Steve Jobs to some degree is an authoritarian leader, as no matter what other say and do, he insists that Apple should do its software and hardware all by itself even in such an open world day
Steve Jobs to some degree is an authoritarian leader, as no matter what other say and do, he insists that Apple should do its software and hardware all by itself even in such an open world day, as they know themselves best. It appears that Steve Jobs and his way is the path to the success of Apple. It would still appear consensus in modern-day leadership helps to sustain decisions, and to succeed a strategic leader needs to build the consensus.
As previously discussed, trust is shown as the basis of no matter charismatic,
consensus or inspirational leadership. The importance of trust in modern organizations is widely recognized (Clegg et al., 2002), and it is increasingly important for leaders to arouse trust and faith to motivate the followers in modern organizations (Robbins et al., 2010). Martin (1998) defines trust leadership as, “”Leadership that is born and kept alive by the follower trust is trust leadership””. According to him, followers’ attitudes are created by the leaders in the modern-day organisations. This allows the followers to trust the leader and trust is at the root of the leadership. Leadership is meant very little without the trust and vice versa. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr. are some of the examples from the recent history who have innate abilities to influence the followers by appealing to their values and earning the trust. These values include trust, respect, equality and freedom and are present in the modern-day followers, too. The values practiced in the past are duplicated and practiced today and applied to the workplaces (Martin, 1998). Attitudes determine responses, so effective leaders understand that employees’ attitudes are important in achieving goals of the company. To build the trust, leaders influence employees by tapping into their values and thus a positive behavior and attitude is encouraged in both the leader and the follower. Thus, as Matthews (2010) suggests that trust is the basis to heighten and achieve productivity and profitability in modern-day businesses in addition to aligning the organisational values with the employees’ values. Vadell (2008) also describes the trust as the leading concept in the organisational commitment, which could be exemplified by his research about United States Air Force Officers’ commitment and intention to leave the military. On the other hand, leaders’ trust in subordinates benefits themselves in delegating power to subordinates (Leana, 1986), by which subordinates would be further motivated. Likewise, Greenberg (2009) indicates innovation more than often comes from taking risks, while trust is key determinant to inspire people to take risks; for example, Google employees are trusted to have one day a week to do whatever interests them, which gives birth to innovations like Gmail. The author understands that in the modern-day organisations and leadership styles, mutual trust between leaders and subordinates helps develop the commitment among the followers and this commitment element establish the truthfulness of the charismatic leadership style.
Literature reveals charisma, trust, inspiration and consensus are all important factors of transformational leadership, which elevate followers’ well-being (Gillespie and Mann, 2004; Khatri, 2005; Nielsen and Munir, 2009; Liu et al., 2010; Felfe and Heinitz, 2010). Bass (1985) suggests that transformational leadership theory results into growth and empowerment of the followers, and Howell (1988) believes transformational leadership style develops dependency among the followers on the leader. This means that followers’ motivation, self respect and esteem all are dependent on the positive feedback and recognition from the leader. Richard Branson could well exemplify modern-day transformational leadership. In Virgin empire the individual personality of Branson is stamped all through the organization, and his values and goals derive and infuse every corner of the organization. Charismatic transformational leaders like Branson are capable to achieve their impact by the creation of followers who personally identify with this style as well as with the work group they are with (Yukl, 1989). Conger and Kanungo (1998) suggest that the personal attachment and identification with the leaders is because of leader’s charismatic style and approach and is predicated on referent power. Similarly, Shamir et al. (1993) suggest that role model behaviour is one main method with which leaders influence the followers. The older leadership styles such as contingency models of Fiedler (1967), Vroom and Yetton (1973) and Yukl (1989) have main focus on the identification of the leadership styles which predicts effective results depending on situational contingencies.responsibility of upcoming business managers essay But these theories could not advise for a continuous changing environment and circumstances.
One of concepts recognised by most scholars as accurately reflecting what it is to be a leader is leadership is a trait (Rost, 1991). Stogdill (1974) studied some leadership qualities in traits that appeared more often than others, like sense of responsibility, self-confidence and emphasis on task competition. However, Shaw (1976) and Fraser (1978) identifies that leaders usually attain above average scores for the traits like motivation, ability and sociability. Rost (1991) suggests that according to the trait theory people are either born or not born with the leadership qualities that help them succeed in the leading roles. Inherited qualities for example the personality and cognitive ability are basis regarding the effective leadership. Author feels that sometimes traits are built or developed within the leaders. Richard Branson was not very sociable in his school life, but he has made himself the face of Virgin Group by participating in the shocking promotional and publicity stunts to gain attention. Therefore, personality and traits are core part of modern-day leadership, but accordance to needs and wants of the business become the more rife drivers of the behavior. Modern-day leadership styles are more associated with the mix of charisma and trust to inspire the followers.
In modern days, more and more researches are focused on leaders/leadership in the context of globalization, that is global leaders/leadership (Mendenhall et al., 2008). It is also indicated despite of being a good leader in home country, one of the biggest challenges facing modern global leaders is how to lead people cross-culturally (Thomas, 2008; Deresky, 2011), as one leadership style are effective in one culture, but fails in another (Scandura and Dorfman, 2004). DeGrosky (2011) reveals that leadership theory and practice have a great impact and are influenced by the differences among the cultures. However, the basic or fundamental principles of the leadership are same in all cultures even if leaders execute those functions in diverse ways from culture to culture. People influence others through leadership. People’s values, attitudes, opinions and behaviours vary largely by culture (Hofstede, 1998; Walumbwa et al., 2007; Thomas, 2008), so efficiency of leadership influence differs by cultures, too. In some cultures, people could be influenced successfully by applying coherent persuasion teamwork and consultation, while other cultures are influenced successfully by using general approaches like socialising, gifting and exerting pressure (DeGrosky, 2011). For example, as Americans have an individualistic cultural style (Hofstede, 1983), in this cultural context, leadership looks more at individual leaders and personality traits, style, behavior, as well as charisma, and it is encouraged to highlight individual success; While in China, with a highly collectivism context, it is more reasonable to praise a team/group, in the place of individuals. The case of the Floundering Expatriate also indicates that different leadership style is required by different cultural context. In modern-day leadership, people’s views of effectual leadership change from customary and individualistic toward collective and collaborative styles. The Global Leadership and Organisational Behavior Effectiveness project in 2004 indentifies there are universally accepted leadership characteristics worldwide. Positive leader attributes include trustworthiness, justice, confidence, honesty and so forth, while loner, non-cooperation, ruthlessness and asociality etc. are negative attributes (House et al., 2004).
Concept of modern-day leadership differs from one school of thought to other like modern-day leadership styles include simple linear, visionary, pure arts and science, systems thinking and military style, etc. However, in modern-day leadership there is no single leading style among the leaders and in the organisations. Type of the organization and followers’ characteristics also play a important role in deciding for the leadership style now. But the key point is that modern-day leadership is increasingly associated with charisma, inspiration, trust and consensus, as well as other determinants like follower’s characteristics and cultural differences. However, charisma is criticised in a positive as well as in a negative manner by different school of thoughts. When charismatic leadership style is based on the core values like paying respect and attention to the ideas of subordinates, then this brings a positive synergism for the impact of charismatic leadership style in the success of the business processes and operations. Trust between leaders and the followers is the basis for success of charismatic leadership style. Strategic leaders and policy makers with inspirational abilities and consensus development attitudes can develop trust between them and the followers/employees. In short, charisma, inspiration and trust are linked with each other and collectively help develop commitment among the followers.
Adair, J. (2005) The Inspirational Leader: How to Motivate, Encourage and Achieve Success. Philadelphia: Kogan Page.
Bass, B.M. (1985) Leadership and Performance beyond Expectation. New York: Free Press.
Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders: the Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper and Row.
Bilchik, G.S. (2001) ‘Leaders who inspire’, Health Forum Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 10-15.
Bolden, R. (2004) What is Leadership? [Online]. Exeter: Centre for Leadership Studies, Business School, University of Exeter. Retrieved from: http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cls/documents/what_is_leadership.pdf [Accessed 17 December 2010].
Brilhart, J. K. and Galanes, G. J. (1989) Effective Group Discussion. 6th ed. Dubuque: William C. Brown.
Carpenter, L. (2002) ‘Inspirational leadership’, Management Services, Vol. 46, No. 10, pp. 34-36.
Ciulla, J.B. (2004) Ethics, the Heart of Leadership. 2nd ed. Westport: Praeger.
Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O. and Parker, G. (2002) ‘Implicating trust in the innovation process’, Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 409-422.
Conger, J. A. (1989) The Charismatic Leader: Behind the Mystique of Exceptional Leadership. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (1998) ‘The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice’, Academy of Management Review, Vol.13, No. 3, pp. 471-482.
Collinson, D. (2005) ‘Dialectics of leadership’, Human Relations, Vol. 58, No. 11, pp. 1419-1442.
DeGrosky, M. (2011) Cultural Context Leadership [Online]. Wildfire Magazine. Retrieved from: http://wildfiremag.com/command/cultural-context-leadership-200907/ [Accessed 30 December 2011].
Deresky, H. (2011) International Management: Managing across Borders and Cultures. 7th Edition. Boston, London: Pearson.
Drucker, P. F. (1992) Managing for the Future: The 1990s and Beyond. New York: E.P. Dutton.
Felfe, J. and Heinitz, K. (2010) ‘The impact of consensus and agreement of leadership perceptions on commitment, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, and customer satisfaction’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 279-303.
Fiedler, F. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fraser, C. (1978) ‘Small Groups: Structure and Leadership’. In H. Tajfel and C. Fraser (eds.), Introducing Social Psychology, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Pp. 176-200.
Frisch, B. (2008) ‘When teams can’t decide’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86, No. 11, pp. 121-126.
Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2000) ‘Why should anyone be led by you?’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, No. 5, pp. 62-70.
Greenberg, D. (2009) ‘Inspirational leadership’, Leadership Excellence, Vol. 26, No. 12, pp. 9-10.
Gillespie, N.A. and Mann, L. (2004) ‘Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 588-607.
Grint, K. (2004) ‘What is leadership? From hydra to hybrid’. Paper delivered at the EIASM Workshop on Leadership Research, Saïd Business School and Templeton College, Oxford, December.
Hofstede, G. (1983) ‘Dimensions of National Cultures in Fifty Countries and Three Regions’. In J.B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec and R.C. Annis (eds.) Explications in Cross-cultural Psychology. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. pp. 335-355.
Hofstede, G. (1998) ‘A case for comparing apples with oranges-International differences in values’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 16-31.
House, R. J. (1977) ‘A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership’. In J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership, the Cutting Edge: A Symposium Held at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, October 27-28, 1976. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. pp. 68-81.
House, R.J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M. Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (eds.), (2004) Culture, Leadership and Organisations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Okas: Sage.
Howell, J. M. (1988) ‘Two Faces of Charisma: Socialised and Personalised Leadership in Organisations’. In J. A. Conger and R.N. Kanungo (eds), Charismatic Leadership. San Francisco: Hossey Bass. Pp. 213-266.
Howell, J.M. and Shamir, B. (2005) ‘The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 96-112.
Ilies, R., Judge, T. A. and Wagner, D. T. (2006). ‘Making sense of motivational leadership: The trail from transformational leaders to motivated followers’, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Leana, C.R. (1986) ‘Predictors and consequences of delegation’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp.754-774.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R. (1939) ‘Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates’, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 271-299.
Liu, J., Sui, O.L. and Shi, K. (2010) ‘Transformational Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Trust in the Leader and Self-Efficacy’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 454-479.
Khatri, N. (2005) ‘An alternative model of transformational leadership’, Vision, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.19-26.
Knight, D., Pearce, C.L., Smith, K.G., Olian, J.D., Sims, H.P., Smith, K.A. and Flood, P. (1999) ‘Top management team diversity, group processes and Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, No.5, pp. 445-465.
Martin, M.M. (1998) ‘Trust Leadership’, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 41-49.
Matthews, D.J. (2010) ‘Trust me: Credible leadership delivers results’, Chief Learning Officer, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 28-31.
Mendenhall, M.E., Osland, J.S., Bird, A., Oddou, G.R. and Maznevski, M.L. (2008) Global Leadership. New York: Routledge.
Mortensen, K. (2008) ‘Charisma power’, Leadership Excellence, Vol. 25, No. 10, p.18.
Mumford, M.D., Marks, M.A., Connelly, M.S., Zaccaro, S.J. and Palmon, R.R. (2000) ‘Development of leadership skills: Experience and timing’, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 87-114.
Nielsen, K. and Munir, F. (2009) ‘How do transformational leaders influence followers’ affective well-being? Exploring the mediating role of self-efficacy’, Work and Stress, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 313-329.
Peters, T. J. (1993) In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies. New York: Quality Paperback Book Club.
Robbins, S.P., Judge, T.A. and Campbell, T.T. (2010) Organisational Behavior. Essex: Pearson Education.
Rost, J.C. (1991) Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. Westport: Praeger.
Scandura, T. and Dorfman, P. (2004) ‘Leadership research in an international and cross-cultural context’, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 277-307.
Scholtes, P.R. (1998) The Leader’s Handbook: Making Things Happen, Getting Things Done. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Scott, M. (2010) ‘Leading with heart’, Smart Business St. Louis, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 10-14.
Sanders, K. and Schyns, B. (2006) ‘Leadership and solidarity behaviour: Consensus in perception of employees within teams’, Personnel Review, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 538-556.
Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M. B. (1993) ‘The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept-based theory’, Organisational Science, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 577-594.
Shaw, M. (1976) Group Dynamics: the Psychology of Small Group Behavior. 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Slater, R. (2003) Jack Welch on Leadership. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stogdill, R.M. (1974) Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. New York: Free Press.
Thomas, D.C. (2008) Cross-Cultural Management Essential Concepts. 2nd Edition. Los Angeles: Sage.
Tyler, D.A. (2008) ‘Trust in behaviour, not Charisma’. Third Sector. 30 July, p. 25.
Vadell, J. (2008) The Role of Trust in Leadership: U.S. Air Force Officers’ Commitment and Intention to Leave the Military. PhD Thesis, Capella University.
Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.N. (1973) Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh press.
Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. and Avolio, B.J. (2007) ‘Leadership, individual differences, and work-related attitudes: A cross-culture investigation’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 212-230.
Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Free Press.
Wilson, J.S. (2010) ‘Wanted: Inspirational leaders’. Business Week. 3 October, p. 7.
Wilson, M.S. and Rice, S.S. (2004) ‘Wired to inspire: Leading organisations through adversity’, Leadership in Action, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 3-7.
Yukl, G. (1989) ‘Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research’, Journal of Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 251-289.
Yukl, G. and Falbe, C.M. (1990) ‘Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, No. 2, pp. 132-140.
Zeffane, R. (2010) ‘Towards a two-factor theory of interpersonal trust: a focus on trust in leadership’, International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 246-257.
,
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please:
Related Services
,
Our academic writing and marking services can help you!
Related Lectures
,
Study for free with our range of university lectures!
,
Looking for a flexible role?
Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher?
Study Resources
,
Free resources to assist you with your university studies!
We’ve received widespread press coverage since 2003
Your UKEssays purchase is secure and we’re rated 4.4/5 on reviews.co.uk
All work is written to order. No plagiarism, guaranteed!
We’re here to answer any questions you have about our services
Copyright © 2003 – 2020 – UKEssays is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, company registered in England and Wales. Company Registration No: 4964706. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ.
*You can also browse our support articles here >
“
5331 words (21 pages) Essay
1st Jan 1970 Management Reference this
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a university student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKEssays.com.
This article reviews notable trends in the leadership development field. In the past two decades, such trends included the proliferation of new leadership development methods and a growing recognition of the importance of a leader’s emotional resonance with others. A growing recognition that leadership development involves more than just developing individual leaders has now led to a greater focus on the context in which leadership is developed, thoughtful consideration about how to best use leadership competencies, and work/life balance issues. Future trends include exciting potential advances in globalization, technology, return on investment (ROI), and new ways of thinking about the nature of leadership and leadership development.
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Looking back at the state of leadership and leadership development over the past 20 years, we were surprised to discover more than a decade passed before HRP first contained an article with the word “leadership” in its title. At the risk of making way too much out of mere titles, we note with interest the contrast between that early period and the fact that leadership development is now one of HRP’s five key knowledge areas. The last two decades have witnessed something of an explosion of interest in leadership development in organizations. Some of the most noteworthy issues and trends in the field of leadership development in the past 20 years fall under these two general headings:
The proliferation of leadership development methods;
The importance of a leader’s emotional resonance with and impact on others.
One clear trend over the past 2years has been the increasing use and recognition of the potency of a variety of developmental experiences. Classroom-type leadership training-for long the primary formal development mode-is now complemented (and sometimes even supplanted) by activities as diverse as high ropes courses or reflective journaling.
Classroom training should not be the only part of a leadership development initiative, and may be the least critical. While training may even be a necessary element of leadership development, developmental experiences are likely to have the greatest impact when they are linked to or embedded in a person’s ongoing work and when they are an integrated set of experiences. Activities like coaching, mentoring, action learning, and 360-degree feedback are increasingly key elements of leadership development initiatives.
Developmental relationships primarily take two forms: coaching and mentoring. Coaching involve practical, goal-focused forms of one on- one learning and, ideally, behavioural change (Hall, et al., 1999). It can be a short term intervention intended to develop specific leadership skills or a more extensive process involving a series of meetings over time. The most effective coaching allows for collaboration to assess and understand the developmental task to challenge current constraints while exploring new possibilities, and to ensure accountability and support for reaching goals and sustaining development (Ting& Hart, 2004). Mentoring is typically defined as a committed, long-term relationship in which a senior person supports the personal and professional development of a junior person. It may be a formal program or a much more informal process. Recognizing the value of mentoring, organizations are increasingly looking at techniques to formalize these types of relationships as part of their leadership development efforts. Action learning is a set of organization development practices in which important real-time organizational problems are tackled. Three kinds of objectives are tried: delivering measurable organizational results, communicating learnings specific to a particular context, and developing more general leadership skills and capabilities (Palus & Horth, 2003). Effective action learning may start around tacit, unfacilitated learning at your workplace to focused and high-impact learning projects to transformations of people and organizations (Marsick, 2002).
Challenging job assignments are a definite potent form of leadership development and provide many of the developmental opportunities in organizations today. The level of organizational involvement in making job assignments part of their leadership development process runs the gamut from simply providing people with information about developmental opportunities in their current job to a systematic program of job rotation. Using job assignments for developmental purposes provides benefits that go beyond getting the job done and may even result in competitive advantages for the organization (Ohlott,2004). One developmental method has been so pervasive that it deserves somewhat greater attention here: the use of 360-degree feedback to assess leader competencies.
Chappelow (2004) recently noted that perhaps the most remarkable trend in the field of leader development over the past 20 years has been the popularity and growth of 360- degree feedback. Others called it one of the most notable management innovations of the past decade (Atwater & Waldman, 1998; London & Beatty, 1993). To help those organizations disappointed with 360-degree feedback results, listed here is some of what we have learned over the years about how to implement them effectively (Chappelow, 2004):
An assessment activity is not necessarily developmental. Three-hundred-sixty-degree feedback should not be a stand-alone event. In addition to assessment there need to be development planning and follow-up activities.
Boss support is critical for the process itself, as well as for buy-in for the recipient’s specific developmental goals stemming from the feedback.
The 360-degree feedback process works best if it starts with executives at the top of an organization and cascades downward throughout the organization.
Shoddy administration of a 360-degree feedback process are fatal.
The timing regarding the process accounts for other organizational realities that could dilute or confound its impact.
Another kind of leadership development method gaining popularity during the past 20 years has involved teams (Ginnett, 1990). The prevalence and importance of teams in organizations
today, and the unique challenges of leading teams, make it easy to forget that teams were not always so pervasive a part of our organizational lives. One way to convey the magnitude of that shift is to share an anecdote involving one of our colleagues. During his doctoral work in organizational behaviour at Yale about 20 years ago, our colleague Robert Ginnett would tell others about his special interest in the leadership of teams. Routinely, he says, they would assume he must be an athletic coach; who else, they’d say, would be interested in teams?
Twenty years ago, our understanding of leadership in organizations was dominated by the classic two-factor approach focusing on task and relationship behaviors. That general approach can be characterized as transactional in nature, as distinguished from a qualitatively different approach often described as transformational.
Transactional leadership is characterized by mutually beneficial exchanges between parties to optimize mutual benefit including the accomplishment of necessary organizational tasks. The exchange-model nature of transactional leadership tends to produce predictable and somewhat shortlived outcomes. Transformational leadership touched followers’ deeper values and sense of higher purpose, and led to higher levels of follower commitment and more enduring change. Transformational leaders provide compelling visions of a better future and inspire trust through seemingly unshakeable self-confidence and conviction.
Conger (1999) reviewed 15 years’ research in the related fields of charismatic and transformational leadership, and observed that scholarly interest in these areas are traceable to changes in the global competitive business environment at that time such as competitive pressures to reinvent them selves and challenges to employee commitment. Prior to that time, leadership researchers generally had not distinguished between the roles of leading and managing: A person in virtually any position of authority was largely assumed to put on a leadership role. It was a novel idea that leadership and management might represent different kinds of roles and behaviors. Hunt (1999) was even more blunt about the state of scholarly research in the field of leadership in the 1980s. He described it as a gloom-and-doom period characterized by boring work, inconsequential questions, and static answers. Research in the areas of transformational and charismatic leadership both energized scholars and interested organizational practitioners.
One factor presumably underlying the interest in charismatic and transformational leaders is the nature and strength of their emotional impact on others. The nature of the leader’s emotional connectedness to others is also apparent in the growing interest over the past decade in topics like the leader’s genuineness, authenticity, credibility, and trustworthiness (Goleman, et al., 2002; Collins, 2001). These seem related more to the affective quality of a leader’s relationships with others than to specific leader behaviors and competencies.
Attention given during the last decade to the concept of emotional intelligence also attests to that shifting interest. For example, Goleman, et al. (2002) present data that a leader’s ability to resonate emotionally with others is a better predictor of effective executive leadership than is general intelligence.
