D1 For practical people concerned about leadership, the
theoretical literature can often be frustrating, obscure and contradictory.
Over 25 years ago Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership6
exposed a problem that has, if anything, grown worse over the
years: there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there
are people attempting to define it. Over ten years ago Yukl's7
wide-ranging review of the literature on leadership effectiveness
came to an equally perplexing conclusion: "Most of the theories
are beset with conceptual weaknesses and lack strong empirical
support. Several thousand empirical studies have been conducted
but most of the results are contradictory and inconclusive."8
Against this background of confusion and uncertainty within the
literature on leadership, the following review establishes the
two most common and traditional approaches (trait and contingency
theories) before engaging in the more contemporary debates that
support the general perspectives taken in the main report.
models of leadership
D2 Trait approaches to leadership
have been popular since Hippocrates's construction of personality
types derived from "body humour", but contemporary
forms are rooted in psychological assessments of personality
and a consequent taxonomy of consistent behaviour: leaders behave
in certain ways because of their traits. These traits, or "unseen
dispositions", vary in number from the 18,000 established
in one early review9 to the more
contemporary five: Self-Confidence, Empathy, Ambition, Self-Control,
and Curiosity, and form the bedrock for the myriad numbers of
personality tests. Supporters of trait approaches place more
emphasis on the selection rather than the development of leaders.10
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator remains a significant
leader in this field,11 though
the various competency models have also become standard, for
instance in the Management Charter Initiative.12
However, the utility of these approaches often depends upon
the background of the reader: psychologists tend to be generally
supportive but others are critical of the assumptions that personality
is stable: they suggest that the tests construct rather
than discover such traits, they are doubtful whether
successful leaders can be predicted by the possession of such
traits, and they involve a surreptitious subordination of the
individual to the alleged needs of the organisation.13
Even supporters accept that the Fundamental Attribution Error
- the assumption that behaviour, especially first impressions,
reflects core characteristics or traits - leads us to pick or
reject potential candidates instantly.
D3 The most significant
trait of all remains charisma, and the search for charismatic
leaders to resolve apparently irresolvable problems continues
to be the goal of many recruiters.14
It should be noted, though, that two significant aspects of
charisma remain unresolved. First, it is probably best perceived
as a social relationship rather than an individual trait - since
charisma appears to lie in the eye of the beholder not in the
mind of the possessor. Second, the reliance on charismatic leadership
tends to undermine the ability of followers to participate in
- and thus achieve - the resolution of their collective problems.15
And unless individual leaders are indeed endowed with superhuman
qualities they will have to recognise that leadership is essentially
a collective process not an individual position.
D4 Contingency and
Situational approaches are grounded in the philosophy that leaders
should act as the situation demands. The situational variant
suggests that leaders should develop a repertoire of skills
and styles that can be deployed to suit the particular situation.
Its origins derive from the original Ohio State and Michigan
University studies which popularised the distinction between
task-centred and relationship-centred leaders.16
These studies, in turn, led to the "people or production"
Leadership Grid work of Blake and Mouton which suggested that
it was possible to have high concern for both people and production.17
Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership Theory18
added a third dimension to the calculation - the maturity of
the followers. This was itself divided into the job and psychological
aspects and the most appropriate style for the leader to adopt
could be triangulated against the measures for the task and
relationship. Thus, for example, a low skilled and uncommitted
workforce would need to be "told" precisely what to
do, whereas the task could be safely "delegated" to
an experienced and committed group of followers. Unfortunately,
the intuitive pragmatism of this approach remains unsupported
by the empirical reviews.
D5 The role of the
followers is also highlighted in Vroom and Yetton's Normative
Decision Model19 which suggests
that the two critical elements of a leader's decision, its quality
and the degree of subordinate acceptance, are more defined by
the situation and the followers than by the characteristics
of the leader. Thus what a leader should do depends upon the
time available, the quality of the information, the likelihood
of follower resistance and so on, and these feed through into
a decision process that varies from autocratic to democratic.
It must be said, though, that there is little evidence that
using this approach makes for better leaders, even if
they do make better decisions.
D6 The contingent
variant, traditionally associated with the work of Fiedler,20
is sceptical that the same leader can operate successfully in
radically different situations. He therefore suggests that either
the leadership changes when the context changes or the leader
acts to change the context such that her or his style becomes
appropriate. Fiedler's basic conclusion, premised on the combination
of leader-member relations, the structure of the task and the
power of the leader, is that where the situation is "highly
unfavourable" - that is, a crisis - and where the situation
is "highly favourable" - that is everything is going
well - a task-oriented leader is preferable. When the situation
is "moderate" then a people-oriented leader is better.
Aside from relegating the utility of people-oriented leaders
to a minimal role, there is increasing doubt as to the empirical
rigour of this approach.
D7 The final contingency
model of note is the Path-Goal model of Evans,21
revamped by House and Dessler.22
Grounded in expectancy theory, this suggests that people operate
on the basis of a rational calculation of effort to performance
to outcome, and that leaders should trace and support this same
approach with their followers. In this model leaders can vary
their style in space and time to maximise the chances of success
in conjunction with the followers' level of satisfaction and
perception of their own abilities, and in line with the three
critical situational variables: the task, the authority system
and the work group. But as with all of these models their supporting
empirical evidence remains, at best, ambiguous. In particular
three criticisms predominate: first, the selection of critical
variables is open to dispute; second, the interpretation of
these variables is contested; third, the attempt to evaluate
or replicate the studies tends to produce marginal results.23
This does not mean that the context and culture are unimportant;
on the contrary, the evidence suggests that they are crucial.
However, the problem remains in establishing precisely what
the context and culture are.
From self-isolating individual
leaders to self-supporting leadership teams
D8 Heifetz24 combines a
relatively novel theme - about forcing subordinates to reflect
upon their influence in the achievement of goals - and a relatively
old theme - about the difference between situations that require
mechanistic responses - which he calls "technical"
issues (often called "management" elsewhere to distinguish
it from "leadership") - and those that require "adaptive"
responses (often called "leadership" elsewhere). In
so far as Heifetz also distinguishes between the exercise of
"authority" and the exercise of "leadership"
- sometimes labelled power derived from formal role and power
derived from informal role - Heifetz also hinges his ideas on
a distinction familiar to Weber and many others since. Hence,
for Heifetz, the critical issue is whether people have the ability
and motivation to intervene in situations that are not routine,
in which the answer cannot be derived from previous experience,
and where part of the role of the leader is to reflect the problem-solving
back into the followers. In sum, the leader must not take on
the mantle of magician him or herself but persuade followers
that they - and only they - can resolve the problems they
|| From individual
leaders to leadership institutions
D9 Elgie26 suggests that
although the traits and style of leaders makes some difference,
nevertheless these differences are limited by, and exercised through,
the institutional structure within which they operate. Thus American
Presidents have more room to manoeuvre in foreign policy than
in domestic affairs, and Italian and Japanese government leaders
tend to be reactive rather than proactive because of the nature
of their political systems. Moreover, while the US Congress can
support or inhibit presidential leadership, it is institutionally
incapable of providing leadership itself.27
Partly these constraints derive from historical developments,
partly from the electoral methods, and partly from the power of
various institutions to constrain the powers of the formal leadership.
The implication for leadership in the public sector is that we
need to take careful cognisance of the precise environment within
which leadership is constructed and deployed: the appointment,
monitoring, reward and accountability structures and processes
will all play some part in inhibiting and/or encouraging certain
forms of leadership. It is also likely that the multiple and often
conflicting accountabilities that prevail upon public sector leaders
necessitate greater training, support and skill than those required
in most private sector positions.
|| From cult control to cultural
D10 The search for charismatic or
"superleaders" often generates a form of leadership
that is unable or unwilling to recognise when change is required,
despite evidence to the contrary (for example, the corporate leaders
of IBM in the late 1970s). Much of the debate around the "cult
of leadership" is captured in the charismatic approaches
but the difference between transactional and transformational
leadership also generates cult followers. Transactional Leadership
is premised upon motivating followers by some form of instrumental
exchange, either a monetary or symbolic reward system. Transformational
Leadership28 on the other hand,
asserts that leaders can transform followers by persuading them
to subordinate their individual wants to the needs of the collective.
A recent example of this approach can be found in Jackson's approach
to leadership in the American professional basketball league,
the NBA.29 Jackson's retelling of
the Chinese fable of the Emperor Liu Bang is instructive: it likens
leadership to a wheel. The strength of the wheel does not lie
in the spokes - the material that "leads" the wheel
(China) - but in the spaces between the spokes - the "invisible"
masses - for if the balance between spoke and space is wrong,
the wheel will not work properly.
The significance of the spaces throws a different light on the
apparent poverty of leadership generally: it is not that there
is a dearth of leaders because there are leaders in every walk
of life and at every level in organisations. Indeed, most people,
at some point in their lives, will lead others, be it their
family, their friends, their local gardening club, or for just
a few, their country. In effect, the talent necessary for organisations
to be well led already exists within them - but it is not confined
to the formal leadership. The problem, then, is as much to do
with the poverty of followership as the dearth of, and problems
with, existing leaders. By this I mean that the most successful
organisations appear to be those where the errors which the
leaders inevitably make are compensated for by their followers:
responsible followers prevent irresponsible leaders. But where
followers are unable or unwilling to constrain their leaders
the organisation itself may well suffer. This "compensatory
followership" operates right across the organisational
and political spectrum such that, for example, the obsequient
behaviour of most of Hitler's entourage (fortunately) failed
to prevent him from making catastrophic strategic errors in
the latter half of the Second World War. In a more contemporary
vein we might consider a related failure of leadership and followership
in the form of Rodney Ledward, the gynaecologist from William
Harvey hospital in Ashford, Kent, who was "able to severely
maim hundreds of women patients because of a hospital culture
in which consultants were treated as 'gods' and junior staff
were afraid of 'telling tales' ".30
Apart from protecting whistle-blowers - which necessarily occurs
after the damage has been done by errant leaders - one method
of deterring leaders from making mistakes in the first place
is by institutionalising the role of devil's advocate, in which
members of an organisation take it in turn to dissent from the
group's decisions so as to force it, and its leader, to take
cognisance of potential problems that would otherwise be obscured.31
D12 The dangers and
inefficiencies of over-relying on leaders and of disabling "constructive
dissent"32 are themselves
mirrored by the potential benefits of incorporating followers
and informal leaders into the decision-making process, for as
Joynson and Forrester suggest, the solutions to most organisational
problems are already known to the workers - but their formal
leaders prevent them from implementing the solutions.33
One example where such an approach has already begun to bear
fruit in the public sector is the new nurse-led injury clinics
in the NHS. Here a solution to excessive waiting times and chronic
staff shortages is to allow the "subordinate" nurses
the freedom to solve the problems that they could have solved
years ago - if only someone had thought to ask them and to implement
|| From rules to principles
D13 The conventional explanation for
the existence of rule-based organisations involves the need to
inhibit followers from exercising their initiative and undermining
conformance to requirements. The positive aspect of this, for
example, is a bureaucratic support for equality in service provision.
The negative aspect is a fundamental discouragement of subordinate
initiative and risk-taking. Since it is impossible to construct
an organisation that is run entirely along a system of rules (for
that would require a hierarchy of rules surmounted by the "golden
rule" that established which of the subordinate rules should
be followed), some degree of subordinate initiative - or even
leadership - is critical for organisational performance. Indeed,
some organisations have pursued this route to the point where
the corporate rulebook has been displaced by a few corporate principles.
Risk-taking, however, remains anathema to many organisations and
to many individuals, for despite claims to the contrary, there
are few organisations that try to learn from, rather than eliminate,
mistakes, and taking risks inevitably generates mistakes.34
D14 The inherent
limitations of controlling organisations through rules, beyond
the obvious example that "working to rule" usually
equates with the absence of any productive output, are especially
visible when operating at the level of inter-organisational
collaborations, for example, the federations of organisations
and institutions involved in regenerating deprived urban areas.
Here, a rule-based approach inevitably appears doomed to failure
- but so does one where the goals are as obscure as the lines
of accountability and even the membership.35
The necessarily negotiated goals and means are easily undermined
by inappropriate acts and resemble the actions of a rock-climber:
it is extraordinarily difficult and slow to make progress up
the rock-face, but falling off is both easy and quick. The presence
of a clearly identifiable ultimate goal (the summit), and measurable
points of progress along the route (base camp, camps 1 and 2
and so on), can help keep the climber motivated, but the "glue"
that keeps him or her attached to the rock is based on a small
number of climbing principles, not a climbers' rule book that
needs to be examined for each precipice. Or, in terms of explaining
how a shoal of fish or a flock of birds move in perfect symmetry
without an apparent leader or complex book of rules, it is simply
a question of following a basic principle: maintain the distance
between yourself and your neighbours and move in the same direction
and velocity unless you personally need to move in a different
direction for ulterior reasons (defence against predators, etc)
- in which case all your neighbours will move with you.36
|| From naivety to complexity
D15 The role of context is critical
to leadership. Contingency models operate on the basis of objectively
analysing the context and generating the appropriate leadership
response, either in leadership style (situational approaches)
or the person of the leader (contingency approaches). A parallel
debate in leadership surrounds the nature of the response, rather
than the nature of the context. Drawn in particular from discussions
of military leadership, the basic assumption is that the context
is literally chaotic, and therefore the question is whether leaders
should try to impose order upon the chaos or try to exploit the
chaos by working within its confines.
Over the last 50 years the developments in complexity theory
provide a robust defence of the self-organising approach to
leadership. Chaos or Complexity Theory implies six critical
- Organisational life is systemic without being
systematic. It is both predictable and unpredictable: we know
that the weather will be warmer in the summer than in the
winter (a "strange attractor" limits its variance),
but we cannot predict whether it will rain a week today (at
least not in the UK).
- Causal analysis is virtually impossible -
because the inordinate number of variables that contribute
to any event undermine our ability to explain its causal root.
- Diversity rather than homogeneity is a more
productive base given the difficulty of predicting change
in the environment.
- Self-organising principles reduce the concern
that anarchy may prevail over disorder, and this supports
the emphasis on distributed or deep leadership. (Perhaps the
growth and persistence of the Internet is a good example here
- it has no formal leader but multiple nodes of leadership
ensure its survival.) In more conventional organisations the
self-organising principles become manifest when order is built
from relationships rather than enforced by structures.38
- Individual action, in conjunction with the
multiplier effect, concentrates responsibility at the lowest
point: individuals operate on the basis on "min specs",
that is the minimum specifications to get the job done.39
- Scale-invariant properties and irreversibility
are components of all complex organisations.
D17 The consequence
of understanding organisations as complex adaptive systems is
that they ought to be structured along "the edge of chaos",
that is the point between over-structured inertia and under-structured
confusion ("chaos" in the pejorative sense of the
word).40 Or in Hampden-Turner's41
metaphor, it is sailing the line between the rock of excessive
control and the whirlpool of disorder. And, following a neo-Darwinian
trait that resembles some of the Population Ecology models of
organisational survival,42 whether
any complex adaptive system survives depends upon the niche
it occupies in the "fitness landscape".43
Finally, it should be noted that the systemic element of complex
systems implies that attending to one element of the system
- in this case the leadership - is an inadequate base from which
to construct a radical alternative future.44
Joined-upness is not merely a political goal; it is an inescapable
element of organisational life.
|| From similarity to diversity
D18 It follows from the prior discussion,
concerning the importance of supportive but critical followers,
that conventional patterns of leader recruitment tend to generate
reflective but not reflexive leadership groups. In other words,
leaders recruit in their own image45
which may make them feel more comfortable but it can also undermine
the self-analytic and critical skills available to the organisation.
It is not just, then, that diversity is important because it is
morally appropriate or politically correct, nor is it that diversity
is a pragmatic response to a severe recruitment problem, a political
expedient.46 Instead the crucial
argument for diversity lies in itself, as a creative alternative
to, and active inhibitor of, the torpitude and complacency that
may result from similarity and what Janis called "groupthink".47
empirical research into the implications of diversity on performance
suggests, first, that there are no consistent effects on organisational
performance, and second, and ironically, a rather diverse series
of issues need addressing.48 First,
it may be that a successful team or organisation generates sufficient
levels of satisfaction that transcend any notion of diversity.
Success, then, is the independent not the dependent variable,
and diversity is a secondary element in the calculation, such
that successful teams regard diversity as a cause of their success
while unsuccessful teams can regard an identically diverse composition
as the cause of their failure.
D20 That said, it
would seem more likely that some forms of diversity are more
important than others. Thus, diverse values embody a
primary inhibitor of organisational performance, while social
diversity (ethnicity, class, gender and age) and informational
diversity (knowledge, education and experience) generate higher
levels of performance and satisfaction, especially when the
task is non-routine. In short, simply constructing a diverse
group is insufficient for enhanced performance - diversity can
provide the framework for success but the group needs to have
- or come to accept - similar values.49
|| From private interest to public
D21 Much of the debate around the
difference between private interest and public service, and the
relative differences in leadership required by the two forms,
has been reconstructed recently through the development of Stakeholder
Theory. Freeman's original construction expanded the focus of
leaders in the private sector from a narrow concern about profitability
to a wider acceptance of the legitimate interests of stakeholders
beyond stock holders, notably workers, consumers, suppliers, creditors,
the government and the local community.50
Indeed, the expansion in leader focus from the bottom line has
been replicated elsewhere, and most notably in the development
of the Balanced Score Card in which financial results are just
an element of collective and individual appraisals and a means
to connect the abstract world of organisational strategy to the
detailed practicalities of employees' working practices.51
the enormous changes that the public sector has undergone since
1980,52 the relative novelty of
such change,53 and the consequential
convergence between private and public sectors in some areas
has often generated disproportionate costs on the latter. Worall
and Cooper,54 for instance, suggest
that although changes in accountability, speed of decision-making
and flexibility have been similar across the public-private
divide, the public sector has faced a far higher collapse in
morale, motivation, sense of job security and loyalty. In effect,
the very aspects of public service that attracted particular
people to work there in the first place are under dire threat
without any compensatory balancing of the rewards which private
sector employees (and leaders) have traditionally received.
The direct effect of this on public sector leaders is clear:
they are increasingly dissatisfied with an increasingly difficult
job and an increasingly demoralised workforce.
D23 But although
private and public sector leaders remain accountable to their
respective governing bodies, perhaps where the difference remains
most transparent is in the problems of accountability in the
public service. For example, this problem goes beyond the unaccountability
of individual consultants in the NHS to a systemic lack of accountability
in the NHS as a whole. There can never be a health system that
provides unlimited provision on demand but the best way to assure
the public that its decisions on resource allocation are fair
and efficient is a transparent system of accountability, in
which leaders are both accountable for their decisions and removable
by those to whom they are accountable.55
|| From inherited trait to acquired
skill to deployed will
D24 The most recent developments in
the specification of particular characteristics for leaders have
been twofold. First, the continuing pursuit of psychometric data
to establish which people have the requisite traits or skills
and so on. The most extreme versions of this have been the search
for the "leadership gene" - which has proved (un)surprisingly
elusive to those born with the "sceptical gene" - and
the developments in evolutionary psychology. In the latter genre
one of the most influential works has been Sulloway's neo-Darwinian
account of the significance of birth order and family dynamics
in the creation, or subversion, of leadership tendencies.56
D25 The second
development has been the work of Goleman in the pursuit of "Emotional
Intelligence" - the ability to manage oneself and one's
relationships effectively - through four empathic capabilities:
self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and social
skill.57 In short, emotional maturity
is a crucial ingredient of good leadership. The good news for
leaders is that, in theory, these capabilities can be learnt
and they are capabilities that are often important in inhibiting
instinctive responses to perceived threats. The bad news is
that they are little different from some of the ideals of the
Human Relations school of the 1930s and in that guise they were
only marginally successful in developing or distinguishing leaders.58
D26 However, a crucial
element that neither of these approaches embodies is the difference
between skill and will. Leaders may have all the capabilities
and competencies that they need, and their followers may have
all the skills and attributes necessary for the organisational
tasks, but if the will of the leader or the followers is missing
then the likelihood of achieving much is minimal. Both are crucial.
|| From win/lose arguments to
D27 The assumption that leadership
derives from superior intelligence, aligned with superordinate
logic and uncompromising reason, is deeply entrenched within western
culture, at least from the era of Enlightenment. And it has an
even longer gestation with the teachings of Aristotle, Plato and
Socrates, and even though the latter regarded rhetoric as a sleight
of hand and a poor handmaiden to logic, the former's treatise
on rhetoric served as the foundation of leadership training for
many years.59 In some ways Habermas's
"discourse ethics" provide the nearest inheritor of
these models: providing the procedural rules for discussion can
be mutually agreed through equal participation, a consensus can
emerge. Indeed, this is precisely how most higher educational
systems operate - they train students to engage in logical debate
so that the most cogent and persuasive argument will prevail.
Yet, ironically, we also know that research into change management
and negotiation clearly concludes that logic and rationality are
seldom the root cause of persuasion. If, as complexity theorists
insist, autopoiesis (self-regarding and self-making) is a characteristic
of both organisms and organisations, then change must begin with
establishing and appealing to the self-interests of the organisation.
problem is manifest across all organisations of all sizes: it
is very seldom that anyone admits to "losing" an argument
and changes their mind on the basis of a superior appeal to
logic. Instead people may do what you want, not because they
think you are right, but because their self-interest persuades
them to comply. Leadership, then, is not usually achieved through
superior rhetoric or appeal to logic or reason, but by establishing
what followers want and satisfying that through some process
of exchange in which both sides can win. Of course, if leaders
can construe these wants in a way that perfectly aligns followers
and leaders then no simple "exchange" is required.
However, the exchange is still present but it is now manifest
in persuading individuals to exchange their self-interest for
the good of the collective.
D29 But in the absence
of this alignment leaders need to polish their negotiating skills
rather than their debating skills. This not to imply that rhetoric
is irrelevant because language is crucial to the construction
of, rather than the reflection of, reality but it is to suggest
that logic and reason are inadequate bases for leadership.
D30 A further element
of negotiating skill that may prove critical for public sector
leaders is the ability to negotiate their way through multiple
accountabilities and responsibilities. For example, a headteacher
required to minimise staff costs, maximise students' exam results
and enhance the role of the local community should have the
requisite skills to negotiate a working compromise between the
internal and external stakeholders and not force the teaching
staff, nor him or herself, into unacceptably high levels of
Stogdill, R.M. (1974), Handbook of Leadership (New York:
7 Yukl, G. (1989), 'Managerial
Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research' Journal of Management
15 (2), pp. 251-89.
8 Yukl, G. (1989), 'Managerial
Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research' Journal of Management
15 (2), p. 253.
9 Allport, G.W. and Odbert, H.S. (1936), 'Trait-names: A
Psycho-Lexical Study' Psychological Monographs 47, pp
10 See, for example, Hogan, R.T., Curphy,
G.J., and Hogan, J. (1994), 'What Do We Know About Leadership?'
American Psychologist 49 pp. 493-504.
11 Myers, I.B. and McCaulley, B.H. (1985),
Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (Palo Alto, CA.: Consulting Psychologists
12 MCI (Management Charter Initiative) (1997),
Management Standards (London: MCI).
13 See, for example, Burr, V. (1995), An
Introduction to Social Constructionism (London: Routledge);
Du Gay, P., Salaman, G. and Rees, B. (1996), 'The Conduct of
Management and the Management of Conduct' Journal of Management
Studies 33 (3), pp. 263-82; Grint, K. (1995), Management:
A Sociological Introduction (Cambridge: Polity Press).
14 Bryman's (1992), Charisma and Leadership
of Organizations (London: Sage) is a good introduction to
charisma. More recent developments and disputes are covered
in the special issue of The Leadership Quarterly (10
15 See Heifetz, R.A. (1994), Leadership
Without Easy Answers, (Cambridge: Belknap Press).
16 Hempill, J.K. (1949), 'The Leader and his
Group' Journal of Educational Research 28, pp. 225-229,
17 Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The
Managerial Grid (Houston: Gulf).
18 Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. (1982), Management
of Organizational Behaviour: Utilizing Human Resources (Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
19 Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.W. (1973), Leadership
and Decision-Making (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh
20 Fiedler, F.E. (1967), A Theory of Leadership
Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill).
21 Evans, M.G. (1970), 'The Effects of Supervisory
Behaviour on the Path-Goal Relationship' Organizational behaviour
and Human Performance 5 pp. 277-98.
22 House, R.J. and Dressler, G. (1974), 'The
Path-Goal Theory of Leadership' in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L.
(eds.) Contingency Approaches to Leadership (Carbondale,
Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press).
23 The most comprehensive reviews of traditional
approaches to leadership are: Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and
Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial
Applications (New York: Free Press); Hughes, R.L., Ginnett,
R.C., and Curphy, G.J. (1999), Leadership: Enhancing the
Lessons of Experience (Boston: McGraw-Hill); Kouzes, J.M.
and Posner, B.Z. (1987), The Leadership Challenge (London:
Jossey-Bass); Northouse, P.G. (1997), Leadership: Theory
and Practice (London: Sage); Wright, P. (1996), Managerial
Leadership, (London: Routledge); Yukl, G. (1998), Leadership
in Organization (Prentice Hall).
24 Heifetz, R.A. (1994), Leadership Without
Easy Answers (Cambridge: Belknap Press).
25 For example, Mary Keyes, vice-president
of patient care in a New Jersey hospital relates how the average
time taken to administer the first dose of antibiotics for patients
with pneumonia reduced from 15 hours to 1.75 hours. The task
was achieved by asking volunteers (not heads of departments)
to set up their own group to solve the problem, and through
a process of self-organized learning the target was achieved.
See Zimmerman, B. (1999), 'Complexity Science: A route through
Hard Times and Uncertainty' Health Forum Journal, Vol.
42 (4), pp. 42-47.
26 Elgie, R. (1995), Political Leadership
in Liberal Democracies (Basingstoke: Macmillan).
27 Lindsay, J.M. (2000), 'Looking for Leadership:
Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy' The Brookings Review,
Winter, pp. 40-43.
28 Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance
beyond Expectations (New York: Free Press); Burns, J.M.
(1978), Leadership (New York: Harper & Row).
29 Jackson, P. and Delehanty, H. (1995), Sacred
Hoops: Spiritual Lessons of a Hardwood Warrior (New York:
30 Hartley-Brewer, J. (2000), 'Hospital Culture
Left Doctor to Maim Women' The Guardian 2 June.
31 Chaleff, I. (1995), The Courageous Follower
(San Francisco: Berret-Koehler); Kelley, R. (1992), The Power
of Followership (New York: Doubleday Currency).
32 See, for example, the example of Motorola
discussed in Baatz, E.B. (1993), 'Motorola's Secret Weapon'
Electronic Business April, pp. 51-53, and Dess, G.G.
and Picken, J.C. (2000), 'Changing Roles: Leadership in the
21st Century', Organizational Dynamics Winter, pp. 18-34.
33 Joynson, S. and Forrester, A. (1995), Sid's
Heroes (London: BBC Books).
34 See Grint, K. (1997), Fuzzy Management
(Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 85-114; and Holt, J. (1996),
Celebrate Your Mistakes (New York: McGraw-Hill).
35 Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2000), 'Ambiguity,
Complexity and Dynamics in the Membership of Collaboration'
Human Relations Vol. 53 (6) pp. 771-91.
36 Wood, R. (2000), Managing Complexity
(London: Profile Books), pp. 244-5.
37 Battram, A. (1998), Navigating Complexity
(London: The Industrial Society); Gleik, J. (1987), Chaos:
Making a New Science (London: Cardinal); Ditto, W. and Munakata,
T. (1995), 'Principles and Applications of Chaotic Systems'
Communications of the ACM Vol. 38 (11), pp. 96-102; Thiétart,
A. and Forgues, B. (1995), 'Chaos Theory and Organization',
Organization Science Vol. 6, (1), pp. 19-31; Wood, R.
(2000), Managing Complexity (London: Profile Book).
38 Wheatley, M. (1994), Leadership and
the New Science (San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publications).
39 See Zimmerman, B. (1999), 'Complexity Science:
A route through Hard Times and Uncertainty' Health Forum
Journal, Vol. 42 (4), pp. 42-47; Morgan, G. (1997), Images
of Organization (London: Sage).
40 Connor, D. (1998), Leading at the Edge
of Chaos (London: Wiley); Eisenhardt, K. and Brown, S. (1998),
Competing on the Edge (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Business
41 Hampden-Turner, C. (1994), Charting
the Corporate Mind (Oxford: Blackwell).
42 See Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J.H. (1977),
'The Population Ecology of Organizations' American Journal
of Sociology Vol. 82, pp. 929-64, and Aldrich, H.E. (1975),
Organizations and Environments (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
43 See Frederick, W.C. (1998), 'Creatures,
Corporations, Communities, Chaos and Complexity' Business
and Society Vol. 37 (4), pp. 358-89.
44 Collier, J. and Esteban, R. (1999), 'Governance
in the Participative Organization', Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 21 (2/3), pp. 173-88.
45 Byrne, D. (1971), The Attraction Paradigm
(New York: Academic Press); Chatman, J.A. (1991), 'Matching
People and Organizations' Administrative Science Quarterly
36 pp. 459-84; Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E. (1979), 'Towards
a Theory of Organizational Socialization' in Cummings and Staw,
B.M. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour 1,
46 HR Focus (2000), 'Diversity: A 'new'
tool for retention.' Vol. 77 (6) pp. 14-17.
47 Janis, I.L. (1982), Groupthink (Boston:
48 Williams, K. Y. and O'Reilly, C.A. (1998),
'Demography and Diversity in Organizations' in Staw, B.M. and
Sutton, R.M. (eds.) Research in Organizational Behaviour
(20), pp. 77-140 (Stamford, CT.: JAI Press).
49 Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale,
M.A. (1999), 'Why Differences Make a Difference' Administrative
Science Quarterly (44) pp. 741-63.
50 Freeman, R.E., Strategic Management:
A Stakeholder Approach (Marshfield, MA.: Pitman Publishing).
51 Norton and Kaplan, 'The Balanced Scorecard'.
52 Ferlie, E., Pettigrew, A., Ashburner, L.,
and Fitzgerald, L. (1997), The New Public Management in Action
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
53 Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (1997), The
Managerial State (London: Sage).
54 Worrall, L. and Cooper, C.L. (1998), 'Fear
that Haunts the Public Sector' The Guardian 26 September.
55 See Hutton, W. (2000), New Health for
Life (London: Vintage).
56 Sulloway, F.J. (1996), Born to Rebel
(London: Little, Brown & Co.).
57 See Goleman, D. (2000), 'Leadership that
Gets Results', Harvard Business Review March-April, pp.
58 See Grint, K. (1998), The Sociology
of Work (Cambridge: Polity Press).
59 See Aristotle (1991), The Art of Rhetoric
(Harmondsworth: Penguin), Grint, K. (2000), The Arts of Leadership
(Oxford: Oxford University Press), and Wardy, R. (1996), The
Birth of Rhetoric: Georgias, Plato and their Successors
To read the entire report in PDF format (583 Kb), click