The concept of leaders influencing followers is certainly no new idea both traditional and contemporary literature discusses the impact particular leadership approaches and behaviours have on influencing followers to achieve goals (Lennick and Kiel, 2008; Allio, 2005; Goleman, 2006; Shackleton, 1995; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978).
One of the most popular leadership paradigms of the latter part of the 20th Century focused on transformational leadership. Transformational leadership relates to the ability of the leader to motivate followers in achieving beyond what was originally thought possible, rather than control through punishment or reward. Literature would suggest such transformation leaders possess ‘wisdom’ in their ability consider the whole picture and work with people to make sound decisions, in motivating followers (Rowley, 2006). Burns (1978) first came up with the suggestion of ‘transforming’, which he considered as emerging from and always returning to the fundamental wants, needs, aspirations and values of the followers.
“The result of transforming leadership is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and convert leaders into moral agents.” (Burns, 1978, pp.4)
This concept was developed further by Bass (1985) who termed the reference transformational leadership. He indicated transformational leadership was based around the ability of the leader in motivating their followers to perform beyond expectations by making them more aware of the importance and value of goals inducing them to transcend self-interest for the good of the group/organization appealing to the followers higher order needs (Bass, 1985). In achieving this motivation of followers Bass (1985) proposed 4 factors within the transformational leadership paradigm, which has been referred to as the ‘four I‘s’. One of the so called four ‘I’s’ referred to Intellectual stimulation whereby followers are encouraged to question their values beliefs and expectations (Bass, 1985). The earlier and later forms of transformational leadership acknowledge values as a recognised element of the leadership theory. Although, it may be suggested values within the transformational theory is not necessarily recognised as a driving force of the theory more a secondary contributor. Bringing the values aspect to the forefront of the leadership theory provides an area which can contribute further to the wider body of knowledge. Hambrick and Mason (1984) would support this perspective, who discussed the importance of values with leaders in an organization a year before Bass (1985)
proposed transformational leadership theory. Whereby, they acknowledged the impact of values on the strategic decision making of leaders.
Bass’s (1985) proposal discusses and highlights key elements within transformational theory, specifically intellectual stimulation which encouraged the questioning of values and beliefs, would indicate some of the earlier links with leadership and values. Furthermore, the ideas proposed by Hambrick and Mason (1984) around how values impact on leadership decisions when values directly influence choices made or discarded by leaders, would suggest such leadership paradigms have clear benefits to organizational development. This has since had support within literature, Gillespie and Mann (2004) found a positive correlation between team members and trust in their leader, which has been linked to successful organizational development. Masi and Cooke (2000) found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and subordinated motivation, in turn improving organizational performance.
What further raises the interest with the values element of transformational leadership is when comparing it to the one of the other most popular leadership theories of the
latter part of the twentieth century. Transaction leadership is based on an exchange relationship with the follower. Whereby the follower gains something of personal value from the leader in order to motivate and enthuse the follower to work towards achieve a goal or task. Literature indicates individuals engage in behaviours that will maximise their expected return from their performance (Pearce et al. 2003).
Transactional focused on clarifying the effort-reward relationships, using reward to achieve maximal motivation. Whereby, the leader clarifies the role of the subordinates, shows consideration towards them, initiates structures, reward and punishment, whilst attempting to meet the social needs of the follower(s). In many ways it could be argued the motives promoted through transactional approach is the very opposite of transformational approach; transaction approach is very much focused on the self, may that be through reward or punishment.
Transformational and transactional leadership approaches acknowledge the needs of the followers, although the behaviours of the leader may be seen as quite different one being inspiring the other controlling/influencing. However, it could be argued the most obvious stated difference within the paradigms relates the recognition and questioning of values. Transactional leadership does not acknowledge human values, whereas transformational leadership does acknowledge personal values and beliefs. This aspect of a leaders influence on values provides an area of development within the leadership domain. Although, transformational and transactional leadership has had considerable interest, Pauchant (2005) has indicated research and practice in leadership has been judged as lacking grounding in human development. Horner (1997) supports this by indicating in order to develop greater understanding of leadership research needs to look at the person. However, Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) took this person perspective another way by looking at the demographics of leaders, which some authors have suggested as naïve (Reger, 1997). The study would suggest in understanding leader and follower values and the impact on organizational development would certainly be taking a step towards looking at the person and
acknowledging human development within the leadership domain. Sosik (2005) would appear to support such a suggestion, since he has indicated the role of values certainly needs more attention when developing leadership theory.
Lennick and Kiel (2008) may advocate this perspective, they have taken positive steps in looking at the person in developing leaders, with their concept of Moral Intelligence (MI). They define MI as;
“the mental capacity to determine how universal human principles should be applied to our values, goals and actions.” (Lennick and Kiel, 2008, p.7)
In promoting MI Lennick and Kiel (2008) clearly link MI and leadership.
Furthermore, when examining the definition of ‘MI’ some very recognisable aspects of leadership theories are promoted. Values, goals and actions appeared across transformational leadership paradigm discussed by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985). Furthermore, the ‘first steps into leadership’ identified how leadership requires leaders to induce followers through joint values and motivations, whilst ensuring group and organizational goals are achieved.
Similarities between the transformational leadership discussed by Burns (1978) and MI cannot be ignored. Although, Burns (1978) is very much focused on the follower, Lennick and Kiel (2008) have a much broader focus on their concept, which
incorporated the leader’s moral compass. This consists of the individual’s principles, values, belief and aligning this moral compass with their behaviours and goals.
However, this is not a solely individual perspective the model states the importance of recognising the moral compass in others to maximise individual and groups goals and actions for the better good of all. Nevertheless, a key principle of both concepts relate to values, beliefs and how such factors impact and influence behaviours. Karabati and Say (2005) indicate values are neither situational specific nor function-specific rather they reflect general, abstract notions alluding to thought and actions and they act as guiding principles in one’s life. Moral Intelligence (Lennick and Kiel, 2008) discusses moral compass as guiding principles, which incorporated values and beliefs, which they indicate needs to be aligned with other areas of individual and organizational aspects to ensure individuals and organizations achieve desired goals. Amah and Ahiauzu (2014) discusses the need to have shared values within an organizational context which provides a mechanism to integrate and co-ordinate engagement with staff. This ability to morally align, values, goals and behaviours links interestingly
with leadership paradigm, more specifically the interrelationships between leaders and followers in an organizational context.
Holian (2006) indicates that a better understanding of emotions, beliefs and values will assist in a better understanding of leader’s decision making, which Hambrick and Mason (1984) would certainly support with their proposal on values and strategic decision making. Holian (2006) discussed the move in business to focus around ‘head’ values, such as self-confidence, initiative and flexibility over ‘heart’ values, such as honesty, generosity and compassion. She indicates appreciating and understanding personal values is not necessarily ‘naïve’ but actually assists in the development of individuals and groups exercising integrity and questioning of currently accepted rules and norms. The study would argue this is a classic aspect of leadership with
individuals examining and promoting possible change and rather than accepting current practice looking to change to status quo. What can be suggested is MI is a development within the leadership theory of values concepts. However, MI takes a leap into the debate by outlining a framework to work within the areas of values across leadership domains, which may provide a better understanding of leaders’ ability to motivate and drive individuals to achieve agreed goals. Furthermore, MI (Lennick and Kiel, 2008) as a concept specifically relates to the alignment of values in order to not only improve organizational development, but to assist in building a more connected organization across all levels of employees. This particular area of connecting the organization as a means to support organizational development may provide a link between the leaders, followers and their values alignment. Langley (2000) would appear to support this proposal by indicating ‘business ideology’ as a possible key to sustainable business growth, whereby the organizations ideology provides a common core to bind the organization together.
Moral Intelligence would appear the latest theory to be introduced into the world of leadership. However, with the rise of industrial scandals that appears to have shocked the world from Enron 2001 to the latest financial sector meltdown which took place in 2009. The emphasis on values within organizational leadership may be an area which would pay dividends to all organizational stakeholders. In fact, the re-elected President Barack Obama’s (2007) book ‘The Audacity of Hope’ discusses the need for great moral leadership and dedicates a whole chapter to values within this context. The
initial review of values in practice has identified several areas of interest for the research specifically values in leadership, the impact of values alignment within organizations and how such alignment may influence organizational development, specifically through a more connected organization.