On Leadership: A Discussion of Gardner’s Thoughts on Leadership

In his text, On Leadership, Gardner (1990) discusses the tasks required for successful leadership. Unlike texts presenting theoretical constructs, Gardner offers a treatise on effectively leading organizations. Gardner (1990) defines leadership, and he also expands on the definition of followers, which he refers to as constituents. Overall, Gardner provides a reflection on leadership which is not only relatable to reader, but is also fully executable in a typical organizational setting.

Gardner had a lengthy career spanning over fifty years. In that time, he worked in several professional positions, including professor, military officer, politician, presidential adviser, activist, and author (McFadden, 2002). Gardner’s experience as president of the Carnegie Corporation helped to gain the attention of several US Presidents, most notably Lyndon Johnson, who asked Gardner to be the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1965. Gardner, the only Republican in the presidential cabinet, helped to usher in the new Medicare legislation of 1965, and his agency enacted much legislation affecting all US citizens over his three-year tenure.

Perhaps Gardner’s most notable legacy is the founding of Common Cause, “a nonpartisan grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy” (“About us,” n.d., para 1). Founded in 1970, Common Cause advocates for higher voter turnout, campaign finance reform, civil rights, and stricter accountability for government officials. Gardner felt a lifelong duty to serving his country, and many current public programs were borne out of policies developed or envisioned by Gardner.

Gardner wrote several texts throughout his life, but his final work, On Leadership, published in 1990, has become part of the lexicon for scholars and researchers of leadership. In his text, Gardner does not present a novel concept of leadership; however, he does offer a unique view of leadership which reflects his past experiences.

Author’s Viewpoint

Gardner’s approach to leadership is that of a political activist and as scholar of psychology (he earned his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of California, Berkley in 1938). Throughout his work, careful attention is paid to the psychological underpinnings of the leader-member interaction. Gardner analyzes the concepts of leadership and describes methods for building and improving the leader-follower relationship. An important distinction made by Gardner (1990) is his definition of followers whom he refers to as constituents. The entirety of Gardner’s view of leadership is based on the premise that followers are not passive in the leader-follower interaction. Instead, constituents actively engage with leaders in a “two-way interchange” (Gardner, 1990, p. 2).

An underlying theme throughout Gardner’s discussion of leadership is the empowerment of both leaders and followers. Gardner (1990) describes methods which not only strengthen leadership, but also provide constituents opportunity for growth and development. Importantly, Gardner (1990) distinguishes between leaders and managers. Unlike other authors, Gardner (1990) does not minimize managers as “unimaginative clods” (p. 2). Rather, Gardner (1990) identifies leaders, leader/managers, and traditional managers. In Gardner’s view, leaders, at times, must make managerial type decisions which are necessary for the greater good of the organization.

Author’s Purpose

Gardner’s (1990) intent with his reflection, On Leadership, was to demystify the concept of leadership, discuss the nature of the leader-follower relationship, and provide ideas for strengthening that relationship, and, consequently, the organization. In addition to distinguishing between leaders and managers, Gardner (1990) intended to address the links between leader and manager behaviors. Gardner (1990) also proposed that constituents (followers) play a much larger role in the leadership process than previous scholars have advocated.

Gardner (1990) also sought to expand on earlier writing on leadership. In his reflection, Gardner (1990) expands not only Burns’ (1978) identification of transformational and transactional leadership, but also on the trait-based theories proposed by Stogdill (1948; 1974) and Great Person theory presented by Carlyle (1840s). In his expansion, Gardner (1990) identifies the psychological underpinnings of both leadership and followership.

Author’s Main Points

Gardner (1990) methodically analyzes leadership from the lens of a scholar and an activist. Throughout his writing, Gardner (1990) pays particular attention to the role of the constituent in addition to the attention paid to the leader. Gardner (1990) begins his treatise by defining leadership as “the process of persuasion or example by which an individual (or leadership team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader or shared by the leader and his or her followers” (p. 1). The author establishes early in his writing that leaders cannot be separated from the context in which they lead (Gardner, 1990).

Beyond definitions, Gardner (1990) provides important distinctions regarding leadership. A primary distinction is that of leadership versus status. In Gardner’s (1990) view, all leaders have status, but not all those with status are leaders. Furthermore, there is an important distinction between leadership and power: All leaders have power, but not all those with power are leaders (Gardner, 1990). Expanding on this, Gardner (1990) discusses the differences between leadership and authority. Authority is an official capacity which is appointed or granted. Leadership on the other hand, is an earned capacity. Gardner (1990) implies that this capacity is built through the earning of trust as well as an entrance into a social contract. In the text, Gardner also establishes several key points regarding leadership and followership.

Leadership is a Relationship

Gardner (1990) views leadership as a contextual process. In other words, an individual may be a leader in one situation, but the same individual may be a follower in another situation. The implication is that leaders and constituents are not entirely unique, rather they share many of the same qualities—it is the state of affairs which dictates the individual’s role. Gardner posits that the leader-constituent relationship is much more interactive than previous scholars have identified because “leaders are almost never as much in charge as they are pictured to be, [and] followers [are] almost never as submissive as one might imagine” (p. 23). To further emphasize this point, Gardner (1990) explicitly states that “good constituents tend to produce good followers” (p. 24).

Gardner (1990) also observes the communicative aspects of the leader-constituent interaction. Two-way communication between leaders and constituents is required for the leadership relationship to occur (Gardner, 1990). The relationship, though, does not require complete acquiescence. Rather, constituents should be free to express concerns and offer input in the leadership process (Gardner, 1990). Other times, constituents “welcome rather than reject authority” (p. 26) with the expectation of decisiveness from the leader.

Gardner (1990) also discusses the importance of strengthening followers. Leaders are able to contribute to the greater good through the development of followers (Gardner, 1990). As constituents become more empowered, they become better able to contribute to the group. Additionally, empowered constituents are more likely to be able to transition into leadership roles. The result is not only stronger constituents, but the organization as a whole grows and develops as well.

Leaders Renew and Motivate

Gardner (1990) observed that there is a natural cycle of ebbs and flows in organizations. As organizations grow older, there is a potential for complacency and stagnation due to firmly held beliefs and dogmatic attitudes. According to Gardner (1990) there is a tendency for leaders to want to maintain the status quo; however, this may ultimately lead to the demise of the organization. Instead, leaders should attempt to maintain continuous renewal (Gardner, 1990).

For Gardner (1990), the initial movement toward renewal begins with leaders providing “thought to how human talent and energy are handled in the systems over which they preside” (p. 126). Gardner’s (1990) perspective is that in organizations looking toward renewal, leaders should focus on the development of human capital through collaboration, delegation, and reassignment.

An additional component of renewal is motivation (Gardner, 1990). According to Gardner (1990), leaders “must bring into key positions individuals who have a gift for motivating and are themselves highly motivated” (p. 128). As change occurs, it is necessary to reduce the impact of non-motivators that exist, especially at higher parts of the organization (Gardner, 1990).

Through the development of followers and through the boosting of motivation, leaders are more able to move followers toward renewal. The use of collaborative decision making and the perception of interest in the development of the follower, builds trust and provides direction.

Author’s Conclusions

Gardner (1990), much like Burns (1978), describes a moral component to the leadership relationship. The relationship is based upon ethical philosophy. Gardner (1990) specifically cites the Categorical Imperative as defined by Kant—“individuals should be treated as ends in themselves, not as a means to the leader’s end, not as objects to be manipulated” (p. 75). In general, there is not a universal set of behaviors attributable to moral leaders; however, there are some consistent behaviors amongst them (Gardner, 1990).

The Release of Human Possibilities

Historically, human talent and initiative have been stifled either by leaders or by society (Gardner, 1990). Leaders who are able to motivate and develop followers to release and express their hidden talents are likely to experience positive outcomes for both the leader and the follower.

Individual and Group

Leaders are cognizant of the needs of both the individual and the group (Gardner, 1990). While care must be taken to provide for individual needs, the needs of the collective must also be nurtured. The greater good of the collective and the individual is served when leaders are able to provide for both and to find balance between the two (Gardner, 1990).

Law, Custom, and Belief

Successful societies establish not only written law, but also a set of unwritten, but firmly held customs which are understood to be necessary for that society to function properly (Gardner, 1990). A necessary function of leadership is not only to help maintain a commitment in those beliefs, but also to motivate constituents to honor unwritten values (Gardner, 1990). Leaders are also expected to reframe and redefine values as society develops. These leaders act as dissenters; however, they do so within the moral framework of laws and values (Gardner, 1990).

Individual Initiative and Responsibility

Another fundamental of moral leadership is the encouragement of active participation and collaboration from followers (Gardner, 1990). Gardner (1990) observes that both societies and organizations decline when constituents do not actively participate. The result of lack of participation is stagnancy, or worse, the abuse of power (Gardner, 1990). When constituents participate in decision-making, they share responsibility and accountability as well as provide support and development to the group.

Convergence and Divergence

Gardner’s (1990) conceptualization of leadership is influenced by Carlyle’s (1840) Great Person theory, Stogdill’s (1948; 1974) trait-based theory, and Burns’ (1978) theory of transformational and transactional leadership. Gardner (1990) agrees that leaders tend to exhibit particular values and traits; however, those traits can be learned and developed. Furthermore, Gardner (1990) validates the concepts of transformational and transactional leadership. Gardner, though, unlike Burns (1978), implies that leaders may be both transformational and transactional in their actions. Gardner describes leader/managers, who at times, must make decisions based on short-term goals for the better of the organization.

Gardner (1990) also adds a moral component to leadership, implying that leadership is elevating. For Gardner, though, leadership is elevating through the motivation and development of constituents, or renewal. Gardner’s (1990) concept of renewal also mirrors Burns’ use of conflict to maintain the leader-follower relationship. By making constituents cognizant of the values and beliefs of the collective, they may be guided toward a common goal (Gardner, 1990).

The distinguishing feature of Gardner’s conceptualization of leadership is the importance attributed to the constituent’s participation the leadership process. Gardner (1990) describes the leader-constituent relationship not just as a give and take interaction, but also as one in which leaders and followers are potentially interchangeable. As previously stated, the role of the leader is contextual—a leader in one situation may be a follower in another situation. Also, because of the importance of participation, leaders must encourage collaboration for the sharing or responsibility and accountability. Without active participation, motivation and development, and continuous renewal, the leader-constituent relationship is diminished.

Relevance

Gardner’s (1990) reflection, On Leadership, continues to be relevant. The author provides not only the basis for successful leadership, but also for the development of leadership in others. Gardner (1990) also describes basic leadership tasks for good leadership. These tasks are not only relatable in current organizational contexts they are also able to be taught and developed in new and aspiring leaders.

Utilization

The relatability of the concepts proposed by Gardner, make them easily translatable into an organizational context. Leaders need not do anything other than take these tenets and add their mission, vision, and values to tailor them to their needs. The emphasis on the needs and development of constituents is also a means for motivating followers and building trust. In doing so, leaders are more likely to experience positive outcomes not only for their constituents, but also for their organization.

Conclusion

Gardner’s (1990) text, On Leadership, builds on existing theories to describe steps toward achieving successful leadership. As opposed to other conceptualizations of leadership, Gardner (1990) describes, in great detail, the importance of the constituent’s role in the leadership process. The relatability and usability of Gardner’s description of leadership make his text a beneficial and valuable tool for leadership development.

References

About Us. (n.d.). In CommonCause.org. Retrieved June 15, 2017, from http://www.commoncause.org/about/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Perennial Political Classics.

Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.

McFadden, R. (2002, February 17). John W. Gardner, 89, Founder of Common Cause and Adviser to Presidents, Dies. The New York Times. Retrieved June 15, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/18/us/john-w-gardner-89-founder-of-common-cause-and-adviser-to-presidents-dies.html

Leadership: An Analysis of Burns’ Contribution to Leadership Theory

James MacGregor Burns is credited with developing the concept of transformational leadership (Green, 2015). In his text, Leadership (1978), Burns describes what he distinguishes as two distinct types of leadership—transformational and transactional. Burns’ conceptualization of his theory involves the analysis of the complex relationships between leaders and followers; and, it identifies the psychological and developmental aspects that contribute to the establishment of these types of leadership.

At a high level, Burns (1978) views leaders and their leadership styles as aiming toward two different outcomes. Transactional leaders attempt to achieve their goals by offering followers tangible (and sometimes intangible) goods in exchange for their allegiance (Green, 2015). Transformational leaders, on the other hand, enter a higher-level exchange with followers in which the leader works to transform the motives and goals of the followers (Green, 2015). Burns’ synthesis of the two leadership constructs is the culmination of decades worth or research and analysis. To acquire a true understanding of Burns’ theory of leadership it is necessary to understand Burns’ background as well as the factors leading to the development of the constructs.

Author’s Viewpoint

Burns approaches the concept of leadership from a political view. The author’s viewpoints are heavily influenced by the study of political history; and, much of his support for his theory of leadership is derived from the experiences of world leaders through the mid-20th century as well as both his official and unofficial political work.

In his political career, Burns acted as an adviser to presidents in an unofficial capacity; and, at one point he ran for a Congressional office to represent constituents in western Massachusetts (Weber, 2014). Primarily though, he spent his career working as a writer, a historian, and a political scientist. Some of his most popular texts were presidential biographies; however, throughout his work, the origin of leadership is an underlying theme (Weber, 2014).

Burns’ understanding of leadership is rooted in his analysis of its human characteristics, and “[h]e had faith in the potential for human greatness, and . . . one could discern in his writing a pleading for great men and women to lead with greatness” (Weber, 2014). Importantly, Burns’ view of leadership was the culmination of knowledge gathered through studying the lives and leadership qualities of great political leaders throughout the years. From these studies, Burns derived the psychological, social, and developmental aspects of his theory.

Author’s Purpose

Burns (1978) begins his analysis of leadership with a discussion of the shortcomings of leadership and the study thereof to that point. According to Burns (1978), though there is a fascination with leaders and leadership in general, little is known of the origin of leadership behaviors, and even less is known regarding the standardization and measurement of leadership. Burns’ (1978) initial purpose in writing the text is to bring clarity and structure to the study of leadership. Additionally, he seeks to develop a theory of leadership that addresses the needs and motives of both leaders and followers. Furthermore, Burns (1978) aims to distinguish leadership from power as well as other strongly associated, and sometimes confused, concepts. Throughout his discussion of leadership, Burns methodically outlines what he feels to be the origins and development of leadership. He supports his assertions by citing the life experiences of famous world leaders and demonstrating their connections with his theoretical constructs.

Author’s Main Points

Burns’ (1978) examination of leadership explores the psychological and social developments that behave as catalysts for the leader’s behavior and styles. The author also examines the factors which establish individuals as followers. He articulates his theory by examining the concepts of power, wants and needs, conflict, moral leadership, transactional leadership, and transformational leadership. Each of these concepts is essential to understanding leadership as it is envisioned by Burns.

Power

Burns (1978) asserts that power and leadership are two separate, but related, concepts. Indeed, he describes leadership as a “special form of power” (Burns, 1978, p. 14). The link between power and leadership is an important factor because it becomes the basis for Burns’ conceptualization of leadership. He explains that power is a process in which an individual exerts influence over another (Burns, 1978). What makes this exertion of influence effective is the relationship between the power-holder and the respondent. Power-holders with ample amounts of motive and resources are more likely to be able to influence respondents. Conversely, power-holders with relatively little motive and or few resources is unlikely to be able to effect as much change in followers. Defining power as a relationship between a power-holder and a respondent implies that leadership also involves a relationship between two or more individuals. An important aspect in both of these relationships is that the resources “must be relevant to the motivations of the power recipients” (Burns, 1978, p. 17).

Burns (1978) also distinguishes between power-wielders and leaders. According to Burns (1978), leadership occurs when individuals with intent or motives utilize resources to meet the needs or motivations of followers. Power-wielders, on the other hand, utilize resources to influence followers as well; however, the motives of the power-wielder may disregard the needs of the follower all together. Stated differently, “[a]ll leaders are actual or potential power holders, but not all power holders are leaders” (Burns, 1978, p. 18). For example, according to this definition, a dictator exercising coercive power to achieve his or her own selfish goals is not a true leader.

Wants and Needs

Building upon the concept of relationships and meeting the needs of followers and leaders, Burns (1978) discusses wants and needs of individuals. Burns (1978) describes wants as basic human requirements such as sustenance, shelter, and clothing. As wants are achieved and sustained, the individual matures and wants evolve into needs. An individual may feel the need to earn the affections of another individual or group; however, that need is not required for survival.

These wants and needs may be satisfied by the resources and motivations of others. An individual with ample resources and the proper motivation has the capacity to become a leader if his or her resources may meet the needs and wants of others. It is in the exchange of these resources to meet wants and needs that leader-follower exchange (relationship) begins. The exchange of resources for basic-level wants is foundation for transactional leadership. Transformational leadership grows out of a mutual exchange of resources between the leader and the follower to satisfy higher-level needs.

Conflict

Burns’ (1978) approach to leadership assumes that conflict is not only inevitable, but it must exist for the leader-follower relationship to occur. In very basic terms, conflict exists when the wants and needs of an individual are not being met by another. According to Burns (1978), conflict is highly important to the leader-follower relationship because “it galvanizes, prods, [and] motivates people” (p. 38). The leader is able to manipulate or exploit that conflict to motivate followers to move toward a goal.

For Burns (1978), conflict is not only a motivator of followers—it is also a unifier of followers. By making followers conscious of their unconscious wants and needs, the leader can unify followers to move toward a mutual goal. It is important that the leader utilize and manage conflict effectively—when conflict no longer remains, a true leader-follower relationship cannot be maintained (Burns, 1978).

Moral Leadership

Burns (1978) introduced the concept of learning as an aspect of leadership. Leadership is influenced by personal experiences, including “learning from people, learning from successes and failures, [and] learning from leaders and followers” (Burns, 1978, p. 63). According to Burns (1978) moral leadership coalesces as an individual’s sense of morality and values develop and grow. Burns (1978) observes and establishes a link between progression through Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, and the development of moral leadership.

Transactional leadership, in the simplest terms is borne out of the satisfaction of lower level wants and needs and earlier levels of moral development. For Maslow, the lower-level needs are physiological, and for Kohlberg, the lower-level stages of development are concerned with the “most primitive form of reciprocity” (Burns, 1978, p. 78). This is a key aspect to the development of the leader-follower relationship, because, according Burns (1978), “unfulfilled needs become the most powerful motives” (p. 69).

Transformational leadership, on the other hand, develops out of the satisfaction of higher-level needs and moral development (Burns, 1978). At the highest levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the individual is no longer concerned with physiological requirements such as food, shelter, and safety. Rather, the individual is search of self-esteem, the esteem of others, and self-actualization (Burns, 1978). Similarly, at the highest stage of Kohlberg’s moral development, the individual is no longer merely conforming “to the palpable rules of social order but to the abstract conception of justice that lies beyond those rules” (Burns, 1978, p. 77). At these stages of development, as the leader begins to achieve self-actualization, the leader is searching for a higher social order; and, he or she may inspire followers to feel likewise. In Burns’ (1978) vision of moral leadership, leaders and followers mutually benefit from their actions, and they are free to enter and leave the leader-follower relationship. Ultimately, moral leadership transforms both leaders and followers and significant social change is achieved (Burns, 1978).

Transactional Leadership

Burns (1978) defines transactional leadership as occurring “when one person takes the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things” (p. 19). Taking this definition one step further, Burns (1978) posits that leaders, by offering goods in exchange for followership, motivate followers to perform actions they would not normally do on their own.

As previously stated, transactional leadership is associated with lower-order needs. Once these lower-order needs are met, next-level needs become priority. Because of the nature of this change, transactional leadership is characterized by “short-lived relationships because sellers and buyers cannot repeat the identical exchange; both must move on to new types and levels of gratification” (Burns, 1978, p. 258). Simply stated, once leaders have provided for the needs of followers via the exchange of goods for taking action, the leader-follower relationship has concluded. Leaders that effectively utilize conflict may inspire new goals and renew the leader-follower relationship.

Transformational Leadership

Burns (1978) defines transformational leadership as occurring “when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (p. 20). In Burns’ (1978) conceptualization of transformational leadership, leaders and followers enter a mutual exchange. Throughout that exchange, leaders focus on the needs of followers. The focus on needs and development of followers elevates them (Northouse, 2013). They are essentially transformed into leaders during the process. As leaders learn from followers, they are transformed as well.

The true distinction of transformational leadership is the moral component which seeks to influence social change (Burns, 1978). The purpose of leadership helps to define the type of leadership. Power-wielders or idolized leaders are not true leaders. Power-wielders tend to use force and coercion to influence followers—no true exchange or relationship exists. Idolized individuals are not true leaders because they often to do not have mutual goals and exchanges and their influence on change may not be lasting (Burns, 1978). Successful moral and transformational leadership, though, “is tested not by peoples’ delight in performance or personality, but by actual social change measured by the ideologists’ purposes, programs, and values” (Burns, 1978, p. 249). Thus, only when there is a societal shift toward higher goals and values, can the leader relationship be characterized as transformational.

Author’s Conclusions

Burns (1978) distinguishes between two types of leaders—transactional and transformational leaders. The majority of leadership styles practiced are transactional styles (Northouse, 2013). Transactional leadership relationships are characterized by the exchange of goods (both tangible and intangible) as a means of motivating followers to behave in ways they may not have previously. Transactional leaders tend to engage in short-term relationships with followers due to the nature of the exchange. Transformational leadership relationships are characterized by mutual exchanges in which both the leader and follower benefit and develop. The end goal and outcome of these exchanges is long-term social change especially in terms of social justice, liberty, and equality (Green, 2015).

Burns (1978) also concludes that the primary distinguishing component of leadership and pseudo leadership forms is purpose. Mere power-wielders are not true leaders because their purpose is neither for societal change, nor for the benefit of the followers. Transactional leaders are true leaders; however, their purpose is to achieve short-term goals and outcomes. Transformational leaders seek to achieve goals with a higher purpose. Ultimately, the outcome of transformational leadership is a social shift in which higher moral values such as justice and equality are emphasized.

In finalizing his definition of leadership, Burns (1978) makes several observations regarding leadership.

Leadership is Collective

Burns (1978) establishes that leadership is a relationship between two or more individuals. The absence of a relationship, especially one in which an exchange occurs, nullifies the idea of leadership. When no true relationship exists, the individual is more likely a power-wielder rather than a leader.

Leadership is Dissensual

For Burns (1978) conflict must exist in the leader-follower relationship. Leaders manipulate and cultivate conflict so that followers are motivated and unified. The absence of conflict leads to complacency as followers and leaders do not have a mutual goal to work toward.

Leadership is Causative

According to Burns (1978), for true leadership to occur, leaders and follower must participate at a higher capacity than a transactional relationship. Rather, they must work interactively, in a mutually beneficial manner, such that societal shifts and changes are the outcome of the relationship (Burns, 1978). The outcomes of true leadership must also be lasting.

Leadership is Morally Purposeful

True leadership, according to Burns (1978), must be goal-oriented, and it must be aimed at achieving a moral purpose. It is the responsibility of the leader to establish values and structures which drive both the leader and the follower to achieve the moral purpose (Burns, 1978).

Transforming Leadership is Elevating

Burns (1978) maintains that the highest quality relationships between leaders and followers occur when the leader is one step higher in moral development than the follower; however, leaders at much higher levels of morality may appeal to followers of all types en masse. In either case, as the mutual exchange occurs, followers are elevated to higher moral levels as are leaders (Burns, 1978).

Convergence and Divergence

Prior to Burns’ (1978) conceptualization of transformational leadership, several researchers and scholars had attempted to define and measure leadership. Burns developed his theory of leadership to resolve the shortcoming of previous theories.

The Great Man theory, as noted by Burns (1978) does not account for leaders’ ability to learn. This theory, as developed by Carlyle, assumes that leaders are merely born. Burns (1978), however, maintains that leaders not only learn from life experiences, they also learn from other leaders as well as their followers.

Stogdill’s (1948; 1974) studies of leadership traits also assume that leaders are born; however, they are born with certain traits. While Burns (1978) agrees that certain traits are innate, his theory focuses more on the developmental factors that leaders encounter as they grow from child to adult. Though these developmental factors, such as fears of abandonment, or parental disregard, are not innate, they are unique to each individual.

The behavioral theories such as the Managerial Grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964) and Situational Theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969) describe a relationship between leaders and followers; however, there is no moral component pushing toward social change, and they do not take into account the developmental needs of the follower. In fact, both theories focus on what actions leaders must take to complete tasks for short-term management goals. Both of these theories have more in common with transactional leadership than transformational leadership.

Burns’ (1978) theory differs from the prevailing theories of his time in that he was one of the first to take into consideration the mutual interests of leaders and followers. Burns (1978) believed that both leaders and followers are both elevated in working toward their common, purposeful goal. Theories such as LMX (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975) only focus on the achievement of short-term goals and do not necessarily require broad social changes to be considered successful.

Relevance

Transformational leadership has undergone many iterations since it was first fully described by Burns in 1978. Burns (1978) believed that transactional leaders and transformational leaders were two distinct leadership styles and could not exist in tandem. In other words, once an individual progressed to transformational leadership, that leader would not “revert” to transactional leadership later. The current understanding of transformational leadership, however, is that it exists on a spectrum. Bass (1999) developed the Full Range Model of Leadership which shows that leaders may practice multiple types of leadership depending on how appropriate they are for the given situation.

Despite the fact the understanding of transformational leadership has shifted over the years, many of the tenets set forth by Burns are still relevant. Burns’ (1978) use of conflict is still valid in an organizational setting. Leaders who manipulate conflict in meaningful ways are able to elicit positive results from staff members. Additionally, leadership must be collective. Leaders of course must have followers, or they are not able to enter a mutually beneficial exchange relationship. While it is optimal that leadership have meaningful outcomes and be elevating, these are not necessary for true leadership to occur.

Utilization

Some aspects of Burns’ (1978) transformational leadership are easily adapted into the workplace. Utilizing conflict effectively is on example. By using positive conflict (such as increasing organizational goals) leaders and followers can work toward achieving their goals. Another use for transformational theory as defined by Burns (1978) is in the shifting of an organizational culture. By establishing a moral purpose and by working to develop and engage followers, leaders are more likely to be able to shift the culture optimally. As leaders become more concerned and involved with follower needs, both followers and leaders are elevated—leaders are guiding followers toward the moral outcome and learning how to better serve, and followers are developing into better leaders at lower levels.

Conclusion

Burns’ legacy on the study of leadership is that he was the first to fully conceptualize transformational leadership (Green, 2015). Burns’ (1978) theory of transformational leadership is the basis for some of the most accepted theories of leadership including the Full Range Model of Leadership (Bass, 1999) and Authentic Leadership (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). Ultimately, Burns’ thoughts on leadership are still relevant to this day, especially the idea that leadership is a relationship, leaders must cultivate conflict, and leadership is elevating.

References

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Perennial Political Classics.

Green, M. (2015). The full range model of leadership. In Graduate leadership: The research base for popular theories of leadership (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 92-157). North Charleston, SC: Leadership Press.

Northouse, P. (2013).  Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Weber, B. (2014, July 15). James MacGregor Burns, Scholar of Presidents and Leadership, Dies at 95. The New York Times. Retrieved June 2, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/james-m-burns-a-scholar-of-presidents-and-leadership-dies-at-95.html?_r=0

What is Leadership?

Leadership, as a concept, is a very individualized phenomenon. Scholars of the study of leadership have tried many times to define leadership; however, to date, there is not a single accepted definition of leadership. Indeed, if you were to read a text on leadership, the introduction would likely state that there are as many definitions of leadership as there are people who have attempted to define it.

A common dispute is whether or not leadership originates from an objective or subjective perspective. Is leadership simply a means to an end, or is there more to leadership, such as an expectation of follower development and empowerment? Is leadership an innate attribute, or is it something that can be learned, practiced and honed? Is leadership a developing process, or is it merely a power that is granted by an authority? These questions have been asked by leadership scholars, and they have helped to evolve leadership theory throughout the years.

No matter the school of thought, scholars agree that leadership must involve an individual (or group) moving another individual (or group) toward a goal. How and why that movement occurs may be disputed, but ultimately that is the basis for leadership–one moving another toward a goal.

Ultimately, leadership is defined by every individual. Why? Each person has their own background, their own beliefs, and their own values. Even in successful groups that are led by renowned leaders, each individual must contribute, and their contributions (whether good or bad) are based on their prior experiences and current abilities. For instance, my concept of leadership is colored by my study and understanding of leadership, whereas another person on my team, not familiar with leadership theory, may have a completely different idea of leadership–yet we are on the same team and the team is successful. That raises another question. Must followers think homogeneously in order to successfully contribute to a team? In short, they do not, but that is the subject for another posting.

I define leadership as an individual (or group) influencing another individual (or group) toward a goal through mutually beneficial actions that positively impact all who are directly or indirectly involved in the outcomes of achieving that goal. That is a rough (and seemingly convoluted) definition, but I feel that leadership (good leadership anyway) must benefit both leaders and followers and that all affected by the outcome must not be harmed.

Leadership affects nearly each individual in one way or another…the context could be leading a household or leading a corporation. Whether leading or being led, each person has an idea of what leadership is or should be.