Organizational leadership literature offers a wide array of possible definitions of its subject. While power and influence had been historically-and have remained-key in interpreting leadership, other issues, including the representation of the values of followers/societies, groups and their members by the leaders have also been crucial in gaining insight into this phenomenon. Under the leaders as representatives perspective "leaders are those who (1) best represent the values of their followers and (2) are better at solving their followers' problems and achieving their goals".[1] Through this broad perspective a variety of interrelations between leadership and values can be studied. The issue of representation is highly related to topics like the service of higher level goals, morality, the common good, and the good of organizational members. The leaders as representatives perspective is about leadership as a generic phenomenon, and is not restricted to problems of leading in a societal sense, e. g. public organizations, or social-political movements. The primary goal of this paper is to illustrate certain characteristics of the 'leaders as representatives' perspective, and within that specifically the 'follower value representation' sub-perspective through literature examples. Under the perspectives mentioned above the paper examines generic organizational leadership issues in the first place, without addressing problems of specific sectors, or segments (e. g. public/private, economic/social etc.). Additionally a reference is made to specialties of leadership in societal (e. g. political, public and other social) sectors/spheres/segments. The specialties in those sectors/spheres/segments i. a. lie in the fact that the value representation of followers is an immanent (formal) function there, and as a rule, a formal responsibility of the leaders. In contrast to this, follower value representation in business organizational
- 173/174 -
leadership, for example, might be less evident and/or more latent, partial, and/or of secondary importance regarding other leadership priorities, and, as such, may be less of a formally assigned responsibility - if assigned at all - to leaders. Based on selected examples the paper also identifies different approaches to working with and through values in generic leadership. The main conclusions are the following: the value representation leadership perspective[2] calls for a further integrative thinking about the value implications and values-related substance of organizational leadership; the societal areas by their immanent character offer a terrain for a special conceptual synthesis of the power and the representation leadership perspectives; and, finally, the value representation perspective reinforces societal areas leadership in its position as being conceptually referential for leadership pursued in other areas - including business organizations.
Leadership literature offers a wide array of possible definitions of its subject. One of the early definitions suggests that leadership is "the process of influencing the activities of an organized group in its efforts towards goal-setting and goal-achievement".[3] An interpretation by Kouzes and Posner from the late 20[th] century is about Leadership as "the art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations".[4]
"... [T]he essence of Leadership is influence", argues Rumsey, editor of the Oxford Handbook of Leadership, a volume dominantly about the psychological perspective of the subject.[5] Hereby Birnbaum[6] defines leadership as an "interaction that influences others through non-coercive means".
In a review of leadership definitions Yukl states: "Most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption that it involves a process whereby intentional influence is exerted over other people to guide, structure, and facilitate
- 174/175 -
activities and relationships in a group or organization".[7]
In the GLOBE research a working definition of researchers for organizational leadership was: "the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization of which they are members."[8]
These definitions and comments suggest that power/influence had been historically-and have remained-key in interpreting the phenomenon of leadership. Nevertheless, thinking has been directed already for a long time to the question whether leadership is also-or, as it might be suggested: firstly-about determining for what purpose, cause, or agenda power can/should be used; in other words, defining, what and whom the influence is for, rather than implementing existing, agreed on and/or already determinate agendas and/or fulfilling the leader's own perceived interests and aspirations.
As expressed in The Bass Handbook of Leadership: "Leadership ... often involves a structuring or restructuring of the situation and of the perceptions and expectations of the members. Leaders are agents of change... Leadership can be conceived as directing the attention of other members to goals and paths to achieve them."[9]
A further example of the definitions overarching the phenomena of influence and goals, and making also a strong reference to the mutuality between leaders and followers is offered by Antonakis and Day: "Leadership is a formal or informal contextually rooted and goal-influencing process that occurs between a leader and a follower, groups of followers, or institutions."[10]
Grint et al in their search for answers to the question "what is leadership?" find a lack of consensus even about the basic meaning of this phenomenon. What they undertake is not to offer an encompassing definition rather to "generate a taxonomy of leadership that does not claim universal coverage but should encompass a significant proportion of ... definitions...". In doing that they analyze five possible approaches: to define leadership as a person
- 175/176 -
(who leaders are?), as a result (what leaders achieve?), as a position (where leaders operate?), purpose (why leaders lead?), and process (how leaders get things done?).[11] As a result of their analysis their message sounds: "Perhaps the answer ... to whether leadership is a matter of person, result, position, purpose or process is that it is all and none of the above."[12] Finally they conclude that: "Leadership is whatever a group of subjects makes of it within the symbolic fabric." They also add "...studying 'leadership' might provide some important insight into the power of relations and identifications of organizational and social subjects."[13] In their conclusion we can clearly see that they think of leadership as a product of mutual, dynamic forces, a phenomenon highly related to power, symbols and identifications.
It is noteworthy that the role of power and mutuality (the latter in a symbolic field of different identities) is emphasized, too, in another categorization, offered by Humphrey.[14] The latter author, in contrast to Grint et al, proposes a clear typology in leadership by arranging conceptual streams into two main perspectives. In his review of leadership definitions he identifies the so called power perspective and the leaders as representatives perspective:
"According to a power perspective definition of leadership, leaders command, control, direct, and influence followers to achieve group, organizational, or societal goals". While, "from the leaders as representatives perspective, leaders are those who (1) best represent the values of their followers and (2) are better at solving their followers[7] problems and achieving their goals".[15]
Humphrey views the power and representation perspectives as two ends of a continuum. According to the latter perspective: "people emerge as leaders because they are better at articulating the values and desires of the group or are in some way seen as best representing the group." "... people are often selected for promotion based on the degree to which they represent the organization's core culture and are involved in carrying out the organization's core mission. At the national level, leaders are elected when the public perceives that the leaders share their values".[16]
- 176/177 -
In my understanding of the above definition and the underlying leadership concepts, the suggestion that power and representativeness are two different perspectives of one phenomenon-leadership-is to be interpreted in a way that power and representativeness do not mutually exclude each other, rather they are two sides of a coin, parts of the same dynamic process. Power helps leaders to be effective in understanding and shaping values, and in solving group tasks while doing so (representing values and being instrumental in making the group's activity effective) increases power potentials of the leader.
A theoretical foundation to viewing leaders as representatives is Edwin Hollander's leadership-followership theory. In this theory leadership involves an exchange. The leader offers the group his/her help to define reality and reach its goals. This way the leader becomes a "meaning-maker". The group reciprocates the leader's contribution by according status, recognition, etc. to the leader. Within this process of reciprocation a specific contribution in return granted by the group to the leader can be a so called idiosyncrasy credit. It means that the group allows the leader to deviate, e. g. offers a certain freedom to innovate, through which even more rewards for the group can be produced.[17]
The mutuality between the needs, motives and values of leaders and followers was expressed already in the classical concept of Burns, too, who wrote that "leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation".[18] With reference to Burns[19] the procedural nature of leadership with evolving interrelationships between leader and follower aiming at an alignment between their goals, needs, values and expectations is also emphasized in the Hungarian literature by Bakacsi. Bakacsi identifies two leadership perspectives: will assertion and accommodation (or adaptive behavior). In the author's concept the two leadership reactions are not mutually exclusive rather they work in a combination.[20]
Like the leadership-followership theory, another important theoretical root is the visionary leadership, suggesting that "visionary leaders are said
- 177/178 -
to have insight into followers' needs or values and to develop a vision statement reflecting those needs or values".[21] Visionary leadership including "values work" has become a massive concept and part of practices of organizational strategic management and related planned change of the culture of the organization.[22]
Out of the two aspects of Humphrey's leaders as representatives perspective this paper focuses on (1) value representation. From what Humphrey suggests and from the aforementioned theoretical contextual perspectives the term representation calls-by its very character-for a generic, broad interpretation within the concepts of leadership. Evidently, it is not here about representation specifically as a political role and responsibility of an elected leader to represent his/her voters. Nor it is the case to refer to the representation of an organizational unit, group, and its members at higher organizational levels or for the external world, and it is not even about a representation of a whole organization or other social entity to outsiders. Humphrey's interpretation about the leader's being representative also seems to go beyond the horizon e. g. of the concept of social identity theory of leadership articulating that followers are more likely to trust leaders if they are "group prototypical", thus being representatives of shared identity.[23]
In my understanding the representation perspective focuses, basically, on the dynamic process by which values are identified and/or constructed, and/or further elaborated, become shared and used for guidance mutually by leaders and followers. In this respect I view Humphrey's suggestion as a broad, generic concept.
Regarding this concept it is noteworthy that a series of fundamental contemporary and, in a certain respect, more specific leadership theories
- 178/179 -
search-originally and/or dominantly-for how leadership works through given (e. g. ethically pre-determined) sets of societal and organizational values. Latter theories are characterized i. a. by the transformational, servant, ethical, spiritual, and institutional leadership approaches.[24]
As for one example of the aforementioned concepts, the institutional theory dates back to 1957 when Selznick described how leaders developed distinct institutional characters in organizations through values.[25] Recent examples of this theory include the work of Vaccaro and Palazzo who investigated the role of values in changing institutional practices. Their study demonstrates the power of values in developing and institutionalizing new practices by the example of organizations highly resistant to change.[26] Gehman, Trevino and Garud examined the process how value postulations are handled in organizations by the example of an institution's honor code related actions and processes. They mean by values practices "the sayings and doings in organizations that articulate and accomplish what is normatively right or wrong, good or bad, for its own sake...", and their concept of values work includes
- 179/180 -
"four key interrelated processes: dealing with the pockets of concern, knotting local concerns into action networks, performing values practices, and circulating values discourse."[27]
In an earlier paper, following, basically, Humphrey's ideas on the leaders as representatives[28] paradigm I referred to some literature concepts and arguments related to value work (by value work meaning a process of identifying, generating, developing, and fostering positive and shared values directed/catalyzed by the leader). Following Humphrey's mentioned and other literature sources' suggestions[29] my interest was about whether leaders were to be seen in a peculiar sense-according to the logic of sequence of different leadership concerns and activities: firstly-as value workers regarding their full leadership role.[30]
In the search for the representation perspective within the different interpretations and definitions of leadership literature we find that sources include examples in which the principle of representation seems to be embedded in integrative definitions.
Yukl states that "Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives".[31] The agreement "about what needs to be done" included in the definition can be interpreted in a way of group value/desire etc. articulation offered by the leader.
House and Aditya suggests that strategic Leadership "is directed toward giving purpose, meaning, and guidance to organizations"[32] whereas meaning-making refers to Hollander's aforementioned concept.
Gill offers a general definition of leadership: "showing the way and helping or inducing others to pursue it. This entails envisioning a desirable future, promoting a clear purpose or mission, supportive values and intelligent strategies, and
- 180/181 -
empowering and engaging all those concerned".[33] As we can see Gill explicitly talks about visioning (see aforementioned visionary theory), and promoting supportive values. He identifies six core themes and practices of effective leadership: vision, purpose, values, engagement, empowerment and strategy. In his view values are "to inform, and support the vision, purpose and strategies".[34]
Winston and Patterson proposed an integrative definition of Leadership in a way to synthetize 1,000-plus constructs/statements of the Leadership literature into 91 discrete dimensions.[35]
Out of the numerous dimensions identified and presented in more than 60 subsections there are certain ones that directly refer to the leader's role in value representation. Winston and Patterson suggest that the leader:
a) "Achieves ... influence by humbly conveying a prophetic vision of the future in clear terms that resonates with the follower(s) beliefs and values."[36]
b) "...draws forth the opinions and beliefs of the followers...", " ... the leader can check to see the values of followers and the leader are aligned."[37]
c) Uses "...ethical means and seeks the greater good of the follower(s) in the process of action steps such that the follower(s) is/are better off (including the personal development of the follower as well as emotional and physical healing of the follower) as a result of the interaction with the leader."[38]
d) "Recognizes the diversity of the follower(s) and achieves unity of common values and directions without destroying the uniqueness of the person."[39]
e) "...throughout each leader-follower-audience interaction demonstrates his/her commitment to the values of: (a) humility, (b) concern for others, (c) controlled discipline, (d) seeking what is right and good for the organization, (e) showing mercy in beliefs and actions with all people, (f) focusing on the purpose of the organization and on the well-being of the followers, and (g) creating and sustaining peace in the organization-not a lack of conflict but a place where peace grows.[40]
- 181/182 -
As we can see, Winston and Patterson lay a strong emphasis on the role of values work in leadership. On the one hand we find pragmatic elements for influence in their perspective about dealing with the followers' values and demonstrating own ones. But beyond these, some dimensions of their comprehensive integrative definition truly indicate a leaders as representatives perspective.
As for an example from recent empirical research, Raffaelli and Glynn[41] building on the classical work of Selznick[42] investigate the leaders' involvement in establishing and maintaining institutional values. They advance a theoretical framework of the leaders' functioning as transformational mechanisms of value infusion for organizations from a sociological perspective.
If we follow Humphrey's concept[43] and illustrations by the aforementioned authors and their examples, the representatives perspective directs our attention actually to the areas that are or can be normally conceptual targets of the Leadership influence beside and beyond the behaviors of followers. We could call these areas content area(s) of Leadership: the object(s)/terrain on which the leader cognitively and emotionally works before/throughout/after and beyond trying to exert influence. The fundamental content areas (objects/terrain) towards which the leaders ultimately are to exert influence could be listed as: values (being directly identified and targeted); the vision as a whole; interpreting the nature of change; the goals; the key, non-routine present problems of followers; and learning and innovation. Regarding the work on the above-listed content issues Leadership - as hinted by the literature - could be identified in a peculiar, deeper sense, primarily as a work on values, because the leadership answers to the listed issues pre-suppose (beyond the direct one) also an indirect (less or more latent) value work (preliminary and ongoing value recognitions, judgments and other value related activities of critical importance).[44]
In continuing the description and analysis of the leaders as representative perspective I deem desirable to raise one special, non-generic leadership issue. Before raising it I have to mention that in this paper my aim has been and is
- 182/183 -
to deal with approaches to leadership as a generic - and within that, a generic organizational - phenomenon and not to elaborate on special issues of this topic within any different societal, sectorial, etc. segments. Consequently, within the concept of leadership the representativeness perspective and value-representation sub-perspective are dealt with here definitely for their generic nature. Nevertheless, an issue of a special target field of leadership, leadership directed toward the society as a whole (including i. a. political and public administration leadership), and toward societally-socially concerned functions, segments, and related groups has to be addressed (at least tangentially) in the context of the value representation perspective.
Leadership in governmental/political and other different societal sectors - jointly identified as societally concerned areas-includes:
a) political, e. g. party, governmental, international and regional political, social strata and minorities leadership; other political group and organization leadership; and community (town, district etc.) leadership bearing local political and related social leadership characteristics;
b) leadership in public administration, including law enforcement and defense;
c) further, different, interrelated forms and types of spiritual-clerical, educational, other cultural-symbolic, and/or even further societal issues oriented leadership, executed directly for the public, or for and through different institutions/organizations/groups
It is noteworthy that Leadership in these areas has a double character in the sense that it assumes:
a) the leading of the members/groups of the respective human entities (e. g. nations, regions, social strata, communities, sub-cultures, interest groups),
b) the leading of the staff of organizations dedicated to serve societal purposes (staff members and their groups who are/might be normally supposed to share the societal values served by their organizations)
As it can be seen in this paper I mean by societally concerned areas of leadership a broad category of leadership processes and activities for the society as a whole, and certain sectors/segments/groups of it. In this way by this term I do not solely refer to such specific areas and issues like leadership executed in societal conflicts, around social welfare concerns, ecological and other threats of the future, etc. Further to be mentioned, in this paper I do not deal with defining boundaries and categories of the above listed leadership areas in more exact terms, neither do I analyze their contents in detail.
- 183/184 -
Leadership in societal areas, as aforementioned, is meant to be addressed in this paper for its special role within the whole leaders as representatives perspective. Evidently it deserves a special attention within the perspective because it - by its unique character - immanently has to do with value representation of followers by the leaders. (An example of direct value implications in the above fields is Moore's Public Value concept that identifies the purpose of public services as a primary leadership prerequisite.[45]) Under certain differences regarding public service versus other societal fields the representation is, as a rule, a formal responsibility in the terrain of societally concerned leadership. In contrast to this, follower value representation in business organizational leadership, for example, can be less evident and/or more latent, partial, and/or of secondary importance regarding other leadership priorities, and, as such, may be less of a formally assigned responsibility - if assigned at all specifically and directly - to leaders.
As shown above, representativeness perspective offers for us insight into the importance of leadership in societal areas regarding its special value content. From the postulate that societal leadership is an especially important terrain for the value representation perspective of leadership naturally follows that leaders of societal areas can markedly demonstrate how the two leadership perspectives - power/influence and representation - work together.
To conclude, the leaders as representatives perspective, and more specifically, the representing followers[7] values by the leader sub-perspective[46] can be characterized by the following:
a) the perspective, and its sub-perspective are broad concepts, and can be seen as frameworks for identifying commonalities of different leadership theories;
b) they offer an integrative view for related theories i. a. those concerned with the similarities of values between leaders and followers, with the type of values to be represented (generic values rooted in moral consensus, and/or values urged by more instrumental, functional, i. a. actual societal, business needs), about the role of leaders and followers in identifying and cultivating values (the leader's initiatives, and/or the followers activity in articulating their values expectations and/or a dynamic mutual process between leaders and followers);
- 184/185 -
c) with regard to their broad conceptual character, they offer an integrative framework to interpret the commonalities of the value representation generally in leadership and the specific nature of value representation within societal areas.
Consequently the perspectives can be interpreted as ones that:
a) put leadership in societal areas to a special position for understanding leadership as a generic phenomenon because these areas by their immanent character offer a unique synthesis of power/influence and follower value representation perspectives in leadership;
b) reinforce societal areas leadership as being conceptually referential for leadership in a multiple of other-including business organizational-areas.
To sum up in this paper I have referred to arguments for the necessity of a better inclusion of the representativeness perspective of leadership into the discussion about organizational leadership. As illustrated through some examples the power/influence perspective is well articulated in mainstream literature sources. A better articulation of the leaders as representatives perspective, i. e. a higher emphasis on the phenomenon of representing followers' values as shown for example by Humphrey's interpretation and some underlying and new theories:
a) help to re-think and re-define the role of values in the process of leading all type of groups, including for-profit organizations,
b) pave the way to the understanding of the theoretical linkages between leadership and the service of the common good in all sectors (not exclusively on the terrain of public services or other areas of societal leadership),
c) demonstrate how societal leadership is/might be instructional for practic -ing and teaching leadership effectively and in a socially responsible way in all sectors (with special regard to social responsibility "inward" - i. e. in the direction of the members of the led organization).
Based on the above it can be stated that the value representation leadership perspective calls for a further integrative thinking about the value implications and values-related substance of organizational (including business organizational) leadership; and that for those conceptualizations the theoretical issues of the value representation of followers through the leadership in societal (including political, governmental) areas could be increasingly relevant. ■
NOTES
[1] Humphrey, Ronald H.: Effective Leadership. Theory, Cases and Applications. Los Angeles, Sage, 2014, 6-7.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Stogdill, R. M.: Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin, 1950, 47 (1), 1-14.
[4] Kouzes, J. M. - Posner, Barry Z.: The Leadership Challenge. How to Keep Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995.
[5] Rumsey, M. G.: Introduction: Leadership in five parts. In: Rumsey, M. G. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Leadership. Oxford - New York, Oxford University Press, 2013, 1.
[6] Birnbaum, Robert: Genes, Memes, and the Evolution of Human Leadership. In: Rumsey, M. G. (ed.) op. cit. 256.
[7] Yukl, Gary: Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River (New Jersey), Pearson Education, Inc., 2010, 21.
[8] House, Robert J. - Hanges, Paul J. - Javidan, Mansour - Dorfman, Peter W. - Gupta, Vipin: Culture, Leadership and Organizations. The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks - London - New Delhi, SAGE Publications, 2004, 57.
[9] Bass, Bernard M.; Bass, Ruth: Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Free Press, 2008
[10] Antonakis, John - Day, David D.: The Nature of Leadership. Thousand Oaks (California), Sage Publications, 2018.
[11] Grint, Keith - Jones, Owain Smolovic - Holt, Clare: What is Leadership: Person, Result, position, Purpose or Process or All or None of These? In: Storey, John et al. (eds.): The Routledge Companion to Leadership. New York and London, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017, 4.
[12] Grint et al. op. cit. 16.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Humphrey op. cit. 6-7.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Humphrey op. cit. 7.
[17] Hollander, Edwin P.: Conformity, status and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 1958, 65 (2), 117-127; Goethals, George R. - Sorenson, Georgia J. - Burns, James MacGregor: Encyclopedia of Leadership. Thousand Oaks (California), Sage Publications, 2004.
[18] Burns, James MacGregor: Leadership. New York, Harper & Row, 1978, 18.
[19] Burns op. cit.
[20] Bakacsi, Gyula: Szervezeti magatartás. [Organizational Behavior] Budapest, Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó, 1996.
[21] Goethals et al. op. cit.
[22] See e. g. Nanus, Burt: Visionary Leadership. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1992; Yukl, Gary: Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River (New Jersey), Prentice Hall, 1998; Mullins, Laurie J.: Management and Organisational Behaviour. Harlow (Essex, England), Financial Times Prentice Hall - Pearson Education Limited, 2007; Schermerhorn, John R. Jr.: Management. 9th edition. Hoboken (New Jersey), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008.
[23] Hogg, M.: A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2001, 5 (1), 184-200; Hogg. M. - van Knippenberg, D.: Social identity and leadership processes in groups. In: Zanna, M. (Ed.): Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 35. San Diego (California), Academic Press, 2003, 1-52; referred by Klenke, Karin: Authentic Leadership: A Self, Leader, and Spiritual Identity Perspective. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2007, 3 (1), 68-97.
[24] See e. g. Bass, B. M.: Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, Free Press, 1985; Bennis, Warren - Nanus, Burt: Leaders. The Strategies for Taking Charge. Harper Perennial; A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, 1985; Tichy, N. M. -Devanna, M. A.: The transformational leader. New York, John Wiley, 1986; Gardner, John W.: On Leadership. New York, The Free Press, 1990; Greenleaf, R. K. - Spears, L. C.: The Power of Servant Leadership: Essays. San Fransisco, Berrett-Koehler, 1996; Bass, Bernard M. - Riggio, Ronald E.: Transformational Leadership. Mahwah - New Jersey - London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006; Avolio, Bruce, J. - Yammarino, Francis, J: Transformational and charismatic leadership: the road ahead. Bingley (UK), Emerald, 2013; Raffaelli, R. - Glynn, A.: What's so institutional about leadership? Leadership mechanisms of value infusion. In: Kraatz, M. S. (ed.): Institutions and Ideals: Philip Selznick's Legacy for Organizational Studies (Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Vol. 44. Bingley (UK), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2015; Bachmann, Bernhard: Ethical Leadership in Organizations. Concepts and Implementation. Switzerland, Springer International Publishing, 2017; Freund, Lucas: Transformational Leadership and Ethical Values. A Philosophical Approach. München, GRIN Verlag, 2017; Northouse, Peter G.: Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks (California), SAGE Publications, 2018; Dierendonck, Van D. - Patterson, Kathleen (ed.): Practicing Servant Leadership. Developments in Implementation. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
[25] Selznick, P.: Leadership in administration: a sociological interpretation. Evanston (Illinois), RowPeterson, 1957.
[26] Vaccario, Antonio - Palazzo, Guido: Values against violence: institutional change in societies dominated by organized crime. Academy of Management Journal, 2014, 8 (7), 34-62.
[27] Gehman, Joel - Trevino, Linda K. - Garud, Raghu: Values work: a process study of the emergence and performance of organizational values practices. Academy of Management Journal, 2013, 56 (1), 85.
[28] Humphrey op. cit.
[29] See e. g. Nanus op. cit., Yukl op. cit., Mullins op. cit., Schermerhorn op. cit.
[30] Fehér, János: Value work and leadership practices. Gazdaság és társadalom, 2015, 22 (4), 23-24.
[31] Yukl op. cit. 26.
[32] House, R. J. - Aditya, R. M.: The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis? Jour-mal of Management, 1997, 23 (1), 444-445.
[33] Gill, Roger: Theory and Practice of Leadership. London, Sage Publications Ltd, 2011, 9.
[34] Gill op. cit. 101.
[35] Winston, Bruce E. - Patterson, Kathleen: An Integrative Definition of Leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2006, 1 (2), 7-8.
[36] Winston - Patterson op. cit. 14.
[37] Winston - Patterson op. cit. 19.
[38] Winston - Patterson op. cit. 20.
[39] Winston - Patterson op. cit. 21.
[40] Winston - Patterson op. cit. 30.
[41] Raffaelli, R. - Glynn, A.: What's so institutional about leadership? Leadership mechanisms of value infusion. In: Kraatz, M. S. (Ed.): Institutions and Ideals: Philip Selznick's Legacy for Organizational Studies (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 44). Bingley (UK), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2015, 283-316.
[42] Selznick op. cit.
[43] Humphrey op. cit. 6-7.
[44] Fehér op. cit. 24.
[45] Moore, M: Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Harvard (Connecticut), Harvard University Press, 1997.
[46] Humphrey op. cit. 6-7.
Lábjegyzetek:
[1] The Author is associate professor, Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary.
Visszaugrás
