This address will present the findings of a recently completed synthesis of leadership research conducted over the past four years in Australia and New Zealand. The implications of those findings for the profile of effective organisational leadership will also be discussed.
The data have come from a synthesis of 14 major research projects into the practice and nature of leadership in various Australian and New Zealand organisational settings.
Twenty-two researchers used qualitative and quantitative methods to interview and survey over 5000 Australians from the public service, police, finance, manufacturing, health and emerging technology industries, university professionals, senior industry executives, and politicians. Comparisons were made with US research covering over 4000 respondents.
Most of the findings, and the implications thereof, were published by Pitman Publishing in the book Leadership Research and Practice: Emerging Themes and New Challenges (Parry, 1996).
A summary of the key characteristics of the research projects is included in Table 1.
Within the scope of leadership research presented here, a reasonably comprehensive assessment of the field is presented.
The work by Bruce Avolio addresses the issues covered by the Karpin Report (1995), and presents his interpretation of the ways that Transformational Leadership can meet those challenges for Australia. Importantly, his work also introduces the concept of transformational leadership. This is important because Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass are the originators of the most detailed and researched interpretation of transformational leadership, and they are the creators of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and the Full Range Leadership Development (FRLD) program, the principal instrument used to measure transformational leadership. Also, their work is cited frequently by leadership researchers worldwide, an indication of the emphasis placed on transformational leadership.
Avolio's work discusses the component aspects of transformational leadership and outlines its benefits from the individual, team and TQM perspectives. This is done from within the context of the challenges for Australia that are outlined in the Karpin Report. Emergent themes from his work are the criticality of changes to the extant mindsets of management; the criticality of organisational learning; the importance of changing and improving the existing management workforce rather than waiting for a newly educated workforce to come forth; and the importance for leadership of building teams and building cultures.
Di Lewis has presented an alternative and critical perspective on transformational leadership. Her new model of transformational leadership emphasises the visionary aspects of Bass and Avolio's transformational leadership. Also, it introduces the importance of specific personality variables and emphasises the use of a power-coercive strategy to change organisational culture.
Stewart Clegg and John Gray introduce more topical issues within the shadow of the Karpin committee report on Australia's leadership and management skills. The discontinuity of society and industry has given rise to the importance of embryonic industries, which are new and emerging. These embryonic industries require a new paradigm of leadership to cope with the changing environment. Elements of this new paradigm which are discussed include the feminisation of leadership, organisational learning, nontraditional forms of communication, and strategic learning.
Another paradigm shift has been recommended by James Sarros, Oleh Butchatsky and Joe Santora. Based on analysis of interviews with senior Australian executives, the authors have generated a model of breakthrough leadership. Breakthrough leaders rethink the structures, processes, values and ideals of the realities of organisational life with the purpose of improving existing practices, or replacing them with something better or more relevant. The paradigm shift is in how individuals view reality. Breakthrough leadership is characterised by respect for others; the clarification of values; a willingness to look, listen, learn; and a systems approach to leadership. It results in the four Cs -- continuous learning, confidence, competence and commitment.
|
Author |
Number of subjects |
Industry |
Method |
General area |
| Avolio | 4000+ United States | Various | Quantitative/ questionnaire | Transformational leadership |
| Lewis | Several hundred | Tertiary education | Case study | Transformational leadership/power |
| Clegg and Gray | Not stated | Emerging technologies | Case study | Organisational learning |
| Sarros et al. | 24 CEOs | Various | Interview/ qualitative | Breakthrough leadership |
| Adamson | 124 occupational therapy professionals | Health -- occupational therapy | Quantitative/ questionnaire | Transformational leadership |
| Hede and Wear | 41 (ex) Cabinet Ministers | Government | Questionnaire/ literature review | Transformational leadership |
| Carless et al. | 2122 | Banking | Quantitative/ questionnaire | Leadership and team cohesion |
| Ashkanasy and Weierter | 190 | Industrial and service | Quantitative | Values and leadership |
| Parry and Sarros | 133 | Hospital, tertiary, fire service | Quantitative/ questionnaire | Transformational leadership |
| Singer | 400+ New Zealand, Taiwan | Police, university, middle management | Mainly quantitative | Ethics and leadership |
| Irurita | 33 nurse managers | Health-nursing managers | Qualitative | Transforming and optimising |
| Dickenson | 25 senior executives | State public service (SES) | Mainly quantitative | Learning and motivation |
| Gardner et al. | 2418 | Public/private | Quantitative | Leader communication |
| Parry | 46 | Public (local government) | Qualitative | Enhancing adaptability and transforming |
Transformational leadership is a popular and current concept in leadership. Its time has come, and has a fair way to go as yet. It is the most researched and validated leadership construct in scholarly use today. Its persuasiveness and beneficial effect has been documented in a range of cultural and organisational settings around the world (Bass, 1997). Transformational leadership has its detractors, but it is still a popular and persuasive research construct. This is evidenced by its concentration in the research that is undertaken in Australia. Charisma and charismatic leadership have been around for quite some time. Yet, important issues still need to be addressed about the true nature of charisma, as it has a different meaning almost every time someone writes about it. Be that as it may, some valuable insights have been gained from the research into charismatic leadership.
Lynne Adamson reported on the transformational leadership, or otherwise, of occupational therapy managers. With this work, the strength and effectiveness of transformational leadership is supported once again. Also, interestingly, the lower ratings given by Australasian followers vis-à-vis US followers is observed, as is the propensity for women to have considerable aptitude for transformational leadership. The importance of leadership training for health care professionals is reported.
Andy Hede and Rae Wear reported on an interesting piece of research. The political leadership of Prime Ministers and Premiers was researched using the transformational leadership Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Cabinet ministers were the respondents to the research. At the same time, biographical analysis of those heads of "state" provided an alternate explanation of their leadership style and effectiveness. This work differentiates between micro leadership and macro leadership. That is an interesting theoretical distinction and an emerging area of interest. Political leaders who may be seen as transactional by the public may actually be seen as very transformational by the people with whom they work at a micro level; and vice versa. This work emphasises the importance of being both transformational AND transactional for optimum long-term effectiveness. It also suggests ways in which leaders can be seen as transformational at the macro level. This supports and builds upon the work of Avolio and Bass (1995) who have investigated the micro/macro issue with regard to one of the transformational leadership factors, individualised consideration.
Sally Carless, Leon Mann and Alex Wearing have reported on a detailed investigation of managers in the banking industry. It was found that evidence of charisma, including individualised consideration, can differentiate between high and low performing managers. However, intellectual stimulation still does not provide clear evidence of its potency in the Australasian setting. In research using the MLQ in a variety of settings, mixed and contradicting results have been found about the impact that intellectual stimulation has on desirable outcomes (Adamson, 1994; Densten, 1995; Parry, 1994b). Carless et al. provide a process model of the impact of transformational leadership on desirable outcomes. However, the methodology still imposes specified variables such that only those variables are considered to be part of that process. Valuable conclusions are drawn about the training and development of managers in the banking industry. Training should focus on the generation of leader self efficacy; on the development of group cohesion; and on transformational leadership skills.
Neal Ashkanasy and Stuart Weierter have concentrated on charisma. These researchers have suggested that leader and follower values need to be complementary rather than congruent. In other words, values do not need to be the same, but they must complement each other. The challenge for leaders is to identify the values that they and their followers possess, and to ensure that those values are not incompatible. Another critical finding relates to the self-awareness of followers. Followers who are self aware and who have values which are compatible with their leader's, will develop and perform to their optimum and will not be influenced by narcissistic leadership or inappropriate organisational policies. Self-awareness can be generated and developed within followers.
Ken Parry and James Sarros examined similarities and differences between Australia and the USA in terms of the construction of transformational leadership. Individualised consideration is found to load with charisma in this work, and is a strong predictor of employee satisfaction, although intellectual stimulation has mixed results in the Australian context. Australians consistently rate their managers lower on transformational leadership factors than do US followers. The implications include an emphasis in leadership development on individualised consideration, plus idealised influence and inspirational motivation.
Leadership is looked at from three perspectives Ming Singer. Leader behaviours and cognitive processes are two perspectives examined, but the "emerging" issue of importance is the perspective on the personal ethics associated with the leadership role. An ethical foundation is critical to real leadership because it operates as an in-built "check" over the use of the leadership skills and behaviours. There is debate in the literature as to whether an ethical or moral dimension is critical to true leadership. Singer agrees with the majority that it is. The point is cogently put that a high level of personal ethics should be mandated for everyone in business, not just "leaders".
Vera Irurita has reported on an excellent piece of grounded theory research into leadership. Grounded theory is a valuable research method because it seeks to determine a basic social process to explain phenomena. Since leadership can be seen as a social process, grounded theory is a logical method to use. Moreover, because grounded theory is a qualitative method, it can integrate the variety of potential variables that may impact on the leadership process in a given setting. Irurita's work in the nursing sector uncovered the basic social process of "optimising", which is the process of making the best of the situation; making the most effective, or optimal use of all available and potential resources. A range of interacting variables constituted the associated theory. Practical implications include the importance of changing the culture or context in which leadership operates. In the nursing sector, this includes amongst other things, an important role for mentoring in generating culture change. Training, development, and selection implications are also addressed.
Carol Dickenson examined leadership roles in the Senior Executive Service of the Queensland State Government. In an essentially descriptive study, an important issue uncovered was the importance given to a change in managerial mindset toward a continuous learning culture. This involved mainly self-learning by the senior executives. Work was seen as a major developmental experience.
John Gardner, Victor Callan and Deborah Terry examined some links between leadership communication and selected outcomes in organisations undergoing change. Research findings supported the criticality of individualised consideration for improvements in follower satisfaction and psychological well-being. Implications for practitioners include some ways to operationalise communication for more effective individualised consideration.
Parry reported on a purely qualitative research project on leadership processes at work in local government authorities undergoing large-scale change. The findings emphasised the importance within the leadership role of the ability to enhance the adaptability of both followers and leaders to the changes that occur in organisations. Leaders must improve their own personal adaptability to their leadership role. They must also improve the capability of the "troops" to adapt to the changing and confusing environment presented by organisational change.
The aim of this project was to consolidate the research done into the important challenge of organisational leadership in Australia, such that a launching pad of sorts is created, from which leadership research can progress, and the boundaries of understanding can be extended. Ideally, as a result of this beginning, research into the nature and practise of leadership will extend from Australia and New Zealand into the wider Pacific and South East Asian region, and continue to intertwine with leadership research undertaken globally.
The systhesis of the above research conducted recently in Australia and New Zealand gives the reader a good indication of the "state of play" in leadership research and its practical implications for the management of organisations. A number of themes run through this work. I will address them in no particular order.
Leader self-development. The first theme is an emphasis on leader self-development, and the implication that better leadership is achievable by most people by taking responsibility for their own developmental experiences. Gardner et al. provide some valuable suggestions for leaders, or potential leaders, to improve the individualised consideration aspect of their transformational leadership portfolio. Indeed, the significant role of individualised consideration competency is emphasised by Parry and Sarros, and Carless et al. and is prominent in any discussion of transformational leadership. Its particular importance in the Australasian setting cannot be underestimated. Improvements in individualised consideration capability are routinely referred to in this literature as being of prime importance to leader self-development.
Self-development should include self-efficacy, defined by Carless as the tendency to believe that the leader can personally make a difference to the group or situation. Carlopio et al. (1997:419) define self-efficacy as "a sense of personal competence". Furthermore, to the extent that follower self awareness is emphasised by Ashkanasy and Weierter, the empowering role of leaders should include an ethical responsibility to improve the self-efficacy and self awareness of followers also. Therefore, self-awareness and self-efficacy are similar psychological constructs and are represented to varying degrees in organisational settings. This has also been found by Parry (1998a), wherein the role clarity of leaders and the personal adaptability of followers were found to have a beneficial impact within the leadership process. Another of Carless' summary findings is that managers who are confident in their own abilities are more likely to practise transformational leadership.
Self-development should include the analysis of, and the expansion of, one's value system as a leader. The criticality of value congruence between leader and follower was emphasised by Ashkanasy and Weierter. Singer stressed that a leader's value system must be founded on an ethical base. Consequently, self development entails self analysis of one's value system as a leader.
The relevance to leaders of moral or ethical standards has been debated in the leadership literature. Bass (1989), Burns (1978) and Yukl (1998) have reviewed the published literature on the topic. Drawing from a range of conceptual frameworks and methodological approaches, they have emphasised the criticality of ethical values to true leadership. Rost (1993), in another extensive literature review, concluded that it is difficult for leadership to be "moral" because of the differing interpretations of moral action. These interpretations differ between leaders, followers, observers, and over time.
However, the findings from the research explored here indicate that ethical values are indispensable to real leadership. The influence and importance of transformational leadership is a common theme in this research, and the importance of moral and ethical leadership is an axiom of transformational leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1994). The analysis, interpretation, and alteration of one's value system cannot be imposed. It must come from within.
Dickenson discussed ways in which senior executive service public servants achieved continuous learning. Self-development, self-learning, and the importance of work-located experiences were central to their replies. Indeed, the nature of Dickenson's research was that respondents gave self-assessments on the ways that they achieve certain outcomes.
To the extent that Avolio, Lewis, Clegg and Gray, and Sarros et al. are proposing paradigm shifts in our conceptualisation of leadership, they proposed that leaders themselves critically re-evaluate their current style and improve it in line with the benchmark paradigm. This is a self-development exercise. After all, one can go to a training course and learn a skill like using a machine. One can do a training course and gain an understanding of occupational health and safety. One can even do a training course and practise certain "leader behaviours" such as communication. However, it is difficult to go to a training course and learn how to be a leader. To be a better leader, people must want to be one, and because most of the need and desire comes from within, the responsibility for leadership development rests with the individual. Leadership is largely a self-developmental exercise.
Avolio said that development should concentrate on existing managers. On the other hand, Karpin (1995) concentrated on the education system, in particular the tertiary system, to develop leadership in potential managers. In view of the acknowledged importance of the workplace in developing managers, one should not rely too strongly on the tertiary education system. In fact, there is evidence that people in business get as much benefit from work experiences as they do from their tertiary education (Business-Higher Education Round Table, 1995). As if to confirm our implicit feelings on the matter, the research of the Business-Higher Education Round Table indicates that work, home, school, and university contribute roughly equally to the development of important work skills. Most of these work skills are critical to leadership effectiveness. They include communication, thinking and decision-making, professional knowledge, ability to apply professional knowledge, ability to work independently, and cooperation and teamwork. Dickenson's research into senior executive service competencies supported this proposition. Thus, the workplace is at least as important a venue for leadership development as is tertiary education. As Avolio pointed out, the workplace has the most immediate and relevant impact. As Karpin (1995) pointed out, education develops the leaders of tomorrow.
The importance of learning. Parallel with leader self-development goes the issue of learning. As an issue for enhancing leader effectiveness, learning recurs as a theme through these reports. It may be couched in terms of strategic learning (Clegg and Gray), organisational learning (Avolio; Clegg and Gray), self-learning (Dickenson), continuous learning (Dickenson; Sarros et al.), self-awareness (Ashkanasy and Weierter), breakthrough leadership (Sarros et al.), or leader role clarity (Parry).
On the other hand, learning may be couched in terms of the training and self-development that practitioners need to be better leaders. These implications are addressed in every piece of research. It is well recognised that training and development are very different constructs. However, they both involve the subject in learning. For training, the learning is more skill based. For development, the learning is more conceptually based. For example, leaders may have to learn to be more "feminised" (Adamson; Clegg and Gray), or leaders may have to learn to move more readily in and out of power-coercive strategies (Lewis). Leaders may have to learn the nature of self-efficacy and how to achieve it (Carless et al.), or leaders may have to learn an appreciation and operationalisation of ethical behaviour (Singer). Leaders may engage in a range of developmental strategies through which they can enhance the adaptability of followers to change (Parry). Learning is indeed a ubiquitous challenge for leaders.
Also, learning may be couched in terms of the alternate methodologies that can and should be employed to research leadership. Examples are the biographical/empirical joint venture undertaken by Hede and Wear, or the rigorous grounded theory approach of Irurita and Parry, or the interview methodology employed by Sarros et al. While this form of learning may be achieved by researchers rather than practitioners, the benefits will ultimately flow through to practitioners in the many ways that knowledge is disseminated through the community.
Whichever way learning is interpreted from the present research, it is incumbent upon individuals, teams, and organisations to continuously self analyse and interpret their actions, values and image for opportunities to be better leaders. As Avolio stated, leaders should view learning as part of a personal responsibility to the organisation, and to each other.
Paradigm shifts. Paradigm shifts in thought, approach, and mindset are explicit and implicit themes in these projects. The need for paradigm shifts in leadership thought are explicitly stated by Avolio, Lewis, Clegg and Gray, and Sarros et al. A more implicit issue is that of the "Australasian-ness" of leadership. Parry and Sarros have found this, and the more particularly Australian value domain of "mateship" has been identified by Ashkanasy and O'Connor (1994) and Feather (1975), as cited in Ashkanasy and Weierter's work.
The references by Clegg and Gray and others to the Karpin committee's (1995) profile of the Australian manager for the 21st century is indicative of a paradigm shift in the conceptualisation of the nature of leadership. Leadership is seen obviously as more important than ever to managers, and those leaders/managers are being seen as having to be more cosmopolitan as the new century approaches. Singer has emphasised the role of ethics in strengthening the skill base of real leaders. This issue has been addressed in the literature as stated above, but the growing concern for ethics within society threatens to put a whole new complexion on the very nature of leadership.
Another aspect of the paradigm shifts recognised in the present works is the identification of the new directions that research methodology must take. Hede and Wear have taken the lead in "triangulating" two methodologies into the one research project. The use of questionnaires is not new. The use of biographical analysis is not new, but the use of both concurrently to clarify differences between the micro and macro dimensions of transformational leadership, is commendable. Similarly, Irurita and Parry have combined qualitative data gathering with qualitative analysis, something that has not characterised leadership research to date. This is proving to be a fertile direction for leadership research to take.
On the other hand, Lewis has drawn too close a link between organisational performance and culture change by leaders. Her findings about the relationship between transformational leadership, culture change, and organisational performance are not as perturbing as she suggests. Organisational culture is a function of leadership, but organisational performance is a function of many things besides leadership or organisational culture. Individual organisations can improve their "performance" even without the desired culture change. Individual organisations can improve their "performance" by using power-coercive change strategies. Lewis has found this in her case study, and this does not conflict substantially with the transformational leadership literature.
What transformational leadership does change is the motivation, belief, and attitude of followers. This in turn has an impact on their behaviour and values. This in turn has an impact on the culture of the organisation. This in turn has an impact, along with many other things like exchange rates, weather, government policy, and luck, of altering organisational performance. Transformational leadership ultimately has an impact on organisational performance, but not nearly as strong a direct impact as it has on follower perceptions of satisfaction, effectiveness and output (Howell and Avolio, 1993; Keller, 1992; Parry, 1994). Needless to say, the indirect effect of transformational leadership on organisational performance outcomes is well documented (Avolio, 1998; Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Moreover, it has been known for a long time that follower satisfaction does contribute to higher performance (Bass, 1960).
Additionally, Ashkanasy and Weierter have shown that follower values (a crucial aspect of culture) do not have to be the same as leader values. Rather, compatibility of values is more important than the congruency of leader and follower values. Therefore, non-achievement of desired culture change is not a bad thing as long as the values of followers are compatible with leader values. Be that as it may, Di Lewis has correctly pointed out that her research and theory is substantive only to the situation under examination, it is not yet formal theory applicable to a wide range of situations.
Hence, there are a number of paradigm shifts identified by the authors. In turn, these paradigm shifts have a number of properties, as discussed above.
Leaders must be high in Transformational and high in Transactional leadership. The research emphasis on transformational leadership is an important consideration in itself. Seven of the 14 research projects reported herein deal specifically with transformational leadership. In addition, Irurita and Parry reported that their findings have most in common with transformational leadership than other leadership theories; and Gardner et al. emphasised the increasing importance of transformational leadership skills, especially in stressful times. The importance of transformational leadership is a theme in itself. However, one must be sure not to neglect the important role played by transactional leadership in complementing the transformational construct.
Hede and Wear make this point explicitly clear. They have support form Bruce Avolio, one of the principle proponents of transformational leadership. Perhaps Di Lewis, in attempting to rationalise the use of power-coercive change strategies by transformational leaders, was also supporting this proposition. As she proposes, the normative-re-educative and empirical-rational strategies are representative of transformational leadership. On the other hand, the power-coercive strategy has a lot in common with transactional leadership, in particular management-by-exception (active) and the corrective aspects of contingent reward. By suggesting that leaders have this range of strategies to choose from, one is suggesting that leaders must be able to activate both transformational AND transactional qualities, as appropriate, to undertake change effectively.
The augmentation effect of transformational leadership over transactional has been reported originally by Waldman and Bass (1989) and Tosi (1982). The same effect has been found by Adamson (1994), and by Parry and Sarros (1994). In effect, this means that transactional leadership is a basic competency for managers, and the extra value of transformational leadership makes managers fully effective as leaders.
Ashkanasy and Weierter found an ideal scenario in which followers are self-aware and have values that are congruent with the leader's. With this scenario, both transactional and transformational (charismatic) leadership are effective in achieving positive outcomes for followers. The contrary scenario is that followers have values that are not congruent with the leader's. In this case, neither transactional nor transformational leadership are successful. In other words, transactional and transformational leadership are just as important as each other, even though they vary in impact on outcomes. Consequently, both styles of leadership must be undertaken by leaders.
Irurita found confirming evidence also that both leadership styles are necessary. Transforming leaders were effective at the full range of leadership competencies, transformational and transactional. Investors were effective at individualised consideration, intellectual stimulation, and transactional leadership. Survivors were effective only with transactional leadership. The progressive rise in effectiveness of these people parallelled the progressive increase in the range of available leadership styles from transactional through transformational.
This is an important point. Scholars and practitioners should not dwell too specifically on transformational leadership at the expense of transactional leadership. The best transformational leaders are also quite transactional. Clegg and Gray support this with their findings.
The above constitute the four themes which seem to be fairly ubiquitous to the research underaken recently in Australia. Attempting to synthesise these four themes is the next step.
The integration of these four themes provided an interesting challenge. The first challenge is to look for common properties between the themes. A common property is change. Self-development involves change in one's capabilities and competencies. Learning is an inherently self-oriented activity resulting in change in one's knowledge and skills. Paradigm shifts result in changes at a broader societal level. These changes are in thought, in perceptions of the role of leadership, and in approaches to research (which is a learning activity). Transformational leadership involves changes in the attitudes, motivations, beliefs, and ultimately the behaviours of followers.
Another common property is that these themes have a self-directed focus. Leader self-development is obviously self-directed. As stated above, learning is inherently self-directed or self-oriented. Leaders are learning about themselves (Sarros et al.). The "transformity" of leadership is something that is generated from within the leader. It is not some imposed or coerced construct. Finally, the paradigm shifts are at a societal level, but their impact is on the cognitive processes of followers and leaders.
Lastly, a common property of these themes is that they are all developmental. Leader self-development is self-explanatory. Learning is a developmental activity. The potency of development vis-à-vis training has already been discussed. The accumulation of transformational as well as transactional competence has developmental as well as training implications. Paradigm shifts, although macro by nature, impact on, among other things, the leader self-developmental properties of self-awareness, self-efficacy, personal adaptability, values and ethics.
Consequently, we are left with an overarching theme that pertains to a self-directed, developmental change rationale for improved leadership effectiveness. Within this overarching theme run the four consistent themes that leaders must be self-developmental; they recognise the importance of learning; are affected by societal paradigm shifts; and need to be both transformational and transactional. I have called the overarching theme leader self-assessment. As the name suggests, this concept involves leaders having the responsibility for assessing their own competencies and for undertaking the necessary developmental work to improve their levels of both transformational and transactional leadership capability. It is represented diagrammatically in Figure 1.
| Paradigm shifts | paradigm shifts | ||
| Importance of learning | leader self-development | T/F and T/A l-ship | effectiveness |
Figure 1 is an open systems model that represents the relationships between the component constructs of the leader self-assessment theme. The broader paradigm shifts affect both leader self-development and the importance to the leader of learning. Key aspects of the new paradigms suggest to leaders what they should learn, and how. They suggest also the areas of leader self-development, and the ways that this development can be achieved. In return, the strategic, organisational, developmental and continuous learning that leaders must undertake will contribute to the nature and implementation of the ongoing paradigm shifts in thought and in the role of leadership.
The learning that leaders undergo will assist also in developing their self-efficacy, their degree of personal adaptability, their values and ethics, their capacity for individualised consideration, and will allow them to critically evaluate their own capabilities. In turn, this leader self-development will create the capacity for leaders to be better transformational and transactional leaders. The impact of this on their effectiveness is well documented. The feedback loop represents the issue that people who are better transformational leaders are better at developing the capabilities of themselves and of their followers.
The model for the self-assessment theme of leader effectiveness is an open systems model. It cannot be isolated from the wider community and society in which it operates. The model is open to changes in community culture, organisational culture, and other sociological/anthropological factors. The model thus far is not a theory. It has not yet been researched sufficiently for that. However, the components of the model are well derived from the present research. Further research is needed to test the elements of the model and to theorise more rigorously about the nature of its reality.
Having integrated the research and theory, it is necessary now to integrate the implications for practitioners that have emerged from these pieces of research. An implication that became obvious was to develop a profile of these self-developing, self-assessing, transformational leaders.
The idea of generating a profile of the ideal manager or leader is not new. The Enterprising Nation report (Karpin, 1995) made good use of profiles for managers and leaders. Indeed, it is an increasingly popular activity among scholars. While seemingly simplistic and lacking in rigour, these profiles do serve valuable purposes:
Without wishing to ignore or contradict some of the "leader profiles" that have emerged in recent years, I would like to supplement these with elements that have evolved from the research findings reported herein. The following is by no means a complete profile of the ideal leader. Rather, it is a profile that has emerged from an iterative process of interpreting the research findings and implications suggested by the present authors. Moreover, the elements of the profile are not obviously contradicted anywhere in the present research or the existing literature. The leader who has emerged from the preceding research might have the following characteristics:
Practitioners appreciate getting information in a form that they can process and interpret readily. The leader profile is one way of doing that. The format for presenting the implications for practitioners should also be in some type of executive summary format. Therefore, the following is a summary of the implications for practitioners that the present authors have generated. The primary criterion for inclusion is that these implications are not contradictory.
The final integrative topic relates to future research directions. Within this context, two major issues stand out. The first is the issue of whether research will study leaders or the process of leadership. The second is the issue of the appropriateness or otherwise of certain research methods.
Target leadership, not leaders. Leadership is a process that can occur throughout organisations (Bass, 1990; Yammarino, 1994). As such, it should be researched from this organisation-wide perspective. However, the vast majority of "leadership" research investigates "managers", "leaders", or manager-subordinate relationships. Consequently, while much of this research claims to be based on the process of leadership, the concentration is invariably from the perspective of formal authority in an organisational hierarchy. Hence, a vast body of critical leadership data is neglected.
Within the present research, virtually all of the research projects investigate managers, or manager-subordinate relationships. Carless et al. researched the leadership process, but restricted the subject of data gathering to middle-level bank managers. Moreover, a constrained list of variables was used, so the depth and variability of the leadership process could not fully be gauged. Sarros et al. used a more open-ended form of qualitative analysis but still, the subjects were senior managers. Even Irurita, who used qualitative methodology to incorporate the full variation and complexity of possible variables, was still restricted to nursing managers.
Hence, leadership should be researched as a process that can occur throughout organisations, and not just from people at the senior end of the hierarchy. Therefore, to research leadership as a process demands that processual research methods be used. This leads into the final issue, that of research method.
Research method. The research reported in these projects displays both qualitative and quantitative methods, as well as excellent theoretical discussion. The qualitative/quantitative balance, however, is very much in favour of the latter. Recently there have been calls for greater use to be made of qualitative data and of qualitative analysis in the study of leadership (Parry, 1998b), partly to gain a better understanding of the processual issues associated with leadership.
The work of Hede and Wear was a clear mix of both qualitative and quantitative data and analysis. This work brings home the issue that most mainstream leadership research, being essentially psychology based and quantitative, emphasises the interpersonal "micro" dimensions of leadership. An emerging need is for leadership research to investigate the broader "macro" dimensions of the leadership process, in which leadership is seen as functioning within some broader society. This ball has been picked up by Conger (1989) who theorised about charisma as an attribution, Meindl (1990) who saw charisma as a "social contagion", Hunt (1991) who has called for more "subjectivist-oriented" research, and scholars like Schein (1992) who see leaders as architects of culture. More importantly for the macro dimensions of transformational leadership, Bass and Avolio have recognised this issue, and have constructed a new version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. This is the Team MLQ, or MLQT (Bass and Avolio, 1997).
Similarly, Irurita has pursued a very qualitative line of data gathering and analysis by using rigorous grounded theory as the research method. If leadership is seen as a social process operating within a society (Parry, 1998b), then grounded theory is appropriate. The aim of grounded theory is to discover a basic social process that explains the phenomenon under investigation. Grounded theory has been supported as a valid qualitative form of research into organisations (Martin and Turner, 1986; Turner, 1983). It has been supported as a valid form of research into the leadership process (Hunt, 1991; Hunt and Ropo, 1995; Parry, 1998b).
This method may open up doors into fertile areas of leadership research. The drawback is that grounded theory is only applicable to the substantive area under investigation. The findings cannot readily be translated into general theories. Hence, considerable "replication" must be undertaken of grounded theory research in a range of substantive areas before formal theories can be established. However, qualitative methodologies can synthesise a broad range of variables, and can generate more explanatory theories than mainstream leadership literature has achieved. In the present research, the work of Irurita, and of Hede and Wear have provided some of the most interesting and illuminating findings.
A conclusion is that leadership researchers should make greater use of qualitative data and rigorous qualitative analysis to investigate leadership processes.
Adamson, L. M. (1994). Management theory and leadership style applied to occupational therapy management practice. Masters Dissertation. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Ashkanasy, N. M. and O'Connor, C. (1994). Value Differences as a Barrier in Leader-Member Exchange: A Multidimensional Scaling Analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, Texas.
Avolio, B. J. (1998). Examining a full-range leadership development system. In G. Griffin (Ed.). Management Theory and Practice: Moving to a New Era. South Yarra: Macmillan Education Australia.
Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B. M. (1995). Individualized consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199-218.
Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, psychology and organizational behavior. New York: Harper.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd Ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Mindgarden Inc., Palo Alto, California.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (Eds.) (1994). Improving Organisational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M. (1989). The Two Faces of Charisma, Leaders Magazine, 12(4), 44-45.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Business-Higher Education Round Table (1995). Identifying Future Leaders: A Study of Career Progression and Development.
Carlopio, J., Andrewartha, G., Armstrong, H., Whetton, D. and Cameron, K. (1997). Developing Management Skills in Australia. South Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman.
Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Densten, I. (1995). Leadership and Burnout in the Victorian Police Force. Doctoral Thesis Preliminary Data, Monash University, Melbourne.
Feather, N. T. (1975). Values and Education in Society. New York: Free Press.
Howell, J. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 891-902.
Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: A New Synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hunt, J. G. and Ropo, A. (1995). Multi-level Leadership: Grounded Theory and Mainstream Theory Applied to the case of General Motors. Leadership Quarterly, 6 (3): 379-412.
Karpin, D. (Ed.) (1995). Enterprising Nation: Renewing Australia's Managers to meet the Challenges of the Asia-Pacific Century. Report of the Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills, April. Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra.
Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational Leadership and the Performance of Research and Design Project Groups. Journal of Management, 18(3), September, 489-501.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. D., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.
Martin, P. Y. and Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded Theory and Organisational Research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141-157.
Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. In Staw, B. M. and Cummings, L. L. (Eds). Research in Organizational Behaviour, 12, 159-203. Greenwich. Connecticut: JAI Press.
Parry, K. W. (1996) (Ed.) Leadership Research and Practice: Emerging Themes and New Challenges. South Melbourne: Pitman Publishing/Woodslane.
Parry, K. W. (1998a). Enhancing adaptability: Leadership strategies to accommodate change in local government settings. Journal of Organisational Change Management (under review).
Parry, K. W. (1998b). Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), Spring, 85-105.
Parry, K. W. and Sarros, J. (1994). Transformational Leadership: How Different from the United States?, Management Papers, 4 (2), June, 1-26.
Parry, K. W. (1994b). Transformational leadership: An Australian investigation of Leadership Behaviour. In A. Kouzmin, L. Still and P. Clarke (Eds.). New Directions in Management, Sydney: McGraw-Hill, Sydney, 82-114.
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd edn). San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 228-253.
Tosi, H. J. (1982). Towards a Paradigm Shift in the Study of Leadership. In J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran and C. A. Schriesheim, (Eds). Leadership: Beyond Establishment Views. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 222-234.
Turner, B. A. (1983). The Use of Grounded Theory for the Qualitative Analysis of Organisational Behaviour, Journal of Management Studies, 20 (3), 333-348.
Waldman, D. A. and Bass, B. M. (1989). Adding to leader and follower transactions: The augmenting effect of transformational leadership (Working Paper 86-109). Binghamton, NY: State University of New York.
Yammarino, F. J. (1994). Indirect Leadership: Transformational Leadership at a Distance. In Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J., Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organisations (4th edn.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.