.
Leadership Theory Burns, Rost, Hall and Bordas David P.Walker – GLD19
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
ABSTRACT
There are more than seven modern models of leadership theory that are widely held as academically and substantially meritorious: Brian P. Hall; James MacGregor Burns; Robert K. Greenleaf (see Larry C. Spears also); Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus; John P. Kotter; James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner; Joseph C. Rost; and Juana Bordas. The following discussion will focus on four of these modern leadership models: Hall, Burns, Rost, and Bordas.
12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 2 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
Values Shift – A Guide to Personal & Organizational Transformation
"The values of Self-Preservation, the implicit fears of Wonders/Awe/Fate and Security, the need to avoid pain, and SelfInterest/Control as a tendency to be self-centered and mistrustful are with us all the time" – Dr. Brian P. Hall
"Self-Interest as narcissism means creating a world, a family, or an administration where only you know what decisions can be made. In the extreme [this] becomes the total denial of the worth of anyone's opinion about any decision of consequence that you do not guide and control yourself" (Hall, p. 83) resonates with me. And, in all candor and honesty I have little to no genuine self-worth as a human being and exploring these issues has been a painful and difficult journey into what Dr. Hall calls an exploration of the “dark side” (pp. 82-83, 93-96). My personal journey into the “shadow lands” of my life ignited by Module I and Module II of the St. Mary’s College Masters in Leadership program shook me to my core of my being and challenged what I thought I knew about myself. Moreover, I reached a new understanding that the notion or perception of control is an illusion. “When a person has had a negative experience in the past, the imagination catalogs foundation value experiences and draws us back to a Phase I view of the world. In the extreme, a person’s internal images may become limited to negative outcomes, damaging his or her ability to generate positive dreams for the future” (Hall, p. 93). Dr. Hall’s explanations of cyclical 12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 3 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
behavior, both positive and negative (pp. 91-97 ), and the ability to have a positive imagination for the future instills much hope for me. His work explaining the need for strong foundational goals and means is something that I sorely lack in my personal life and would explain why I have risen and fallen so many times in my life. My foundational needs are not and have not been met. My family life is highly dysfunctional and extremely physically and emotionally violent. My father was very physically violent and my mother was/is very emotionally narcissistic and her current state of increasing senility and dementia is transforming her into even a meaner person. Yet, by understanding Dr. Hall’s work, I have reached a new understanding that over time the family Goals Values of: family / belonging; fantasy / play; self worth, and the Means Values of: being liked; care / nurture; control / order / discipline; courtesy / hospitality; dexterity / coordination; endurance / patience; equilibrium; friendship / belonging; obedience / duty; prestige / image; rights / respect; social affirmation; support / peer; and tradition, can all be met by goals and means other than one’s immediate family. In my particular case, my personal redemption and salvation of family values will rise from becoming a teacher and being affiliated with a supportive and collegial teaching organization. I did not choose my family and cannot change my past, but I can choose my present focus and imagine a more positive and supportive social structure for my future. I do not think I could have found these values in the continuing practice of law because the law is highly argumentative and exists in a moral vacuum. I have done some legal work as a litigation
12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 4 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
paralegal that I am deeply ashamed of where I was instrumental in helping a client prevail over plaintiffs who suffered irreparable harm. Law and justice are two completely separate concepts. And using my knowledge and skills as a litigation paralegal to defend or attack people of good moral and ethical substance was very confusing and frustrating for me. Dr. Elias, you requested in your email “David’s Ind. Study for Module III”, dated November 5, 2008, that I present a case study using my, albeit very brief teaching experience, as a construct for a “case study” and application of the leadership theories presented in Module III. I cannot provide this because I currently exist in a Phase I, Stage I modality right now because of the severity of my personal and family problems. In the alternative, I hope you will accept the following academic work that distinguishes the leadership theories of: Hall, Burns, Rost and Bordas as evidence that I have a sufficient academic grasp of the material present by Module III. After, I regain some emotional and cognitive strength and gain more experience teaching, I give you my word that I will return and revisit your request to apply these leadership theories to the practice of becoming and being a good educator. I can see the wisdom and the personal value to me as a teacher of your very creative request. Dr. Hall’s work is distinguished from the work Burns, Rost, and Bordas in that Dr. Hall focuses deeply into self-discovery and an understanding of the self and the driving forces and motivation of others. Dr. Hall takes a different path than Burns, Rost, or Bordas, yet he reaches the same destination of transformative leadership.
12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 5 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
Leadership
“Divorced from ethics, leadership is reduced to management and politics to mere technique.” -- James MacGregor Burns
James MacGregor Burns and his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Leadership, published in 1978, are still considered the seminal work in the field of leadership studies (Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership is a leadership style where one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. In 1978, James MacGregor Burns first introduced the concepts of transformational and transactional leadership in his treatment of political leadership. Burns was one of the first scholars to assert that true leadership not only creates change and achieves goals within the environment, but changes the people involved in the necessary actions for the better as well - both followers and leaders are ennobled. According to Burns, the difference between transformational and transactional leadership is what leaders and followers offer one another. Transforming leadership occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started out as separate but related, as in the case of transactional leadership, become fused. Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as mutual support for common purpose. This
12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 6 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
is the thesis upon which Joseph C. Rost advances in his book “Leadership For the Twenty-First Century” (Rost, 1991) as the essential element in the difference between leadership and management. Transformational leaders offer a purpose that transcends short-term goals and focuses on higher order intrinsic needs. This is a leadership concept first advanced by James MacGregor Burns and built upon by Rost. This results in followers identifying with the needs of the leader. The four dimensions of transformational leadership described by Burns are the idealized influence (or charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration fused by enduring compassion and commitment between leaders and followers (p. 20). Burns additionally describes transformational leadership as “… elevating. It is moral but not moralistic. Leaders engage with followers, but from higher levels of morality; in the enmeshing of goals and values both leaders and followers are raised to more principled levels of judgment. Leaders most effectively “connect with” followers from a level of morality only one stage higher than that of the followers, but moral leaders who act at much higher levels – Gandhi [or Martin Luther King, Jr.] for example – relate to followers at all levels either heroically or through the founding of mass movements that provide linkages between persons at various levels of morality and sharply increase the moral impact of the transforming leader. Much of elevating leadership asks sacrifices from followers rather than merely promising them goods” (p. 455). Dramatic transformational leadership sometimes asks the followers to suffer which
12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 7 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
they do willingly because of a shared belief in the imperative of their collective purpose between the leader and follower. Transactional leadership on the other hand does not elevate followers to higher levels of motivation and morality. Leaders in transactional leadership role can fall into a category of what Burns refers to as power-wielders. “What leads some to moral leadership and others to amoral or immoral power-wielding?” (Burns, p. 59). Burns defines transactional leadership as a structure where “formal or informal heads of groups act as brokers within their groups and among groups. These transactions consist of mutual support and mutual promises, expectations, obligations and rewards” (p. 289). In the transaction context of leadership it is not uncommon that the leader is the central focus of communication in the group (Burns, p. 287) and can act as a power-wielders in that “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his [or her] own will despite resistance” (Burns, p. 12 citing Webber). Much of the modern political mechanism operates in the transactional and bureaucratic modality (Burns, pp. 287-309). Additionally, Burns discusses the Machiavellian modality of power-wielding in politics (pp. 444-462) with great clarity and juxtaposes this faux leadership modality against his brilliant understanding of transformational leadership and followership. In conclusion, to summarize and discuss the book “Leadership” can easily evolve into a very lengthy dissertation. I have only touched on some of the major themes that I find relevant distinguishing James MacGregor Burns from Brian P. Hall, Joseph C. Rost and Juana Bordas. 12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 8 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
Leadership for the Twenty-first Century “Looking at leadership through the lens of a single discipline has not worked well in the past, and it will not work any better in the future. Indeed, a case can be made that organizations and society in the future, with their collaborative, community, global orientations, may not be hospitable to a concept of leadership grounded in only one academic discipline.” – Joseph C. Rost
Joseph C. Rost emphasizes leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes. Moreover Rost clearly describes mutual purpose as a leadership element that is not analogous to goal setting. According to Rost four essential elements must be present for twenty-first century leadership to function: 1.) The relationship is based on influence; the influence relationship is multidirectional; the influence behaviors are noncoercive. 2.) Leaders and followers are the people in this relationship. The followers are active; there must be more than one follower, and there is typically more than one leader in the relationship; the relationship is inherently unequal because the influence patterns are unequal. 3.) Leaders and followers intend real changes: Intend means that the leaders and followers purposefully desire certain changes; real means that the changes the leaders and followers intend must be substantive and transforming; leaders and followers do not have to produce changes in order for leadership to occur: they intend changes in the present; the changes take place in the future if they take place at all; and leaders and followers intend several changes at once.
12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 9 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
4.) Leaders and followers develop mutual purposes: The mutuality of these purposes is forged in the noncoercive influence relationship; leaders and followers develop purposes, not goals; the intended changes reflect, not realize, their purposes; the mutual purposes become common purposes (Rost, pp. 102-103). Leadership is an influence relationship; leaders and followers must intend real changes; intended changes reflect mutual purposes where the dynamic exchange of the role of leadership and followership flow freely between the two. A relationship exists where the leader can become the follower and the follower can become the leader (Rost, p. 107). Rost takes an interesting and almost clinical and empirical path in his discourse of the twenty-first century leadership model that differs extremely from the scope and passion of Hall, Burns and Bordas. The leadership paradigm that Rost espouses is a theoretical framework that could be perceived as a sterile construct based upon the seminal work of James MacGregor Burns. Yet, this clinical and sterile definition of what twenty-first century leadership should be is an interesting notion because Rost clearly distinguishes between leadership and management. Burns also makes this distinction in when discussing bureaucrats as non-leaders when he says, “Bureaucratic behavior as characterized in this archetype is antithetical to leadership as defined in volume” (Burns, p. 296). In conclusion, although Rost takes a different path than Hall, Burns and Bordas, Rost reaches the same conclusion that leadership is transformational and serves the greater good of political and business organizations in a nonviolent, noncoercive process where both leaders and followers are elevated together in a synergistic manner. 12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 10 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
Salsa, Soul and Spirit
“Gracias in Spanish means, “thank you,” but it also means “grace.” Webster’s Dictionary defines grace as “the influence or spirit of God operating in man; the condition of being in God’s favor.” – Juana Bordas
In her book (Bordas, 2007) Salsa, Soul, and Spirit –Leadership for a Multicultural Age, Juana Bordas offers a new multicultural paradigm of leadership based upon eight principles grounded in Latino, African-American, and Native American cultures. Bordas puts forth a multicultural leadership model that integrates eight practices from African American, Indian and Latino communities. The eight principles are: 1.) Sankofa - To Learn From The Past; 2.) Moving from “I to We” – From Individualism to a Collective Identity; 3.) Mi Casa Es Su Casa – A Spirit of Generosity; 4.) A Leader Among Equals – Community Conferred Leadership; 5.) Leaders As Guardians of Public Values – A Tradition of Activism; 6.) Leaders as Community Stewards – Working for the Common Good; 7.) All My Relatives – La Familia, the Village, the Tribe; and 8.) Gracias – Gratitude, Hope and Forgiveness (pp. 17-21). In her work Bordas advances the concepts of family, grace, basic human dignity and embracing cultural differences through nonviolence and compassionate socio-cultural interaction and creating a model of leadership that imbues these empathic values. In the following discussion I will focus upon the Bordas theme of “Sankofa – Learn From the Past” and how this may explain some of today’s problems and fears that rise because we
12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 11 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
have forgotten what it means to be the United States America and have forgotten the history lessons of the founding of our country. “Sankofa is a mythical bird with its feet planted forward and its head looking backward. Sankofa means return, go back, seek, and retrieve. Sankofa urges us to reflect on and learn from the past” (Bordas, p. 28) and I will expound with my own example upon what Bordas posits when she says, “[i]n practicing Sankofa, our starting point will be the genesis of America” (p. 30). When the founding fathers were arguing as to how form the United States of America, there were two sharply divided factions espousing different styles of governance and leadership – the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists urged ratification of the Constitution and a strong centralized federal government. The Anti-Federalists urging strong state rights and state governance were against ratification of the Constitution because they feared that a strong central government and a concentrated centralized political power would eventually become a vehicle for a democratic tyranny [prophetic?]. After much discourse and debate the Anti-Federalists - which included Thomas Jefferson who drafted the Declaration of Independence, would only adopt the Constitution of the United States if a specific Bill of Rights was included as Amendments into the Constitution. The first ten Amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution proposed by the Federalists with the Bill of Right advocated by the anti-federalists was ratified. The Federalists in large part prevailed and constituted the vast majority of elected officials in the 12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 12 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
newly ordained central federal government – in all three branches of the central government – the executive, congress, and federal judiciary. In less than sixteen-years after the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists would nearly destroy American society and would as a political ideology disappear completely from the face of American political history forever - never to reappear again. [End Note 1}i There is a “Sankofa” lesson here to remember and reflect upon - the mistakes of the founding Federalists. Our current government is repeating everything the founding Federalists did to nearly destroy our new born nation: declare war against unnamed enemies; pass federal laws that suspended the Bill of Rights (The Patriot Act); pass federal laws specifically oppressing people of foreign nationalities (enemy combatants) and unpopular religions (profiling Muslims); and create a climate of fear that the United States of America is under imminent, clear and present danger from threats and takeover by foreigners and unnamed enemies. In all the versions of the recently enacted versions of the “Patriot Act” (which in large part suspends the Bill Rights to the Constitution) nowhere is there a named enemy (i.e. AlQaeda, Hamas, Taliban, Islamic extremists, ect…) and our government has gone to great lengths to create and cultivate a climate of fear. Moreover, the United States is waging war based upon proven lies and misinterpretations of inaccurate and fabricated misinformation. Iraq had nothing to do with the tragedy of 9/11. Nor did Saddam Hussein and Iraq have any capability to produce or posses a stockpile any weapons of mass destruction – nuclear or biological. All the American war in Iraq did was unleash and reignite an ancient civil/religious war between the
12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 13 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
Sunni and Shiite Muslims that has been smoldering for more than 1,500 years. American insensitivity to this religious social-cultural predisposition in Iraq is a tragic failure of recognizing religious and cultural differences. The Sunni/Shiite Islamic conflict is analogous and just as bitter as the Irish Catholic/English Protestant conflict. Bordas remarks poignantly that, “the “backseat driver” brand of religion [or politics] tells people how to live, what life decisions to make, and what kind of lifestyle they should pursue. Often, however, such religions are not as concerned with providing the economic means, resources, or education that people need to have to have their basic needs met and to live with dignity” (p. 171). America weakened by the revolutionary war with England and the starting point where the thirteen colonies which became independent states with the signing of the U.S. Constitution, all used different currencies and had different trade and commerce regulations, and civil and criminal laws. Interstate trade and commerce functioned at a low and confusing level. Many of the new states would not even recognized the federal quartermasters notes issued to soldiers in lieu of monetary pay to the men and slaves who fought during the American Revolution. Some states would only recognize pennies on the dollar and began accumulating in mass these quartermasters’ notes as financial leverage against the new centralized federal government and its treasury. All the states were adamant about assuming a debt that was created by the central government and expenses from the war which included a large amount of money borrowed from foreign nations.
12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 14 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
Financially weak and because of high level of discord between the independent states and the newly formed central government – a climate of fear existed as to whether the newly formed United States of America would even survive the post-revolutionary period. One of the most prevalent fears was that the Federalists, who were primarily in power in the central Federal governments, were suspicious of a takeover of the country by foreign nationals. This fear of the federal government of takeover of the United States resulted in Congress passing four very unpopular laws: 1.) Increasing the time it took to gain United States of America citizenship from five years to fifteen years; 2.) Special taxes and levies against all Catholics, French, and Irish; 3.) The Sedition and Treason Act [against US citizens]; and 4.) The Foreign Sedition and Treason Act [against non- US Citizens]. In one instance a U.S. federal judge was unsuccessfully tried under the Sedition and Treason Act because he publicly stated that he believed that these four Congressional enactments “might be unwise.” The Anti-Federalist worst fears that the centralized Federal government was becoming a democratic tyranny were being realized. In the following election, then President John Adams and most of the Federalist Congress were resoundingly removed from office. Thomas Jefferson replaced John Adams as President of the United States. And, the four unpopular laws enacted by the Congress were repealed by the new anti-federalist Executive and Congress. After the anti-federalist gained control of Congress and the Executive, the Federalist became so unpopular that they faded into obscurity never to reappear again on the stage of American politics.
12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 15 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
Bordas writes, “That the Iroquois Tribe’s rule for leaders was that they should consider the impact of their decisions on their children their children’s children, and unto seven generations. The imperative that leaders are the guardians of future generations mandates that they be good stewards and include a vision for a sustainable future. To ensure this, one generation cannot take more than their share. Safeguarding the prosperity of the community implies an expansive generosity that reaches beyond today and into the unforeseen future” (p. 72). In conclusion, Juana Bordas presents the concepts of family, grace, basic human dignity and embracing cultural differences through non-violence and compassionate socio-cultural interaction and creating a model of leadership that imbues these empathic values. Juana Bordas has a perspective that travels a different path than the ones presented by Dr. Brian P. Hall, James MacGregor Burn and Joseph C. Rost yet she arrives at the same destination Hall, Burns and Rost reach. Leadership is transformational where selflessness, compassion, understanding, non-violence, human dignity and empathy need to be practiced for the good of the community and the world at large.
12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 16 of 17
David P. Walker
Module III – Leadership Theory
Professor Dean Elias, Ed.D.
ENDNOTES 1. From the very beginning of the United States of America, an undeclared war, against an unnamed enemy, has given rise to setting aside the American Constitution for the benefit of unrestrained and unpopular enactments of executive war powers. (See Ely, John Hart, “War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath” and “Democracy and Distrust” for troubling examples of Congressional and Executive behavior relating to undeclared war). Almost immediately after the American Revolution of 1776, the Federalist Congress and Federalist Executive enacted four laws (legal citations omitted) aimed at diminishing the rights and liberties of Irish and French immigrants, Catholics and all American citizens who would speak out against an unpopular, undeclared war against an unnamed enemy. The legislative and executive motivation for these acts was to restrain a perceived, possibly paranoid, silent foreign overthrow of the fledgling American government. REFERENCES Bordas, J. (2007). Salsa, Soul and Spirit - Leadership for a Multicultural Age. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Hall, B. P. (1994). Values Shift: - A Guide to Personal & Orginizational Transformation. Rockport, MA: Twin Light Publishers. Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership - For the Twenty-First Century. West Port, CT: Praeger Publishers, Inc.
12/10/08
St. Mary’s College Page 17 of 17