|
A common criticism
of contemporary leadership research and theory, both from within the
leadership arena and from other organizational theorists, has been
that the literature is fragmented and contradictory (Chemers, 1997, p.
151), resulting in multiple leadership paradigms. Gardner (1995)
suggests that the broad paradigm of leadership can and should be
viewed in terms of a continuum that denotes the capacity of an
individual or group to influence others. One way to understand a
continuum is by examining its poles – its extremes, if you will
(p.6). Suggesting a less linear perspective, Wheatley (1999) speaks
of looking at the leadership phenomenon from a whole system, or
gaia perspective, where personal values, traits, personality
behaviors and style, contingent situations, environmental or
organizational culture, and a host of other seemingly discordant
variables form an elaborate matrix, which leads to innumerable
permutations in which to view the leadership phenomenon. In contrast
to viewing the leadership phenomenon as an integrated web of
interpersonal and intrapersonal variables, other researchers believe
that the concept of leadership doesn’t really exist (Kreitner &
Kinicki, 1998) or that leadership is primarily a perceptual
construction (Calder, 1977; Meindl, 1990).
Countless
scholars, researches, and practitioners from a myriad of backgrounds
and professions have long probed the essence of leadership in an
attempt to understand the nature of and dynamics involved in the
leadership process. Peterson and Hunt (1997) and Rendova and Starbuck
(1997) trace the study of leadership theory as far back as ancient
Egypt and China. A review of the literature suggest there are almost
as many definitions of leadership as there are scholars who have
attempted to articulate the concept (Bass, 1990). Bennis and Nanus
(1997) noted that, “decades of academic analysis have given us more
than 850 definitions of leadership” (p.4). Any number of books and
manuals have attempted to dissect, label, codify, and create
constructs around the paradigm of leadership.
Given the apparent
mutable pallet of contemporary leadership theory, an emergent
construct is suggested. This new leadership construct could expand
the existing ‘transactional-transformational’ paradigm (Burns,
1978; Bass 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994) and contribute to a richer and
deeper understanding of the relationships and responsibilities of
leaders and followers to each other and the larger world. This new
construct, termed ‘transcending leadership’ (Jordan, 2005), adds to
the transactional-transformational paradigm.
The findings of
the research presented suggests that transcending leadership
incorporates 3 reoccurring characteristics: an “other-interest”
manifest in leader altruism, benevolence/beneficence, and empathy;
“determined resolve”; and the personal and social
competencies broadly associated with “emotional intelligence”
theory (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002).
Employing the very
democratic use of the “web” and its ability to instantly reach a broad
and diverse global audience—I share my research (see Dissertation
link) and applications with both scholars and practitioners alike who
are concerned with the iterative nature of this phenomenon we call
“leadership” and welcome thoughtful opinions, suggestions, and
criticisms. Although my research involved a phenomenological study of
healthcare leaders, I would posit that similar findings would be drawn
in a study(ies) across other sectors. My assertion is this: the
extant transactional-transformational leadership paradigm as
conceptualized by Burns (1978) may be self-limiting and that ‘genuine’
leaders, from all organizational or societal levels, migrate
continually throughout an expanded continuum where transcending
leadership (i.e. “other-interest”) adds to both transformational
leadership (i.e. “mutuality of interest”) and transactional leadership
(i.e. “self-interest).
We’ve entered both
a new century and a new epoch of human consciousness. It therefore
seems reasonable to consider a new means in which to describe the
evolving nature of the phenomenon.
David A.
Jordan, DHA, MPA
July, 2007
djordan@sevenhills.org
“alius penitus pro ego penitus”
|
