responsible leadership for performance a theoretical model and hypotheses

7/29/2019 Responsible Leadership for Performance a Theoretical MODEL and Hypotheses

1/16

Responsible Leadership for Performance:ATheoretical Model and Hypotheses

SusanA. Lynham - TexasA&M UniversityThomas J. Chermack - The Pennsylvania State University

Literature on leadership indicates an absence ofgeneral, integrative theory. Much of existingtheory focuses on effective leadership, and onleadership processes, at the individual, group,or organizational level. Little emphasis isplacedon whole system effect, and less on concerns forboth

peopleand

performance.The theoretical

framework developed and discussed addressesthis inadequacy, presenting an integrative and

general perspective of leadership that focuses on

leadership responsibility to both people and

performance.

Companies spend large amounts of moneyin pursuit of recipes for leadership success. In1998 it was estimated that 86% of companiesoffer some form of leadership training (Boyett &Boyett; Zhu, May & Avolio, 2004). Conversely,

few companies can attest to the verifiablecontribution of this investment to their business

performance, although much of the researchliterature claims leadership as critical toorganizational performance and profitability(Bass, 1985; Bass, 1990; Clark, Clark &

Campbell, 1992; Kotter, 1990a, 1990b; Meindl& Ehrlich, 1987; Rottenberg & Saloner, 1993;Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992; Zhu, May & Avolio,2004). Leadership and leadership developmentwill increasingly need to show a direct link tobusiness performance. Leadership is

decreasingly about recipes of actions andcharacteristics that are transferable to infinite

contexts, reflected in the likes of popularleadership models such as that of Coveysprinciple-centered leadership (1989, 1991 ).

Brungardt (1996) highlights that, in spite ofthe abundance of leadership research over thelast several years, which has given us a &dquo;...muchbetter understanding of leaders and theleadership process the field of leadership studiescontinues to be &dquo;...riddled with paradoxes,

inconsistencies and contradictions&dquo; (p.82). Thislack of theoretical and empirical rigor isunderscored by Klenke: &dquo;...contributing to the

messy state of the art [of leadership] arecontroversies about theoretical and

methodological issues as well as tensionsbetween the disciplines contributing to

leadershipstudies&dquo;

(1993, p.112).Swanson

(1995) stressed that as the role of performanceimprovement in organizations increasingly takeson strategic and global importance, executivesare, and should be, increasingly heldaccountable in this arena. Leadership and

leadership development should be seen as &dquo;coreorganizational efforts at improvingperformance&dquo; and must, like other

organizational efforts, &dquo;recognize theorganizations major business processes andtheir connectedness to core inputs and outputs

for the purpose of adding value&dquo;(p. ix). In short,the stresses and demands of the emerging globalorganization and accompanying chaos and

complexity of these business realities will likelycall for leadership that can think and act

fundamentally differently in the future (Lynham,1998, 2000c, 2000d; McLagan & Nel, 1995).

Grounding the Problem

Areview of the literature points to anumber of inadequacies. First, the direct linkbetween leadership and business performance isimplied rather than explicit, i.e., the majority ofstudies that examine leadership are not studiesthat tend to link leadership practices to objectiveoutputs of the leadership system (Bass, 1990;Holton & Lynham, 2000). Second, the impact of

leadership on performance is not consideredfrom multiple domains of performance (Bass,1990; Holton & Lynham, 2000; Lynham, 1998,2000d; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). By multipledomains of performance, we mean that


2/16

74J

leadership is not often studied in ways thatdocument its effect on individual indicators of

performance, group indicators of performance,process indicators of performance, and

organizational indicators of performance and

specificallyall of these at the same time.

Third,absent from the literature is the multi-dimensional notion of responsibility (Collins &Porras, 1994; Freudberg, 1986; White Newman,1993). We suggest that not only should

leadership be responsible, but that the notion of

responsibility is related to other ethical andmoral factors that are often created and agreedupon within the system itself. Although somenotions of leadership include the importance ofvalue-centeredness (Clark & Clark, 1996;Covey, 1991), and others allude to the

importance of renewal in leadership (Gardner,1990), being responsible in leadership ispredominantly associated with effectiveness

(Bennis, 1994; Bhatia, 1995; Tannenbaum &Schmidt, 1973)--with getting things done.Fourth, missing from this body of literature is

agreement on the dependent variable of

leadership.That the phenomenon of leadership may be

a system, with inputs, processes, outputs andfeedback, and in service to a larger performancesystem, is not deeply considered in the literatureand represents a notable void in this body of

knowledge. Given the huge amounts of moneybeing spent on the training, coaching and

development of leadership capabilities andcapacity, and the increasingly diverse environsin which leadership is both applied and judged,the above are troublesome knowledge gaps and

inadequacies (Boyett & Boyett, 1998;Brungardt, 1996; Trevion, Brown, & Hartman,2003; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992).

The problem statement driving this study isthus: available leadership theories neitherexplicitly nor adequately address the nature and

challenges of leadership that is both responsibleand focused on performance. There is a need fora theory of leadership that satisfies thesemultiple domains of concern and that integratesthe practical overarching concerns for peopleand performance (Lynham, 1998, 2000c, 2000d;Melrose, 1995). It is therefore the purpose ofthis study to begin to address this inadequacy in

current leadership theory.

Research Questions & Methodology

Given the above problem statement, thefollowing research questions were used to

develop and guide this study: 1) Can &dquo;A Theoryof

Responsible Leadershipfor Performance&dquo; be

developed?; and, 2) Can &dquo;A Theory ofResponsible Leadership for Performance&dquo; be

operationalized [for later verification]?Due to the applied nature of leadership, and

the preliminary nature of this study, Dubins(1978) two-part, eight-step, theory-to-researchmethodology for applied theory building is wellsuited to address the research question and sub-

questions. This applied theory buildingmethodology includes: (1) identification of theunits or concepts of the

theory,(2)

determiningthe laws of interaction among the units, (3)specifying the boundaries in which the theory isexpected to apply, (4) specifying the systemstates in which the theoretical system operates,(5) articulating the propositions, comprising thelogical deductions or truth statements about the

theory in operation, (6) determining theempirical indicators used to make thepropositions and therefore the theory testable,(7) identifying the hypotheses, that is, thestatements about the predicted values andrelationships among the units, and (8) testing the

predicted values and relationships.Dubins (1978) methodology for applied

theory building is complex and extremelydetailed -- so much so that a full discussion of

the philosophical reasoning underlying themethod is not practical in the context of thisarticle. This article proceeds in sections thatdetail each step of the theory buildingmethodology in Figure 1 and overview

descriptions of the steps are provided drawingfrom Dubin with as much detail as space

permits. For a full discussion of the intricacies,of quantitative theory building in applieddisciplines, please refer to Dubin (1978).Atheory of Responsible Leadership for

Performance (RLP) is a general, integrativetheoretical framework of leadership thataddresses the nature and challenges ofleadership that are both responsible and focusedon performance. Two core premises govern theframework. The first--that leadership is itself


3/16

75

Figure 1: Dubins Two-part, Eight-step Theory Building Methodology

a system consisting of purposeful, integratedinputs, processes, outputs, feedback andboundaries. The second--that leadership takesplace within a performance system, that is, a

system of joint, coordinated and purposeful

action. Leadership can therefore be conceived ofas a system of interacting inputs, processes,outputs, and feedback that derive meaning,direction and purpose from the largerperformance system and environment withinwhich it occurs. From this perspective,leadership is defined as: a focused system ofinteracting inputs, process, outputs and feedbackwherein individuals andlor groups influenceandlor act on behalf of specific individuals or

groups of individuals to achieve shared goalsand commonly desired performance outcomes,within a specific performance system andenvironment.

We also think it important to defme theterm &dquo;ethical&dquo; as it is used throughout this articleas a further descriptor when we present thenotion of responsible leadership. TheAmericanHeritage College Dictionary defmes ethical as 1)&dquo;involving or expressing moral approval or

disapproval&dquo; and 2) &dquo;conforming to acceptedprofessional standards of conduct&dquo; (2002, p.343). While we imply that both of these

components are important to the discussion of

&dquo;responsible leadership,&dquo; we would like to stress

importance on the former. That is, when we

present leadership as a system involving theconsideration of the people within that system,

their interpretation of what is responsible and asfocused on an agreed important output, we

suggest that this group will define &dquo;responsible&dquo;behavior in a way that involves morality. Again,the constituency is believed to define what ismoral according to the negotiations of theindividuals that collectively form that

constituency.

Units

The units of a theory are the concepts ofthe

theory--the basic ideas that make up the theory(Cohen, 1991; Dubin, 1978; Reynolds, 1971).The units represent the things about which theresearcher is trying to make sense and areinformed by literature (knowledge of) and

experience (knowledge about) (Lynham, 2002a).The units can be plainly defined as the buildingblocks of the theory or the elements that come

together in the theory.The three units of the theoretical framework

of RLP are: considerations of constituency; a


4/16

76

framework of responsibleness; and domains ofperformance (see Figure 2). The units interact toform the inputs, process and outputs to theleadership system that is the essence of thetheoretical framework. Each unit is further

distinguished by conceptual dimensions.Considerations of constituency (the input)include three conceptual dimensions: whetherthe constituency (a) resides inside or outside the

performance system; (b) has high or low

authority over the performance system; and (c)

has the potential for high or low impact on the

performance system. A framework ofresponsibleness (the process) has three

conceptual dimensions: (a) effective leadershippractices; (b) ethical leadership habits; and (c)

enduring leadership resources. The third unit,domains of perfo~mance (the output), consists offour conceptual dimensions: (a) the systemmission; (b) the work process/es; (c) the socialsub-systems; and (d) the individual performer.

Abrief discussion of each unit follows.

Figure 2: RLP: The Units of the Theoretical Framework

Unit 1: Considerations of ConstituencyLeadership does not exist on its own, but

rather in reciprocity to constituency, sometimesreferred to as followship. It is the constituencythat gives voice and purpose to leadership--thatallows the individual and/or group to stand up as

one (Bass, 1985, 1990; Bennis, Parikh, &

Lessem, 1994; Block, 1993; Corderio, 2003;Kelley, 1992; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; Lynham,1998, 2000d; Odom & Green, 2003; Perreault,1997; Terry, 1993).

Leadership does not exist in isolation.Without followship there is no leadership(Autry, 1991; Bass, 1990; Block, 1993; Gardner,1990; Kelley, 1992; Kouzes & Posner, 1995;

Northouse, 1997; Perreault, 1997). Thephenomenon of leadership comes about as aresult of a need to pursue desired outcomes, that

is, to achieve goals desired by stakeholderslocated both inside and outside a specificperformance system (Beauchamp & Bowie,1997; Holton, 1999; Frooman, 1999; Trevion,

Brown & Hartman, 2003).Every performance system has a

constituency that represents those whom

leadership in the performance system serves, andfor whom the leadership produces desired results(Freeman, 1997; Frooman, 1999; Gardner, 1990;Gibson, Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1994;Greenleaf, 1997; Jones & Wicks, 1999; Kelley,1992; Milgrom & Roberts, 1992; Ulrich, Zenger,& Smallwood, 1999).As a result, considerationsof constituency, forms the first, catalyzing, and

input unit of the theoretical framework of RLP.


5/16

77

Unit 2:AFramework of ResponsiblenessThe word responsible is associated with

words like answerable, liable, accountable,amenable, reliable, dependable, trustworthy, andcare. These terms share the meaning of &dquo;beingobliged to answer...as for ones actions...to an

authority that may impose a penalty for failure&dquo;(American Heritage Dictionary, 1992, p. 1537).The notion of responsibleness is associated with

professional action, that is, action that is &dquo;basedon careful, reflective thought about which

response is professionally right in a particularsituation&dquo; (Tennyson & Strom, 1986, p. 298).

White Newman (1993, as cited in Lynham,1998, p. 211 ) offers a workable and appealingframework for responsible leadership. &dquo;Toooften&dquo;, says White Newman, &dquo;leadership

writings and practice have emphasized how tobe effective. They need to embrace much morethan this singular focus&dquo;. White Newman aptlydescribes the logic of the framework ofresponsible leadership as follows:

Being solely concerned with effect seemsinadequate, potentially even dangerous, since itis obvious that a person can be effective--that is,make a difference--yet also be unethical.Knowing the harm such people can cause, Ibelieve most of us want leaders who, because

they are ethical, will make beneficial differencesto the world. Too often, in these stressful times,individuals who are effective and ethical survive

as leaders for a brief time. They do not endure.Some are replaced by external factors. Otherscave in under the pressure of leadership--theybum out. So endurance becomes essential to

leadership. Endurance encompasses refreshmentfor leaders and renewal for their groups [andsystems]. (cited in Lynham, 1998, p.)

Leadership that is responsible is that which

demonstrates, and is judged to demonstrate,

effectiveness, ethics, and endurance (DePree1989, 1997, Trevion, Brown & Hartman, 2003;White Newman, 1993), and are necessarycomponents of responsible leadership. Whatconstitutes these 3Es is determined by theconstituency of the performance system inwhich the leadership occurs (Bass, 1990;Beauchamp & Bowie, 1997; Brady, 1985;Freudberg, 1986; Frooman, 1999; Jones &Wicks, 1999; Khuntia & Suar, 2004; Knapp &Olson, 1996; Stavrou, Kleanthous, &

Anastasiou, 2005). It is this framework of

responsibleness that constitutes the second unitof the theoretical framework of RLP.

Luthans (2001; 2002; 2003) work on therole of hope and its impact on leaders is theclosest that we have found to what we mean

through the use of the term responsible. Inseveral studies involving relatively largesamples, Luthans has been able to suggest that

high-hope leaders are generally able to fostermore productive and more enjoyable workenvironments (2003). The significance of thiswork seems to suggest that what we might call

responsible leaders (and what Luthans mightcall hopeful), are leaders that communicate

frequently with their co-workers, and for whomthose co-workers enjoy coming to work.

Unit 3: Domains of PerformanceAccording to The American Heritage

Dictionary (1992), performance is about

carrying something through to completion, that&dquo;to perform is to carry out action, an

undertaking, or a procedure&dquo; and that the word&dquo;often connotes observance of due form or the

exercise of skill or care&dquo; (p. 1345). From these

descriptions, performance must be seen to havetwo parts: &dquo;an activity and the outcome of that

activity&dquo; (Dean, 1997, p. 72). Performance alsooccurs within a context of requirements, that is,according to the requirements of a particularperformance system and audience.

Each performance system therefore defines

performance to fit and serve its unique needs

(Collins & Porras, 1994; Dean, 1997; Gibson,Ivanevich & Donnelly, 1994; Holton, 1999;Kolvitz, 1997; Passmore, 1997; Rummler &

Brach, 1995; Tosti & Jackson, 1992; Von

Bertalanffy, 1968; West, 1997). Theperformance of a system is multidimensional.Four commonly identified and significant

domains of performance include the systemmission and purpose, the work process/es, thesocial sub-systems, and the individual performer(Cummings & Worley, 2001; Gibson,Ivancevich & Donnelley, 1994; Holton, 1999;Mintzberg, 1994a, 1994b; Rummler & Brache,1995; Swanson, 1996; Swanson & Holton, 1999;Tichy, 1983, 1997; Wimbiscus, 1995). It is thes

multiple domains ofperformance that form ththird unit of the theoretical framework of RLP.

It is a common misconception that a focuon performance implies a focus on financia


6/16

78

measures. Given this assumption, a commonissue with the premises we have argued relatesto how one can be both responsible and focusedon performance. To clarify this point, we stressthat what makes for &dquo;performance&dquo; is defined bythe

constituency.For

example,an educational

institution or non-profit organization woulddefine performance differently than that of a for

profit organization. Habitat for Humanity mightmeasure performance in terms of the number ofhouses built, while a fortune 500 might focus onstock performance and building shareholdervalue. The point to be made here is that ourvision is for leadership is that it is done

responsibly (drawing from moral norms agreedon by the constituency) and that it is

performance-based (aimstoward the

achievement of some output agreed on by the

constituency).

Laws of Interaction

The laws of interaction, of which there area number of kinds/types, describe the interaction

among the units of a theory (Dubin, 1978). Thelaws of interaction among the three units of the

theoretical framework of RLP include four

categoric laws and three sequential laws. &dquo;A

categoric law of interaction is one that states thatvalues of a unit are associated with values of

another unit&dquo; (Dubin, 1978, p. 98), while a

sequential law is defined as one that is

&dquo;...always employing a time dimension. Thetime dimension is used to order the relationshipamong two or more units&dquo; (p. 101 ).

According to Dubins methodology, &dquo;allunits are linked with categoric laws, as a changein any unit will provoke a change in at least oneother unit&dquo; (Chermack, 2005, p. 824).Furthermore, &dquo;all units are also linked with

sequentiallaws to denote the

importanceof the

time element&dquo; (p. 824). The theoreticalframework of RLP does not include anydeterminate laws and appoints considerations ofconstituency as the catalyst unit, that is, the unit&dquo;...whose presence is required for otherinteraction in the theoretical [framework]&dquo;

Figure 3: The Laws of Interaction in the Theoretical Framework of RLP


7/16

79

(Chermack, 2005, p. 824). The laws ofinteraction of the theoretical framework of RLP

are illustrated in Figure 3.

Boundaries

Establishing the boundaries of thetheoretical framework of RLP requiresspecification of the domain or domains in which

the framework is expected to operate (Dubin,1978). Boundaries help locate the theoreticalframework in the environment with which the

theory is concerned (Chermack, 2005), and

require that the theorist makes the logic used todetermine them explicit (see Figure 4). The

boundaries of the theoretical framework of RLPare shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: The Boundaries of the Theoretical Framework of RLP

There are three boundaries for the

theoretical framework of RLP: 1) a leadershipsub-system boundary 2) a performance systemboundary, and 3) the contextual environment

boundary. All boundaries in the theoreticalframework are open boundaries, denoted by thedashed lines in Figure 5, indicating that theleadership (sub)system continuously exchangesinformation and resources with the performancesystem domain in which it occurs and with the

larger exterior environmental domain acting onthe performance system. Informed by the logic

of general systems theory (Senge, 1990) and

existing work on leadership as process,responsible leadership for performance is

positioned as a focused (sub)system within a

larger performance system and context, asindicated in Figure 6.Acommon issue in theory building is in

differentiating the units of the theory from theboundaries. For example, in this theory buildingexercise, it may be tempting to inquire about thedifference between the unit &dquo;domains of

performance&dquo; and the boundary of performance


8/16

80

systems. It is generally helpful to keep in mindthat the unit refers to the item that is present in

the theory, and the boundary can be consideredthe limiting element of that unit. For example,this framework of responsible leadership

requiresthat

individuals, groups, processes,and

the organization meet some performancerequirements (usually those specified in the

system or organization), but the notion of a

performance system boundary is meant to

suggest the space in which this performancemust take place.

System States

Dubin (1978, 1981) defined a system stateas a

condition of the system being modeled inwhich all the units of the system take oncharacteristic values that have persistencethrough time, regardless of the length of the timeinterval.All units of the system being modeledhave values that are determinant, meaning theyare measurable and distinctive for that state of

the system.Asystem state that accurately represents a

condition of the system of RLP being modeledhas three important characteristics, namely:

inclusiveness (&dquo;where all the units of the systemare included in the system state&dquo;), persistence(&dquo;where the system state persists through some

meaningful period of time&dquo;), and distinctiveness

(&dquo;where all units take on unique values for that

system state&dquo;) (Dubin, 1978; Toracco, 2000,p.54).

The theoretical framework of RLP

conceptualizes leadership as a (sub)system, andhas four system states which it transitionsbetween. Borrowing from Chermack (2005), and

to illustrate the differing states of the RLPsystem, the theoretical framework uses a 0;11

coding, where 0 &dquo;represents none of the thing orcharacteristic under examination&dquo; (p. 825)--meaning there are no considerations of

constituency and therefore there is no leadershipsystem in operation. According to the time-sequence embedded in the laws of interaction,actions regarding specific units precede actions

regarding others. &dquo;As the system transitionsfrom state to state, the unit values shift from 0 to

1... demonstrating that as each unit value shifts,

the [theoretical framework] transitions from onestate to the next (Chermack 2005, p. 825). Thefour system states of the theoretical frameworkof RLP are: (1) non-operation--where all unitshave a value of 0; (2) identification ofconsiderations of

constituency--whereunit

1=1,units 2 and 3= 0; (3) determining requirementsof responsible leadership--where unit 1=1, unit2=1, unit 3 =0; and (4) determining andassessing performance and implications--whereall units = 1, and the leadership system is fullyoperational. When in a fully operational state,feedback based on performance becomes aninput to the leadership units and begins theprocess again, from either point.

Having completed the first four steps ofDubins

theory building methodology,a

complete and informed theoretical framework ofRLP can now be made explicit (see Figure 5).This theoretical framework satisfies phase oneof the General Method of theory buildingresearch and indicates that the conceptualdevelopment of the theoretical framework ofRLP has been completed (Dubin, 1978;Lynham, 2002a, 2000b; Torraco, 1974, 2000).

Another common issue in theory buildingconcerns the tendency to question the differencebetween the laws of interaction and the

systemstates. Those individuals intuitively attuned tothe logic of theory building will see thisconnection, although it is not always clear. Forcertain, laws of interaction must link to systemstates, but these items are not the same. For

some it is helpful to think of system states as&dquo;phases&dquo; through which the theory willtransition. According to Dubin (1978) systemstates are often designated by examining thelaws of interaction, but the system states should

describe the nature of the relationship whereasthe laws of interaction may simply state that arelationship exists. For example, in thisframework of responsible leadership forperformance, we have suggested that&dquo;considerations of constituency&dquo; are related to&dquo;a framework of responsibleness. System state2 suggests that there is a process through whichthe theory moves that transitions from a focus onconsiderations of constituency to a focus on

responsibleness.


9/16

81

Figure 5: The Theoretical Framework of RLP

Once conceptually developed, thetheoretical framework is used to articulate

knowledge claims or truth statements about howthe framework can be expected to operate in thereal world. These knowledge claims are alsoknown as the propositions of the theoreticalframework. Eight strategic propositions havebeen specified for the theoretical framework ofResponsible Leadership for Performance:

1. RLP is a theoretical framework ofleadership as a system-in-focus, in which

leadership is conceived as a purposeful,focused system, not an individual or a

process managed by an individual.2. All systems have a purpose. The purpose of

RLP is to serve the needs and desired

outcomes of the constituency of a

performance system by positivelyimpacting multiple domains of performance

in a responsible (effective, ethical andenduring) manner.

3. The content of RLP is derived from all

three units of the theoretical framework-

considerations of constituency, aframework of responsibleness, and domainsof performance. If all three units are not

present and interacting, then there is nosystem ofRLP in action.

4. For leadership to be considered responsible,it must demonstrate, and be judged todemonstrate, effectiveness, ethics andendurance. If one of these three attribute

properties is missing from leadership, thenthat leadership cannot be considered

responsible.5. The units of the theoretical framework-

considerations of constituency, a

framework of responsibleness, and domainsof performance-are interdependent. A


10/16

82 .

change in one unit can be expected toproduce a change in the other two units.

6. As responsibleness (effectiveness, ethicsand endurance) increases, performance ofthe whole performance system can be

expectedto increase.

7. Constituency is a necessary requirement for

responsible leadership for performance.Without constituency there is no RLP.

8. Without guiding inputs from constituency,and outputs in the form of multi-domain

performance, the phenomenon of RLP

collapses.

The next step according to Dubin (1978) isto determine empirical indicators. These

empiricalindicators inform the formulation of

hypotheses necessary to verify the theoretical

framework through disciplined inquiry,application, and continuous refinement.

Empirical Indicators

Informedby

the above

propositionsand

existing literature, four empirical indicatorshave been identified for the theoretical

framework of RLP. These empirical indicatorsare necessary to be able to identify values andmeasures for the interacting units of thetheoretical framework, which must next beverified through empirical research. Four initial

empirical indicators, derived from propositions6, 7, and 1, respectively, have been determined,and are presented in the statements following

(forfurther discussion refer

Lynham, 2000a,2000d).

1. Empirical Indicators for the Unit of Constituency

2. Empirical Indicators for the Unit ofResponsibleness

3. Empirical Indicators for the Unit of Performance

4. Empirical Indicators for the Leadership System-in-focus

The empirical indicators are chosen by thetheorist, and are targeted at those thought most

necessary to confirm/disconfirm the operation ofthe theoretical framework in the real world

(Dubin, 1978). These values and measures canalso be used on the units and the RLP systememployed in other propositions of the theoreticalframework.

The theoretical framework, together withthe propositions and empirical indicators,

represent the development and initialoperationalization of the theoretical frameworkof RLP. Informed by existing related literature,the theoretical framework can now be made

ready for verification through research designedto prove the adequacy and improve thetheoretical framework. The results of such

research can be used to further refine and

develop the theoretical framework.


11/16

83

Hypotheses

Hypotheses are the link between thetheoretical model under construction and the

natural and/or social world in which it applies.Hypotheses are thus &dquo;the predictions about

values of units of a theory in which empiricalindicators are employed for the named units ineach proposition&dquo; (Dubin, 1978, p. 206). Whileit is common for each proposition to yieldseveral testable hypotheses, Dubin (1978)advises that the minimum requirements call for

only one testable hypothesis for each

proposition. It is also common in developingtheory building efforts to begin with a set of

hypotheses that can always be expanded upon ata later time. Therefore, given the novelty of thetheoretical model developed in this manuscript,the hypotheses identified for preliminaryverification of the model include the following:

Hypothesis 1: There will be a positiverelationship between participation in theRLP system and constituent perceptions ofeffectiveness.

Hypothesis 2: There will be a positiverelationship between participation in theRLP system and constituent perceptions ofethical behavior.

Hypothesis3: There will

bea

positiverelationship between participation in theRLP system and constituent perceptions ofendurance.

Hypothesis 4: There will be a positiverelationship between participation in theRLP system and mission related

performance in terms of quality, quantityand/or time.

Hypothesis 5: There will be a positiverelationship between participation in theRLP system and work process performance

in terms of quality, quantity and/or time.Hypothesis 6: There will be a positive

relationship between participation in theRLP system and social sub-system andindividual units of performance in terms ofquality, quantity and/or time.

Hypothesis 7: There will be a positiverelationship between participation in theRLP system and the level of participationof the constituency.

Hypothesis 8: There will be a positive

relationship between participation in theRLP system and the perceived value of that

leadership system by the constituency.

These hypotheses are intended to provide a

preliminary evaluation of the RLP system. That

is, these are not a comprehensive list ofhypotheses that would be required to verify thetheoretical model as theory, however, they doprovide a starting point. Upon verification thataspects of the theoretical model hold and areaccurate under empirical testing, further

hypotheses can be formulated to suggest theinteraction of one or more units as predictors ofanother.Advanced statistical analyses can beformulated includingANOVAand MANOVA

comparison studies to examine these more

complex experimental designs. In truth,however, it is not useful to outline such studiesuntil the general adequacy of the theoreticalmodel can be established. The hypotheses thathave been identified are a starting point at whichto do so.

Research & Practice Implications

The theoretical framework of RLP

presented is one of the phenomenon ofleadership as a system-in-focus. Perceiving

leadershipas a

system-in-focus isnew to

leadership theory. Perceiving leadership as asystem-in-focus that is aimed at leadership thatis both responsible and about performance isatypical of leadership practice. In conclusion,some implications of this theoretical frameworkfor future research and practice are brieflyconsidered.

Research

Related literature indicates an abundance of

leadership theories. However, also shown is that

general, integrating theories of leadership are inshort supply. The theoretical framework of RLPis potentially useful to leadership theory in anumber of ways, two of which might includethose indicated below.

First, the theoretical framework (of RLP)can be used to promote connectivity amongexisting leadership theories. For example, inboth behavioral and transformation leadershiptheory, the phenomenon of leadership is shapedby the situation, or context, in which leadership


12/16

84

occurs. By rethinking the contextual situation asa leadership system-in-focus, within a specificperformance system, RLP enables both groupsof theory to inform leadership as a means to anend and in service to multiple-domain, whole

system performance. Through this reframingthese two theoretical perspectives cease their

rivalry and can each be understood andappreciated for how they inform the nature and

challenges of the performance system.Second, the theoretical framework can

serve a transformative role with respect to

existing and emerging theories of leadership. Forexample, trait theory is strongly informed byleadership in the military context. In this contextthe military makes for the particularperformance system in which the leadership

system-in-focus occurs. From the perspective ofthe theoretical framework of RLP, the militaryperformance system must therefore be used toinform, shape and evaluate the requiredleadership system in terms of considerations ofconstituency, responsibleness and multi-domain

performance. The nature and value of the threeunits of the framework are therefore changed bythe purpose and nature of the performancesystem to which the leadership system-in-focusis in service. Considering the military as the

performance boundary of the leadership system-in-focus significantly impacts who could, andshould, be included in the considerations ofconstituency, what makes for responsibleleadership in that performance system andcontext, and what constitutes acceptableperformance in that performance system. This

integrated perspective of leadership, in turn,informs the leadership traits best suited to the

particular performance system, and highlightsthe need to reconsider these traits when the

nature

and purpose ofthe

performance systemitself changes. Thus, it is unlikely that the

leadership traits best suited to a militaryperformance will be the same as those bestsuited to a non-military one.

There are many diverse and competingtheoretical perspectives on leadership, eachexplaining the phenomenon of leadership, each away of both seeing and not seeing this

phenomenon, and each with its own limitations.In a body of literature where theories of a

conflicting and contradictory nature abound, this

proliferation becomes fragmenting and

confusing rather than unifying and clarifying(Yukl & van Fleet, 1992). More general theoriesof leadership, like that of RLP, need to befurther developed, confirmed and refined to helpto integrate and demystify this body ofknowledge and understanding.

Practice

Go to the New Releases section at any

modem-day bookstore, on-line or on-foot, andyou will find at least a handful of books toutingthe latest answer to leadership. Included aremarketing-driven recipes for quick success andresults from consulting companies and so-calledgurus, many of whom are best known for their

management literature. Unfortunately, lessseldom does one come across a scholarly, well-

researched book on leadership that is written forthe consumption of practice. The scholarlyliterature on leadership seldom resides on thebookshelves of popular bookstores.

The implications of using this theoreticalframework in leadership practice are quiteextensive. First, it would require that

practitioners acknowledge that leadership ismore a driver and less an outcome of

performance. Second, it means that leadershipwould have to be understood and pursued as a

system-in-focus and thus in service to theperformance system and context in which itoccurs. Third, this theoretical framework

requires that practitioners acknowledge the

phenomenon of leadership as a system withinputs, processes, outputs and feedback, in theform of considerations of constituency,responsible leadership practices, habits andresources, and multiple performance outcomes.Fourth, the theory acknowledges and demandswhole system performance as an indicator of

leadership output, and fifth,are

the implicationsof this theoretical framework to leadershipdevelopment.

In brief, the implications of this theoreticalframework for leadership development couldindicate a drastic restructuring of currentleadership development practices. For example,if this framework were to play out in an

organization, we might fmd that the pathway tosenior levels of management or to CEO mightrequire a long tenure in the human resource, or

organization development department.Activities like engaging in and directing


13/16

85

training, organization development and teambuilding are vital to understanding the

relationships that make the organizationscontinued existence and growth possible.Suffice it to say that we assume leadershipdevelopment practices would be required to

change if the model we propose is investigatedmore fully and found to be a reasonable proxyfor responsible leadership in general.

With growing demands for leadership thatmakes a difference, the increasing businessrealities of globalization and an increasingshortage of skilled, knowledge labor, the need tobalance people and performance must becomean important problem of leadership theory,research and practice. Leadership theories akinto that of RLP can be enormously helpful to this

end. This theoretical framework could be usedby practitioners to make sense of the multipleleadership theories at their disposal--that is, toframe and contextualize these theories in terms

of the leadership system needs in their

performance system. RLP could also be used to

diagnose, develop, and evaluate current

leadership and leadership capacity needs invarious performance systems, ensuring that

leadership is positioned as a key means toperformance and not as an end in itself.

It is also our vision that current leadershippractices must change. While we submit ourmodel as currently founded only in the literatureand how we conceive that responsible leadershipMIGHT work, we hope to spend considerableefforts investigating the accuracy of ourassessment. Should we find this theoretical

model to be generally accurate (afterconsiderable longitudinal investigation) wewould also hope that leaders might see that

responsible (effective, ethical, and enduring)leadership can be linked directly to the

performance of the organization. Should this bethe case, again founded on eventual years ofcumulative research, the implications of ourtheoretical model could provoke changes in the

way leadership is conceptualized, developed,and sold to organizations throughout the world.While this vision may be somewhat idealized,we intend to extend considerable effort in

examining the theoretical model that we haveoutlined in this article.

References

Autry, J.A. (1991). Love and profit: The art ofcaring leadership. New York: WilliamMorrow and Company.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdills handbook of

leadership; theory, research, and managerialapplications (3rd ed.). New York: TheFree Press.

Bass, B.M. (1985, Fall). Leadership: Good, better,best. Organizational Dynamics,13(3), 26-40.

Beauchamp, T.L., & Bowie, N.E. (Eds.) (1997).Ethical theory and business (5th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bennis, W. (1994). On becoming a leader. NewYork:Addison-Wesley.

Bennis, W., Parikh, J., & Lessem, R. (1994).Beyond leadership: Balancing economics,ethics and ecology. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell Business.

Bhatia, K. (1995). Leadership and leaders are ontheir way. Journal of Leadership Studies,2(2), 65-72.

Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing serviceover self-interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Boyett, J., & Boyett, J. (1998). The guru guide:The best ideas of the top managementthinkers. New York: John Wiley.

Brady, F.N. (1985).AJanus-Headed model ofethical theory: Looking two ways atbusiness/society issues. Academy ofManagement Review, 10(3), 568-576.

Brungardt, C. (1996). The making of leaders:Areview of the research in leadershipdevelopment and education. Journal ofLeadership Studies, 3(3), 81-95.

Chermack, T. J. (2005). Studying scenarioplanning: Theory, research suggestions andhypotheses. Technological Forecasting andSocial Change,72(1), 59-73

Clark, K.E., & Clark, M.B. (1996). Choosing tolead (2nd ed.) Greensboro, NC: Center forCreative Leadership.

Clark, K.E., Clark, M.B., & Campbell, D.P. (Eds.).(1992). Impact of leadership. Greensboro,NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Cohen, B.P. (1991). Developing sociologicalknowledge: Theory and method (2nd ed.).Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Collins, J.C., & Porras, J. (1994). Built to last:

Successful habits of visionary companies.New York: HarperBusiness.


14/16

86

Corderio, W. P. (2003). The only solution to thedecline in business ethics: Ethical managers.

Teaching Business Ethics 7(3), 265-268.Covey, S.R. (1991). Principle centered leadership.

New York: Summit.

Covey, S.R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective

people: Powerful lessons in personal change.New York: Fireside.Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2001).

Organization development and change (6thed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College.

Dean, P.J. (1997). Dale Brethower: The knowledgebase of human performance technology. In P.J. Dean & D. E. Ripley (Eds.),Performance improvement pathfinders:Models for organizational learning systems(pp. 65-83). Washington, DC: ISPI.

DePree, M. (1997). Leading without power:

Finding hope in serving community. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.DePree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New

York: Doubleday.Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building (Rev. ed.).

New York: The Free Press.

Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in appliedareas. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook ofIndustrial and OrganizationalPsychology (pp. 17-39). Chicago: RandMcNally.

Freeman, R.E. (1997).Astakeholder theory of themodem

corporation.In T.L.

Beauchamp&

N.E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory andbusiness (5th ed.) (pp. 66-76). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Freudberg, D. (1986). The corporate conscience:

Money, power and responsible business. NewYork:American ManagementAssociation.

Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influencestrategies.Academy of Management Review,24(2), 191-205.

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

Gibson,J.L.,

Ivancevich,J.M., &

Donnelly, J.H.,

Jr. ( 1994).Organizations:Business,structure, processes (8th ed.). Boston, MA:Irwin.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1997). Servant leadership:A

journey into the nature of legitimate powerand greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Holton, E.F. III. (1999). Performance domains andtheir boundaries. In R. J. Torraco (Ed.),Performance improvement: Theory and

practice (pp. 26-46).Advances in DevelopingHuman Resources, 1. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Holton, E.F., & Lynham, S.A. (2000).Performance-driven leadership development.In E.F. Holton III & S.S. Naquin (Eds.),Developing High Performance LeadershipCompetency (pp. 1-16). Advances in

Developing Human Resources, 6. San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Jones, T.M., & Wicks,A.C. (1999). Convergent

stakeholder theory.Academy ofManagementReview,24(2), 206-221.

Kelley, J.E. (1992).Autonomy and control at theworkplace: Contexts for work redesign.London: Croon Helm.

Klenke, K. (1993). Leadership education at thegreat divide: Crossing into the 21st century.Journal of Lleadership Studies, 112-127.

Knapp, J.C., & Olson, S. (1996). Ethicalleadership. Journal of Leadership Studies,

3(4), 84-86.Khunia, R., & Suar, D. (2004).Ascale to assessethical leadership of Indian private and publicsector managers. Journal of Business Ethics

49(1), 13-27.Kolvitz, M. (1997). Donald Tosti and Stephanie

Jackson: The organizational scan,performance levers, and alignment. In P. J.Dean & D. E. Ripley (Eds.), Performanceimprovement pathfinders: Models fororganizational learning systems (pp. 124-

141). Washington, DC: ISPI.

Kotter, J.P. (1990a, May-June). What leadersreally do. Harvard Business Review, 103-111.Kotter, J.P. (1990b). A force for change: How

leadership differs from management. NewYork: The Free Press.

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B.Z. (1995). Theleadership challenge: How to getextraordinary things done in organizations

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Luthans, F. (2001). The case for positive

organizational behavior (POB). CurrenIssues in Management1(1), 10-21.

Luthans,F.

(2002). "Chapter9: Positive

approachto OB", in Luthans, F. (Ed.), OrganizationalBehavior, 9th ed., McGraw-Hill / Irwin, NewYork: NY, pp. 286-322.

Lynham, S.A. (2002a). The general method of

theory-building in applied disciplines. In S.A.Lynham (Ed.), Advances in DevelopingHuman Resources, 4(3), 221-241. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Lynham, S.A. (2002b). Quantitative research andtheory building: Dubins method. In S. A.Lynham (Ed.), Advances in Developing


15/16

87

Human Resources,4(3), 242-276. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Lynham, S.A. (2000c). Leadership development:Areview of the theory and literature. In K. P.Kuchinke (Ed.), Academy of HumanResource Development Conference

Proceedings (pp. 285-292). Baton Rouge,LA: AHRD.

Lynham, S.A. (2000d). The development of atheory of responsible leadership forperformance. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Minnesota. St Paul,MN: UMN.

Lynham, S.A. (1998). The development andevaluation of a model of responsibleleadership for performance: Beginning thejourney. Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, 1(2), 207-220.

McLagan, P., & Nel, C. (1995). The age ofparticipation: New governance for the

workplace and the world. San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler.

Meindl, J.R., & Ehrlich, S.B. (1987). The romanceof leadership and the evaluation oforganizational performance. Academy ofManagement Journal, 30(1), 91-109.

Melrose, K. (1995). Making the grass greener:ACEOs journey to leading by serving. SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics,organization and management. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mintzberg, H. (1994a). The rise and fall ofstrategic planning: Reconceiving roles forplanning, plans, and planners. New York:Free Press.

Mintzberg, H. (1994b, January-February). The riseand fall of strategic planning. HarvardBusiness Review, 107-114.

Northouse, P.G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and

practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Odom, L., Green, M. T. (2003). Law and the

ethics of transformational leadership.Leadership & Organization DevelopmentJournal 24(1), 62-72.

Passmore, D.L. (1997). Ways of seeing:Disciplinary bases of research in HRD. In R.A. Swanson & E.F. Holton III (Eds.), HumanResource Development research handbook:

Linking research and practice (pp. 199-214).San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Perreault, G. (1997). Ethical followers:ALink toethical leadership. Journal of LeadershipStudies,4(1), 78-89.

Peterson, S. J., & Luthans, F. (2003). The

positive impact and development of hopefulleaders. Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal24(1), 26-31.

Posner, B.Z, & Kouzes, J. (1996). Ten lessons forleaders and leadership developers. The

Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(3), 3-10.Reynolds, P.D. (1971). A primer in theory

construction. New York: MacMillan.

Rotemberg, J.J., & Saloner, G. (1993). Leadershipstyle and incentives. Management Science, 39

(11), 1299-1318.Rummler, G.A., & Brache,A.P. (1995). Improving

performance: How to manage the white spaceon the organization chart (2nd ed.). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline. NewYork: DoubleDay.

Soukhanov, A. H. (Ed.). (1996). TheAmericanheritage dictionary. Boston, MA: TheRiverside Publishing Company.

Soukhanov,A. H. (Ed.). (1994). Websters II newriverside dictionary. Boston, MA: TheRiverside Publishing Company.

Stavrou, E. T., Kleanthous, T., Anastasiou, T.

(2005). Leadership personality and firmculture during hereditary transitions in familyfirms: Model development and empiricalinvestigation. Journal of Small Business

Management43(2), 187-207.Swanson. R.A. (1996). What I learned this year

St. Paul, MN: University of MinnesotaHuman Resource Development ResearchCenter.

Swanson, R.A. (1995). Making the case fo

performance. In E. F. Holton, III (Ed.), The

Academy of Human Resource DevelopmenAnnual Conference Proceedings. BatoRouge, LA:AHRD.

Swanson, R.A., & Holton E.F. III. (1999). ResultsHow to assess performance, learning, anperceptions in organizations. SaFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W.H. (1973, MayJune). How to choose a leadership patternHarvard Business Review, 3-11.

Tennyson, W.W., & Strom, S.M. (1986, January)Beyond professional standards: Developinresponsibleness. Journal of Counseling anDevelopment, 64, 298-302.

Terry, R.W. (1993). Authentic leadership. SaFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tichy, N. M. (1997). The leadership engine: How

winning companies build leaders at evelevel. New York: Harper Business.


16/16

88

Tichy, N. M. (1983). Managing strategic change:Technical, political and cultural dynamics.New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Torraco, R. J. (2000).Atheory of knowledgemanagement. In R. W. Herling & J. Provo

(Eds.), Strategic perspectives on knowledge,

competence, and expertise (pp. 38-62).Advances in Developing Human Resources,5.

Torraco, R. J. (1994). The development andvalidation of a theory of work analysis. St.Paul, MN: Human Resource DevelopmentResearch Center, University of Minnesota.

Tosti, D. T., & Jackson, S. F. (1997). The

organizational scan, performance levers, andalignment. In P. J. Dean & D. E. Ripley(Eds.), Performance improvementpathfinders: Models for organizational

learning systems (pp. 124-141). Washington,DC: ISPI.Trevion, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P.

(2003). A qualitative investigation ofperceived executive ethical leadership:Perceptions from inside and outside theexecutive suite. Human Relations 56(1), 5-28.

Ulrich, D., Zenger, J., & Smallwood, N. (1999).Results-based leadership: How leaders buildthe business and improve the bottom line.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systemstheory: Foundations, development,application. New York: George Braziller.

West, J. (1997). Managing performance in thewhite spaces. In P. J. Dean & D. E. Ripley(Eds.), Performance ImprovementPathfinders: Models for OrganizationalLearning Systems (pp. 108-123). Washington,DC: ISPI.

Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the newscience: Learning about organization from an

orderly view. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.White Newman, J.B. (1993). The three Es of

leadership: A model and metaphor foreffective, ethical and enduring leadership.Unpublished manuscript. St. Paul, MN: The

College of St. Catherine.

Wimbiscus, J.J., Jr. (1995).Aclassification anddescription of human resource developmentscholars. Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, 6, 5-34.

Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership:A

reviewof theory and research. Journal ofManagement, 15, 251-289.

Yukl, G., & van Fleet, D.D. (1992). Theory andresearch on leadership in organizations. InM.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.),Handbook of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, Vol. 3, (pp. 147-197). PaloAlto,CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Zhu, W., May, D. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). The

impact of ethical leadership behavior onemployee outcomes: The roles psychological

empowerment and authenticity. Journal ofLeadership & Organizational Studies, 11(1),16-27.

responsible leadership for performance a theoretical model and hypotheses

Documents