have equally disastrous results.
Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., Griffith, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). What works for you may not work for (Gen)Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new generation. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 245-260. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.001
Economy, P. (2014, July). 7 Habits of Remarkably Successful Leaders. Retrieved January 28, 2018, from https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/7-habits-of- remarkably-successful-leaders.html
Feloni, R. (2016, January 28). Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh reveals what it was like losing 18% of his employees in a radical management experiment — and why it was worth it. Retrieved January 28, 2018 from http://www.businessinsider.com/tony- hsieh-explains-how-zappos-rebounded-from-employee-exodus-2016-1
Guzman, Z. (2016, August 9). Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh shares what he would have changed about his $350M downtown Las Vegas project. Retrieved January 28, 2018 from https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/09/zappos-ceo-tony-hsieh-what-i- regret-about-pouring-350-million-into-las-vegas.html
Junker, N. M., & Dick, R. V. (2014). Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1154-1173. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.09.002
Landis, E. A., Hill, D., & Harvey, M. R. (2014). “A synthesis of leadership theories and styles”. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(2). Retrieved January 14, 2018.
Llopis, G. (2013, February 18). The Most Successful Leaders Do 15 Things Automatically, Every Day. Retrieved January 28, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopis/2013/02/18/the-most-successful-leaders- do-15-things-automatically-every-day/#1c0353af69d7
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343-378. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6
Raisio, H., & Lundström, N. (2015). “Real leaders embracing the paradigm of complexity”. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 17(2), 1-5. Accessed January 28, 2018.
Venters, J. W., Green, M. T., & Lopez, D. M. (2012). “Social media: A leadership challenge”. Business Studies Journal, 4, 85-93. Accessed January 28, 2018.
Waldman, D. A., & Bowen, D. E. (2016). “Learning to be a paradox-savvy leader”. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 316-327. Accessed January 28, 2018.
Willis, V. (2015, July). What is the key to successful leadership? Retrieved January 28, 2018 from http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/resource/what-is-the-key-to- successful-leadership.aspx
Document Personal Leadership Styles, Traits, and Theories
OLB 7004, Assignment 2
DuBose, Justin Z.
Dr. Rosa Cassell
21 January 2018
This paper is a self-examination of personal leadership styles, traits, and theories and is comprised of research and self-reflection. While several leadership theories will be discussed, the leadership theory of Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) and 360-degree assessments will be examined in detail and the advantages and disadvantages each adds to leaders and their unique style of leadership. These leadership theories and assessment tools will then be nested within a larger discussion of leadership theories and their unique contribution to the field of organizational leadership.
Style Questionnaire Reflection
A style questionnaire was provided to offer one type of assessment tool for leadership evaluation. Three style questionnaires were completed independently by subordinates and the three assessments were all within 2-3 points of one another. Each questionnaire categorized responses as either “task” or “relationship” and delineated leadership styles as either primarily task-oriented or relationship-oriented. Each category was scored on a scale from very low to very high, with categories including very low, low, moderately low, moderately high, high, and very high. These categories provided a baseline for the leader to understand their leadership style within the larger spectrum of leadership styles. This style questionnaire served as an assessment tool for the leader as a means of increasing self-awareness for the purpose of increasing leadership effectiveness. The three scores from subordinate assessments were as follows:
Table 1. Style Questionnaire Scores
The three scores from these assessments did not yield any unexpected results. The leadership strength of the author has always been relationship development over task fulfillment. When people are treated as the greatest and most valuable resource, relationships will be valued over tasks. This has always been the leadership philosophy of the author and, thus, the results did not provide any surprises. Furthermore, similar assessments and evaluations have previously been submitted to the author by other followers and subordinates which yielded results similar to this questionnaire.
Nevertheless, while relationships receive priority from the leadership, progress will not be achieved without the accomplishment and fulfillment of individual and organizational tasks. To become a more effective and efficient leader, an equilibrium must be achieved in balancing the development of relationships and the accomplishment of tasks. In the future, steps need to be taken to bring up the consistently “moderately low” score of task-oriented leadership. These steps could and should include intentionally and strategically developing a leadership team with task-oriented individuals as well as relationship-oriented individuals. On a personal level, cultivating an openness with subordinates and followers to communicate honestly about specific times and instances when task-oriented leadership is needed or lacking will prove to serve as a positive development to overall leadership.
This assessment is useful in that it positively contributes to awareness on the part of the leader and how his/her actions are perceived by those around them. As with all feedback from human subjects, one must keep in mind that no feedback is completely objective. However, the leader can use discernment and judgment to receive feedback from those around them to become self-aware of “blind spots” and, thus, increase in effectiveness. Showry (2014) notes that awareness is not learned in isolation but in dynamic relationships with others and with an accompanying openness on the part of the leaders to receive feedback from those with whom he/she has a relationship.
360 Degree Assessment
Table 2. Table of Advantages & Disadvantages
Input comes directly from followers, supervisors, and peers
Input is, in some ways, inherently skewed due to subjective responses
Input comes from those who work closely with you and who know and experience your character at a close level
Due to the close nature of the relationship, data can be skewed by a more distorted view of the individual being assessed
Provides a multi-view assessment of the leader from multiple perspectives of those close to the individual being rated
Questions can be worded so that the focus is an inaccurate reflection of the individual being rated and more of a reflection on the perception of the rater
The assessment affords the leader the opportunity to self-reflect on overall leadership style, including strengths and weaknesses, increasing the leaders’ self-awareness
The input which is intended to shape the self-awareness can also develop an inaccurate self-awareness on the part of the leader. Input may not be a true reflection but a composite of inaccurate individual perception
The 360-degree assessment is one tool for assessing leaders by allowing input from those directly impacted by the leadership style and characteristics of the leader. The 360-degree assessment provides input from supervisors, peers, followers, as well as external stakeholders, thus providing an assessment of the leader from all angles. Perhaps the greatest benefit of the 360-degree assessment is that it increases self-awareness on the part of the leader, which research has suggested is one of the most important characteristics of leadership. Showry (2014) suggests that self-awareness on the part of leaders is even more important than IQ and technical skills when it comes to contributing to their success.
An additional benefit of the 360-degree assessment is that the data comes from those who work closely with the leader. These people are the closest to the leader and are the most likely to experience the effects of, and reap the benefits from, their leadership. Research has even suggested that the people and circumstances closest to the leader work together through situations to draw out the leadership qualities of the leader. Steinhoff (2015), speaking of leadership in general, noted that leadership only surfaces itself when circumstantial demands bring it out from within the leader.
These benefits, along with others, comprise the greatest benefit of this tool, which is primarily in the fact that it enhances the awareness of the leader by providing a time and space for the leader to reflect on his or her own leadership and increase self-awareness. This reflection is never a negative process in and of itself. Leising et al (2013) pointed out that even inaccurate self-awareness may provide certain benefits to individuals over individuals who exercise no self-awareness. The example used to highlight this point was the process of applying for college. Leising illustrated individuals who apply for highly selective colleges, noting that those who exercised inaccurate self-awareness by an inflated view of “self” allowed themselves an opportunity to attend such universities while those who did not apply due to a lack of self-reflection guaranteed their non-selection.
CSE and the accompanying tool of the 360-degree assessment, while serving as a new and developing leadership theory, also serve a greater purpose. Self-reflection and self-evaluation can serve to enhance the leadership of the leader regardless of their leadership style; CSE is not a static theory but has dynamic application to every leadership style. For example, Nubold et al (2013), in a 2 X 2-design study, discovered that CSE can serve as a substitute for transformational leadership “in terms of its influence on follower motivation and performance.” Thus, while there exists a plethora of leadership theories (Great Man Theory, transformational leadership theory, servant leadership theory, etc.), CSE and the 360-degree assessment can serve to enhance leadership of any category or style.
This is evident in the traits of CSE, which themselves can be adapted and applied to leadership theories of all varieties. Chang et al (2012) acknowledged four traits of CSE: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability, and locus of control. While these four traits do not serve as individual leadership theories, or even comprise a single theory, they can be applied to leaders of any style or theory. In this sense, CSE and 360-degree assessments can prove effective when applied by any leader, in any organization, of any size, with any purpose and vision, and across any cultural boundaries. In a very practical sense, CSE can and should be coupled with any existing leadership theory to increase leadership efficiency and effectiveness by enhancing self-awareness.
The author, for example, excels in relationship development, according to the input of a small sample of followers and subordinates. However, there is a noticeable lack in the task-oriented leadership style as well which was also reflected in the responses of subordinates on the style questionnaire. If a more thorough 360-degree assessment were to be submitted by supervisors, peers, and external stakeholders, similar input would no doubt be gathered which would reinforce this opinion. The practice of CSE on the part of the author would continue to not only highlight the strength of relationship development and build upon that strength, but it would also continue to highlight the leadership deficiencies in the accomplishments of individual and organizational tasks. Consequently, CSE and 360-degree assessments would increase overall leadership and organizational effectiveness by building on and developing strengths and marginalizing and eliminating weaknesses.
Chang, C., Ferris, D., Johnson, R., Rosen, C., & Tan, J. (2012). “Core Self-Evaluations: A Review and Evaluation of the Literature”. Journal of Management, 38(1), 81- 128. Retrieved January 21, 2018.
Landis, E., Hill, D. & Harvey, M. (2014). “A Synthesis of Leadership Theories and Styles”. Journal of Management Policy & Practice, 15(2), 97-100. Retrieved January 21, 2018.
Leising, D, Borkenau, P., Zimmermann, J., Leonhardt, A., & Schutz, A. (2013). “Positive Self-regard and Claim to Leadership: Two Fundamental Forms of Self-Evaluation”. European Journal of Personality, 27, 565-579. Retrieved January 21, 2018.
Nubold, A., Muck, P.M., & Maier, G.W. (2013). “A new substitute for leadership? Followers’ state core self-evaluations”. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 29-44. Retrieved January 21, 2018.
Showry, M. & Manasa, K. (2014). “Self-Awareness – Key to Effective Leadership”. The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 3(1), 15-26. Retrieved January 21, 2018.
Steinhof, R.L. (2015). “Natural Born Leaders: Use of a Self-Assessment Tool and Benefits to Coaching and Development”. Journal of Practical Consulting, 5(2), 19-28. Retrieved January 21, 2018.
Research and Outline Leadership Theories, Principles, and Impact
OLB 7004, Assignment 1
DuBose, Justin Z.
Dr. Rosa Cassell
14 January 2018
This paper serves three purposes: the synthesis of current leadership theory literature, the application of leadership theory, and a personal reflection on leadership theory. The application of leadership theory will apply leadership theory to an effective leader within my organization, Dr. Scott Borderud, and my observation of his leadership style. A personal reflection will follow in which I will discuss how a deeper understanding of this specific leader can make me a more effective leader.
Synthesis of Leadership Resources
Leaders transform the expectation and reality of followers
Leaders who serve others make the most effectual leaders
Leaders possess a charisma which is visionary and inspiring
Leaders motivate followers through reward/punishment incentives
Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz
Leadership is a conceptualization of leadership traits and behaviors
Gerth & Mills
Leadership is a combination of an individual and their leadership in unique situations
Leadership is contingent upon relational and task-oriented situational demands
Great men bring about great changes in society
Trait Theory of Leadership
Kohs & Irle
Leadership is defined by inherent traits and personality characteristics
Thought processes of a leader must be understood in relation to their situation
Exchange Leadership Theory
A leader is only as effective as the behavior he/she changes in their followers
Bolden & Gosling
Leadership is impactful only a collective and not only and individual scale
Boal & Hooijberg
A “top-down” approach to leadership where an organization is aligned with strategic goals
Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks
Leadership emerges in team performance and team building
Leadership surfaces in those with altruistic behaviors
Leadership includes self-concept and social identity frameworks
Leaders behave contrary to the well-being of followers and the organization
Avolio et al
Leadership encompasses virtual space and virtual workplaces and communication
Cogliser & Brigham
Leadership emerges in entrepreneurial vision and behaviors
Application of Leadership Theory
For the purposes of this paper, my leadership profile will focus on Dr. Scott Borderud. Dr. Borderud is a leader within my organization who serves simultaneously at multiple echelons of leadership. Dr. Borderud serves as a local pastor of a church of approximately 500 congregants as well as the treasurer of our district (three states and approximately one-hundred churches). Previously, I served for three years under Dr. Borderud as an Associate Pastor before departing in 2013 to lead my own congregation.
Dr. Borderud immediately stuck out to me because of his unique leadership behavior and traits which positively impacted my life. Dr. Borderud was a graduate of the Naval Academy and spent time as both a Marine Infantry Officer as well as an Army Chaplain. Consequently, he was thoroughly trained and well-versed in a variety of leadership styles. He always spoke very directly and easily commanded the room in which he was present. However, despite this training and presence, his leadership behavior and traits were consistent with two dominant leadership theories: spiritual leadership and servant leadership. He effortlessly combined these two theories to produce effective leadership.
Dr. Borderud’s spiritual leadership – a fitting characteristic for a pastor – was evident in his consistency in directing his followers to the Almighty and sacred texts for wisdom and guidance, not to himself. Rather than a dependence on himself and his strengths (which are more emphasized in transformational, charismatic, and strategic leadership theories), Dr. Borderud consistently directed his followers to look beyond him and to a greater and higher power. I remember once when I was facing a problem and looked to him for the answer. Rather than provide me with the answer, he directed me first to pray about it, search the Bible, and then come and talk to him again. I took his advice and, while he still guided my thoughts and actions, it was to a much lesser degree than if he were to immediately provide me with his solution to my problem. In this way, he exhibited great spiritual leadership.
Dr. Borderud’s other great leadership style was his embodiment of servant leadership. Washington, Sutton, and Sauser (2014) define servant leadership as a distinct leadership style in which the leader values the good of the follower above their own self-interest. He told me numerous times that while he valued my contributions to the team, that it would be self-serving of him not to acknowledge my strengths and the future potential available. He selflessly took time to develop my skills and talents and went out of his way to expose me to greater opportunities for service and leadership. One instance in which this was evident was when I confronted him about an opportunity to serve on my own as a pastor, and asked him again for guidance and wisdom. He then advocated for me to candidate for the position, which is a large part of the reason why I am in my present position. He selflessly placed my needs – and the needs of others – above his own for the betterment of the organization and the individuals comprising the organization.
Reflection of Leadership Theory
My time spent serving under the tutelage of Dr. Borderud was a great lesson in developing my own personal leadership theory and style. As a graduate of a military college, an officer in the United States Army Reserves, and a graduate of seminary in preparation to serve as a leader in the church, I had already explored and been exposed to a variety of leadership theories and ideals. However, as Latham (2014) noted, while there exist numerous theories on leadership, there is very little consensus on what constitutes an effective leader. In observing Dr. Borderud, however, I was afforded the opportunity to observe a leadership style and characteristics which not only directly impacted my own life, but also positively impacted an entire organization and the individuals within.
Dr. Borderud also showed me the importance of not only developing certain individuals into leaders, but having a process whereby multiple individuals are able to grow and flourish into leaders. Schyns et al (2011) contrasted “leader development” with “leadership development” which expands the focus to a process of development as opposed to the development of a specific individual. This idea of “leadership development” or “mentorship” was a key component of his spiritual and servant leadership which continues to shape and develop me into a more effective leader. With his example and model, I have been able to likewise develop a leadership development process and develop several men into leaders using his same model of spiritual and servant leadership.
Dr. Borderud has often echoed to me the sentiments of Landis et al (2014) that the leadership traits of Moses are still just as cherished today as they were thousands of years ago. These traits of spiritual leadership and servant leadership are invaluable and have historical precedent for their effectiveness. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have translated to more scholarly research on this subject. For example, Dinh et al (2014) discovered that transformational leadership occupied the largest percentage of leadership literature (twenty percent), while spiritual leadership occupied just two percent of leadership literature. Servant leadership received even less, occupying only one percent of leadership literature.
Leadership is often measured not necessarily by production or result, but rather the qualities embodied by the leader. Antonakis & House (2014) cited the alignment of follower motivation and resource mobilization with organizational mission as the two most important qualities of leadership. In these two qualities, spiritual and servant leadership provide perhaps the most compelling leadership style as the leader willingly surrenders their own position and interest for the larger mission of the organization. They not only verbalize leadership, but they model it by investing in their followers and empowering them to succeed, thereby providing the greatest motivation for success. They also, if necessary, mobilize their own personal resources in order to achieve mission fulfillment.
Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2014). “Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory”. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 746-771. Retrieved January 14, 2018.
Dinh et al. (2014). “Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives”. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25, 36-62. Retrieved January 14, 2018.
Landis, E. A., Hill, D., & Harvey, M. R. (2014). “A synthesis of leadership theories and styles”. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(2). Retrieved January 14, 2018.
Latham, J. R. (2014). “Leadership for quality and innovation: Challenges, theories, and a framework for future research”. Quality Management Journal, 21(1), 11-15. Retrieved January 14, 2018.
Meuser et al. (2016). “A Network Analysis of Leadership Theory: The Infancy of Integration”. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1374-1403. Retrieved January 14, 2018.
Schyns B., Kiefer, T., Kerschreiter, R., & Tymon, A. (2016). “Teaching Implicit Leadership Theories to Develop Leaders and Leadership: How and Why It Can Make a Difference”. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 397-408. Retrieved January 14, 2018.
Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Sauser, J. I. (2014). “How distinct is servant leadership theory? Empirical comparisons with competing theories”. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 11(1). Retrieved January 14, 2018.
NG, LR, NCU, USAR
My collection of personal papers written over the years