Transcendent Leadership PDF

The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 569581
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a
Transcendent leadership: Strategic leadership in dynamic environments

Mary Crossan a,, Dusya Vera b,1, Len Nanjad c,2
a
Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, 1151 Richmond Street North, London, ON Canada N6A 3K7
b
C.T. Bauer College of Business, The University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-6030, USA
c
Business Consultant in Organization and Change Strategy, Toronto, ON Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Keywords: Adopting a cross-level mixed effect model, this paper proposes transcendent leadership as a
Strategic leadership framework for the key responsibilities of strategic leaders in today's dynamic contexts. A
Dynamic environment transcendent leader is a strategic leader who leads within and amongst the levels of self, others,
Strategy
and organization. Leadership of self includes the responsibility of being self-aware and proactive in
Organization
developing personal strengths. Leadership of others involves the mechanisms of interpersonal
inuence a leader has upon followers. Leadership of organization comprises the alignment of three
interrelated areas: environment, strategy, and organization. Propositions are presented regarding
the relationship between leadership of the various levels and rm performance.
2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Recently, academics have made explicit efforts to provide managers with guidance about the strategic leadership requirements
of today's dynamic contexts. Ireland & Hitt (2005, p. 63) advise that, competition in the 21st century's global economy will be
complex, challenging, and lled with competitive opportunities and threats. They discuss the need for effective strategic
leadership practices that help rms enhance performance while competing in turbulent environments. Similarly, Luthans &
Slocum (2004, p. 227) state that, Faced with an unprecedented economic, technological, sociopolitical, and moral/ethical
tumultuous sea of change, there is a need for new theories, new applications and just plain new thinking about leadership.
We join the debate about the strategic leadership requirements of today's dynamic environments by seeking to provide a
different perspective on strategic leadership, one that emphasizes the responsibilities managed by leaders at the top of the rm.
We employ a cross-level mixed effect model to frame the discussion of strategic leadership responsibilities in highly dynamic
contexts. In doing so, we also address calls for more integration between micro and macro leadership work and for more attention
to the contextual aspects of leadership (House & Aditya, 1997; Hunt, 2004; Osborn, Hunt, & Jaunch, 2002; Waldman, Javidan, &
Varella, 2004; Yukl, 1999). Our approach enables us to extend the substantial literature concerning the mechanisms of the
interpersonal inuence of a leader upon subordinates, which we refer to as leadership of others, by incorporating two more levels
of leadership responsibility: leadership of self and leadership of the organization.
When examining whether existing models of leadership can be applied to the leadership of organizations in today's dynamic
contexts, we identify two major gaps. First, the study of leadership has largely focused on individual, dyadic, and small-group
levels. Consequently, leadership theory has largely been seen as the domain of organizational behavior, anchored in a more micro-
oriented perspective (Waldman et al., 2004). It is only in the last 20 years that researchers have started to move away from the
study of supervisory leadership towards the study of strategic leadership (Boal & Hooijberg, 2000; House & Aditya, 1997). By
emphasizing the micro levels, the focus has been on behaviors specic to the leaderfollower relationship rather than on the
strategic responsibilities of leadership in crafting strategy that provides an architecture enabling the organization to thrive in a
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 661 3217; fax: +1 519 661 3959.
E-mail addresses: mcrossan@ivey.uwo.ca (M. Crossan), dvera@uh.edu (D. Vera), lnanjad.mba2001@ivey.ca (L. Nanjad).
1
Tel.: +1 713 743 4677; fax: +1 713 743 4652.
2
Tel.: +1 416 549 3916; fax: +1 416 549 3701.
1048-9843/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.008
570 M. Crossan et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 569581
dynamic environment. Indeed, when evaluating the conceptual weaknesses of transformational and charismatic leadership
theories, Yukl (1999, p. 301) notes that insufcient attention has been given to organizational processes, adding, The dyadic
perspective should be replaced by a systems perspective that describes leadership in terms of several distinct but interrelated
inuence processes at the dyadic, group, and organizational level. Similarly, Osborn et al. (2002, p. 797) emphasize that macro
views need increasing recognition, but to supplement rather than replace currently emphasized meso/micro perspectives. The
focus on the dyadic relationship has fostered a second gap, since it naturally lends itself to the context of the work environment or
the internal organizational environment, in contrast to the external general and task environments. Consequently, more research is
needed to develop a holistic, content-domain view of what strategic leaders do to deal with the unique challenges posed by highly
dynamic contexts.
We synthesize our proposal for strategic leadership in today's dynamic environments under the label of transcendent
leadership. A transcendent leader is a strategic leader who leads within and amongst the levels of self, others, and organization (see
Fig. 1). Leadership of self is an emerging area in the leadership literature, while leadership of others has been the dominant focus of
leadership research. We build on leadership of the nonhuman elements by incorporating the organizational level, which includes
the alignment of three interrelated areas: environment, strategy, and organization. In describing leadership of the three levels, we
incorporate insights from models such as (among others) transformationaltransactional leadership, charismatic leadership,
shared leadership, authentic leadership, and Level-5 leadership, explaining how these models can be incorporated into the multi-
level model we propose.
We begin by dening strategic leadership and the levels approach we have adopted. Following the structure of the levels, we
rst examine leadership of the organization, focusing on changes in the environment, strategy, and organization, and the
implications for strategic leadership responsibilities. We then address leadership of others and leadership of self. After describing
the levels, we propose transcendent leadership as a holistic perspective of strategic leadership responsibilities and present
propositions regarding the relationship between leadership of the different levels and rm performance. Finally, we discuss the
implications for research and management, and the possibility of extending this model to the societal level.
1. Strategic leadership
Research on strategic leadership and its antecedent, upper echelon theory, focuses on executives who have overall
responsibility for an organization (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), based on the principle that ultimately, they account for what
happens to the organization (Hambrick, 1989, p. 5). Boal & Hooijberg (2000) differentiate supervisory leadership from
strategic leadership by arguing that the rst is about leadership in organizations, while the second is about leadership of
organizations. We concur with Ireland & Hitt's denition of strategic leadership as a person's ability to anticipate, envision,
maintain exibility, think strategically, and work with others to initiate changes that will create a viable future for the
organization (2005, p. 63).
Several authors (Boal & Hooijberg, 2000; Cannella & Monroe, 1997; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Priem, Lyon, & Dess, 1999)
have provided critical reviews of the eld. One primary concern has been that the traditional focus on demographic and
background characteristics of CEOs has had limited success in predicting rm performance. To address this issue, researchers have
pursued an integration of micro and macro leadership work by enriching strategic leadership with insights from charismatic,
transformational, and visionary leadership (what Boal & Hooijberg, 2000, have called new theories of leadership), and from
behavioral and cognitive complexity and social intelligence (what Boal & Hooijberg, 2000, have called emergent theories of
leadership).
Our review of the literature on strategic leadership in today's dynamic contexts suggests that there is a gap on two fronts. The
rst gap is specic to the context of dynamic environments. As we outline below, these environments place particular demands on
strategic leadership with respect to interpreting the environment, crafting strategy, and building an organization that thrives in
Fig. 1. Transcendent leadership: Strategic leadership within and amongst three levels.
M. Crossan et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 569581 571
such contexts. Environments have increasingly been described as fast-changing and disruptive, demanding novel approaches to
strategy that involve less planning and control, and more exibility, learning, and improvisation (Bettis & Hitt, 1995; Brown &
Eisenhardt, 1998; Vera & Crossan, 2004b, 2005). In turn, new forms of organization are evolving, and networked and cellular forms
have been proposed (Miles, Snow, Mathews, Miles, & Coleman, 1997).
The second gap is that, in spite of the strategic leadership label, the emphasis of researchers has been on the demographic
characteristics, traits, and behaviors of top managers, and not on the key responsibilities of strategic leaders. This observation is
consistent with House & Aditya's (1997) call for the identication of generic leadership functions that encompass the micro-level
behaviors frequently studied in the literature. There are many lists of activities associated with strategic leadership, but these lists
seldom overlap. For example, Ireland & Hitt (2005) state that strategic leadership in the 21st century is based on determining the
rm's purpose and vision, exploiting and maintaining core competences, developing human capital, sustaining an effective
organizational culture, emphasizing ethical practices, and establishing balanced organizational controls. In his competing values
model, Quinn (1988) argues that executives must play eight competing leadership roles simultaneously: innovator, broker,
facilitator, mentor, coordinator, monitor, producer, and director. Similarly, Hart & Quinn (1993) assert that CEOs play four roles
vision setter, motivator, analyzer, and taskmasterto affect rm performance. House & Aditya (1997, p. 445) describe the main
tasks of strategic leadership as follows:
Strategic leadership includes: making strategic decisions concerning the products and services of organizations and
markets; selection of key executives; and allocation of resources to major organizational components; formulation of
organizational goals and strategy; providing direction for the organization with respect to the organization's domain;
conceptualizing and installing organizational designs and major infrastructures, such as compensation, information, and
control systems; representing the organization to critical constituencies such as representatives of nancial institutions,
government agencies, customer interest groups, and labor; and negotiating with such constituencies for legitimacy and
resources.
Moving from a list of leadership activities to a framework or model that begins to identify key responsibilities or generic
functions in highly dynamic environments will help to advance strategic leadership research. We employ a levels perspective
(Rousseau, 1985) to frame the discussion. Klein, Dansereau, & Hall (1994) caution that there are many approaches to examining
phenomena across levels, and therefore it is important to identify the type of model one employs. We utilize a cross-level mixed
effect model, which demonstrates how a single variable affects multiple levels. In our case, we examine the relationship between
the CEO as the ultimate strategic leader of the rm and his or her responsibilities at three levels: self, others, and organization.
Typically, researchers have focused only within a level. Single-level models are important, as they tend to be conceptually
complex, specifying intricate interactional relationships among numerous constructs (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000. p. 40); however,
the single-level focus presents a signicant barrier to developing the more comprehensive approach that has been called for. As we
suggest in our discussion section, other models of cross-level research could inform leadership research, but the cross-level mixed
effect model is ideally suited for our work. Our model does not introduce antecedents or moderators, but rather focuses on the link
between strategic leaders at the individual level and a variety of responsibilities residing across levels.
Theorizing about strategic leadership as it relates to the three levels poses some perhaps obvious challenges and issues that
merit discussion. The rst is the choice of examining strategic leadership at the individual level (the CEO) as opposed to a group
level (the top management teamTMT). While we support the view that much of strategic leadership is carried out amongst a
group of individuals, as described in the TMT literature, and is indeed shared, we concluded that the relationship between the CEO
and the TMT with respect to this leadership orientation is in itself an important area of multi-level research. Boal and Hooijberg in
2000 reafrmed Pettigrew (1992), who stated that "We still know little about why and how top teams and other groupings look the
way they do, the processes by which top teams go about their tasks, how CEO's engage with their immediate subordinates, and
how, why, and when the upper echelons engage in fundamental processes of problem sensing, decision making, learning, and
change" (p. 178). This observation suggests that further work is required to link strategic leadership at the individual and group
levels. There is clearly an opportunity for future research to examine whether the model we propose holds when adopting a shared
leadership perspective. We explore this further in the discussion section.
In addition, as we specify CEO responsibilities at the levels of self, others, and organization, we are faced with very different
theoretical challenges. The level of self is an emerging area of leadership research, while the level of others is extremely well
developed. The constructs we examine at the organizational level are independently well developed; however, their link to
leadership has not been as clearly established. As a result, our approach to theorizing at each level is quite different. We begin with
the organizational level, followed by the more well developed level of others, and conclude with the emerging research on the level
of self.
2. Leadership of the organizational level
In dening the strategic leadership responsibilities at the organizational level, we focus on the nonhuman elementsstrategy,
structure, rules, and proceduresthat distinguish individuals and groups from the organization. These nonhuman elements,
viewed from an organizational learning perspective, represent the institutionalization of learning that arises from individuals and
groups (Bontis, Crossan, & Hulland, 2002; Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999). The strategic management and organization theory
literatures have presented in-depth examination of the key constructs of environment, strategy, and organization. Contingency
theory (Hofer, 1975) and strategic choice theory (Child, 1972, 1997) argue that the t between environment, strategy, and
organization is critical for rm performance, and that leaders are not passive recipients of changes in strategy, organization, and
environment, but rather can be dominant forces in affecting their change.
These major constructs have been well researched in their elds, but the critical role of strategic leaders in affecting them and
being affected by them has been underrepresented in the leadership eld. Indeed, Finkelstein & Hambrick call for much more
research on managerial t or alignment in particular (1996, p. 333). The current emphasis on the behaviors of leaders at the
individual, dyadic, and group levels is necessary but not sufcient. Our intent is to answer the call for a more organizational level
perspective on leadership (e.g., Waldman et al., 2004; Yukl, 1999) by not discarding behavioral leadership models but rather
building on and broadening them to incorporate these critical organizational level responsibilities. As noted, the key
responsibilities of strategic leaders to manage strategy and organization are signicantly inuenced by the external environment.
In the following sections we discuss these elements and the implications for leadership.
2.1. Changing external environments
The knowledge society, the global economy, and the technological revolution emerging since the last decade of the 20th
century have resulted in a business environment with levels of complexity, uncertainty, and dynamism not previously experienced
(Hitt, Keats, & DeMarie, 1998; Ireland & Hitt, 2005; Nadler & Tushman, 1999). Bettis & Hitt (1995) describe a new competitive
landscape in which technological trends rapidly alter the nature of competition and strategy. This new environment is
characterized by increasing risk and uncertainty and decreasing forecastability, increasing ambiguity in industry boundaries, a new
managerial mindset focused on exibility, and an emphasis on strategic response capability as the ultimate source of competitive
advantage (Bettis & Hitt, 1995). Changes in industry structure, the stability of market demand, and the probability of environmental
shocks (e.g., economic crises, privatization, and disruptive technologies) are all important elements producing uncertainty in the
environment (Sirmon, Hitt, & Ireland, 2007).
The hyper-competition of today's environment is a condition that has been identied by D'Aveni (1994) and is characterized by
intense and rapid moves and interactions among competitors who quickly build their advantage and erode their rivals' advantage.
The greater complexity arises from the increased access to and availability of information, the need to manage this information
more effectively, and a widening global scope of competitors (D'Aveni, 1994; Milliken, 1990). In addition, Foster & Kaplan (2001,
p. 15) argue that the assumption of continuity, on which most of our leading corporations have been based for years, no longer
holds. Discontinuity dominates. They surmise that S&P 500 companies surviving into the 2020s will be unlike the corporate
survivors today. They will have to be masters of creative destructionbuilt for discontinuity.
The environment is also being described as increasingly hostile and turbulent. Increased hostility results from increased
competition, entry of new competitors, convergence of industries, and reduced trust among competitors within industries
(D'Aveni, 1994; Hambrick, 1998). Turbulence is attributed to the increasing rate of change and the disruptive nature of changes,
especially related to technology, which makes it difcult to identify causes or predict outcomes of competitive and market actions
with relative certainty (Bower & Christensen, 1995; Christensen, 1997; D'Aveni, 1994). Although Potter (1991) suggests hostility
eventually ends, most current viewpoints do not support that assertion (D'Aveni, 1994; Porter, 2001) and agree that discontinuous
change will occur more rapidly at less regular intervals (Hambrick, 1998).
The implication for leadership with respect to interpreting the changing environment is one of sense-making. This sense-
making process is deeply rooted in organizational learning. Thus, the responsibility of the strategic leader as it relates to the
external environment is to support the development of a rm-level absorptive capacity and to foster at the individual, group, and
organizational levels a capacity to learn in order to be receptive to the external environment (Crossan & Hulland, 2002; Vera &
Crossan, 2004a). As Wheatley (1999, p. 38) summarizes, Instead of the ability to analyze and predict, we need to know how to stay
acutely aware of what's happening now, and we need to be better, faster learners from what just happened.
This learning orientation necessarily shifts the orientation of the leader. Although we focus on the CEO as the ultimate strategic
leader, this does not imply a great leader view of strategic leadership (Ireland & Hitt, 2005) in which the leader works as a lone
ranger in shaping the rm (p. 65). Rather, our view of the CEO and his or her responsibility to make sense of the environment is
more consistent with Ireland & Hitt's (2005) great groups view of strategic leadership and Pearce & Conger's (2003) shared
leadership, which acknowledges that the senior most leaders may not possess sufcient and relevant information to make highly
effective decisions in a fast-changing and complex world. In reality, managers down the line may be more highly informed and in a
far better position to provide leadership (2003, p. 2). The strategic leader's responsibility is to provide the infrastructure that
enables learning to ow throughout the organization (Vera & Crossan, 2004a). Interpreting the environment is also intimately
linked to both strategy and organization, as discussed below.
2.2. Changing strategies
The strategy eld includes many generic strategy classications, such as those by Miles & Snow (1978) and Porter (1980). More
recently, complexity theory and dynamic modeling (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998; Ilinitch, D'Aveni, & Lewin, 1996; Stacey, 1995) call for a
more emergent form of strategy. Dynamic strategy approaches differ from static views; instead of striving towards a lasting
competitive advantage, they pursue continuous and temporary advantages (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997).
According to D'Aveni (1994), if there are no lasting sustainable advantages but rather a series of temporary advantages that
erode rapidly, the focus then shifts from managing advantages to managing disruptions effectively. Brown & Eisenhardt (1998) also
assert that the key strategic challenge of rms is managing change. When describing their competing on the edge model of
strategy, they cite examples of the traditional approach of too tightly congured plans leading to strategic failure for several
companies. As an alternative, they offer an approach that allows strategy to emerge as the rm actively manages change in a more
improvisational and experimental fashion. Building on this work, Eisenhardt & Sull (2001) propose strategy as simple rulesan
approach that builds on improvisation and the combination of direction with minimal rules. For rms competing in fast-paced
industries and needing to take advantage of eeting opportunities, this approach is about picking a small number of strategically
signicant processes (e.g., product innovation, new-market entry, and partnering) and crafting a few simple rules to guide them
(e.g., regarding priority, timing, and exit).
Leaders, then, no longer set the strategy but rather establish boundaries within which strategy can emerge. This responsibility is
consistent with Lewin's (1999) call for a new management logic, in which leaders choose the arenas of competition, setting
strategic performance aspirations (e.g., becoming number one or number two), or setting the strategic stance (e.g., rivalry, rst
mover, fast follower). Jonas, Fry, & Srivastva (1989, 1990) also dene the new leadership roles of creating a context for change,
building commitment and ownership, and balancing stability and innovation. Clark (1999) refers to biological metaphors to call
for leadership interventions that will enable emergent strategy. This work is carried further by Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers (1996),
Youngblood (1997), and Brown & Eisenhardt (1998), who use chaos theory and complexity theory to make strategy recommen-
dations for a new leadership focus.
With more dynamic and emergent strategy orientations, the demands on leadership are seemingly paradoxical (Rowe, 2001).
Porter (1996) advocates that the leader must provide the discipline to decide which industry changes and customer needs the
company will respond to, while avoiding organizational distractions and maintaining the company's distinctiveness. The leaders'
essential role is to teach others about strategy and to say no, setting limits of action (Porter, 2001). On the other hand, D'Aveni
(1994) refers to a hyper-competitive leadership orientation that seeks to disrupt the status quo rather than strive for equilibrium,
and strikes a balance of simultaneous and sequential strategic thrusts. As well, Brown & Eisenhardt (1998) assert that strategy has
to be grown, not planned and assembled, and that the leader's new role is to disrupt and destroy.
The capability to creatively disturb the status quo enables the rm to work at dynamic equilibrium and to balance exploration
and exploitation strategies (March, 1991). Creative disturbance may take the form of destroying existing businesses or even
cannibalizing by creating new business that compete directly with the rm's established businesses. It also refers to the practices of
fostering more autonomous goal formulation and productively using the anxiety produced by change. There is a strong awareness
that the system and the strategy cannot be directed; they can only be altered in some way to help them develop or grow. The
strategic leader focuses on preserving the rm's purpose and holding value-based visions, not of a specic future but rather of a set
of processes and principles that leads to an envisioned higher state of capability.
2.3. Changing organizations
Changes in environment and strategy are intimately aligned with new organizational forms. Until the 1990s, the dominant view
held that organizational forms range from mechanistic, best-suited to stable environments, to organic, best-suited to unstable
conditions (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Miles et al. (1997) demonstrate a shift from mechanistic to organic
designs over the past 100 years,, which corresponds to a change in priorities from capabilities of specialization and segmentation to
those of exibility, innovation, and responsiveness. In addition, the virtual rm extends the organic nature by allowing for
organization without concern for physical location (Ahuja & Carley, 1999).
Current proposals for new organizational forms go beyond prototypical descriptions of organic organizations as those with low
degrees of formalization (in terms of specication of job duties and division of labor), signicant lateral communication, and
decentralization of decision making (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Complexity theory and biology are being
used to describe organizations as living systems and complex adaptive systems. Miles et al. (1997), for example, propose the
cellular form, in which rms achieve the highest levels of know-how by combining entrepreneurship, self-organization, and
member ownership in mutually reinforcing ways. Child & McGrath (2001, p. 1139) argue that, One of the starkest contrasts
between conventional thinking about organizations and the newer models is that change is taken for granted in the new forms.
Rather than view organizations as stable structures designed to absorb uncertainty, as they were conceived to be in Thompson's
(1967) era, today many thinkers suggest that new organizations must build in exibility and the capacity to handle constant
change (Volberda, 1998).
The new organization demands a high amount of specialization balanced with highly transferable application of the specialized
skills (Bigley & Roberts, 2001). Shared leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2003)the ongoing, mutual inuence process through which
leadership is rotated to the person with the key knowledge, skills, and abilities for the particular issues facing the teamis an
inherent part of the system. As well, the capability for self-organization is very important and the lasting structural form is not, as
Rindova & Kotha (2001) found in their study of the transformation of Yahoo! and Excite, where they observed a continuous
morphing process during which dynamic capabilities were spawned through organizational learning.
Self-organization is anchored on three conditions: a clear and coherent identity, information that ows openly, and a network
of relationships between all parts of the system (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996). Clear values and a vision provide the conditions
that allow for high autonomy, low control, and openness (Youngblood, 1997), while promoting ownership, nurturing relationships,
and encouraging initiative. To maintain structures of this nature, strategic leaders need to champion environments of meritocracy,
gain sharing, and exible career paths (Delbecq & Weiss, 2000). In fact, the focus of leadership becomes one of enabling
organizational effectiveness, as opposed to determining or guiding effectiveness (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). Marion & Uhl-Bien
(2001) propose the leadership responsibility of fostering the emergence of distributed intelligence, that is, the networked
intellectual capabilities of human agents (McKelvey, 2004). Dess & Picken (2000) and Hitt (2000) call for strategic leaders to focus
less on control and more on empowerment and human capital development.
The new forms of strategy discussed earlier have a direct link to new forms of structure and new functions and responsibilities
serving to underscore that the demands of leadership not only shift in dynamic environments, but also have shifted by position.
The role of operational level managers shifts from implementers to entrepreneurs, that of senior managers from controllers to
coaches, and that of top-level managers from resource allocators to builders of an environment of trust and purpose (Bennis, 1999;
Hambrick, 1998). Brown & Eisenhardt (1998) observe a similar shift of responsibility and autonomy to the operational level
manager, suggesting strategic formulation to be the responsibility of the business unit manager and synthesis to be the key role for
top executives. The increased diffusion of strategic responsibility through all levels of the organization serves to achieve a balance
of freedom and structure as well as the coexistence of exploration and exploitation (Hambrick, 1998; Ireland & Hitt, 2005; Rowe,
2001).
Overall, the responsibilities of making sense of the environment, crafting strategy, and establishing the boundaries for self-
organization provide a picture of the strategic leader as a creator of meaning and understanding. In dynamic environments,
strategy has a strong emergent component and the organization relies strongly on self-organization. Nevertheless, strategic
leaders in these contexts do not abdicate their job; their responsibility becomes that of pulling all elements together, presenting
the big picture to organizational members, and offering a coherent unifying approach that enables the alignment of the strategy,
organization, and environment.
3. Leadership of others
After seven decades of leadership research, the leaderfollower relationship has been examined from many perspectives, as
summarized by Vera & Crossan (2004a): Trait, style, and behavioral approaches focus on leaders (Bryman, 1986; Stogdill, 1948);
information-processing approaches and implicit theories of leadership focus on followers (Lord & Maher, 1991; Phillips & Lord,
1982); sociological approaches and substitutes for leadership models look at contexts (Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Meindl, 1993); and
contingency approaches, leadermember exchange theory, individualized leadership models, and social-constructionist
approaches (Fiedler, 1967; Graef, 1983; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr; 1986, Meindl, 1993) investigate the
nature of interactions among leaders, followers, and contexts. It is important to note that many of these theories have been
developed largely focusing on leaders and followers at lower levels of the organization.
House & Aditya (1997, p. 409) note that to this day, the dominant proportion of the more than 3000 studies listed by Bass
(1990) is primarily concerned with the relationship between leaders and their immediate followers, and largely ignores the kind of
organization and culture in which leaders function, the relationships between leaders and superiors, external constituencies,
peers, and the kind of product or service provided by the leader's organization. However, because our focus of analysis is the
strategic leader at the top of the organization, in this section we consider indirect or distant (in addition to face-to-face or close)
leadership responsibilities (Hunt, 2004; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999). There are many situations in which leadership at higher
levels has indirect effects cascading down the organizational hierarchy (Hunt, 2004). For example, when Waldman & Yammarino
(1999) describe the effects of charismatic leaders, they differentiate between impact that is direct, through interaction with the top
management team (close leadership), and impact that is indirect, through middle and lower management's attributions toward the
CEO and the top executives (distant leadership) involving symbolic, ideologically based visions, sagas, and storytelling. We
consider these two effects in our discussion below.
The responsibilities of strategic leaders to lead others in dynamic environments are particularly informed by micro-level
theories incorporating situational aspects. For example, the basic assumption of contingency theories of leadership is that no
leadership style is best in all situations, and that the leader's ability to lead followers is contingent upon factors such as the leader's
preferred style, the capabilities and behaviors of followers, and the resources, support, and coordination available. Nevertheless,
the scope of theories including Fiedler's (1967) contingency model of leadership, House's (1971) path-goal theory, and Leader
Member Exchange (LMX) theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) has generally focused on the characteristics of the work environment,
not the external environment.
In contrast, what Bryman (1993) referred to as the New Leadership theories are more explicit about the role of the external
environment in the leaderfollower relationship. House & Aditya's (1997) review of the eld included in this group charismatic
leadership (House, 1977), transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), the attributional theory of charismatic leadership
(Conger & Kanungo, 1987), visionary theories (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kousnes & Posner, 1987), and the value-based theory of
leadership (House, 1996). Using differing terminology, all these theories share the attempt to explain how certain leaders are able
to achieve extraordinary levels of follower motivation, admiration, trust, commitment, loyalty, and performance (House & Aditya,
1997), and these theories come to similar conclusions about the environment, as described below.
Transformational leadership theory has tended to emphasize the study of upper-level leaders (Hunt, 1999); these behaviors
have proven especially helpful in leading others in dynamic environments. Bass (1985, 1998) distinguishes between transactional
and transformational leaders. Transactional leadership relies on contingent rewardsmutually agreeable commitments of reward
or recognition for performanceand management by exception. The main element of motivation in this theory is self-interest.
Transformational leadership moves followers beyond self-interest to self-actualization and involves charisma, inspiration,
intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Bass, 1985, 1998). Transformational leadership is based on a compelling
vision, strong personal values, and the demonstrated character of the leader. Bass & Avolio (1993) establish that transactional and
transformational leadership styles are not mutually exclusive and that the same individuals may display behaviors of either form in
different frequency and intensity.
Charismatic leadership is often used interchangeably with transformational leadership, but many consider it a component of
transformational leadership (House & Shamir, 1993). Charisma refers to the personal identication of followers with the leader and
the followers' desire to emulate the leader. Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam (2001) provide empirical evidence that charisma
predicts leadership performance under conditions of environmental uncertainty but not under conditions of certainty. Similarly,
crisis and stressful uncertainty facilitate the emergence of value-based leadership (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991), and CEO
value-based leadership predicts the economic performance of rms facing high uncertainty (Waldman, Ramirez, & House, 1996).
Building on prior work on the integration of micro and macro contextual variables as part of the multiple inuence model of
leadership (Hunt & Osborn, 1981a,b), Osborn et al. (2002) also argue that transformational leaders are most effective in contexts of
crisis because traumatic situations activate the emotional centers of the brain-areas inuenced by the vision and dreams inspired
by transformational leaders. Similarly, charismatic leadership is positioned as key for the design and institutionalization of the
processes required for post-crisis situations (Gibbons, 1992).
When comparing the conceptual dimensions of transformational and servant leadership, Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko
(2004) conclude that transformational leadership is better suited to dynamic environments while servant leadership is better
suited to more static environments. Similarly, authors such as Ensley, Pearce, & Hmieleski (2006) and De Hoogh, Den Hartog, &
Koopman (2005) are explicit about the appropriateness of transactional leadership in stable contexts. In these conditions,
organizational members are likely to perceive transactional leaders' emphasis on maintenance functions as tting in order to
maintain existing paradigms (Bass, 1985).
In addition to transformational behaviors, authentic leadership has been proposed as a model of leadership and follower
development in dynamic environments (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa, 2004; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). In fact, Avolio & Gardner (2005)
argue that the uncertainty characterizing the broader environmental context is a precipitating condition for the emergence of
discussions about authentic leadership. Avolio, Luthans, and colleagues consider authentic leadership as a root construct that can
incorporate transformational and ethical leadership (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Jensen & Luthans, 2006).
Authentic leaders are those who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their
own and others' values/moral perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are
condent, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character (Avolio, Luthans et al., 2004, p. 4, as cited by Avolio, Gardner et al.,
2004). Authentic followers are described as displaying internalized regulatory processes, balanced processing of information, and
relational transparency, paralleling the characteristics of authentic leaders (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).
Although authentic leadership theory is in its early stages of development and testing, a number of processes through which
leaders inuence follower attitudes and behaviors have been proposed: identication, positive modeling, emotional contagion,
supporting self-determination, and positive social exchanges (Avolio, Gardner et al., 2004; Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Through these
processes, leaders shape the self-awareness and self-regulatory processes of followers, and followers develop greater clarity about
their values, identity, and emotions (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005).
Avolio & Gardner (2005) differentiate authentic leadership from transformational by stating that the latter (Burns, 1978; Bass,
1985) necessitates that a leader be authentic, but being authentic does not necessarily mean that the leader is transformational. In
particular, authentic leadership may or may not be charismatic (George, 2003), and transformational leadership does not explicitly
include positive psychological capital, emotional contagion processes, and followers' relational transparency and authentic
behavior (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Overall, with organizations of all types experiencing unprecedented levels of change, a portfolio
of transformational and authentic leadership behaviors is instrumental for strategic leaders in leading others in highly dynamic
contexts.
4. Leadership of self
In addition to incorporating the organizational level, the current focus on dyadic relationships in leadership research needs to be
extended to incorporate the level of self-leadership, since the person of the leader is the agent of change. In this regard, the authentic
leadership model addresses both leadership levels of others and self, and is part of the Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) and
Positive Organizational Behavior (POB) movements. The goal of these movements is to develop positively oriented human resource
strengths that improve rm performance (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; Luthans, 2002). As mentioned above, self-awareness
and self-regulation are focal components of authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005); these facets are also
explicitly or implicitly recognized in theories of servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) and spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003). Strategic
leaders in turbulent environments are responsible to actively develop these personal strengths.
Because of their emergent nature, theories about leading the self propose interesting, yet often untested, insights into new ways
of thinking about leadership. For example, Advanced Change Theory (Quinn, Spreitzer, & Brown, 2000) has been proposed as a
form of leading adaptive change. This theory emphasizes the need for self-leadership and requires the leader to employ a high level
of cognitive, behavioral, and moral complexity; it focuses on changing the self as paramount to changing others and the system. In
this regard, it is particularly applicable in the context of dynamic environments, where change is constant.
In addition, the concept of level-5 leadership (Collins, 2001) has also generated signicant interest, particularly amongst
practitioners. Collins (2001, p. 12) indicated, We were surprised, shocked really, to discover the type of leadership required for
turning a good company into a great one. Compared to high-prole leaders with big personalities who make headlines and become
celebrities, the good-to-great leaders seem to have come from Mars. Self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shythese leaders are a
paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will. They are more like Lincoln and Socrates than Patton or Caesar. Collins
provided, as examples of level-5 leaders, Colman Mockler (former CEO of Gillette) and David Maxwell (former CEO of Fannie Mae).
Collins's work reminds us that, above and beyond the leadership skills of visioning, catalyzing commitment, and organizing
resources, the development of personal strengths is essential for long-term success. Future research might examine the various
facets of self-leadership in assessing which aspects deliver performance across the various levels.
The extensive research of Peterson & Seligman (2004) on character strengths and virtues can be employed to describe leadership
of self. The elements of authentic leadership proposed by Luthans and Avolio are subsumed by the character strengths presented by
Peterson and Seligman. Although the character strengths were not intended strictly as elements of leadership, we could not identify
any element that was not directly related to leadership of self. Peterson & Seligman (2004, p. 28) identify six core moral virtues that
emerge consensually across cultures and throughout time. Each of the six core moral virtues has an associated set of character
strengths, as follows: (a) Wisdom and knowledgecreativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love of learning, perspective; (b) courage
bravery, persistence, integrity, vitality; (c) humanitylove, kindness, social intelligence; (d) justicecitizenship, fairness, leadership;
(e) temperanceforgiveness and mercy, humility or modesty, prudence, self-regulation; and (f) transcendenceappreciation of
beauty and excellence, gratitude, hope, humor, spirituality. We are not inclined to narrow the list proposed by Peterson and
Seligman at this juncture. Rather, future research may seek to examine which character strengths are most salient.
Character strengths such as humanity and temperance may seem at odds with the commonly held view of strategic leaders. As
Collins (2001) points out in his discovery of level-5 leaders, others may mistake the level-5 leader's humility and calm
determination as a sign of weakness; yet dissent about the value of human strengths such as humility, forgiveness, hope, and
gratitude comes, to a great extent, from misunderstanding of their meaning. These personal attributes are not the ones usually
associated with the high-prole super CEOs appearing in the business press. However, the apparent link between arrogance,
competence, and success is created by a frequency problem, since arrogant, successful people are more visible than humble and
quietly persistent, successful ones (Vera & Rodriguez-Lopez, 2004).
Dynamic environments will serve to place a premium on leadership of the self. When facing the many tradeoffs that arise in
complex and changing environments, the leader will need a high level of self-awareness and deep judgment. A strong individual
compass will prevent the leader from simply drifting or responding to the environment; on the other hand, the leader will be
required to undergo personal renewal to adapt to changes in the environment.
5. Transcendent leadership: leading within and across levels
We propose the term transcendent leadership to denote a form of strategic leadership that spans the levels of self, others, and
organization (and we anticipate the importance of examining the societal level in our discussion section). Our use of
transcendent is consistent with others' (Aldon, 2004; Gardiner, 2006). Gardiner has focused on the transcendent qualities of self
and the transcending of the organization (which we will, again, pick up in the discussion section). Aldon (2004) has focused on the
levels of self and others to bridge spirituality and science. We view the term transcendent as ideally suited to a model holding that
leaders need to transcend the levels, as it captures the quality of going above and beyond, within and between levels.
5.1. Linking the levels of leadership responsibilities to rm performance
Transcendent leaders are those who can lead within and amongst the levels of self, others, and organization. Although we view
the levels as quite synergistic in nature, we anticipate that not all strategic leaders will have the inclination or the capacity to excel
at all levels. Individuals will have personal dispositions and face contextual factors that affect their ability to fulll their
responsibilities at the three levels. Some strategic leaders have risen to the top because of their capacity to lead others, but may not
be well equipped for leadership of the organization; other leaders may be parachuted into situations where they are expected to
make strategic changes, but lack the ability to lead others. In this section, we look at different scenarios of strategic leadership and
their implications in terms of rm performance.
5.1.1. Leadership of one level only

The transcendent leader needs the capacity to provide leadership of all levels; it is not sufcient to excel at only one level. Indeed, a
strategic leader who focuses on, or excels at only one level will not realize performance benets for the organization. For example, a
leader with a solitary focus on self discovery may lose sight of responsibility towards others and the organization, and excel only at the
personal level while the organizational performance suffers. Despite a leader's personal virtues, followers may be unwilling to accept her
leadership for reasons of personal animosity, biases, or cultural and positional barriers. For example, Eagly (2005) describes cases where
leaders who transparently expressed and acted upon their core values failed to achieve relational authenticity with followers; she
suggests women and outsiders who have not traditionally had access to certain leadership roles may face this situation. In addition, the
leader in this scenario lacks the ability to facilitate the alignment of the environment, strategy, and organization. Hence, we predict:
Proposition 1. A strategic leader with a high level of leadership of self and low leadership of others and organization will be associated
with low rm performance.
If a strategic leader's sole focus is leadership of others with limited attention to the self and the organization, rm performance
will also suffer. In this case, followers identify with the leader and have high levels of motivation, commitment, and loyalty.
Nevertheless, because of the lack of strategic direction and coherent approach towards the alignment of strategy, organization, and
environment, employees may be empowered to do the wrong things. Furthermore, a strategic leader who does not invest in
leadership of self will limit his or her potential to deal with the tradeoffs and difcult decisions typical of dynamic environments.
Hence,
Proposition 2. A strategic leader with a high level of leadership of others and low leadership of self and organization will be associated
In our third scenario, it is not sufcient for the strategic leader to focus solely on the organizational level, as is often the case in
turnaround situations. It is possible that strategic and organizational restructuring may lead to short-term performance
improvements, as strategic leaders are in a position to buy and sell strategic assets or exercise cost-cutting measures. These
solutions, however, contribute only to temporary alignment of environment, strategy, and organization, not to the creation of a
platform for the future. Leadership of the organization with no corresponding leadership of self and others is not expected to
deliver sustainable performance. Followers may lack commitment, motivation, and identication with the leader. Consistent with
the prior discussion of leadership in dynamic environments, the ongoing strategic and organizational renewal is dependent upon
the contributions of individuals and groups; thus, the strategic leader is dependent on those levels to deliver sustained
performance. Similarly, with no leadership of the self, the leader's potential for dealing with complex issues requiring deep
judgment is limited. Hence, we predict:
Proposition 3. A strategic leader with a high level of leadership of organization and low leadership of self and others may be associated
with high rm performance in the short term but will not be associated with high long-term performance.
5.1.2. Leadership of two levels only

Leadership of two levels is still not sufcient for rms to excel. For example, a strategic leader who focuses on her
responsibilities at the levels of the self and others, but lacks the ability to lead at the organizational level, will not realize
performance benets for the organization. Again, this strategic leader possesses many character strengths and virtues, and
followers are inspired by her leadership. The rm, however, lacks a consistent approach towards strategy, organization, and the
environment. As described by Wheatley (1999, p. 39), Without a clear sense of who they are, and what they are trying to
accomplish, organizations get tossed and turned by shifts in their environment. No person or organization can be an effective co-
creator with its environment without clarity about who it is intending to become. Hence, we predict:
Proposition 4. A strategic leader with a high level of leadership of self and others and low leadership of organization will be associated
Strategic leaders who excel at the levels of self and organization may achieve positive performance in the short term, but not in
the long-term. These leaders are deeply aware of their values, perspectives, and strengths, and are effective in reading and enacting
the environment, crafting strategy, and enabling organizational adaptation. However, in this case, followers do not share the
leader's values and vision and do not see this leadership as legitimate. Consequently, the leader cannot count on individuals' and
groups' efforts in strategy formulation and implementation. In the short term, strategic leaders may successfully manage the
portfolio of the rm's businesses and assets but, in the long-term, performance will suffer. Hence, we predict:
Proposition 5. A strategic leader with a high level of leadership of self and organization and low leadership of others will be associated
with high rm performance in the short term but will not be associated with high long-term performance.
The nal scenario is that of leaders who excel in leading others and the organization but who are missing a moral and ethical
compass and character strengths to help them face difcult tradeoffs. Highly dynamic contexts frequently require deep judgment;
leadership of self provides a personal anchor on which to make difcult decisions. Building on Jim Collins's (2001) difference
between good companies and great companiesthe latter are able to sustain above-average performance over extended
periods of timewe expect that the performance of rms with strategic leaders lacking leadership of self may be good, but not
great. Additionally, today's turbulent contexts tend to allow CEOs only short tenure at the top, so strategic leaders who do not
attend to the self may lack staying power. Hence,
Proposition 6. A strategic leader with a high level of leadership of others and organization and low leadership of self will be associated
with high rm performance; this performance will, however, be lower than that of rms with strategic leaders excelling at the three levels
of leadership.
5.1.3. Conicts between levels

Quick examination of our six previous propositions may lead to the conclusion that the critical level for leaders to focus on is the
organizational level. In our propositions, any time a leader excels in organizational level responsibilities, rm performance is high,
at least in the short term. Leadership of the self becomes extremely important in cases where tension or conict of interest exists
between the responsibility levels. For example, Enron's top management experienced multiple conicts of interest between what
beneted the leaders' well-being and what was good for followers (Enron employees), the organization (Enron shareholders), and
society in general (Enron stakeholders). Enron's strategic leaders lacked a personal anchor and a moral compass to resolve these
tensions (Sherron, 2003). CEOs need self-reference and a clear sense of personal identity to facilitate orderly change in the midst of
highly turbulent environments (Wheatley, 1999). Hence, we predict:
Proposition 7. When facing conicts of interest between levels, a strategic leader with a higher level of leadership of self will be
associated with higher long-term performance than a strategic leader with lower levels of leadership of self.
5.1.4. Leadership of three levels

Overall, the basic argument of our model is that a transcendent leader who provides strong leadership at all levels will enhance
rm performance in highly dynamic environments. Hence, in our last proposition, we predict:
Proposition 8. The transcendent leader, who has high levels of leadership of self, others, and organization, will be associated with the
highest level of rm performance.
6. Conclusions and implications
We have adopted a levels perspective for our study of leadership in dynamic environments, seeking to integrate streams of research
that tend to be disconnected. Success in turbulent, high-velocity environments demands the exercise of emergent forms of strategy
rather than entirely planned or designed approaches. New forms of organizational structure, which build on self-organization and
complex adaptive systems and facilitate this approach to strategy, have also been identied. These requirements shift the emphasis
from leadership behaviors associated with dyads and groups to take a more holistic organizational view of strategic leadership roles in
shaping and reacting to the external environment and managing the strategy, the organization, and themselves.
The cross-level mixed effect model we have proposed helps to incorporate the diverse leadership literature spanning the levels
of self, others, and organization, responding to the call for micro and macro integration. However, it is not our intent to supplant
other leadership theories but rather to provide a means to integrate the diverse literature. Yet it is not simply a matter of
integration, as we have asserted that focusing on only one level will yield suboptimal performance. Thus, we endorse the
importance of a multi-level perspective and the peril of approaches to leadership that adopt only a micro or macro view.
Future opportunities for leadership research might employ other types of cross-level models, as described by Kozlowski & Klein
(2000). For example, a cross-level mixed determinant model might examine how elements (determinants) that reside across levels
impact strategic leadership at the individual level. Cross-level frog pond models would examine comparative effects across levels
for example, the relationship between the strategic leader and the organization across different sizes or types of organizations.
Although the scope of this paper does not include the societal level, a levels perspective lends itself well to expanding the model
to incorporate the societal level. Ample literature exists to inform such a perspective, and the importance for examining cross-level
implications is clear. As Maak & Pless (2006, p. 99) suggest:
Today's leaders act in a global, complex, uncertain and interconnected business environment. Among the challenges in this
context is the need to reduce complexity and uncertainty for people and provide a desirable picture of the future, which is
shared by the people they lead. Leaders need to have a sense of purpose and guiding vision . Moreover, they have to lead
in a business environment, which undergoes a general crisis of legitimacy and trust . commercial viability and long-term
business success depend on the ability of a rm and their leadership to act responsibly with respect to all stakeholders in
business, society and the environment.
The societal level opens up a new range of issues for the transcendent leader. Our discussion of the organizational level has
focused on the rm and the industry to a limited degree vis--vis the environment. Examining leadership as it relates to the societal
level draws in the literature on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. These literatures pose fundamental
questions about the responsibilities of the strategic leader to make a prot, obey the law, be ethical, and be a good corporate citizen
(Carroll, 1999). We expect that leadership of the societal level will place a new and different set of demands on the leader.
Consistent with the propositions we have developed, the transcendent leader needs to have the capacity to lead at all levels.
Extending the foregoing logic to the societal level, a growing body of literature suggests it is insufcient for the strategic leader to
focus solely on the organizational level. Sustained performance arises from leadership of the societal level as well. However, in
spite of the recent calls for leaders to be socially responsible, a sole focus on the societal level is not expected to deliver sustained
nancial performance. This logic is consistent with the corporate social performance literature, which suggests that organizations
must balance the needs of the organization and society.
Our focus has been on the strategic leader at the individual level, and in particular the CEO. As Finkelstein & Hambrick point out,
CEO's are often quite constrained in their ability to change an organizationand these constraints arise not only from general limits
to managerial discretion throughout an organization, but also from practical bounds imposed by the actions of other top managers
and the board of directors. Hence, in a conceptual sense, selecting a unit of analysis carries signicant meaning (1996, p. 328). We
concur with Finkelstein and Hambrick and suggest that shifting the level of analysis from the individual to the group, or TMT, will
require new considerations for transcendent leadership. The cross-level research models will be helpful in guiding future research,
as there are fundamental questions regarding whether the notion of transcendent leadership can reside only with individuals, or if
there is an equivalency that can be applied to a team or even an organization. It remains clear that, regardless of the unit of analysis,
cross-level effects must be considered. Doing so will continue to integrate disparate streams of research and highlight critical
interdependencies between levels. For example, we have suggested the need to extend the model to incorporate the societal level,
and we fully expect that essential links will emerge between leadership of self and society that need to be examined simultaneously.
Our intent has been to examine strategic leadership in dynamic environments. We anticipate that in stable environments the
demands on leadership may be quite different as the elements of change and learning are less intense. We are aware that many of the
leadership theories were formulated in an era of more environmental stability and, hence, the predominant challenge is to understand
how well they hold up in more dynamic environments. In particular, the extensive research on leadership of others has been undertaken
with little regard to the external environment, since the more proximate work environment has been more salient. We have attempted
to extract elements that speak to dynamic environments, yet there is a need for further research to test these assertions.
Although we did not examine the implications for transcendent leadership in international contexts, we concur with
Gregersen, Morrison, & Black (1998) that global leadership has the additional requirement of gaining substantive knowledge
relating to the international disciplines of nance, accounting, marketing, operations, human resource management, and strategy.
They note that one third of global leaders' success depends on the knowledge or skills from a specic context, while two thirds can
be considered more generic in nature. Clearly, when leadership is expanded to consider the global domain, knowledge of the
international disciplines is critical.
House, Javidan, & Dorfman (2001), along with an international team of researchers working on the GLOBE project, have
investigated the interrelationship between societal culture, organizational culture, and organizational leadership. Research arising
from the GLOBE project suggests some universal attributes that contribute to effective leadership: being trustworthy, just, and
honest (integrity); having foresight and planning ahead (charismatic visionary); and being positive, dynamic, encouraging,
motivating, and building condence (charismatic inspirational). Other attributes were universally rejected, such as being irritable
or dictatorial. Most intriguing were those that were endorsed in some countries but rejected in others. Examples include cautious,
independent and sensitive (Scandura & Dorfman, 2004, p. 286). Many of the leadership attributes measured by the GLOBE project
are associated with the human strengths incorporated in leadership of self. Results on the relevance of different leadership
attributes around the world will inform future studies about whether there is cultural universality.
Several other implications for future work result from contrasting the design and results of the GLOBE project with our
framework of transcendent leadership. The theoretical model underpinning the GLOBE project as presented by House et al. (2001)
is consistent with our approach. It proposes that leader attributes and behaviors affect, and are affected by, organizational form,
culture, and practices.
In conclusion, we have proposed a multi-level model of transcendent leadership that integrates micro and macro leadership
theories to examine strategic leadership in dynamic environments. Understanding the relationships between the levels of
leadership is essential to uncovering the critical links to rm performance.
References
Ahuja, M. K., & Carley, K. M. (1999). Network structure in virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 741757.
Aldon, L. J. (2004). Transcendent leadership and the evolution of consciousness. London: Lightening Source UK Ltd.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315338.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower
attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801823.
Avolio, B., Luthans, F., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2004). Authentic leadership: Theory-building for veritable sustained performance. Gallup Leadership Institute, University of
Nebraska at Lincoln Working paper.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112121.
Bennis, W. G. (1999). The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is impossible without full inclusion, initiatives, and cooperation of followers. Organizational
Dynamics, 28(1), 7180.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.
Bettis, R. A., & Hitt, M. A. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 719.
Bigley, G. A., & Roberts, K. H. (2001). The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(6), 12811299.
Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2000). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 515549.
Bontis, N., Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and ows. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 437469.
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73, 4353.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bryman, A. (1986). Leadership and organizations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bryman, A. (1993). Charismatic leadership in business organizations: Some neglected issues. The Leadership Quarterly, 4, 289304.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Cannella, A. A., Jr., & Monroe, M. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Towards a more realistic view of top managers. Journal of Management, 23(3),
23237.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporation social responsibility: Evolution of a denitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268295.
Child, J. (1972). Organization structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6, 122.
Child, J. (1997). Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, organizations and environment: Retrospect and prospect. Organization Studies, 18(1), 4376.
Child, J., & McGrath, R. G. (2001). Organizations unfettered: Organizational form in an information-intensive economy. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6),
11351148.
Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great rms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Clark, A. (1999). Leadership and inuence: The manager as coach, nanny, and articial DNA. In J. H. ClippingerIII (Ed.), The biology of business: Decoding the natural
laws of enterprise (pp. 4766). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: HarperBusiness.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4),
637647.
Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Leveraging knowledge through leadership of organizational learning. In C. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), Strategic management of
intellectual capital and organizational knowledge: A collection of readings (pp. 711723). New York: Oxford University.
Crossan, M., Lane, H., & White, R. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522538.
D'Aveni, R. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. New York: The Free Press.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2005). Linking the big-ve-factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; Perceived
dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 839865.
Delbecq, A. L., & Weiss, J. (2000). The business culture of Silicon Valley: A turn-of-the-century reection. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(1), 3744.
Dess, G. C., & Picken, J. C. (2000). Changing roles: leadership in the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 1835.
Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 459474.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 11051121.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Sull, D. N. (2001). Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review, 7(1), 107116.
Ensley, M. D., Pearce, C. L., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2006). The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership
behavior and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 243263.
Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Foster, R., & Kaplan, S. (2001). Creative destruction. New York: Doubleday.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693727.
Gardiner, J. J. (2006). Transactional, transformational, and transcendent leadership: Metaphors mapping the evolution of the theory and practice of governance.
Leadership Review, 6, 6276.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development.
The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343372.
George, W. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gibbons, P. T. (1992). Impacts of organizational evolution on leadership roles and behaviours. Human Relations, 45(1), 120.
Graef, C. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A critical view. Academy of Management Review, 8, 285291.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 9
(pp. 175208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leadermember exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over
25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219247.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A. J., & Black, J. S. (1998). Developing leaders for the global frontier. Sloan Management Review, 40, 2132.
Hambrick, D. C. (1989). Guest editor's introduction: Putting top managers back in the strategy picture. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 515.
Hambrick, D. C. (1998). Navigating change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193206.
Hart, S. L., & Quinn, R. E. (1993). Roles executives play: CEOs, behavioral complexity, and rm performance. Human Relations, 46, 543574.
Hitt, M. A. (2000). The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 618.
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic exibility and competitive advantage in the 21st
century. Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 2242.
Hofer, C. W. (1975). Toward a contingency theory of business strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 784810.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321338.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189207). Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323352.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientic study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 2(23), 409473.
House, R. J., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. (2001). Project GLOBE: An introduction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 489505.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Towards the integration of transformational, charismatic and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership
theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81107). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 36, 364396.
Howell, J., Dorfman, P., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 88102.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leadership's transformation of the eld: A historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 129144.
Hunt, J. G. (2004). What is leadership? In J. Antonakis A. T. Cianciolo & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 1947). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1981). A multiple inuence approach to leadership for managers. In J. S. Stinson & P. Hersey (Eds.), Perspectives in leader effectiveness
(pp. 8197). Athens, OH: Center for Leadership Studies, Ohio University.
Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1981). Towards a macro-oriented model of leadership: An odyssey. In J. G. Hunt U. Sekaran & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: beyond
establishment views (pp. 112130). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Ilinitch, A., D'Aveni, R., & Lewin, A. (1996). New organization forms and strategies for managing in hyper-competitive environments. Organization Science, 7,
211220.
Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of
Management Executive, 19, 6377.
Jensen, S. M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: Impact on employees' attitudes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(8),
646666.
Jonas, H., III, Fry, R., & Srivastva, S. (1989). The person of the CEO: Understanding the executive experience. Academy of Management Executive, 3, 205215.
Jonas, H., III, Fry, R., & Srivastva, S. (1990). The ofce of the CEO: Understanding the executive experience. Academy of Management Executive, 4, 3647.
Kerr, S. M., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375403.
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Level issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195229.
Kousnes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A levels approach to theory and research in organizations. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research
and methods in organizations (pp. 390). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Lewin, A. Y. (1999). Application of complexity theory to organization science. Organization Science, 10, 215.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perception and performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695706.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. Cameron J. Dutton & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241258). San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Luthans, F., & Slocum, J. (2004). New leadership for a new time. Organizational Dynamics, 33(3), 227.
Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society: A relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 99115.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, l2(1), 7187.
Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 389418.
McKelvey, B. (2004). MicroStrategy from MacroLeadership: Distributed intelligence via new science. In A. Y. Lewin & H. Volberda (Eds.), Mobilizing the self-renewing
organization. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp.
Meindl, J. R. (1993). Reinventing leadership: A radical, social psychological approach. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social Psychology in Organizations, Advances in Theory
and Research (pp. 89118). Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.
Miles, R., & Snow, C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miles, R., Snow, C., Mathews, J., Miles, G., & Coleman, H. (1997). Organizing in the knowledge age: Anticipating the cellular form. Academy of Management Executive,
11, 720.
Milliken, F. J. (1990). Perceiving and interpreting environmental change: An examination of college administrators' interpretation of changing demographics.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 4263.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1999). The organization of the future: Strategic imperatives and core competencies for the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics,
28, 4560.
Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jaunch, R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797837.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1992). On studying managerial elites. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 163182.
Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1982). Schematic information processing and perceptions of leadership in problem-solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,
486492.
Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74, 6178.
Porter, M. (2001). Strategy and the internet. Harvard Business Review, 79, 6278.
Potter, D. V. (1991). Success under re: Policies to prosper in hostile times. California Management Review, 33, 12.
Priem, R. L., Lyon, D. W., & Dess, G. G. (1999). Limitations of demographic proxies in top management team heterogeneity research. Journal of Management, 6,
935953.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, R. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Brown, M. B. (2000). Changing others through changing ourselves: The transformation of human systems. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 9, 147164.
Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous morphing: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
12631280.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior, vol. 7 (pp. 137). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rowe, W. G. (2001). Creating wealth in organizations: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Executive, 15, 8194.
Scandura, T., & Dorfman, P. (2004). Leadership research in an international and cross-cultural context. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 277307.
Sherron, S. (2003). Ethical conicts at Enron: Moral responsibility in corporate capitalism. California Management Review, 45, 619.
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing rm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of
Management Review, 32, 273292.
Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 10, 8091.
Stacey, R. D. (1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 477495.
Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 3571.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509534.
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. The Academy of Management Review, 29, 222240.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Theatrical improvisation: Lessons for organizations. Organization Studies, 25, 727749.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2005). Improvisation and innovative performance in teams. Organization Science, 16, 203224.
Vera, D., & Rodriguez-Lopez, A. (2004). Strategic virtues: Humility as a source of competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 393408.
Volberda, H. W. (1998). Building the exible rm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. The Leadership Quarterly,
15, 355380.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., & House, R. J., (1996). The effects of U.S. CEO leader behavior on rm prots under conditions of environmental certainty and
uncertainty: A longitudinal investigation. Working paper, Reginal Jones Center for Strategic Management, Wharton School of Management.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and protability under conditions of perceived
environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134143.
Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24,
266285.
Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Wheatley, M. J., & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996). Self-organization: The irresistible future of organizing. Strategy and Leadership, 24, 1824.
Youngblood, M. D. (1997). Leadership at the edge of chaos. Strategy and Leadership, 25, 814.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285305.

Transcendent Leadership PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Transcendent Leadership PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Leadership Quarterly 19 (2008) 569581

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

Transcendent leadership: Strategic leadership in dynamic environments

2. Leadership of the organizational level

2.1. Changing external environments

2.2. Changing strategies

2.3. Changing organizations

5. Transcendent leadership: leading within and across levels

5.1. Linking the levels of leadership responsibilities to rm performance

5.1.1. Leadership of one level only

5.1.2. Leadership of two levels only

5.1.3. Conicts between levels

5.1.4. Leadership of three levels

6. Conclusions and implications

S-ar putea să vă placă și