1 Looking For Clues: Identifying the Antecedents of Cognitive Differences in Leaders ABSTRACT Wofford and his associates (Wofford & Goodwin, 1994; Wofford, Goodwin, & Whittington, 1998) found significant differences between the cognitive processes of transformational leaders and those of transactional leaders. They suggested that an explanation for this variation may be related to the experiences these leaders have had. This paper seeks to develop a more thorough understanding of these differences by examining the potential developmental antecedents of these cognitive processes. A cross- disciplinary approach is used to develop a set of propositions that will assist in the identification and development of transformational leaders. 2 Looking For Clues: Identifying the Antecedents of Cognitive Differences in Leaders The social scientific approach to leadership has recently been dominated by the transformational-transactional leadership or “full-range leadership” paradigm (Avolio, 1999; Bass & Riggio, 2006). The outcomes associated with transformational leadership are impressive. Transformational leadership has been consistently linked to a number of positive outcomes across samples and cultures (Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Bass & Riggio, 2006) This consistency of results across organizational settings and geographic boundaries has led some scholars to view transformational leadership as an unbounded, “universal” theory (Bass, 1997; Bass & Riggio, 2006). Substantial research has been devoted to examining the outcomes of transformational leadership, but there has been very little work done on the antecedents of transformational leadership. One notable exception is the work of Wofford and his associates (Wofford & Goodwin, 1994; Wofford, Goodwin, & Whittington, 1998) who sought to develop a cognitive approach to understanding the behavioral differences between leaders who were identified as transformational and those who were transactional. Wofford et al. (1998) found that the cognitive processes of transformational leaders were significantly different from those of transactional leaders. They suggested that an explanation for this variation in memory organization may be related to the type of experience these leaders have had. In this paper, an effort is made to develop a more thorough understanding of these differences by examining the potential developmental antecedents of these cognitive 3 processes. Identification of these antecedents is an important step in predicating the emergence of transformational leaders in a wide variety of social and organizational settings. Several cross-disciplinary approaches are utilized to develop an important addition to a comprehensive integrative model of transformational leadership. This effort begins with an overview of the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm. Then, the cognitive processes approach developed by Wofford and his associates is examined. Finally, a multidisciplinary approach is used to develop several propositions concerning the developmental antecedents to the cognitive differences identified in Wofford‟s cognitive process model (Wofford & Goodwin, 1994; Wofford, Goodwin, & Whittington, 1998). The Transactional-Transformational Leadership Paradigm The recent emphasis in the social-scientific approach to transactional and transformational leadership is based on the works of historian and political scientist James MacGregor Burns (1978; 2004). In Leadership (1978), Burns identified two forms of leadership: transactional and transforming. In his conception, transactional leadership occurs when individuals enter into a bargaining process for a mutually beneficial exchange, but not necessarily to develop an enduring relationship. The relationship is initiated for the purpose of exchanging something of value. In contrast to this exchange-based relationship, transforming leadership occurs when individuals engage with each other in such a way as to create an enduring relationship in which the leader and follower raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Although their purposes may begin as separate but related, they 4 eventually become fused into a linkage of power bases that provide support for both members of the relationship. Burns‟ original conceptions of transactional and transforming leadership were operationalized and modified somewhat by Bass and his associates (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Avolio, 1999) as transactional and transformational leadership. In a revision of Burns‟ (1978) original view, Bass (1985) contended that transactional and transformational leadership behaviors were not fundamentally different but rather complementary sets of behaviors. This revision has been extended into what Avolio (1999) and Bass and Riggio (2006) refer to as a full-range model of leadership. According to this perspective, effective leaders use both transformational and transactional behaviors when those behaviors are the most appropriate in the particular situation. Accordingly, transformational leadership may be used either independently from or in conjunction with transactional leadership (Wofford & Goodwin, 1994). Thus, it is important to understand each set of leader behaviors in order to grasp the benefits of the full-range model. Transactional leadership Transactional leadership is a process that emphasizes the transactions or exchanges that take place between leaders and their followers. This exchange could involve economic, political or psychological objects of value. In organizational settings, these exchanges are based on the leader identifying performance requirements and clarifying the conditions under which rewards are available for meeting these requirements. Transactional leadership is generally easily identifiable because the behaviors revolve around key issues of employment such as wages/salaries, performance 5 feedback, and rewards for performance such as promotions. These are centered on relatively concrete acts. Transactional leaders address the self-interests of their followers by offering incentives for the followers to achieve the goals identified by the leader (Avolio, 1999). These incentives are usually structured in such a way that the leader can accomplish his or her goals and also satisfy the interests of the followers. Thus, the essence of transactional leadership is the exchange of promises of reward for performance. These transactions can take either of two forms: constructive or corrective. Constructive transactions are those that are used to clarify expectations and identify the linkages between performance and rewards. If done properly, these exchanges form a “compact of expectations” (Avolio, 1999; p. 36) by which followers will evaluate the consistency and trustworthiness of their leader. In contrast, corrective transactions focus on creating a desired change in behavior, cooperation, or attitude. These transactions are somewhat negative in that they clarify what must be done to avoid censorship, reproof, punishment, or other disciplinary actions (Avolio, 1999). Both types of transaction are important to the effectiveness of transactional leaders. As leaders honor the commitments associated with constructive agreements and consistently apply corrective measures, their followers are able to develop judgments concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of the leader. This consistency leads to the development of knowledge-based trust (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996) and provides the foundation for a productive, trusting relationship. The exchange of rewards for desired behaviors is captured by the explicit psychological contract dimensions of the contingent reward (CR) subscale of the widely 6 used Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Goodwin, Wofford, & Whittington, 2001). The explicit psychological contract refers to the leader‟s efforts to clarify the rewards for good performance and the rewards that may be expected for meeting these expectations. Although transactional leadership is not enough to develop the full potential of followers, it is a necessary transitional step in developing the trust between a leader and follower that is required for transformational leadership to be implemented and become effective (Avolio, 1999). For leaders to attain the highest level of effectiveness, they must engage in a two-stage process in which transactional leadership provides the basis for the subsequent development of transformational leadership (Avolio, 1999). Leaders who fail to establish a clear set of role expectations will leave followers with an ill- defined sense of direction and ambiguous task assignments. However, the appropriate clarification of role expectations provides the basis for more mature relationships between a leader and his/her followers to evolve over time. Thus, transactional leadership is a crucial component in establishing a framework of mutual expectations between the leader and the follower. Furthermore, when leaders honor their various transactional arrangements with their followers, trust begins to develop, creating the foundation for a sustained relationship that enables the effective utilization of the full-range of leadership behaviors (Avolio, 1999). Transformational leadership Transformational leadership builds on transactional leadership, but extends beyond an exchange-based relationship. Transformational relationships develop between leaders and followers as the leader motivates the followers to work toward organizational 7 visions transcend individual needs. This process takes place as transformational leaders engage in one or more of the following behaviors: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Avolio, 1999; Bass & Riggio, 2006). Idealized influence refers to the role-modeling behavior of transformational leaders. Transformational leaders consider the needs of others over their own, share risk with their followers and demonstrate high standards of moral conduct. Their followers identify with and attempt to emulate them (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leaders use inspirational motivation to build a follower‟s emotional commitment to the organization‟s vision or goal. This is done by articulating a vision that portrays an attractive future that provides meaning and challenge for followers (Bass, 1985). The achievement of a desirable vision for the organization often requires a significant break from past practices. In order to move the organization toward this desired future position, transformational leaders must act as change agents. As such, they use intellectual stimulation to question assumptions, reframe problems, and approach existing situations from a fresh perspective (Bass, 1985). This behavior encourages innovation and creativity. Participation and creative risk-taking are encouraged without the fear of public criticism or penalty for departure from the leader‟s ideas (Heifetz, 1994; Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leaders view the development of their followers as an important dimension of their role as a leader. They are tuned into the needs of their followers and 8 often act as a mentor. Individualized consideration refers to this mentoring role in which the leader pays special attention to each individual‟s need for personal growth and achievement (Bass, 1985). Transformational leaders are intentional about creating learning opportunities and a supportive environment to facilitate the development of followers. They use delegation as a developmental tool to advance followers to successively higher levels of potential. A Cognitive Approach to Understanding Transformational and Transactional Leadership Using an information processing framework (Lord & Maher, 1991), Wofford and Goodwin (1994) developed several propositions concerning the differences between transactional and transformational leaders. They focused on the content of leader schemata and suggested that transactional leaders had a different focus than transformational leaders. Transactional leaders focused on clearly defined performance goals. The content of transactional leader schemata and scripts emphasized goal difficulty, goal commitment, task-related knowledge and skills, role expectations, and incentives that relate to individual employee or organizational subunit performance rather than a more macro-oriented focus on organizational mission or strategic intent. The cognitive processes relative to transactional leadership can be contrasted with those relating to transformational leaders. In general, transformational leaders are more likely to possess cognitive structures containing information about organizational vision accomplishment and more abstract, “big-picture” concepts. Despite their primary focus on an overall “vision,” Wofford and Goodwin (1994) argued that transformational leaders also have within their cognitive repertoire elements pertaining to transactional leadership 9 behavior. That is, individuals who are able to engage in transformational leadership behavior may revert to the more concrete level of quid pro quo agreements and engage in transactional leadership behavior as needed. In contrast, individuals who exhibit solely transactional behaviors are not expected to possess knowledge structures relevant to the more abstract level of organizational vision (i.e., those that permit the display of transformational leader behavior). Thus, Wofford and Goodwin (1994) argue for a hierarchical framework, moving from concrete to more abstract representations in memory, wherein transactional leadership provides the more concrete and pragmatic foundation upon which transformational leadership rests. The general propositions of Wofford and Goodwin‟s (1994) theory concerning the presence of cognitive content in memory that reflected their primary leadership style were supported in the results of a relevant field study (Wofford, Goodwin, & Whittington, 1998) and in a subsequent laboratory experiment (Goodwin, Wofford, & Boyd, 1999). Given the broad support for the effectiveness of transformational and full-range leadership and the evidence of cognitive differences between transactional and transformational leaders, it is important to identify how these cognitive differences developed in the first place. In order to this, several frameworks from a variety of disciplines will be examined. Predicting Leadership: Preliminary Approaches 10 The attempt to predict managerial and leadership performance is not new. Korman (1968) examined several predictive and judgmental efforts to predict managerial performance. These studies required the assessment of a set of individuals on a predictor instrument at one time and the establishing of the relationship between scores on this instrument and some institutional criterion measure which occurs at some later point in time. Studies utilizing concurrent validity methodologies were excluded from Korman‟s review because interpretations from them are “frequently ambiguous at best.” The predictive models examined by Korman were cognitive ability tests, objective personality and interest inventories, “leadership ability” tests, and personal history data. Based on his review, Korman concluded that intelligence is a fair predictor of first-line supervisory performance but not of higher-level managerial performance. Objective personality and leadership ability tests generally did not show predictive validity, with the expectation of a managerial motivation measure developed by Miner (1965). Personal his history data were fair predictors of first-line supervisor performance, but less so for higher-level managers. These judgmental prediction models involved an intermediary who combines a set of scores and/or impressions in some subjective, intuitive fashion and then makes predictions as to the individuals‟ standings on the criterion variable. The judgmental prediction models examined were executive assessments, peer ratings, and supervisor and faculty ratings. The executive assessment and peer rating methods showed considerable predictive validity and performance than the psychometric predictive methods. Despite Korman‟s generally low evaluation of predictive measures, he saw significant promise for a method developed by Miner (1965). Miner developed a 11 projective test requiring sentence completion by subjects. The test consists of 40 items which are sub- grouped into seven subscales: authority figures, competitive games, competitive situations, masculine role, imposing wishes, standing out from group and routine administrative functions. These subscales are conceptualized as being positively related to one another, so a total score is used. The general major proposition guiding this model is that there is a positive relationship between positive affect toward these areas and success in the managerial role. McClelland’s Leader Motive Pattern Another approach to predicting managerial performance was developed by McClelland (1975) and validated longitudinally (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). McClelland used several personality variables assessed in operant thought with the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) to develop what he called the leadership motive pattern. The leadership motive pattern (LMP) consists of a moderate-to-high power orientation (n power), low need for affiliation (n Affiliation), and high self control (activity inhibition). The logical importance of these particular variables to effective managerial behavior is explained by McClelland: “high need for power is important because it means the person is interested in the influence game, in having an impact on others; a lower need for affiliation is important because it enables the manager to make difficult decisions without worrying unduly about being disliked; and high self control is important because it means the person is likely to be concerned with maintaining organizational systems and following orderly procedures” (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982:737). 12 Using a sample of managers at AT&T, McClelland found that for managers in non-technical jobs there was a positive association at 8 and 16 years between the predicted LMP and subsequent promotion in the organization. Senior managers in non- technical jobs who are (a) concerned about influencing others, (b) less concerned about being liked, and (c) have a moderate to high degree of self control are more likely to succeed than other senior managers. A common question concerning McClelland‟s framework concerns the absence of a strong achievement need in the leadership motive pattern. McClelland found that a high need for achievement was associated with success at lower levels of non-technical management jobs where promotion depends on individual contribution. In higher level jobs, the emphasis shifts to managing others and the individual need for achievement is not associated with success. Developmental Perspectives The various models reviewed by Korman and the model developed by McClelland focus on personality traits measured objectively by instruments or subjectively by others. While useful, neither of these approaches addresses the actual development of the leader‟s personality. We now turn to clues from various sources that suggest important developmental features ignored in the leadership literature. Zaleznik’s Manager-Leader Distinctions The contrast between transactional and transformational leaders identified by Burn (1978) is similar to the distinction made by Zaleznik between managers and leaders. 13 In his classic article, Zaleznik (1977) argues that managers and leaders have essentially different kinds of people. The differences are manifested in motivation, personal history, and in how they think and behave. The most crucial difference identified by Zaleznik “lies in the conceptions they hold, deep in their psyches, of chaos and control (1990, p. 87, emphasis added).” Leaders are able to tolerate chaos and lack of structure. This tolerance allows them to avoid premature closure on key decisions by keeping answers in suspense. They are often restless and driven by an impelling desire to do things better, which often leads to the creation of an emotionally charged and chaotic workplace. In contrast, managers seek to maintain control and provide order. This instinctive drive to impose order on a messy or chaotic situation may lead managers to make decisions before the issues are fully understood. This managerial orientation may be appropriate for what Heifetz (1994; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002) labels technical problems where the problem is clearly identified and known solution exists; however, it will not be sufficient for dealing with adaptive challenges where discovery of the exact nature of a problem, as well as a solution, must be learned. Indeed, for Heifetz the facilitation of adaptive work is the essence of leadership. Zaleznik (1997) further delineates these differences along four dimensions: orientation toward goals, conceptions of work, relations with others, and sense of self. According to him, managers have an impersonal and reactive attitude toward goals. They see goals as rising out arise out of necessity and reality, rather than a desire for an improved situation. For them, the goals are a function of the history and culture of the organization and may be the function of an unchallenged implicit theory of the business (Drucker, 1994). 14 Leaders think differently about goals. They have a personal and proactive attitude toward goals. They prefer to create and shape ideas rather than react to them. Leaders take the initiative to evoke images and expectations that arise from desire and imagination. This perspective is consistent with the inductive, direction setting process that results in the creation of a vision Kotter (1990). Leaders create visions of a desired future. These visions have the capacity to evoke images and positive expectations about a desired future that is appealing to both the head and the heart. The difference in goal orientation between managers and leaders extends to their conceptions of work. Managers view work as an enabling process that combines people and ideas to produce strategies and make decisions. The manager‟s goal in this process is to moderate risk by coordinating and balancing opposing forces. They seek to navigate the development of solutions that are acceptable compromises among the conflicting values present in the organization. Where managers act to limit choices among potentially acceptable compromise positions, leaders actually seek to develop fresh approaches to existing problems. They seek to open issues to new options that may have never been considered. Through the process of intellectual stimulation (Bass & Avolio, 1994), leaders challenge long- standing assumptions. This works hand in hand with the leader‟s attempts to raise expectations through their vision casting approach to goals. Unless the leader arouses latent desires and mobilizes expectations that the organization‟s situation can be changed, new thinking will never come to light. Challenging the status quo in this way is an inherently high-risk position and provides another differentiating factor between managers and leaders. A manager‟s 15 tolerance for risk is often trumped by a dominant need for survival. Leaders, on the other hand, are often temperamentally predisposed to seek risk. They react to the mundane nature of managerial work as to an affliction. Managers also differ from leaders in terms of their attitude toward relationships with others. Paradoxically, managers attempt prefer to work with others, yet they avoid close, intense personal relationships that are characterized by high levels of emotional involvement. Leaders are comfortable in solitary work activity, yet encourage close, intense relationships. Leaders attract strong emotional feelings of identity and difference. Leaders appear to have high levels of emotional intelligence (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). They pay attention to the emotional cues they receive from themselves and others and integrate these clues into meaningful dimensions of their relationships. These manifest differences in goal-orientation, view of work, and interpersonal relationships are rooted in a fundamental difference in the sense of self (Zaleznik, 1977). According to him, it is the sense of self that has the most important implications for our understanding of managerial development. He identifies two different routes in the life history of individuals: “1) development through socialization, which prepares an individual to guide institutions and to maintain the existing balance of social relations; and 2) development through personal mastery, which impels an individual to struggle for psychological and social change. Society produces its managerial talent through the first line of development, while through the second leaders emerges” (Zaleznik, 1992: 173). Following the distinction developed by psychologist William James in The Varieties of Religious Experiences, Zaleznik argues that managers are “once-born” and that leaders are “twice-born.” As once-born individuals, managers have lived lives that 16 are relatively peaceful and their adjustments through life have been straightforward. They are comfortable with their environment and tend to accept life as it is. They identify with the existing order of things and view themselves as the conservators of existing institutions. Zaleznik‟s description of these “once-born” managers suggests that they are operating from what Isabella & Forbes (1994) have labeled the instrumental and incremental mindsets. The instrumental mindset is characterized by a linear, straightforward way of approaching one‟s career. Those who operate from this perspective tend to view events sequentially. This mindset facilitates a focused approach and specialization in a particular area that provides both personal satisfaction and depth of experience. Managers may also display an incremental mindset. The incremental mindset is characterized by a sense of gradual and progressive broadening that allows individuals to gain the benefits from past experience while gaining new skills, knowledge and expertise. Leaders, on the other hand, are “twice born.” Their life has been characterized by a constant struggle to create some sense of order. They are not able to take the existing order for granted. In contrast to “once-borns,” they operate from a profound sense of separateness from their environment. While they may work in organizations, they do not identify with those organizations. Unlike managers, leaders do not depend on membership, formal work roles, or other social indicators of status for their identity. This self-identity that is separated from the environment is a driver for the twice-born leader‟s need to fundamentally alter existing human, economic, organizational and political relationships. 17 Zaleznik suggests that these differences stem from early childhood experiences and the attachment formed with the family. “Once-borns” typically had childhoods that provided adequate reward gratifications. They formed moderate identifications with their parents and experienced harmony between their expectations and what they are able to achieve in life. “Twice-borns” did not experience the smooth separation and transition that characterized the once-borns. For “twice-borns” the pains of separation may have been amplified by a combination of parental demands and individual needs. This difficulty leads to a deep involvement in the inner world at the expense of the outer world. For these people, self-esteem is not based on positive attachments and real rewards. They develop a sense of self-reliance, along with achievement expectations and a desire to do great works (Zaleznik, 1977). The following differences are expected: Proposition 1A: Transactional leaders will develop along the life path associated with the “once-born” pattern. Proposition 1B: Transformational leaders are developed along the path associated with “twice-borns.” According to Zaleznik, this self-absorption and internal focus can only be interrupted by the forming of a deep attachment to a great teacher or other benevolent person who understands and has the ability to communicate with the gifted individual. This suggests the importance of a mentor relationship as a key element in the development of the leader. These mentors take risks with people, betting on talent they 18 perceive, and risking the emotional involvement of working with younger subordinates. The presence of these mentors in the development of a leader may provide the model for the leader to develop these same kind of emotional attachments with others throughout their life. An interesting parallel to Zaleznik‟s internalization hypothesis is suggested in the works of Tournier (1982) as discussed by Ford (1991). In studying great leaders, these authors suggest that leaders may be formed out of emotional deprivation, observing that a significant number of great world leaders were orphans. Expanding this logic, Tournier concluded that there is a close link between the experience of deprivation and the development of a person‟s creative capacities. Since creativity and functioning as change agent are essential to leadership, suffering or deprivation may be important developmental experiences in the life of would be leaders. The importance of creativity developed through deprivation and hardship identified by Tournier is developed in detail in the works of Bennis and Thomas (2007; Thomas, 2008). They argue that the single most important determining factor in a leader‟s success is adaptive capacity which they define as “applied creativity” (Bennis & Thomas, 2007, p. 101). Adaptive capacity involves the skills of understanding the environmental context and seizing the strategic windows of opportunity that are present. This adaptive capacity is developed through what Bennis and Thomas (2007) call “the crucibles of leadership.” The idea of a crucible is borrowed from the vessel used medieval alchemists in their attempt to turn base metals into gold. In the context of the development of a leader, “a crucible is a transformative experience from which a person extracts his or her „gold:‟ a new or altered sense of identity” (Thomas, 2008, p.5). 19 Crucible events are transformational events that shake the entire fabric of an individual‟s life (Isabella & Forbes, 1994). Frequently, these events touch the very core of one‟s being by challenging their life purpose. They provide the catalyst for profound change in direction, self-perception and worldview. Crucible events are distinguished from life stages. Certainly, life stage transitions can be stressful, but they are characterized by a gradual pattern that can be reasonably predicted. In contrast, crucibles are trials that “invariably rupture the status quo” (Thomas, 2008, p. 18). These events come upon an individual unexpectedly and force them to answer fundamental questions about their identity, values, purpose, and priorities. Crucibles require a level of deep self-reflection that they may have never experienced. They require a person to step up and do something they had never done before or become someone that had not been previously. Thomas (2008) expands the framework for understanding the crucibles of leadership by identifying three unique forms of crucible events. The first form of crucible is labeled “new territory” and involves an encounter with a new or previously unknown environment. These crucibles develop the leader‟s adaptive capacity by sharpening his or her awareness and the ability to make sense of this information in an unfamiliar setting. This aspect of adaptive capacity is similar to what Quinn (1996) refers to as “adaptive confidence.” This is the ability to learn in real time and requires a humility that allows us to drop inaccurate assumptions and flawed strategies in the midst of ongoing actions. The second form of crucible identified by Thomas is a “reversal.” Reversals involve loss, impairment, defeat, or a significant failure. The essence of a reversal is the realization that something once believed to be permanent is only transient, or something 20 believed to be true is found to be false. These experiences teach a potential leader to see his or situation in new and more comprehensive way. The final form of crucible is what Thomas calls a “suspension.” These involve a hiatus that is often unanticipated and may have been forced. This is an extended period during which a familiar set of behaviors and routines is replaced by a new structure. Suspension periods are characterized by a set of tensions between realities: the comfortable, known, and immediate past is removed and replaced with the discomfort of an unknown and indeterminate future. Suspensions provide an opportunity for the leader to engage in an extended period of contemplative reflection that results in clarification of their personal mission. This may also result in a solidification of the leader‟s personal beliefs and values. Thus, Proposition 2: Transformational leaders will have experienced at least one “crucible” event through which his or her adaptive capacity was developed. No matter what form a crucible experience takes, they provide two levels of lessons. First, these experiences teach about leadership. Second, they provide subtle and powerful personal learning opportunities. For Bennis & Thomas (2007) the ability to overcome the adversity presented by crucibles and to learn from these experiences is the defining characteristic of leaders. These people have a learning mindset (Isabella & Forbes, 1994) that is characterized by a sense of ongoing learning and transformation. Individuals with this mindset appear to have a more complex view of themselves and use information from a wide variety of sources and encounters to fill in missing pieces in 21 current situations. They view challenging events and situations as an opportunity to learn something new. Thus, it is expected that Proposition 3: Transformational leaders will be characterized by a learning mindset. Barber’s Character Typology Zaleznik‟s discussion provides a rough sketch of what to look for in the biographical history of would be leaders. The work of Bennis and Thomas (2007; Thomas, 2008) provides additional guidance by articulating the importance of crucible events in the life of leaders. Another framework for taking a systematic look at the developmental history of leaders comes from the work of political scientist James David Barber. Barber (1992) developed a theory for predicting presidential performance in the White House. He believed that a president‟s personality is an important shaper of his behavior on nontrivial matters. In his framework, personality is patterned in a dynamic package consisting of the leader‟s character, world-view, and style. By carefully examining the biographical development of these would-be leaders, we can gain valuable insight into their personality. This understanding of personality provides the basis for predicting performance. According to Barber, the best way to predict this pattern is to see how they were developed over the early stages of life. Character refers to the basic stance a leader takes toward life and is developed primarily in the childhood years. During these years a leader develops an enduring orientation toward experience. To understand a person‟s world- view, Barber suggests that we examine the adolescent years. Style has its main 22 development during the early adulthood years. In Barber‟s framework, these elements of personality interact with the power situation and climate of expectations existing during the leader‟s tenure. But, it is the character dimension that provides the primary understanding of a leader‟s orientation toward life and the development of their leadership philosophy and style. To capture the essence of the character dimension of a leader‟s personality, Barber developed a two-dimensional typology based on a leader‟s activity level and their affect. These dimensions are the two central features of anyone‟s orientation toward life. The first dimension is the activity continuum which refers to the amount of energy a leader invests in his work. The second dimension is positive-negative affect toward one‟s activity; that is, how a person feels about what they do. The activity baseline refers to what one does, the affect baseline to how one feels about what he does. While these are crude clues to character, they lead to four character patterns long familiar in psychological research: The passive-positive personality is a receptive, compliant, other-directed character whose life is a based on a search for affection. In this pattern acceptance and affection are viewed as a reward for being agreeable and cooperative rather than personally assertive. Their primary goal is love. They would be expected to have a high need for affiliation (McClelland, 1975). The passive-negative character is driven by a sense of duty and obligation which compensates for low self-esteem based on feelings of uselessness. They tend to withdraw and escape from conflict and uncertainty by emphasizing vague principles and procedural arrangements. Passive-negatives are dominated by their sense of civic virtue. 23 The active-negative personality manifests a contradiction between relatively intense effort and relatively low emotional reward for that effort. Their activity has a compulsive quality, as if he or she were trying to make up for something or to escape from anxiety into hard work. Active-negatives have a vague and discontinuous self image produced by a life that has been a hard struggle to achieve and hold power. This struggle is hampered by the condemnations of a perfectionist conscience. These personalities can become extremely rigid when faced with a crisis. Their primary aim is the acquisition and maintenance of power. They would be expected to have a high need for power (McClelland, 1975). The active-positive personality combines high levels of activity with the enjoyment of performing their tasks. These leaders have a relatively high self-esteem and enjoy success in relating to the world. They display an orientation toward productiveness as a value. In contrast with the active-negative personality, active-positives retain their flexibility and are likely to view a crisis as an opportunity to grow and develop. The active-positive leader develops over time toward a relatively well defined set of personal goals. These goals support their growth toward an image of their ideal self. Barber‟s description of these individuals suggest they may possess the adaptive capacity and learning mindset associated with leaders in the Zaleznik and Bennis and Thomas frameworks discussed above. Thus, it is expected that Proposition 4: Transformational leaders will possess an active-positive personality. Using an approach similar to Barber, Gibbons (1986) obtained retrospective information from leaders who had been identified as transformational. From these 24 biographical histories, she identified several factors that may be antecedents to the development of transformational leaders. First, she found that transformational leaders possessed an achievement orientation that impacts several life arenas. Gibbons suggested that this achievement orientation was developed in childhood through high parental expectations. These expectations were supported through the granting of moderately high family responsibilities early in life. In some contradiction to Zaleznik‟s findings, Gibbons observed that the childhood family situation of the transformational leaders she observed was balanced. While circumstances may have been difficult and demanding, adequate individual and systemic resources were available. In this context, the leaders learned to deal with their emotions, including conflict and disappointment The leaders in Gibbon‟s study used a variety of developmental activities to enhance their personal development. These activities are not confined to leadership skills training, and may include workshops, events and relationships with influential people who may also have been role models. While these developmental experiences may not meet the full criteria of a crucible event, these developmental activities are consistent with the learning mindset and the need for ongoing personal growth that is evident in the active-positive personality proposed to be associated with transformational leadership behavior. Developing Authentic Transformational Leaders Recently there has been a growing interest in the distinction between “authentic” transformational leaders and “pseudo-transformational” leaders (Bass, 1998; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Price, 2003). While overt behaviors may be similar, this distinction is 25 based on the differences between the types in terms of values, power motive, social distance, and concern for follower development (Bass, 1998). According to Bass (1998) authentic transformational seek to be “morally uplifting” to followers and channel their need for power into “socially constructive ways in the service of others.” Pseudo-transformational leaders are essentially “power wielders” (Burns, 1978) who often seek to enhance their personal status by establishing personal distance between themselves and their followers. This distance is maintained by the manipulation of agendas, maximizing outcomes at the expense of others, and squelching conflicting views. By doing so, pseudo-transformational leaders deliver a bogus empowerment (Ciulla, 1998) that promises followers the freedom and resources to act on their judgments, but fails to deliver. In stark contrast, authentic transformational leaders seek to persuade others based on the merit of their ideas, and operate with a degree of openness that encourages the development of their followers. In fact, it is probably on this dimension of individualized consideration that the pseudo-transformational leader fails (Bass, 1998). At the heart of these distinctions is the question of motive. Thus, an important question for all people who assume leadership roles is “what‟s your motive?” Building on McClelland‟s (1975) framework, Kanungo and Mendonca (1996) identified two contrasting leadership motive patterns that provide an answer to this question: altruistic and egotistic. The altruistic motive pattern is based in the intent to benefit others. Conversely, those who operate from an egotistic pattern are primarily concerned with using their position to benefit themselves. Kanungo and Mendonca (1996) develop these motive patterns by examining the operative needs and influence strategies of the leaders 26 who operate from each of the motive patterns. The operative needs dimension refers to the leader‟s combination of needs for affiliation, power and achievement (McClelland & Burnham, 1995; Boyatzis, 1973; 1982). Influence strategy refers to the power bases (French & Raven, 1959) and influence tactics used by the leader. According to Kanungo and Mendonca (1996) leaders who operate from the egotistic motive pattern are driven by avoidance affiliation, a personal power orientation, and a strong need for personal achievement. In the egotistic pattern, relationships are used to protect the leader. The need for affiliation is based on the leader‟s sense of insecurity and manifests itself in “non-interfering” and “easy-to-get-along” behaviors, even when the job situation demands otherwise. These leaders are reluctant to give negative feedback to subordinates. They yield to employee requests because they do not want to incur the employee‟s displeasure, and they do so without regard to the effect of their behavior on the need for equity, due process, and order in the workplace. Consequently, followers are left in a position of weakness without a sense of what might happen next. Followers do not know where they stand in their relation to their manager, or even what they ought to be doing (McClelland & Burnham, 1995). Egotistic leaders have a high need for personal power. They are preoccupied with their own interests and concerns. This self-interest is often pursued even at the cost of the organization‟s welfare and effectiveness. These leaders demand followers‟ loyalty. Relying on the resources inherent in the power base of their position, they expect followers to direct their efforts toward the achievement of the leader‟s personal agenda. The personal power need of egotistic leaders seems to be rooted in a deep-seated sense of insecurity, which manifests itself in dictatorial forms of behavior. This behavior in turn 27 leads to defensive relations with their followers. Insensitive to the needs of their followers, they expect unquestioning obedience to and compliance with their authority and decisions (Howell & Avolio, 1992). Typically, individuals high on the achievement motive derive satisfaction from achieving their goals. They tend to pursue achievement almost as an end in itself. While assuming a high degree of personal responsibility, they also tend to be self-oriented by viewing organizational resources and support primarily in terms of their own objectives. These individuals may be motivated by either personal achievement or social achievement. Egotistic leaders are driven by personal achievement motives and are more likely to engage in behaviors that benefit self rather than others. In fact, because they focus on personal improvement and a belief that they can achieve goals better by themselves, (McClelland & Burnham, 1995), they have difficulty relinquishing control to others through delegation. In contrast to egotistic leaders, altruistic leaders have a genuine interest in others. They relate to their followers as individuals with ideas and resources. Followers are viewed as partners in the problem-solving and related activities necessary for attaining organizational objectives. Consequently, supportive feelings permeate the interpersonal relationships between altruistic leaders and their followers. Altruistic leaders are characterized by an institutional need for power that is derived from their identification with and commitment to the organization‟s objectives and interests. They draw primarily on the resources of their personal power base--that is, expertise or attraction as perceived by the followers. Leaders operating from this 28 perspective see their power as a tool to be used to help and support the followers in accomplishing their tasks Altruistic leaders are driven by a social achievement motive. These leaders show a concern for others and initiate efforts that focus on individual and collective capability. They are concerned with creating a better quality of life and seek to engage in meaningful organizational and social action in order to influence the common good (Mehta, 1994; Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996). The differences in the operative needs of egotistic and altruistic leaders extend to the influence strategies they employ. According to Kanungo and Mendonca (1996), egotistic leaders seek to control the behavior of followers by using the legitimate rights of their position to coerce followers into compliance or by manipulating rewards. In contrast, altruistic leaders seek to empower followers and operate from a personal power base of expertise and attraction. The distinctions between the egoistic and altruistic motive patterns are consistent with the distinction between power-wielders and leaders made by Burns (1978). These distinctions are also consistent with the contrast between pseudo-transformational and authentic transformational leaders developed by Bass (1998). Power wielders and pseudo-transformational leaders can be seen as operating from the egoistic motive pattern which is primarily concerned with self-aggrandizement. Conversely, Burns‟ leaders and Bass‟ authentic transformational leaders operate from the altruistic motive pattern. Thus, it is expected that Proposition 5A: The motives of pseudo-transformational leaders will be consistent with the egotistic motive pattern. 29 Proposition 5B: The motives of authentic transformational leaders will be consistent with the altruistic motive pattern. Cognitive-Developmental Theory A useful model for understanding how the development authentic transformational leaders diverges from the development of pseudo-transformational leaders has been developed by Kuhnert and Lewis (1987). They proposed a three-stage model of transformational and transactional leadership based on the cognitive/developmental theory (CD) of Kegan (1982). This approach identifies a sequential pattern in the way people construct meaning throughout their lives, progressing from simple to more complex modes of understanding. According to CD theory, the construction of meaning is a process incorporating two aspects of experience: subject and object (Kuhnert & Russell, 1990). Subject is the process by which individuals organize and make sense of their experience. Object is the content of the experience as it is integrated by the individual. Six stages of development are identified: As a person progresses through these stages, what was subject becomes object. At these higher stages of development the individual is able to reflect upon the way they previously organized their experience rather than being identified by it (Kuhnert & Russell, 1990). Kuhnert and Lewis (1987) proposed that it is this meaning making system that distinguishes transactional from transformational leaders. They suggest that transactional leaders operate at stages 2 and 3 of the CD hierarchy. Stage 2 individuals use personal goals and agendas as their frame of reference and assume that others also operate from 30 this perspective. These individuals have not developed the cognitive maturity required to participate in mutual experience and shared perceptions (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). This focus on personal goals and agendas is consistent with the egotistic motive pattern discussed above. Individuals who to develop to Stage 3 have begun to transcend their focus on personal goals. Their attention is now turned to maintaining connections with their employers. The maintenance of these connections is based on transactions involving mutual support, promises, expectations, obligations and rewards (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). From the CD perspective, only when individuals have matured to stage 4 is transformational leadership possible. Stage 4 individuals have developed a subjective frame of reference that defines the self in terms of internal values, standards and principles. At this stage of development, leaders are able to take an objective view of their goals and commitments and transcend personal agendas and loyalties. Centered on principles, stage 4 leaders can operate transformationally (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). These individuals are operating with motives consistent with the altruistic motive pattern (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996. Thus, it is expected that Proposition 6: Authentic transformational leaders will be at Stage 4 of the cognitive- developmental cycle. DISCUSSION 31 Wofford, Goodwin, and Whittington (1998) identified significant differences between the cognitive structures of transformational and transactional leaders. In an effort to extend our understanding of these differences, the goal of this paper was to identify the various developmental antecedents that may have influenced these differences in cognitive structure. This contributes to a comprehensive and integrative model of transformational leadership. Given the wide variety of positive outcomes associated with transformational leadership, it is important to develop transformational leaders. Wofford et al. (1998) advocated the early development of transformational leadership cognitions. However, they focused on organization-based training and development programs that emphasize instructional approaches that call for the behavioral manifestation of leadership scripts, while providing feedback to indicate which ones are effective and ineffective. In addition, Wofford et al. (1998) identified mentoring as perhaps the most practical approach for successful leadership development. In particular, they discussed the impact of mentors who provide an inspiring vision, challenging developmental goals, guidance, and personal feedback, thus modeling transformational leadership themselves. The impact of significant individuals, such as mentors, on the development of a leader‟s personal philosophy and cognitions about leadership is supported by Zaleznik‟s discussion of the role influential people play in the development of the “twice-borns” who emerge as leaders. But, the impact described by Zaleznik appears to occur early in the leader‟s life and is independent of the organizational setting a leader may find him or herself in. 32 The developmental antecedents in this paper suggest that the development of transformational scripts and cognitions is the result of the successful navigation through at least one “crucible” event. Crucible events develop the adaptive capacity and learning mindset that characterizes the active positive personalities that emerge as transformational leaders. While training and organizational-based mentoring may be effective in developing leaders, the position taken in this paper is that the process of developing a set of transformational cognitions begins much earlier. In fact, Barber and Zaleznik have pointed to the importance of childhood, adolescent, and early adult experiences in developing the transformational mindset. Efforts to further our understanding of the development of a leader‟s cognitive structures should be patterned after Barber‟s framework because important dimensions of the cognitive structure are developed at different points in the life cycle. It is in childhood that the active-passive orientation and the dimensions of positive and negative affect first develop. A leader‟s world view begins to emerge in the adolescent stage. It is here that the need for individuation may create the disruption that leads to the development of the internal reflection that characterizes the “twice-born” individuals. Finally, the first successes a leader achieves in early adulthood shape the style that dominates their approach to leadership. These early successes become scripts that not only guide future behaviors, but become filters for the processing of future experiences. Recent events in the corporate, government, and even among faith-based institutions have heightened our awareness of the need for leaders who not only cast inspiring visions, but who also operate within an ethical framework. In the words of 33 Kellerman (2004), we need leaders who are both effective and moral. A failure on one, or both, of these dimensions results in “bad leadership.” Therefore, it is not sufficient to develop cognitive scripts for transformational leadership behavior alone. This might result in the development of those who would merely become pseudo-transformational leaders. Identification of authentic transformational leaders requires that we identify leaders whose development has resulted in the self-transcendent motive pattern characterized by Kanungo and Mendonca‟s (1996) altruistic motive pattern. In this paper, several frameworks were used to identify some of the possible developmental antecedents to the cognitive differences between transactional and transformational identified by Wofford and his associates. Developing a more thorough understanding of the development of these will require the creative use of both qualitative and quantitative research methods. A useful model for this approach to research is provided in the work of Gibbons (1986) who obtained retrospective bio-data information (qualitative) from leaders who had been identified as transformational (quantitative). In order to investigate the developmental antecedents proposed here, it would be necessary to capture information about childhood, adolescence, and early adult success that are prescribed by Barber. This would provide the basis for judgments about character (activity and affect), worldview, and style. These qualitative approaches should also seek to capture information about the transforming impact that crucible events may have had on the formation of the creative and adaptive capacity of those who have been identified as transformational leaders. The presence and impact of influential mentors should also be examined. Research in this area will also benefit from longitudinal research designs 34 that would allow the early identification and tracking of potential transformational leaders across their life span. 35 REFERENCES Avolio, B. 1999. Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Barber, J. 1992. The presidential character: Predicting performance in the white house. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Bass, B. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press. Bass, B. 1997. Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139. Bass, B. 1998. The ethics of transformational leadership. In J. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics: The Heart of Leadership. Westport, CN: Praeger. Bass, B. & Avolio, B. 1994. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Bass, B. & Riggio, R. 2006. Transformational leadership, 2nd Edition. Lawerence Erlbaum and Associates. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. 1999. Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217 Bennis, W. & Thomas, R. 2007. Leading for a lifetime: How defining moments shape the leaders of today and tomorrow. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Boyatzis, R. 1973. Affiliation motivation. In D. McClelland (Ed.), Human motivation: A book of readings, 252-278. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Boyatzis, R. 1982. The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York: John Wiley. Burns, J. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burns, J. 2004. Transforming leadership. New York: Grove Press. Ciulla, J. 1998. Ethics: The heart of leadership. Westport, CN: Praeger. Ciulla, J. 1998. Leadership and the problem of bogus empowerment. In J. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics: The heart of leadership. Westport, CN: Praeger. 36 Drucker, P. 1994. The theory of the business. Harvard Business Review. French, J. & Raven, B. 1959. The bases of social power. In D. P. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power, 150-167. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Gibbons, T. 1986. Revisiting the question of born vs. made: Toward a theory of development of transformational leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Human and Organization Systems, Fielding Institute. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. 2002. Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Goodwin, V.L., Wofford, J.C., & Boyd, N. 1999. A laboratory experiment testing the antecedents of leader cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 769- 788 Heifetz, R.1994. Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Heifetz, R. & Linsky. 2002. Leadership on the line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Howell, J. & Avolio, B. 1992. The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6(2), 43-54. Isabella, L. and Forbes, T. 1994. Managerial Mindsets Research Project: Executive Summary. The Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, The University of Virginia. Kanungo, R. & Mendonca, M.1996. Ethical dimensions of leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Kegan, R. 1982. The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kellerman, B. 2004. Bad Leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Korman, A. 1968. The prediction of managerial performance: A review. Personnel Psychology, 21: 295-322. Kotter, J. 1990. What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review. Kuhnert, K. and Russell, C. 1990. Using constructive developmental theory and biodata to bridge the gap between personnel selection and leadership, Journal of Management, 16; 595-607. 37 Kuhnert, K. and Lewis, P. 1987. Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12: 648- 657. Lowe, K., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramamianiam, N. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425 McClelland, D. 1975. Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington-Halsted- Wiley. McClelland, D. and Boyatzis, R. 1982. Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 737-743. McClelland, D. & Burnham, D. 1995. Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 126-139. Mehta, P. 1994. Empowering the people for social achievement. In R. Kanungo & M. Mendonca (Eds.) Work motivation: Models for developing countries, 161-183, New Delhi: Sage. Miner, J. 1965. Studies in management education. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Price, T. 2003. The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly. 14, 67-81. Thomas, R. 2008. Crucibles of leadership: How to learn from experience to become a great leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Tournier, P. 1982. Creative suffering. London: SCM Press. Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. 1994. A cognitive interpretation of transactional and transformational leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 5, 161-186. Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Whittington, J. L. 1998. A field study of a cognitive approach to understanding transformational and transactional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 55-84. Zaleznik, A. 1977. Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review.
Pages to are hidden for
"LookingforClues"Please download to view full document