Five Hundred Years of
Leadership Theory:
Learning to Lead is about
Learning to Learn
Lucy E. Garrick, MA, WSD
Principle Consultant, NorthShore Group
The evolution of thought on the
subject leadership is vast and in-
creasingly complex. Over time, lead-
ership theorists have built upon each
others’ ideas and discoveries creating
an interdisciplinary study that draws
on many academic disciplines includ-
ing psychology, social psychology,
anthropology, design and systems
theory. The intent of this paper is to
examine the development of concepts
driving leadership theory, especially
those that have accentuated theoreti-
cal thought in the late 20th and early
21st centuries. Because the terms,
leadership and theory, have multiple
meanings, I wish to first clarify how
these terms shall be used herein.
Theories are a generalized set of
concepts which in themselves are not
necessarily correct. Although much
leadership theory cited here is based
on empirical and field research on
positional leaders, researchers often
seek to measure only a tiny slice of
the activities involved in leadership
and most consistently limited theory
NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD
1
to persons with formal authority. My
examination of leadership theory
does not necessarily imply formal po-
sition or authority, nor is there an at-
tempt to present a comprehensive
compilation of all organizational lead-
ership theory. Leadership is, there-
fore, defined by the concepts that the
theorists emphasize. Major shifts in
the development of leadership theory
are revealed, primarily as held in
Western European institutions. Lead-
ership theories are grouped by seven
major themes, some of which overlap
in chronology. The themes are: Con-
trol, Trait, Behavioral, Basis for Au-
thority, Effective Behavior, Open-
Systems and Inter-Personal Leader-
ship. Figure 1 provides a chronologi-
cal summary of major leadership
themes and theorists.
OVERVIEW OF LEADERSHIP
CHRONOLOGY
Regardless of the focus, each
leadership theory tends to pull for-
ward ideas from its predecessors. It
is, therefore, useful to understand
major shifts in theoretical thinking and ory-base is in grounding one’s lead-
how later theories have built upon ership work in both ethical and practi-
prior ideas leading to current themes. cal. Concepts that have been objec-
It is also interesting to note that due tively studied and evaluated provide a
to the frequently narrow focus of aca- deepened exploration of the topic for
demic research, new theories often the practitioner of leadership and a
overlap and draw from concepts and guide for the consultant or educator in
work of theorists in earlier periods. facilitating a course of leadership de-
The value of learning and using a the- velopment that does not harm.
Mitchell, Larson & Green, Attribution Theory (1977)
* Machiavelli
Hersey & Blanchard, Situational Leadership Theory (1977))
The Prince (1531)
¾ Lewin, Lippitt & White, (1939) Kets de Vries, Psychodynamics (1979)
¾ Stodgill & Coons (1948) Schein, Culture (1982)
Carlyle, (1841)
Great Man Theories
 Weber, (1942) Misumi, Performance-Maintenance (1985)
Galton, (1870)  Stodgill, (1948) Goleman, Emotional Intelligence (1985)
James (1880)
Fiedler, Contingency Theory (1967)
Hollander, Exchange Theory (1964, 1979)
House, Path-Goal Theory (1971) ☯ Bass & Avolio, Transformational Leadership (1990-94)
Vroom, Decision Making (1973) ☯ Goleman, Primal Leadership (19xx)
Argyris, Double-loop learning (1976) ☯ Heifetz, Adaptive Leadership (1990-94)
☯ Kets de Vries, Psychodynamics (2004)

☯ Burns, Transformational Leadership (1985)

☯ Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (1977 )

1990
1530 1840 1900 1940 1970 1980 2000 2004

* Control Trait Theories ¾Behavior Effective Behavior Open Systems ☯ Inter-Personal Leadership
Control of Courage Learning Contextual Complexity Event Management Values
Information Physical Strength Leaders & Subordinate Situations Integrity, moral intention
Regard for Charisma  Basis of Influence Culture Mentoring
informers & Heroism Authority Multi-lateral influence Role making Role models
informants Charisma + Decision-making Empowerment
Leadership Emotional behavior
Style

Figure 1. Major themes in leadership theory: 1530 – 2004

While leadership is “… one of the ries” (Bass, 1990, p.37). Great-Man

world’s oldest preoccupations…” theories assumed that the course of
(Bass, 1990, p.3), the formal devel- human history and the evolution of
opment of theories evolved slowly. societies were due to the personal
Most historical sources on the subject traits held by men of extraordinary
cite the earliest writings on leadership character and assumed that leaders
in Western culture with the publication were endowed with superior qualities
of Machiavelli’s The Prince in 1531. that gave them influence over the
“Perhaps the earliest sophisticated masses without regard to situational
discussion of the processes of lead- contexts. Examples of such leaders
ership is that provided by Machiavelli” are cited as Moses and Thomas Jef-
(Machiavelli, 1977 as cited in Smith ferson. It would be nearly 100 years
and Peterson, 1988, p.2). The next before the next significant shift in
substantial writings about leadership leadership theory emerged.
theory were published 300 hundred In the late 1930s and 1940s lead-
years later in the 1800s, and are often ership research began to focus on
referred to as the “Great-Man Theo- behavior and the role of authority. In

NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD

2
their analysis of leadership research
Smith and Peterson (1988) state,
Those whose work we have so far
examined have chosen to define
leadership as a quality which is in-
herent in particular persons. This
quality has been seen as enabling
such persons to achieve roles in so-
ciety which legitimize the exercise of
influence over others, and as ensur-
ing their use such powers effectively.
A modification of this view became
popular from the 1930s onward,
stimulated in particular by the ener-
gies of Kurt Lewin (p. 8).
Kurt Lewin, Ron Lippitt and R.K.
White performed research that con-
cluded that leadership was more than
traits; rather it was behaviors that
could be learned. In the 1940s and
1950s, Max Weber as well as Stodgill
and Coons began to examine more
specifically the role of charisma and
the concept of leadership styles
(Lewin, Lippit & White, 1939; Weber,
1947; Stodgill & Coons, 1957, as
cited in Smith and Peterson, 1988).
The work of Lewin et al. precipitated
an avalanche of academic research
that has since been both frustrating
and rewarding ever since. According
to Smith and Peterson (1988) “… a
third criticism of the early leader
styles research was the most compel-
ling: the research failed to reach gen-
eralizable conclusions because it
failed to take account of the circum-
stances within which leadership acts
occur” (p. 11). Nevertheless, relent-
less interest in unlocking the myster-
ies of leadership eventually led re-
searchers to consider a greater num-
ber of the variables in organizational
leadership (pp. 11-14).
NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD
3
As leadership theorists focused on
more complex and therefore realistic
research strategies, research increas-
ingly took place in the field. Studies
were conducted about decision mak-
ing and Contingency Theory was in-
troduced by Fred Feidler (1967). “The
theory (called the “Contingency
Model”) postulates that the effective-
ness of a group is contingent on the
relationship between the leadership
style and the degree to which the
group situation enables the leader to
exert influence.” (p. 15). Fiedler’s
theory was followed by another surge
in research that included elaborate
models for decision making (Vroom
and Yetton, 1973) but, for the most
part, did not take into account a
broader context of the organizations
and the circumstances surrounding
them. Instead studies emphasized
leadership behavior within organiza-
tions and looked at issues such as
complexity of choice, (House, 1971,
as cited in Bass, 1990). In the mid-
1970s the stage was set to look
deeper inside the self by Chris Argy-
ris’s (1976) ground-breaking book,
Increasing Effective Leadership. Ar-
gyris’ background in psychology was
one of the first leadership theories to
take into consideration a leader’s abil-
ity to become aware of his or her own
behavior and its influence of subordi-
nates and peers.
In the next decade researchers
began to focus on broader contextual
elements such follower capacities,
rewards and punishment, culture and
emotional development. This group
of theories considered aspects of
leadership that came from systems
outside the leader’s organization. It
became inevitable that current lead-
ership theories combine many of the
concepts of Effective Behavior, and
Open Systems into what I have called
Inter-Personal Leadership. Such
theories tend accentuate ideals based
on personal or organizational values,
moral intention and empowerment of
others. With more than 200 years of
leadership theory behind us, at this
point it is worthwhile to look more
deeply at some of the classic leader-
ship concepts which have endured to
become foundations for leadership
theories of the current age.
Argyris: Setting the Foundations of
Inter- and Intra-Personal Leader-
ship
Argyris (1976) laid the ground
work that shifted questions about
leadership from the narrow confines
of style and role, to understanding the
conditions that control leadership be-
havior. He was one of the first schol-
ars to emphasize the role of personal
development and its impact on or-
ganizations. In his 1976 book, In-
creasing Leadership Effectiveness,
Argyris introduced the concept of
“congruence” (p.14) and its role in
creating effective leaders. Argyris ex-
plained that, “Congruence means that
one’s espoused theory matches his
theory-in-use—that is one’s behavior
fits his espoused theory of action (p.
14), He explained that by creating
conditions for congruence, effective
leadership behavior will begin to sup-
port itself. “If one helps create situa-
tions in which others can be congru-
ent, his own congruence is sup-
ported” (p. 14). His model for devel-
oping effective behavior hinged on
these his concepts of espoused the-
ory of action and theory-in-use (p.6).
NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD
4
When someone is asked how he
would behave under certain cir-
cumstances, the answer he
usually gives is his espoused
theory of action. This is the the-
ory to which he gives allegiance,
and which, upon request, he
communicates with others.
However, the theory that actu-
ally governs his actions is his
theory-in-use, which may [or
may not] be compatible with his
espoused theory; furthermore,
the individual may or may not be
aware of the incompatibility of
the two theories (p. 6).
Argyris developed two models for
behavioral theory-in-use called Model
I and Model II. Using field research,
Argyris found that most humans em-
ploy what he called Model I theories-
in-use which are primarily intended to
maintain control and protect the indi-
vidual. The consequences of Model I
behavior are that it tends to create
defensiveness and therefore prohibit
learning. Argyris called this type of
learning: Single-loop Learning” (pp.
17-20). Argyris went on to explain the
consequences of single-loop learning
for organizations as follows:
People programmed with Model I
theories of action produce Model I
group and organization-al dynamics
that include quasi-resolution of con-
flict, uncertainty avoidance, mistrust,
conformity, saving face, inter-group
rivalry, invalid information for impor-
tant problems and valid information
for unimportant problems, mispercep-
tion, miscommunication and parochial
interest (p.20).
A second behavioral model, Model
II Theory-in-use, leads to more effec-
tive outcomes for individuals and or-
ganizations by sharing decision mak-
ing with others who may have differ-
ing viewpoints. “The behavioral
strategies of Model II involve sharing
power with anyone who has the com-
petence and who is relevant in decid-
ing or implementing the action” (p.
22). Model II Theory-in-use is consis-
tent with learning systems in organi-
zations and the use of dialogue.
Model II does not reject the skill or
competence to be articulate and
precise about one’s purpose. It
does reject the purpose of advo-
cacy, because the typical purpose
of advocacy is to win. Model II cou-
ples articulateness and advocacy
with an invitation to others to con-
front one’s views, to alter them, in
order to produce the position that is
based on the most complete valid
information possible and to which
people involved can become inter-
nally committed. This means that
the actor (Model II) is skilled at in-
viting double-loop learning (p. 20).
Although Argyris is not heavily
credited in popular leadership litera-
ture, modern theories of leadership
echo his work over and over. Argyris
proposes that in order to understand
the effect of his or her own behavior
in relation to others, leaders need to
be willing to collaborate with others to
obtain an accurate view of reality and
maintain a willingness to learn and
change. Argyris did not consider
double-loop learning to be a simple,
predictable process; rather it offered
an opportunity to progress in learning
leadership effectiveness while setting
the stage for new generation of lead-
ership theories embracing self-
awareness and personal growth as
foundations for effective leadership.
NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD
5
The goal was to help people learn
how to extricate themselves from
this Model I trap and move toward
Model II. Such learning would re-
quire that individuals reflect on
what informs their present behavior
and question it genuinely. By this
means people perform double-loop
learning, which we have sug-
gested, is not within the repertoire
of individuals programmed with
Model I theories-in-use (p.23).
OPEN SYSTEMS AND
LEADERSHIP THEORY
Building on the concepts of
learned leadership, the next wave of
theorists began to consider other in-
fluences. In the Bass and Stodgill’s
Handbook of Leadership: Theory, re-
search & managerial applications,
Bernard Bass (1990) suggested that
“An open-systems point of view im-
plies sensitivity to the larger environ-
ment and organizations in which
leaders and their subordinates are
embedded” (p. 50). Some of the most
significant influences included in that
larger environment include superiors,
peers, subordinates, and family sys-
tems, as well as organizational, in-
dustrial, national and ethnic cultures.
Attribution and Situational Theo-
ries
Theories which examine the influ-
ences of subordinates and peers are
referred to as attribution theories
(Feldman, 1981; Green and Mitchell,
(1979, as cited in Smith and Peter-
son, 1988, pp. 37, 48-52). Indirectly,
attribution theories built on Argyris’s
ideas that congruence supports con-
gruence by showing that leaders’ be-
haviors are a consequence of the in-
terpretation of subordinates and
peers. These concepts led to further
research on the role of leadership
styles related to circumstances. Her-
sey and Blanchard (1969a, 1969b,
1982a, as cited, 1990) conducted
many studies leading to a situational
model for leadership that prescribes
behavior in relation to the competen-
cies and capacities of subordinates.
In the situational leadership model,
leaders are evaluated in terms of their
concern to task and relationships (p.
488), and an inter-dependence is
created between the concerns of the
leader and the maturity of subordi-
nates. This model guides the man-
ager to apply any one of four leader-
ship styles appropriate to any leader-
subordinate situation: “delegating,
participating, selling and telling” (pp.
488-494). The simplicity of the model
is useful and appealing, however it
does not emphasize leader congru-
ence. Nevertheless, its concepts and
the concepts of Argyris are embed-
ded in the 1990s work of journalist
and psychologist, Daniel Goleman
which became popular through his
book Emotional Intelligence (Gole-
man 1985).
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional Intelligence provided a
new prescription to situational leader-
ship in which four fundamental capa-
bilities: self-awareness, self-manage-
ment, social-awareness and social
skill are identified. Each capability is,
in turn, is composed of specific sets
of competencies. (p. 25). Proprietary
research drew direct correlations be-
tween six leadership styles: coercive,
authoritative, affiliative, democratic,
pacesetting, and coaching to work
environments which he referred to as
climates. Goleman’s claim is that cli-
mates have measurable impact on
financial and other organizational per-
formance metrics.
Climate is not an amorphous term.
First defined by psychologists
George Litwin and Richard Stringer
and later refined by McClelland and
his colleagues, it refers to six key
factors that influence an organiza-
tion’s work environment: flexibil-
ity—that is, how free employees
feel to innovate unencumbered by
red tape; their sense of responsibil-
ity to the organization; the level of
standards that people set; the
sense of accuracy about perform-
ance feedback and aptness of re-
wards; the clarity people have
about mission and values; and fi-
nally, the level of commitment to a
common purpose (p. 25).
Emotion Intelligence or EI is situ-
ational leadership steroids. While
situational leadership seeks to create
a simple match between leader style
and follower capabilities, EI adds ad-
ditional dimensions by pointing out
that managers perform best when
they are able to deploy multiple lead-
ership styles responding to the multi-
dimensional aspects of climate which
infers characteristics that may be
originating both internally and exter-
nally to the leader and the organiza-
tion. Notably missing from Goleman’s
EI model, however, are the systemic
emotional dimensions of followers
and the evolving capacity of the indi-
vidual leader for self-learning.

NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD

6
Culture and Leadership
Edgar Schein (1992) of the Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology
has worked a great deal on the im-
pact of culture on leadership and visa
versa. In Schein’s book, Organiza-
tional Culture and Leadership, he
makes a case for focusing on culture
in any approach to managing and
leading organizational change.
When one brings culture to the
level of organization, and even
down to groups within organiza-
tions, one can see more clearly
how it is created, embedded, de-
veloped and ultimately manipu-
lated, managed and changed.
These dynamic processes of cul-
ture creation and management are
the essence of leadership and
make one realize that leadership
and culture are two sides of the
same coin. (p. 1)
Schein believes that leaders cre-
ate organizational cultures by con-
sciously or unconsciously imposing
their values and assumptions on the
groups they lead and that these val-
ues and assumptions are gradually
and tacitly absorbed by the members
of the group to create an organiza-
tional culture. Culture, in turn, deter-
mines how the organization commu-
nicates, listens, learns and functions.
Once cultures exist, they determine
the criteria for leadership and thus
determine who will or will not be a
leader. But if cultures become dys-
functional, it is the unique function
of leadership to perceive the func-
tional and dysfunctional elements
of the existing culture and to man-
age cultural evolution… .
NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD
7
The bottom line for leaders is
that if they do not become con-
scious of the cultures in which they
are embedded, those cultures will
manage them. (p. 15).
Schein again surfaces the impor-
tance of leader self-reflection when
he refers to a leader as an analyst of
culture within the organization. “The
analyst of culture must be careful not
to project his or her own conceptions
of reality, time and space onto groups
and must remember that the visible
artifacts surrounding these concep-
tions are easy to misinterpret” (p.
122). Below Schein echoes Argyris’s
theories of single and double-loop
learning when he discusses the impli-
cations of culture on leadership.
What are the implications of all
this for leaders and managers?
The obvious implication has al-
ready been stated—they must
learn to decipher cultural cues
so that the normal flow of work
is not interrupted by cultural
misunderstandings. More impor-
tant than this point, however, is
the implication that how leaders
act out their own assumptions
about time and space comes to
train their subordinates and ul-
timately their entire organization
to accept those assumptions.
Most leaders are not aware of
how much the assumptions they
take for granted are passed on
in day-to-day behaviors by the
way they manage the decision-
making process, time and
space. (p.122)
Ultimately, Schein blends the con-
cepts of leading culture creation with
the concepts of organizational lifecy-
cle which complements fellow MIT
colleague, Peter Senge’s (1990) the-
ory of learning organizations to pro-
pose that leaders must be learners
and that they must create learning
cultures. “It seems clear that leaders
of the future will have to be perpetual
learners” (p.391) Although Schein is
not explicit about hierarchy, one might
infer positional leading as his mean-
ing of leadership in organizations.
Smith and Peterson (1988) be-
lieved that Schein’s concepts of cul-
ture in leadership were missing the
management of meanings. (p.122)
“Meanings may be subdivided be-
tween what the organization is seen
as being for—in other words its goals,
ideologies and values—and how the
organization believes those purposes
are to be accomplished” (p. 123).
Misumi distinguished between the
general functions of leadership and
behaviors that were expressed in a
given context and integrated them
with an international and holistic per-
spective by introducing non-Western
organizational culture to situations
that involve superior, peer and subor-
dinate relationships and decision-
making. Smith and Peterson explain
Misumi’s theories on decision-making
by providing a concise account of the
manner in which Japanese organiza-
tions succeed in being both hierarchi-
cal and peer-oriented at the same
time (Misumi, 1984 as cited in Smith
and Peterson, 1988).
A characteristic decision-making
procedure in many Japanese or-
ganizations is known as ringi. Un-
der this procedure proposals for fu-
ture action are initiated by junior
members of the organization, circu-
lated to their colleagues for ap-
NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD
8
proval and then submitted to the
superior, who most typically ap-
proves the proposal. Decision-
making procedures are not neces-
sarily so smooth as this outline im-
plies, but their goal is to arrive at
consensus decision-making. In or-
der to ensure that colleagues will
indeed approve the proposal, ex-
tensive formal consultation known
as nemawashi may be needed (p.
149).
Misumi’s decision making process
described above serves the innova-
tion needs of organizations while pre-
serving both the face-saving and rev-
erence-for-status customs of Japa-
nese culture. Whether Japanese
leadership styles were being over-
come by Western influence or vice
versa was the subject of much con-
troversy in the 1980s. Smith and Pe-
terson (1988) point out that the adop-
tion of Western management tech-
niques in Japan has been influenced
by its own culture. While the quality
circles movement was “… initially
seen as American innovation to re-
place old-fashioned procedures such
as ringi, quality circles have put down
much firmer roots in Japan than they
have ever had in the West” (p. 150).
INTER-PERSONAL LEADERSHIP
The most recent leadership theo-
ries combine the complexity of leader-
follower roles, leadership styles,
event management, situations, cul-
ture and emotional development.
Referenced in Figure 1 as Inter-
Personal Leadership, these theories
are about putting ideals into action by
articulating vision, infusing values,
creating hope and serving followers.
The first of the inter-personal leader-
ship theories were Servant Leader-
ship (Greenleaf, 1998) and Transfor-
mational Leadership (Burns 1978) (as
cited in Stone, Russell, and Patter-
son, 2003).
Servant Leadership and Transfor-
mational Leadership
Co-existent with theories that fo-
cused on effective behavior and the
complexity of organizational systems
two similar theories emerged, servant
leadership, first introduced by Robert
Greenleaf in 1977, and transformation
leadership (Burns 1978; Bass and
Avolio, 1990, 1994, as cited in Stone
et al., 2004).
Both theories speak to the
leader’s role as serving purposes that
transcend self-interest in order to ele-
vate followers, which theoretically re-
sult in enhanced levels of perform-
ance. Stone et al. (2004) point out
the subtle differences in these two
theories:
Transformational leaders transform
the personal values of followers to
support the vision and goals of the
organization by fostering an envi-
ronment where relationships can
be formed and by establishing a
climate of trust in which visions can
be shared (Bass, 1985a) (as cited
in Stone, Russell, and Patterson,
2004, p. 350).
Several more studies investigated
transformational leadership and
(Bass, 1998; Avolio and Bass, 2002,
Behling and McFillen, 1996) estab-
lished that transformational leaders
became role models for followers,
providing inspiration, stimulating in-
novation and were able by virtue of
NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD
9
the ability to cater their attention to
followers by recognizing their individ-
ual needs. (as cited in Stone et al.,
2004, p. 351-354).
The principle difference in servant
leadership is described by Stone et
al. as being that transformational
leadership focuses on followers on
behalf of organizational pursuits,
while “the overriding focus of the ser-
vant leader is upon service to the fol-
lower.” (p. 354). They go on to say,
“The differences between the two
theories in practice may be a function
of both the organizational context in
which the leaders operate and the
personal values of the leaders” (p.
356). Ongoing controversy about ser-
vant leadership stems from skepti-
cism from both leaders and followers
about issues of power and trust.
(Blanchard, 1998, as cited in Insights
on Leadership: Service, stewardship
and servant-leadership, pp. 21-28).
Peter Block (1993) blends the con-
cepts of servant and transformational
leadership when he posits that ser-
vice is a critical element of to empow-
erment in his book, Stewardship.
Block suggests that stewardship cre-
ates the trust required by the informal
leadership that Heifetz, (1994) says is
needed to address adaptive prob-
lems.
Ultimately the choice we make is
between service and self-interest.
Both are attractive. The fire and in-
tensity of self-interest seem to burn
all around us. … Our doubts are
not about our leaders’ talents, but
about their trustworthiness. We are
unsure whether they are serving
their institutions or themselves
(Block, p.9)
 Certainly, values play a significant
role in servant leadership. Russell
(2001) explains that “values are the
core elements of servant leadership”
(p. 80). He goes on to explain that
values not only affect the leader but
the organization and play a role in es-
tablishing both inter-personal and or-
ganizational trust. “Not until we have
considered our leadership model at
the level of its values, assumptions
and principles, can we discern to
what extent we are leading from a
power or servant base” (Reinhart,
1998, p.30, as cited in Russell et al.
p.81).
Primal Leadership and Psychody-
namics of Leadership
With 200-plus years of leadership
theory now behind us, why are we
continually struggling to prescribe
good leadership? At least part of the
answer appears to lie in the deeper
recesses of our psyche, which is ad-
dressed by Goleman’s Primal Lead-
ership (2001) and Manfred Kets de
Vries’s (2004) psychodynamics of
leadership. Primal leadership is
based on the science of moods. “A
growing body of research on the hu-
man brain proves that, for better or
worse, leaders’ moods affect the
emotions of people around them”
(Goleman, 2001, p.44). Goleman
cites research that suggest that emo-
tions, good and bad, can be conta-
gious and therefore a leader’s mood
can infuse followers with optimism or
its opposite (p. 45).
The psychodynamics of leader-
ship deals with aspects of ourselves
of which we are unaware and that are
likely necessary to achieve Argyris’s
NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD
10
goal of double-loop learning. These
hidden aspects may also affect our
moods as well. While double-loop
learning and primal leadership focus
on what may be observed, Manfred
Kets de Vries (2004), a clinical pro-
fessor of leadership development at
INSEAD France, examines how un-
conscious psychological dynamics
such as Carl Jung’s concept of
shadow (Small, n.d.) play out in or-
ganizational life. Kets de Vries posits
that both leaders and organizations
need to delve into the hidden aspects
themselves in order to become effec-
tive over the long term.
The collective unconscious of busi-
ness practitioners and scholars
alike subscribes to the myth that is
only what we see and know (in
other words, that which is con-
scious) that matters. That myth is
grounded in organizational behav-
ior of an extremely rational na-
ture—concepts based on assump-
tions made by economists (at
worst) or behavior psychologists (at
best) (p.184).
Kets de Vries argues that simply
looking at the visible aspects of lead-
ership and organizational perform-
ance does not do enough to help
leaders deal with the internal dysfunc-
tional aspects of relationships that
prohibit long-lasting solutions to or-
ganizational problems. He advocates
for a clinical paradigm in leadership
development and describes leader-
ship from a diagnostic context in rela-
tion to the organization. “At its heart,
leadership is about human behavior—
understanding it, enhancing it. It re-
volves around the highly complex in-
terplay between leaders and follow-
ers, all put into a particular situational
context” (p. 188). These comments
recall Argyris (1976), and as shall be
demonstrated, Ronald Heifetz (1994).
Investigating clinical approaches
to leadership acknowledges both the
role motives play in leader-follower
relations and the risks associated with
dark motives. “Taking the emotional
pulse of followers, both individually
and as a group, is essential, but that
alone does not comprise effective
leadership” (p. 188). Kets de Vries
acknowledges the importance of mak-
ing a link between espoused values,
the psyche and the popular attitudes
toward the role of influence in leader-
ship.
The essence of leadership is the
ability to use identified motivational
patterns to influence others—in
other words, to get people to volun-
tarily do things they would not oth-
erwise do. Generally those things
are of a positive nature, but there is
nothing inherently moral about
leadership: it can be used for bad
ends as well as good (p. 188).
A distinction made by Kets de
Vries is that effective leadership ex-
plicitly attaches cultural values to the
concept of an undistorted reality, the
purpose of which is to help the leader
to develop an increasingly undistorted
reality of him or herself and to avoid
exacerbating the group dynamics.
“The psychologist Wilfred Bion identi-
fied three basic assumptions to be
studied in group situations, the trio
that has become a corner-stone of
the study of organizational dynamics
(Bion, 1959) (as cited by Kets de
Vries, 2004, p. 192). Bion’s work indi-
cated that the assumptions: depend-
ency, fight-flight and pairing, take
NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD
11
place at an unconscious level and are
all stimulated by fear. Dependent
groups look to the group leader for
protection. Fight-flight and pairing are
defensive measures, the former in-
tended to confront or avoid the oppo-
sition and the latter, a way of coping
with anxiety. Psychodynamics helps
to explain what drives individual and
organizational behavior. It calls lead-
ers to create what Kets de Vries calls
authentizotic organizations. Such or-
ganizations communicate the how
and why of the work, “… revealing the
meaning of each person’s task. The
organization’s leadership walks the
talk—they set the example” (p. 199).
Such organizations bring out the best
in employees by responding to hu-
man needs for exploration. While
such an ideal is admirable, it is only
the first step to informing leaders on
how they might address what Ronald
Heifetz (1994) refers to as the adap-
tive challenge. “… adaptive challenge
consists of a gap between the shared
values people hold and the reality of
their lives, or a conflict among people
in a community over values and strat-
egy” (p.254).
Adaptive Leadership
Adaptive leadership (Heifetz,
1994) acknowledges the role of val-
ues, the concept of leadership and
the pace and challenges of today’s
most knotty organizational problems.
Heifetz, director of leadership at Har-
vard’s Kennedy School of Govern-
ment draws on the traditions of psy-
chotherapy in order to explain the
concept of adaptive work.
“In psychotherapy, people adapt
more successfully to their environ-
ments, given their purposes and
values, by facing painful circum-
 stances and developing new atti-
tudes and behaviors. They learn to
distinguish reality from fantasy, re-
solve internal conflicts, and put
harsh events in perspective. They
learn to live with things that cannot
be changed and take responsibility
for those that can. By improving
their ability to reflect, strengthening
their tolerance for frustration, and
understanding their own blind spots
and patterns of resistance to facing
problems, they improve their gen-
eral adaptive capacity for future
challenge (1993, p. 5).
Adaptive concepts apply to both
leaders and followers. They also
speak to the sorts of challenges that
face organizations of all sizes in an
increasingly complex world. Given the
pace of change there are some num-
bers of situations for which adaptive
skills will be certainly be needed.
Heifetz calls such circumstances
Type III situations. “The problem is
not clear-cut, and technical fixes are
not available. “The situation calls for
leadership that includes learning
when even the doctor doesn’t have a
solution in mind” (p. 75).
The primary elements of adaptive
leadership are deceptively simple,
consisting of collaboration and a
blend of formal and informal authority,
and do not necessarily infer hierar-
chy. Collaboration takes place be-
tween leader and followers. Formal
authority is thought of as traditional
positional authority and may or may
not include informal authority. Infor-
mal authority is conferred by others
and infers trust. …As theoretical
types of power relations, dominance
and authority can be viewed as dis-
tinct. Dominance relationships are
based on coercion or habitual defer-
NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD
12
ence; authority relationships are vol-
untary and conscious” (p. 56-58).
The application of adaptive lead-
ership, however, is as tricky as the
situations it seeks to resolve. The
leader applies power in response to
the circumstances by appropriately
framing issues and managing the flow
of information such that he or she
creates a balance between tensions
required to motivate change without
overwhelming followers. To manage
tension, the leader selects a decision-
making process rather than a method.
“In essence, they must decide on the
presence of conflict, and whether and
how to unleash it” (p. 121). Leader-
ship is more a set of behaviors ap-
propriate to the individual and the set-
ting allowing the leader to “… choreo-
graph and direct learning processes
in an organization or community” (p.
187). Effective adaptive leaders walk
a fine line between holding the envi-
ronment for the organization to learn
while encouraging self-reliance. This
is why Heifetz’s book is aptly titled
Leadership Without Easy Answers.
Conclusion
There are many overlapping
themes among leadership theorist,
but the most central themes are that
regardless of position or role, leader-
ship behavior demands flexibility, is
about seeing and testing reality, and
cannot be achieved without ongoing
learning and practice toward making
appropriate choices. The challenges
of applying leadership theory are on-
going. Can one consistently create
the conditions for personal growth
and learning such that leadership can
emerge when needed? How is the
conflict between the demand for bet-
ter leaders and the readiness of
learners to learn to be addressed? If
personal growth is critical to leader-
ship effectiveness, in what ways can
barriers to learning be lowered in or-
ganizational cultures that see per-
sonal growth as soft or inessential?
Leadership is a complex set of ef-
fective behaviors set in a specific con-
text. Because organizations and their
problems are complex, it follows that
developing leaders will be neither
simple nor expeditious. One can cre-
ate the conditions for, but not control
the pace of learning. Nor can onein-
fuse others with an internal, ongoing
commitment to learn.
The most recent leadership theo-
ries appear to encompass increas-
ingly complicated approaches. Al-
though some new theories contain
original concepts, others are innova-
tive hybrids of other organizational
theories. And since theories are also
opinions, it is sometimes difficult to
distinguish new theories from clever
re-packaging of ideas.
Irrespective of theoretical authen-
ticity, theories of the late 20th and
early 21st century, such as those from
Argyris, Kets de Vries and Heifetz re-
flect relational style and experiences
of effective leadership. At the same
time, our own biases and experiences
can blind us to new learning opportu-
nities about leadership. Therefore, as
facilitators of leadership development,
it is important to continue to maintain
environments for our own learning.
Heifetz makes the point that,
“Leadership is both active and reflec-
tive” (p. 252). Leadership is a prac-
tice. Leading means engaging in a
continual challenge to better under-
stand one’s motivations, impact on
others and the events that surround
us. Developing leaders is about
teaching them how to be learners;
teaching them how to use the experi-
ences of leading to continually refine
a personal capacity for clarifying pur-
pose, forgiving mistakes, and acting
with integrity. Learning to lead is,
above all, about learning to learn.

About the Author

Lucy E. Garrick has been working as a manager and consultant for over 20 years. For the past 10
years she has focused on strategic planning, leadership development and adaptation to change in
organizations. She is past board president of the Pacific Northwest Organization Development Net-
work and a member of the board of directors for the Satir Institute of the Pacific. Ms. Garrick holds
an M.A. in Whole Systems Design, Organization Systems Design and Leadership. She has devel-
oped an original model for leading at all levels of an organization. Her consulting work focuses on
helping formal and informal leaders develop clarity and internal perspective about their effective-
ness in groups and institutions.

NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD

13
 References

Argyris, C. (1976). Increasing Leadership Effectiveness, (2nd ed.). Malabar, FL:

Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Inc.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research,
and Managerial Applications, (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Blanchard, K. (1998). Servant Leadership Revisited. In L. C. Spears, (Ed.), Insights

on Leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit and servant leadership. (pp. 21-
28). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco,

CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A. (2000). Primal Leadership: The hidden
driver of great performance. Reprinted in Harvard Business School Publish-
ing Company. (2001). Best of HBR on Leadership. (HBR OnPoint No. 8296,
(pp. 37-51). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

Goleman, D., (2000). Leadership That Gets Results. Reprinted in Harvard Busi-
ness School Publishing Company. (2001). Best of HBR on Leadership.
(HBR OnPoint No. 4487, pp19-34). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Publishing Corporation.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1998). Servant Leadership. In L.C. Spears. (Ed.), Insights on

Leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit and servant leadership. (pp. 15-20).
New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Heifetz, R.A. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Kets de Vries, M. (2004). Organizations on the Couch: A clinical perspective on

organizational dynamics. European Management Journal, 22, 183-200.

Russell, R.F. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. The Leadership &
Organizational Development Journal, 22/2, 76-83.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning or-
ganization, New York, NY: Doubleday a division of Bantam Doubleday Bell
Publishing Group, Inc.

NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD

14
Small, J. (n.d.). The Shadow. In Becoming a Practical Mystic (pp. 95-97). Re-
trieved from http:// www.eupsychia.com/perspectives/defs/shadow.html

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-
Bass.

Smith, P.B. & Peterson, M. F. (1988). Leadership, Organizations and Culture, Lon-
don: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Stone, A.G., Russell, R. F. & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant

leadership: A difference in leader focus. The Leadership & Organizational
Development Journal, 25/4, 349-361.

Vroom, V.H. & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and Decision-Making, Pittsburgh:

PA, University of Pittsburgh Press.

NorthShore Group
www.northshoregroup.net
© Copyright, 2004, 2005, 2006 ,Lucy E. Garrick, M.A. WSD

15