"

Chapter 12: Understanding Leadership: People, Power, and Possibility

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Define leadership and identify traits associated with effective leaders.
  2. Describe and illustrate behaviors commonly demonstrated by effective leaders.
  3. Analyze various organizational contexts to determine which leadership styles are most effective.
  4. Compare and contrast transformational, transactional, charismatic, servant, and authentic leadership approaches.
  5. Evaluate the impact of different leadership styles on organizational outcomes.
  6. Apply leadership theories to real-world scenarios or case studies.

Section 12.1: Spotlight

Leadership Breakdown at Saint Louis University Hospital

 

In April 2022, nurses at SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital cast a decisive vote of no confidence in their leadership, citing serious communication breakdowns and leadership failures. With 93% of participating nurses expressing no confidence, the vote reflected months of mounting frustration with administrative behaviors that obstructed transparency, trust, and staff morale (Norton, 2022). These events offer a sobering illustration of how ineffective organizational communication can fracture a workplace and undermine leadership credibility.

Central to the nurses’ grievances was the administration’s lack of responsiveness, a fundamental failure in downward communication. Reports indicated that staff waited weeks for replies to basic concerns such as broken equipment or payroll discrepancies, eroding belief that leadership was engaged or attentive (Norton, 2022). This delay in addressing operational needs amplified distrust, particularly in a high-stakes environment like healthcare where real-time communication is vital. The absence of timely feedback reflects a disconnect between leadership and frontline realities—a gap that organizational communication practices must aim to eliminate.

Further complicating matters were instances of mixed and misleading messaging from leadership. Nurses reported that promised retention and hiring bonuses were never delivered, while extra shift incentives were unexpectedly cut. These behaviors created ambiguity and conflict in lateral communication among staff members, who struggled to interpret shifting policies and reconcile them with leadership’s prior statements (Norton, 2022). Inconsistent communication from administrators undermines psychological safety and contributes to a toxic culture where expectations are unclear and morale suffers.

The situation escalated when nurses were prohibited from discussing safety concerns and wages during breaks—prompting complaints filed with the National Labor Relations Board (Norton, 2022). This restriction on peer communication violated principles of upward and horizontal communication by stifling open dialogue and creating an environment of fear and surveillance. Effective leadership fosters transparency and protects whistleblowing channels, but in this case, organizational communication was used defensively, not constructively—undermining credibility further.

The administration’s decision to expand patient bed capacity while staffing vacancy rates exceeded 30% illustrated a failure to engage in collaborative decision-making. By pushing forward strategic changes without input from clinical staff, leadership ignored the foundational role of communication in participative leadership models. Trust eroded further when nurses perceived that their expertise and firsthand knowledge were disregarded, deepening the divide between decision-makers and caregivers (Norton, 2022).

In summary, the vote of no confidence at Saint Louis University Hospital highlights critical gaps in organizational communication that contributed to leadership failure. Unresponsive, inconsistent, and suppressive communication behaviors weakened relationships, destroyed trust, and ultimately prompted collective action. This case reinforces the importance of open dialogue, active listening, and ethical transparency in maintaining healthy organizational dynamics—especially in environments tasked with high-pressure public service.

References

Norton, L. (2022, April 21). Nurses vote no confidence in Saint Louis University Hospital administration. St. Louis Public Radio. https://news.stlpublicradio.org/health-science-environment/2022-04-21/nurses-vote-no-confidence-in-saint-louis-university-hospital-administration

Discussion Questions

  1. Reflect on a time when you experienced or observed poor communication in a workplace or organization. How did it affect trust, morale, or productivity within the team? What lessons can you draw from that experience?
  2. In the case of Saint Louis University Hospital, leadership failed to respond to staff concerns in a timely manner. How do you think timely and transparent communication impacts employee engagement and trust in leadership? Can you think of examples where timely communication made a difference in your own life or work?
  3. The nurses at the hospital felt that their expertise and input were ignored when leadership made decisions about staffing and patient care. Have you ever been in a situation where your input was disregarded? How did it make you feel, and what could leadership have done differently to make you feel heard?
  4. The hospital administration restricted nurses from discussing safety and wage concerns, which led to complaints with the National Labor Relations Board. How important do you think open dialogue is in resolving workplace issues? Have you ever been in a situation where open communication was encouraged or discouraged, and what was the outcome?
  5. Leadership at the hospital made promises, such as retention bonuses, that were not fulfilled. How do you think broken promises from leaders affect trust and workplace culture? Have you ever experienced a situation where a leader failed to follow through on a commitment, and how did it shape your perception of their leadership?

Section 12.2: Who Is a Leader? Trait Approaches and Natural Inclinations

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Describe the Historical Role of Trait Approaches. Understand how trait theories fit within the evolution of leadership studies and their influence on modern models.
  2. Identify Core Traits Linked to Leadership Success. Recognize key personality traits—such as those from the Big Five model—that are commonly associated with effective leadership.
  3. Analyze Trait Strengths and Ethical Vulnerabilities. Critically examine how desirable traits (e.g., confidence, charisma, emotional stability) can also lead to manipulative or harmful behaviors if unchecked.
  4. Evaluate the Limitations of Trait-Based Leadership. Discuss key criticisms, including overemphasis on fixed characteristics, lack of contextual sensitivity, and difficulty in predicting behavior.
  5. Assess Trait Malleability and Leadership Development. Reflect on which traits are teachable or can be strengthened through experience, and which tend to remain stable over time.
  6. Apply Trait Concepts to Leadership Identification. Explore how organizations can use trait-based insights to spot and nurture future leaders, including both strengths and risk factors.

Leadership is widely understood as the communicative act of influencing others toward shared goals (Kouzes & Posner, 2017). In contemporary organizations, leadership is not confined to hierarchical structures; it emerges across formal and informal roles. Formal leaders hold designated authority and may leverage both positional and personal power. Informal leaders, by contrast, influence through relational credibility, expertise, and communicative competence—often shaping team dynamics without official titles (Bisel & Adame, 2019).

Importantly, leadership is distinguished from coercion. Effective leaders do not rely on force or fear; instead, they cultivate trust, align values, and inspire voluntary commitment to collective aims. As Forbes contributor Lomit Patel (2023) notes, modern leadership hinges on active listening, transparency, and relational authenticity—qualities that foster morale and engagement across diverse teams.

This chapter explores the evolution of leadership theory and practice, drawing from trait, behavioral, contingency, and contemporary approaches. We examine key questions: What makes leaders effective? How do communication behaviors shape perceptions of leadership? And how can individuals develop leadership capacity in ethically grounded, inclusive ways?

Recent scholarship emphasizes the centrality of communication in leadership outcomes. According to Chambers, Liu, and Moore (2023), leader communication influences not only team performance and stakeholder trust, but also broader organizational culture and strategic decision-making. For example, transformational leaders like Satya Nadella (CEO of Microsoft) have redefined corporate culture by modeling empathy, openness, and collaborative dialogue (Roberts, 2025).

While some scholars challenge the assumption that leadership is always decisive—coining the term “the romance of leadership” (Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985)—empirical evidence continues to affirm its impact. Leaders are often held accountable for organizational success or failure, and their communicative choices shape both perception and reality.

In the pages ahead, we will trace the historical development of leadership studies, highlight contemporary models such as servant and ethical leadership, and consider how communication practices can mitigate abuse and neglect in managerial roles. For college students preparing to enter diverse workplaces, understanding leadership as a communicative, ethical, and relational process is not just academic—it’s essential.

The earliest approach to the study of leadership sought to identify a set of traits that distinguished leaders from nonleaders. What were the personality characteristics and the physical and psychological attributes of people who are viewed as leaders? Because of the problems in measurement of personality traits at the time, different studies used different measures. By 1940, researchers concluded that the search for leadership-defining traits was futile. In recent years, though, after the advances in personality literature such as the development of the Big Five personality framework, researchers have had more success in identifying traits that predict leadership (House & Aditya, 1997). Most importantly, charismatic leadership, which is among the contemporary approaches to leadership, may be viewed as an example of a trait approach.

The traits that show relatively strong relations with leadership are discussed below (Judge et al., 2002).

Trait Approaches and Natural Inclinations

Leadership doesn’t begin with a job title—it often begins with characteristics that feel second nature. Early research into leadership focused on identifying traits that made individuals more likely to emerge as leaders. These natural inclinations, including intelligence and personality tendencies, shape how we perceive and respond to leadership moments in everyday life. Understanding these traits helps us not only recognize potential leaders around us but also develop awareness of our own leadership capabilities.

This section examines two foundational trait categories: general mental ability, including cognitive and emotional intelligence, and the Big Five Personality Traits. While no single trait guarantees leadership success, certain combinations make leadership more likely to emerge—and more likely to resonate with others.

Natural Inclinations and Leadership: Intelligence and Personality Traits

Leadership often emerges not from formal titles but from the natural inclinations individuals bring to their roles. Early theories of leadership focused heavily on identifying specific traits that predisposed individuals to lead. Today, we understand these traits as part of a broader constellation of abilities and tendencies—such as cognitive capacity and personality characteristics—that influence leadership emergence and effectiveness. In this section, we explore two foundational areas: general mental ability and the Big Five Personality Traits. These frameworks offer insight into how individuals can recognize their own leadership potential and develop it intentionally.

Intelligence and General Mental Ability

Intelligence, particularly general mental ability, has long been associated with leadership success. Leaders with strong cognitive skills tend to excel in decision-making, strategic thinking, and problem-solving. However, contemporary research emphasizes that intelligence is multifaceted. Emotional intelligence (EI), or the ability to manage one’s own emotions and respond empathetically to others, has become a central focus in leadership studies. Goleman (1998) argued that while IQ and technical skills may be prerequisites for leadership roles, emotional intelligence is the “sine qua non of leadership.” High EI enables leaders to foster trust, navigate interpersonal challenges, and create inclusive team environments. For example, Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, has been widely praised for transforming his organization’s culture through empathetic leadership and a growth mindset (Roberts, 2025).

  • Cognitive Intelligence (IQ): Leaders with high IQs often excel in strategic thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making. However, IQ alone doesn’t guarantee success. As Daniel Goleman (1998) famously argued, “IQ and technical skills are entry-level requirements; emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership.”
  • Emotional Intelligence (EI): EI refers to the ability to recognize, understand, and manage one’s own emotions and those of others. Leaders with high EI foster trust, resolve conflict effectively, and create psychologically safe environments. Research from Harvard Business School shows that 71% of employers value EI more than technical skills when evaluating leadership potential (Landry, 2019).

The Big Five Personality Traits

The Big Five Personality Traits—openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism—offer another lens for examining leadership tendencies. These traits are considered relatively stable over time and predictive of behavior across a range of contexts. Openness, marked by intellectual curiosity and creativity, supports adaptability and innovation—valuable qualities in today’s fast-changing organizations. Conscientiousness relates to reliability, goal-setting, and ethical consistency, all of which reinforce accountability in leadership roles. Extraversion often correlates with charisma and assertiveness, which help leaders energize and motivate their teams. Agreeableness fosters empathy, cooperation, and trust-building, while emotional stability (low neuroticism) equips leaders to manage stress and setbacks with resilience.

Trait Description Leadership Implications
Openness Curiosity, creativity, willingness to try new ideas Encourages innovation and adaptability in dynamic environments
Conscientiousness Organization, reliability, goal orientation Linked to task completion, accountability, and ethical decision-making
Extraversion Sociability, assertiveness, enthusiasm Often associated with charismatic leadership and team motivation
Agreeableness Empathy, cooperation, trustworthiness Supports relationship-building and conflict resolution
Neuroticism Emotional stability (low neuroticism = calm, resilient) Leaders with low neuroticism handle stress and setbacks more effectively

Meta-analytic research confirms the link between personality and leadership effectiveness. Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) found that conscientiousness, extraversion, and emotional stability were the strongest predictors of leadership emergence and performance across diverse settings. It is also essential to recognize that cultural norms and gender expectations influence how these traits are perceived. For instance, assertiveness may be applauded in male leaders but scrutinized in female leaders due to persistent societal biases (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Students benefit from exploring these dynamics to foster inclusive and equitable leadership styles.

Contemporary examples help illustrate these traits in action. Brené Brown, whose leadership work centers on vulnerability, courage, and authenticity, exemplifies openness and agreeableness. Her emphasis on relational leadership challenges traditional norms and resonates with leaders seeking more ethical and human-centered approaches.

Ultimately, understanding trait-based leadership is not about boxing individuals into fixed categories. Rather, these models help students reflect on their natural inclinations—what comes easily, what needs cultivating—and how they can grow into leadership in ways that are both effective and compassionate.

Trait Leadership: When Strengths Become Shadows

Trait-based leadership emphasizes stable personality characteristics—like confidence, charisma, emotional intelligence, and decisiveness—as predictors of leadership success. But these same traits, when distorted or unchecked, can take a darker turn.

Reflection Points for Discussion:

  • Confidence → Arrogance A confident leader may inspire trust—but excessive self-assurance can lead to closed-mindedness or dismissal of feedback.
  • Charisma → Manipulation Charisma can draw people in—but it may also be used to obscure harmful intentions or dominate group dynamics.
  • Emotional Stability → Emotional Distance Leaders who seem “rock solid” emotionally may struggle to connect empathetically with others or acknowledge their own stress.
  • Decisiveness → Rigidity Quick decision-making may help move teams forward—but it can also shut down collaborative input or reinforce stubborn thinking.
  • Agreeableness → Avoidance A highly agreeable leader may foster harmony—but they might avoid addressing critical conflict or unethical behavior.

Insider Edge

The Peter Principle in Organizational Communication

Objective

To understand how the Peter Principle affects organizational decision-making, communication dynamics, and leadership development—and to explore strategies for mitigating its impact.

What Is the Peter Principle?

The Peter Principle, coined by Laurence J. Peter, posits that in hierarchical organizations, employees tend to be promoted based on success in their current role until they reach a position where they are no longer competent. This occurs because the skills required for higher-level roles often differ significantly from those needed in lower-level positions (Peter & Hull, 1969).

“In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” — Laurence J. Peter

Why It Matters

  • Communication Breakdown: Incompetent leaders may struggle to communicate effectively, leading to misalignment, confusion, and disengagement.
  • Cultural Consequences: Organizations risk cultivating a culture of incompetence if promotions reward loyalty or performance in unrelated tasks rather than leadership potential (Cantaragiu et al., 2018).
  • Strategic Misfires: Poor decision-making at higher levels can derail strategic initiatives, reduce morale, and increase turnover.

Strategy Toolkit: Preventing the Peter Principle

  1. Competency-Based Promotion Criteria Use structured assessments to evaluate leadership potential—not just current performance.
  2. Communication-Centric Leadership Development Train emerging leaders in active listening, feedback loops, and conflict resolution.
  3. Dual Career Ladders Offer advancement paths that reward technical expertise without forcing a move into management.
  4. 360-Degree Feedback Incorporate peer, subordinate, and supervisor evaluations to assess readiness for leadership roles.
  5. Mentorship & Shadowing Allow potential leaders to observe and learn from experienced managers before promotion.

Empowerment Tip

If you’re in line for a promotion, ask for a leadership readiness review. Request feedback on your communication style, decision-making approach, and ability to manage team dynamics. Proactively seeking development shows initiative and helps prevent mismatched promotions.

 

References
Cantaragiu, R., Ghinea, V. M., & Mihalache, G. (2018). The Peter Principle and the limits of our current understanding of organizational incompetence. Retrieved from ResearchGate

Peter, L. J., & Hull, R. (1969). The Peter Principle: Why things always go wrong. William Morrow and Company.

Benson, A., Li, D., & Shue, K. (2019). Promotions and the Peter Principle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(4), 2085–2134. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz022

Discussion Questions

  1. Think about your own personality traits—such as openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability—and reflect on which ones come most naturally to you. How might these “natural inclinations” support or challenge your ability to lead others effectively? Give examples from your experiences in school, work, or group settings that show how your traits have shaped how others respond to you as a leader or team member.
  2. Think about a leader (real or fictional) who possessed strong personality traits but ended up misusing their influence. What signs foreshadowed the shift from helpful to harmful? How might more self-awareness or accountability have changed the outcome?
  3. Think of a leader you admire. Which traits does this person display, and how do they align with those discussed in this chapter? Consider both positive and potential “shadow” traits. If the traits differ from those described, what might explain their effectiveness as a leader?
  4. Can Traits Be Taught—or Tempered? How might organizations use trait-based leadership findings to train future leaders? Which traits appear more teachable through experience or education, and which seem more deeply ingrained or difficult to modify? How might training address the risks associated with misusing those traits?
  5. What strategies can organizations use to identify individuals with desired leadership traits? Which methods—such as personality assessments, behavioral interviews, peer feedback, or job simulations—would be most useful for revealing both the strengths and potential risks of these traits?

Section 12.3: What Makes a Leader Tick? How Behaviors Shape Influence

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Recognize and differentiate core leadership behaviors. Identify and compare outcome-driven and empathy-driven leadership behaviors, including how these approaches influence team dynamics, performance, and emotional engagement.
  2. Evaluate contemporary decision-making styles and their strategic use. Analyze directive, participative, and laissez-faire decision-making styles, and explain how situational context, team composition, and organizational goals impact their effectiveness.
  3. Critically assess behavioral approaches to leadership. Examine the strengths and limitations of behavioral leadership theories, particularly in light of evolving workplace demands, ethical challenges, and the increasing role of emotional and contextual intelligence.

Leadership today is increasingly defined not just by what a leader knows or believes, but by what they do—especially in how they communicate, motivate, and respond to others. Behavioral approaches to leadership focus on the actions and observable habits that define someone’s influence within a group or organization. Early models distinguished between two primary styles: outcome-driven behaviors, aimed at goal achievement, and empathy-driven behaviors, aimed at relationship building. While these categories still offer valuable insight, they now sit within a richer and more ethically complex framework that emphasizes adaptability, inclusion, emotional intelligence, and ethical communication.

In modern organizational life—where teams are increasingly diverse, hybrid, and collaborative—the way leaders behave can either strengthen trust or erode it. Relying solely on rigid task directives or disengaged “hands-off” approaches is no longer sufficient. Instead, behaviors must be contextually responsive and relationally aware. For example, supportive leadership behaviors that cultivate psychological safety are now linked to higher team performance, retention, and innovation (Edmondson, 2019). Similarly, participative decision-making, where leaders engage their teams in shaping outcomes, builds agency and commitment in ways authoritarian styles cannot.

As we explore behavioral approaches in this section—from classic categories like directive vs. democratic leadership, to emerging frameworks such as inclusive and adaptive leadership—we’ll also confront their potential blind spots. How can behaviors that seem productive, like decisiveness or emotional control, become damaging when overused or misapplied? When does “hands-off” cross the line into neglect? Leadership behavior is powerful—but without ethical grounding and relational intelligence, it can tilt toward manipulation, disengagement, or harm.

By understanding what leaders do—and how those actions impact others—students will be better equipped to build leadership styles that are not only effective but sustainable, humane, and culturally responsive.

Leader Behaviors

Effective leadership in the 21st century cannot be reduced to a singular trait or static style—it must be outcome-driven enough to deliver tangible results, and empathy-driven enough to sustain human connection. But that’s just the starting point. Today’s leaders are also expected to adapt skillfully, include intentionally, and communicate digitally—a behavioral toolkit designed for complexity, diversity, and transformation.

Outcome-driven leadership behaviors focus on clarifying goals, aligning efforts with measurable outcomes, and orchestrating execution with precision. These leaders prioritize results through accountability, strategy, and resourcefulness (Kouzes & Posner, 2017). However, without relational awareness, an outcome focus can slip into rigidity. That’s where empathy-driven behaviors offer the necessary counterbalance: leaders who listen actively, respond thoughtfully, and create environments of trust and psychological safety (Maxwell, 2013). They recognize that outcomes are only sustainable when the people behind them feel valued and understood.

Adaptive leadership behaviors take this further by recognizing that challenges are often dynamic and ambiguous. Adaptive leaders embrace experimentation, seek feedback, and pivot when necessary. Their behaviors include questioning assumptions, involving others in problem-solving, and leading change with both clarity and humility (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). These are especially vital in environments where long-standing approaches no longer work—or where innovation is the only viable path forward.

Inclusive leadership behaviors ensure that every voice is not only heard, but woven into decision-making. These leaders are intentional about equity and belonging. Their behaviors involve interrupting bias, amplifying marginalized perspectives, and creating systems where diversity can flourish (Edmondson, 2018). Inclusivity isn’t just a soft skill—it’s a strategic asset, and leaders who demonstrate it behaviorally are more likely to foster creativity, commitment, and resilience across their teams.

Finally, digital fluency has become non-negotiable in leader behavior. Whether managing hybrid teams, analyzing performance dashboards, or navigating remote collaboration tools, digitally fluent leaders behave in ways that maximize clarity, efficiency, and inclusion online. They understand not just what tools are available, but how tone, timing, and accessibility shape digital engagement (Cathcart, 2020). Outcome-driven leaders may use digital platforms to monitor progress and streamline operations, while empathy-driven leaders harness technology to support well-being and maintain connectedness in virtual spaces.

Taken together, these five behavioral styles reflect a broader truth: leadership is no longer just positional or personal—it’s situational, relational, and deeply behavioral. The most effective leaders blend these approaches fluidly, showing that results and relationships are not at odds, but are strongest when pursued together with adaptability, inclusion, and digital mastery.

Leader Decision Making

In today’s dynamic organizational environments, how leaders make decisions—and how those decisions are communicated—has a profound impact on team performance, employee engagement, and ethical culture. While early behavioral research categorized decision-making styles into authoritarian, collaborative, and laissez-faire approaches, contemporary leadership theory has evolved to emphasize situational, data-informed, and ethically grounded decision-making behaviors (Northouse, 2021).

Situational decision-making reflects the understanding that no single style fits all contexts. Leaders must assess the urgency, complexity, and stakeholder needs before choosing how to proceed. For example, directive decisions may be necessary in crisis situations, while participative approaches are more effective in creative or research-driven settings (Goleman et al., 2013). This flexibility aligns with Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership model, which suggests that effective leaders adapt their decision-making based on follower readiness and task demands (Hersey et al., 2012).

The rise of digital platforms and analytics has also ushered in a new era of data-informed leadership. Leaders now use dashboards, predictive models, and employee feedback systems to guide decisions with greater precision and transparency. Data-informed behaviors enhance strategic foresight and reduce bias, but they also require ethical stewardship to ensure privacy and fairness (Mandinach & Gummer, 2016). Organizations like Amazon and Netflix exemplify this approach by blending behavioral insights with real-time analytics to drive innovation and efficiency.

Equally important is the rise of ethical leadership, which centers decision-making on values such as fairness, accountability, and respect for stakeholder rights. Ethical leaders consider the long-term consequences of their choices and foster cultures of integrity and psychological safety (Brown & Treviño, 2006). They are transparent in their reasoning, inclusive in their processes, and committed to doing what is right—even when it’s not easy. This approach is especially critical in diverse and global organizations, where ethical missteps can erode trust and reputation.

Traditional authoritarian decision-making, once valued for its efficiency, is now reframed as directive leadership—a style that can be effective in high-risk or low-trust environments but must be balanced with relational awareness. Excessive control can lead to disengagement and ethical lapses, while moderate directive behaviors may provide clarity and stability when needed (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008). Rather than labeling leaders as authoritarian, scholars now explore hybrid models that integrate structure with empathy and inclusion.

On the other hand, laissez-faire leadership—characterized by minimal guidance and disengagement—remains consistently linked to negative outcomes. Research shows that this style leads to role ambiguity, increased conflict, and lower employee satisfaction (Skogstad et al., 2007). Without clear expectations or support, teams often struggle to collaborate effectively or maintain accountability.

Effective leader decision-making today is contextual, evidence-based, and ethically anchored. Leaders must not only choose the right style for the moment—they must also communicate decisions transparently, invite meaningful input, and uphold values that build trust and resilience across the organization.

Theory X and Theory Y: Communication and Motivation in Organizations

Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, introduced in The Human Side of Enterprise (1960), remain foundational concepts in organizational communication and management. These theories describe two contrasting assumptions managers make about employee motivation and behavior, which in turn shape communication styles, leadership approaches, and organizational culture.

Theory X assumes that employees inherently dislike work, avoid responsibility, and require strict supervision and control to be productive. Managers operating under Theory X often rely on top-down communication, rigid hierarchies, and extrinsic motivators such as rewards and punishments. This approach can lead to efficient operations but may also stifle creativity, reduce morale, and increase turnover (Lizy, 2023).

In contrast, Theory Y presents a more optimistic view, suggesting that employees are naturally motivated, seek responsibility, and can self-direct when given the opportunity. Theory Y managers emphasize participative communication, trust-building, and empowerment. They foster environments where employees are encouraged to contribute ideas, collaborate, and pursue personal growth. This style aligns with contemporary organizational values such as psychological safety and inclusive leadership (Galani & Galanakis, 2022).

Modern organizations often blend both theories to adapt to diverse employee needs and situational demands. For example, tech companies like Google and Atlassian embrace Theory Y principles by promoting autonomy and innovation through open communication channels and flexible work structures. Meanwhile, industries with high compliance requirements, such as finance or manufacturing, may lean on Theory X elements to maintain consistency and control.

Recent research in organizational psychology suggests that while McGregor’s framework lacks extensive empirical validation, it remains a valuable lens for understanding how managerial assumptions influence communication patterns and employee engagement (Galani & Galanakis, 2022). The key takeaway for students of organizational communication is that leadership style and communication strategy are deeply intertwined—and that recognizing employee potential through Theory Y can unlock higher levels of performance and satisfaction.

Behavioral Leadership in Context: Intelligence Beyond Action

Behavioral approaches to leadership, once heralded for their focus on observable actions rather than innate traits, eventually fell out of favor due to a critical oversight: they neglected the context in which behaviors are enacted. Early researchers hoped that identifying specific leadership behaviors—such as initiating structure or showing consideration—would universally predict effectiveness. However, this assumption proved overly simplistic. What makes a high school principal successful may differ dramatically from the behaviors required of a military commander or a tech startup CEO. Leadership is not just about what one does, but when, where, and with whom those actions are taken (Khanna, 2014; Kutz, 2008).

Modern organizational communication research emphasizes the importance of contextual intelligence, defined as the ability to diagnose the unique variables of a situation and adapt behavior accordingly (Kutz, 2008). Leaders with high contextual intelligence can interpret cultural norms, stakeholder expectations, and environmental constraints to tailor their communication and decision-making. For example, a leader managing a remote global team must navigate time zones, digital platforms, and intercultural dynamics—requiring not just behavioral flexibility but contextual awareness to foster cohesion and clarity (Khanna, 2014).

In parallel, the rise of emotional and social intelligence has reshaped how behavioral leadership is understood. Emotional intelligence (EI) involves self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills (Goleman, 2007). Social intelligence extends this framework to include the ability to navigate complex interpersonal relationships and group dynamics (Bar-On, 2006). Leaders who demonstrate high EI and social intelligence are better equipped to manage conflict, inspire trust, and communicate authentically—behaviors that are increasingly linked to team performance and employee well-being (Cherniss et al., 2006).

Rather than seeking a universal set of effective behaviors, contemporary leadership theory advocates for situational behavioral fluency—the ability to draw from a repertoire of actions and apply them with emotional, social, and contextual sensitivity. For instance, a leader may use directive behaviors during a crisis but shift to participative behaviors when fostering innovation. The effectiveness of these behaviors depends not only on the leader’s intent but on their ability to read the room, understand the emotional climate, and respond with agility.

Behavioral leadership is no longer viewed as a static checklist of actions. It is a dynamic interplay of behavior, intelligence, and context. Leaders who cultivate emotional and social intelligence, and who develop the capacity to interpret and respond to shifting environments, are far more likely to succeed across diverse organizational settings.

Behavioral Leadership: When Strengths Become Shadows

Leadership strengths, when applied without self-awareness or contextual sensitivity, can cast long shadows. In behavioral leadership theory, attributes such as decisiveness, control, and empathy are often framed as desirable—but their overuse or misapplication can erode trust, stifle innovation, or lead to burnout. This phenomenon underscores the importance of balance, emotional intelligence, and contextual insight in leader behavior.

Consider a leader known for being highly outcome-driven—focused on goal attainment, performance metrics, and strategic execution. While this approach may yield short-term success, without relational attentiveness, it can morph into micromanagement, inflexibility, or insensitivity to team needs. Employees may feel dehumanized or undervalued, leading to disengagement and turnover (Goleman, 2013). Similarly, leaders who are deeply empathy-driven, prioritizing interpersonal connection and psychological safety, may inadvertently avoid necessary conflict or resist making tough decisions, resulting in stagnation or lack of accountability (Northouse, 2021).

Adaptive leaders face a unique shadow: over-adaptation. In constantly shifting course to meet emerging challenges, they may appear indecisive or lack strategic clarity. Their responsiveness can confuse teams if not accompanied by transparent communication and alignment around evolving goals (Heifetz et al., 2009). Likewise, inclusive leadership, while essential for equity and belonging, may be diluted when inclusivity becomes performative or when leaders fail to challenge exclusionary behaviors directly (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Seeking consensus without cultivating courage can limit impact.

Digital fluency, though increasingly vital, also carries risks when leaders rely too heavily on technological mediation. Overuse of digital tools can produce depersonalized communication, misinterpretation of tone, and fragmented team cohesion. Leaders must learn when to unplug and re-engage in human-centered dialogue—especially across cultures and generations with differing digital expectations (Cathcart, 2020).

These shadow effects illustrate the need for emotional and social intelligence in behavioral leadership. Leaders must cultivate self-awareness to monitor how their behaviors affect others, empathy to interpret emotional cues, and relational intelligence to adjust their actions in real time. They must also develop contextual intelligence—the ability to read the environment, anticipate implications, and make choices aligned with team capacity, organizational values, and stakeholder needs (Kutz, 2008; Khanna, 2014).

Ultimately, effective leadership is not simply acting on strengths but managing them with nuance. Behavioral leadership reaches its highest potential when leaders use their strengths as tools—not weapons—and remain vigilant to the shadows those behaviors might cast.

Insider Edge

When Leadership Has Outlived Its Effectiveness

Objective

To empower students to recognize and respond constructively when a leader—once respected—has reached a point where stepping down is necessary but refuses to do so, using communication strategies that protect integrity, promote accountability, and support organizational health.

Why It Matters

Leadership transitions are critical moments in any organization. When a leader who was once effective begins to exhibit behaviors that undermine trust, collaboration, or strategic clarity—but refuses to step aside—the consequences can be far-reaching. Research shows that ineffective leadership can erode psychological safety, suppress innovation, and create communication silos (Edmondson, 1999; Sarkama, 2025). Students in academic or professional settings may feel powerless, but their voices and actions can help restore alignment and integrity.

Strategy Toolkit

Strategy Application
Observe and Document Note specific behavioral changes, communication breakdowns, and impacts on team dynamics.
Use Values-Based Framing Anchor concerns in shared goals and organizational mission (Brown & Treviño, 2006).
Engage in Constructive Voice Speak up respectfully, focusing on outcomes and organizational well-being (Detert & Burris, 2007).
Seek Mentorship or Allies Connect with trusted faculty, advisors, or peers who can validate concerns and offer guidance.
Encourage Succession Planning Advocate for leadership development and transition strategies that support long-term sustainability.

Empowerment Tip

When leadership falters, silence is not neutrality—it’s missed opportunity. Frame your concerns with empathy and clarity. For example:

“I’ve noticed some shifts in leadership behavior that seem to be affecting team morale and decision-making. How can we support a conversation about leadership renewal or transition?”

This approach invites reflection and avoids personal confrontation while keeping the focus on organizational health.

“Leadership is not a lifetime appointment—it’s a role that must evolve or be passed on.” — Frølich et al. (2025)

 

References
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Frølich, N., Bleiklie, I., & Stensaker, B. (2025). Leadership communication during organizational transformation. European Journal of Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2025.2456871

Sarkama, M. (2025). The role of leadership in organizational change [Master’s thesis, Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences]. Theseus. https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/886031

Discussion Questions

  1. Think about a leadership strength you admire or personally rely on—such as decisiveness, empathy, adaptability, inclusivity, or digital fluency. Under what circumstances might that strength become a liability or cast a “shadow”? How can leaders recognize when they’ve crossed that line, and what strategies might help them recalibrate their behavior to avoid unintended consequences?
  2. Identify two leaders you admire: one who demonstrates primarily outcome-driven behaviors (focused on goals, execution, and results), and one who demonstrates primarily empathy-driven behaviors (focused on connection, communication, and team well-being). What impacts have these behaviors had on their organizations or communities?
  3. How do leaders determine when to make decisions independently versus collaboratively? Share examples of how situational decision-making can enhance effectiveness and communication in different contexts.
  4. What challenges arise when leaders make decisions based solely on data or performance goals without considering ethical implications? How can ethical decision-making strengthen trust and long-term success?
  5. n what ways can digital fluency support or hinder effective leadership behavior? Reflect on a situation where technology improved leadership communication—or where its use may have created misunderstandings or distance.
  6. Emotional, social, and contextual intelligence all influence how leaders behave and make decisions. Reflect on a time when a leader demonstrated one of these intelligences effectively. How did their behavior change depending on the audience or environment?
  7. Think about a strength you tend to rely on in leadership (e.g., decisiveness, adaptability, empathy). Under what circumstances might that strength become a liability? How do you stay aware of when a behavior may be overused or misapplied?
  8. Analyze your own behavioral leadership style. Are you more likely to act in an outcome-driven or empathy-driven way? When making decisions, do you lean toward situational, participative, or data-informed approaches? What adjustments might strengthen your effectiveness?

Section 12.4: When One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Contingency Theories of Leadership

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Analyze situational variables—such as task structure, team dynamics, and environmental complexity—that influence the effectiveness of various leadership engagement styles.
  2. Evaluate the conditions under which task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders succeed, using Fiedler’s Contingency Theory and the concept of “strengths becoming shadows.”
  3. Explain the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership, including its four styles (directive, supportive, participative, achievement-oriented), and assess how leaders can align their behavior with employee needs and workplace challenges.
  4. Apply the Vroom-Yetton Normative Decision Model to determine the appropriate level of team involvement in decision-making, considering factors like decision significance, team expertise, and commitment.
  5. Assess the role of emotional and contextual intelligence in adapting leadership styles to diverse organizational settings, including hybrid teams, high-stress environments, and innovation-driven cultures.
  6. Reflect on personal leadership tendencies and explore how self-awareness and feedback mechanisms can help leaders recognize when their strengths may hinder performance.

What constitutes the “best” leadership style has long been debated in organizational research, but increasingly, scholars and practitioners alike recognize that this may not be the most useful question to pursue. Contemporary leadership theory emphasizes that effectiveness is rarely tied to one universal style. Instead, researchers have shifted focus to understanding how specific leadership behaviors interact with the demands of varying organizational contexts (Northouse, 2022). This shift was prompted by the limitations of earlier trait and behavioral approaches, which struggled to account for dynamic workplace variables. In response, contingency approaches gained traction, proposing that leadership effectiveness hinges on the alignment between leader behavior and situational demands (Yukl & Gardner, 2020).

Modern workplaces—characterized by remote collaboration, cross-functional teams, and increasingly agile cultures—require leaders to adapt their styles across contexts. For instance, a directive approach may be more effective in high-risk, time-sensitive environments such as cybersecurity incident response teams, while participative or supportive styles may foster better outcomes in creative agencies or healthcare settings where emotional intelligence and collaboration are vital (Zaccaro, Green, Dubrow, & Kolze, 2018). This contingency-based thinking provides a more nuanced framework for evaluating leadership effectiveness, offering tools to analyze not only what leaders do, but when and why certain styles succeed.

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory in Contemporary Context

Frederick Fiedler’s Contingency Theory (1967) remains one of the earliest influential frameworks to explicitly link leadership effectiveness to context. Instead of suggesting that one leadership style fits all scenarios, Fiedler proposed that a leader’s style—measured through the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale—interacts with situational variables to determine performance outcomes. Leaders with high LPC scores are typically more relationship-oriented, able to maintain positive views of colleagues even in difficult working relationships. In contrast, low LPC scorers tend to be more task-oriented, often struggling to separate interpersonal feelings from professional functionality. According to Fiedler, effectiveness depends on situational favorability, determined by leader-member relations, task structure, and positional power.

While Fiedler’s approach advanced leadership theory by emphasizing context, modern organizational communication research highlights its limitations in addressing fluid and ambiguous environments. Today’s leaders face dynamic challenges such as hybrid teams, cultural diversity, digital transformation, and crisis response, which often defy rigid style-to-situation matches (Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2020). In response, newer models like Adaptive Leadership offer greater flexibility, encouraging leaders to engage in active sensemaking, build resilience through relationships, and adjust their strategies in real time (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders in healthcare and education had to pivot rapidly between directive and empathetic behaviors—something Adaptive Leadership is uniquely designed to accommodate.

Although research continues to validate aspects of Fiedler’s predictions—particularly the effectiveness of low LPC leaders in extreme conditions (Vecchio, 1983; Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985)—his theory is best understood today as a foundation for exploring context-sensitive leadership, rather than a prescriptive model. When juxtaposed with more modern frameworks, such as Adaptive Leadership or situational intelligence approaches, Fiedler’s theory serves as a historical anchor that helps illuminate the evolution of thought in organizational leadership.

Situational Leadership Theory

Situational Leadership Theory (SLT), originally developed by Hersey and Blanchard, remains a widely adopted framework for understanding how leadership effectiveness varies depending on employee development (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2007). The theory posits that a leader’s ability to adjust levels of directive and supportive behaviors is critical, based on each follower’s readiness—defined by competence and commitment. SLT remains prevalent in leadership training across industries, with millions of managers worldwide engaging with its principles (Center for Leadership Studies, 2022).

The model identifies four leadership styles—directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating—that align with different stages of employee growth. For example, new employees who are enthusiastic yet inexperienced may benefit most from directive leadership, while seasoned professionals with high competency and motivation thrive under a delegating style. This alignment reflects SLT’s core assertion: there is no universally effective leadership style, only contextually appropriate behavior (Thompson & Glasø, 2018).

Despite its popularity and intuitive appeal, SLT has faced criticism due to mixed empirical support and questions about measurement reliability (Graeff, 1997; Fernandez & Vecchio, 2002). Additionally, in today’s fluid and complex organizational landscapes—marked by hybrid teams, rapid innovation, and high emotional demands—SLT may benefit from integration with more adaptive models. For instance, Adaptive Leadership, with its emphasis on diagnosing changing challenges and mobilizing people toward learning and flexibility, offers a more robust response to ambiguity and resistance in modern organizations (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009).

In practice, leaders who rely solely on SLT risk oversimplifying human behavior and ignoring evolving cultural, technological, and relational variables. However, when paired with other models that incorporate emotional intelligence and systemic awareness, SLT can serve as a valuable foundation for guiding context-responsive leadership communication.

Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

Originally developed by Robert House (1971), Path-Goal Theory remains a foundational model connecting leadership behavior to employee motivation. Built on Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, the framework suggests that leaders are most effective when they help followers see clear pathways from effort to performance and from performance to personally valued rewards. To do this, leaders must reduce barriers, align tasks with competencies, and reinforce reward structures that foster both satisfaction and high achievement (House & Mitchell, 1974). The theory identifies four core styles—directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented—each designed to be applied based on employee traits such as skill level, locus of control, and motivational drive, as well as environmental factors like task clarity or organizational stress.

Modern organizational communication research situates Path-Goal Theory within more dynamic contexts where leadership is less about static role execution and more about shaping meaning and responsiveness (Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2020). In today’s workplaces—often characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA)—leaders face the challenge of adapting swiftly to shifting conditions and diverse teams. This has led to the emergence of Agile Leadership frameworks, which prioritize flexibility, servant-leader orientations, and iterative decision-making across flat hierarchies (Rigby, Sutherland, & Takeuchi, 2016). For example, tech startups navigating rapid deployment cycles may blend Path-Goal’s achievement-oriented leadership with agile standups, empowering employees to self-correct while maintaining motivational momentum.

Integrating VUCA-responsive strategies into the Path-Goal framework enriches its application in contemporary settings. Rather than prescriptive style-switching, today’s leaders must diagnose psychological readiness, relational dynamics, and communication climate in real time. While empirical support for Path-Goal Theory has been moderate (Indvik, 1986; Wofford & Liska, 1993), its enduring legacy as a flexible, motivation-centric approach makes it a valuable lens—especially when combined with adaptive and agile models that better account for fluidity and innovation.

4 Leader Behavior Styles

Leader behavior styles continue to play a pivotal role in shaping employee motivation, engagement, and performance. Rooted in House’s Path-Goal Theory, these styles—directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented—are designed to align leadership behaviors with employee needs and situational demands (House & Mitchell, 1974). In today’s dynamic and often hybrid work environments, the ability to flex between these styles is increasingly viewed as a hallmark of effective leadership (Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2020).

  1. Directive leadership, characterized by clear instructions and structured guidance, remains effective in contexts where employees face role ambiguity or lack procedural clarity. For example, in fast-paced logistics operations or compliance-driven industries, directive leaders help reduce uncertainty and improve task execution. However, when applied to highly skilled professionals or routine tasks, this style may stifle autonomy and reduce intrinsic motivation (Wofford & Liska, 1993).
  2. Supportive leadership emphasizes emotional intelligence and relational care, offering encouragement and empathy—especially valuable in high-stress or monotonous roles. In customer service centers or healthcare settings, supportive leaders foster psychological safety and resilience, which are linked to improved well-being and retention (London & Zobrist, 2024).
  3. Participative leadership involves employees in decision-making, enhancing ownership and engagement. This style is particularly effective among knowledge workers and teams with high internal locus of control, such as software developers or research scientists. By facilitating inclusive dialogue, participative leaders promote innovation and strengthen organizational commitment (Thompson & Glasø, 2018).
  4. Achievement-oriented leadership challenges employees with ambitious goals and high expectations. This style thrives in performance-driven cultures, such as sales or entrepreneurial ventures, where employees possess both competence and achievement motivation. Leaders who adopt this style often cultivate a growth mindset and goal clarity, driving productivity and strategic alignment (Rigby, Sutherland, & Takeuchi, 2016).

While Path-Goal Theory has received mixed empirical support due to its complexity (House & Aditya, 1997), its enduring contribution lies in emphasizing the adaptability of leader behavior. Unlike Fiedler’s Contingency Theory, which assumes fixed leadership traits, Path-Goal Theory encourages leaders to diagnose situational variables and adjust their style accordingly. In modern organizations navigating volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA), such flexibility is not just beneficial—it’s essential.

Vroom and Yetton’s Normative Decision Model

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Decision Model, developed by Victor Vroom, Philip Yetton, and later refined by Arthur Jago, remains a foundational tool for guiding leaders in determining the appropriate level of subordinate involvement in decision-making (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Vroom & Jago, 1988). Rather than prescribing a single leadership style, the model offers a structured decision tree that helps leaders assess situational variables—such as decision significance, team expertise, and commitment likelihood—to select from five distinct decision-making styles ranging from autocratic to group-based approaches.

In today’s organizational environments, where collaboration, agility, and psychological safety are increasingly prioritized, the model’s relevance has evolved. For example, a leader addressing employee stress and absenteeism might use the model to determine whether to consult the team on wellness initiatives or make a unilateral decision based on available data. Factors such as the leader’s expertise, the team’s readiness, and the alignment of goals all influence the recommended approach. In this scenario, the model may suggest a consultative group process, allowing the leader to gather input while retaining decision authority—balancing efficiency with engagement.

Recent organizational communication research emphasizes leadership as a meaning-making process, where participation and dialogue are central to building trust and commitment (Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2020). Moreover, in volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environments, leaders must be able to flex their decision-making style to match the urgency, complexity, and relational dynamics of the situation (Rigby, Sutherland, & Takeuchi, 2016). The Normative Decision Model supports this adaptability by offering a diagnostic framework that integrates both rational analysis and relational insight.

While the model has been critiqued for its complexity and limited empirical testing (Vroom & Jago, 2007), its enduring value lies in its practical guidance for leaders navigating decisions that require both quality outcomes and stakeholder buy-in. When paired with Agile and VUCA-responsive leadership strategies, the model becomes a powerful tool for fostering inclusive, context-sensitive decision-making in modern organizations.

Leadership Engagement Styles

    In today’s dynamic and communication-rich organizational environments, effective leadership hinges not only on decision-making authority but also on the ability to engage teams meaningfully. Vroom and Yetton’s Normative Decision Model (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Vroom & Jago, 1988) remains a foundational framework for guiding leaders in selecting the appropriate level of team involvement in decisions. The model outlines five distinct engagement styles—Decide, Consult Individually, Consult as a Group, Facilitate, and Delegate—each calibrated to match the complexity of the decision, the expertise of the team, and the importance of buy-in.

    Modern organizational communication research reinforces the model’s relevance, particularly when paired with emotional intelligence (EI) and contextual intelligence (CI). Leaders who demonstrate high EI—such as empathy, self-awareness, and relationship management—are better equipped to assess when and how to involve others in decision-making (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2013). For example, a leader with strong emotional self-awareness may recognize when their team is experiencing stress and opt for a supportive facilitation style to foster psychological safety and collaboration. Similarly, contextual intelligence enables leaders to interpret environmental cues, stakeholder expectations, and cultural dynamics to select the most appropriate engagement style (Khanna, 2014; Kutz, 2008).

    In agile and hybrid work settings, these engagement styles are increasingly fluid. A leader may consult individually with remote team members to gather insights asynchronously, then facilitate a virtual group discussion to align perspectives. In high-stakes or time-sensitive scenarios, a decide approach may be necessary, but emotionally intelligent leaders will still communicate rationale transparently to maintain trust. Conversely, in innovation-driven environments, delegating decisions to empowered teams can enhance ownership and creativity—especially when team members possess high competence and internal motivation (London & Zobrist, 2024).

    Empirical research continues to support the model’s predictive validity. Leaders who match their engagement style to situational variables—such as decision significance, team expertise, and goal alignment—tend to make more effective decisions and foster higher levels of employee engagement (Vroom & Jago, 2007). When integrated with emotional and contextual intelligence, these styles become not just tactical choices, but strategic communication behaviors that shape organizational culture and performance.

    Contingency Leadership: When Strengths Become Shadows

    Contingency leadership theory emphasizes that there is no universally effective leadership style; rather, success depends on the alignment between a leader’s traits and the situational context (Fiedler, 1967). While this approach allows leaders to leverage their strengths, it also reveals a paradox: the very traits that make a leader effective in one context may become liabilities in another. This phenomenon—where strengths become shadows—underscores the importance of self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and contextual agility in leadership communication.

    For example, a task-oriented leader may thrive in high-control environments with clear goals and strong authority, such as crisis management or manufacturing operations. However, in creative or collaborative settings, the same directive style may stifle innovation and erode trust (Vinney, 2024). Conversely, a relationship-oriented leader may foster strong team cohesion and morale, but struggle with decisiveness or accountability in high-pressure, low-structure scenarios (Shonk, 2025).

    Modern research suggests that leaders must not only recognize their default styles but also anticipate when those styles may hinder performance. This requires emotional intelligence to monitor interpersonal dynamics and contextual intelligence to interpret environmental cues (Goleman et al., 2013; Khanna, 2014). Leaders who fail to adapt may inadvertently amplify their blind spots—such as over-reliance on consensus, avoidance of conflict, or rigidity in decision-making.

    Organizations can mitigate these risks by cultivating feedback-rich cultures, offering leadership coaching, and encouraging situational reflection. Tools like the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale and 360-degree assessments can help leaders identify when their strengths are misaligned with the demands of the moment (Fiedler, 1967; Yukl, 2010).

    Ultimately, contingency leadership is not just about matching style to situation—it’s about recognizing when a strength becomes a shadow, and having the courage to step into the light of adaptation.

    Insider Edge

    Are You Ready to Lead?

    Objective

    To equip students with a reflective measure and strategic tools to assess their readiness for leadership responsibilities—recognizing when they are prepared and when further development is needed.

    Why It Matters

    Leadership isn’t just about titles—it’s about influence, responsibility, and communication. Students often step into leadership roles without fully understanding the demands. Research shows that leadership readiness is closely tied to emotional intelligence, communication competence, and trust-building capacity (Zhang, 2024; Vakola, 2014). Misaligned leadership can lead to resistance, disengagement, and organizational dysfunction. Knowing when you’re ready—and when you’re not—is a mark of maturity, not weakness.

    Leadership Readiness Self-Measure

    Rate yourself from 1 (rarely) to 5 (consistently) on the following:

    1. I communicate clearly and adapt my message to different audiences.
    2. I listen actively and seek feedback without defensiveness.
    3. I manage stress and conflict constructively.
    4. I prioritize team goals over personal recognition.
    5. I take initiative and follow through on commitments.
    6. I reflect on my decisions and learn from mistakes.
    7. I build trust through transparency and consistency.
    8. I welcome diverse perspectives and foster inclusion.
    9. I can motivate others toward a shared vision.
    10. I know when to lead—and when to follow.

    Scoring Guide

    • 40–50: Ready to lead with confidence
    • 30–39: Emerging leader—focus on growth areas
    • Below 30: Leadership potential exists, but development is needed

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Reflective Journaling Track leadership experiences and lessons learned weekly.
    Mentor Mapping Identify mentors who model leadership traits you admire.
    Feedback Loops Regularly seek feedback from peers and advisors to calibrate self-perception.
    Leadership Shadowing Observe experienced leaders in action to learn decision-making and communication styles.
    Skill Building Workshops Attend sessions on conflict resolution, strategic communication, and team dynamics.

    Empowerment Tip

    Leadership readiness isn’t a destination—it’s a journey. If you score lower than expected, don’t retreat. Instead, reframe it as a roadmap for growth. Leadership is earned through reflection, resilience, and relationships.

    “Leadership is not about being in charge. It is about taking care of those in your charge.” — Simon Sinek

     

    References
    Vakola, M. (2014). What’s in there for me? Individual readiness to change and the perceived impact of organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(3), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2012-0064

    Zhang, S. (2024). From resistance to readiness: The impact of leadership, trust, and communication in change management. Library Progress International, 44(3). https://doi.org/10.48165/bapas.2024.44.2.1

    Engida, Z. M., Alemu, A. E., & Mulugeta, M. A. (2022). The effect of change leadership on employees’ readiness to change: The mediating role of organizational culture. Future Business Journal, 8(31). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-022-00148-2

    Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. (2023). What can 50 years of leadership communication research tell us? https://carey.jhu.edu/articles/50-years-leadership-communication-research

    Discussion Questions

    1. Reflect on a time when your dominant leadership trait—such as decisiveness, empathy, or collaboration—was highly effective in one situation but less effective in another. How did the context shape the outcome, and what did you learn about the importance of adapting your leadership style to the situation?
    2. Considering the role of emotional and contextual intelligence in adaptive leadership, do you believe the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) technique offers meaningful insights into a leader’s style? In what ways might its limitations influence a leader’s ability to recognize when their strengths become shadows?
    3. With the growing recognition of emotional intelligence and situational demands in leadership communication, do you think effective leaders can intentionally shift among directive, supportive, achievement-oriented, and participative styles based on individual employee needs? Or are leaders generally anchored by a consistent personal style across contexts?
    4. While Vroom and Yetton’s normative model continues to be validated in decision-making contexts, what limitations might emerge when applying it to agile, diverse, or hybrid work environments? How might emotional intelligence or contextual complexity challenge the practicality of the model?
    5. Reflecting on the theories discussed—especially the contingency perspective and normative decision-making— which approach do you believe offers the greatest practical value for current managers? Which theory seems least applicable or difficult to implement effectively in modern organizational settings, and why?

    Section 12.5: Beyond Tradition: Evolving Models of Leadership Excellence

    Learning Objectives

    After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

    1. Analyze the principles of transformational leadership within adaptive systems, including ethical and adaptive leadership components, and evaluate their impact on innovation, trust, and organizational change.
    2. Critically evaluate the role of charismatic leadership in organizational performance and identify potential limitations and risks associated with charisma-based leader selection and construct proliferation.
    3. Explain the development and influence of leader–member exchange (LMX) relationships, distinguishing between social and economic LMX, and examining how work-related and social currencies shape power dynamics and status hierarchies in teams.
    4. Assess the impact of servant leadership across cultural contexts, educational environments, and employee well-being, and identify how gender and cultural dimensions influence inclusivity and empowerment within this leadership style.
    5. Describe the foundations of authentic leadership and explore strategies—such as feedback-seeking and strategic communication—that support self-awareness, relational transparency, and trust in diverse organizational settings.
    6. Reflect on the evolving nature of leadership strengths and explore how overreliance on dominant traits can lead to leadership shadows, with implications for communication, adaptability, and organizational climate.

    As organizations navigate increasingly complex, diverse, and digitally connected environments, traditional leadership models often fall short in addressing the nuanced demands of modern work. In response, contemporary leadership theories—rooted in emotional intelligence, relational dynamics, and values-based influence—have emerged to redefine what it means to lead effectively in today’s workplace (Northouse, 2015).

    This section explores three influential frameworks that exemplify this evolution: Transformational Leadership, Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory, and Servant Leadership. Transformational leadership emphasizes visionary influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized support, inspiring followers to transcend self-interest for collective success (Bass & Riggio, 2006). While transactional leadership still plays a role, particularly through contingent rewards, its passive forms are increasingly viewed as outdated in emotionally intelligent organizations (Burns, 1978).

    LMX theory shifts the focus toward the quality of relationships between leaders and individual team members, highlighting how trust, respect, and mutual obligation shape engagement and performance (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Erdogan & Bauer, 2014). As research in organizational communication continues to evolve, scholars have questioned LMX’s traditional in-group/out-group structure, calling for more nuanced interpretations that incorporate emotional intelligence and psychological safety.

    Finally, servant leadership challenges hierarchical norms by prioritizing the growth and well-being of followers, fostering ethical cultures and inclusive communities (Greenleaf, 2002). While it faces critiques for conceptual ambiguity and overlap with other leadership models, recent scholarship affirms its relevance in promoting moral leadership and sustainable employee development (Eva et al., 2019).

    Together, these models reflect a broader shift away from command-and-control paradigms toward leadership approaches grounded in authenticity, empathy, and adaptability. By examining these evolving theories, leaders and learners alike can better understand how to cultivate influence, build meaningful connections, and drive excellence in a rapidly changing organizational landscape.

    Transformational Leadership in Adaptive Systems

    Transformational leadership continues to be one of the most widely studied and applied leadership models in organizational research, particularly in contexts requiring innovation, change, and resilience. However, contemporary scholarship has moved beyond traditional constructs such as charisma and transactional exchanges, instead emphasizing adaptability, ethical grounding, and relational intelligence (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2020).

    At its core, transformational leadership involves aligning individual and organizational goals, fostering intrinsic motivation, and cultivating a shared vision for change. Leaders who practice this style engage in behaviors such as intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and inspirational motivation—each of which contributes to employee engagement, creativity, and commitment to organizational transformation (Northouse, 2022; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006).

    Recent frameworks such as CALL—Challenges, Adaptation, Leadership, and Learning—have expanded the understanding of transformational leadership by emphasizing the leader’s ability to respond to complexity, ambiguity, and rapid change (Shahid, 2024). The CALL framework encourages leaders to view disruption not as a threat, but as a proving ground for growth. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, organizations led by adaptive transformational leaders were more successful in pivoting operations, maintaining morale, and sustaining innovation (London & Zobrist, 2024).

    In parallel, adaptive leadership has emerged as a complementary model that focuses on diagnosing challenges, mobilizing people to tackle tough problems, and fostering learning across systems (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). Adaptive leaders are not defined by fixed traits but by their capacity to interpret context, engage stakeholders, and adjust their behaviors accordingly. This flexibility is especially critical in VUCA environments—those marked by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity—where traditional leadership models often fall short (Rigby, Sutherland, & Takeuchi, 2016).

    Moreover, ethical leadership has become a central concern in transformational contexts. Leaders who prioritize fairness, transparency, and moral reasoning are more likely to build trust, psychological safety, and long-term organizational health (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005). Ethical transformational leaders do not merely inspire—they model integrity and foster cultures of accountability and inclusion.

    Despite its enduring popularity, transformational leadership has faced criticism for construct proliferation—the tendency for overlapping leadership models (e.g., authentic, ethical, servant) to blur conceptual boundaries and reduce empirical clarity (Banks et al., 2016; Hoch et al., 2018). Scholars argue that while transformational leadership remains effective, it must be refined to avoid redundancy and better reflect the relational and contextual dynamics of modern organizations (Deng et al., 2023).

    In practice, transformational leadership is most effective when integrated with adaptive and ethical principles. Leaders must not only inspire but also listen, learn, and evolve. They must recognize when their strengths—such as decisiveness or vision—become liabilities in shifting contexts. As the CALL framework suggests, transformational leadership today is less about heroic charisma and more about cultivating resilience, learning from failure, and leading with purpose.

    Workplace Strategy Pack

    Learning to Be Authentically Charismatic

    Objective

    To empower students with the mindset, tools, and strategies to develop authentic charisma—an interpersonal skill that enhances leadership, trust, and influence without resorting to superficial charm or manipulation.

    Why It Matters

    Charisma is often misunderstood as a natural gift or theatrical flair. But research shows that true charisma is a learnable blend of emotional intelligence, credibility, and communication competence (Antonakis et al., 2016; Reid, 2024). In today’s workplace, where authenticity and trust are non-negotiable, charismatic leaders who lead with sincerity and empathy are more likely to inspire teams, foster collaboration, and drive meaningful change.

    Authentic charisma helps students:

    • Build trust and rapport with peers and mentors
    • Communicate with clarity and emotional resonance
    • Influence others ethically and effectively
    • Navigate leadership roles with confidence and humility

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Self-Awareness Practice Use journaling or reflection prompts to explore your values, strengths, and blind spots.
    Empathetic Listening Practice active listening in conversations—validate others’ emotions and perspectives.
    Nonverbal Mastery Develop body language, eye contact, and vocal tone that convey warmth and confidence (Shavit et al., 2024).
    Storytelling for Impact Share personal experiences that align with your values and inspire others.
    Feedback Integration Seek honest feedback on how others perceive your presence and influence—adjust with intention.
    Empowerment Tip

    Charisma isn’t about being the loudest in the room—it’s about being the most connected. Start by showing up with sincerity, listening with intention, and speaking with clarity. Authentic charisma grows when you lead from your values and communicate with purpose.

    “Charisma is the authentic ability to inspire and influence others with a balance of emotional resonance and logical clarity.” — Reid (2024)

     

    References
    Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., Jacquart, P., & Shamir, B. (2016). Charisma: An ill-defined and ill-measured gift. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(3), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2016.35

    Reid, R. (2024). Authentic influence: Why charisma is essential, not superficial. Richard Reid & Associates. https://richard-reid.com/authentic-influence-why-charisma-is-essential-not-superficial/

    Shavit, R., Katz-Navon, T., & Delegach, M. (2024). ‘The Charismulator’: A study of a new VR intervention to improve charisma. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.61

    Naiboğlu, G., & Bilgivar, O. O. (2022). The effect of authentic leadership on organizational communication: The mediating role of psychological well-being. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 7(1), 1–15. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2038826

    Relational Leadership: Evolving the Leader-Member Exchange

    Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) theory remains a cornerstone of organizational communication, offering a nuanced lens into how leaders form differentiated relationships with subordinates. Traditionally viewed along a continuum from low to high quality, recent research has reconceptualized LMX as comprising two qualitatively distinct types of exchange: social LMX and economic LMX (Kuvaas et al., 2012). This distinction reflects a shift from viewing LMX as a unidimensional construct to understanding it as a dual-mode relational system grounded in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964).

    Figure 12.13 Antecedents and Consequences of Leader Member Exchange

    Antecedents and Consequences of Leader Member Exchange

    Social LMX relationships are characterized by trust, mutual respect, and long-term investment. These relationships foster diffuse obligations and psychological safety, encouraging employees to go beyond formal role expectations. In contrast, economic LMX relationships are more transactional and instrumental, involving quid pro quo exchanges with limited emotional investment (Andersen et al., 2020). For example, a retail manager who offers schedule flexibility and mentorship to one employee while strictly enforcing rules with another illustrates the coexistence of social and economic LMX within the same team.

    Self-Assessment: Rate Your LMX

    Answer the following questions using 1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = fully agree.

    1. _____ I like my supervisor very much as a person.
    2. _____ My supervisor is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend.
    3. _____ My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with.
    4. _____ My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior, even without complete knowledge of the issue in question.
    5. _____ My supervisor would come to my defense if I were “attacked” by others.
    6. _____ My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake.
    7. _____ I do work for my supervisor that goes beyond what is specified in my job description.
    8. _____ I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to further the interests of my work group.
    9. _____ I do not mind working my hardest for my supervisor.
    10. _____ I am impressed with my supervisor’s knowledge of his or her job.
    11. _____ I respect my supervisor’s knowledge of and competence on the job.
    12. _____ I admire my supervisor’s professional skills.

    Scoring:

    Add your score for 1, 2, 3 = _____ . This is your score on the Liking factor of LMX.

    A score of 3 to 4 indicates a low LMX in terms of liking. A score of 5 to 6 indicates an average LMX in terms of liking. A score of 7+ indicates a high LMX in terms of liking.

    Add your score for 4, 5, 6 = _____ . This is your score on the Loyalty factor of LMX.

    A score of 3 to 4 indicates a low LMX in terms of loyalty. A score of 5 to 6 indicates an average LMX in terms of loyalty. A score of 7+ indicates a high LMX in terms of loyalty.

    Add your score for 7, 8, 9 = _____ . This is your score on the Contribution factor of LMX.

    A score of 3 to 4 indicates a low LMX in terms of contribution. A score of 5 to 6 indicates an average LMX in terms of contribution. A score of 7+ indicates a high LMX in terms of contribution.

    Add your score for 10, 11, 12 = _____ . This is your score on the Professional Respect factor of LMX.

    A score of 3 to 4 indicates a low LMX in terms of professional respect. A score of 5 to 6 indicates an average LMX in terms of professional respect. A score of 7+ indicates a high LMX in terms of professional respect.

    Source: Adapted from Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72. Used by permission of Sage Publications.

    Recent studies have shown that social and economic LMX relate differently to employee outcomes. Social LMX is positively associated with creativity, organizational citizenship behaviors, and commitment, while economic LMX may predict compliance but not discretionary effort (Kuvaas et al., 2012; Zhou et al., 2020). These findings underscore the importance of exchange currencies—the resources exchanged in LMX relationships. Social currency includes affect, loyalty, and professional respect, while work-related currency involves task contributions and performance feedback (Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001). These currencies shape how employees perceive their standing and influence within the organization.

    LMX also plays a pivotal role in power and status hierarchies. High-quality LMX relationships often signal elevated status and informal power within teams, influencing how others perceive and interact with the employee (Yu, Xu, & Pichler, 2022). Employees in the leader’s “in-group” may receive more visibility, resources, and influence, while “out-group” members risk marginalization. This dynamic can reinforce informal hierarchies and trigger social comparison processes, affecting team cohesion and equity perceptions (Lianidou, 2021).

    However, LMX differentiation—where leaders form varying quality relationships across team members—can have ambivalent effects. While it allows leaders to allocate resources strategically, it may also foster perceptions of favoritism and inequity, especially when differentiation aligns with demographic or positional status (Lianidou, Lytle, & Kakarika, 2022). For instance, employees from underrepresented groups may experience lower LMX quality due to implicit biases, exacerbating existing inequalities.

    To mitigate these risks, scholars advocate for LMX awareness and intentionality. Leaders should recognize the relational power embedded in LMX and strive to cultivate equitable, high-quality exchanges across diverse team members. This includes being mindful of how social and work-related currencies are distributed and ensuring that economic exchanges do not become the default for marginalized employees.

    Workplace Strategy Pack

    Strengthening Employee–Manager Relationships

    Objective

    To empower student employees with communication strategies and relational tools that foster stronger, more productive relationships with their managers—enhancing trust, collaboration, and professional growth.

    Why It Matters

    The student–manager relationship is a cornerstone of workplace success. Positive manager relationships improve job satisfaction, engagement, and learning outcomes (Thakur, 2023). Yet, many students struggle to navigate power dynamics, unclear expectations, or communication barriers. Research shows that effective interpersonal communication and psychological safety are key to building trust and reducing conflict (Mukhopadhyay, 2023; Musheke & Phiri, 2021).

    Strong relationships with managers help students:

    • Receive clearer feedback and mentorship
    • Feel valued and supported in their roles
    • Develop leadership and communication skills
    • Contribute meaningfully to team goals

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Clarify Expectations Ask for role clarity and performance goals early—use phrases like “What does success look like in this role?”
    Schedule Regular Check-ins Proactively request short meetings to share updates and ask questions.
    Practice Active Listening Reflect back what your manager says to confirm understanding and show engagement.
    Share Wins and Challenges Communicate progress and obstacles transparently—managers appreciate visibility.
    Request Feedback Constructively Ask for feedback with curiosity, not defensiveness—e.g., “What’s one thing I could improve this week?”

    Empowerment Tip

    Don’t wait for your manager to initiate connection—lead with curiosity and professionalism. A simple, “I’d love to hear your thoughts on how I’m doing and where I can grow,” can open doors to mentorship and trust.

    “Effective communication is not just about transmitting information—it’s about building relationships that support collaboration and growth.” — Mukhopadhyay (2023)

     

    References
    Mukhopadhyay, R. (2023). Enhancing organizational communication: Addressing challenges in management. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 10(5), 943–950. https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2305943.pdf

    Musheke, M. M., & Phiri, J. (2021). The effects of effective communication on organizational performance based on the systems theory. Open Journal of Business and Management, 9(2), 659–671. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2021.92034

    Thakur, V. (2023). Enhancing organizational development through consistent and effective interpersonal communication in organizational structures: A review. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 10(3), 3323–3331. https://ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR23B3323.pdf

     

    Servant Leadership: Values-Based Influences in Modern Organizations

    In the wake of early 21st-century corporate ethics scandals—including Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Andersen—there has been a renewed emphasis on ethical leadership and stakeholder-centered governance. These events catalyzed a shift in organizational communication research toward leadership models that prioritize transparency, trust, and long-term relational engagement (Eva et al., 2019). Among these models, servant leadership has emerged as a compelling alternative to traditional hierarchical approaches, offering a values-based framework grounded in empathy, empowerment, and community stewardship.

    Servant leadership redefines the leader’s role as one of service rather than control. Rather than focusing solely on organizational outcomes, servant leaders prioritize the development and well-being of their followers, fostering environments where individuals feel valued, supported, and intrinsically motivated (Greenleaf, 1977; Liden et al., 2008). This approach aligns with contemporary organizational communication theories that emphasize relational leadership, dialogic engagement, and inclusive practices (Fairhurst & Connaughton, 2020). Servant leaders actively listen, demonstrate humility, and cultivate trust—behaviors that enhance psychological safety and promote open communication across organizational levels.

    Recent research highlights servant leadership’s transformative impact in higher education, where it fosters inclusive campus cultures, enhances student engagement, and supports faculty well-being. For example, Alexander (2024) found that servant leadership principles—such as empathy, listening, and community building—are particularly effective in academic settings, where leaders must navigate complex stakeholder relationships and promote holistic development. In multicultural institutions, servant leadership has been shown to improve trust, collaboration, and adaptability, especially during times of crisis or organizational change (Dul et al., 2024).

    Servant leadership also demonstrates strong cross-cultural validity. Studies across African, Asian, Latin American, and North American contexts reveal that servant leadership behaviors—such as humility, stewardship, and empowerment—are positively associated with organizational commitment, innovation, and employee satisfaction (Irving, 2025). However, cultural dimensions such as power distance and collectivism influence how servant leadership is perceived and enacted. In collectivist cultures, servant leadership aligns well with communal values and group-oriented decision-making, while in high power-distance cultures, leaders may need to adapt their approach to balance authority with service (Molnar, 2007; Irving, 2025).

    The gender dimensions of servant leadership further illuminate its potential to foster inclusivity and empowerment. Servant leadership’s emphasis on communal traits—such as empathy, nurturing, and collaboration—resonates with leadership behaviors traditionally associated with women (Xiu, 2025). This alignment can help mitigate gender bias in leadership evaluations and expand access to leadership roles for women, particularly in contexts where assertive or agentic leadership styles are less culturally accepted. Moreover, servant leadership allows both men and women to transcend stereotypical expectations by integrating both communal and agentic traits, thereby promoting more equitable and authentic leadership practices (Barbuto & Gifford, 2010; Scicluna Lehrke & Sowden, 2017).

    From an employee well-being perspective, servant leadership has been linked to reduced burnout, increased job satisfaction, and enhanced psychological resilience. Hayes and Bennett (2025) found that servant leadership behaviors—such as healing, listening, and shared governance—significantly improved employee engagement and mental health in post-pandemic workplaces. These findings underscore servant leadership’s role in creating supportive organizational climates that prioritize human flourishing over short-term performance metrics.

    Servant leadership offers a robust, culturally adaptable, and ethically grounded model for modern organizations. Its emphasis on service, inclusivity, and relational communication positions it as a vital framework for addressing contemporary challenges in leadership, organizational culture, and employee well-being.

    Workplace Strategy Pack

    Adopting a Servant Leadership Approach

    Objective

    To empower employees with the mindset and tools to practice servant leadership—prioritizing service, empathy, and ethical influence to foster trust, collaboration, and organizational well-being.

    Why It Matters

    Servant leadership flips the traditional leadership model: instead of leading from authority, it leads from service. This approach enhances employee engagement, resilience, and satisfaction—especially in dynamic or project-based environments (Cai et al., 2024). Servant leaders communicate with empathy, listen actively, and prioritize the growth of others. Research shows that servant leadership positively influences organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and team cohesion (Sloan et al., 2020; Coun et al., 2023).

    In today’s workplace, servant leadership:

    • Builds trust and psychological safety
    • Enhances communication and collaboration
    • Promotes ethical decision-making and inclusion
    • Strengthens employee engagement and resilience

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Lead by Listening Practice active listening—validate others’ concerns before offering solutions.
    Serve First, Influence Second Ask “How can I support you?” before asserting direction or feedback.
    Model Empathy and Integrity Demonstrate consistency between values and actions—especially in tough decisions.
    Empower Others Delegate with trust, encourage autonomy, and celebrate others’ contributions.
    Communicate Relationally Use inclusive language, open body posture, and transparent messaging to build connection (Sloan et al., 2020).
    Empowerment Tip

    Servant leadership isn’t about being passive—it’s about being purposefully supportive. You don’t need a title to lead this way. Start by asking, “What does my team need to thrive—and how can I help make that happen?”

    “Servant leadership is not a technique—it’s a commitment to elevate others through empathy, trust, and shared purpose.” — Sloan et al. (2020)

     

    References
    Cai, M., Wang, M., & Cheng, J. (2024). The effect of servant leadership on work engagement: The role of employee resilience and organizational support. Behavioral Sciences, 14(4), 300. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14040300

    Coun, M. J. H., De Ruiter, M., & Peters, P. (2023). At your service: Supportiveness of servant leadership, communication frequency and communication channel fostering job satisfaction across generations. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1183203. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1183203

    Sloan, D., Mikkelson, A., & Wilkinson, T. (2020). How to communicate servant-leadership: An exploration of relational communication and employee outcomes. International Journal of Servant-Leadership, 14(1), Article 15. https://repository.gonzaga.edu/ijsl/vol14/iss1/15

    Authentic Leadership: Communicative Integrity in Contemporary Organizations

    In today’s complex organizational environments, authentic leadership has gained prominence as a values-driven approach that emphasizes transparency, self-awareness, and relational trust. Rather than adapting their persona to fit shifting expectations, authentic leaders remain grounded in their personal values and life experiences, fostering credibility and psychological safety among followers (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005). This leadership style is increasingly recognized for its communicative clarity and ethical consistency, especially in diverse and dynamic workplaces (Men & Stacks, 2014).

    Authentic leaders are distinguished by four core dimensions: self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing, and internalized moral perspective (Walumbwa et al., 2008). These traits enable leaders to engage in open dialogue, admit mistakes, and make decisions that reflect both personal integrity and organizational values. For example, Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, has been widely cited for his authentic leadership style, which emphasizes empathy, inclusive innovation, and transparent communication—qualities that have reshaped Microsoft’s internal culture and external reputation (Bloch, 2024).

    Organizational communication research underscores the role of authentic leadership in enhancing employee engagement, strategic internal communication, and work-life enrichment. Jiang and Men (2017) found that authentic leadership, when paired with transparent communication, significantly boosts employee trust and organizational commitment. This is particularly relevant in hybrid and remote work settings, where relational cues and trust-building behaviors must be conveyed through mediated channels.

    Moreover, authentic leadership contributes to psychological well-being by fostering environments where employees feel valued and understood. Naiboğlu and Bilgivar (2022) demonstrated that authentic leadership positively influences organizational communication and that psychological well-being partially mediates this relationship. Leaders who model openness and empathy create climates where employees are more likely to express concerns, share ideas, and collaborate effectively.

    Cultural and generational factors also shape perceptions of authenticity. Gen Z employees, for instance, prioritize purpose-driven work and expect leaders to “walk their talk” (Caldas, 2024). In multicultural organizations, authentic leadership must be adapted to reflect diverse values and communication norms. Leaders who demonstrate cultural humility and engage in inclusive dialogue are more likely to be perceived as authentic across cultural boundaries (Farid et al., 2020).

    Despite its strengths, authentic leadership has faced critiques regarding conceptual ambiguity and measurement challenges. Scholars argue that the construct often conflates antecedents, behaviors, and outcomes, making empirical validation difficult (Lux & Lowe, 2025). To address these concerns, recent research advocates for a behavioral signaling approach, focusing on observable actions that convey authenticity rather than relying solely on internal states (Cambridge University Press, 2025).

    Authentic leadership offers a compelling framework for ethical and effective leadership in modern organizations. By integrating personal integrity with strategic communication, authentic leaders foster trust, inclusivity, and resilience—qualities essential for navigating today’s organizational challenges.

    Evolving Leadership: When Strengths Become Shadows

    In contemporary organizational communication research, leadership is increasingly viewed not only through the lens of competencies and strengths but also through the unintended consequences those strengths may produce over time. This phenomenon—often referred to as the leadership shadow—describes how overused or unexamined strengths can distort leader behavior, erode trust, and limit adaptability (de Haan & Kasozi, 2014). Leaders who excel in decisiveness may develop a blind spot for collaboration, while those known for emotional steadiness may suppress vulnerability, creating relational distance from their teams (Mathews, 2025).

    De Haan and Kasozi (2014) identify three dominant modes of leadership—doing, thinking, and feeling—each with its own shadow effect. Leaders who over-identify with “doing” may fall into the illusion of omnipotence, believing their value lies solely in action and delivery. This can lead to burnout and functional isolation, as they resist delegation and over-function in silence. Similarly, leaders who lean heavily on “thinking” may develop the illusion of infallibility, becoming rigid in their strategic framing and resistant to feedback. Those who default to “feeling” may embody the illusion of invulnerability, absorbing emotional strain without expressing their own needs, which can result in emotional flattening and quiet resentment (Mathews, 2025).

    Modern examples illustrate these dynamics vividly. Satya Nadella’s transformation of Microsoft is often cited as a case of evolving leadership—where empathy and curiosity replaced rigid strategic posturing, allowing the organization to embrace inclusive innovation (Bloch, 2024). Conversely, leaders who fail to adapt their strengths to changing contexts may experience derailment. For instance, a CEO known for visionary thinking may struggle in crisis situations that demand emotional containment and team cohesion, revealing the limits of a singular leadership mode.

    Organizational communication scholars emphasize that leadership shadows are not flaws but distortions of strengths—patterns that emerge when leaders fail to recalibrate their behaviors in response to evolving team needs and organizational complexity (Chambers, Liu, & Moore, 2023). These shadows often manifest subtly in communication habits, such as who leaders listen to, how they respond under pressure, and what behaviors they reward or ignore. Over time, these patterns shape organizational culture, often in ways that contradict stated values (Modern People, 2025).

    To counteract these effects, leaders must cultivate self-awareness, feedback-seeking behaviors, and identity flexibility. This involves recognizing dominant leadership modes, tracking emotional triggers, and loosening the grip of self-identification with specific strengths. The goal is not balance but integration—reclaiming disowned capacities and expanding leadership range (Mathews, 2025). As leadership continues to evolve, the ability to navigate one’s shadow becomes not just a developmental milestone but a strategic imperative for sustaining influence and fostering resilient, communicative organizations.

    Conclusion

    As modern organizations confront increasingly dynamic, multicultural, and ethically complex environments, leadership models grounded in communication, inclusivity, and relational accountability have become essential. Transformational leadership, when augmented by adaptive and ethical principles, offers a framework for navigating change through vision, trust, and resilience. Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) theory enriches this perspective by highlighting how differentiated relationships—shaped by social and work-related currencies—structure team dynamics, power hierarchies, and perceptions of fairness.

    Meanwhile, servant leadership foregrounds the moral imperative to prioritize the growth and well-being of others, with increasing evidence of its transformative impact in education, diverse cultural contexts, and inclusive organizational climates. Authentic leadership reinforces these values by advocating for integrity, transparent dialogue, and psychological safety—qualities that build trust and empower a multigenerational, multicultural workforce.

    Together, these contemporary leadership models signal a paradigm shift in organizational communication: from control to collaboration, from authority to empathy, and from transactional exchanges to values-based relationships. Effective leadership today is less about commanding from the top and more about cultivating meaning, trust, and mutual empowerment at every level of the organization.

    Insider Edge

    Helping Managers Embrace Self-Awareness and Identity Flexibility

    Objective

    To empower employees with strategies to respectfully and effectively encourage their managers to prioritize self-awareness, seek feedback, and embrace identity flexibility—key traits for adaptive and emotionally intelligent leadership.

    Why It Matters

    Managers who lack self-awareness often misinterpret team dynamics, resist feedback, and cling to rigid leadership identities. This can lead to poor decision-making, reduced trust, and disengaged teams. Research shows that leaders with high self-awareness are more effective, empathetic, and open to growth (Cecchi-Dimeglio, 2024). Feedback-seeking behaviors and identity flexibility allow leaders to adapt to changing environments and better support diverse teams (Magalhães et al., 2023).

    Encouraging these traits helps:

    • Improve communication and psychological safety
    • Foster a culture of continuous learning and humility
    • Strengthen team cohesion and innovation
    • Reduce conflict and increase mutual respect

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Model Reflective Behaviors Share your own learning moments and feedback experiences to normalize vulnerability.
    Use Appreciative Inquiry Frame suggestions positively: “I admire how you handled X—have you ever considered Y?”
    Introduce Tools Gently Recommend self-awareness tools like the Ladder of Inference or ESCI in team development contexts.
    Ask Insightful Questions Use prompts like “What do you think worked well in that meeting?” to spark reflection.
    Celebrate Adaptability Acknowledge when your manager shows flexibility or openness—reinforce the behavior.
    Empowerment Tip

    You don’t need authority to influence upward. Use emotional intelligence and strategic communication to plant seeds of growth. Sometimes the most powerful change begins with a well-placed question or a shared insight.

    “Self-awareness is the cornerstone of leadership—it guides how we affect others and how we grow ourselves.” — Cecchi-Dimeglio (2024)

     

    References
    Cecchi-Dimeglio, P. (2024, February 14). How self-awareness elevates leadership effectiveness. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paolacecchi-dimeglio/2024/02/14/how-self-awareness-elevates-leadership-effectiveness/

    Dickerson, C. (2025, May 8). The ladder of inference: Building self-awareness to be a better human-centered leader. Harvard Business Publishing. https://www.harvardbusiness.org/insight/the-ladder-of-inference-building-self-awareness-to-be-a-better-human-centered-leader/

    Magalhães, R., Tribolet, J., & Zacarias, M. (2023). Organizational identity and self-awareness: Creating convergence between enterprise engineering and organizational design. In R. Magalhães et al. (Eds.), Digital Enterprises (pp. 157–176). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-30214-5_11

    Discussion Questions

    1. How might the overuse or context-specific misapplication of a leadership strength cast a shadow on team communication, trust, or equity—and what strategies can leaders use to recalibrate or reframe their strengths to remain inclusive and responsive in evolving organizational contexts?
    2. How do transformational leadership behaviors—such as intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and ethical adaptability—contribute to organizational change in complex environments? In what ways does transformational leadership intersect with frameworks like CALL and adaptive leadership to enhance trust, resilience, and innovation?
    3. Given recent critiques on charisma’s role in leadership and construct proliferation, what are the potential risks of relying on charismatic leaders during organizational crises? How can organizations avoid overemphasizing charisma in their leadership selection and instead prioritize ethically grounded, adaptive qualities?
    4. How does the quality of leader–member exchange (LMX) shape power and status hierarchies within organizations? What are the distinctions between social and economic LMX, and how do relational currencies—such as trust, visibility, and work support—affect leadership equity and employee engagement?
    5. How does servant leadership foster inclusivity and employee well-being in global, educational, and post-pandemic contexts? What role do gender and cultural norms play in shaping servant leadership behaviors, and how can leaders cultivate servant principles across diverse teams?
    6. What does it mean to be an authentic leader in today’s hybrid and multigenerational workplace? How can self-awareness, feedback-seeking, and cultural humility contribute to the development of relational transparency and trust through strategic organizational communication?
    7. Reflect on how a leadership strength—such as decisiveness, empathy, or vision—might become a liability when overused. How can leaders become aware of their leadership shadows and recalibrate their behaviors to remain responsive, inclusive, and communicatively agile?

    Section 12.6: Ethical and Cultural Influences

    Learning Objectives

    After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

    1. Analyze how ethical leadership is communicated and enacted within organizational settings.
    2. Compare and contrast leadership theories based on their applicability across various cultural contexts.
    3. Evaluate the role of leaders as moral agents who shape organizational ethics through dialogue and relational influence.
    4. Identify culturally sensitive leadership practices that promote inclusivity and trust in diverse environments.
    5. Apply ethical reasoning and cultural awareness to hypothetical leadership scenarios and case studies.

    In today’s complex organizational landscape, ethical leadership is increasingly recognized as a communicative and relational process that shapes organizational culture, employee engagement, and public trust. Ethical decisions are rarely straightforward; they often involve ambiguity, competing values, and contextual pressures. As a result, employees frequently look to leaders as moral exemplars and interpretive guides (Men & Stacks, 2013). Leaders’ communication behaviors—such as transparency, fairness, and consistency—play a pivotal role in signaling ethical norms and expectations (Chambers, Liu, & Moore, 2023).

    Classic studies like Milgram’s obedience experiments (Milgram, 1974) underscore the power of authority figures to influence ethical behavior, even when such influence leads to morally questionable outcomes. Contemporary research builds on this foundation by examining how ethical leadership fosters symmetrical communication, psychological safety, and employee voice (Men, 2015; Ughulu, 2024). Ethical leaders are not merely rule enforcers—they are relational architects who model integrity, clarify values, and create climates where ethical conduct is both expected and supported.

    Ethical leadership is positively associated with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and willingness to report misconduct (Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005). Leaders who demonstrate moral courage and fairness are more likely to be perceived as credible and trustworthy, which in turn enhances employee engagement and organizational resilience (McGrath, 2023). Moreover, ethical leaders influence organizational culture by rewarding ethical behavior, confronting violations, and embedding ethical principles into daily operations (Mercader et al., 2021).

    Modern leadership models such as servant, authentic, and transformational leadership explicitly integrate ethical dimensions. Servant leaders prioritize the well-being of employees and communities, fostering inclusive and values-driven cultures (Eva et al., 2019). Authentic leaders rely on self-awareness, relational transparency, and moral reasoning to guide their decisions (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Transformational leaders, while not inherently ethical, tend to exhibit higher levels of moral reasoning and are more likely to inspire ethical behavior when grounded in shared values (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Shahid, 2024).

    Ultimately, ethical leadership is not a static trait but a dynamic communicative practice. It requires ongoing reflection, feedback, and adaptation to ensure that leaders remain aligned with organizational values and stakeholder expectations.

    Leadership: Cultural Prototypes and Adaptive Practice in Cross-Cultural Communication

    As organizations expand across borders, the question of whether leadership is universal or culturally contingent becomes increasingly salient. While many leadership theories originate in Western contexts—particularly the United States—their applicability across cultures is not guaranteed. Cultural values such as individualism, power distance, and collectivism shape how leadership is perceived, enacted, and evaluated (House et al., 2004; Javidan et al., 2006).

    The GLOBE study, a landmark cross-cultural research initiative involving 62 countries, identified both universal and culturally specific leadership attributes. Traits such as honesty, decisiveness, and fairness were consistently associated with effective leadership across cultures (Den Hartog et al., 1999). Conversely, behaviors like egocentrism and irritability were universally viewed as undesirable. However, the expression of these traits—such as charisma or supportiveness—varies significantly by cultural context. For example, emotional expressiveness may signal charisma in Latin cultures but restraint may be more valued in East Asian contexts (Ensari & Murphy, 2003).

    Leadership prototypes are shaped by societal narratives, historical figures, and collective values. In collectivist cultures like Mexico or Turkey, relational gestures such as visiting an employee’s family member may be seen as supportive, whereas in individualistic cultures like the U.S. or Netherlands, such actions may be perceived as intrusive (Brodbeck et al., 2000). Similarly, servant leadership may be embraced in cultures that value humility and community, but viewed skeptically in cultures that associate leadership with authority and control (Aycan et al., 2000; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008).

    Even within geographic regions, cultural clusters differ. Nordic cultures value directness and autonomy, while Near Eastern cultures may prefer indirect communication and hierarchical leadership (Brodbeck et al., 2000). These variations highlight the importance of cultural intelligence and adaptive leadership—leaders must be attuned to local norms and flexible in their approach to build trust and effectiveness across diverse settings.

    Global leadership requires more than technical competence or strategic vision—it demands cultural sensitivity, communicative agility, and ethical adaptability. Leaders who can navigate these complexities are better positioned to foster inclusive, high-performing organizations in an interconnected world.

    Conclusion

    As leadership continues to evolve in response to ethical scrutiny and global complexity, the communicative role of leaders has never been more critical. Ethical leadership is not simply a matter of personal integrity—it is a relational practice shaped by dialogue, cultural awareness, and organizational climate. Leaders serve as interpretive agents, guiding employees through moral ambiguity, signaling organizational values, and influencing the very texture of workplace culture through their words and actions.

    Moreover, in an interconnected and multicultural world, effective leadership demands both ethical clarity and cultural adaptability. Whether navigating global teams, remote environments, or diverse stakeholder expectations, leaders must develop a flexible toolkit—one that integrates moral reasoning, cultural intelligence, and communicative sensitivity. Research confirms that while some leadership traits may be universally valued, their expression is deeply embedded in cultural norms and expectations.

    Together, ethics and cross-cultural competence represent the twin pillars of leadership excellence in modern organizations. They call leaders not only to act wisely but to listen deeply, engage inclusively, and lead with humility across boundaries and belief systems.

    Insider Edge

    Welcoming Cross-Cultural Leaders with Grace

    Objective

    To empower employees with the cultural intelligence and communication strategies needed to support and collaborate effectively with leaders from different cultural backgrounds—especially when leadership styles differ from local expectations.

    Why It Matters

    Globalization has made cross-cultural leadership more common—but not always easy. Leaders from different cultures may bring unfamiliar communication styles, decision-making norms, and relational expectations. The GLOBE study shows that leadership effectiveness is deeply contextual, shaped by societal values such as power distance, collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance (House et al., 2004). When employees extend grace and curiosity instead of judgment, they help bridge cultural gaps and foster inclusive, high-trust environments.

    Welcoming cross-cultural leaders with empathy:

    • Reduces miscommunication and conflict
    • Builds psychological safety and mutual respect
    • Enhances team adaptability and cohesion
    • Supports leadership transitions and organizational stability

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Learn Cultural Dimensions Use GLOBE’s nine dimensions (e.g., assertiveness, future orientation) to understand your leader’s cultural context.
    Practice Cultural Humility Avoid assumptions—ask questions like “How is leadership typically expressed in your culture?”
    Adapt Expectations Recognize that leadership behaviors (e.g., directness, delegation, formality) may reflect cultural norms, not personal flaws.
    Use Inclusive Communication Clarify your own preferences while remaining open to different styles—e.g., “I usually prefer direct feedback. How do you approach it?”
    Offer Support, Not Resistance Help your leader navigate local norms by sharing insights respectfully and offering collaboration.

    Empowerment Tip

    When a new leader arrives from a different culture, shift from critique to curiosity. Ask:

    “What can I learn from this leader’s approach—and how can I help them succeed here?”

    Grace is not passive—it’s active empathy. It creates space for growth, connection, and shared success.

    “Leader effectiveness is contextual—it is embedded in the societal and organizational norms, values, and beliefs of the people being led.” — House et al. (2004)

     

    References
    House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications.

    Hoppe, M. H. (2007). Culture and leader effectiveness: The GLOBE study. National Network for Leadership Integration. http://nnli.org/uploads/2/9/4/1/29412281/globesummary-by-michael-h-hoppe.pdf

    University of Bamberg. (n.d.). Global leadership and organizational behaviour effectiveness (GLOBE). https://www.uni-bamberg.de/en/bwl-pm/research-hrm/flexibilisation-of-work-and-work-behaviour/globe/

    Kapable Club. (n.d.). GLOBE (Global Leadership And Organisational Behaviour Effectiveness). https://kapable.club/glossary/globe-global-leadership-and-organisational-behaviour-effectiveness/

    Insider Edge

    Leading Across Cultures with GLOBE Insights

    Objective

    To empower employees with strategies for using the GLOBE study to prepare for leadership roles in locations with cultural norms different from their own—enhancing adaptability, communication, and effectiveness.

    Why It Matters

    Leadership is not one-size-fits-all. The GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) study reveals that leadership effectiveness is deeply shaped by cultural values, norms, and expectations. What works in one country may backfire in another. Understanding cultural dimensions—such as power distance, collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance—helps leaders adapt their style and build trust across borders (House et al., 2004; Hoppe, 2007).

    Using GLOBE insights helps employees:

    • Avoid cultural missteps and communication breakdowns
    • Build culturally sensitive leadership strategies
    • Foster inclusive and respectful team dynamics
    • Increase credibility and influence in global settings

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Study Cultural Dimensions Use GLOBE’s nine dimensions (e.g., power distance, future orientation) to understand local leadership norms.
    Identify Culture Clusters Learn how countries group into clusters (e.g., Anglo, Confucian Asia, Latin America) to anticipate shared traits.
    Adapt Communication Style In high-context cultures, prioritize relationship-building; in low-context cultures, emphasize clarity and logic.
    Practice Cultural Humility Ask questions, listen deeply, and avoid assumptions—leadership begins with learning.
    Use Local Mentors Seek guidance from colleagues native to the region to refine your approach and gain cultural insight.
    Empowerment Tip

    Before leading in a new cultural context, ask:

    “What does effective leadership look like here—and how can I earn trust without imposing my own norms?”

    Global leadership begins with cultural intelligence. The more you understand others’ values, the more effectively you can lead with empathy and impact.

    “Leader effectiveness is contextual—it is embedded in the societal and organizational norms, values, and beliefs of the people being led.” — Hoppe (2007)

     

    References
    House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications.

    Hoppe, M. H. (2007). Culture and leader effectiveness: The GLOBE study. National Network for Leadership Integration. http://nnli.org/uploads/2/9/4/1/29412281/globesummary-by-michael-h-hoppe.pdf

    GLOBE Project. (n.d.). Global leadership and organizational behavior effectiveness. https://globeproject.com/

    University of Bamberg. (n.d.). Global leadership and organizational behaviour effectiveness (GLOBE). https://www.uni-bamberg.de/en/bwl-pm/research-hrm/flexibilisation-of-work-and-work-behaviour/globe/

    Discussion Questions

    1. In what ways does ethical leadership rely on communication and cultural sensitivity to influence behavior in organizations?
    2. To what extent do ethical leaders contribute to organizational success across different cultural contexts?
    3. Which leadership theories demonstrate strong cross-cultural adaptability, and which are more dependent on specific cultural norms or values?

    Section 12.7: Spotlight

    Maxine Clark’s Leadership

    Figure 12.15

    Slight profile of woman with short read hair speaking
    Maxine Clark from Build-A-Bear at Disney Social Media Moms Conference

    Josh Hallett – Maxine Clark from Build-A-Bear at Disney Social Media Moms Conference– Wikimedia– CC BY ASA2.0.

    Maxine Clark, founder of Build-A-Bear Workshop and CEO of the Clark-Fox Family Foundation, exemplifies visionary leadership grounded in empathetic and inclusive organizational communication. At Build-A-Bear, Clark created a culture where employees were empowered to contribute ideas, innovate, and connect emotionally with customers. Her leadership emphasized storytelling, active listening, and purpose-driven messaging—core elements of effective organizational communication (Clark, 2006). By fostering a workplace where creativity and customer experience were central, Clark built a brand that resonated with both employees and consumers.

    During her tenure at Build-A-Bear, Clark implemented communication strategies that encouraged bottom-up feedback and cross-functional collaboration. She famously created a “kid board of directors” to guide product development, signaling a culture of listening and inclusion (Gallo, 2015). Employees were encouraged to share ideas and participate in shaping the customer journey, which led to high engagement and innovation. The company’s repeated recognition on the FORTUNE 100 Best Companies to Work For list reflected the strength of its internal communication and employee satisfaction (Build-A-Bear, 2023).

    Clark’s leadership style blends transformational and servant leadership, with a strong emphasis on emotional intelligence. She believes that “retail is detail,” but also that leadership is about creating environments where people feel seen, heard, and valued (St. Louis Magazine, 2025). Her communication approach is rooted in curiosity and empathy—traits she credits with helping her navigate complex business challenges and build resilient teams. Employees describe her as accessible, transparent, and deeply engaged in both strategic and day-to-day conversations.

    At the Clark-Fox Family Foundation and Delmar DivINe, Clark continues to lead through collaborative communication. She fosters partnerships among nonprofits, encourages shared learning, and promotes open dialogue across sectors. Staff and tenants report high levels of trust and cooperation, attributing this to Clark’s hands-on leadership and her ability to connect people with purpose (St. Louis Magazine, 2025). Her mantra—“stay curious”—guides her decision-making and reinforces a culture of inquiry and inclusion.

    Clark’s success also stems from her ability to align communication with organizational values. Whether mentoring entrepreneurs or leading philanthropic initiatives, she ensures that messaging reflects the mission and resonates with stakeholders. Her emphasis on storytelling and emotional connection has helped build loyalty, drive impact, and sustain long-term relationships. By integrating communication into every facet of leadership, Clark has created organizations that are not only effective but deeply human.

    In summary, Maxine Clark’s leadership demonstrates how intentional, empathetic, and inclusive communication can transform organizations. Her success at Build-A-Bear and the Clark-Fox Family Foundation offers a compelling model for leaders seeking to build trust, foster innovation, and lead with heart.

     

    References

    Build-A-Bear. (2023). Our founder: Maxine Clark. https://www.buildabear.com/brand-about-story-founder.html

    Clark, M. (2006). The bear necessities of business: Building a company with heart. Wiley.

    Gallo, C. (2015, June 26). Build-A-Bear founder on the secret to success: Big dreams and an even bigger heart. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carminegallo/2015/06/26/build-a-bear-founder-on-the-secret-to-success-big-dreams-and-an-even-bigger-heart/

    St. Louis Magazine. (2025, February 19). St. Louis Business 500: Q&A with Maxine Clark, Clark-Fox Family Foundation and Delmar DivINe. https://www.stlmag.com/business/maxine-clark-clark-fox-family-foundation-delmar-divine-build-a-bear/

    Discussion Questions

    1. How did Maxine Clark’s communication strategies contribute to employee engagement and innovation at Build-A-Bear Workshop?
    2. What role does emotional intelligence play in Clark’s leadership style, and how does it enhance her ability to communicate effectively with employees and stakeholders?
    3. How does Maxine Clark’s mantra, “stay curious,” influence her decision-making and communication style?
    4. In what ways does Clark align her communication with organizational values, and why is this alignment critical for building trust and loyalty?
    5. How can leaders in other industries apply Clark’s communication strategies to foster collaboration and innovation in their own organizations?

    Section 12.8: Conclusion

    In this chapter we have reviewed the most influential leadership theories. Trait approaches identify the characteristics required to be perceived as a leader and to be successful in the role. Intelligence, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and integrity seem to be leadership traits. Behavioral approaches identify the types of behaviors leaders demonstrate. Both trait and behavioral approaches suffered from a failure to pay attention to the context in which leadership occurs, which led to the development of contingency approaches. Recently, ethics became an explicit focus of leadership theories such as servant leadership and authentic leadership. It seems that being conscious of one’s style and making sure that leaders demonstrate the behaviors that address employee, organizational, and stakeholder needs are important and require flexibility on the part of leaders.

    Section 12.9: Case Study and Exercises

    Ethical Dilemma Case Study

    Favoritism, Affairs, and Leadership Integrity

    Jordan, a 26-year-old data analyst at a mid-sized regional office, has become aware of a troubling situation: his colleague, Ava, is engaged in an extramarital affair with their married department manager, Daniel. Ava has received multiple promotions and salary increases over the past year—none of which followed the standard HR protocols or were posted as open opportunities. Most employees in the office are aware of the relationship and the favoritism, and morale has plummeted. The regional manager, who oversees Daniel, is aware but chooses not to intervene.

    Jordan is torn. He values integrity and fairness, but fears retaliation or being labeled a troublemaker if he speaks up. The situation is eroding trust in leadership and creating a toxic communication climate.

    Ethical Issues

    • Abuse of power and favoritism: Promotions and pay increases based on personal relationships violate ethical standards of fairness and transparency.
    • Organizational silence: The regional manager’s inaction perpetuates unethical behavior and signals complicity.
    • Moral distress: Employees like Jordan experience psychological discomfort from witnessing unethical conduct without recourse.
    • Communication breakdown: Trust in leadership is undermined, and open dialogue is stifled by fear and cynicism.

    Theoretical Framework

    Organizational communication research highlights the role of ethical leadership in shaping workplace culture. When leaders fail to model integrity, employees disengage and ethical climates deteriorate (Johnson, 2020). Ethical dilemmas often arise when personal relationships intersect with professional responsibilities, creating conflicts of interest and undermining procedural justice (Brown & Mitchell, 2010).

    The concept of “organizational silence” (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) explains how employees may withhold concerns due to fear of negative consequences, especially when unethical behavior is normalized by leadership.

    Communication Strategies

    • Whistleblower protocols: Organizations should establish confidential reporting systems to protect employees who raise ethical concerns.
    • Ethics training: Regular workshops can reinforce standards and empower employees to speak up.
    • Leadership accountability: Senior leaders must be held to ethical standards and face consequences for misconduct.
    • Restorative dialogue: Facilitated conversations can help rebuild trust and clarify expectations for ethical behavior.

    Empowerment Insight

    Jordan’s dilemma is not just about one affair—it’s about the integrity of the entire leadership structure. Ethical leadership requires courage, transparency, and accountability. Employees must be empowered to challenge unethical behavior through safe and structured channels.

    “Ethical leaders foster an ethical climate by modeling appropriate behavior, communicating openly, and holding others accountable.” — Johnson (2020)

    References
    Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 583–616. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201020439

    Johnson, C. E. (2020). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.

    Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707697

    Individual Exercise

    Developing Yourself as an Authentic Leader

    Authentic leadership begins with knowing yourself. It’s grounded in self-awareness, guided by core values, and shaped by life experiences. This exercise invites you to reflect deeply—alone and honestly—on your journey, your character, and your leadership potential.

    1. Explore Your Life Story

    Your personal history holds the key to your leadership identity.

    • What defining moments—successes, setbacks, transitions—have shaped who you are today?
    • How have these experiences influenced your values, beliefs, and decision-making?
    • Who were your role models growing up? What traits or lessons did you admire and adopt?

    Tip: Consider creating a “leadership timeline” to visualize how your life events connect to your leadership style.

    2. Take Stock of Your Present Self

    Self-awareness is the foundation of authenticity.

    • How would you describe your personality? Are you analytical, empathetic, assertive, reflective?
    • How does your personality influence your relationships, work habits, and leadership approach?
    • What are your top strengths? Where do you struggle?
    • What feedback have you received from others—and how have you responded to it?

    Tool: Use assessments like the Big Five Personality Traits or StrengthsFinder to gain insight.

    3. Reflect on Your Growth

    Reflection transforms experience into wisdom.

    • Keep a leadership journal. Write about challenges, decisions, and lessons learned.
    • What patterns do you notice in how you respond to stress, conflict, or uncertainty?
    • How have you grown in the past year—and what areas still need attention?

    Research shows journaling enhances emotional intelligence and resilience (Sutton, 2016).

    4. Prioritize Integrity

    Authentic leaders act in alignment with their values—even when it’s hard.

    • What are your three most important core values? (e.g., honesty, compassion, accountability)
    • Are your daily actions consistent with these values?
    • When have you compromised your values—and what did you learn from that experience?

    Practice: Try a weekly “ethics check-in” to evaluate your decisions and behaviors.

    5. Harness the Power of Language

    Language shapes perception—and culture.

    • How do you refer to those you lead? Do your words reflect respect and partnership?
    • What narratives do you use to describe challenges—are they problems or opportunities?
    • How might changing your language shift your mindset and influence others?

    Example: Calling someone a “team member” rather than a “subordinate” reinforces collaboration and dignity.

    Final Reflection

    Based on your insights:

    • What kind of leader would you be if you fully lived out your values?
    • How would your team experience your leadership?
    • What legacy do you want to leave through your leadership?

    “Authentic leaders are true to themselves and to what they believe. They engender trust and inspire others to follow.” — Avolio & Gardner (2005)

    References
    Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

    Sutton, A. (2016). Measuring the effects of self‐awareness: Construction of the Self‐Awareness Outcomes Questionnaire. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12(4), 645–658. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v12i4.1172

    References

    Alexander, G. D. (2024). Embracing servant leadership: A transformative model for higher education. RealClearEducation. https://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2024/11/15/embracing_servant_leadership_a_transformative_model_for_higher_education_1072555.html

    Andersen, I., Buch, R., & Kuvaas, B. (2020). A literature review of social and economic leader–member exchange. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1474. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01474

    Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

    Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., & Kurshid, A. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country comparison. Applied Psychology, 49(1), 192–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00010

    Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006

    Barbuto, J. E., & Gifford, G. T. (2010). Examining gender differences of servant leadership: An analysis of the agentic and communal properties of the servant leadership questionnaire. Journal of Leadership Education, 9(2), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.12806/V9/I2/RF1

    Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18(Suppl), 13–25.

    Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.

    Bisel, R. S., & Adame, E. A. (2019). Encouraging upward ethical dissent in organizations: The role of deference to embodied expertise. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(2), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318918809091

    Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

    Bloch, B. (2024, July 17). Practicing what you preach: The impact of authentic leadership on organizational success. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2024/07/17/practicing-what-you-preach-the-impact-of-authentic-leadership-on-organizational-success

    Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., & Javidan, M. (2000). Leadership made in Germany: Low on compassion, high on performance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(4), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.3979821

    Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004

    Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002

    Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002

    Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.

    Caldas, M. (2024, December 13). What does it mean to be an authentic leader? The Muse. https://www.themuse.com/advice/authentic-leader

    Cathcart, W. (2020, June). The future of digital communication and privacy [Video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/will_cathcart_the_future_of_digital_communication_and_privacy

    Center for Leadership Studies. (2022). Situational Leadership®. Right Here. Right Now. https://situational.com/views/situationalleadership/righthererightnow

    Chambers, C. R., Liu, E. H., & Moore, C. (2023). Fifty years of research on leader communication: What we know and where we are going. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(6), Article 101734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101734

    Chambers, C. R., Liu, E. H., & Moore, C. (2023). Fifty years of research on leader communication: What we know and where we are going. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(6), Article 101734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101734

    Chambers, C., Liu, E. H.-C., & Moore, C. (2023). What can 50 years of leadership communication research tell us? Center for Innovative Leadership. https://carey.jhu.edu/articles/50-years-leadership-communication-research

    Cherniss, C., Extein, M., Goleman, D., & Weissberg, R. P. (2006). Emotional intelligence: What does the research really indicate? Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_2

    de Haan, E., & Kasozi, A. (2014). The leadership shadow: How to recognize and avoid derailment, hubris and overdrive. Kogan Page.

    De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.002

    Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00018-1

    Deng, C., Gulseren, D., Isola, C., Grocutt, K., & Turner, N. (2023). Transformational leadership effectiveness: An evidence-based primer. Human Resource Development International, 26(5), 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2135938

    Dul, V., Sam, R., Hak, S., Bou, D., Vy, S., & Kheuy, S. (2024). Servant leadership style in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Contemporary Education and E-Learning, 2(6). https://doi.org/10.59324/ejceel.2024.2(6).08

    Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

    Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Available via Harvard Business School retrieved at https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=54851

    Ensari, N., & Murphy, S. E. (2003). Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and attribution of charisma to the leader. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1–2), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00061-9

    Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2014). Leader–member exchange (LMX) theory: The relational approach to leadership. In D. V. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 407–433). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199755615.001.0001

    Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004

    Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004

    Fairhurst, G. T., & Connaughton, S. L. (2020). Leadership: A communicative perspective. Leadership, 16(1), 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715019870957

    Farid, T., Iqbal, S., Khan, A., Ma, J., Khattak, A., & Ud Din, M. N. (2020). The impact of authentic leadership on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of affective‐ and cognitive-based trust. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1975. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01975

    Fernandez, C. F., & Vecchio, R. P. (2002). Situational leadership theory revisited: A test of an across-jobs perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00101-7

    Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.

    Galani, A., & Galanakis, M. (2022). Organizational psychology on the rise—McGregor’s X and Y theory: A systematic literature review. Psychology, 13(5), 782–789. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2022.135051

    Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2005). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.006

    Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.

    Goleman, D. (2007). Emotional intelligence: 10th anniversary edition. Bantam Books.

    Goleman, D. (2013). The focused leader. Harvard Business Review, 91(12), 50–60.

    Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence (10th anniversary ed.). Harvard Business Review Press.

    Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence (10th anniversary ed.). Harvard Business Review Press.

    Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90014-X

    Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory over 25 years. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

    Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.

    Hayes, E., & Bennett, M. (2025). Servant leadership as a catalyst for employee well-being in post-pandemic workplaces. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 16(3), 1251–1253.

    Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Review Press.

    Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2007). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (9th ed.). Pearson Education.

    Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2012). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (10th ed.). Pearson.

    Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership really belong together? A meta-analytic test of the common leadership factor. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(4), 747–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3311-3

    House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905

    House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300306

    House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81–97.

    House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications.

    Indvik, J. (1986). Path-goal theory of leadership: A meta-analysis. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24(6), 512–514. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334079

    Irving, J. A. (2025). Cross-cultural perspectives on servant leadership. In Servant leadership: Developments in theory and research (pp. 175–199). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-69922-1_10

    Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., de Luque, M. S., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.19873410

    Jiang, H., & Men, L. R. (2017). Creating an engaged workforce: The impact of authentic leadership, transparent organizational communication, and work-life enrichment. Communication Research, 44(2), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215613137

    Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765

    Khanna, T. (2014). Contextual intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 92(9), 58–68.

    Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

    Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

    Kutz, M. R. (2008). Contextual intelligence: An emerging competency for global leaders. Regent Global Business Review, 2(1), 1–7. https://www.regent.edu/journal/regent-global-business-review/contextual-intelligence/

    Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Dysvik, A., & Hærem, T. (2012). Economic and social leader–member exchange relationships and follower performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 756–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.013

    Landry, L. (2019 Apr 3). Why Emotional Intelligence is Important in Leadership. Business Insights. Harvard Business School Online retrieved at https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/emotional-intelligence-in-leadership

    Lianidou, T. (2021). The role of status and power inequalities in leader–member exchange. Leadership, 17(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211026419

    Lianidou, T., Lytle, A., & Kakarika, M. (2022). Deep-level dissimilarity and leader–member exchange (LMX) quality: The role of status. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(4), 379–393. https://doi.org/10

    Lizy, C. (2023). Understanding Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y in human resource management. Global Research Journal of Social Sciences and Management, 1(2), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.55306/GRJSSM.2023.1205

    London, M., & Zobrist, C. (2024). Leadership communication behaviors and attachment styles: Theory for educating leaders to meet communication challenges. Journal of Leadership Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOLE-01-2024-0028

    Lux, A. A., & Lowe, K. B. (2025). Authentic leadership: 20-year review editorial. Journal of Management & Organization, 30(6), 1634–1641. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2024.59

    Mandinach, E. B., & Gummer, E. S. (2016). What does it mean for teachers to be data literate: Laying out the skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.011

    Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader–member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.697

    Mathews, S. (2025, March 27). The leadership shadow: When strengths backfire. Leading Sapiens. https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-shadow

    Maxwell, J. C. (2013). The 5 levels of leadership: Proven steps to maximize your potential. Center Street.

    McGrath, R. (2023, September 8). The role of ethical leadership in long-term organizational success. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/09/08/the-role-of-ethical-leadership-in-long-term-organizational-success

    McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill.

    Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 78–102.

    Men, L. R. (2015). The role of ethical leadership in internal communication: Influences on communication symmetry, leader credibility, and employee engagement. Public Relations Journal, 9(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280804888

    Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. W. (2013). The impact of ethical leadership on strategic internal communication and employee–organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(4), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2013.806870

    Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. W. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership on strategic internal communication and employee–organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(4), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908720

    Mercader, V., Galván-Vela, E., Ravina-Ripoll, R., & Popescu, C. R. G. (2021). A focus on ethical value under the vision of leadership, teamwork, effective communication and productivity.

    Modern People. (2025). When shadows lead. ModernPeople.com. https://www.modernpeople.com.au/articles/whenshadowslead

    Molnar, D. R. (2007). Serving the world: A cross-cultural study of national culture dimensions and servant leadership (Publication No. 3255467) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

    Naiboğlu, G., & Bilgivar, O. O. (2022). The effect of authentic leadership on organizational communication: The mediating role of psychological well-being. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.24331/ijere.1053614

    Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.

    Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Sage Publications.

    Patel, L. (2023, September 5). The power of effective communication in leadership. Forbes Business Development Council. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinessdevelopmentcouncil/2023/09/05/the-power-of-effective-communication-in-leadership

    Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.274

    Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20786079

    Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing agile. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 40–50. https://hbr.org/2016/05/embracing-agile

    Roberts, S. (2025, June 7). 12 leadership models: Types and examples. The Knowledge Academy. https://www.theknowledgeacademy.com/blog/leadership-models

    Roberts, S. (2025, June 7). 12 leadership models: Types and examples. The Knowledge Academy. https://www.theknowledgeacademy.com/blog/leadership-models

    Scicluna Lehrke, A., & Sowden, K. (2017). Servant leadership and gender. In Servant leadership and followership (pp. 25–50). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59569-6_3

    Shahid, A. (2024). Transformational leadership: Are leaders open to a new “CALL”? Open Journal of Business and Management, 12(6), 3806–3822. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2024.126190

    Shonk, K. (2025). The contingency theory of leadership: A focus on fit. Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. [3]

    Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80

    Thompson, G., & Glasø, L. (2018). Situational leadership theory: A test from three perspectives. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(5), 630–643. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2017-0270

    Vecchio, R. P. (1983). Assessing the validity of Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A closer look at Strube and Garcia. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1983.4284731

    Vinney, C. (2024). The Fiedler contingency model of leadership. Verywell Mind. [4]

    Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Prentice-Hall.

    Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17

    Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913

    Wofford, J. C., & Liska, L. Z. (1993). Path-goal theories of leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 19(4), 857–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639301900411

    Xiu, L. (2025). Gender and servant leadership: Exploring intersections and dynamics. In Servant leadership: Developments in theory and research (pp. 201–220). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-69922-1_11

    Yu, A., Xu, W., & Pichler, S. (2022). A social hierarchy perspective on the relationship between leader–member exchange (LMX) and interpersonal citizenship. Journal of Management & Organization, 30(6), 1827–1844. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.87

    Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

    Yukl, G., & Gardner, W. L. (2020). Leadership in organizations (9th ed.). Pearson.

    Zaccaro, S. J., Green, J. G., Dubrow, S., & Kolze, M. (2018). The complex interaction of situational and individual characteristics in leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.002

    Zhou, Q., Huo, D., & Wu, F. (2020). Different workplace currencies and employee voice: From the multidimensional approach of leader–member exchange. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 589. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00589

     

     

      License

      Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

      THRIVE 2025: Teamwork, Harmony, Resilience, Innovation, Vision, & Empathy: Organizational Communication Open Text Copyright © 2025 / 2023 / 2017 / 2010 by [Author removed at request of original publisher] is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

      Share This Book