Omnibus leadership model

CHAPTER 8 Leadership Models in Practice

© artemisphoto/ShutterStock, Inc.

There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction.

John F. Kennedy, May 12, 1961

This chapter presents practical models for both students of leadership and mature practitioners of the art and science of leadership to apply to their personal leadership practice. Two evolving models and one established model of leadership are described here; they should assist leaders in honing their personal leadership practice. These models are the omnibus leadership model, the dynamic culture leadership model, and the reframing organizations leadership and management model. These models are prescriptive in that they provide a strategy for success and guidelines for practical implementation. Other differing, yet contemporary, leadership models are also presented from Lynn, Yukl, Hargrove, and Glidewell. An analysis and comparison of four of the models presented in this chapter is included as an example of model comparison and evaluation. Health leaders should consider the constructs of these models and think about how they might apply them in complex health organizational environments. The chapter concludes with a list of recommended leadership measurement tools with which to conduct leader evaluations.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

· 1. Outline the constructs and processes of at least two contemporary leadership models presented in this chapter, and identify the prescriptive mechanisms of those models.

· 2. Distinguish at least two of the contemporary leadership models in this chapter from one other leadership theory or model from the situational leadership thought phase.

· 3. Apply at least one contemporary leadership model from this chapter to a real or hypothesized health leadership situation or case, and explain the rationale for your decisions, actions, and behaviors.

· 4. Analyze and illustrate the contemporary leadership models’ constructs that enable a health leader to develop, modify, or revise the organizational culture in a health enterprise.

· 5. Create a leadership model—either simple or complex—for your own use in health organizations, and relate your model to constructs found in models from this chapter and other constructs from other theories and models.

· 6. Compare and contrast two or more contemporary leadership models.

THE OMNIBUS LEADERSHIP MODEL 1

In 1905, the world-famous Carnegie Museum of Natural History placed the bones of a prized Apatosaurus on review. The bones remained on display until 1992, when the fossil was reexamined by a different team of paleontologists. These late-century paleontologists noticed that the dinosaur had been assembled incorrectly, and that the wrong head had been placed on the dinosaur almost 90 years earlier. 2 Over the course of the twentieth century, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of scholars and academics had viewed the bones and admired the symmetry and perfection of the fossil—never noticing the 90-year-old error the original paleontologists had made. No one ever questioned whether the fossil has been assembled incorrectly, or whether this world-famous museum had made an error. On the contrary, because the museum itself stood as an authoritarian benchmark of quality and distinction, it is quite possible that many other museums, paleontologists, and scholars had used this fossil as a standard from which other scholarly ventures were based. It was a profound error, and one that took nearly three generations of scholars to correct.

Given the weighty nature of this mistake, and the overall humor in placing a wrong head on a skeleton, your authors would like to use this example as a starting point from which to explore the possibility that the study of leadership is likewise suffering from an ancient error in construction. We propose that (in some cases) the study of leadership has become a calculus formula that has become memorized, but never derived. By this we mean that for generations younger scholars have been presented with information that is suggested to be true, but may more likely be a strongly supported opinion.

It has been suggested that there are as many methods to define leadership as there are ways to measure it. From a research perspective, this flexibility is often very beneficial, because the purpose of research is to look at things in increasing levels of complexity, with the ultimate goal of discerning intricate parts of the puzzle. But is it possible that, in the literature of leadership theory, the level of complexities has become so intricate that the larger picture is no longer visible? A review of leadership theory suggests the possibility that the answer to this question is “yes.”

Furthermore, is it possible that the study of leadership has suffered from theory creep? The original conception of creep is attributed to former U.S. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, who suggested that creep is the absence of a uniform vision, and who noted that this condition results in constant change. 3 The end product of creep results in people solving problems that have no relationship to the original project or process at all. In other words, the wrong fight is fought.

The study of leadership theory may have also suffered from theoretical creep. A review of leadership theories in the twentieth century suggests leadership studies have shifted from the broad and wide-ranging trait and “great man” theories to discriminate research efforts that reflect more of an application of unit models of decision making or satisfaction, rather than theory. Supporting this premise, some authors have suggested the problem with organizational theories is that the wrong unit of analysis is applied to inappropriate situations. Furthermore, many authors suggest previous studies may not be looking at leadership issues, but rather at evaluating supervisory and interpersonal characteristics. 4 – 9

Early Precedents for Misapplied Theories

Early anthropological and scientific literature is regularly flawed and full of assumptions and opinions often presumed to be fact until new insights came to light. A whimsical example is the “flat earth theory,” which was largely abandoned after the invention of the telescope and the circumnavigation of the globe by early mariners. Other scientific research is less amusing and could produce harmful consequences.

For example, in the early 1900s through the 1930s, the practice of eugenics was accepted in the United States. An estimated 60,000 people were sterilized when researchers of the era suggested persons with disabilities were a menace to society and could not contribute to humanity. 10 , 11

Thirty-five states enforced eugenics-related laws, and the practice was endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” 12 Later, in the early 1940s, faulty research by the U.S. Army Air Corps supported previous research and literature that suggested African Americans were incapable of flying modern aircraft due to intelligence gaps as compared to their white counterparts. 13

Situations in which new scientific theories replace older ones are constantly documented in the literature. Paleontologist Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies posits that Tyrannosaurus Rex (“tyrant lizard king”) could not have been a predator. Horner traced back the literature behind the naming of T-Rex by its original discoverer, Henry Osborne, in 1905. Osborne speculated that T-Rex’s big teeth and head must have been used in a predatory capacity. This assumption became a widely accepted, often cited, and frequently quoted part of paleontology literature for almost a century. Almost 100 years after the discovery, however, new scientific analysis of the skull and teeth suggested that T-Rex was actually a scavenger. 14

The organizational literature is likewise peppered with misnomers and reevaluated ideas. Weber’s “Protestant work ethic” (PWE) posited that “work gives meaning to life.” 15 This theory gained some popular support in early organizational literature, but examination of the literature by later scholars failed to find support for the PWE theory in contemporary literature. As early as 1990, Peter Drucker suggested that society is in need of many new models in leadership and management. “[The] old theories are feeling the weight of increasing complexities,” 16 he said.

In respect to this effort, earlier attempts to develop a uniform framework for effective leadership analysis have translated into significant academic challenges for researchers in this field. Although the term leadership is relatively new to the English language, the idea of leadership has existed for thousands of years. Researchers well recognize that certain individuals stand out from others in a group setting and ultimately direct the group to achieve a specific goal. These individuals have, for centuries, been recognized as leaders. Some such leaders may be associated with business or the military, whereas others become prominent politicians or social activists. Whatever the environmental setting may be, one fact is clear: There is little consensus on exactly what leadership is and which processes create an effective leader. 17

Leadership is one of the most widely debated and broadly defined micro-organization theories within the realm of organizational behavior. As a result, the discussion of leadership and leaders has transcended traditional boundaries and is often incorrectly extended to describe behavior and phenomena associated with managers, supervisors, coaches, educators, celebrities, political representatives, inspirational personnel, sports figures, and subject-matter experts. Despite the well-respected body of literature that distinctly separates leadership from other identifiers, the “leadership” label continues to be used to describe a plethora of activity in society. 18 The overuse and misuse of the term leader makes it difficult to study the concept of leadership and differentiate the concept of “leaders” from managers, supervisors, and popular personality figures.

Because of this misapplication, the terms leader and leadership have dominated fashionable connotations associated with nonequivalent positions, resulting in a popularly accepted—though largely incorrect—hierarchy. According to this “pecking order,” being a leader is better than being just a manager, supervisor, or subject-matter expert. Being designated as a leader rather than a manager (or something else) results in an artificial perception of status, which translates into a “feel good” perception for the individual. Perhaps this notion is in part associated with competition for the best employees and other cultural changes that have occurred within society in the last century. A review of classified ads in The Washington Post for senior-level healthcare personnel will turn up few vacancies for “business managers”—but will likely indicate that several positions for “industry leaders” are available.

As a result of these applications, leadership-, management-, and supervisory-related terms have essentially become synonymous within the literature and society. Consequently, leadership constructs are no longer perceived as distinct and mutually exclusive. A review of the literature suggests there is no single construct unique to leadership theory. Researchers working within the leadership theory field are often forced to borrow from the abundance of micro-organizational theories in the discipline to explain phenomena associated with leadership theory.

In response to these propositions, a new model of leadership, originally developed by Coppola at the Army Medical Department Center and School, Academy of Health Sciences, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, is offered here for purposes of discussion, thought, and reflection. 19 This model takes into account constructs and concepts that many traditional models of leadership do not include. These items include higher order, environment, and individual culture composite elements.

Reviewing Leadership as a New Problem

The study of traditional leadership theory does not always study leadership itself, but rather the outcomes of leaders and the antecedent factors that constitute management practices. Several weaknesses are associated with the traditional leadership models that have been previously published. However, all models have potential for improvement. To begin with, few of the models attempt to define leadership theory before building models that explain the phenomena associated with it. For example, Yukl has suggested that there are at least seven (and perhaps many more) different definitions of leadership that can be found within the literature. 20 – 22 On which of the various definitions of leadership are the models based when they are tested? Without a uniform definition of leadership, and without agreement on measures and variables, outcomes are most certainly interpreted broadly.

The Euclidean management philosophies of the 1970s and 1980s, in which many of these leadership models have their roots, have since been replaced with more interactive, matrix-like, collaborative, and participatory-based models. These models were introduced to accommodate the paradigm shift in employee expectations, generational changes, and societal expectations (such as more women in the workforce) that has occurred in the last two to four decades. As a result, the application and study of leadership models have not kept pace with this paradigm shift in its totality.

Yukl’s research exposes a wide variety of ideas on what constitutes leadership. The existing literature on leadership theory also promotes this definitional gap. Researchers have proposed a variety of theories: trait-based theories, transformational theories, contingency theories, and normative theories. The strength of these theoretical approaches lies in the fact that scholars generally accept them as reliable frameworks for evaluating distinct aspects of leadership. In reality, significant weaknesses exist because no one model can successfully explain all past behavior or predict all future behavior in an omnibus fashion. This differs from the study of constructs and measures in other academic fields. For example, scholars in the health field have regarded Donabedian’s model of healthcare quality as a panacea for establishing a basis for any discussion of the subject in any health organization. Similarly, Mintzberg’s typology for organizational analysis is a staple for deconstructing organizational hierarchal elements into manageable groups for efficiency and performance analysis. 23 , 24

Brief Overview of Theory

In the mid-1980s, Samuel Bacharach, building on the earlier works of Popper, Kerlinger, and Duban, developed criteria for evaluating theory that has become the benchmark for modern theoretical assessment in organizational literature. 25 – 28 According to Bacharach, a theory is a statement of relationships among concepts within a set of boundary assumptions and constructs. In this system of constructs and variables, the constructs are related to one another by propositions and the variables are related to one another by hypotheses. As a result, theory is a linguistic device used to organize a complex empirical world.

Similarly, Kerlinger noted that the essence of hypothesis testing is to test the relationship expressed by the variables in the hypotheses, rather than to test the individual variables themselves. Unfortunately, a majority of the leadership literature is centered on testing unit variables such as task accomplishment and satisfaction rather than more broadly defined leadership constructs. Moreover, as discussed previously, the overwhelming majority of leadership studies focus primarily on the outcomes of management and not leadership. These traditions suggest that modern-day thinkers must redirect their efforts and concentrate on defining and testing leadership as a construct.

The New Model

Albert Einstein once said, “Nearly every great advance in science arises from a crisis in the old theory, through an endeavor to find a way out of the difficulties created; we must examine old ideas, old theories, although they belong to the past, for this is the only way to understand the importance of the new ones and the extent of their validity.” 29 As suggested, Ledlow and Coppola defined leadership as the ability to assess, develop, maintain, and change organizational culture and strategic systems to optimally meet the needs and expectations of the external environment by moral means. With this definition in mind, some alternatives and suggestions for studying leadership from a theoretical perspective are offered here.

In response to the problems inherent in traditional leadership theory outlined, we posit a series of propositions using the framework developed by Coppola, Kerlinger, Whetten, and Wittgenstein, 30 - 33 which stipulates that propositions, or statements of opinion based on related facts, are true when describing relationships. The proposition technique allows relevant prose to coalesce around various arguments offered in the literature that lack empirical support. Following this analysis, semantic differential is used to place ideas of similar meaning into categories. The creation of these categories then allows for the presentation of simple sentences describing concepts. These concepts are then used as valid foundations for continuing the research stream. Although the statements may not always be exact, they are offered as reliable and trustworthy until additional research suggests otherwise, or more definitive evidence of disconfirmation is provided. Research historically suggests that empirical evidence most often flows from the advancements of theory, qualitative analysis, and supposition. 34

The proposed “omnibus leadership model,” discussed later in this chapter, borrows from previous literature in the field and provides a different aperture for evaluating leaders and leadership theory based on the following propositions:

· Proposition 1: Leadership theory has become analogous to a calculus formula that is memorized, but not derived.

In the past, leadership theories and models have followed a pattern similar to that of earlier defunct theories such as the “flat earth” theory and the theory of eugenics—namely, scholars and students memorized the theories and models and passed them on to future generations without ever studying the phenomena firsthand. Likewise, few students have ever done the mathematical calculations to derive the degrees associated with a circle and triangle; rather, they accept the notion that a circle is 360 degrees and the angles within a triangle add up to 180 degrees. We do not dispute these mathematical facts, but do take pause at the widespread acceptance without validation of some of the early leadership literature.

· Proposition 2: Early models of leadership theory applied a managerial framework to the study of leadership that failed to correctly differentiate other disciplines from leadership.

Many of the early models of leadership looked at managerial outcomes and not the factors (i.e., constructs) influencing those outcomes for leadership.

· Proposition 3: It is necessary to reevaluate leadership models to discern whether incorrect units of analyses or misapplied variables have been extended to the explanation of phenomena associated with leadership theory.

Although we do not suggest that all leader models are inherently incorrect or flawed, we do suggest that—similar to other theoretical disciplines that have acknowledged evolution in their discipline—the study of leadership is more a study of the validation of outcomes attributed to the leader or leadership team than forecasted issues coupled with actions or style selection. This requires prospective and retrospective assessment.

· Proposition 4: The tautology of the terms leadership and leader have allowed for the unarrested use and application of the theory in literature.

The lack of a clear definition of leadership, combined with the lack of a clear understanding of what constitutes the construct of leadership, results in outcomes that do not maximize validity, reliability, and the ability to generalize across situations.

· Proposition 5: Leadership theory lacks universally defined constructs and variables.

Dissimilar to the study of quality in health care, where Donabedian’s framework has become a benchmark with which to frame results, or the study of evolution, where Darwin’s Theory of Evolution dominates the landscape, scholars in the management sciences lack a clear signpost for acuity in the leadership field for study. This lack of grounding decreases consistency. In essence, leadership remains in a perpetual “theory building” cycle.

· Proposition 6: Leadership theory lacks a defined conceptual model.

No one conceptual model stands out as a panacea for leadership study. This is dissimilar to the proposition offered by the U.S. Constitution, which clearly states that U.S. citizens have the “right to bear arms.”

· Proposition 7: Traditional leadership theories do not differentiate between leadership and dictatorship.

Leaders who are self-serving, and who also have an agenda for harm and misery, are often labeled as “leaders” because society is unable to place them into any other designation when considering traditional leadership models. Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden are only two examples; they are labeled “leaders” by default. Interestingly, the preponderance of the literature associated with Benito Mussolini describes the Italian ruler as “the Italian dictator” and not as a leader—which is unique in the literature of historical despots.

Why a New Model?

When applying traditional leadership models, Adolf Hitler might be described as an effective leader, or at least as someone who demonstrated leadership skills by successfully rebuilding Germany after World War I. A retrospective application of path–goal leadership theory might also justify this position. Without question, Hitler initially inspired hundreds of thousands of followers to join his fascist movement in both Europe and the United States in the late 1930s. A retrospective application of transformational leadership theory might help explain Hitler’s success in this regard. Nevertheless, to refer to Hitler as a leader is insulting to the profession of leadership. Hitler is not thought of as a highly regarded leader in the study of leadership theory today; he is considered, at best, to have been a despot and a dictator. Certainly, a model must be created that allows for the differentiation of leadership and dictatorship.

To test this proposition, 170 commissioned U.S. military officers were asked to participate in a leadership test at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, over the period 2004–2006. The test was designed to test an individual’s perception of the definition of leadership based on a narrative. This narrative was read aloud to a class of graduate students (who were also Army, Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard officers) in advance, so the entire class heard the narrative at the same time. After the narrative was read, the officers were asked to turn over a piece of paper that had been placed on their desk, and circle the answer choice they thought was most representative of the narrative.

Each class was divided in half so that the narrative was the same. One side of the class had a picture of Adolf Hitler on top of the page; the other side had a picture of Martin Luther King, Jr., on the top of the page. The test was designed to see if the picture of a well-known and accepted leadership figure such as Martin Luther King, Jr., would cause the test takers to support the leadership narrative, whereas the picture of Adolf Hitler would bias the results. The entire one-page test is presented here (including the two pictures used— Figures 8-1 and 8-2 ), and the test results appear in Table 8-1 .

METHODOLOGY

One side of the room received the following narrative, with a picture of Adolf Hitler appearing on the top of the page. The other side of the room received the same narrative, with a picture of Martin Luther King, Jr., appearing at the top of the page. Neither side of the class knew that the other side was looking at a different picture.

FIGURE 8-1 Martin Luther King, Jr.

Source: Reproduced courtesy of Prints & Photographs Division, Library of Congress [LC-USZ62-126559]. Photograph by Dick DeMarsico.

FIGURE 8-2 Adolf Hitler.

Source: Reproduced courtesy of Prints & Photographs Division, Library of Congress [LC-USZ62-48839].

It had been several years since the world war. With the war now over, people began looking for a national figure to solve social problems and injustices. Clearly, the country was divided and in need of change. Although many people of the nation were united and content with the status quo, he considered his people and nation to be downtrodden. He dreamed of a better place for his people and thought that his country could be greater than what it was. Slowly, over the years, millions listened and followed him. He inspired people like few before him had ever done. He was also successful in inspiring and motivating people, and accomplishing change. This change and his ability to motivate people were immense and dramatic, and can still be felt to this day. Modern scholars still study his methods and wonder how he did it. Years after his death, people still read his books and are moved by the memory of his dream.

Select one answer that best describes this narrative.

This is an example of

A. A national public figure.

B. A man with a vision.

C. Leadership.

D. Effective strategic management.

E. None of the above.

Table 8-1 Results of Leadership Quiz Based on Character Perception

Question Response

Hitler (n = 85)

King (n = 85)

A national public figure

34

9

A man with a vision

16

14

Leadership

9

62

Effective strategic management

14

0

None of the above

12

0

n = 170 military officers over the period 2004–2008

The results reveal that military officers were uncomfortable with the option of labeling Adolf Hitler as a leader. Only 9 of 85 students (10.5%) felt comfortable with the leader answer when they thought Adolf Hitler’s image was associated with the narrative and options. This was not true of the other half of the class, who selected “leader” 73% of the time (n = 62/85 students) when they assumed that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s picture was associated with the narrative and choices.

Clearly, this exploratory test on image perceptions of leadership with trained military officers in graduate school suggests a problem with perceptions associated with the leadership designation of historical figures. To overcome this dilemma, future leadership models must be capable of screening out despots and dictators from traditional leadership frameworks. The omnibus leadership model provides for this adjustment through its higher order, environment, and individual culture composite elements, thereby correcting the problem.

Constructs of the Omnibus Leadership Model

Traditional models of leadership focus on outcomes and trace those outcomes back to specific leadership traits, characteristics, or behaviors, with little emphasis placed on the values associated with intrinsic goal-directed behavior. The “nature versus nurture” debate has long existed within the study of leadership. Are leaders born, or can they be made? The environment certainly plays a role in fostering goal-directed behavior, as do family values, available resources, and education (including both didactic and spiritual education). Nevertheless, these constructs are often viewed as confounding variables rather than as leadership progenitors in traditional leadership models. This is a weakness within traditional leadership study.

Furthermore, traditional leader theories fail to fully integrate the various aspects of confounding variables into one multifaceted model that allows for a wider range and utility of leadership study. Specifically, constructs such as cultural distinctiveness, higher power influences, and environmental pressures are often disregarded as antecedent constructs for forecasting leader outcomes or explaining past leader behavior. At the same time, these constructs are excellent theoretical examples for forecasting leader outcomes under appropriate conditions.

For example, in the era of the War on Terror, some leaders and followers feel that they are driven to goal-directed behavior through a higher power mandate. Separate from the realm that is considered religion or spirituality in its common understanding, a “higher power” is often classified as a greater belief in a mantra, or distinctive icon, that guides and directs leader behavior and followership in a predictable manner. Rarely, however, does a discussion of how a higher power affects the values and goal-directed behavior of leaders take place. In fact, many leadership scholars completely ignore altogether the construct of a higher power influence when examining leadership. Some suggest it is politically incorrect to consider this factor, whereas others posit that it is too difficult to measure and evaluate it. Regardless, the study of a higher power influence on leadership is a burgeoning field of interest in the scholarly community. 35 - 37

As previously discussed, the preponderance of traditional leadership models focus on outcomes, using indicators of satisfaction and productivity as indices of success. In doing so, many established models fail to take into account various aspects of the environment and individual culture. Clearly, culture and the environment have profound effects on the study of leadership theory. As a result, an integrated theoretical model developed by Coppola 38 suggests a solution to this problem. The omnibus leadership model (OLM) borrows from previous literature in the field and provides a different aperture for evaluating leaders and leadership theory. This model offers three spatial dimensional constructs—higher order, individual culture, and environment—as signposts for other variables or constructs. Furthermore, from these spatial dimensions, three other constructs—beneficence, character traits, and resources—may be derived.

Higher Order Construct

Within the health and general management environment, the topic of spirituality in leadership is often considered taboo and, indeed, a career-ending conversation for executives and practitioners. Even so, it is well known that spiritual principles are the basis for many values and enduring beliefs that guide the ethical framework and moral development of health leadership practices in our society. Therefore, spirituality (i.e., higher order) as a construct of discussion and examination in health leadership practice should not be overlooked in future research examining leadership theory.

In 2008, a survey of religion performed by Baylor University 39 found that more than 85% of the U.S. population consider themselves to be “religious.” Furthermore, leadership research conducted by other authors suggests that the absence of the study of spirituality and/or a higher power in leadership study has been a distinct flaw in the traditional study of a leader’s ability to influence others and to inspire followership. End-of-life decisions and early pregnancy termination are only two of the issues faced by health executives today that have relevance to this construct; these issues have strong spiritual roots that influence and inform decision making. Obviously, the study of a higher power is necessary in health leadership. More importantly, it opens the conversation about spirituality in leadership and brings it to the table for a professional and intellectual discussion.

Higher-order principles guide the construct of beneficence, or the practice of “doing good” against the construct of malevolence, or the practice of “doing bad.” These principles are themselves derived from family values, spiritual teachings, education, “herd mentalities” in the community, and individual interpretation of the aforementioned spatial dimensions—whether they be consistent or inconsistent with practices or norms of behavior. Certainly, higher-order principles guide the development of many leaders, and this construct should not be overlooked in future leadership studies.

Individual Culture Construct

From the individual cultural spatial dimension, the construct of character traits may be derived. Trait theory itself dominated the bulk of traditional leadership methodology over the previous century, and little additional discussion seemed to have been warranted. Nevertheless, it is now clear that cultural distinctiveness acts as an immutable object in the study of leadership theory. Some Asian and Middle Eastern societies clearly favor gender in the practice of leadership hierarchy, whereas other societies are more gender neutral. Age is likewise a factor in many Asian societies and is often used as a proxy suggesting that experience equates with competence. As a result, it would be inappropriate to apply a transformational leadership model to the evaluation of some societies due to the hierarchal gender- and age-based traits associated with those cultures. For example, in traditional Chinese and North Korean cultures, inquisitiveness and outspokenness may be perceived in a negative light, as opposed to the Western perception that these behaviors demonstrate a search for understanding and an extroverted approach.

An individual’s birthplace culture, or the culture in which he or she lives, will imprint an endurable mark of distinctiveness on the individual that will follow him or her over the course of the person’s lifetime. Although not entirely immutable, the culture in which an individual is raised or lives will dominate and forecast choices in leader decisions for as long as the person is in charge of people, policy, or other decision-making elements.

Environment Construct

The environment in which many leaders operate is critically important to a leader’s success, as Fiedler suggested in his model decades ago. 40 The extent to which the literature has addressed the relationship between individuals and the environment is minimal. In fact, the preponderance of leadership theory ignores the environment altogether. Short of trait theory, very few studies attempt to tie traditional leadership theory to the environment in a manner that predicts and forecasts possible outcomes. In reality, by identifying the environment in which a leader will function, individuals can take advantage of factors in the environment to fit the current situation and maximize outcomes. This approach supports the multidimensional and complex idea that leadership processes include an ecologically valid two-way component between the leader and the environment 41 and that followers are embedded in the environmental context.

Leaders cannot execute their vision, inspire followership, and employ legitimate and charismatic attributes unless appropriate resources are available in the environment to assist in the communication of the leader’s message. If the environment lacks appropriate resources to assist in the transfer and the communication of the leader’s intent, the leader may not have a significant enough followership to lead anything. For this reason, the environmental construct is a necessary precursor to resource availability. Furthermore, leader recognition is not possible without appropriate resources to deliver the leader’s message.

Resources 42 have attracted a reasonable amount of attention in traditional leadership study; however, resources are generally viewed in older theories as variables unto themselves and not as constructs for measurement. In the OLM, resources may be accessed through both human followership and logistical means. For example, in the modern study of leadership, vehicles for message delivery have exponentially been available to small groups of individuals who may have been hermetically sealed from the preponderance of the world culture in the past. The advent of the Internet has allowed small fringe groups of previously marginalized peoples to gain standing and respect in the greater world community. Through a provocative website whose message inspires followership, a lone marginalized individual may find standing and prominence on the world stage. Clearly, environmental resources have gained prominence as vehicles for leadership followership.

The Omnibus Leadership Model: A Summary

The OLM meets the needs of future leadership researchers by including the spatial dimensions of higher order, individual culture, and environment. Table 8-2 provides a template for this model. Figure 8-3 illustrates the conceptual model of the omnibus leadership theory. The benefit of this theory derives from its ability to capture constructs that assist in explaining why certain leaders are driven to leadership decisions. For example, many leader decisions are based on values learned from childhood relating to cultural and spiritual teachings that can be acted upon in favorable environments. In understanding and applying this model, the foundations on which some leaders base their decisions becomes clear, as does why some leaders have widespread followership. In fact, followership based on cultural and higher-order issues cannot be overlooked in this modern era of the “War on Terror” and an increasingly globalized society.

Table 8-2 Omnibus Leadership Model

Spatial Dimension

Construct

Description

Variables

Higher order

Beneficence or malevolence

Altruism or sadism

Actions

· • Self-serving versus other-serving

· • Teamwork: glory “me” versus glory “we”

Individual (culture)

Character

Extraversion or introversion Type A or B personality archetypes

Traits, abilities, and skills

Environment

Resources Stability Turbidity Dynamic

Human followership and logistical availability

Outcomes

· • Action versus reaction

· • Flight versus fight

The OLM provides a framework for screening and evaluating real leaders from the despots and the infamous. For example, using this model as a guide, Hitler is clearly screened out of the leadership category due to his evil malevolence. His actions and outcomes resulted in sociopathic murder and do not qualify him as a leader of any sort in modern times. Likewise, their support of suicide bombers causes some modern-day figures to be similarly ruled out of leadership consideration because these acts are obviously nonbeneficent. 43 - 45

All leaders are guided by some higher-order principles that may present themselves as unconscious drivers for maintaining enduring beliefs and adopting certain values. Rokeach, in the values–beliefs–attitudes model, suggested that values form the bedrock of who we are as people and, consequently, as leaders. 46 However, without an understanding of the higher-order principles and values that guide a leader, it is not possible to fully understand retrospective actions, or forecast future behavior in a consistent manner.

Measuring the Model

Methods for measuring the OLM in the near term may rely on observational and nonexperimental studies. Donabedian proposed a similar observational methodology with the now renowned structure–process–outcome quality model in 1966. Donabedian’s original article contained few insights into means of empirical measurement other than to qualify review actions as having merit based on normative and accepted practices in the field. Donabedian suggested that subject-matter experts and panels were required to evaluate his new model. 47 Similar methodologies are necessary for the evaluation of the OLM. For example, it was not until the passing of the HMO Act of 1973 that scholars turned to Donabedian’s theoretical model to help guide health organizations toward developing quality models. If not for the passage of this act, and the requirement for health organizations to make an argument for quality in their organizations, Donabedian’s model may have languished in obscurity for years or decades—or perhaps it would not have been used at all.

A similar argument can be made for John Nash’s self-named Nash equilibrium (NE) theory, which was first developed in 1950. The NE theory, and later the Nash bargaining solution (NBS), became the basis for game theory. Nash’s concepts were largely regarded as theoretical and intangible when first produced. In subsequent years, however, they were used as the basis for U.S. economic policy making and resulted in the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Nash in 1994. Many readers may recall seeing Nash’s life portrayed in the movie A Beautiful Mind. 48

Traditional leadership models have typically employed true experimental and nonexperimental methods within their leadership frameworks. This approach would continue to be applicable with the OLM. Subjects and data may continue to be collected and analyzed using traditional practices and procedures. However, the OLM will help guide the researcher toward qualifying specific constructs of leadership for discerning certain phenomena.

FIGURE 8-3 Conceptual model of the omnibus leadership model.

In closing, perhaps the Latin phrase res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) may suggest additional structure for the OLM. Leadership is action oriented: One knows it when one sees it. As a result, leadership theory may continue to confound research efforts. Perhaps leadership scholars must be satisfied with the appreciation of leadership as an art more than a science after all—at least until better theory testing methods are viable.

THE DYNAMIC CULTURE LEADERSHIP MODEL 49

Superb leadership is required at all levels of the health organization due to the increasingly dynamic nature of the health environment. This reality was the catalyst for the development of the dynamic culture leadership (DCL) model. Leadership in this model is recognized at three levels as the critical ingredient in the recipe for overall success: at the personal level, at the team level, and at the organizational level. The challenge is to focus the knowledge, skills, and abilities of organizational leaders appropriately and to empower the total organization to complete its mission, reach its vision, and compete successfully in an environment that constantly changes. This model is built on various theories and models from the leadership literature and related research. An overview of the DCL model is presented; this model is intended to fit within the situational and transformational leadership paradigm with an emphasis on organizational culture development. This model is appropriate for organizational, department, system, subsystem, or program leadership and should be used as a basis for developing a personal leadership plan or model.

The DCL model 50 provides both a descriptive and a high-level prescriptive process model of leadership. This model emphasizes a sense of balance that needs to be maintained to achieve a sustainable and continuing level of optimized leadership based on the changing macro and micro factors in the external environment. “Optimized leadership,” like the concept “high quality,” is not necessarily a norm to be achieved at all times. Rather, it is a worthy goal, an ideal state. No individual (and certainly no organization) can in all situations and at all times enjoy a steady state of higher-level leadership. Nevertheless, many individuals and organizations continuously optimize their ability to function at high leadership levels by consciously (and even unconsciously) cultivating the various elements of the model.

The basic assumptions of the DCL model are as follows:

· • Due to the very dynamic nature of the environment (in this case, the health industry), it is critical for the leadership and management team to bring multiple knowledge, skills, abilities, perspectives, and backgrounds (DCL leadership alignment assessment) to the organization to enable it to successfully and proactively navigate the external environment and focus the internal people and resources on the mission, vision, strategies, goals, and objectives of the organization.

· • Leadership is defined as the ability to assess, develop, maintain, and change the organizational culture to optimally meet the needs and expectations of the external environment through focusing the collective energy of the organization on the mission, vision, strategies, goals, and objectives of the organization.

· • The leadership and management team should consciously determine the culture of the organization and guide and direct culture through communication improvement, organization-wide strategic planning, decision-making alignment, employee assessment and empowerment, and knowledge management and organizational learning (process constructs).

· • Based on the predetermined organizational culture, mission, vision, and strategies, consistency of leadership and management are paramount.

· • Situational and environmental assessment and scanning are key to adjusting organizational culture, mission, vision, and strategies.

· • Transformational leadership and management (including transactional leadership approaches), where both the science and art of leadership and management are in concert with the external environment expectations, provide the best approach to lead people and manage resources in a dynamic world.

Optimized leadership is certainly attainable for any person and any organization, but it usually requires concentrated effort to overcome past habits, ideas, and tendencies. Ultimately, individual leaders make up the leadership team. The team, therefore, must be diverse in style and competencies while being anchored to a set of values and operating principles of the organization. The assessment instrument for individuals and teams for this model is based on a leadership–management continuum and an art–science continuum.

The characteristics of “leadership” as compared to “management,” and “science” as compared to “art,” are described in Tables 8-3 and 8-4 . It is important to note that organizations need leaders, managers, scientists, and artists working together to achieve success over the long term. Figure 8-4 illustrates the macro descriptive model, whereas Figure 8-5 shows the prescription (or processes) associated with the model.

The differences in leadership versus management are shown in Table 8-3 ; the differences in science versus art are shown in Table 8-4 . It is important to keep in mind that organizations need leadership as well as management mentality/capabilities, as well as science and art mentality/capabilities, if they are to survive and thrive in their external environment.

The DCL model entails a leadership process, as shown in Figure 8-5 , that emphasizes leadership team assessment, communication improvement, strategic planning, decision-making alignment, employee enhancement, and learning organization improvement. Leaders who regularly follow the sequence shown in Figure 8-5 have the best potential to deal with change in their environment while building a culture that will be effective even during times of change. Members of the leadership team must be ever thoughtful in maintaining their consistency relative to the organizational mission, vision, strategies, goals, and values, but also in terms of the model’s constructs and process constructs. Examples of inconsistency might include instituting a defensive and disconfirming communication environment within a customer or patient service and care excellence (differentiation) strategy; using a subordinate decision-making tactic (i.e., pushing down decisions to the lowest level appropriate) without involving subordinates in strategic and operational planning; or maintaining a leadership team that is heavily skewed toward “leadership” and “art” whereas the external environment demands “management” and “science.” Examples of consistency would be creating a culture based in a supportive and confirming communication environment; using a subordinate-involved planning process with decision making made at the lowest appropriate level; and initiating a customer service and patient care excellence strategy if the external environment expects such a strategy (today, excellent service and care are expected). The overriding theme is that leadership envisions, develops, and maintains an organizational culture that works amid a dynamic environment. A summary of model constructs and process constructs follows.

Table 8-3 Explanation of the Leadership–Management Continuum in the Dynamic Culture Leadership Model

Leadership

Management

Longer time horizon

Shorter time horizon

Vision then mission oriented

Mission oriented

Organizational validity (Are we doing the right things?)—environmental scanning and intuition

Organizational reliability (Are we doing things correctly and consistently?)—compliance to rules and policies and rule development

Does the organization have the correct components (people, resources, expertise) to meet future as well as current needs?

How can current components work best now?

Developing and refining organizational culture to meet external environment needs

Maintaining organizational climate to ensure performance

Timing and tempo of initiatives and projects

Scheduling of initiatives and projects

Source: Reproduced from Ledlow, G., & Cwiek, M. (2005, July). The process of leading: Assessment and comparison of leadership team style, operating climate and expectation of the external environment. Proceedings of Global Business and Technology Association. Lisbon, Portugal.

Table 8-4 Explanation of the Science–Art Continuum in the Dynamic Culture Leadership Model

Science

Art

Technical skills orientation (e.g., forecasting, budgeting)

Relationship orientation (e.g., networking, interpersonal relationships)

Decisions based more on analysis

Decisions based more on perceptions of people

Developing systems (important to organizations)

Developing relationships and networks (important to organizations)

Expert systems

Experts as people

Cost control and evaluation of value are important

Image and customer relationships are important

Source: Reproduced from Ledlow, G., & Cwiek, M. (2005, July). The process of leading: Assessment and comparison of leadership team style, operating climate, and expectation of the external environment. Proceedings of Global Business and Technology Association. Lisbon, Portugal.

FIGURE 8-4 The dynamic culture leadership model.

Source: Reproduced from Ledlow, G., & Cwiek, M. (2005, July). The process of leading: Assessment and comparison of leadership team style, operating climate, and expectation of the external environment. Proceedings of Global Business and Technology Association. Lisbon, Portugal.

FIGURE 8-5 The leadership process (DCL) model.

Source: Reproduced from Ledlow, G., & Cwiek, M. (2005, July). The process of leading: Assessment and comparison of leadership team style, operating climate, and expectation of the external environment. Proceedings of Global Business and Technology Association. Lisbon, Portugal.

Briefly, the DCL model incorporates both constructs and “process” constructs. In essence, model constructs are primarily the descriptive model. Model constructs include the following:

· • Science of leadership includes all technical elements involved in leading and managing an organization, such as quantitative and qualitative analysis, decision-making assessments, finance and budgeting, job analysis and design, planning structures and processes, computer skills, and the like. Each process construct of the model has both science and art aspects; an integration of the two must be consistently used to ensure successful leadership of an organization.

· • Art of leadership includes the elements involved in interpersonal relationships, network building and maintenance, intuition, coalition development, and the like.

· • Technical competence, relationship building, emotional intelligence, morality and trust building, and environmental and situational analyses are required at sufficient levels (and should be at high levels) across the leadership and management team to successfully lead people and manage the resources of the health organization.

· • Congruent vision, mission, strategies, goals, and organizational values are essential so that a culture of consistency is developed throughout the organization. The leadership and management team must consciously assess the external environment (macro and micro factors) and predetermine these directional, competitive, adaptive, and cultural development strategies for the organization.

· • External environment comprises all organizational stakeholders (anyone or any group that influences, serves, gets service, or is connected to the organization), the macro environmental factors, the micro environmental factors, and the synthesized set of expectations of the health organization.

Prescriptive elements of the model include assessing and aligning a robust leadership and management team that can utilize the knowledge, skills, abilities, and perspectives of all quadrants of the assessment instrument “diamond”; being consistent in developing and maintaining an appropriate culture; and the sequential and building utilization of the model’s process constructs. Process constructs include the following elements:

· • Communication improvement is the leadership and management team engagement in predetermined modeling, training, rewarding, and assimilating of the communication environment into the organization in the means that best contributes to an effective organizational culture. In health organizations, a confirming and supportive communication environment that is cognizant of media richness of communication channels and competent in conflict management should be the most effective, efficient, and efficacious.

· • Strategic planning (includes operational planning) is the structured, inclusive process of planning to determine a mission, vision, strategies, goals, objectives, and action steps that are consistent with organizational values and that meet the external environment’s expectations of the organization. Subordinate, internal, and external stakeholders should be included in the planning process, as appropriate to level and responsibilities. Continuous and “living” planning is a cultural imperative in dynamic environments.

· • Decision-making alignment involves aligning decisions with the strategic and operational plan while understanding reality-based decision making (i.e., pushing down decisions appropriately and using policies and standard operating procedures for routine and consistent decisions).

· • Employee enhancement is the assessment of employee knowledge, skills, abilities, experience, and trustworthiness and the practice of increasing or reducing responsibilities (such as making decisions) appropriate to the unit, group, and individual in line with the organizational culture as part of development and the strategic and operational plans.

· • Knowledge management and organizational learning involves capturing what the organization knows and what it has learned so that improvements to effectiveness, efficiency, and efficacy can be achieved. Leadership, willingness, planning, and training are facilitators of organizational learning. 51

· • Evaluating, reflecting, and retooling is the leadership and management team’s honest assessment of the DCL model cycle and ways to improve the cycle in the next repetition.

Using this process consistently will not only improve the organization’s ability to use these processes and produce an organizational culture that reflects the leadership’s vision, but also enable the organization to maneuver in dynamic/changing situations.

Leadership team assessment and alignment are important. Figure 8-6 illustrates the leadership team assessment (Step 1 in Figure 8-5 ) for 10 members of a hospital leadership team as it compares to the current operational environment and the expectations of the external environment. As shown in Figure 8-6 , there is a tension between what the leadership team tends to be (more leadership oriented with a reasonable science and art balance) and the more management and science emphasis in leadership demanded by the external environment; the operating environment can be found between that tension. The external environment requirements, as perceived by the leadership team, are skewed toward management and science (the “analytical manager” quadrant). The perception of leadership would lead one to believe that the external environment requires greater cost control, accountability, and adherence to policies and rules, although relationships are still important, as is some leadership focus.

Assessing an organization’s leadership team is essential. Aligning the team to bring diversity of style, skills, experience, and abilities is essential for organizations if they are to maintain a robust and resilient, and even opportunistic, personality. In this model and assessment, both cultural diversity and individual diversity are valued because they enable the organization to better respond to dynamic organizational and external environments. In contrast, diversity of focus and diversity of organizational goals are not advantageous; a diverse leadership team brings robustness to solving organizational problems as long as the focus on the vision, mission, and goals are similar across the leadership team. An assessment that looks at leadership as a team, across organizational levels, operating environments, and external environment needs, is far better than simply relying on only individual leader assessments. 52

Figure 8-6 shows the results of a leadership team style assessment, including operating style and external environment expectations. Note that a considerable disconnect exists between the leadership style and the external environment requirements. The organizational operating style is balanced, whereas the leadership style composite is analytical leader (skewed toward science and leadership) and the external environment is analytical manager (skewed toward science and management). This is hypothesized to represent a leadership coping strategy. Aligning additional leadership team members to bring in more management- and science-oriented members may be an appropriate strategy in this case. Alternatives to adding team members would be to “buy” or have consultation with people who might add management and science abilities to the organization. Such a strategy can cause a problem over the long term, however, in that institutional knowledge could be more easily lost with this approach. When leadership style by organizational level is compared, there is much more propensity for leadership than management, as one looks down the organizational hierarchy, than an organization may be able to tolerate over the long term. In essence, it is important to understand and know the leadership team’s style and “personality” as it compares to operating style (how business gets done), as well as the expectations of the external environment.

FIGURE 8-6 Comparison of leadership team style, operating style, and external environment requirements for a leadership team.

Source: Reproduced from Ledlow, G., & Cwiek, M. (2005, July). The process of leading: Assessment and comparison of leadership team style, operating climate, and expectation of the external environment. Proceedings of Global Business and Technology Association. Lisbon, Portugal.

Leaders are gifted in different ways, with different personalities and varying skill sets. All leaders can grow and become more balanced and achieve greater effectiveness. Notably, some common factors found in those who succeed in becoming dynamic culture leaders, including the desire to learn more about themselves, the motivation to learn and practice new skill sets, and the need to grow and to become more tomorrow than what the person is today. This is not the easiest path to travel, but it is the path that optimizes the likelihood of leadership effectiveness and success.

The DCL model categorizes leaders and managers, scientists and artists, based on the diamond configuration of the assessment tool. Overlaying this categorization scheme on top of the assessment are the following classifications: relationship leader, relationship manager, technical or analytic leader, technical or analytic manager, balanced leader, equalized leader-manager, and balanced manager ( Figure 8-7 ). In which category would you put yourself? This same schema can be used in assessing the operating style of the organization (such as relationship-led operation or relationship-managed operation) and the external environment expectations (such as technical or analytically led environment or technical or analytically managed environment). The following discussion and figures illustrate a comparison between two hospitals’ leadership teams.

Comparison: Two Community-Based Hospitals

Two community hospital leadership teams were assessed using the DCL Leadership Alignment Assessment Tool. The first hospital is a military community hospital in the Western United States and the other hospital is in the North Central/Midwest United States. The two hospitals, with similar services and case mix indexes, are highlighted in Table 8-5 .

When comparing the two hospitals, both Hospital A (federal) and Hospital B (nonprofit) are skewed strongly towards leadership and somewhat towards science. Hospital A is slightly higher in both areas than Hospital B. There is a moderate amount of diversity in the area of art and little in the area of management for both hospitals, with Hospital B having slightly higher scores. Both hospitals’ leadership teams demonstrate the analytical leader, as compared to the relationship leader or relationship manager team composites. The perceived operating environment for both Hospital A and Hospital B is fairly balanced; however, Hospital B is now slightly skewed toward art and Hospital A toward science.

FIGURE 8-7 Categorization scheme for DCL model.

Table 8-5 Hospital Comparisons

Hospital A

Hospital B

Type of facility

Short-term acute care

Short-term acute care

Type of control

Government, federal

Voluntary, nonprofit

Total staffed beds

76

88

The external environment requirements, as perceived by Hospital A, are skewed toward management and science (the analytical manager quadrant); for Hospital B, they are slightly skewed toward leadership and science (analytical leader). For Hospital A, the perception is that the external environment requires greater cost control, accountability, and adherence to policies and rules, whereas with Hospital B, there is a balanced focus on vision and decision making based on analysis.

When leadership style by organizational level is compared, there is much more propensity for leadership than management as you go down the organizational hierarchy. However, and most interestingly, Level 3 and Level 4 are balanced with a slight skew for art and science for both Hospital A and Hospital B. At this level of the organization, both scientist and artist are needed to deal with dynamic environments. The DCL Leadership Alignment Assessment summaries and charts are shown in Tables 8-6 through 8-9 , and Figures 8-8 through 8-17 .

Table 8-6 Hospital A DCL Scores

Levels

Level

Level

Level

Organizational level (levels from CEO)

0–1

  2

  3

  4

Leadership

100

 85

 70

 80

Art

 50

 25

 50

 40

Management

  0

 15

 30

 20

Science

 50

 75

 50

 60

Number in Category

  1

  2

  1

  1

Table 8-7 Hospital B DCL

Levels

Level

Level

Level

Organizational level (levels from CEO)

0–1

  2

  3

  4

Leadership

100

 80

 74

 80

Art

 50

 35

 50

 50

Management

  0

 20

 26

 20

Science

 50

 60

 50

 50

Number in Category

  1

  2

  5

  2

Table 8-8 Hospital A DCL Mean Composite Scores

Leadership and Management Team Range of Scores

Leadership and Management Team Composite Organization Operation Range of Scores

Leadership and Management Team Composite of Organization’s Operating Environment

Leadership

84.00

56.92

36.00

Art

38.00

56.00

32.00

Management

16.00

43.08

64.00

Science

62.00

44.00

68.00

FIGURE 8-8 Hospital A DCL leadership team individual leader results.

FIGURE 8-9 Hospital A DCL leadership team mean result composite.

FIGURE 8-10 Hospital A DCL scores operating style mean composite.

FIGURE 8-11 Hospital A DCL scores external expectations style mean composite.

FIGURE 8-12 Hospital A DCL mean composite scores overlay.

FIGURE 8-13 Hospital B DCL leadership team individual leader results.

FIGURE 8-14 Hospital B DCL leadership team mean result composite.

FIGURE 8-15 Hospital B DCL scores operating style mean composite.

FIGURE 8-16 Hospital B DCL scores external expectations style mean composite.

FIGURE 8-17 Hospital B DCL mean composite scores overlay.

Table 8-9 Hospital B DCL Mean composite scores

Leadership and Management Team Range of Scores

Leadership and Management Team Composite Organization Operation Range of Scores

Leadership and Management Team Composite of Organization’s Operating Environment

Leadership

79.00

60.38

54.00

Art

48.00

44.00

44.00

Management

21.00

39.62

46.00

Science

52.00

56.00

56.00

Which hospital leadership team is more “diverse”? Which hospital leadership team is more aligned with the operating climate and external environment expectations?

DCL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Organizations are more dynamic today than ever before. With the advent of the Information Age, the fluidity of professional and family life, and the competitive nature of the global marketplace, more of an entrepreneurial environment can be found in many of today’s organizations:

· Entrepreneurial organizations reflect a different set of underlying assumptions principally because they shift the focus away from producing specific, predetermined behavior by means of direction and formal controls. Instead, they encourage coordination through shared understanding enables individuals to choose effective actions. Organization structure and controls can no longer be depicted as tools that mechanically determine behaviors. We must shift our thinking away from the organization as an entity, to members’ choice and understanding. 53

Leaders in this environment cannot rest on the laurels of “cookie-cutter” methods, but must instead learn and become effective in developing teams of professionals within dynamic cultures. To see the reality of the dynamic nature of organizations today, one need simply consider the changes wrought by increased human diversity, information overload, the evolution of technology, the increasing sophistication of the consumer, and the introduction of e-commerce.

Leaders need to have a firm grasp of how they can develop an organizational culture that creates a thriving environment for their organization. In 1999, Edgar Schein defined “culture” as the basic assumptions and beliefs shared by members of a group or organization. 54 “A major function of culture is to help us understand the environment and determine how to respond to it, thereby reducing anxiety, uncertainty, and confusion.” 55 The key question then becomes, how do leaders shape culture? Schein suggests that leaders have the greatest potential for embedding and reinforcing aspects of culture with the following five primary mechanisms: 56

· • Attention: Leaders communicate their priorities, values, and concerns by their choice of things to ask about, measure, comment on, praise, and criticize.

· • Reaction to crisis: This reaction increases the potential for learning about values and assumptions.

· • Role modeling: Leaders set the example for others by their actions and behaviors.

· • Allocation of resources: The distribution of resources to units within the organization.

· • Criteria for selection and dismissal: Leaders can influence culture by recruiting people who have particular values, skills, and traits, and then promoting (or firing) them.

Schein also described five secondary mechanisms: 57

· • Design of organizational structure: A centralized structure indicates that only the leader can determine what is important; a decentralized structure reinforces individual initiative and sharing.

· • Design of systems and procedures: Where emphasis is placed shows concern and ambiguity reduction issues.

· • Design of facilities: For example, modern, clean, and eye appealing.

· • Stories, legends, and myths: Stories to tell about great employees, leaders, or community figures that reinforce positive actions and behaviors.

· • Formal statements: Creeds, or mission and vision statements of the organization; many of these can be found framed and hanging on walls of the organization.

It is imperative that health organization leaders understand the various factors that influence culture. Culture is more stable and more difficult to change than climate, because climate usually does not remain stable over time. Whether employees are “happy” today (a climate indicator) is only of temporal importance. By comparison, culture indicators (e.g., processes, incentive systems, communication environment, understanding of goals and how they fit into the work to achieve success) are much more meaningful and important.

The DCL model is a set of constructs with the goal of unifying the various leadership theories that previously have received attention. Further, the DCL model can be studied immediately and put to work by leaders and organizational scholars intent on developing highly effective leadership. In their book The Success Paradigm, 58 Mike Friesen and James Johnson discuss the importance of leadership in the integration of quality and strategy to achieve organizational success. In this book, the leadership process is described as critical for success. The DCL model is presented as an application of theory to advance existing contingency leadership theories, coupled with a strategic process. It is, therefore, presented as a prescriptive model.

Today’s complex, ever-changing organizations are experiencing a shortage in leadership effectiveness, not because of a lack of talent or goodwill, but because of the demanding balancing act required for success. This balance of scientist attributes and artist attributes defined in the DCL model provides the pathway for success. According to experts, leadership is the pivotal issue in organizational success. The DCL model is intended to become central to the understanding of leadership in organizations and the people who lead them.

The DCL model, in its current state of development, is being tested in both theoretical and practical ways. It currently provides a conceptual framework for the better understanding of complex organizations and serves as a model for advancing leader effectiveness. Further, tools for leadership assessment and direct application are being refined to advance the practical utility of this model in all organizational settings. In summary, the DCL model includes the following recommendations:

· • An assessment of the organization’s leadership team and ultimately the development of a team should focus on building a team that is diverse in terms of the leadership, management, art, and science attributes, while simultaneously being rooted in the fundamental values, beliefs, and mission of the organization.

· • An organization’s leadership should focus on communication improvement, strategic planning, decision-making alignment, employee enhancement, and learning organization improvement, in a regular, cyclical sequence.

· • Leaders should become competent in the use of the process constructs (e.g., communication improvement, strategic planning) included in this model, so that predetermined and consistent alternative strategies and applications can be selected based on the situation.

· • The sequence should be repeated based on the tempo of change in the environment: Rapid change creates a need to work through the sequence at a faster pace. It is estimated that in health care today, this sequence should be planned for every three to four years.

The DCL model, as a leadership team alignment, macro, and culture creation model, integrates well with the reframing leadership and management in organizations model, an episodic leader style selection, and the frame emphasis platform developed by Bolman and Deal. Both models possess descriptive and prescriptive elements that can be learned and embedded into the organization culture of health organizations.

BOLMAN AND DEAL’S REFRAMING LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT IN ORGANIZATIONS MODEL 59

Bolman and Deal suggest that leaders must be situational/contingency oriented. Critical variables assist the leader in choosing the emphasis and style they need to use to be successful. Four constructs are considered important in this model: structural, human resources, political, and symbolic. Each of these constructs is important in its own right, but some are more important than others at critical times. Recent research literature from late 2008 used Bolman and Deal’s model to suggest several applications for this model in an academic healthcare organization. 60

With Bolman and Deal’s model, a leader must pay attention to the four organizational constructs, each of which has assumptions, attributes, and imperatives for the leader to consider. This section summarizes each of these dimensions. As we progress through this model, pay close attention to the application of the model.

The structural construct (called a “frame”) deals with how organizations “structure” work processes, how they establish formal relationships, and how groups facilitate coupling (coupling is the level of adherence to organizational policies, rules, procedures, and social expectations). The structural frame assumptions are outlined here:

· • Organizations exist to accomplish established goals.

· • Organizational design/structural form can be designed to “fit” the situation.

· • Organizations work best when governed by rationality and norms.

· • Specialization permits more productivity and individual expertise.

· • Coordination and control are essential to effectiveness.

· • Problems originate from inappropriate structures and inadequate systems that can be resolved through restructuring and developing new systems (modern reengineering).

The human resources construct or frame embraces McGregor’s Theory Y model. This dimension is critical to focus and synergize human energy in an organization. Human resources frame assumptions are as follows:

· • Organizations exist to serve human needs (rather than the reverse).

· • Organizations and people need each other.

· • When the fit between the individual and the organization is poor, one or both will suffer: individuals will be exploited, or will seek to exploit the organization, or both.

· • A good fit between individual and organization benefits both: human beings find meaningful and satisfying work, and organizations get the human talent and energy that they need. 61

· • Moreover, the idea that people have needs is a central element in commonsense psychology. 62

This model’s essential theme regarding human resources management is best summed up in the following quotations:

· The theories of Maslow, McGregor, and Argyris suggested that conflict between individual and organization would get worse as organizations became larger (with greater impersonality, longer chains of command, and more complex rules and control systems) and as society became better educated and more affluent (producing more people whose higher-level needs are salient). 63

· One solution to that problem [treating employees as children] is participation—giving workers more opportunity to influence decisions. 64

The political construct or frame deals with resource allocation within an organization. The interesting aspect of this construct is that people create interesting webs of relationships to gain and reallocate resources. Political frame assumptions are based on power, conflict, and coalitions:

· • “The propositions of the political frame do not attribute politics to individual selfishness, myopia, or incompetence. They assert that interdependence, difference, scarcity, and power relations will inevitably produce political forces, regardless of the players. It is naive and romantic to hope that politics can be eliminated in organizations. [Leaders and managers] can, however, learn to understand and manage political processes.” 65

· • This frame suggests that organizational goals are set through negotiations among members of coalitions. A typical organization has a confusing set of multiple goals, many of which are in conflict with one another.

· • “The political perspective suggests that the goals, structure, and policies of an organization emerge from an ongoing process of bargaining and negotiation among the major interest groups. . . . the political view suggests that the exercise of power is a natural part of an ongoing contest.” 66

The symbolic construct or frame deals with meaning. This dimension gets at the heart of what organizational members feel about issues and events. Specifically, the meaning of the event is more important than the event. A symbol is something that stands for or means something else.

· The symbolic frame seeks to interpret and illuminate the basic issues of meaning and faith that make symbols so powerful in every aspect of the human experience, including life in organizations. This frame presents a world that departs significantly from traditional canons of organizational theories: rationality, certainty, and linearity. It is based on the following unconventional assumptions:

· • What is important is not the event but what it means;

· • Events and meaning are loosely coupled;

· • Most significant events and processes in organizations are ambiguous and uncertain;

· • The greater the ambiguity and uncertainty, the harder rationality and logical approaches to analysis, problem solving and decision making are to use;

· • Faced with ambiguity and uncertainty, humans create symbols to decrease confusion, increase predictability, and provide direction; and

· • Many organizational events and processes are important for what they express than for what they produce: secular myths, rituals, ceremonies, and sagas that help people find meaning and order in experiences.

· Symbolic phenomena are particularly visible in organizations with unclear goals and uncertain technologies; in such organizations, most things are ambiguous. Who has power? What is success? Why was a decision made? What are the goals? The answers are often veiled in a fog of uncertainty. 67

Utilization of the symbolic frame focuses on three types of concepts:

· • Concepts of meaning:

· • Dilemmas and paradoxes are everywhere.

· • Organizations are full of questions that have no answers.

· • Organizations are full of problems that cannot be solved.

· • Organizations have many events that cannot be understood fully.

· • Concepts of beliefs

· • Concepts of faith

The leader uses the following tools within the symbolic frame:

· • Myths: To reconcile differences and resolve dilemmas:

· • Fairy tales

· • Stories

· • Metaphors: To make confusion comprehensible

· • Scenarios and symbolic activities: To provide direction amid uncertainty, to provide forums for socialization, to reduce anxiety and ambiguity, and to convey messages to external constituencies:

· • Rituals

· • Ceremonies

· • Heroes, heroines, shamans, priests, and storytellers: To provide guides to and interpretations of what life in organizations really mean

· Historically, all human cultures have used ritual and ceremony to create order, clarity, and predictability, particularly in dealing with issues or problems that are too complex, mysterious, or random to be controlled in any other way. We all create rituals to reduce uncertainty and anxiety. 68

Important to the understanding of organizations and leading organizations, then, is culture. The four frames, when integrated, form a unique culture for each organization.

How do leaders effectively utilize Bolman and Deal’s model? First we need to understand which actions leaders use in each frame. Let’s look at each frame in an overview.

Structural Leadership

· • Leaders do their homework.

· • Leaders develop a new model of the relationship of structure, strategy, and environment for their organization.

· • Leaders focus on implementation.

· • Leaders continually experiment, evaluate, and adapt.

· Though structural leadership has received less attention than it deserves, it can be a very powerful approach. Structural leaders lead through analysis and design rather than charisma and inspiration. Their success depends on developing the right blueprint for the relationship between their organization’s structure and strategy, as well as on finding ways to get that blueprint accepted. 69

Human Resources Leadership

· • Leaders believe in people and communicate that belief.

· • Leaders are visible and accessible.

· • Leaders empower: they increase participation, provide support, share information, and move decision making as far down the organization as possible.

· Human resource leadership has generated an enormous amount of attention. Until very recently, in fact, human resource concepts dominated the literature on managerial leadership. The human resource literature has focused particularly on interpersonal relationships between superiors and subordinates and on the value of openness, sensitivity, and participation. When they are successful, human resource leaders become catalysts and servant-leaders. 70

Political Leadership

· • Leaders clarify what they want and what they can get.

· • Leaders assess the distribution of power and interests.

· • Leaders build linkages to other stakeholders.

· • Leaders persuade first, negotiate second, and use coercion only as a last resort.

· Effective political leaders are advocates who are clear about their agenda and sensitive to political reality and who build the alliances that they need to move their organization forward. 71

Symbolic Leadership

· • Leaders interpret experience (transactional [exchange theory] versus transforming [inspire to reach higher needs and purposes]).

· • Leaders are transforming leaders who are visionaries.

· • Leaders use symbols to capture attention.

· • Leaders frame experience (i.e., reduce the ambiguity and uncertainty through symbolism).

· • Leaders discover and communicate a vision.

· • Leaders tell stories.

· Symbolic leaders are artists, poets, or prophets who use symbols and stories to communicate a vision that builds faith and loyalty among an organization’s employees and other stakeholders. 72

“Wise leaders understand their own strengths, work to expand them, and build teams that together can provide leadership in all four modes—structural, political, human resource, and symbolic.” 73 In essence, a situational leader is what is advocated. “Leadership is always an interactive process between the leader and the led. Organizations need leaders who can provide a persuasive and durable sense of purpose and direction, rooted deeply in human values and the human spirit.” 74

The prescriptive aspect of the Bolman and Deal model is summarized in Tables 8-10 and 8-11 . Upon reviewing the tables, you may notice that this model has significant connections to other theories, such as media richness theory.

Bolman and Deal propose that pluralism slows research by impeding communication, in that different disciplines and theories use different languages. Because they used interdisciplinary research on leadership to create their model, Bolman and Deal had to develop their own “language” and a common understanding for people to utilize the model. By doing so, these scholars reduced the “Tower of Babel” problem. When you apply, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate leadership theories and models in your own unique circumstances, it will be important to understand and create a common language (and be consistent).

Table 8-10 Bolman and Deal: Choosing a Frame

Frame

Conditions for Salience

Structural

Clear goals and information; well-understood cause–effect relationships; strong technologies and information systems; low conflict; low ambiguity; low uncertainty; stable legitimate authority

Human resources

High or increasing employee leverage; low or declining employee morale and motivation; relatively abundant or increasing resources; low or moderate conflict and uncertainty; low or moderate diversity

Political

Scarce or declining resources; goal and value conflicts; high or increasing diversity; diffuse or unstable distribution of power

Symbolic

Unclear and ambiguous goals and information; poorly understood cause–effect relationships; weak technologies and information systems; culturally diverse

Source: Adapted from Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. 315 .

Table 8-11 Bolman and Deal: Assessing Frame Selection

Question

Structural Frame

Human Resources Frame

Political Frame

Symbolic Frame

How important are commitment and motivation?

Unimportant

Important

?

Important

How important is the technical quality of the decision?

Important

?

Unimportant

Unimportant

How much ambiguity and uncertainty are present?

Low to moderate

Moderate

Moderate to high

High

How scarce are resources?

Moderately scarce

Moderately abundant to abundant

Scarce or increasingly scarce

Scarce to abundant

How much conflict and diversity are present?

Low to moderate

Moderate

Moderate to high

Moderate to high

Are we working in a top-down or bottom-up manner?

Top down

Top down

Bottom up

Top down or bottom up

Source: Adapted from Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. 326 .

Now we turn to three models that use different constructs but are inherently situational or contingency leadership models. After the summary of each model, an analysis of these models and the Bolman and Deal model is presented as an example.

LYNN’S LEADERSHIP ART AND SCIENCE IN PUBLIC LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT MODEL 75

Lynn suggests that most situational leadership models are correct but are difficult to prove. As the number of practitioner-based models of situational leadership increases, Lynn strongly recommends that empirical research and evidence of effectiveness be employed to complement any practitioner model. An interdisciplinary balance of “art” and “science” is the best method for situational model development. “The use of conceptual frameworks delineating agency problems to study the incentive effects of goals is surely a better basis for advising practitioners than ideologically justified advocacy of performance measurement.” 76 Agency theory and game theory provide a scientific “platform” from which to research, prove, and apply situational leadership theory. According to Lynn, having a way to think and conceptualize is more important to effective situational leadership than employing half-baked practitioner, “art-based” approaches.

Lynn’s situational leadership perspective supports a long-term, individualized approach. Under this model, both practitioner-based and empirically supported concepts are integrated into a conceptual decision-making or thinking approach for leadership. The leader is more important than the organization in this decision-support-based framework. Skills paramount for leaders include evaluation, critical thinking, and synthesis of interdisciplinary ideas so as to develop an individual situational model of leadership.

In 1987, Lynn found that high-level public-sector officials (members of the Reagan administration) tried to change their organizations with varying success. Accordingly, Lynn noted that success depended on four factors: 77

· • Personality

· • Skills and experience

· • A design for change

· • Favorability of the situation

YUKL’S MULTIPLE LINKAGE MODEL 78

Based on a comprehensive leadership approach, the multiple linkage model was first introduced in 1971, with refinements to the model continuing to appear through the 1990s. This model, which was built on previous leadership models, embraces the contingency approach. The key issue is the interacting effects of leader behavior and situational variables on organizational performance.

Yukl advocates a more complex and comprehensive model than was offered by earlier contingency theories. His model proposes that leaders, in the short term, evaluate and improve intervening variable situations for effectiveness. In the long term, leaders change the situation to better match their organizational strengths and achieve the mission. A transformational leader uses an entrepreneurial style and an articulate and clear vision to shift the situation toward a more favorable environment. Long-term situational variables include the following:

· • A formal reward system (subordinate effort)

· • Intrinsically motivating properties of the work itself (subordinate effort)

· • Technology (performance)

· • Geographical distribution (performance)

· • Policies and procedures (performance)

· • Informal practices that have evolved over time (performance)

Yukl’s model suggests that leaders are in control (effective leaders, that is) of the situation more so than—or at least as much as—the organization’s status quo or political environment. In this model, empirical evidence is more important than practitioner-based situational leadership schemes. The ability to evaluate short-term intervening variables, establish a long-term vision, and be the primary catalyst (director) driving long-term situational change—these characteristics are the essence of the effective situational leader. According to Yukl, evaluation, learning, interpersonal, and entrepreneurial skills (from empirical evidence) are the leader’s most important skills.

HARGROVE AND GLIDEWELL’S IMPOSSIBLE LEADERSHIP MODEL 79

Hargrove and Glidewell’s model is based on “impossible jobs in leadership,” such as the positions filled by elected officials, appointed officials, and persons working in the public goods and services arena. In this model, coping—rather than leading—takes center stage. “The commissioner must always be prepared, however, for a shift in focal concerns and be ready to respond by shifting resources to possible (sometimes impossible) professional mitigation of the problems stressed by the new concerns.” 80 The prudent public administrator (commissioner) learns to evaluate coalitions—political, governmental, and public—and incorporate coalition concerns into an overall vision for the organization.

An entrepreneurial leader—one who is flexible, is dynamic, and stands with expert power—is able to direct the organization through political storms, and manages and maintains emotional and structural equilibrium, through choosing and using situational coping strategies. Hargrove and Glidewell suggest that an accommodation strategy works better than a consensus creation strategy in this kind of scenario. Public “impossible jobs” have much ambiguity and uncertainty built into the situation: “‘the moves’ of commissioners must conform to rules that are constantly changing; in fact, the ‘players’ often disagree about what the rules are.” 81 To deal with this level of uncertainty, the leader must develop a firm sense of intuition.

The more able a leader is at developing contingency plans, and the better he or she masters the ability to effectively and quickly implement contingency plans, the more effective the leader is perceived to be. The leader is tied to the situation he or she inherits in the public sector, especially in “impossible-type jobs”; evaluating coalition power, establishing expert power, choosing and using coping strategies, developing a relatively short-term vision based on accommodation, and celebrating marginal intermittent victories are the essence of such a person’s situational leadership model. Hargrove and Glidewell’s approach suggests that the organization is the catalyst, rather than the leader, with regard to situational variables and that the “art” of the leader as practitioner is more important than the empirical evidence of effective public leadership. An effective leader who tries to control situational variables may well be a leader who can change expectations of both the political machine and the public.

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF FOUR MODELS

This analysis and comparison section is intended to help readers think critically about leadership models. Can you add insights to this analysis and comparison? The four leadership models analyzed and compared are Bolman and Deal’s reframing organizational leadership model, Lynn’s art and science of public management model, Yukl’s multiple linkage model, and Hargrove and Glidewell’s impossible leadership model. The four model citations follow:

· • Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

· • Hargrove, E. C., & Glidewell, J. C. (1990). Impossible jobs in public management. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

· • Lynn, L. E. Jr. (1994). Public management research: The triumph of art over science. Symposium on Public Management Scholarship. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(2), 231–287.

· • Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Five critical concepts can be used to evaluate the perspectives of the four models: (1) the time horizon, (2) the foundation base of the model, (3) the focal point (leader or organization centered), (4) the system employed or suggested for the leader to use, and (5) the important skills that an effective leader must possess to use the respective model. Table 8-12 presents the analysis and comparison of the models.

Regarding the time horizon, each model takes a slightly different approach. Yukl suggests that leaders use both a short-term strategy (affect intervening variables) and a long-term strategy (develop a vision and change situational variables). Bolman and Deal take a more immediate perspective overall. Because the reframing model is organization centered, short-term horizons and decision making are more important for the individual leader in this model. Hargrove and Glidewell suggest that, due to the ambiguous and dynamic nature of public jobs, a short-term horizon is most effective for leadership flexibility. Lynn, basing the model on integrating practitioner and empirical approaches, recommends that leaders develop individual synthesized situational models; thus development is a long-term endeavor but individual approaches can be used in both the short- and long-term time horizons.

The four models also use differing perspectives of foundational grounding. Yukl recommends that an empirically grounded model (movement toward a solid theory) is the best approach. Lynn suggests that more empirically supported approaches are needed in the leadership literature. Bolman and Deal offer both empirical support and practitioner-based foundations for their model. Due to the lack of empirical evidence and the best practices (qualitative) nature of their work, Hargrove and Glidewell’s model is grounded in practitioner-based evidence.

Table 8-12 Analysis and Comparison of Four Leadership Models

Situational Leadership Model

Time Horizon

Foundation

Focal Point

System Employed

Important Leader Skills

Yukl

Short and long term

Empirical evidence

Leader

Leader behavior in the short term, leader vision in the long term

Evaluation, learning, behavior effectiveness, and vision development

Bolman and Deal

More short than long term

More practitioner than empirical based

Organization

Decision–support system

Evaluation, decision making, application of “inert” knowledge

Hargrove and Glidewell

Short term

Practitioner based

Organization

Coping strategies

Evaluation, accommodation, coping scheme development

Lynn

More long than short term

More empirical than practitioner based

Leader

Individualized conceptual thinking and decision–support models

Evaluation, critical thinking, synthesis of interdisciplinary work

The focal point of each model can be derived from the disciplinary perspective of the model developer(s) and from the system employed or offered for the leader to utilize. Yukl comes from the behaviorist perspective, which suggests that leaders can individually provide the momentum and the environment for successful leadership. Yukl proposes that by employing behaviors that positively influence intervening variables in the short term and by articulating a clear vision to change situational variables into a more favorable position, leaders provide the focal emphasis of organizational life. Bolman and Deal, and Hargrove and Glidewell, coming from education and public administration disciplines, respectively, and collectively from organizational theory backgrounds, recommend “an organization influences leader” type of model. Evaluation of the situation, developing frames of analysis, and choosing an appropriate frame based on organizational reality are the essence of Bolman and Deal’s model, whereas Hargrove and Glidewell suggest that the organizational realities determine the leader’s choice of direction and coping strategies. Lynn focuses on the leader to develop a mixed (synthesized) model, individualized to the leader, based on empirical evidence and relying on practitioner-based concepts, to construct a successful situational leadership approach.

All four models suggest that a leader’s skill in evaluating the situation (situational analysis) is of paramount concern. Yukl, however, includes the importance of leader behavior development (short-term requirements) and vision development. Although all of the models incorporate an implied leader decision-making requirement, the Bolman and Deal model uses decision making in differing situations as a step in the leader’s sequence of “frame” analysis. Hargrove and Glidewell mandate negotiation skill—specifically, accommodation—and the development of coping strategies as skills required for the successful leader. Lynn, requiring the leader to dive deeply into Bloom’s Educational Learning Taxonomy, requires the leader to synthesize leadership literature and material to develop an individualized situational model.

The four models come from different perspectives; the critical issues, as examined here, can be arranged in a series of continua. Figure 8-18 offers an integrated look at the four models. Each of these situational leadership approaches is embedded in the developer(s)’s disciplinary perspective. Quite reasonably, each model requires the successful leader to master situation evaluation and learning skills. From there, each model depends on different critical concepts to provide the situational leader with a basis for action and decision making.

LEADERSHIP MEASUREMENT TOOLS

Much of the leadership research has been descriptive and qualitative; by comparison, fewer quantitative data are available. As a result, qualitative research has centered on a “theory building” methodology that uses such methods as biographies, observation activities, informal interviews, and the like. In contrast, quantitative research is a “theory testing” methodology that tries to prove causality—that is, one thing causes another thing to happen. This approach is normally associated with statistical applications such as the general linear model (t-tests, analysis of variance [ANOVA], analysis of covariance [ANCOVA], regression) or relationships (such as correlations). The theories highlighted in this text are but a small sample of the myriad leadership models that have been researched throughout the history of leadership. Truly, most leadership research has been conducted using surveys, observation, and factor analysis of experts. Rarely have leadership models that link leader styles, situational variables, and outcomes (performance) been evaluated. However, the models summarized in this text form the basis of much cuttingedge leadership thinking today and are most salient for health organization leadership.

FIGURE 8-18 Four-model analysis and comparison: evaluation continua.

A review of the literature suggests that a plethora of descriptive tools are available to measure or evaluate a leader’s style or success. Many of these tests use self-report scales. As a result, they introduce and maintain method bias. Despite this potential weakness, it is possible to control for bias by taking the test multiple times over a period of time. In this manner, a true response score might be found. Table 8-13 profiles these various test tools (instruments), all of which have been used in the literature with varying degrees of utility. Although Table 8-13 is certainly not an all-inclusive list of leadership tools on the market, the goal here is to present a balanced approach to the tools on the market that are otherwise readily available and cost-efficient.

SUMMARY

This chapter presented practical models for both students of leadership and mature practitioners of the art and science of leadership. Two evolving models and one established model of leadership were described at length: the omnibus leadership model, the dynamic culture leadership model, and the reframing organizations leadership model created by Bolman and Deal. These models can assist young leaders in honing their personal leadership practice; they are intended to invoke thought, reflection, and discussion. They are also prescriptive in that they provide a strategy for success and a model for practical implementation. Other differing, yet contemporary, situational leadership models were also presented from Lynn (leadership art and science in public leadership and management model), Yukl (multiple linkage model), and Hargrove and Glidewell (impossible leadership model). A variety of leadership measurement tools are also available with which to conduct personal and organizational evaluations.

Table 8-13 Leadership Tests and Measurement Instruments

Test

Measures

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

MLQ is designed to measure various characteristics associated with transformational leadership. Three subscales pertaining to transformational leadership are included—charisma, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation.

Leadership Competency Inventory (LCI)

Developed for individual use, the LCI measures and identifies four competencies essential to effective leadership: information seeking, conceptual thinking, strategic orientation, and customer service orientation.

Leadership Skills Inventory (LSI)

Developed for individual use, the LSI evaluates and measures competency in terms of planning and organizational skills, oral and written communication skills, decision-making skills, financial management skills, problem-solving skills, ethics and tolerance, personal/professional balance skills, and total inventory score.

Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), Individual Contributor

Developed for individual use, the LPI assesses five leadership practices: challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, modeling the way, and encouraging the heart.

Leadership Practices Inventory

The third edition of this instrument package approaches leadership as a measurable, learnable, and teachable set of behaviors. This 360-degree leadership assessment tool helps individuals and organizations measure their leadership competencies while guiding them through the process of applying leadership to real-life organizational challenges.

Leader Behavior Questionnaire

Developed for individual use, this instrument helps leaders to determine which changes or further skill developments are required for them to make full use of their capabilities for visionary leadership. The questionnaire is made up of 50 items measuring 10 key leadership scales: focus, respect for self and others, communication, bottom-line orientation, trust, length of vision span, risk, organizational leadership, empowerment, and cultural leadership.

Leader Behavior Analysis II, Revised

Developed for individual use, this self-scored questionnaire measures team leadership style flexibility, primary and secondary styles, effectiveness in matching leadership behaviors to the group situation, and tendencies to misuse or overuse various styles.

Leadership Team Alignment Assessment, Dynamic Culture Leadership (DCL)

The DCL instrument was developed to assess individual and group leadership versus management and science versus art “personalities” in comparison to organizational operating culture and external environment expectations. This assessment incorporates the DCL process: (1) communication improvement, (2) strategic and operational planning, (3) decision-making alignment, (4) employee enhancement, (5) knowledge management, and (6) repeat. A key premise is that a leadership team that is diverse (in leadership personalities), yet focused on organization goals, is better situated for internal and external changes and, therefore, for dynamic culture leadership.

Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations

This tool was developed for assessment of leadership ability in structural, human resources, political, and symbolic constructs called frames; it determines the leader’s dominant, secondary, tertiary, and least apt frames.