Citation
Public leadership

Material Information

Title:
Public leadership practitioner & educator perspectives
Creator:
Goodman, Adam J
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xiii, 176 leaves : illustrations ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Leadership -- Study and teaching (Higher) -- United States ( lcsh )
Leadership -- Study and teaching (Higher) ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 169-176).
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Adam J. Goodman.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
44093300 ( OCLC )
ocm44093300
Classification:
LD1190.P86 1999d .G63 ( lcc )

Full Text
PUBLIC LEADERSHIP:
PRACTITIONER & EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVES
by
Adam J. Goodman
B.S., University of Colorado at Boulder, 1986
M.P.A., University of Colorado at Denver, 1988
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Public Affairs
1999


1999 Adam J. Goodman
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Adam J. Goodman
has been approved
by
Allan D. Wallis
Carl E. Larson
7
Date


Goodman, Adam J. (Ph.D., Public Affairs)
Public Leadership: Practitioner & Educator Perspectives
Thesis directed by Professor Allan Wallis
ABSTRACT
This study examines whether public leadership and leadership educators in
higher education institutions have common expectations about the nature and work
of leadership for public purposes. Practitioners were individuals drawn from two
groups: National Academy of Public Administration Fellows and Kellogg National
Leadership Program Fellows. Educators were identified by the Center for Creative
Leadership in its biennial catalogue of leadership education courses and programs.
Respondents from these samples completed a survey to provide evidence for the
studys research questions. A focus group aided the interpretation of results.
Four research questions are examined. First, is there a gap: do practitioners
and educators perceive similar unmet demands for public leadership? This study
finds practitioners and educators agree there is a perceived lack of leaders and
leaders are needed most at the local and national levels.
Second, what does the literature tell us about possible leadership abilities
that might fill the gap? This study identified 20 abilities. Each ability was placed
into one of four domains: abilities that develop (a) leaders character; (b) leaders
competence; (c) followers character; and, (d) followers competence.
Third, what kinds of leadership are required to fill the gap in public
leadership: do practitioners and educators perceive similar requirements? Results
revealed character models are more important than competence models. Educators
rate character models more important than practitioners and rate competence
models less important. Educators and practitioners share the same perceptions
about how followers and leaders should work together. The believe that leaders
work today with small groups of people and will need to work with as many
people as possible in 20 years. Also, they prefer collaborative leadership to having
followers be self-directed or working under the direction of the leader.
Finally, what are the implications for leadership education? Educators and
practitioners agree that most people can leam to be leaders and that this learning
can be lifelong. Educators prefer formal education settings and practitioners prefer
IV


learning at their place of employment. Both groups prefer that leadership be
learned through field experiences/intemships and mentorships/coaching.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed
Allan D. Wallis
v


DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to:
Lori Goodman, who wisely encouraged me at the right moments in the right
ways and whose support was unwavering.
David Goodman, whose legacy resonates both today and into tomorrow.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Throughout my life I have benefited from extraordinary mentors. On the academic
side and most recently this includes Professors Allan Wallis and Carl Larson.
From early in my career and into the present this includes Dr. John Buechner, Mr.
Bill Fischer, and Dr. Rich Harpel, each of whom willingly kept their long-standing
promises to assist me in this project.
I also want to express my profound gratitude for my practitioner mentors, notably
the Student Leadership Institute Board of Trustees who supported this work and,
particularly, Rollie Heath and Harris Ravine.


CONTENTS
Figures.................................................... xi
Tables................................................. xii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION....................................... 1
Statement of the Problem and Significance......... 1
Expected Significance of the Study........... 4
Study Design...................................... 5
Relationship Between Theory and Models.......... 8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW: DEVELOPMENT OF AN
INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF LEADERSHIP...................... 10
A Brief History of Leadership Theory.............. 10
An Integration of Leadership Theory............... 17
Integrative Models in the Research Literature. 19
Integrative Model for this Study............ 22
3. METHODOLOGY....................................... 36
Introduction...................................... 36
Sample Selection.................................. 36
Questionnaire Design.............................. 40
viii


Relationship Beteween the Research Questions
And The Survey Instrument...................... 44
Questionnaire Dissemination and Analysis.......... 48
Focus Group Selection and Protocol................ 48
Survey Respondent Demographics...................... 49
4. FINDINGS.............................................. 53
Introduction......................................... 53
Is There A Gap: Do Practitioners and Educators
Perceive Similar Unmet Demands for Public
Leadership?......................................... 54
What Kinds of Leadership are Required to Fill the
Gap: Do Practitioners and Educators Perceive
Similar Requirements?................................ 59
What Does an Integrative Model Tell Us About
Effective Leadership?............................. 60
What Leadership Models are Most Important?..... 63
What is the Role of Competence and Character
In Leadership?....................................73
How Should Leaders and Followers Work with
Each Other?.......................................78
How Can We Fill the Gap: What are the
Implications For Leadership Education?............... 81
How Many People Can Learn?....................... 83
When Can People Leam to be Leaders?.............. 86
How Can People Leam to be Leaders?................89
IX


What Leadership Concepts do Educators Use
Most?...................................... 91
General Discussion of How We Can Fill the Gap.... 93
5. IMPLICATIONS..................................... 96
Introduction.................................. 96
Is There a Gap: Do Practitioners and Educators
Perceive Similar Unmet Demands for Public
Leadership?................................... 98
What Does the Literature Tell Us Possible Leadership
Abilities That Might Fill the Gap?............ 98
What Kinds of Leadership are Required to Fill the
Gap In Public Leadership: Do Educators and
Practitioners Perceive Similar Requirements?..101
How Can We Fill the Gap: What are the
Implications for Leadership Education?........106
Limitations and Future Research...............107
Implications From the Studys Hypothesis.. 109
APPENDIX
A. LEADERSHIP RESEARCH: 1990 TO THE PRESENT.........112
B. COVER LETTERS AND SURVEY INSTRUMENTS.............134
C. FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOLS........................... 155
D. FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS.............................161
E. ADDITIONAL TABLES............................... 167
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................. 169
x


FIGURES
Figure
1. Integrative Model for This Study...................................34
2. Domains from the Integrative Model.................................61
xi


TABLES
Table
1. Research Overview............................................ 6
2. Leadership Theory to 1990.................................... 11
3. Possible Models of Effective Leadership to 1990 Adapted
from Bass & Stogdills Handbook of Leadership (1990).......... 30
4. Possible Models of Effective Leadership Sourced from
Leadership Research from 1990 to the Present................. 30
5. Possible Practitioner Populations.............................. 38
6. Linkage Between Leadership Models from the Integrative
Model and Survey Quotes........................................ 41
*
7. Primary Employment............................................. 50
8. Years Employed in Primary Area................................. 51
9. Age............................................................ 51
10. Race/Ethnicity................................................. 52
11. Leaders Available to Work on Public Problems................... 54
12. Where the Need is Greatest for Leaders Who Can Solve
Public Problems (Average Rank)................................. 55
13. Where the Need is Greatest for Leaders Who Can Solve
Public Problems (As Percentages of Group)...................... 57
xii


14. Six Most Important Leadership Models Twenty Years from
Now and Today.................................................. 64
15. Leadership Competence and Character Present Today
(Average Rating)............................................... 74
16. Leadership Competence and Character Needed Twenty
Years from Now (Average Rating)................................ 75
17. Practitioner Experience with Leadership Character and
Competence..................................................... 76
18. How Followers Should Work with Leaders to Improve
Public Problem-Solving......................................... 79
19. How Leaders Work with Others to Solve Public Problems
Today and How Leaders Should Work with Others to Solve
Public Problems Twenty Years from Now.......................... 82
20. How Many People Can Learn to be Leaders........................ 83
21. When is it Useful for People to Participate in Leadership
Education Courses or Programs.................................. 87
22. When is it Most Useful for People to Participate in Leadership
Education Courses or Programs.................................. 87
23. Most Effective Leadership Education Pedagogies................. 90
24. The Six Most Important Leadership Concepts as a Function
of Time Spent (Educators Only)................................. 92
25. Relationship Between Important Leadership Theories and
Leadership Concepts Used by Educators.......................... 94
26. Integrative Model of Leadership Theories (Average Rating)..... 167
27. Most Important Leadership Concepts by Time Spent
(Educators Only).............................................. 168


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem and Significance
There is consensus in the leadership literature that society (locally,
nationally, and internationally) suffers from a dearth of leadership, including for
our public institutions (see, for example: Bok, 1990; Bums, 1978; Gardner, 1990;
Heifetz, 1994; Kotter, 1990b; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Wills, 1994; and, Wren,
1995). David Chrislip and Carl Larson, in particular, recently have written on the
lack of leadership to achieve public purposes.
Americans hold a singular belief in the potency of leaders. We look to
them the wise men to Svslve our problems. We want them to tell us
what they will do before we will elect them. Unfortunately, this creates
unfulfillable expectations of leaders and, more significantly, provides an
escape from responsibility for those of us not anointed as leaders. When
leaders fail, we blame them rather than engaging ourselves in the difficult
work of public policy problem solving....
We can no longer defer to elected leaders to define and solve public
problems. We need to discover a new way of interacting a new civic
culture that helps us collectively address issues of shared concern. In
order to work, this new way of interacting must be able to cope with the
challenges of leadership... (Chrislip & Larson, 1994, pp. 34-35).
Chrislip and Larson among others (Astin & Astin, 1996; Bennis, 1989;
Block, 1993; Bryson & Crosby, 1992; Clark & Clark, 1996; De Pree, 1989;
Gardner, 1995; Heifetz, 1994; Kotter, 1990a; Terry, 1993) describe two challenges
1


in this area. The first is that there is a lack of leaders in society. The second is that
we lack the "right kind" of leaders with the "right types" of leadership abilities.
This includes characteristics such as the ability to link a vision with action and an
understanding of the leader's relationship with followers.
One way to develop leaders and leadership is through the recent emergence
of hundreds of leadership courses and programs in higher education. In 1994
there were 200 such courses and programs compared with 500 in 1996 (Freeman et
al., 1996). Derek Bok (1986, 1990) and Earnest Boyer (1990), in particular, have
written on higher education's central responsibility to educate students as future
leaders. Similarly, Howard Bowen, in conducting a national assessment to
articulate an agenda for higher education, found that leadership education
programs are becoming more common in higher education: Because it places a
high value on leadership, the academic community equips some of its students for
leadership roles and motivates them to assume such roles (1982, p. 87).
What is unknown is whether these programs reflect what experienced
leadership practitioners would describe as effective leadership and pedagogy,
especially to meet the leadership challenges found in the public realm. By seeking
practitioners perceptions about what constitutes effective leadership and
pedagogy, this study informs how curricula can be delivered and evaluated from a
2


practitioner's perspective. Ratcliff (1992) and others (Jones, 1992; Twombly,
1992) argue for multiple measures in curriculum evaluation, including faculty
perceptions about how their courses help students to develop and educational
goals. At the same time, little linkage seems to exist between practitioner
expectations and educational goals. For example, writing about practitioner input
into the education of working professionals, Hoberman found that society has a
great stake in the education of its professional class, but has surprisingly little
input in determining the objectives ... other than to expect that the schools will
prepare students to become competent practitioners (1994, p. 165).
Accordingly, this study will test the hypothesis that practitioners and
educators have common expectations about the nature and work of leadership for
public purposes, both today and in 20 years. In considering this hypothesis, this
study will also review the leadership literature. This review will identify possible
leadership models from existing theory. Practitioners and educators will then be
asked to rate each models importance. Their responses can then be compared to
determine whether practitioners and educators have common expectations for
public leadership.
To test this hypothesis this study will examine four research questions:
1 The term leadership courses and programs is defined for this study as the group catalogued by
Freeman, et al of the Center for Creative Leadership in Leadership Education: A Source Book
(Freeman, Knott & Schwartz, 1996).
3


1. Is there a gap: do practitioners and educators perceive similar unmet demands
for public leadership?
2. What does the literature tell us about possible leadership abilities that might fill
the gap?
3. What kinds of leadership are required to fill the gap in public leadership: do
practitioners and educators perceive similar requirements?
4. How can we fill the gap: what are the implications for leadership education?
The section Study Design, and Table 1 in particular, describes the studys
hypothesis and research questions in more detail.
Expected Significance of the Study
As described, this study will document an important link between
leadership education and the requirements for effective public leadership by
comparing the perceptions of educators with those of recognized practitioners in
the public sector. In particular, this study compares perceptions of educators and
practitioners about what leadership models are important, pedagogy, and where
leadership is needed most (at the local, state/regional, or national levels).
Leadership educators should ensure that their course content and pedagogy will
help leaders address the public sector demands these leaders will likely encounter
(see, for example, Astin & Astin, 1996; Bok, 1982; Boyer, 1990; Bryson &
Crosby, 1992; Eisenhower, 1996; Gardner, 1995; Heifetz, 1996; Ritter & Brown,
1986; Ward, 1996).
Similar perceptions between educators and practitioners about what models
are important, what pedagogy is appropriate, and where leadership is needed most
4


will provide a standard of quality assurance for faculty, students, administrators
and others who participate in leadership education. A weak or uncertain
relationship between educators and practitioners raises fundamental questions
about whether higher education is training leaders to effectively serve public
purposes.
Study Design
This research is part of a larger study funded by the Ford Foundation, the
IBM Corporation, and the University of Colorado at Boulder to design and
implement a national model program for leadership and service-learning based in a
residential campus environment. For the study phase completed in 1997, this
required that a group of leadership practitioners from the community participate in
the design of a leadership model and that the model, in turn, would guide the
design of multiple courses by University of Colorado faculty. Building on 25
years of experience, the Student Leadership Institute (with Adam Goodman as
Principal Investigator) was awarded a grant in 1995 to conduct the first phase of
this project. Second phase grants continued the study, supporting elements of a
pilot program at the University of Colorado at Boulder and broadening
participation to campuses across the country.
As described above, an important outcome of the first phase was a
community-based articulation of a leadership model and pedagogy that faculty
5


used in the design of a range of interdisciplinary courses. This work (Goodman &
Ravine, 1997) provided evidence that experienced leaders are capable of
articulating a model for effective leadership and that faculty can adapt such a
model into an interdisciplinary program.
The study proposed here will:
1. better inform what models describe effective leadership for public purposes,
especially in the further design of the programs mission statement and in the
design of its courses and co-curricular programs;
2. provide evidence from a national sample about the linkage between what
practitioners and educators believe effective leadership is and what is being
delivered in courses and programs in higher education; and,
3. provide for an initial inquiry into pedagogy preferred by practitioners as
compared with educators.
Table 1 describes the study's assumptions, hypothesis and research
questions.
Table 1
Research Overview
Assumptions: 1. Leadership practitioners with experience in the public sector can
identify the nature and work of contemporary leadership for public purposes.
2. Leadership practitioners with experience in the public sector can
identify the nature and work of future leadership for public purposes.
3. Leadership educators should reflect in their curricula the nature and
work of future leadership required for public purposes.
Hypothesis: Leadership practitioners and leadership educators have common
expectations about the nature and work of leadership for public purposes.
6


Table 1 (Cont.)
Research Questions:
Sub-Hvpothesis:
Practitioners and educators have common expectations about the nature and
work of contemporary leadership for public purposes.
Sub-Hvpothesis:
Practitioners and educators have common expectations about the nature and
work of future leadership for public purposes.
1. Is there a gap: do practitioners and educators perceive similar unmet
demands for public leadership?
IA. Do practitioners and educators believe that society (a) lacks leaders (b)
with the right abilities who can provide effective leadership for public
purposes, and (c) are there differences between practitioners and educators and
among members of these groups by age, gender, and race/ethnicity in their
perceptions about (a) and (b)?
IB. Do practitioners and educators (a) believe that what constitutes effective
leadership changes over time and (b) are there differences between
practitioners and educators and among members of these groups by age,
gender, and race/ethnicity in these perceptions?
2. What does the literature tell us about possible leadership abilities
that might fill the gap?
2A. What theories found in the research literature describe possible abilities
required of public leaders?
3. What kinds of leadership are required to fill the gap in public
leadership: do practitioners and educators perceive similar
requirements?
3A. What leadership models are most important, and are there differences
between practitioners and educators and among members of these groups by
age, gender, and race/ethnicity in their perceptions about which models are
most important?
3B. How important is competence and character in leadership, and are there
differences between practitioners and educators and among members of these
groups by age, gender, and race/ethnicity in their perceptions about the
importance of competence and character?
3C. How should leaders and followers work with each other, and are there
differences between practitioners and educators and among members of these
groups by age, gender, and race/ethnicity in their perceptions about how
leaders and followers should work together?
4. What are the implications for leadership education?
4A. What types of (a) education providers and (b) strategies do practitioners
and educators believe are effective?
4B. In what ways, if any, do practitioners and educators have similar
expectations for the role that education providers can have in developing
people's leadership ability?
4C. What is the relationship, if any, between the leadership concepts used in
higher education courses and programs today with models that describe the
future nature and work of leadership?
7


Relationship Between Theory and Models
A central aspect of this study is the relationship of leadership theory to
leadership models. Theories are formulations about leadership that result from
research. For example, House and Shamir (1993) and others found through their
research that charisma might play a role in leadership.2 Models are representations
of those theories that can be easily understood by the practitioners and educators
who participate in this study. For example, charisma, for this study, is defined as
the capacity to inspire devotion or enthusiasm. Practitioners and educators were
asked to rate the importance of charisma in leadership by responding to the model
(i.e., the capacity to inspire devotion or enthusiam) which can then be linked to
individual leadership theories (charisma, in this example).
Because theory is formed from basic research to advance our
understanding of leadership, it provides a comprehensive list of available models,
regardless of any single model's perceived effectiveness. This list was reviewed
(using questionnaires) by leadership practitioners and educators, allowing
practitioners and educators to identify which models they deem important.
Chapter 2 describes the process used to develop a comprehensive list of leadership
models found in the research literature, the content of the list itself, and a synthesis
of those individual models into an integrated model. Practitioner and educator
ratings for individual models are described in Chapter 4 and allow for distinctions
8


to be drawn between models that are more important from those that are less
widely used, thus suggesting the relative utility of further exploring particular
theoretical areas.
2
A complete list of leadership theories for this study is found in Table 3.
9


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW:
DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL
OF LEADERSHIP
A Brief History of Leadership Theory
The desire to understand and describe effective leadership can be found in
texts as old as the Old and New Testaments, and the Greek and Latin classics
(Bass, 1990). Organizing the available research and associated literature is an
enormous undertaking and, by itself, is the subject of entire texts (see, for example,
Chemers, 1997; Chemers & Ayman, 1993b; Northouse, 1997; Rejai & Phillips,
1997). Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership (1990) is the most extensive
scholarly effort undertaken to organize the literature published prior'to 1990
(Wren, 1995). Bass (1990) organizes the leadership literature into five categories
briefly described below and further illustrated in Table 2.
1. Personal and Situational Theories explain leadership as a matter of situation
combined with the personal attributes of the leader (Bass, 1990, pp, 37-38),
Examples include "great-man" theories, trait theories, and situational theories.
2. Interaction and Social Learning Theories "explain the leader-follower
relationship as a consequence of the leader's interaction with the followers, as
10


well as with the circumstances involved" (Bass, 1990, p. 44). Examples
include path-goal theory and contingency theory.
3. Theories and Models of Interactive Processes explain leadership in terms of
"the interaction between leaders and followers" (Bass, 1990, p. 47). Examples
include exchange theories and behavioral theories.
4. Perceptual and Cognitive Theories analyze social behavior by evaluating the
roles and membership of leaders and followers in group settings. They also
examine the relationship "between the leader's intentions and the follower's
understanding of what the leader is trying to do" (Bass, 1990, p. 49).
Examples include attribution theories, information processing theories, and
open-systems analysis.
5. Hybrid "Explanations" are an early attempt to integrate various aspects of
leadership theory, using "cognitive, behavioral, and interactional explanations
... to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes (Bass, 1990, p.
52). Transformational leadership is the sole example of this inquiry area.
Table 2
Leadership Theory to 1990
Adapted From Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership (Bass, 1990)
1. Personal & Situational Theories
Great-Man Theories History is shaped by the leadership of great men.
Trait Theories If the leader is endowed with superior qualities that differentiate him from his followers, it should be possible to identify these qualities.
11


Table 2 (Cont.)
Situational Theories Leadership is all a matter of situational demands, that is, situational factors determine who will emerge as leader.
Personal-Situational Theories The situation is not in itself sufficient to account for leadership. A combination of personal and situational elements needs to be considered.
Psychoanalytic Theories Attempted to explain the leaders political behavior from early childhood and family developments.
Political Theories Political theorists, from Plato onward, had explanations, either explicit or implicit, and prescriptions for leadership.... (For example,) the leadership espoused in the democratic world ... make decisions based on the vote of the majority but the rights of the minority are respected and protected.
Humanistic Theories Were concerned with development of the individual within an effective and cohesive organization.
2. Interaction & Social Learning Theories Explain the leader-follower relationship as a consequence of the leaders interaction with the followers, as well as with the circumstances involved."
Leader-Role Theory The characteristics of the individual and the demands of the situation interact in such a manner as to permit one or perhaps a few persons to emerge as leaders."
Theories of the Attainment of the Leadership Role These theories attempt to explain who emerges as group leader and why.
Reinforced-Change Theory Leadership is the observed effort of one member in a group to change the motivation, understanding, or behavior of other members.
Path-Goal Theory The reinforcement of change in the subordinate by the leader (usually by having the leader enhance satisfaction of the followers).
Contingency Theory The effectiveness of task-oriented and relations- oriented leaders is contingent on the demands imposed by the situation.
3. Theories & Models of Interactive Processes Focus is placed on the interaction between leaders and followers.
12


Table 2 (Cont.)
Multiple-Linkage Model The leaders initiation of structure enhances the subordinates ability to cope with the situation; the leaders consideration for the welfare of the subordinate enhances the subordinates satisfaction with the situation.
Multiple-Screen Model Attempts to explain the relationship between the leaders intelligence and his or her groups performance.
Vertical-Dyad Exchange Emphasizes the relationship between the leader and each individual follower, rather than between the leader and the group as a whole.
Exchange Theories Group members make contributions at a cost to themselves and receive benefits at a cost to the group or other members. Interaction continues because members find the social exchange mutually rewarding.
Behavioral Theories Emphasize operant conditioning and reinforcement and making the receipt of rewards or the avoidance of punishment contingent on the subordinate behaving as required.
Communication Theories Communication and rhetoric provide another point of departure ... about leader-follower interactions,... (emphasizing) the importance of going beyond the symbolic divisions in the emergence of leadership.
4. Perceptual & Cognitive Theories Make use of major strides in cognitive psychology and are immediatly applicable in diagnosis and leadership education.
Attribution Theories Each leader or follower is seen to have his or her own implicit theory of leadership. (For example,) if we want to understand the behavior of individual leaders, we must begin by attempting to find out what they are thinking about the situation in which they would be leaders.
Information Processing Studying the shared problems ... of leaders and followers when they tackle a common task.
Open-Systems Analysis Sensitivity to the larger environment and organization in which leaders and their subordinates are embedded.
Rational-Deductive Approach Leaders decide whether to be directive or participative in decision making with their subordinates and whether to do so primarily with individual subordinates or with the whole group at once.
13


Table 2 (Cont.)
5. Hybrid Explanations Cognitive, behavioral, and interactional explanations are likely to be needed to account fully for leader-follower relations and outcomes from them.
Transformational Leadership A behavioral process capable of being learned and managed. Its... systematic, consisting of purposeful and organized search for changes, systematic analysis, and the capacity to move resources from areas of lesser to greater productivity ... to bring about a strategic transformation.
A review of leadership theory research from 1990 to the present for this study
finds similar attempts to understand effective leadership by studying it through a
single theory such as charisma, culture, or leader-follower exchange. Appendix A
is a detailed review of the available leadership research literature indexed by
author, area of inquiry, findings, and theory statements. In brief, it organizes
leadership research into twelve theoretical areas (with examples):
1. Charisma
Charismatic leaders are more effective than non-charismatic leaders (Agle,
1993).
2. Cross-Cultural
Differences in cultural understanding impede effective leadership (Ayman,
1993).
Different cultures describe effective leadership differently, and people from the
same culture define successful leadership similarly (Chemers & Ayman,
1993 a).
Leadership and teamwork are important in every culture (Chemers, 1997).
Heterogeneous groups take more time than homogeneous groups to become
productive and have more complex, in-depth thought processes that can lead to
greater creativity (Mai-Dalton, 1993).
3. Decision Theory
"Decisionmakers ... view most decisions as points in a managed flow of acts
and events that has continuity with the past, defines the present, and is directed
toward achievement of goals in the future" (Beach, 1993, p. 288).
14


4. Ethics / Values
Values affect people's reactions to leadership, determine the specific traits and
behaviors that make up the prototype of an effective leader, influences the
leader-follower relationship, and affect organizational environments and
perceptions (Chemers, 1997).
5. Gender
Effective team development requires leadership from the feminist tradition
such as building consensus, participating, and sharing power; these values are
congruent with diversity leadership ability (Smith, 1997).
Differing attitudes toward men and women create barriers for women
advancing as leaders (Smith, 1997).
6. Leader-Follower Relationship
The legitimacy of leaders is based on their relationship with followers;
followers provide leaders with the power to lead (Hollander, 1993).
7. Management
Leadership is an influence relationship, whereas management deals with
managers and subordinates; leadership involves leaders and followers, whereas
management deals with managers and subordinates; leadership seeks profound
changes, whereas management focuses on production and sale of goods and/or
services; and, in leadership intended changes reflect mutual purposes, whereas
in management goods and services result from coordinated superior and
subordinate activities (Rost as cited in Rejai & Phillips, 1997).
8. Power
"(A)ccess to political power makes power seeking easier and more doable
(Bienen and van de Walle as cited in Rejai & Phillips, 1997, p. 92).
The tenure of leaders comes to an end because of medical departure, regular
departure such as completion of a task, and irregular departure such as election
defeat, dismissal by parliaments or parties, coups d'etat, and dismissal by the
military (Blondel as cited in Rejai & Phillips, 1997).
9. Self-Awareness
The development of consciousness is the single causal variable that enhances
leadership (Harung, Heaton & Alexander, 1995).
Leaders (and followers) can change behaviors and feelings by obtaining insight
into their upbringings, prior relationships, and psychological development
(Stech, 1997).
10. Situational
Anxiety, stress, or uncertainty cause leaders to fall back on previously learned
leadership styles, experience, and basic personality behaviors (Fiedler, 1993).
15


11. Teams
Teams are central to the successful accomplishment of important
organizational goals (Ilgen, Major, Hollenbech & Sego, 1993).
In team settings the leader's critical function is to assist the group in
accomplishing its goals by monitoring/diagnosing the group and taking the
requisite action (Kogler-Hill, 1997).
Effective leadership is reaching group goals while preserving social stability
(Misumi, 199?).
12. Transformational
Transformational leadership energizes followers to higher levels of
performance (Bass & Avolio, 1993).
Authority is inseparable from leadership, although it is possible to lead without
formal authority (Heifetz as cited in Rejai & Phillips, 1997).
In examining differences between research conducted prior to 1990 to that
conducted since 1990, two new theoretical areas cross-cultural and gender
were identified. This may be reflective of research efforts in traditional disciplines
that examine human interaction such as sociology, communication, and
psychology (see, for example, Hofstede,v1993; Hughes, Ginnett, Curphy & White,
1996; Schein, 1992). Each of Bass' five categories (theory prior to 1990) has
examples of research that continue into the 1990s. Three theoretical areas
charisma, power and situational can trace their roots back to Bass' category for
personal and situational theories, which explain leadership as a matter of situation
combined with the personal attributes of leaders. Two of Bass' areas interaction
and social learning theories and theories and models of interactive processes
are found in research into the relationship between leaders and followers,
including teams and motivation. Current research into decision theory,
16


management, and self-awareness are linked to Bass' category for perceptual and
cognitive theories, which analyze social behavior by evaluating people's roles in
particular leadership situations and their self-knowledge. Research into
transformational leadership, Bass' most recent category, also continues into the
1990's. The final area of inquiry, ethics and values, cuts across each of Bass'
categories and, as such, aspects of ethics and values can be found in each area. For
example, personal and situational theories include those that focus on the
"superior qualities" (including "moral force") that differentiate a leader from
her/his followers (Bass, 1990, p. 38). Similarly, interaction and social learning
theories consider "character" (Bass, 1990, p. 44) and hybrid explanations describe
leaders who are "role models" (Bass, 1990, p. 54).
An Integration Of Leadership Theory
The areas of inquiry above describe the kinds of leadership research being
conducted from a single aspect or characterization of leadership. However, the
dominant trend in contemporary leadership theory is an effort by researchers to
integrate what is known about effective leadership into comprehensive models that
describe leaders and leadership (see, for example, Bryson & Crosby, 1992;
Chemers, 1993; House & Shamir, 1993; Rejai & Phillips, 1997; Yammarino,
1998). Martin Chemers finds this is the essential next step in leadership theory
because
17


[a] common criticism of contemporary leadership research and theory, both
from within the leadership area and from other organizational theorists, has
been that the literature is fragmented and contradictory.... A first step in
sorting out the commonalties and contradictions among leadership theories
is to recognize that leadership is a multifaceted process. Leaders must
analyze information, solve problems, motivate subordinates, direct group
activities, inspire confidence, and so on. If we try to explain all facets of
the leadership process from a single point of view, we are bound to fail,
and when we use a single perspective to compare theories that explain
different aspects of the leadership process, we further increase the
confusion (1997, pp. 151-2).
To resolve the dilemma of viewing leadership from a particular theoretical
perspective, Chemers and others (Bryman, 1992; Rejai & Phillips, 1997) have
worked to create what might be labeled "integrative models" of leadership theory,
or models that attempt to organize our understanding of leaders and leadership into
a comprehensive whole. In finding that previous attempts to identify a single
theory failed because they view leadership from particular perspectives (e.g., great
man, trait, situational, contingency), Chemers excludes by definition attempts up
to and including Bums' work on transformational leadership (Bums, 1978). This
is important because transformational leadership dominated leadership theory
work through 1990 (Bass, 1990) and continues as a significant research
perspective today (see, for example, Bass & Avolio, 1993; Chemers, 1997; Heifetz
and Rost as cited in Rejai & Phillips, 1997). Accordingly, any meaningful
attempts to build an integrative model are recent.
18


Integrative Models in the Research Literature
Alan Bryman undertook the earliest effort to describe an integrative model
of leadership in a 1992 study. He found, in attempting to describe charisma, that
the same traits describe an integrative model of leadership. These include vision,
communicating the vision, empowerment, organizational culture or change,
organizational structures, and trust (Bryman, 1992). Robert House and Boas
Shamir, also researching charisma, describe a
new leadership paradigm (that) emphasizes symbolic leader behavior,
visionary and inspirational ability, nonverbal communication(s), appeal to
ideological values, intellectual stimulation of followers by the leader, high
leader expectations for follower performance, high leader confidence in
followers, and leader concern with her or his image in the eyes of followers
and other important constituents (House & Shamir, 1993, p. 82).
Two additional attempts have been made to integrate leadership theory, one
by Martin Chemers (Chemers, 1993; Chemers, 1997) and one by Mostafa Rejai
and Kay Phillips (Rejai & Phillips, 1997). Both were conducted as literature
reviews. These reviews build on existing theory by combining theories into a
unified model to describe what they call "effective leadership." Chemers review
of the literature found that
[ejffective leaders must accomplish three functions:
1. Leaders must project an image of competence and trustworthiness. They
accomplish that projection by matching their behavior to commonly held
prototypes.
2. Leaders must establish a relationship with followers that guides,
develops, and inspires them to make meaningful contributions to group
goals and the organizational mission. Such relationships must match the
needs and expectations of followers, which leaders discern through
19


nondefensive judgements.
3. Leaders must mobilize and deploy the collective resources of self and
team to the organizational mission by matching operational strategy to the
characteristics of the environment (Chemers, 1997, pp. 172-3).
Rejai and Phillips found in their literature review that
Leadership refers to life experiences and life chances that (1) imbue a
person with a vision and a set of goals, (2) endow that person with the skill
to articulate the vision and the goals in such a way as to attract a significant
following, (3) provide that person with the skill to specify the means and to
organize and mobilize the followers toward the realization of the vision and
goals, and (4) give that person sufficient understanding of the followers in
order to devise and pursue goals that are rewarding to both the leader and
followers (Rejai & Phillips, 1997, p. 9).
In examining the models identified in the post-1990 literature they share
two common leadership concepts: (1) articulation of a clear vision followed by
action and (2) the importance of leader-follower interaction. The models proposed
by Bryman, Boas and Shamir, and Chemers all feature the concept of trust, which
%
is derived from, in their view, explicit agreement between leaders and followers on
shared values. Rejai and Phillips specifically reject this concept because they
wanted a "value neutral" definition (Rejai & Phillips, 1997, p. 9).
It is also interesting that these models are similar in content to that found in
"popular" (e.g., non-theoretical) leadership texts. In a review of popular texts Mary
Ann Bowman identified three common themes among popular texts of the 1990s,
each of which can be found in the theory literature:
First, many of the authors have been influenced by the servant-leader
paradigm, a concept that emphasizes the need for leaders to be motivated
by the desire to serve others rather than by their own self-interest. Second,
20


a majority of the popular authors write from a spiritual-ethical orientation,
focusing on issues of character, ethical behavior, and life meaning. Third,
almost all the popular leadership approaches emphasize the importance of
the empowerment of followers. According to this view, leadership should
be shared with employees in a way that incorporates collaborative teams in
cooperative decision making. Attention shifts from a focus on the
individual leader to the creation of an environment in which employees can
grow and learn together the learning organization (Bowman, 1997, p.
239).
While popular and theoretical approaches share common themes, Bowman
identified two key differences in the approach taken by popular authors and
theory-driven research.
[First, popular] leadership- authors ... tend to have a more pragmatic,
applied orientation to leadership. Unlike the authors who discuss
theoretical approaches that seek to explain which, how, and/or why
leadership behaviors occur within organizations, the majority of these
writers tend to focus on what should occur to make leadership effective.
They often include informal case studies, along with anecdotes about the
authors' own experiences in working within or for organizations. They
tend to be advice giving and future oriented, with the intention of having an
influence on the way organizations actually function.
[Second,] ... the popular writings on leadership tend to define leadership
broadly. Rather than focusing solely on CEOs or top-level executives, they
often present leadership as a behavior that applies in many life contexts
at work and at home. For this reason, readers are able to generalize many
of the authors' concepts to their own situations. Even those who are not
working in positions typically thought of as leadership or managerial in
nature can easily find useful ideas in these books (Bowman, 1997, p. 240).
While the means and intended audience with which popular writers and
academic researchers conduct their work differs, there are common findings about
what constitutes effective leadership. Bowman (1997) found that these
commonalties are the presence of ethical concepts and the importance of leader-
21


follower interaction, especially as this interaction relates to the leader empowering
group members. She also found that popular texts are more concerned with
establishing norms while research studies are more concerned with describing
leadership as it exists. Finally, she found that popular texts offer generic lessons
about effective leadership that the authors believe work in both personal and
professional settings; these lessons are derived from personal experience, stories,
and more casual observation. This contrasts with the discipline, focus, and peer
review with which scholarly research is conducted and reported.
Integrative Model for This Study
In reviewing the theoretical research work, prior to 1990 and since that
time, it became clear that an integrative model offers several benefits for this
study. Construction of an integrative model reflects the dominant research work
currently conducted and a convincing argument can be made that the act of
integration will illuminate our understanding of leadership more than a simple
description of desired traits or characteristics. The latter is a theme when
researchers describe the need for further leadership research (Chemers & Ayman,
1993a; Yammarino, 1998).
It is clear that, in attempting to describe effective leadership for public
purposes, no single theory (e.g. transformational, charismatic, team) is sufficient.
This study proceeds from the assumption that by offering both leadership
22


practitioners and educators the widest possible range'of leadership theory from
which to choose, those models that are perceived to be most effective will be
identified. Finally, a new model is needed because no single integrative model
reviewed above takes into account older theories (e.g. great-man or trait) that may
prove effective. As the literature review above revealed, much of the post-1990
research work is rooted in older models and this work is not directed at integration.
In sum, a new model that is designed to offer the widest range of choice to define
effective leadership does not exist and is required for this study.
The requirements for development of an integrative model for this study
are as follows:
It must be grounded in the available research literature, and not rely on models
found in the popular literature.
It must stem from a comprehensive list of major research findings, including
those that may not be under active research at this time.
It must identify models of effective leadership; that is, leadership concepts that
both leadership practitioners and educators can easily understand in common
and rate for relative importance. These models must, in turn, be linked to
specific leadership research findings to allow for an explicit assessment of the
relationship between leadership theory and the model(s) of effective leadership
identified by leadership practitioners and educators.
23


It must be more than a list of leadership characteristics or skills; an integrative
model must include an organizational scheme that puts these elements into
perspective.
Other models from the available literature find that integrated models can be:
A process-oriented model where leadership is analyzed at the "intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and situational levels" (Chemers, 1997, p. 163);
A model that examines the relatedness of individual elements such as vision,
action, and team (Bryman, 1992);
A "great man" model that examines leadership from the perspective of the
effect that the CEO has on organizations (Agle, 1993); or,
An organized typology that examines leadership by type (transforming,
transactional, military), motivation (psychoanalytic, psychohistorical,
empirical, experimental), and function (moral purpose, social unity, system
functions, human and personal needs, evolutionary functions) (Rejai &
Phillips, 1997).
This study proposes an alternative to those above; one where the integration is
organized by intention and action and their relationship with each other. Intention
is a thoughtful vision that a leader wants to realize as the preferred outcome. An
example of an intention is a leader's articulation to himself or herself of the need to
improve a team's management ability. Actions tell us who is primarily responsible
24


to do the work needed and who will benefit from that work. (Action can also
determine whether the leader or his/her followers decide whether there is a
leadership success or failure.) Action, in this example, requires that the work be
focused on the team (as opposed to the leader) by organizing a process to improve
the team's management ability.
When intentions are realized through action, leadership is present. When
there is dysfunction in this relationship (leaders do not realize their intentions
through their actions) there is a leadership failure. Viewed in this way, intention
and action serve as a framework for examining various leadership models while
also providing a basis for identifying effective leadership.
The relationship between intention and action is an idea explored by Robert
Terry (1993) in his comprehensive review of the leadership literature, both
theoretical and popular. He defines the link between intention and action as
authenticity.
Authenticity is genuineness and a refusal to engage in self-deception. An
authentic action is one that succeeds in accomplishing its mission. We live
in an age in which attention to authenticity is becoming more essential as
inauthenticity becomes more pervasive. We see real or potential
inauthenticity in applications of the information resource, in the
functioning of institutions, in our power to create virtual reality and usurp
nature, in the fading of our common purposes, and in the crisis of thought
over whether we are locked in our own egos, unable to communicate
shared meanings.
At the same time, we see signs that out of these concerns can come
beneficial uses of information and power, new purposes and structures, and
a new view of meaning that does not require us to be either subjective or
objective with no middle ground. The concept of authenticity is as
25


essential to leadership as the concept of action, helping us to frame issues
and discover true actions (Terry, 1993, pp. 128-9).
Terry identifies "six reasons why authenticity occupies a central role in
leadership" (Terry, 1993, p. 126): (1) certain individuals have a personality
preference toward authenticity as a concept; (2) it is inclusive; (3) authenticity
allows for self-correction by "holding together what we know and do in living
tension with what we do not know, avoid doing, or have misled in doing;" (4) it
calls others to participate and empowers them; (5) it sets direction by "inform[ing]
the means of action" and defining "a desirable future;" and, (6) authenticity
provides an ethical foundation that allows for the "construct[ion of] a universal
social ethic that preserves and enhances diversity" (Terry, 1993, pp. 126-8).
In examining possible models of effective leadership, each contains an
aspect of intention and action. For example, a leader can intend to be ethical, but it
is only when this intention is aligned with the act of being ethical that leadership
takes place. Similarly, a leader can intend to be a good manager, but it is only
when the desire to be a good manager is aligned with the act of being a good
manager that leadership takes place.
This level of analysis has the virtue of universality. It allows each
research-based theory to be considered as a model for effective leadership.
However, an additional level of analysis is required before this proposed model
can be considered truly integrative. As described above, an integrated model must
26


be grounded in the available research literature, stem from a comprehensive list of
major research findings, identify models of effective leadership, and be an
organizational scheme that puts leadership characteristics and skills into
perspective. It is this last criterion that requires a deeper analysis.
Intention. For this study, intention defined as thoughtful and expressed
desires that a leader wants to realize as the preferred outcome is composed of
two complementary domains: character and competence3. Character is that which
is intrinsic to a leader. While difficult for either the leader or followers to
measure, its presence is a requirement for leadership to take place. Examples
include an ethical orientation, self-awareness, an understanding of authority and
power, and the ability to transform one's self and others.
Competence is a leader's ability to consistently perform a leadership
function that is skill-based. For example, good management is often described in
terms of the capacity to do work such as planning, organizing, staffing, and
budgeting. Other examples of competency-based leadership models are the ability
to adapt to new leadership situations, ably working with others, and leading teams.
The literature review identified twenty leadership models (see Figure 1).
Each of these twenty models can be placed into one of two categories: (1) those
3 Stephen Covey addresses the concepts of intention, action, and the requirement for effective
leaders to build trust with others by aligning intentions with actions. This concept is identical to
Terry's use of authenticity. However, Covey further suggests that effective leadership is, in part,
modeling character, competence, and action (Covey, 1996).
27


models that are intrinsic and difficult to describe yet may be important for
successful leadership (character); and, (2) those models that may be equally
important and are skill-based (competence).
Action. Action refers to who is primarily responsible to do the work
needed and who will benefit from that work. For example, the act of a leader
adopting a personal ethical code is self-directed. Followers may benefit from a
leader's ethical code, but the primary work is done by the leader to benefit the
leader. In contrast, transformational leadership requires the work of followers in
concert with the leader. Both may benefit, but the followers largely realize these
benefits. The work of Martin Luther King, Jr. to improve conditions for African
Americans and other ethnic minorities is an example of transformational
leadership and how its effects benefit followers more than the leader. Followers
may be organized as small groups, large organizations, or as movements and
societies (Bass & Avolio, 1993).
Organizing leadership models within this framework allows for each model
to be grouped in one of four domains (see Figure 1). Each of these domains is
described by a persona: Sage, Student, Minister, Coach. The Sage domain is
comprised of models such as vision and ethics. These models focus on the
leaders character. The Student domain is comprised of models such as continuous
learning of new ways of thinking and adaptive ability. These models focus on the
leaders competence. The Minister domain is comprised of models derived from
28


transformational leadership such as the ability to move followers to go beyond
their self-interests for the good of the group. These models focus on followers
character. The final domain, Coach, is comprised of models that focus on
followers competence such as cultural and gender competence.
In assembling integrative model for this study, Bass & Stogdill's Handbook
of Leadership (Bass, 1990) is used to describe leadership theories and their foci
prior to 1990 (see Table 2). "Leadership Research: 1990 to the Present" (see
Appendix A) is a review of the available literature from 1990 to the present, and is
indexed by researcher, area of inquiry, and findings. A final column summarizes
these findings into theory statements that are designed to succinctly capture
elements of effective leadership for inclusion into this study's integrative model.
Tables 3 and 4 are the transition between leadership theory and possible models of
effective leadership (leadership concepts that both leadership practitioners and
educators can easily understand in common and rate for relative effectiveness).
Table 3 lists the models of effective leadership that are derived from the leadership
theories described in Table 2 and Appendix A. These models are grouped by
intention and action in Table 4.
In order to use models that practitioners and educators can easily
understand and rate for importance, each of the models described in Tables 3 and 4
were rewritten using quotes from the leadership literature (see Figure 1). These
29


Table 3
Possible Models of Effective Leadership To 1990
Adapted from Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership (1990)
The leadership of great men shapes history.
Situational factors determine who will emerge as the leader.
Combinations of situational and personal elements determine who will emerge as the
leader.
Leaders are developed within effective and cohesive organizations.
A consequence of interactions between the leader and followers and with the
circumstances involved.
Each leader has his/her own theory of leadership.
Leadership is transformational.
Possible Models of Effective Leadership
Sourced from Leadership Research from 1990 to the Present
Charisma (Agle, 1993; House & Shamir, 1993)
Management Ability (Agle, 1993) & Knowing the Difference between Management &
Leadership (Rost as cited in Rejai & Phillips, 1997)
Cultural (Ayman, 1993; Chemers, 1997; Chemers & Ayman, 1993a; Mai-Dalton, 1993;
Triandis, 1993) & Gender Competence (Chemers, 1997; Ritter & Brown, 1986; Smith,
1997)
Link transactional leadership (Beach, 1993) with transformational leadership, and be a
transforming leader (Bass & Avolio, 1993)
Ethical Orientation (Chemers, 1997; Mitchell, 1993)
Leader-Follower Competence (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Chemers, 1997; Hollander, 1993;
Rost as cited in Rejai & Phillips, 1997)
Self-Awareness & Motivation (Harung et al., 1995; Rejai & Phillips, 1997; Stech, 1997)
Understand Authority (Heifetz as cited in Rejai & Phillips, 1997), Power & Tenure
(Bienen & van de Walle and Blondel as cited in Rejai & Phillips, 1997)
Situational vis a vis stress, uncertainty and anxiety (Fiedler, 1993)
Lead Teams (Heifetz as cited in Rejai & Phillips, 1997; Ilgen et al, 1993; Kogler-Hill,
1997; McGrath & Gruenfeld, 1993; Misumi, 199?)
Adaptive Ability (Heifetz as cited in Rejai & Phillips, 1997)
Table 4
Possible Models of Effective Leadership Rated by Intention and Action
Primary Intention: Character
The leadership of great men shapes history.
Each leader has his/her own theory of leadership.
Be a transforming leader.
30


Charisma
Ethical orientation
Self-Awareness and Motivation
Understand Authority, Power & Tenure
Primary Intention: Competence
Situational factors determine who will emerge as the leader.
Combinations of situational and personal elements determine who will emerge as the
leader.
Leaders are developed within effective and cohesive organizations.
A consequence of interactions between the leader and followers and with the
circumstances involved.
Management ability & Knowing the. difference between management and leadership
Cultural & Gender competence
Link transactional leadership with transformational leadership
Leader-Follower competence
Situational vis a vis stress, uncertainty and anxiety
Lead teams
Adaptive ability
Primary Action: Leader
The leadership of great men shapes history.
Leaders are developed within effective and cohesive organizations.
Each leader has his/her own theory of leadership.
Knowing the difference between management and leadership
Ethical orientation
Self-Awareness and Motivation
Understand Authority, Power & Tenure
Situational vis a vis stress, uncertainty and anxiety
Adaptive ability
Primary Action: Followers
Situational factors determine who will emerge as the leader.
Combinations of situational and personal elements determine who will emerge as the
leader.
A consequence of interactions between the leader and followers and with the
circumstances involved.
Charisma
Management ability
Cultural & Gender competence
Link transactional leadership with transformational leadership, and be a transforming
leader
Leader-Follower competence
Lead teams
31


transitions from theory statements to the models described in Tables 3 and 4 to
final models described in Figure 1 were reviewed by both the principal
investigator and an expert in the leadership literature.
There are benefits for employing the integrative model described in Figure
1 for the empirical research in this study. The framework is inclusive and non-
judgmental, allowing practitioners and educators to rate each model for
effectiveness.
Analysis of these responses will allow the data for individual models to
inform each of the four domains of the Integrative Model. This exercise yields
insight into the relative importance of each domain (Sage, Student, Minister,
Coach) compared with the others.
Finally, we can better understand leader-follower interaction by organizing
the universe of possible interactions into the four domains described above. By
using actions to tell us who is primarily responsible to do the work needed and
who will benefit from that work, this integrated model adds context by not just
looking for the presence of action, but by determining who is doing the work
required and who will benefit (leader or follower). Domains that are preferred by
practitioners and educators also provide evidence about the nature of the work
required (character versus competence).
These benefits meet the final criterion for an integrative model. That is,
this model is an organizational scheme that puts leadership characteristics and
32


skills into perspective (rather than a mere listing of leadership characteristics and
skills).
33


Figure 1
Integrative Model for This Study
THEORY
IDENTFIES
THEORY
Leadership Theory Findings
(e.g.. (Transformational behaviors add value to a leader's portfolio
of behaviors in terms of energizing followers to higher levels of perfor-
mance.)
T
Leadership Theory Statements
(e.g. Transformational leaderAip energizes followers to higher levels
LEADERSHIP
MODELS
LEADERSHIP MODELS
/
WHICH CAN BE
RATED BY:
PRIMARY
INTENT
(Character v. Competence)
AND
__PRIMARY
ACTION
(Leader or Followers)
Primary Intart: Character Primary Action: Leader Primary Intent: Character Primary Action: Followers
Models where the leader does intrinsic work to benefit the leader. Models where followers work with the intrinsic capacity of the leader to benefit followers.
Primary Intent: Competence Primary Action: Leader Primary Intent: Competence Primary Action: Followers
Models where the leader does skill-based work to benefit the leader. Models where followers wok with the leaders skills to benefit followers. *
Sage The leadothip of great men shapes history. Each leader has his/her own theory of leadership. Ethical orientation Self-Awareness and Motivation Understand Authority, Power & Tenure Munster** Be a transforming leader
Student Coach
* Leaders are developed within effective and cohesive * Situational factors determine who will emerge as the leader.
organizations. * Combinations of situational and personal elements deter
* Knowing the difference between management and mine who will emerge as the leader.
leadership * A consequence of interactions between the leader and fol
Situational vis a vis stress, uncertainty and anxiety lowers and with the circumstances involved.
Adaptive ability * Management ability
Cultural & Gender competence
Link transactional leadership with transformational leader-
* = Models before 1990 5&Tp
= Models after 1990 Leader-Follower competence
Lead teams
Charisma
34


Figure 1 (Cont.)
Leader Followers
"Sage" "Minister"
Models that focus on the leaders character. Models that focus on followers' character.
This is a leader who: This is a leader who:
Continually looks within to decide Works in such a way that the leader and
what she wants, what she values, and her followers raise one another to
what she is willing to be courageous higher levels of motivation and
u 0) about. morality.
CJ a Stands for something and has the Increases awareness of what is right,
a courage of his convictions. good, important, and beautiful.
u Is focused on how to be ~ how to Helps to elevate followers' needs for
develop in herself quality, character, achievement and self-actualization.
mind-set, values, principles, and Fosters in followers higher moral
courage. maturity
Does not see power as something that Moves followers to go beyond their
is competed for but rather as something self-interests for the good of the group,
that can be created and distributed to followers without detracting from his own power. organization, or society.
"Student" "Coach"
Models that focus on the leader's Models that focus on followers
competence. competence.
This is a leader who: This is a leader who:
Knows the difference between Has good human relations, knowledge
management and leadership. of cultural differences, challenges those
Is able to adapt her chosen style to fit with prejudices, assumes responsibility
the requirements of the situation. She for the organization as a whole, and
o C must not only know when to use a matches the needs of the organization
a particular style, but also know how to with the needs of individuals.
a. c make each style fit into the situation to Knows that followers provide leaders
o maximize the performance of with the authority to lead.
subordinates. Assists the group in accomplishing its
Continuously learns new ways of goals by monitoring / diagnosing the
thinking. This often requires the leader group and taking requisite action.
to change his values, beliefs, or Emerges out of the group because of
behavior. her personality, the nature of the group
Is developed within effective and and its members and the event
cohesive organizations. confronting the group. Coordinates the work of superiors and subordinates to produce goods and services.
35


CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This review of the methodology employed for this study is organized into
five sections: (1) sample selection; (2) questionnaire design; (3) questionnaire
dissemination and analysis; (4) focus group selection and protocol; and, (5)
respondent demographics.
Sample Selection
This study surveys two groups: experienced leadership practitioners and
leadership program educators. Selection of the educators employed a list
maintained for over ten years by the Center for Creative Leadership. The Center
provides this list for research purposes. These educators are faculty and
administrators who design and deliver leadership courses and programs in
American higher education institutions. As discussed in Chapter 1, this group is
comprised of 378 individuals identified through the Centers periodic census. The
Centers 1986 list is the most current available (Freeman et al., 1996).
36


Selection of the practitioner group proved to be more difficult. Seven
criteria were used to assess possible groups. These criteria relate to a sample
source (e.g., membership list):
1. consists largely of practitioners.
2. is merit-based on criteria related to public leadership;
3. is diverse in age;
4. is diverse in race/ethnicity;
5. is diverse in gender;
6. represents different employment sectors (government, non-profit, and
for-profit); and,
7. membership exceeds 300.
Particular attention was paid to those groups that use a merit-based process
to select members that is related to public leadership. Only two groups are
selective in this regard: Kellogg National Leadership Program Fellows and
National Academy of Public Administration Fellows. Other groups that were
considered include members of the American Leadership Forum, clients ofthe
Center for Creative Leadership, members of the Independent Sector, and
subscribers to a popular journal on leadership (Leader to Leader). Consideration
was also given to professional associations such as the International Leaders
Association. The groups considered and how each was rated is detailed in Table 5.
Using the criteria above, the practitioner group selected consists of
members of two organizations: National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA) Fellows and W.K. Kellogg Foundation National Leadership Program
37


Table 5
Possible Practitioner Populations
Leadership Recognition Age Ethnic Gender Sector Population
Population./ Sample Practitioner /Selection Diversity Diversity Diversity Diversity >300
American Leadership. Forum Members Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Center for Creative Leadership Clients Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Independent Sector Members Yes No ? ? 7 Yes Yes
Kellogg National Leadership Program Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
"Leader to Leader" Subscribers Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
NAPA Fellows Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes
Professional Associations Yes No ? 7 7 No Yes
"Snowball" List Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Student Leadership Institute at the University of Colorado Contact List Yes e No Yes No Yes Yes No


(KNLP) Fellows. NAPA Fellows are "current and former [U.S.] Cabinet
members, members of Congress, governors, mayors, legislators, jurists, business
executives, public managers, and scholars who have been elected as Fellows
because of their distinguished practical or scholarly contributions to the nation's
public life (NAPA, 1997, p. 22). According to NAPA, 20 percent of Fellows
currently are employed in federal, state and local government; 16 percent in non-
profit corporations; 29 percent in university administration or faculty; 29 percent
in private business; and six percent are retired. Their average age was not
available. NAPA indicates that eighty-three percent are between the ages of 50
and 70. A limiting factor of the sample is NAPA Fellows lack representative
diversity. They are disproportionately male (78%), white (85%), and older.
Similar to NAPA, KNLP Fellows are selected through a rigorous process
that identifies "individuals who show a high level of success and accomplishment"
as leaders in their chosen field (Kellogg, 1997, Tab 3, p.l). The KNLP Fellows
program is nearly 20 years old, and the group is more representative of the nation
as a whole. The average age is 36, 47 percent are female, and 34 percent are
ethnic minorities. The group also reflects a broader array of fields such as health
(17%), law (7%), education (16%), and business (11%) (Kellogg, 1997, Tab 3,
p.5). Similar to NAPA, KNLP was precluded as the sole practitioner group, even
though it has greater diversity than NAPA, for two reasons. First, fellows are
selected as much for their public leadership potential as they are for demonstrated
39


public sector success. Second, fellows participate in a three-year leadership
development program that, while largely self-directed, includes team learning
aimed at leadership principles developed by the Gallup Leadership Institute
Program and the Colorado Outward Bound School. The principles used by these
programs may influence fellows perceptions about leadership. The W.K. Kellogg
Foundation provided access to its list of fellows and their address. NAPA has a
total membership of 517 fellows and KNLP a total membership of 681 fellows.
Questionnaire Design
The design of the questionnaire, The National Survey on Public
Leadership (see Appendix B), was guided by Survey Research Methods (Fowler,
1993), a general text on survey design. Similar instruments were also reviewed,
most notably the "Leadership Practices Inventory" (or LPI) (Kouzes & Posner,
1997), a series of leadership instruments developed by Carl Larson and Frank
LaFasto (1996), and a survey on leadership education jointly developed by the
Jepson School of Leadership Studies at the University of Richmond and the Center
for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina, (1995). The Jepson-CCL
instrument aided the design of questions on the effectiveness of educational
methods. The Leadership Practices Inventory and the Larson and LaFasto
instruments informed questions regarding competence and character, leader and
40


follower relationships, and for the leadership models in Part Five of the
instrument.
Part Five contains 20 quotes, each of which represents one of the models
that comprise the Integrative Model described in Chapter 2. The quotes are from
the leadership literature and were selected by the principal investigator and
reviewed by a member of the dissertation committee for accuracy and
appropriateness in relationship to each model. Table 6 describes this relationship.
The relatively high expertise of respondents allowed use of a lengthy instrument
and provided the opportunity to engage respondents through a combination of
introductory quotes and observations, forced choice questions, and open-ended
questions.
Table 6
Linkage Between Leadership Models from the Integrative Model
And Survey Quotes
Leadership Model Survey Quote
Domain I: The Sage The leadership of great men shapes history. "History effervesces with the names of individuals who have provided extraordinary leadership and risen to the challenges of their eras. Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Their leadership built great nations. Tom Watson. Edwin Land. Alfred P. Sloan. Their leadership built great organizations" (Bennis & Nanus, 1985, P-2).
41


Table 6 (Cont.)
Each leader has his/her own theory of leadership. "Leaders must continually look within to decide what they want, what they value, and what they are willing to be courageous about" (Leider, 1996, p. 189).
Ethical orientation "People expect their leaders to stand for something and to have the courage of their convictions" (Kouzes & Posner, 1996, p. 103).
Self-Awareness and Motivation "The leader for today and the future will be focused on how to be how to develop (in themselves) quality, character, mind-set, values, principles, and courage" (Hesselbein, 1996, p. 122).
Understand Authority, Power & Tenure "Effective leaders do not see power as something that is competed for but rather as something that can be created and distributed to followers without detracting from their own power" (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1995, p. 137).
Domain II: The Student Leaders are developed within effective and cohesive organizations. Leaders are developed within effective and cohesive organizations (Bass, 1990, p. 43).
Knowing the difference between management and leadership Leaders know that "managers do things right. Leaders do the right thing" (Bennis & Nanus, 1985).
Situational vis a vis stress, uncertainty and anxiety "Effective leaders need to be able to adapt their chosen style to fit the requirements of the situation. (T)he leader must not only know when to use a particular style, but also know how to make each style fit into the situation in order to maximize the performance of subordinates" (Hersey & Blanchard, 1995, p. 210)
Adaptive ability "Adaptive work consists of the learning required to address conflicts in the values people hold, or to diminish the gap between the values people stand for and the reality they face. Adaptive work requires a change in values, beliefs, or behavior. The exposure and orchestration of conflict internal contradictions within individuals and constituencies provide the leverage for mobilizing people to leam new ways" (Heifetz, 1994, p. 22).
Domain HI: The Minister Be a transforming leader. Earlv Leadership occurs in such a way that leaders and
42


Table 6 (Cont.) followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality (Bums, 1978, p. 20). Current Leadership occurs when leaders increase awareness of what is right, good, important, and beautiful; when they help to elevate followers needs for achievement and self-actualization; when they foster in followers higher moral maturity; and when they move followers to go beyond their self- interests for the good of their group, organization, or society (Bass & Avolio, 1993, pp. 51-52).
Charisma Leadership is the capacity to inspire devotion or enthusiasm (Simpson & Weiner, 1989, p. 41).
Domain IV: The Coach Situational factors determine who will emerge as the leader. "(L)eadership is all a matter of situational demands, that is, situational factors determine who will emerge as the leader" (Bass, 1990, p. 38).
Combinations of situational and personal elements determine who will emerge as the leader. Combinations of situational and personal elements determine who will emerge as the leader (Bass, 1990, p. 39).
A consequence of interactions between the leader and followers and with the circumstances involved. "Leadership is produced by the conjunction of three factors: (1) the personality traits of the leader, (2) the nature of the group and its members, and (3) the event confronting the group (Bass, 1990, p. 40).
Management ability Leaders coordinate the work of superiors and subordinates to produce goods and services (Rost as cited in Rejai & Phillips, 1997, pp. 148-52).
Cultural & Gender competence Leadership skills require good human relations, knowledge of cultural differences, challenging those with prejudices, assuming responsibility for the organization as a whole, and matching the needs of the organization with the needs of individuals (Mai-Dalton, 1993, p. 212).
Link transactional leadership with transformational leadership Leaders take "the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things." Through this activity, "leadership occurs ... in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality" (Bums, 1978, p. 20).
Leader-Follower competence
Followers provide leaders with the authority to lead


Table 6 (Cont.)
(Hollander, 1993, p. 42).
Lead teams Teams are "central to the successful
accomplishment of important organizational goals"
(Ilgen, Major, Hollenbech & Sego, 1993, p. 266).
In the team context, "the leader's critical flmction is
to assist the group in accomplishing its goals by
monitoring / diagnosing the group and taking
________________________________________requisite action" (Kogler-Hill, 1997, p, 181).
Relationship Between the Research Questions
And the Survey Instrument
This survey is designed to provide information for three of the studys
research questions. To aid interpretation of the relationship between those
research questions and the survey instrument itself, the research questions are
restated below with a brief description of how they are treated in the survey (See
Appendix B for survey instrument).
1. Is there a gap: do practitioners and educators perceive similar unmet demands
for public leadership?
This question is explored in two ways: whether there are enough leaders and
where leaders are most needed.
The supply of qualified leaders is drawn from responses to survey Question
1 which asks whether there are: not enough; enough; or more than enough
leaders to work on public problems.
Where leaders are needed most, both today and in 20 years is drawn from
responses to two questions. Both ask respondents to rank order where
demand for leadership is the greatest, at the: local level; state/regional
level; national level; or other. Question 2 asks about leadership needs
today. Question 11 asks about leadership needs in 20 years.
2. What kinds of leadership are required to fill the gap in public leadership: do
practitioners and educators perceive similar requirements?
44


This question is explored in three ways: what roles competence and character
play in leadership; how leaders and followers should work together; and, what
the most important leadership models are for public leadership.
Character and competence are assessed in two ways. First, respondents are
asked about how they perceive the presence of competence today
(Question 3) and character today (Question 4). A follow-up, open-ended
question asks respondents what area (character or competence) has the
greatest need for improvement (Question 5). Second, respondents are asked
how they perceive the need for competence in 20 years (Question 12) and
character in 20 years (Question 13).
The relationship between leaders and followers is drawn from three
questions. The first asks how leaders working to solve problems today do
so: working by themselves; working with a small group of people; working
with as many people as possible; or other (Question 6). A follow-up
question uses the same response options as Question 6, but asks how
leaders will need to solve public problems in 20 years (Question 14). A
final question asks how followers should work with leaders: work under
the direction of the leader; followers should be self-directed; work
collaboratively with each other and the leader; or other (Question 7).
To identify the most important leadership models, respondents rate each of
20 models, from 1 (not important) to 4 (very important) (see Part-Five,
items A through U, of the survey). These models are from the study's
Integrative Model (see Table 6). Respondents are then asked to rank the
five most important items that leaders will need in 20 years (Question 16)
and that are needed today (Question 17). A follow-up open-ended question
asks, if the ratings are different for Questions 16 and 17, why this is so.
3. How can we fill the gap: what are the implications for leadership education?
This question is explored in four ways: whether leadership can be learned; if it
can be learned, how many people can learn to be public leaders; when in
peoples lives can leadership be learned; what the most effective pedagogies
are to learn about public leadership; and, what leadership concepts are used
most by educators today.
Respondents are asked to select from one of four choices about whether
leadership can be learned: leaders are bom, not made; few people can leam
to be leaders; most everyone can leam to be leaders; or everyone can leam
to be a leader (Question 19).
Assuming people can leam to lead, when that learning should take place is
assessed in two ways. First, respondents are given a list of six options that
describe when people can leam, from pre-school through ones
45


professional career. Question 20 asks respondents to check all that apply
from that list. Second, respondents are asked to rank order the three times
when people are most likely to benefit from leadership education courses
or programs using the same options from Question 20 (Question 21).
To identify the most effective pedagogies, respondents are given a list of
11 instructional methods (e.g., lecture, internships, and reading texts)
(Question 22). They are asked to rank order the top three options they
believe are most effective at developing leadership.
Finally, to identify the concepts educators use most, they are asked in an
open-ended format to list the top three concepts that their students spend
the most time studying (Question 23).
Some questions address whether respondents perceive differences in public
leadership over time to ascertain the extent to which the passage of time changes
what might constitute effective leadership. In particular, respondents were asked
where leaders are needed most (local, state/regional, national) today (Question 2)
and in 20 years (Question 11). Respondents were also asked to rank the five most
important abilities today (Question 17) and in 20 years (Question 16).
To aid analysis of differences among respondents, the survey asked their
age, gender, and race/ethnicity. Differences by gender and race/ethnicity are
particularly useful because of the recent emergence of leadership research in these
areas. For example, Ayman (1993) found that differences in cultural
understanding impede effective leadership. Chemers (1994) found that different
cultures describe successful leadership differently while also finding that
leadership and teamwork are important in every culture (1997). Similarly,
Triandis (1993) found that the meaning of the leadership situation changes from
culture to culture. Regarding differences by gender, Chemers (1997) finds that
46


actual differences in leadership style between men and women are slight despite
the persistence of expectations that there are great differences in male and female
leadership styles. Smith (1997) suggests there are differences in leadership styles
by gender. She found that there is a feminist tradition that includes building
consensus, participating, and sharing power. Whether there are differences by
gender or race/ethnicity in respondents perceptions about public leadership is
explored by this study.
Practitioners were asked about their primary employment as defined by
where they have worked the longest, how many years they worked in that area,
and whether they are retired. They were also asked, in an open-ended question, to
describe their most challenging experience. A follow-up question asked whether
they use character more, competence more, equal amounts of both, or other
v
during this challenging experience.
Additional questions were included in the survey to educators. They were
asked to describe the type of leadership program they offer (e.g., academic major
or minor, single course, co-curricular) and the nature of their educational
employment (e.g., faculty, staff, full-time, part-time).
47


Questionnaire Dissemination and Analysis
A personalized introduction letter was mailed on February 12, 1999
informing participants about the purpose of the survey and asking that they
respond to it when it is received the following week. Personalized covers letters
(reminding participants about the purpose of the survey and asking that they
promptly respond to it and return it), surveys, and postage-paid return envelopes
were mailed on February 19, 1999. A reminder postcard was mailed on March 1,
1999. Sample cover letters and the reminder postcard are included in Appendix B.
Respondents were guaranteed anonymity and provided with a separate form to
request summary results. Replacement surveys were provided on request. Data
analysis included surveys collected through April 15, 1999.
Focus Group Selection and Protocol
A focus group met on May 11,19.99 to assist the interpretation of key
findings from the data analysis. The Focus Group (Templeton, 1994), a general
text, aided in the development of protocols (see Appendix C) and how findings are
reported (see Appendix D). The nine attendees were from a wide array of
backgrounds and each had considerable leadership experience. They included
representatives from two Fortune 50 corporate officers, two non-profit
organization and foundation directors, a leadership educator, a KNLP Fellow
(alumnae), a retired U.S. Congressman, and a school district superintendent. The
48


group reflected gender and ethnic diversity: three are ethnic minorities and three
are women.
Survey Respondent Demographics
This section describes respondents to the National Survey on Public
Leadership by professional group, age, gender, and race/ethnicity. In terms of
professional group, respondents were divided into two groups for purposes of data
analysis, educators and practitioners. There were 378 educators identified by the
Center for Creative Leadership of whom 148 participated in the survey, for a
response rate of 39 percent. As described above, practitioners consist of NAPA
Fellows and KNLP Fellows. NAPA has a total membership of 517 fellows, of
whom 172 responded to the survey, for a response rate of 33%. KNLP has a total
membership of 68T fellows, of whom 262 responded, for response rate of 38%.
Responses to a question regarding NAPA and KNLP respondents primary
employment revealed that a large number of practitioners (28%) describe
themselves as higher education faculty. Because they are neither working
exclusively to solve public problems (practitioners) nor teaching leadership
courses/programs (educators), they are not included in either the practitioner
group or educator group for purposes of analysis in Chapters 4 and 5. However,
their responses are included in the overall group for these chapters.
49


Employment group. For this study, employment group consists of
practitioners and educators. Educators were asked to select from a list an option
that best describes their college/university employment (see Table 7). Within the
practitioner group, respondents were asked to describe where they have worked
the longest (not their current area of employment) (see Table 7). Less than two-
thirds (61%) of the 427 practitioners who answered this question said they
currently were employed in this primary area. Practitioners and faculty also were
asked the number of years they have working in that area (see Table 8).
Table 7
Primary Employment
n %
Educators
Full-time faculty member 96 64.9
Full-time administrator or staff member 33 22.3
Full-time instructor or honoraria faculty member 6 4.1
Part-time administrator or staff member 1 0.2
Other 12 8.1
Total 148 99.6
Practitioners
Federal government 56 12.9
Military 3 0.7
State and local government, including school districts 59 13.6
For-profit organizations 29 6.7
Private, non-profit organizations 86 19.9
Higher education administrator 48 11.1
Higher education faculty member 119 27.5
Consultants 13 3.0
Other 20 4.6
Total 433 100.0
Note. Percentages reflect the proportion within the Educator group and within the
Practitioner group.
50


Table 8
Years Employed in Primary Area
n %
10 and less 41 9.5
11-20 132 30.6
21-30 207 48.1
31-40 38 8.8
41-50 12 2.8
51-60 1 .2
Total 431 100.0
Age and Gender. Respondents were grouped by age (see Table 9). Some
questions were analyzed comparing younger(50 years and under) and older
(51 years and above). Others compare the oldest quartile (61 years and above) to
the youngest quartile (46 years and under). For this study, quartiles were
computed by listing the total number of respondents by age and dividing the
number of respondents into quartiles. The youngest 25 percent of all respondents
v
is the youngest quartile and the oldest 25 percent of all respondents is the oldest
quartile. Slightly less than two-thirds (64%) of respondents were male (n=372);
36 percent (210) were female.
Table 9
Age
n %
30 and younger 8 1.4
31-40 57 9.8
41-50 188 32.3
51-60 209 36.0
61-70 60 10.3
71-80 45 7.8
81 and older 14 2.4
Total 581 100.0
51


Race/Ethnicity. The vast majority (80%) of respondents indicated they
were white, not of Hispanic origin; only 12 percent were African American or
Hispanic (see Table 10). Relatively few respondents identified themselves as
belonging to one of the following groups: African American or Black (7.8%);
American Indian or Alaskan Native (1.0%); Asian or Pacific Islander (2.8%);
Hispanic, Chicano, Mexican American, Latino (4.0%); or multiracial (1.2%).
Accordingly these respondents were grouped into a people of color group
(16.8% of respondents) for purposes of analysis.
Table 10
Race/Ethnicity
n %
African American or Black, not of Hispanic origin 45 7.8
American Indian or Alaskan Native 6 1.0
Asian or Pacific Islander 16 2.8
Hipanic, Chicano, Mexican American, Latino 23 4.0
White, not of Hispanic origin 464 80.0
Multiracial 7 1.2
Declined to respond 19 3.3
Total 580 100.1
52


CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter discusses the study's findings from the "National Survey on
Public Leadership" (see Appendix B) and the focus group that considered several
aspects of the survey's results (see Appendix D). It is organized to answer three of
the research questions identified in this study:
1. Is there a gap: do practitioners and educators perceive similar unmet demands
for public leadership?
2. What kinds of leadership are required to fill the gap in public leadership: do
practitioners and educators perceive similar requirements?
3. How can we fill the gap: what are the implications for leadership education?
By understanding whether and where we need more leaders, the abilities
they will need, and how we can educate those who practice leadership, the findings
from this study will inform practitioners and educators about their roles in meeting
the demands of public leadership. Additionally, these findings will identify those
areas where practitioners and educators hold similar and dissimilar views about
these important questions. Finally, each of these three areas will discuss how the
research literature treats the issues raised.
53


Is There a Gap: Do Practitioners and Educators
Perceive Similar Unmet Demands for Public Leadership?
This study measured whether there is a gap in public leadership in two
ways. First, survey respondents were asked whether there are enough leaders in
the United States today to work on public problems. The majority (61%) said
"there are not enough leaders" (see Table 11). Responses to this question, using
chi-square analysis, also confirmed that both educators and practitioners do not
differ in their feelings about this perceived lack of leaders. Chi-square analyses
yielded no statistically significant differences by age, gender, or race/ethnicity.
Table 11
Leaders Available to Work on Public Problems
Regarding leaders in the United States Overall Practitioners Educators
today available to work on public
problems, I think we have ... (check 1
only)
n % n % n %
Not enough leaders 352 61 187 61 94 65
Enough leaders 170 30 95 31 36 25
More than enough leaders 51 9 27 9 14 10
Total 573 100 303 101 144 100
Note. Percentages reflect the proportion within each professional group.
Second, survey respondents were asked to rank order (first through fourth)
where leaders are needed most today and where they will be needed most 20 years 4
4 As discussed in Chapter 3 and for this table and all that follow: "Overall" reports data from all
respondents; "Practitioners" refers only to practitioners whose primary employment does not
include faculty members; and, "Educators" refers to leadership educators. Because faculty are
54


from now, at the: local level; state/regional level; national level; or, other. Among
all respondents, the local (1.98) and national (2.09) levels are ranked higher than
the state/regional level (2.24) both today and in 20 years (see Table 12). Analysis
also revealed that the demand for leadership is greatest today at the national level
(2.04) but will be greater at the local level (1.98) in 20 years. Multiple Analysis of
Variance (MANOVA) revealed that there are no significant differences between
practitioners and educators about this demand, today or in 20 years. Also, no
differences were found in analyzing respondents by age, gender, or race/ethnicity.
Table 12
Where the Need is Greatest for Leaders Who Can Solve Public Problems
(Average Rank)
In the United States the need for Overall Practitioners Educators
leaders who can solve public
problems is the greatest... (rank
order) n=426
TD 20 TD 20 TD 20
At the local level 2.00 1.98 2.13 2.08 1.93 1.79
At the state or regional level 2.24 2.24 2.21 2.27 2.18 2.13
At the national level 2.04 2.13 1.98 2.10 2.09 2.23
Average of "Today" and "In 20 2.10 2.13 2.06
Years"
Note. "TD" = Today and "20" = in 20 years.
While respondents perceive that "national" is ranked highest today and
"local" is ranked highest in 20 years, it is important to note that respondents were
included in the "Overall" group, the sum of the practitioner and educator groups will not equal the
"Overall" n.
55


forced to rank "local," "state/regional," and "national" against each other (i.e., only
one level could be ranked first, second, or third). This likely resulted in a
corresponding decrease in the need for national leadership such that more is
needed today than will be needed in 20 years because more respondents chose
"local" first over "national."
Additional chi-square analysis conducted on which level local,
state/regional, national respondents considered most important today (see Table
13) yielded a significant level effect.5 The vast majority chose local (40%) or
national (47%) first; only 13 percent of respondents chose state/regional.
Practitioners chose local less (34%) than did educators (49%) and national
slightly more (51%) (compared to educators, 42%).6 7 8
Responses regarding which level of government most leadership 20 years
from now were similar: local (42%), state/regional (16%), national (42%). This
o
comparison was not significant even though it is similar to responses for "today."
Focus Group Findings. While focus group members were not queried
about findings related to whether there are enough leaders to solve public
problems, they did discuss why the state/regional level garnered the least amount
of perceived need for leaders. They surmised that state/regional issues are not as
5 X2(2)=95.468, p < .05.
6 X2(4)=l0.996, p < .05.
7 X2(2)=65.766, p < .01.
8 X2(4)=7.867, p > .05.
56


Table 13
Where the Need Is Greatest for Leaders Who Can Solve Public Problems
(As percentages of group)
In the United States the need for leaders who can solve public problems is the greatest... (rank order) n=426 Overall % , Practitioners % Educators %
TD 20 TD 20 TD 20
At the local level 40 42 34 37 49 52
At the state or regional level 13 16 16 18 10 13
At the national level 47 42 51 45 42 35
Note. Percentages reflect the proportion within each group. "TD" = Today and "20" = In 20 years.
strongly represented in the daily media compared to local and national news, thus
causing the low ranking of state/regional. One participant described state/regional
as "impotent". Some felt survey respondents may not have understood the term
"state or regional" as used in the instrument or may have been confused by their
combination.
Considering that the practitioner sample in this study includes many highly
experienced leaders (27% whose primary employment is local, state, or federal
government), it is unlikely they either were confused by the question or did not
understand what was asked. Had either been true, there likely would have been
significant differences among practitioners by primary employment or differences
between practitioners and educators. Most likely respondents simply believe the
greatest need for leadership is at the local and national levels, compared to the
57


state/regional level, regardless of the extent to which the media reports on these
levels.
Relationship with the literature. The finding that 61 percent of
respondents perceive that there are not enough leaders provides evidence that both
leaders and educators are convinced that there is a dearth of leadership to solve
public problems. This reflects the research literature regarding the lack of leaders
and the need to develop more of them (Astin & Astin, 1996; Bass, 1990; Bradley,
1994; Bums, 1978; Chemers & Ayman, 1993a; Chemers and Ayman, 1993b; Du
Brin, 1995; Gardner, 1995; Northouse, 1997; Rejai & Phillips, 1997; Wren, 1995).
Similarly, the finding that the need for leadership will increase most at the
local level is also reflected in the literature. Some believe there are simply more
v
local entities, compared to a single, large national level and this provides greater
opportunity (Astin & Astin, 1996; Block, 1993; Bryson & Crosby, 1992; Clark &
Clark, 1996; Couto, 1995; Kellogg, 1997; McFarland, Senn & Childress, 1993;
Terry, 1993; Wren, 1995). For example, Chrislip and Larson describe this
opportunity as a "leadership vacuum" that has existed for many years (1994, p.
xv). Others also believe there is a growing recognition that opportunities to have
substantial impact on people through public leadership is (or will prove to be)
greater at the local level (Astin & Astin, 1996; Block, 1993; Bryson & Crosby,
1992; Couto, 1995; Gardner, 1995; Heifetz, 1994; Wren, 1995). For example, in
58


describing this growth, Chrislip and Larson point to the emergence of "citistates".
These are defined as "a region made up of a historic city center surrounded by
cities and towns characterized by social, economic, and environmental
interdependence" (Chrislip & Larson, 1994, p. 12). They cite Denver as one
example of a citistate. Quoting columnist Neal Pierce, Chrislip and Larson write,
"Across America ... citistates are emerging as a critical focus of economic
activity, of governance, of social organization for the 1990s and the century to
come" (1994, p. 12).
What Kinds of Leadership are Required to Fill the Gap
In Public Leadership: Do Practitioners and
1 Educators Perceive Similar Requirements?
The previous section found that society lacks a sufficient number, of leaders
who can solve public problems and, that in particular, the greatest need for leaders
will be at the local and national levels. This section turns to a discussion of the
abilities these leaders will need to possess. The survey approaches this issue by
examining these questions:
What does the Integrative Model (described in Chapter 2) tell us about the
requirements for effective public leadership? Specifically, how do each of the
four domains (Sage, Student, Minister, Coach) rank in relative importance?
Twenty distinct leadership models were described by the literature. Among
those, which are the most important?
What is the role of competence and character in leadership? Specifically, what
is the presence of competence and character among today's public leaders and
what is the role of competence and character in 20 years?
How should leaders and followers work with each other to exercise effective
public leadership?
59


Each question is discussed in order below. As each of these questions is
discussed, findings from the National Survey on Public Leadership are presented.
Findings from the focus group are also presented for areas where their opinions
were sought.
What Does An Integrative Model
Tell Us About Effective Leadership?
The Integrative Model was developed in Chapter 2. It organizes each of 20
distinct leadership models identified in the literature into four domains, as follows:
1. The Sage. These models focus on leaderscharacter. Examples include
knowing what one stands for, having the courage of one's own convictions, and
using power in such a way that followers are empowered without detracting
from one's own power.
2. The Student. These models focus on leaders competence. Examples include
knowing the difference between leadership and management, adapting one's
own leadership style to the situation, and continuously learning new ways of
thinking.
3. The Minister. These models focus on followerscharacter. Examples include
working in such a way that both the leader and followers raise one another to
higher levels of motivation and morality, fostering in followers higher
standards for achievement, and moving followers to go beyond their self-
interests for the good of the group.
4. The Coach. These models focus on followers skills. Examples include
practicing good human relations, possessing cultural awareness, challenging
those with prejudices, and matching the needs of the organization with the
needs of individuals.
Each of these four domains describes a particular way of looking at leadership.
It is useful to organize these domains along two axis. The first axis
classifies each domain by intention (the character/competence axis). Intention is a
60


thoughtful vision that a leader wants to realize as a preferred outcome. An
example of an intention is a leaders articulation to himself or herself of the need
to improve a teams management ability. The second axis classifies each domain
by action (the leader/follower axis). Action tells us who is primarily responsible to
do the work needed and who will benefit from that work. Action, in the example
above, requires that the work be focused on the team (as opposed to the leader) by
organizing a process to improve the teams management ability. This
classification is displayed in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2
Domains from the Integrative Model
Emphasis on the actions of
Leader Follower
. G _o Character Sage domain Minister domain
G For purposes of analysis, respondents were asked to indicate on a scale of 1
(not important) to 4 (very important) how important each of the 20 leadership
models will be for leaders 20 years from now. Domain scores were computed by
adding scores for the models that make up each domain and dividing by the
61


number of items, such that each person's domain score was the average for their
individual model scores. All four domain scores were then entered into a Group
(Practitioners/ Educators) by Intention by Action MANOVA. The results reveal
several findings about the abilities needed for effective leadership.
There is a highly significant effect of Intention.9 The Sage and Minister
domain scores are higher (average = 3.338) than the Student and Coach domain
scores (average = 2.802). Since these domains emphasize character, this finding
suggests that respondents place greater importance on character than competence.
There is a highly significant Intention by Group interaction.10 While both
groups (practitioners and educators) feel that character is more important than
competence, educators rate character more important (3.442; practitioners, 3.320)
and competence less important (2.777; practitioners, 2.806).
Finally, there is a highly significant Intention by Action interaction11
between the Minister domain score (3.396) and the Sage domain score (3.297). By
contrast, the Student and the Coach domains did not differ (2.839 and 2.765,
respectively). One interpretation of this finding is that the Minister domain
contains the most important or the most relevant set of models for leadership.
Sage is second most important followed by Student and Coach (rated equally as
third most important).
9 F(i,5oo)=538.239, p < .01.
10 F(2,5oo)=7.870, p < .01.
" F^oo,27.004, p < .01.
62


These findings suggest that competence, although important, is less
important than character in describing the leadership abilities needed to solve
public problems. Emphasis on the Minister domain suggests that the leader's
ability to nurture the development of character in others is more important than
his/her own character. Again, the fact that the Sage remains important indicates
that the leader's character is still essential. It also follows that the leader's ability to
use his/her own skills (competence) is as important as the ability to use followers
skills, but that utilizing either is less important than character.
What Leadership Models are
Most Important?
Analyses of responses to the 20 leadership models that comprise the
Integrative Model also provide insight into the abilities required of leaders
working to solve public problems. To get a better understanding of this,
respondents were asked to select no more than five of these models and rank order
them from "most important" through "fifth most important." Respondents
provided this rank order for the leadership required today in one question and in 20
years in a second question. From these responses six out of the 20 leadership
models were identified as most important. The rankings for each of these items is
shown in Table 14.12
63


Table 14
Six Most Important Leadership Models
20 Years from Now and Today
No. No. No. No.
Times Times Times Times
j st 2^ 3 rd ^st ^th
Model 20 TD 20 TD 20 TD 20 TO"
1. Leadership occurs when leaders 75 67 73 69 56 51 278 268
Table 14 (Cont.)
increase awareness of what is right,
good, important, and beautiful; when
they help to elevate followers needs
for achievement and self-
actualization; when they foster in
followers higher moral maturity; and
when they move followers to go
beyond their self-interests for the
good of their group, organization or
society. (Be a transforming leader -
current model.)
2. Leadership skills require good 74 70 49 48 52 56 267 267
human relations, knowledge of
cultural differences, challenging
those with prejudices, assuming
responsibility for the organization as
a whole, and matching th; needs of
the organization with the needs of
individuals. (Cultural and gender
competence.)
3. People expect their leaders to stand 50 52 64 63 52 57 266 260
for something and to have the
courage of their convictions. (Ethical
orientation.)
4. Effective leaders do not see power as 48 51 53 52 42 40 218 218
something that is competed for but
rather as something that can be
created and distributed to followers
without detracting from their own
power. (Understand authority,
power, and tenure.)
12 Table 26 in Appendix E provides the ratings for all 20 items.
64


5. Leadership occurs... in such a way 24 21 42 44 48 46 202 203
that leaders and followers raise one
another to higher levels of motivation
and morality. (Be a transforming
leader early model.)
6. Leaders must continually look within 75 77 29 30 30 30 186 193
to decide what they want, what they
value, and what they are willing to be
courageous about. (Each leader has
his/her own theory of leadership.)
Note. "No. Times 1st" refers to the number of times all respondents listed a particular model as their most
important model for effective leadership. "No. Times 2nd" and "No Times 3rd" refer to the number of times all
respondents listed a particular model as their 2nd and 3rd most important models for effective leadership,
respectively. "No. Times 1st 5th" refers to the sum of all respondents who listed a particular model as one of
the five most important models for effective leadership. "TD" = Today and "20" = In 20 years.
Each of these models is discussed below with their significant findings. In
addition, the literature from Chapter 2 that describes the ongoing research for each
model is briefly reviewed.
1. Transformational "leadership occurs when leaders increase awareness of what
is right, good, important, and beautiful; when they help to elevate followers' needs
for achievement and self-actualization; when they foster in followers higher moral
maturity; and when they move followers to go beyond their self-interests for the
good of their group, organization, or society (Bass & Avolio, 1993, pp. 51-52).
This most highly rated model describes our contemporary understanding of
transformational leadership. Analysis using ANOVA found that older people of
color rate this model more important (3.73) than do older whites (3.40), younger
whites (3.51) or younger people of color (3.36).13
13F(1,548)=4.658,p< .05.
65


This models high rank, combined with the fact that another model for
transformational leadership is also highly ranked, is consistent with the emphasis
placed on transformational leadership in the research literature (Bass, 1990;
Chemers & Ayman, 1993b; House & Shamir, 1993; Northouse, 1997; Ritter &
Brown, 1986). In particular, Bass and Avolio (1993) found that transformational
leadership energizes followers to higher levels of performance and can be present
in small groups, large organizations, and in societal movements. Chemers (1997)
found that the perception and judgement of leaders and followers is central to
using transformational leadership. Similarly, Rost found "leadership is an
influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that
reflect their mutual purposes" (Rost as cited in Rejai & Phillips, 1997, p.. 102).
These research areas are consistent with the transformational leadership model
used for this study in that they emphasize the relationship between the leaders and
followers and the importance of using this relationship to benefit larger goals in an
ethical manner.
2. Cultural and gender "leadership skills require good human relations, knowledge
of cultural differences, challenging those with prejudices, assuming responsibility
for the organization as a whole, and matching the needs of the organization with
the needs of individuals" (Mai-Dalton, 1993, p. 212).
66


ANOVA analysis found that people of color rate this model more
important (3.64) than do whites (3.34)14 15 and females rate this model more
important (3.64) than do males (3.35).13 Chi-square analysis revealed that females
also rate this item disproportionately high (88%) compared to males (77%).16 The
facets of leadership described by this model tolerance of diverse views and
taking advantage of this diversity are highly desired by practitioners and
educators, regardless of ethnicity or gender.
The importance of working with diverse people, while largely absent from
the literature prior to 1990, is reflected in recent research and is now a significant
focus for researchers (Chemers & Ayman, 1993a; Chemers & Ayman, 1993b;
Hughes, Ginnett, Curphy, & White, 1996; Northouse, 1997; Rejai & Phillips,
1997). Ayman (1993) found that not using these abilities can impede effective
leadership. "The influence of schema and situational cues seem more critical
among the individuals interacting when participants do not share the same
expectations. These mismatches of perception have major implications for a
society that is in transition to a pluralistic (and multicultural) workforce" (Ayman,
1993, pp. 157-8). This is consistent with Chemers (1994) finding that different
cultures define success differently such that sensitivity to cultural differences
reduces stress (Mai-Dalton, 1993).
14F(1,552)=8.472,p< .01
15 F(1,552)=7.542, p < .01
16 X2(1)=5.972,p< .05
67


3. "People expect their leaders to stand for something and to have the courage of
their convictions (Kouzes & Posner, 1996, p.103).
This model was intended to measure the importance of the ethical
dimension of leadership. As discussed in Chapter 2, there is some debate within
the literature about whether leaders need to be ethical to be effective.
Accordingly, it is interesting that this model is rated as one of the most important.
ANOVA revealed no significant differences among respondents by age, gender,
race/ethnicity, or professional experience.
When asked about the role that ethics plays in leadership, focus group
participants had difficulty defining the term "ethical". For example, one member
wondered how leaders separate personal and professional ethics.
The literature reflects the importance of ethics and values in leadership
(Northouse, 1997) and the difficulty researchers have in precisely defining these
terms (Chemers, 1997). Chemers (1997) goes on to suggest that values determine
the specific traits and behaviors that make up the prototype of an effective leader
and that they influence the leader-follower relationship as well as the way
organizational environments are perceived. "The work-related values that people
hold affect their reactions to leadership. Values determine the specific traits and
behaviors that make up the prototype of an effective leader. They influence the
needs and expectations that people bring to the leader-follower relationship.
68


Finally, they affect the ways in which the characteristics of the organizational
environment are perceived and addressed" (Chemers, 1997, p. 134).
4. "Effective leaders do not see power as something that is competed for but rather
as something that can be created and distributed to followers without detracting
from their own power (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1995, p. 137).
This model explored the contemporary nature of leadership: that power
should be shared between leaders and followers (Rejai & Phillips, 1997). This
study did not test a model for the much older concept, made popular by Nicolo
Machiavelli, that power should be held by the leader and not shared with
followers. Although rated among the top six models, ANOVA revealed no
significant differences in this models importance for practitioners and educators,
nor were there differences by age, gender, or race/ethnicity.
5. Transformational "leadership occurs ... in such a way that leaders and followers
raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality (Bums, 1978).
Comparing whites only using ANOVA revealed that the youngest quartile
rate this model significantly higher (3.4) than the oldest quartile (3.14).17 This
model is an early model of transformational leadership from Bums original
work on transformational leadership, published in 1978. Respondents also rated a
current model of transformational leadership, which was ranked first. While
older people of color rate the current model discussed previously more important
17 F(i,227)=3.671, p < .01.
69
l


(3.73) than do older whites (3.40), younger whites (3.51) or younger people of
color (3.36),18 this difference was not present for the early model. Indeed, the
only difference is that the youngest quartile of white respondents rate the early
model significantly higher than do the oldest respondents. This suggests that older
people of color prefer the current model while younger whites prefer the early
model. As discussed previously, transformational leadership remains today a
major direction for leadership research.
6. "Leaders must continually look within to decide what they want, what they
value, and what they are willing to be courageous about (Leider, 1996, p. 189).
Analysis using ANOVA revealed females of color rate this item more
important (3.77) than do white females (3.28). Ratings of males do not differ by
ethnicity (white, 3.33; males of color, 3.35).19 This may suggest that women of
color, among those most historically underrepresented as leaders, attach special
importance to the need for leaders to define their own leadership values.
A significant body of literature exists that discusses the importance for
leaders to know what they value (Bass, 1990; Bennis, 1989; Covey, 1991; De Pree,
1989; Gardner, 1990; Harung, 1995; Hesselbein, 1996; Mitchell, 1993; Wills,
1994; and Yammarino, 1998). For example, Kouzes and Posner find that "if
leaders are not clear about what they believe in, they are much more likely to
change their position with every fad or opinion poll. Therefore, the first milestone
18F(1,548)=4.658,p< .05.
70


on the journey to leadership credibility is clarity of personal values" (1996, p.
103). Much of this research emphasizes the importance of leaders having a clear
vision. Some emphasize self-reflection as a way of coming to know what they
value (Covey, 1991; Kouzes, 1995; Wills, 1994). Others suggest that leaders
should balance their reflective abilities with an understanding for where the
organization they lead is headed (De Pree, 1989; Gardner, 1990; Hesselbein,
1996).
Discussion of Six "Most Important" Items. Interestingly, there are no
significant differences in rankings by timeframe; that is, respondents rated the
same items as most important now and in 20 years. Indeed, only 20 percent of
respondents changed their ratings between "today" and "in 20 years." Those who
did change their rankings were asked to briefly describe why they changed
rankings. Among the 20 percent of respondents who did change items over time,
several themes emerged from their responses to this open-ended item. Some feel
the context for public leadership will change, in the words of one respondent, there
are "subtle paradigm shifts" in this context. A second group believes relationships
between followers and leaders will change over time: some believe there will be a
shift from teams to more collaborative leadership; others believe formal
organization structures will dissolve into community structures; and others believe 9
I9F(1i552)=4.563,p< .05.
71


more traditional management structures will re-emerge. The brevity of written
responses and the small number of respondents to this item made additional
interpretation difficult.
The focus group was asked whether the six most important models taken
as a group would describe a complete or effective leader. They reached
consensus that these six models, taken together, are not a complete or effective
model of leadership. The focus group was asked why they reached this conclusion
and cited several reasons, with different members citing different reasons. One
member believed these models are too management-oriented such that they lack
what he termed soul. He added that the transformational leadership models
"may get you there," but is insufficient. Another member pointed out how
important it is to distinguish between management and leadership. Other members
felt various models are outdated, "the greater good" is missing, or they lack
"direction" (or vision).
Some focus group members felt that the six models as a group
describe a politically correct leader. When probed, focus group members who
used this term felt survey respondents may have given priority to describing
abilities that leaders are supposed to demonstrate rather than abilities that actually
work in solving public problems. For example, the perception that power should
be shared with followers may be politically correct as opposed to how leaders
actually use power (i.e., by leaders not sharing power with followers unless it
72


proves necessary). While this is an interesting issue, it is important to remember
that survey respondents were asked to rate each model by thinking about how
leaders will need to solve problems, not how they actually solve them today.
Taken together these comments suggest the importance of developing a
broader model, such as the Integrative Model of this study, and not defining a
model for effective leadership using popular items as the sole or dominant criteria.
It is also important to note that each of the six items above is associated with
ongoing research.
What Is the Role of Competence
And Character in Leadership?
The two previous areas of inquiry examined the abilities leaders need to
solve public problems by discussing the six most important models as ranked by
respondents and by discussing findings in relation to the study's Integrative Model.
This section looks at the role of competence and character in leadership. While the
Integrative Model examines competence and character within the model,
respondents were also asked directly about their own perceptions regarding
competence and character. In particular, three issues are discussed here:
1. Competence and character today: are most leaders today competent and do
they possess character?
2. Competence and character in 20 years: will most leaders need to be
competent and possess character in the future?
3. Practitioner use of competence and character: in thinking about their most
challenging leadership experience, how much did practitioners use
competence and character?
73


Competence and Character Today. Survey respondents were asked to circle
a number from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very much true) that represents the extent to
which they believe most leaders working to solve public problems today are
competent and, in a separate item, possess character. MANOVA revealed a highly
significant interaction between competence and character: more leaders today are
perceived to be competent (3.12) than possess character (2.82)20 (see Table 15).
When competence and character are combined, additional analysis found a
significant difference such that younger respondents perceive these abilities are
less present (2.92) than do older respondents (2.82).21 These findings suggest
there is more competence than character among leaders working to solve public
problems and that younger respondents believe this gap is greater than do older.
There were no differences between practitioners and educators or by gender or
race/ethnicity.
Table 15
Leadership Competence and Character Present Today
(Average Rating)
n=573 Overall Practitioners Educators
Competence 3.12 3.15 3.22
Character 2.82 2.86 2.80
20F(1,561)=59.020,p< .01.
21 F(1i56,)=4.612, p < .05.
74


Competence and Character in 20 Years. Survey respondents were asked
a follow-up question by circling a number from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very much
true) that represents the extent to which they believe most leaders working to solve
public problems 20 years from now will need to be competent and, in a separate
item, possess character. Two findings parallel those for the rating of character and
competence present today. First, MANOVA revealed a highly significant
interaction between competence and character such that competence is rated
higher than character (4.56 versus 4.70) (see Table 16).22 Second, there is a
significant interaction between competence and character. Older respondents rate
both competence (4.72) and character (4.58) slightly higher than younger
respondents (competence, 4.69; character, 4.53).23 This difference may be because
older respondents have more experience as leaders and therefore believe
competence and character should be highly rated. There were no differences
between practitioners and educators or by gender or race/ethnicity.
Table 16
Leadership Competence and Character
Needed Twenty Years from Now (Average Rating)
n=572 Overall Practitioners Educators
Competence 4.70 4.70 4.72
Character 4.56 4.54 4.59
22F(,560)=14.416,p< .01.
23 F(1.560)=5.130, p < .05.
75


Practitioner Use of Competence and Character. The findings that
character is less present today than competence and that character and competence
will both be highly needed (competence being more needed) in the future gives
some indication of the gap which exists for public leadership. To further explore
this gap, practitioners were asked to think about whether they: used competence
more; used character more; equal amounts of both; or some "other" quality in their
"most challenging experience as a leader." Nearly two-thirds (63%) say they used
"approximately equal amounts of character and competence" (see Table 17).
Barely one-third committed to either character (18%) or competence (16%). Chi-
square analysis yielded no significant differences by age, gender, or race/ethnicity
in opinions about practitioner experience with leadership character and .
competence.
Table 17
Practitioner Experience with Leadership Character and Competence
Which of the following leadership
attributes did you use more during your
most challenging experience as a leader?
(check 1 only)
n %
Leadership competence 63 15.6
Leadership character 74 18.4
Approximately equal amounts of 255 63.3
competence and character
Other 11 2.7
Total 403 100
76


Discussion of Competence and Character. Three findings are especially
important for assessing the role of competence and character in public problem-
solving. First, competence is rated significantly more present today compared to
character. Second, both competence and character will be highly needed in 20
years, with competence needed more. Third, practitioners perceive that they rely
equally on competence and character in challenging leadership situations. Taken
together, these findings suggest that respondents believe it is important for leaders
to have both character and competence (in roughly equal amounts), but in thinking
about public leadership overall, the greatest gap today is character.
The finding that the greatest gap today is character may have been influenced
by the fact that respondents completed the survey during the impeachment
hearings of President Clinton. Although it is unlikely that respondents had
v
difficulty distinguishing between competence and character, focus group members
suggested that concepts of personal ethics could have dominated perceptions about
leadership character. Because ethical issues were raised during the impeachment
hearings, this may have influenced survey respondents assessment about the
presence of character in public leadership today and its importance for the future.
For example, one focus group participant suggested that character could have
garnered lower ratings because it's the right thing to say" at that point in time.
The focus group's larger discussion of competence and character was wide
ranging and yielded little consensus. Participants agreed that leadership character
77


encompasses more than ethics and morality. One member suggested that it
encompasses "intention-what motivates people to want to lead?" Another
suggested that "character ignites people at the soul level," a theme strongly tied to
the concept of transformational leadership (Bums 1978; Bass & Avolio, 1993;
Rost, 1997). There was disagreement about whether character is intrinsic to
people such that it can not be developed. Some felt it can be developed and cited
the military as an institution that regularly develops character. Others felt that
character is innate and, as such, is unique to the individual such that it can not be
developed.
There was also disagreement about whether character changes relative to a
particular situation or is constant regardless of the situation. Finally, there was
disagreement about whether society's definition of character changes over time or
is unchanging regardless of whether the demands on leaders (e.g., technology)
change. The focus group did not discuss why competence was rated more
important than character in 20 years.
How Should Leaders and
Followers Work with Each Other?
To gauge how survey respondents feel leaders and followers should work
together the survey presented two questions, both with instructions to check one
option only. The first read: Most leaders working to solve public problems do so
by: working by themselves; working with a small group of people that may include
78


experts; or working with as many people as possible including experts. The
second question read: Public problem-solving would be improved iffollowers:
work under the direction of the leader; are self-directed; or work collaboratively
with each other including the leader. In addition, a follow-up question asked
'Twenty years from now, most leaders working to solve public problems will need
to do so working: by themselves; with a small group of people that may include
experts; or with as many people as possible including experts.
Respondents overwhelmingly (90%) favor collaborative follower-leader
interaction (see Table 18). Chi-square analysis yielded no significant differences
between practitioners and educators nor among respondents by age, gender, or
race/ethnicity.
Table 18
How Followers Should Work with Leaders
to Improve Public Problem-Solving
Public problem-solving would be improved if followers ... (check 1 only) Overall Practitioners Educators
n % n % n %
Work under the direction of the leader. 16 2.8 ii 3.6 2 1.4
Are self-directed. 17 3.0 5 1.6 9 6.1
Work collaboratively with each other, including the leader. 518 89.9 278 90.0 131 88.5
Other. 25 4.3 15 4.9 6 4.1
576 100 309 100 148 100
Regarding how leaders work to solve public problems today and will need
to be working 20 years in the future, more than one-half of respondents believe
79


that leaders work with small groups today but will need to work with as many
people as possible in 20 years: practitioners (52%) and educators (55%). A small
proportion of practitioners and educators believes that leaders work more today
with small groups and will continue to do so in 20 years (14% and 22%,
respectively).
Among all respondents, 76 percent of those who believe leaders work more
in small groups today feel they will need to work with as many people as possible
in 20 years. Among all respondents, only 3 percent of those who believe leaders
work with as many people as possible today believe they also will work with small
groups in 20 years.24
Focus group findings. Focus group participants were asked to discuss the
finding that leaders will increasingly need to work with as many people as possible
and that leaders and followers should work collaboratively. They believe these
findings reflect "today's connected world" and is a "comment on the nature of the
problems: they will become more complex and be more widely shared." One said
these findings suggest there is "a desire for a greater diversity of values . .You
used to be able to identify a community's power structure.... Today you need to
work with as many small groups as you can." One member responded that "the
24 X20) =33.716, p< .01.
80


model hasn't changed, but it is more pluralistic." Another felt "this anticipates that
people want more collegial politics."
How Can We Fill the Gap:
What Are the Implications for Leadership Education?
The first section of these findings (Is there a gap?) found that there is
leadership gap such that society lacks leaders who can solve public problems. It
also found that the greatest demand for those leaders is at the national level today
but will be at the local level in 20 years. The second section (What kinds of
leadership are required to fill the gap in public leadership?) found that character
models for leadership are more important than competence models and that, in
particular transformational leadership is most important. Other models that are
important suggest: leaders should have their own theory of leadership; they need to
understand that power is not a fixed commodity and should be shared with
followers; leaders need to have an ethical orientation; and, they need to possess
cultural and gender competence. Other analyses of competence and character
found that the greatest gap today is character and that, in 20 years, leaders will
need to be competent and possess character (but competence is needed most).
Finally, analysis revealed that leaders work today with small groups, that they will
need to work with as many people as possible, and that leaders and followers
should work collaboratively with each other.
81


Table 19
How Leaders Work With Others to Solve Public Problems Today
and How Leaders Should Work with Others
to Solve Public Problems Twenty Years From Now
Most leaders working to Overall Practitioners Educators
solve public problems do so
by ... (check 1 only)
n
Today (n=577)
Working by themselves. 13
W orking with a small 371
group of people, that may
include experts.
Working with as many 159
people as possible,
including experts.
Other. 34
Total 577
Twenty years from now
(n=576)
By themselves. 1
With a small group of 93
people, that may include
experts.
With as many people as 451
possible, including experts.
Other. 31
576
% n % n %
2.3 6 1.9 5 3.4
64.3 188 60.8 103 69.6
27.6 96 31.1 32 21.6
5.9 19 6.1 8 5.4
100 309 100 148 100
0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0
16.1 43 13.9 31 21.1
78.3 244 78.7 113 76.9
5.4 22 7.1 3 2.0
100 310 100 147 100
Note. Percentages reflect the proportion within each professional group.
This final section turns to a discussion about how practitioners and
educators can fill the gaps in public leadership just described. In particular, this
section considers four key questions:
1. How many people can learn to be leaders in light of the need for more
leaders?
2. When can people learn to be leaders?
3. How can people learn to be leaders?
82


4. What leadership concepts do educators use most and, in particular, what is
the gap between those concepts and the most important leadership models?
How Many People Can Learn?
To assess perceptions about how may people can learn to be leaders,
respondents were asked whether they believe: "leaders are bom, not made," "few
people can learn to be leaders;" "most people can learn to be leaders;" or
everyone can leam to be a leader. Slightly more than half (56%) believe "most
people can leam to be a leader (see Table 20).
Table 20
How Many People Can Learn to be Leaders
As a rule ... (check 1 only) Overall Practitioners Educators
n % n % n %
Leaders are bom, not made. 18 3.1 ii 3.5 4 2.7
Few people can leam to be leaders. 138 24.0 87 28.0 22 15.1
Most people can leam to be leaders. 320 55.7 169 54.3 83 56.8
Everyone can leam to be a leader. 99 17.2 44 14.1 37 25.3
Total 575 100 311 100 146 100
Note. Percentages reflect the proportion within each professional group.
Chi-square analyses revealed significant differences between practitioners
and educators and also found differences by age, gender, and race/ethnicity.
Educators more frequently choose "everyone can leam" (25%) than do
practitioners (14.1%). The oldest quartile is more likely to say "few can leam" 25
25 X2(6)=15.062, p < .05. (Note: 2 cells had expected frequencies <5)
83


(42%) compared to only 15 percent of the youngest quartile who say few can
learn. The reverse is also true; those in the youngest quartile are more likely to
answer "most" (55%) or "everyone" (26%) can leam than are the oldest (47% and
5%, respectively). Males are more likely to say "few can leam" (28%),
compared to 17 percent of females. Females are more likely to say "most" (61%)
or "everyone" (20%) can leam compared to males (54% and 15%, respectively).26 27 28
The majority of both whites (57%) and people of color (51%) agree "most" can
leam. However, 29 percent of people of color feel "everyone" can leam
(compared to 14% of whites), and 25% of whites feel "only a few" can leam
9R
(compared to 19% of people of color).
Further analysis among practitioners also revealed differences among them.
For this analysis, practitioners were subdivided into two groups by type of
employment: a government group (those employed in federal, military, and state &
local government) and a non-government group (those employed in for-profit
organizations, non-profit organizations, as higher education administrators, and as
consultants). Chi-square analysis found that the non-government group is more
likely to say "everyone can leam" (22%) compared to government (15%). These
non-government practitioners also are less likely to say "few can leam" (18%)
compared to government (36%). Examination of respondents in the non-
26 X2(3)=38.911,p< .01.
27 X2(3)=9.005, p < .05.
28 X2(3)=10.486, p < .05.
84


government group revealed that three-fourths (76%) describe their primary
employment as either "non-profit" or "higher education administrator." These
employment areas (non-profit and higher education administrator) are often
associated with human and social services work activities. Accordingly, their
work in human/social services may make this group more likely to believe more
people can be leaders.
Finally, there is a relationship between how many people can learn to be
leaders and whether we have enough leaders today to solve public problems.29 30
The majority feel "most can learn," regardless of whether they believe there are
enough leaders today (49%), not enough (60%), or more than enough
(51%). However, those who believe there are more than enough leaders also
believe in greater proportions that "most" or "all" can learn. One-third (33%) feel
"everyone" can learn, more than twice the number (14%) who feel "only a few"
can learn. However, those who believe there are "not enough leaders today say
that "only a few" can learn in greater proportion (32%), twice the number who feel
everyone can learn (16%).
These distributions suggest that those traditionally considered leaders (older,
male, and white) are more likely to believe fewer people can learn to be leaders,
while those emerging as public leaders (younger, female, and people of color) are
29 X2(fi)=19.187, p < .01. (note: 2 cells had expected frequencies <5)
30 X2(6)=l8.960, p< .01.
85


more likely to believe more people can learn to be leaders. The research literature
also clearly finds that people can learn to be leaders, but is silent about how many
people can learn to be leaders.
When Can People Leam
To be Leaders?
Survey participants were asked: When is it useful for people to participate
in leadership education courses or programs? They were asked to check: all that
applied from the following: pre-school through high school; undergraduate
education; graduate education; at the employers site; and, by participating in
specialized training programs. A follow-up question asked them to rank the top
three.
More than three-quarters of respondents believe it is useful to participate in
a wide range of leadership education courses and programs: pre-school through
high school (77%), undergraduate education (78%), at the employer's site (81%),
and by participating in specialized training programs (75%). Only graduate
education fell below this mark, however, more than two-thirds (68%) believe this
is a useful time for people to leam about leadership (see Table 21).
When asked to rank their top choice from this list, more than one-third
(38%) choose pre-school through high school, followed by undergraduate
education (20%) and "at the employer's site" (15%) (see Table 22).
86


Table 21
When it is Useful for People to Participate
In Leadership Education Courses or Programs
Overall Practitioners Educators
n % n % n %
Pre-school through high school 449 77.1 234 74.5 116 78.4
Undergraduate education, including 456 78.4 230 73.2 125 84.5
community college Graduate education 397 68.2 202 64.3 114 77.0
At the employer's site, throughout 470 80.8 248 79.0 123 83.1
one's career By participating in specialized 438 75.3 235 74.8 112 75.7
training programs Other 96 16.5 56 17.8 24 16.2
Note. Percentages reflect the proportion within each professional group.
Table 22
When it is Most Useful for People to Participate
In Leadership Education Courses or Programs
No. Times 1st No. Times 2nd No. Times ^rd No. Times 1st 3rd
Pre-school through high school Undergraduate educatior, 221 61 ' 59 341
including community college 117 159 71 347
Graduate education At the employer's site, throughout 33 77 71 181
one's career By participating in specialized 87 133 152 372
training programs 52 88 133 273
Other 24 9 21 54
Analysis of educational options respondents rank first reveals significant
differences between practitioners and educators and by age, gender, and
race/ethncity. Educators rank "pre-school through high school" and "undergraduate
education" first in equal proportions (31% each). They choose "undergraduate
education" first more frequently than do practitioners and "pre-school through high
87