Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
14
CONTEMPORARY LEADERSHIP THEORIES
SUSAN R. KOMIVES
University of Maryland
JOHN P. DUGAN
Loyola University Chicago
T
he term leadership, by its very nature, is laden Setting the Context: Evolving
with meaning often derived from the interpreter’s Conceptualizations of Leadership
varied life history. For some, this represents an
internalized identity, shared processes, or civic engage- An exploration of contemporary leadership theory is
ment grounded in experiences as social activists, with best understood in the context of its theoretical evolu-
developmental mentors, or from positive group experi- tion. This is in large part due to the enduring influences
ences. For others, the term may elicit a more negative of past conceptualizations of leadership on contempo-
interpretation associated with abuses of power, position- rary practice and thinking both in academic and
ality, or an impersonal focus on end goals. These mainstream cultures. This section will present an abbre-
interpretations are often the effect of sociohistorical viated narrative of this evolution and highlight how
marginalization or negative encounters with those that emerging philosophical traditions of inquiry have shaped
inappropriately wielded influence. Both ends of this this advancement.
interpretive spectrum can also be found in the body of lit-
erature representing leadership theory. Contemporary Theoretical Evolution
theory, however, has attempted to reframe the term with a
greater focus on moral discourse and social purpose, Early 20th-century perspectives on leadership typically
shifting away from previous theory that favored manage- reflected leader-centric approaches focusing on the leader
ment, production, and authority. as a positional authority. Largely examined in organiza-
This chapter will provide an overview of contemporary tional or management contexts, these perspectives led to
leadership theories, situating their emergence in the con- theories and research on how positional leaders accom-
text of the broader evolution of leadership knowledge, and plished goals in organizational settings, on what traits and
highlighting several prominent contemporary theories. styles were effective to achieve outcomes, and eventually
Specific attention will be paid to how philosophical tradi- on how the leader influenced others in the organization.
tions of inquiry served as a catalyst for the emergence of These theories reflected prevailing social constructions of
contemporary theories and to defining characteristics leadership that were associated with traditionally mascu-
across these theories. The chapter will end with a critique line, industrial, and structural approaches such as hierarchi-
of contemporary leadership theory and with recommenda- cal relationships, achievement orientations, and leveraging
tions for future directions. of power. Families of leadership theory consistent with this
111
112–•–II. PHILOSOPHY AND THEORIES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP
approach include great man theories and trait-based leader- perspectives on leadership accompanied a fragmented and
ship models. This body of theory contributed to the cre- hierarchical view of organizations at a time when knowledge
ation of a heroic leader archetype further linking leadership was perceived as finite, systems as closed, problem solving
to the individual and to the extraordinary. as linear, the top of organizations as all-knowing, and orga-
Over time, leadership theories began to explore the nizations themselves as controllable environments. These
topic from more of a production orientation, examining not theories paralleled positivism, the prevailing epistemologi-
only individuals as positional authorities, but also the role cal tradition of knowledge at the time the theories were gen-
followers play in the leadership process. These theories erated. Positivism assumes that universal truths exist, and
still emphasized positional roles, but they acknowledged that knowledge is finite so it can be objectively measured.
that outcome achievement was often dependent on the These beliefs play out in theoretical conceptualizations that
degree to which the leader could mobilize, motivate, and support a single, right way to lead or support cause-and-
otherwise influence the commitment and productivity effect approaches to working with followers.
of followers. Thus, leadership became synonymous with Conversely, naturalistic epistemological traditions such
effective management and influence of human resources. as constructivism, critical inquiry, and postmodernism as
Leadership theories consistent with this interpretation outlined by Egon Guba and Yvonne Lincoln (1994) sug-
include behavioral theories, contingency and situational gest that knowledge is socially constructed, inherently sub-
theories, path-goal theory, and leader–member exchange jective, complex and nonlinear, and influenced by social
theory (LMX). systems (e.g., economic, political). The use of these emer-
Joseph C. Rost (1991) suggests that perhaps the most gent epistemologies in leadership research and theory
dramatic and noted shift in the evolution of leadership building contributed significantly to contemporary theo-
theory occurred in the late 1970s with the release of James ries by allowing for the exploration of a more diverse range
MacGregor Burns’s book Leadership (1978). This seminal of perspectives, deconstructing essentialist notions of
work reconceptualized leadership as not only process ori- power and position, and examining nonhierarchical and
ented but also as necessarily focused on follower develop- nonlinear process orientations. Contemporary theories
ment. This reframing situated the end goal as equally posited by Rost as reflecting the emergent or postindustrial
important and as more easily achieved in a process that leadership paradigm certainly reflect this perspective.
valued the development and empowerment of the follower. Table 14.1 contrasts select elements of these conventional
Although still leader centric in many ways, Burns’s work and contemporary views of leadership.
opened the door for countless other theories that explored The examination of epistemological traditions informs
leadership from an alternative lens. Rost argued that this the understanding of contemporary leadership theory and
represented a paradigmatic shift in leadership theory, moving calls into question the extent to which a paradigm shift
away from conventional or industrial perspectives and actually occurred in its evolution. Social constructivism,
toward those characterized by collaborative process orien- critical theory, postmodernism, and feminist theory have
tations, reciprocal relationships, and systems approaches all played important roles in shaping contemporary lead-
in organizational work. ership theory and are characterized by the degree to
which they give voice to historically marginalized popu-
Philosophical Evolution lations, capture the complexities of social interactions,
and address power dynamics. These approaches to
Adrianna J. Kezar, Rozana Carducci, and Melissa research and theory building revealed and validated the
Contreras-McGavin (2006) asserted that evolving conceptual- leadership perspectives long held by many women and
izations of leadership theory are derived largely from the epis- those from collectivist cultures who have historically val-
temologies that influenced their generation. In other words, ued collaboration, interdependent relationships, commu-
theory can reflect only the assumptions of knowledge that nity responsibility, and systemic views. The forms of
inform its creation. As such, major shifts in how leadership is leadership that these communities had been practicing
understood often run parallel to changes in how knowledge is were often labeled as social activism and dismissed as
conceived. When used as an interpretive lens on the evolution unsustainable and/or lacking in the organizational struc-
of leadership theory, this provides critical insights not only ture necessary for long-term outcome achievement.
into how and why thinking has advanced, but also into the These perceptions reinforced industrial conceptions of
continuing gaps in theoretical conceptualizations of the sub- leadership and, thus, normative structures characterized
ject matter. Thus, awareness of epistemological traditions can by power differentials. Who could be a leader was clear
be a powerful tool for understanding both conventional and and often did not include women and people of color. It
contemporary leadership theory. These epistemological could be, then, that what is commonly referred to as a
frames include positivism-functionalism, social construc- paradigm shift did not occur for those whose perspectives
tivism, critical inquiry, and postmodernism. reflected industrial approaches to leadership and for the
Margaret J. Wheatley (1992) and Kathleen E. Allen and vast majority was simply a definitional shift that
Cynthia Cherrey (2000) suggested that early theoretical embraced their long held ways of being.
14. Contemporary Leadership Theories–•–113
Consequently, reframing the paradigm shift in the changing views of organizations from closed, hierarchi-
evolution of leadership theory as one that occurred cal entities to open, dynamic, rapidly changing, inter-
largely for those in dominant societal positions is critical. connected systems.
It allows for more accurate and appropriate attribution
of sources of contemporary theory to traditionally mar-
ginalized communities that have often felt distanced Contemporary Leadership Theory
from the term. The valuing of more inclusive leadership
practices has widened the social construction of leader- Contemporary leadership theory is typically associated
ship and enriched the capacity of people in groups with the body of work emerging as part of what Rost called
working together toward more effective outcomes. the postindustrial paradigm. Broadly, these theories
These views exist in dynamic reciprocity with the reframed leadership as a dynamic and reciprocal process
114–•–II. PHILOSOPHY AND THEORIES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP
between people pursuing a common goal. Much of this lit- drawing more heavily from grassroots movements and
erature also situates leadership as inherently directed at social activism as a complement to traditional political
improving the common good and grounded in social and market-based frames.
responsibility. This section will highlight the emergence of
contemporary theory. Exploring Key Contemporary Theories
Pulitzer Prize–winning political scientist Burns is
widely credited as the catalyst for contemporary leadership A number of contemporary leadership theories have
theory. Burns’s perspectives on transforming leadership either been critical in the advancement of this line of think-
presented in his 1978 book, Leadership, challenged con- ing or offered unique contributions in a specific area. These
ventional views by situating leadership as an ethical theories emphasize the relational, collaborative nature of
process that demanded a commitment to both modal and leadership. Several of these theories are reviewed in the
end values. Burns advocated that a key responsibility for following sections. This list is not meant to be exhaustive,
any positional leader was to develop followers into leaders nor can it capture the depth and complexity that these the-
themselves, making it clear that organizations needed to be ories embody. Therefore, readers are encouraged to consult
leader full, not just leader led. He advocated that each with source material for a full understanding of the content.
person, regardless of role, should be engaged in what was This information is provided in the recommended readings
characterized as an inherently relational and collaborative located at the end of the chapter. In addition, readers will
process. Thanks in large part to this work, the conventional find resources elsewhere in this handbook on community-
role of followers began to be reconstructed as that of col- based leadership models and other contemporary political
laborators, cocreators, constituents, and as central to the models that may be useful in understanding the full range
leadership process. A clear differentiation emerged of contemporary leadership theory.
between leader and leadership, with the term leader typi-
cally reflecting position or responsibility and leadership Transforming Leadership
reflecting the collaborative process. His work provided a
critical foundation for the development of future leader- Burns’s work broadened the view of leadership as some-
ship theories incorporating complexity theory, chaos thing beyond the behaviors of a positional leader to include
theory, and system perspectives. processes among those engaged in accomplishing shared
Wheatley and Allen and Cherrey observed that these purposes. He also advocated a values-based approach to
perspectives emerged at a time when organizations were leadership. Beyond transactions that always occur between
beginning to be reframed as part of networked, open, leaders and members of organizations, he advised leaders
integrated systems in which knowledge was infinite and to develop their followers to be leaders themselves. Burns’s
rapidly changing, and organizations could be influenced, comfort with advancing values reframed leadership for
but not controlled. Chaos theory explained the pattern- many scholars as inherently acknowledging the authentic
ing in these more complex times with such concepts as internal character of people engaging in trusting and hon-
attractors, force fields, feedback loops, and self-organizing orable relationships toward positive, moral outcomes (e.g.,
systems. Concurrently, more marginalized groups demanded liberty and justice). Burns’s complex work uses presidents
pluralistic and inclusive practices, and even the most and other positional leaders as examples, which paradoxi-
conventional organizations recognized the need to cally can be confusing to readers in relation to his message
develop and use the diverse talents of its memberships. that everyone is to be brought into the leadership process
Allen and Cherrey further asserted that these new times and be thought of as leaders themselves.
required new ways of relating, new ways of changing, Building on Burns’s notions of transforming and trans-
new ways of learning, and new ways of leading. Ronald actional leadership processes, Bernard Bass and colleagues
Heifetz (1994) framed these conditions as contributing (Bass, 1985; Bass and Riggio, 2006) framed their research to
to complex, adaptive challenges that required an explore what Bass termed transformational leadership, ini-
approach to leadership that went well beyond routinized tially rejecting the ethical and moral component of Burns’s
or technical problem solving. model. The inclusion of charisma as a transformational
The result of the above is a contemporary scholarship leader trait in Bass’s and Bruce Avolio’s work (1994) paral-
that typically leans toward a conceptualization of leader- leled a resurgence in the concept of charismatic leadership by
ship that is values based, complex, and directed at goal other scholars, though this was not intended by Burns. Bass
achievement related to the common good. This scholar- and colleagues were seeking to identify the dynamic between
ship is also derived from a broader array of disciplines the leader and individual followers that elevated followers to
(e.g., business, social psychology, education, political be leaders themselves, and initially charisma seemed to
science), although the degree to which theories have been describe that dynamic. Avolio and his colleagues subse-
adopted by and/or transferred between disciplines varies quently went on to further explore this dynamic and the
considerably. In addition, contemporary theory reflects a moral character of leadership and identified authentic lead-
more diverse range of perspectives in its conceptualization, ership as its underlying foundational structure.
14. Contemporary Leadership Theories–•–115
standards to enact deeply held values and practice a con- This authenticity leads to what Avolio and Gardner referred
sistency of alignment. Commitment identifies the impor- to as an inclusive, ethical, caring, and strength-based orga-
tance of following through on one’s passions and choosing nizational climate. Grounded in the positive psychology
to make a difference in all communities of practice. The movement, identification of authenticity promotes trust
group values identify important practices that are central to and sustainability in the reciprocal relationships in groups
groups of diverse people working toward common goals. and organizations. Authentic leadership suggests that lead-
Common purpose signals the ability of the individuals in ership should be inherently focused on the development of
the group to agree on shared vision, on shared purposes, follower capacity and on the constant and critical explo-
and to work together for change. Collaboration is valued as ration of self on the part of the leader. Most scholars con-
the most effective philosophy and practice of individuals sider authentic leadership to be a root construct, suggesting
and groups. Recognizing that this process is hard work, that one can practice authentic approaches to other forms
controversy with civility identifies the importance of of leadership (e.g., authentic servant leadership, authentic
thoughtful differences of opinion that enrich and propel a adaptive leadership).
group’s actions. The societal-community value of citizen-
ship brings the frame of a heightened responsibility to Reemergence of Trait and Behavioral Theories
improve our shared world acting as an active citizen in all
one’s communities of practice. The interaction of all As contemporary models evolved in tandem with an
seven values contributes to an individual or group’s expanded study of personality theory, some scholars such
knowledge, skills, and beliefs related to socially responsi- as S. A. Kirkpatrick and Ed Locke (1991) revisited earlier
ble leadership. conventional trait and behavioral theories to understand
what characteristics, capacities, and behaviors were essen-
Complexity Leadership tial for one to be effective in this relational, process
approach to leadership. Conventional traits such as intel-
Building upon previous work by Heifetz, Wheatley, and ligence, masculinity, and dominance were replaced by
other systemic, chaos, and adaptive leadership scholars, such contemporary traits as honesty, integrity, and self-
Mary Uhl-Bien and Russ Marion (2001) conceptualized an confidence. Behavioral or leadership style research
approach to leadership built upon complexity science. reemerged in the contemporary work of such scholars as
They defined leadership as much more than the actions of James Kouzes and Barry Posner (2007) in The Leadership
those in authority, as a complex dynamic resulting from the Challenge. The five practices derived from their research
collective need for change that emerges from organiza- (i.e., model the way, inspire a shared vision, enable others
tional interactions. The theory identifies three forms of to act, encourage the heart, and challenge the process)
leadership (i.e., administrative, enabling, and adaptive) have been popular and provided an approachable model
that interact within the hierarchical, organizational systems enabling individuals to see how they might be effec-
in which individuals function. The goal of complexity tive in the processes of leadership regardless of role.
leadership is to foster system-level adaptive outcomes such Contemporary trait and behavioral approaches to leader-
as increased innovation, learning, and creativity. Perhaps ship are also visible in the GLOBE research project, a
more than most theories, complexity leadership takes into complex, large-scale research program conceived by
account the context in which leadership occurs, suggesting Robert J. House, Paul J. Hanges, Mansour Javidan, Peter
that organizational structures and decision making must be W. Dorfman, and Vipin Gupta (2004) examining cultural
adaptive and responsive and that influences on this are nei- influences on leadership. The GLOBE study is comprised
ther wholly individual nor systemic, but reflect complex of quantitative and qualitative data collected in 62 soci-
interactions. This theory pushes the boundaries of thinking eties used to examine the universality of leadership behav-
regarding the incredible complexity that emerges from iors and attributes. Study results led to the development of
organizational leadership and the degree to which systems six culturally endorsed implicit theories of leadership dis-
and structures must foster environments that support tinguishing between individuals’ perceptions of effective
adaptive thinking. and ineffective leaders. These theories largely offer a
revised set of learnable skills and/or preferred behaviors
Authentic Leadership related to leadership styles that are more consistent with
contemporary leadership theory.
Analyzing the emergence of collaborative, relational,
and interactionist theories, Avolio and William L. Gardner Reconceptualization of Industrial Theories
(2005), and other scholars asserted that authenticity is the
underlying foundation upon which leadership is often pred- Just as trait and behavioral theories have been recon-
icated. Michael H. Kernis (2003) described four core ele- ceptualized to reflect contemporary leadership theory,
ments of authenticity: self-awareness, unbiased processing, scholars have also attempted to adapt other industrial
relational authenticity, and authentic behavior or action. models to fit postindustrial perspectives. This is evident
14. Contemporary Leadership Theories–•–117
Redistribution of Power and Shared Leadership Some theories present elaborate characteristics of lead-
ership or posit unique dimensions and values associated
As postindustrial leadership theories relinquished with it, yet never present a coherent definition of the con-
assumptions regarding organizations as closed and hierar- struct itself. This is problematic as the underlying latent
chical and adopted more systems-based perspectives, con- construct representing leadership becomes muddied and
ceptions of power shifted as well. This is not to suggest that open to the interpretation of the reader. In addition, spe-
power and authority do not influence leadership, but that cific terminology can become problematic as definitional
alternative forms of power and influence can be wielded in understanding is assumed or omitted entirely. Terms such
the process. Many contemporary theories acknowledge as ethics, values, and morals are frequently shared without
important new considerations for how authority is exer- adequate explication and differentiation. This makes it
cised in positional leadership roles. These typically involve nearly impossible for comparison across conceptual mod-
varying degrees of acknowledgment of a partner-based els let alone empirical validation. Finally, common terms
approach between leaders and followers characterized by reflected in contemporary leadership theories (e.g., com-
common goals. This redistribution of power is most evi- mon good, citizenship, collaboration) often lack philo-
dent in contemporary theories that differentiate between sophical or theoretical grounding. Who defines the
authority and influence with some going so far as to sug- common good? From what traditions are we arguing for
gest that influence lies just as much in the collective just leadership? Understanding the traditions from which
(e.g., team, group) as it does with individual actors. these concepts are derived not only enhances the clarity of
Interdependence and acknowledgment of the complexity theories but also provides the level of rigor necessary for
of leadership serve as critical dimensions to models that theory testing.
support shared approaches to leadership. Implications of
redistributing power in the leadership process abound,
ranging from increased inclusivity to diverse and alterna- Integrative Approaches
tive perspectives to growing comfort with ambiguous role
Contemporary political and civic leadership theories
assignment in leadership efforts.
would benefit from a more complex and integrative
The above themes represent central points of departure
approach in their construction both structurally and in
between conventional and contemporary leadership theo-
terms of the disciplines from which they are derived.
ries. They also provide a source for internal differentiation
Structurally, many existing theories examine the agent or
between and among contemporary theories. Individual
individuals in a leadership process but fail to capture the
models fall along a diverse continuum in terms of their
context in which leadership is occurring. More complex
conceptualization of these dimensions, offering varying
analytic methods have allowed for consideration of mul-
degrees of clarity and congruence in their conceptualiza-
tiple levels of analysis in empirical leadership research.
tion and definition of key aspects from each thematic area.
This, however, should be expanded to examine not only
the players but also the context. What elements of the
environment (e.g., organizational culture and climate,
Future Directions nature of tasks, historical context, group characteristics)
and Remaining Questions in which the leadership process is occurring influence
it? Certainly, individual leadership attributes, group
The increasing complexity of contemporary political and processes, and outcome achievement are all influenced to
civic leadership theory and the rapid rate at which it is varying degrees by the organizational context in which
being generated present a number of challenges. These leadership occurs. This likely requires epistemological
challenges surface important questions not fully addressed frameworks that avoid reductionist approaches. As
by existing models as well as point to future directions for research begins to explore this more fully, findings will
empirical research and theory building. Central among need to be used to evolve existing theory. Perhaps one
these are the need for greater definitional clarity in limitation to progress in this area is the relative lack of
theoretical models, a more integrative approach to both interdisciplinarity in contemporary theory building.
theoretical structures and empirical testing, and increased Although there have been increases in the number of dis-
attention to developmental considerations. ciplines conducting inquiry around political and civic
leadership, there are fewer examples of integrative
Definitional Clarity approaches used in the construction of theories. The
above structural complexity cannot occur with a singular
As often cited, the number of theories related to leader- disciplinary perspective and, indeed, requires considera-
ship is vast and represents the diverse perspectives and frame- tions from psychology, anthropology, sociology, environ-
works from which researchers and theorists approach this mental design, political science, public policy, and
important work. Despite that contemporary leadership the- education—just to name a few. The evolution of political
ories often share common themes, there is a general lack of and civic leadership theory would benefit from diverse
definitional clarity both within and between theories. and integrative disciplinary perspectives.
14. Contemporary Leadership Theories–•–119
References and Further Readings Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in
teams. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 857–880.
Allen, K. E., & Cherrey, C. (2000). Systemic leadership. Day, D. V., Zaccaro, A. J., & Halpin, S. M. (Eds.). (2004).
Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Leadership development for transforming organizations:
Astin, H., & Leland, C. (1991). Women of influence, women of Growing leadership for tomorrow (pp. 153–176). Mahwah,
vision. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for Drath, W. H., & Palus, C. J. (1994). Making common sense:
leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62, 25–33. Leadership as meaning making in a community of
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership practice. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
development: Getting to the root of positive forms of Leadership.
leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338. Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R., (2007). Developing leadership
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond capacity in college students: Findings from a national
expectations. New York: Free Press. study. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational Leadership Programs.
effectiveness through transformational leadership. Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership. New York: Paulist
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Press.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in
leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117).
world. American Psychologist, 62, 1–5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bordas, J. (2007). Salsa, soul, and spirit: New approaches to Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers.
leadership from Latino, Black, and American Indian Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
communities. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s ways of
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. leadership. New York: Doubleday.
Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (2007). Culture Helgesen, S. (1995). The web of inclusion: A new architecture
and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of for building great organizations. New York: Doubleday.
in-depth studies of 25 societies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). A social change
Erlbaum. model of leadership development: Guidebook version III.
Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Ethics: The heart of leadership (2nd ed.). College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership
Westport, CT: Praeger. Programs.
120–•–II. PHILOSOPHY AND THEORIES OF POLITICAL AND CIVIC LEADERSHIP
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex
Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 389–418.
The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, Northouse, P. G. (2006). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th
CA: Sage. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Shared
self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1–26. leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership.
Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(2006). Rethinking the “L” word in higher education: Preskill, S., & Brookfield, S. D. (2008). Learning as a way of
The revolution in research on leadership. ASHE leading: Lessons from the struggle for social justice.
Higher Education Report 31(6). San Francisco: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jossey-Bass. Rhode, D. L. (Ed.). (2006). Moral leadership: The theory and
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits practice of power, judgment, and policy. San Francisco:
matter? The Executive, 5, 48–60. Jossey-Bass.
Komives, S. R. (2001). Both/and not either/or: Viewing the gap Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century.
as social construction. Journal of College Student New York: Praeger.
Development, 42, 338–341. Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2007). Complexity leadership: Part
Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2007). 1. Conceptual foundations. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Exploring leadership: For college students who Van Knippenberg, A., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). Leadership and
want to make a difference (2nd ed.). San Francisco: power: Identity processes in groups and organizations.
Jossey-Bass. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., Van Velsor, E., & Drath, W. H. (2004). A lifelong developmental
& Osteen, L. (2005). Developing a leadership identity: A perspective on leader development. In C. D. McCauley &
grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, E. V. Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership
46, 593–611. handbook of leadership development (pp. 383–414).
Komives, S. R., Wagner, W., & Associates. (2009). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social Walters, R. W., & Smith, R. C. (1999). African American
change model of leadership development. San Francisco: leadership. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Jossey-Bass. Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new science:
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge Learning about organization from an orderly universe.
(4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Lipman-Bluman, J. (1996). Connective leadership: Managing in Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.).
a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2004). Flexible leadership: Creating
the development of leadership skill. Leadership Quarterly, value by balancing multiple challenges and choices.
16, 591–615. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.