The development of youth is a critical function of every society, and how to best achieve this has been the subject of educational debate throughout human history. The future of our democracy and its social and economic systems, it is agreed, depends on the nurturing of youth to become productive and contributing members of society (Dewey, 1916; Delgado, 2002; Kudo, 2003; Fullan, 2003). Indeed, the advancement of our civilization depends arguably on the capacity of society to move towards ever-higher standards of education and public life (Gardner, 1984; Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998). One area of education that is receiving increasing attention by researchers is the development of the leadership capacities of young people (Van Linden & Fertman, 1998; Funk, 2002; Lavery, 2003; Adair, 2005; Covey, 2008).
Leadership is most fundamentally important because human beings are social creatures, who work and play typically in groups or teams, co-operatively or competitively. It is leadership that facilitates human interactive processes – leaders provide focus in group processes and use power and influence to inspire and motivate people towards goal achievement, affirm shared values, envision the future, foster collaboration, recognize contributions, and initiate and help maintain structures (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
The capacity of effective leadership to deliver positive organizational outcomes is well recognized. Effective leadership has been credited with successfully equipping organizations to confront a challenging external environment (Avolio, 1999; Collins, 2001; Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004); inspiring employees to make a strong organizational commitment (Griffith, 2004; Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2007); empowering followers to optimal performance (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Blasé & Blasé, 1994); facilitating school reforms (Leithwood, Tomlinson & Genge, 1996; Calabrese, 2002; Crowther, Hann, & Andrews, 2002); achieving desired structural changes in corporations (Kotter, 1996; Bass, 2000; Kotter & Cohen, 2002; Higgs & Rowland, 2011); promoting ethical organizational practices (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996; Cashman, 1998; Evans, 2000; Caza, Barker, & Cameron, 2004); developing collaborative cultures in organizations (Fullan, 2001; Sergiovanni, 2004); and making a significant contribution to the betterment of the wider community (Greenleaf, 2002; Pepper, 2007; Shiva and Suar, 2010). Conversely, the negative consequences of 'bad' leadership (Kellerman, 2004), disempowerment (Blasé & Blasé, 1997), narcissism (Howell, 1988; Conger, 1990), and emotional incompetence (Beatty, 2000) are also well known.
To maximize positive outcomes and minimize negative ones, organizations across all sectors have a vested interest in developing the effective leadership capacity of their people. Further, evidence suggests that the need for effective leadership is only likely to increase in the future (Drucker, 1999). Thus, leadership training and development is a big budget item for modern organizations (McCall, 1998). Considerable resources are invested in professional development opportunities to grow the leadership capacities of those who demonstrate leadership potential, and who may already be occupying formal leadership roles in these organizations. In these circumstances, one wonders to what extent this process could be assisted if adolescent leadership development programs were enhanced in schools.
How schools might best contribute to growing the effective leadership capacity of our society is an issue worthy of greater research. It is particularly relevant now given the apparent increasing need to help people make sense of working with rapid technological change in increasingly more complex organizations (Bass, 2000). In this age of uncertainty and unprecedented challenges, when collaboration rather than command is likely to be the dominant leadership paradigm (Bennis & Thomas, 2002), effective adult leadership has become a 'moral imperative' (Fullan, 2000).
To assist in meeting this twenty-first century imperative, schools have an important role to play in laying solid foundations for all students to live productive and meaningful adult lives, and that, in part, must mean providing a range of opportunities for 'learning leadership' (Hawkes, 2005). Currently, most schools have mission statements which claim, among other outcomes, to be developing the leadership capacities of youth. They purport to do so through formal positions of added responsibility such as school captains, prefects, sports captains, cultural captains, student councillors, student committee members, and 'buddies' to younger students. As well, participation in team sports, structured pastoral care programs, and experiential learning opportunities such as annual school camps, leadership retreats, and community volunteering opportunities, are touted as legitimate pathways to school-based, youth leadership development (Lavery, 2003).
For some students, their leadership development is enriched through their participation in other societal organizations such as Surf Lifesaving, Scouts, Guides, Church youth groups, outside sporting clubs, or increasingly, through paid work, especially in the ubiquitous fast food outlets. However, school has the privileged position of being the only place where it is compulsory for youth to attend. Importantly, too, school has the special responsibility, in contrast to that of adult organizations, of offering opportunities to develop the leadership capacities of all students (Whitehead, 2009).
If schools are to effectively embrace this responsibility, then research needs to support their efforts. At present, however, whilst schools may claim to be developing students' knowledge, attitudes and skills to equip them as leaders, there is a lack of evidence from empirical research to substantiate the claim that students are being sufficiently and appropriately prepared for adult leadership roles. In particular, what is not known is how 'effective leadership' is constructed in the minds of adolescents, and which background factors, and school-based experiences in particular, are the most significant ones influencing how youth conceptualize effective leadership.
To advance our understanding of how schools can best help grow tomorrow's leaders, it is informative to know how adolescents conceptualize effective leadership. In particular, it is instructive to know the extent to which adolescent conceptualizations are enriched with leadership concepts currently considered in the research literature to be the most relevant for effective twenty first century leadership. Research to this end might prove useful through its capacity to identify matches and mismatches between concepts valued most by the research literature and those valued most by adolescents. Further, such research may illuminate the school-based experiences exerting positive influences in preferred directions, and possibly highlight those influences embedding outmoded leadership models in students' minds.
Of significance is evidence in the literature that even novice student leaders hold fairly sophisticated conceptualizations of effective leadership, providing confidence in the fertility of the research field. For example, adolescent students on a leadership camp in Ohio, USA in 1999, consensually developed a definition of 'leadership' as 'the ability to lead and follow with caring and understanding of oneself and others; acting responsibly, using great communication and organizational skills with optimistic attitude, therefore being an inspiration and a good role model' (Culp III & Kohlhagen, 2000, p. 7).
As well, research evidence (for example, Kempster, 1996; Cox, 1998) supports the assumption that school is an appropriate vehicle for leadership development. Kempster (2006) conducted in-depth interviews over four stages with six directors of a United Kingdom multinational corporation to gain an understanding of the influences that shaped the leadership development process of these directors. He concluded that the metaphor of 'apprenticeship' best captures the essence of the process of leadership learning. In successive interviews, the directors gradually came to realize the influence of notable people they had observed over their careers, despite conscious recall of such influence prior to the interviews being severely limited. The importance for leadership development through observational learning from contact with 'notable people', as suggested by Kempster's (2006) research, points to the potentially influential role of school, principals, teachers and coaches as sources of adolescents' emerging conceptualizations of leadership. In so doing, it also points to the great responsibility of these school personnel, as role models, to develop their personal capabilities to be effective leaders in the twenty first century (Valentine & Prater, 2011).
Cox (1988) explored possible commonalities in the adolescent background experiences of a stratified sample of 410 current established leaders in the United States, and identified seven experiences important for the personal leadership development of her sample population. They were: collaborative experiences, personal characteristic development experiences, having mentors and other nurturers, employment or internship experiences, group leadership experiences, formal education, and significant life experiences. She found that her sample of leaders tended to be more highly educated than the general population; to have been active in organizations in their youth; and to have mentors and role models nurturing their development (Cox, 1988, p. 133). Insofar as schools can provide youth with opportunities for academic improvement and organizational participation, and can provide a level of structural stability, caring, and access to role models and mentors, the research findings of Cox (1998) support the view that schools appear to be highly appropriate vehicles for leadership development.
How students conceptualize 'effective leadership', and the density of their mental representations, is likely to vary across a student cohort. A review of contemporary adolescent leadership literature suggests that variance might be expected to relate to factors such as 'gender', 'academic ability', and 'participation in competitive sports'.
Related to the variable 'gender', Linimon, Barron & Falbo (1984) reported a significant difference among American college student leaders by gender in self-ratings of leadership style, with women rating themselves higher than men as democratic leaders. Similarly, Adams & Keim (2000), in a study of 233 Greek-affiliated student leaders at three Mid-western universities in the USA, found that women chapter presidents were more likely to take a more participative/collaborative approach to leadership than their male counterparts. The possibility of such gender differences in the conceptualizations of leadership by Australian adolescents is one especially worthy of further research given that the research literature clearly lauds the effectiveness of female-preferred, relationship-based, collaborative leadership for effective organizations in the twenty first century (Loader, 1997; Shum & Cheng, 1997; Fullan, 2004).
'Academic ability' is a second potential discriminator suggested by the literature. Research findings support the link between academic ability and leadership effectiveness. For example, Atwater & Yammarino (1993, cited in Walter & Bruch, 2003, p. 1430), in a study of leaders in training at a US military academy, found a significant positive correlation between intellectual ability and transformational leadership. Further, in a twenty-year study of 115 students from the Harvard Business School class of 1974, Kotter (1996) found that 'lifelong learning' (along with 'competitive drive') stood out as a determinant of career success in an increasingly changing and complex business environment, declaring that graduates with a 'strong willingness to learn became measurably stronger and more able leaders at age fifty than they had been at age forty' (Kotter, 1996, p. 178). As well, there is some research evidence that academic ability may favour some students in being selected for a greater number of leadership development experiences outside of the school (such as regional leader conferences, exchange visits), providing more opportunities to deepen and clarify their understanding of effective leadership. Schneider, Paul, White & Holcombe (1999), for example, found that teachers' predictions of leaders were primarily tied to academic performance; that is, the smarter the student was perceived to be, the greater his perceived leadership capacity.
'Participation in competitive sport', especially in a team environment or under the influence of charismatic coaches, may be another source of variance in formative leadership conceptualizations. A study by Dobosz & Beaty (1999) of sixty high school athletic and non-athletic students found that athletes displayed significantly more leadership skills than non-athletes, according to their mean scores on the Leadership Ability Evaluation. Research also shows that, as a leadership development pathway, sport is favoured by males over females (Mullen & Tuten, 2004, cited in Whitehead, 2009, p. 865) and by Caucasians over other ethnic groups (Kezar & Moriaty, 2000, cited in Whitehead, 2009, p. 865), who align more strongly with club participation, student government and community volunteering.
An analysis of the extent to which different students' conceptualizations of effective leadership align with leadership concepts valued in the research literature may benefit from having some reference points or frameworks developed from the literature. Bass & Stogdill (1990) provide a good starting point. These researchers conducted an extensive research of the work of major leadership scholars and synthesized their finding as eleven distinct approaches to leadership. They were:
Another useful contribution comes from Culp III & Cox (1997) who propose a set of seven leadership paradigms that might emerge as society and the environment changes in the twenty first century. These are:
Culp III & Cox (1997) share the same rationale for their efforts as this researcher, that:
…today's leadership educators have a responsibility to plan and implement leadership development programs which will prepare individuals for leadership as it will be defined and exercised throughout the next century. (p. 17).
In search of a set of conceptualizations more familiar in the secondary school environment, however, a synthesis of the research literature will be undertaken by me through the lens of an experienced teacher. Despite the claim that 'leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth' (Burns, 1978, p. 2), and mindful of the criticism that much leadership research is little more than buzzwords 'packaged for popular consumption', (Sergiovanni (1992, p. 3), I have teased nine such conceptualizations relevant to adolescent students out of the literature. Each will be explored in turn, defined and explained by examples from the literature (especially that from the literature on adult 'educational leadership', aligning with the interests and knowledge of the likely readers of this research paper). Concepts relevant to effective leadership in the twentyfirst century will be highlighted, and the potential contribution of each to enrich students' mental representations of 'effective leadership' will be reflected upon. The nine conceptualizations identified are:
The conceptualization of leadership as a desirable set of personality traits is based on the notion that leaders possess personal qualities that set them apart from non-leaders. This trait approach to leadership stems from the conceptualization of the 'great man of history', arguably the most deeply engrained leader prototype in our culture (Adair, 2005). For adolescent boys, in particular, the internalization of historical hero figures such as Alexander the Great may exert strong influence on their conceptualization of leadership as the possession of personality traits such as determination, courage, ambition, self-confidence, and charisma. Gronn (1997) warns that the attribution of 'greatness' to leaders is part of our cultural romanticization of leadership, and works against more democratic, collaborative models of leadership which may well serve organizations better today.
The research of Kouzes & Posner (2007) provides a guide to personality traits most preferred for twenty first century leaders. These researchers claim to have surveyed over seventy five thousand people from the United States and other countries, asking respondents to select, from a checklist of 'characteristics of admired leaders', the seven qualities that they 'would most look for and admire in a leader, someone whose direction they would willingly follow'. Four traits were found to be consistently selected across countries, gender and cultures over time, revealing that people want leaders who are 'honest', 'forward-looking', 'inspiring', and 'competent'. Of special note here for adolescents is the importance of 'honesty', a quality which emerges again and again in a number of currently preferred conceptualizations in the research literature. Across the whole sample, 'honest' recorded an increase in its value from 83% of respondents in 1987 to 89% in 2007. Interestingly, to Australians, this quality appears to be more important than it is in other societies. In Australia, on average, 93% of respondents chose 'honest', compared to 89% in USA, 86% in New Zealand, and 72% in Singapore. Other reported qualities valued in leaders (as reported in 2007) are, in order after the top four, 'intelligent', 'fair minded', 'straight forward', 'broad-minded', 'supportive', 'dependable', 'co-operative', 'courageous', 'determined', 'caring', 'loyal', 'ambitious', 'imaginative', 'mature', 'self-controlled', and 'independent' (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 28 – 31).
There are several weaknesses to the conceptualization of leadership as a set of personality traits. As identified by Dubrin, Dalglish & Miller (2006), the first is that researchers have been unable to derive a definitive set of personality traits that characterize every effective leader. Further, research has not been able to reveal which traits are absolutely needed in which situations, and how much of a particular trait is enough. Most limiting, however, is that the trait approach is elitist, fostering the view that traits are often passed on genetically, and that leaders are therefore born, not made.
In contrast to the belief that some people are 'born to lead', the conceptualization of leadership as a learnable set of skills contends that one's leadership capacity can be strengthened over one's lifespan, and does improve, like any skill, through practice (Culp III & Kohlhagen, 2000). The value of this conceptualization is its contention that it is possible to identify a list of skills which can be enhanced in each of us with practice, so that, in theory, everyone can improve in leadership capacity. This is an important point for schools charged with the responsibility of developing the potential of all students, not just those few perceived to have desirable leadership traits.
Significantly, contemporary research literature supports this conceptualization by identifying particular skills as integral to effective leadership in the twenty first century. The most significant of these for the operation of effective organizations is 'relationship skills' (Lyman, 2000; Iszatt-White, 2009; Kotzé & Venter, 2011), best evidenced through the 'emotional intelligence' of leaders (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Goleman, 1996). According to Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee (2007, p. 47-48), emotional intelligence is learnable as a set of competencies in four intertwined domains – self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship awareness.
A third way to conceptualize effective leadership is as a situation-appropriate syle. 'Situational leadership' is a well-researched model of leadership in the literature. This view contends that there is not one appropriate 'leadership style', but many contingent on factors such as the nature of the task, the authority of the leader, and the nature of the subordinates. Effective leadership then arises from leaders making their behaviour contingent upon situational forces (Yukl, 1998; Adair, 2005).
A large body of research offers models and rubrics to guide novice leaders in the most appropriate style for a given situation. For example, House (1971) developed the 'path-goal theory' which offered leaders the choice of four different leadership styles to achieve optimum results in a given situation – directive, supportive, participative, or achievement-oriented. The 'directive' style was task-oriented, focusing on planning, organizing and controlling, and was advocated as a means to improve morale when the task was unclear. The 'supportive' style was relationship-oriented, suitable for motivating workers when the task was dissatisfying, stressful or repetitive. The 'participative' style was democratic in its nature, seeking group input into decision-making, and was promoted as the style most useful with well-motivated staff performing non-repetitive tasks. Fourthly, the 'achievement-oriented' style focused on the accomplishment of challenging goals, set high expectations of staff, and was deemed best for leading ambitious teams.
Hersey & Blanchard (1983) matched leadership style to the level of readiness of the group members. Four styles were identified in the resultant HerseyBlanchard Situational Leadership Model, each representing a quadrant in a model in which 'task behaviour' and 'relationship behaviour' formed the axes. The styles were:
More recently, Goleman et al. (2007) identified six leadership styles:
The contribution of this conceptualization for adolescents is its recognition that different leadership styles are appropriate in different situations. This means firstly, that young people can have confidence that their natural style has a place in some contexts, and secondly, that it is wise that they seek out opportunities to gain experience in leading in a variety of situations. The risk for novices of conceptualizing leadership as a situation-appropriate style is that it encourage 'acting' rather than 'authenticity' in emerging leaders, a fatal flaw which breaks follower trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2001). George (2003) counsels that leaders must always be authentic, that is, true to themselves, and adapt the nuances of one's style to fit the demands of the situation.
A fourth conceptualization of effective leadership filtered from the research literature focuses not on what personal traits, skills or style a person may have, but instead on what a leader does in his or her leadership role. This approach has led researchers to develop checklists of functions a leader should perform. Prominent in the research literature is the conceptualization by Kouzes & Posner (2007) of the five key functions of effective leaders as: 1. Model the way; 2. Inspire a shared vision; 3. Challenge the process; 4. Enable others to act; and 5. Encourage the heart.
Recently, this conceptualization has added value to leadership theory by its application to our better understanding of leadership structures and processes in teams. Teams are promoted in the research literature as critical units in the effective operation of complex organizations in the twenty first century (Druskat & Pescosolido, 2002), and arguably the one leadership development area in which young people can gain the greatest experience in the school environment (Adair, 2005, p. 66). Morgeson, DeRue & Karen (2010) conceptualized 'team leadership' as 'meeting the needs of team members in the service of enhancing team effectiveness'. In this perspective, 'whoever (inside or outside the team) assumes responsibility for satisfying a team's needs can be viewed as taking on a team leadership role.' (p. 8). Potential sources of team leadership were identified as internal or external, and formal or informal. These researchers conducted an extensive literature review of team leadership functions to compile a list of 517 behavioural items, which were then classified into fifteen team leader function categories, broken down further into a subset of five functions per category, providing a very useful integrative framework of 75 team leadership functions.
The significance of the contribution of these researchers to the conceptualization of effective leadership is their focus on the 'inclusive' view of leadership rather than formal team leaders. For adolescent leaders, this conceptualization is a positive influence for three reasons. Firstly, this functional approach validates the leadership capacity of all people in an organization, providing opportunity to draw on each individual's strengths to contribute to overall team effectiveness. Secondly, it provides a guiding list of actions demanded of one's elected role, and thirdly, offers an instructive set of criteria against which their leadership performance can be measured and developed.
Another conceptualization of leadership is as the exercise of power. According to social psychologists, Raven and French (1968), power can be derived from five power bases, namely 'referent power', 'expert power', 'reward power', 'coercive power', and 'legitimate power'. How leaders use the power they accrue from these bases determines and reflects the type of relationship they seek.
A simpler conceptualization is offered by Sergiovanni (1992) who argues that the exercise of power can be understood in two ways – as 'power over' and as 'power to'. Power over emphasizes controlling what others do, when they do it and how they do it. It is rule-bound, whereas power to is goal-bound. When people are 'empowered', they are given the power to, or set free to, do whatever makes sense, as long as decisions embody shared values.
The concept of a power-based relationship as 'empowerment' emerges from the research literature as a preferred conceptualization for effective leadership. Empowerment increases both the power of the leader, and the power of the led. Under the conceptualization of leadership as 'empowerment' of others, a leader's power and influence increases when he or she shares power with others (Spreitzer, 1995). As well, the research literature offers a wealth of evidence (Moos, Mahony & Reeves; Edwards, Green & Lyons, 2002) to support the conceptual relevance of 'empowerment' as accomplishing positive outcomes for employees and the organization.
Teachers reading this paper will certainly be able to relate to the following examples from the educational research of Blasé & Blasé (1997; 2000). In their micro-political study of the principal-teacher relationship in eleven effective schools in Georgia, USA, Blasé and Blasé (1997) found that, overwhelmingly, teachers reported that the principal's strategies and personal characteristics contributed significantly to their sense of empowerment. The most significant aspect of what these researchers termed 'facilitative school leadership' was the principal's demonstration of 'trust' in teachers; principals enhanced trust by creating school climates free of fear, intimidation, coercion and criticism (p. 149). Other effective facilitative strategies were encouraging teacher input, encouraging teacher autonomy, encouraging teacher innovation, developing shared governance structures, giving rewards and providing support. Further, the personal characteristics of caring, enthusiasm, optimism, honesty, and friendliness were identified as significantly contributing to teachers' sense of empowerment. Empowerment by teachers was experienced in three dimensions: an affective dimension (feeling 'good', 'happy', 'satisfied', 'trusted', 'peace') related to satisfaction, motivation, esteem, confidence, security, and inclusion; a school-wide dimension related to expression, ownership, commitment, sense of team, and efficacy; and a classroom dimension, related to autonomy, reflection, professional growth, and efficacy (p.145).
Conversely, research evidence suggests 'disempowerment' has negative outcomes for organizational capacity. For example, Blasé and Blasé (2000, cited in Beatty, 2000, p. 4) found that teachers who were 'disempowered' by being yelled at, criticized, treated unfairly, or otherwise negatively dealt with by their principals suffered significant effects on their emotional well-being and behaviour. These teachers reported reductions in patience, tolerance, compassion, motivation, enthusiasm and commitment; increases in cynicism, anxiety and expressions of anger; and reduced approachability and openness to students.
For adolescents, the conceptualization of leadership as empowerment is a positive one. Instead of asking how people get others to do what they want, it asks how people can help each other to be all they can be. The key is to assist others to grow and self-actualize, rather than manipulate people into meeting organizational goals. The underlying philosophy is that the organization will prosper best if individual needs are fulfilled. Student leaders might well increase their effectiveness by conceptualizing their role as asking 'What can I do to help you to be your best?', rather than 'How can I get you to do what I want?'.
The conceptualization of effective leadership as a moral relationship is built on the foundation that the well-being of people and the health of an organization are best secured by ethical and trustworthy leadership. In the context of addressing school principals, Sergiovanni (2001) expresses the importance of leaders understanding their 'moral responsibility' to followers, when he writes:
Whenever there is an unequal distribution of power between two people, the relationship becomes a moral one. Whether intended or not, leadership involves an offer to control. The follower accepts this offer on the assumption that control will not be exploited. In this sense, leadership is not a right but a responsibility. Morally speaking, its purpose is not to enhance the leader's position or make it easier for the leader to get what she or he wants but to benefit the school. The test of moral leadership is whether the competence, well-being, and independence of the follower are enhanced… (p. 346).
Leadership as 'moral relationship' most clearly emerges in the research literature as the call for 'authentic leadership'. Authentic leaders are 'valuesdriven', with credibility deriving from the consistent match between their core personal values, their stated core organizational values, and their behaviour (Malphurs, 2004). The primary motivator of authentic leaders is a genuine desire to make things better for others (Pellicer, 2008). They have a strong moral compass (Sergiovanni, 1992), and establish enduring relationships with people (George, 2003). Authentic leaders display 'altruism' (Avolio & Locke, 2002; Sosik, Jung & Dinger, 2009), 'self-sacrificial leadership' (Choi & MaiDalton, 1998), 'stewardship' (Block, 1993), 'ethical leadership' (Kanungo & Mendonca, 1996), and 'organizational citizenship behaviour' (Organ, Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2006). The attraction of such leadership is that it restores an ethical dimension to human interactions within an organization that builds 'trust' between leader and follower (Duignan & Bhindi, 1997) and 'hope' (Luthans, Norman. Avolio & Avey, 2008). International empirical research by Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing & Peterson (2008), using their 'Authentic Leadership Questionnaire' (AQL), confirmed the validity of four dimensions of this conceptualization: leader self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing.
Sosik et al. (2009) investigated the apparent tension between 'altruism', a key feature of authentic leadership, and contemporary organizational settings in which managers work in stressful, time-constrained, resource-limited environments that would appear to foster competition and self-interest rather than co-operation. They defined 'altruism' as 'the willingness to make a sacrifice for the sake of a specific individual that is manifested in behavior with the goal of helping that person' (p. 399). In a study involving 218 corporate managers, and their 218 superiors and 935 subordinates, these researchers found empirical support for the significant positive correlation between altruistic behaviour by managers and the performance ratings of these managers by both their superiors and subordinates. In validation of 'authentic leadership' and 'moral relationship', those managers who displayed more caring and helping behaviours towards their subordinates were valued by their superiors as being better performers, contradicting the popular view that altruism in business is an oxymoron.
The conceptualization of effective leadership as 'moral relationship' exposes the dark side of the charismatic leader. Howell (1988) found that while 'socialized charismatic leadership' serves collective interests and empowers followers with positive, morally beneficial outcomes, 'personalized charismatic behaviour', in contrast, is authoritarian, serves the leader's self-interest, is exploitive of others and can lead to harmful, morally reprehensible consequences.
For pro-social adolescent leaders, leadership as 'moral relationship' offers a valuable conceptualization of their role as a student leader. For schools working with anti-social leaders, the concept of 'authentic leadership' offers solid ground from which to influence students' values and perhaps pull students into pro-social behaviours. For both these reasons, Whitehead (1999) recommends that schools adopt the model of 'authentic leadership' at the core of their adolescent leadership programs.
The conceptualization of effective leadership as service has much in common with the authentic leadership model (van Dierendonck, 2011). However, it is teased out as a separate conceptualization in this paper on the basis that the motivation for a person to see their leadership as 'service' can be argued to be different from the motivation of other authentic leaders. The servant leader seeks first and foremost to serve the organization; the authentic leader may seek first to serve people in the organization. The servant leader is a follower first (Greenleaf, 2002), whose passion for the work being performed by the organization inspires him/her to seek a leadership position to enable him/her to progress the organization. Servant leaders rise from the ranks; they are on a mission. Through the concept of 'inter-leadership' (Kupers & Weibler, 2008), leadership and followership are viewed integrally. The mantle of leader comes through one's demonstrated devotion and success as a follower (Sergiovanni, 1992).
In the adolescent context, an 'authentic leader' might be conceptualized as one who is kind, helpful and caring of his/her peers or younger students, whereas the 'servant leader' might be seen as a strong role model who desires to serve the school by seeking a leadership position. They may express their sense of mission by stating goals such as improving the uniform standards, building school spirit, improving the school's sporting performances, and developing links between the school and the wider community.
The concept of leadership as 'service' dates back to the earliest philosophies of leadership, ranging from the words of Lao Tzu to the voice of Jesus Christ, 600 years later, in Gospel verses such as Mark 9: 35 and Matthew 23:11. Popularized by Robert Greenleaf in 1977, the concept of 'servant leadership' has thrived on intuitive appeal until relatively recently when empirical research has sought to clarify its constructs (Farling, Stone & Winston, 1999; Russell & Stone, 2002; Sendjaya, Sarros & Santora, 2008). Barbuto & Wheeler (2006) identified and validated five dimensions of 'servant leadership', namely, 'altruistic calling',' emotional healing', 'wisdom', 'persuasive mapping', and 'organizational stewardship'. These dimensions are very similar to those identified for authentic leadership, except perhaps for 'organizational stewardship'. This describes the extent that leaders prepare their organization to make a positive contribution in the community and society, and provides an instructive direction for adolescent leaders to make a difference.
Given the type of roles typically performed by student leaders, the conceptualization of their role as 'service' is a clear and positive one. Most recently, research (Searle & Barbuto, 2011) has sought to link together the concepts of 'servant leadership' and 'positive psychology' (Synder & Lopez, 2002; Peterson & Seligman, 2003), both concepts currently prominent in schools.
In the latter part of the twentieth century, leadership theory was dominated by the search for a leadership paradigm that would best equip a person to lead their organization through the challenges of adjusting to rapid technological changes in the new globalized, post-industrial world of the 'knowledge society' (Hargreaves, 1997; Crowther, Hann & Andrews, 2002). Conceptualizing leadership as an effective 'change agent', the new model of 'transformational leadership' was proposed and its dimensions identified by Bass and Avolio (1995). Using their instrument, The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), these researchers validated the four dimensions of 'charisma', 'idealized influence', 'intellectual stimulation', and 'individualized consideration'.
Transformational leadership was conceptualized to contrast with the model of 'transactional leadership'. The transactional model, conceptualized by Burns (1978), involved transactions in which the leader sets goals, paths and rewards for the follower, and applies corrective measures when necessary. Driven by self-interest, leaders and followers may not be bound by common purposes. Such a model was perceived to be best suited to a managerial role in a stable industrial setting.
In contrast, the 'transformational leader' inspires followers with a compelling vision (Kotter, 1995), with which followers align because it aligns with their personal visions and sense of their higher purpose (Barnett & McCormick, 2003). In practice, transformational leadership can be explained with an example from the educational research literature.
In their summary of the research findings of 21 studies, Leithwood, Tomlinson, and Genge (1996) identify three dimensions of transformational school leadership: 'charisma/inspiration/vision', 'intellectual stimulation', and 'individual consideration'. Insofar as the transformational leader exerts influence and inspires followers, this model is similar to that of 'charismatic leadership' (Conger, 1989). The second dimension, 'intellectual stimulation' is evidenced when the leader challenges current practices and stimulates the minds and emotions of staff to question their own ways of doing things, to break with the past, and to learn about and try new ideas. 'Individual consideration', the third dimension, occurs when the transformational leader engages in practices such as the equitable, humane and considerate treatment of colleagues; the provision of support for the personal, professional development of staff; developing a close knowledge of individual colleagues; providing recognition of good work and effort; and showing sensitivity to staff needs and concerns when implementing change.
'Individual consideration', as a dimension of transformational leadership, implies a capacity to develop meaningful relationships with employees. The relative capacity of male and female leaders to exercise deep 'individual consideration' is an interesting thread in the literature (Shum & Cheng, 1997; Beatty, 2000; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt & van Engen, 2003), with emotion-laden terms such as 'caring' and 'nurturing' appearing to suffer from their feminization (Lyman, 2000).
If such a gender bias is systemic, it behooves male leaders, in particular, to develop their 'emotional intelligence', and certainly this is one concept that schools need to promote in adolescents' conceptualizations of effective leadership. Goleman (1998), through his seminal work in this field, asserts the importance of 'soft skills' in maximizing organizational capacity.
Interpersonal ineptitude in leaders lowers everyone's performance: It wastes time, creates acrimony, corrodes motivation and commitment, and builds hostility and apathy. A leader's strengths or weaknesses in emotional competence can be measured in the gain or loss to the organization of the fullest talents of those they manage (p. 23).
Effective leadership, conceptualised as a transformational agent for change, is supported in the research literature for its capacity to deliver positive outcomes. In an American study of 117 urban elementary schools, Griffith (2003) found that schools with transformational leaders had less staff turnover, higher aggregate student achievement, and perhaps most significantly, smaller achievement gaps between minority and non-minority children. In a study of over 1200 Canadian and Dutch secondary teachers Geijsel, Sleegers, Leithwood & Jantzi (2003), found positive effects of transformational leadership on both teacher commitment and extra effort. Further, Gooty, Gavin, Johnson, Frazier & Snow (2009) found that the 190 members of a USA university marching band led by a new band director identified his transformational leadership as an antecedent to their positive psychological capital (PsyCap), a higher order construct that represents an individual's motivational propensity and perseverance towards goals.
Despite these positive research findings in support of the conceptualization of effective leadership as one charismatic, relationship-building individual, this model has fallen out of favour as an agent to effect change in a highly complex organization. For example, in their study of 65 change stories from 33 large organizations, Higgs & Rowland (2011) concluded that the most successful organizations moved away from top-down control to now view effective leadership as the combined capacity for leadership of individuals dispersed throughout the organization.
As the size and complexity of organizations increase in the twenty first century, a new conceptualization of 'leading for learning' (Gronn, 1997) has emerged. It is accepted that leadership no longer resides in just one person 'at the top', but is spread across leaders at all levels in a large organization. Leadership is thus conceptualized as 'organizational capacity' or 'leadership density', and the effectiveness of that leadership measured by the willingness and ability of all people who work in that organization to continuously learn, and to share that new knowledge, through collaborative efforts (Fullan, 2001).
Different researchers have applied different labels to this newly-recognized dispersed nature of leadership functions. In the field of educational leadership, for example, in support of the value of recasting schools as 'learning organizations' (Silins & Mulford, 2002) to facilitate change, the most recent conceptualizations of educational leadership have been more inclusive, democratic models such as 'distributed leadership' (Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, 2001; Harris, 2002; Lakomski, 2002); 'productive leadership' (Hayes, Christie, Mills & Lingard, 2004), and 'parallel leadership' (Andrews & Crowther, 2002). With their emphasis on leadership dispersal, these conceptualizations make a distinction between 'headship' and 'leadership', and maintain 'a position of ambivalence towards the tendency to equate educational leadership with individuals' (Hayes et al., 2004, p. 521). As Harris (2002) explains, 'distributed leadership' implies that:
… leadership resides not solely in the individual at the top, but in every person at entry level who in one way, or another, acts as a leader… Distributed leadership therefore means multiple sources of guidance and direction, following the contours of expertise in an organization, made coherent through a common culture (p. 4).
As well, the research literature develops a strong case for the notion that change needs to be viewed, not only from an organizational perspective, but also from a personal perspective. The change leader must be receptive to employee anxiety associated with the proposed change and work to create a 'psychologically safe environment' which 'protects members' sense of identity and competence' while they adapt to the change (Calabrese, 2002, p. 327). The key concept here is the complexity of the change process. Effective leaders in the twenty first century need to strongly appreciate the emotional dimension of the change process. In the school setting, for example, the need for school leaders to be sensitive to the emotions of change arises especially because 'teachers are the indispensable agents of educational change' (Hargreaves & Evans, 1997, p. 3), and it is in the classrooms where curriculum and pedagogical innovations are put into practice. As Hargreaves (1997) asserts:
If educational reformers ignore the emotional dimensions of educational change, emotions and feelings will only re-enter the change process through the back door. Festering resentment will undermine and overturn rationally-made decisions; committee work will be poisoned by members with unresolved grudges and grievances; and pedagogical changes will fail because they have not engaged the passions of the classroom… (p. 108-9).
Another important understanding in the conceptualization of effective leadership as distributed leadership is the redundancy of charisma. Fullan (2001), for example, expresses this skeptical view, asserting that 'charismatic leaders often do more harm than good because, at best, they provide episodic improvement followed by frustrated or despondent dependency' (p. 1). In contrast, what is needed for deep and sustained reform, he argues, are leaders with a new mind-set that begins with an acceptance that he or she doesn't know all the answers (Fullan, 2001, p. 2-3). In agreement, Davies (2002) argues that leaders in effective schools need 'strategic intent', that is, to be aware of areas in the school which require fundamental change and improvement, know where they want to be in three to five-years time, but not necessarily know how to get there. The leadership challenge, then, is in living with that ambiguity while developing organizational capacity, firstly, to understand the dimensions of the area for development, and secondly, to build solutions (p. 203-4).
Fullan (2001) conceptualizes five components of effective leadership in the face of problems for which there are no simple, painless solutions. He calls for leaders to:
For adolescents, incorporating an understanding of these processes into their conceptualizations of effective leadership may be the solid foundation they can gain to prepare them for leadership in complex organizations in the future. Effective organizations are likely to be those energized by the processes of shared moral purposing, dispersed leadership, knowledge creation, collaborative work, relationship building, supported risk-taking, emotional intelligence, sensitivity to resistance, and tolerance for uncertainty. As schools themselves confront the challenges ahead, principals and teachers need to be ever mindful that they will model for students the very leadership capacities that will enable them, too, to succeed in the twenty-first century - a willingness to learn, a willingness to try new ideas, a willingness to work together, a willingness to care about and support others, a willingness to see mistakes as learning opportunities, a willingness to persevere in the face of uncertainty, and a willingness to confront challenges with energy, enthusiasm and optimism.
This literature review has established a rationale for schools to recognize the social imperative of their role in nurturing the emerging conceptualizations of effective leadership in young people. In support of research into the concepts that link together to form the mental representations of effective leadership by adolescents, this review has analyzed how 'effective leadership' is conceptualized in the contemporary research literature. The identification of nine such conceptualizations has provided a framework against which to compare student conceptualizations in future research. The literature review has enabled the identification of those leadership concepts advanced in the research literature as the most appropriate to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. Domain knowledge has been illuminated, against which to compare the concepts valued most by adolescents, and to identify those, if any, that are valued by the research literature but not being valued by secondary students. By highlighting such matches and mismatches, schools might be positioned to undertake to more deliberately nurture some valued concepts in the minds of their students, whilst for the most part, be validated in the good work they are currently doing in providing suitable learning experiences through which appropriate conceptualizations of effective leadership emerge. By eliciting and analyzing students' conceptualizations of effective leadership, school-based researchers may bring us closer to answering the question: How can schools best help grow tomorrow's leaders?
Adair, J. (2005). How to grow leaders. London: Kogan-Page.
Adams, T. C., & Keim, M. C. (2000). Leadership practices and effectiveness among Greek student leaders. College Student Journal, 34 (2), 259-270.
Andrews, D., & Crowther, F. (2002). Parallel leadership: a clue to the contents of the “black box” of school reform. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(4), 152-159.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Avolio, B. J., & Locke, E. E. (2002). Philosophies of leader motivation: Altruism versus egoism. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 169-191.
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300-326.
Barnett, K., & McCormick, J. (2003). Vision, relationships and teacher motivation: A case study. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 55-73.
Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18-40.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. S. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Beatty, B. (2000). Emotion matters in educational leadership. Australian Association for Research in Education, Annual Conference, Sydney 2000. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/00pap/bea00445.html.
Bennis, W., & Thomas, R. (2002). Geeks and geezers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. R. (1994). Empowering Teachers, What Successful Principals Do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. R. (1997). The micropolitical orientation of facilitative school principals and its effects on teachers' sense of empowerment. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(20), 138-164.
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Calabrese, R. L. (2002). The school leader's imperative: leading change. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(7), 326-332.
Cashman, K. (1998). Leadership from the inside out. Provo, UT: Executive Excellence Publishing.
Caza, A., Barker, B. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2004). Ethics and ethos: The buffering and amplifying effects of ethical behavior and virtuousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 169-178.
Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of selfsacrifice. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 475-501.
Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2), 44-55.
Covey, S. (2008). The leader in me. New York, NY: Free Press.
Cox, K. J. (1988). Significant Adolescent Leadership Development Experiences Identified by Established Leaders in the United States. Unpublished thesis, The Ohio State University. Retrieved from Eric database.
Crowther, F., Hann L., & Andrews, D. (2002). Rethinking the role of the school principal: successful school improvement in the post-industrial era. Practising Administrator, 24(2), 10-13.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper Collins.
Culp III, K., & Kohlhagen, B. (2000). Identifying, defining, applying, analyzing & synthesizing leadership opportunities with adolescents. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), p. 50-52.
Culp III, K., & Cox, K. J. (1997). Leadership styles for the new millennium: Creating new paradigms. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 4 (1), p. 3-17.
Davies, B. (2002). Rethinking schools and school leadership for the twenty-first century: changes and challenges. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(4), 196-206.
Delgado, M. (2002). New frontiers in youth development in the twenty-first century: Revitalising and broadening youth development. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Dobosz , R. P., & Beaty, L.A. (1999). The relationship between athletic participation and high school students' leadership ability. Adolescence, 34 (133), 215-220.
Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Druskat, V. U., & Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). The content of effective teamwork mental models in self-managing teams: Ownership, learning, and heedful interrelating. Human Relations, 55, 283-314.
Dubrin, A. J., Dalglish, C., & Miller, P. (2006) Leadership (2nd ed.). Milton: John Wiley & Sons.
Duignan, P. A., & Bhindi, N. (1997). Authenticity in leadership: an emerging perspective. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(3), 195-209.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing men and women. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569-591.
Edwards, J. L., Green, K. E., & Lyons, C. A. (2002). Personal empowerment, efficacy, and environmental characteristics. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1), 67-86.
Evans, R. (2000). The authentic leader. In Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 50-72.
French, J. R. P., and Raven, B. (1968). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. F. Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics: Research and Theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Fullan, M. (2000). Leadership for the twenty-first century: Breaking the bonds of dependency. In Jossey-Bass Reader on educational leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan , M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fullan , M. (2004). Leading in a culture of change: Personal action guide and workbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Funk, R. C. (2002). Developing leaders through high school Junior ROTC: Integrating theory with practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 8(4), 43-54.
Gardner, J.W. (1984). Excellence. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2003). Transformational leadership effects on teachers' commitment and effort toward school reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(3), 228-256.
George, B. (2003), Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets of creating lasting value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2007). The new leaders: Transforming the art of leadership into the science of results. London: Sphere.
Gooty, J., Gavin, M., Johnson, P. D., Frazier, M. L., & Snow, D. B. (2009). In the eyes of the beholder: Transformational leadership, positive psychological capital, and performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(4), 353-367.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (25th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333-356.
Gronn, P. (1997). Leading for learning: organizational transformation and the formation of leaders. Journal of Management Development, 16(4), 274-283.
Hargreaves, A. (1997). From reform to renewal: a new deal for a new age. In Hargreaves, A. & Evans, R. (Eds.), Beyond Educational Reform: Bringing Teachers Back In. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What's worth fighting for out there? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Harris, A. (2002). Distributed leadership in schools: leading or misleading? Belmas Annual Conference, Birmingham, England, 20-22 September 2002. Retrieved from http://www.shu.ac.uk/bemas/papers.html.
Hawkes, T. F. (2005). Learning Leadership: A Leadership Course for Secondary Students. Books 1-4. Parramatta: The King's School.
Hayes, D., Christie, P., Mills, M., & Lingard, B. (2004). Productive leaders and productive leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 520-538.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1983). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2011). What does it take to implement change successfully? A study of the behaviours of successful change leaders. Journal of Applied Behavoural Science. 20(10), 1-27.
House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-338.
Howell, J. M. (1988). Two faces of charisma: Socialized and personalized leadership in organizations. In J. A. Conger, & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 213-236). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Iszatt-White, M. (2009). Leadership as emotional labour: The effortful accomplishment of valuing practices. Leadership, 5(4), 447-67.
Jones, M. G., & Vesiland, E. (1995). Preservice teachers' cognitive frameworks for classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(4), 313-330.
Kanungo, R. N., & Mendonca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotzé, M., & Venter, I. (2011). Differences in emotional intelligence between effective and ineffective leaders in the public sector : An empirical study. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77, 397-427.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kudo, F.T. (2003). Adolescent leadership development: Redirecting selfassessment to enhance leadership development in youth organizations. Case Western Reserve University. Retrieved from http://digital.case.edu/downloads/x633gp203.
Kupers, W. & Weibler, J. (2008). Inter-Leadership: Why and how we should think of leadership and followership integrally? Leadership. 8(4), 443-475.
Lakomski, G. (2002). Distributed leadership: An idea whose time has come? Belmas Annual Conference, Birmingham, England, 20-22 September 2002. Retrieved from http://www.shu.ac.uk/bemas/papers.html.
Lavery, S. (2003). Why bother to be a student leader? An exploration of the school experiences and self-perceptions of Year 12 students in three Catholic schools. Unpublished thesis, Faculty of Education, Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Victoria. Retrieved from http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adtacuvp35.
Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D., & Genge, M. (1996). Transformational school leadership. In International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Linimon, D., Barron, W. L., & Falbo, T. (1984). Gender differences in perceptions of leadership. Sex Roles, 11, 1075-1089.
Loader, D. (1997). The Inner Principal. London: Falmer Press.
London, M. (2002). Leadership development: Paths to self insight and professional growth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (2003). Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures. Washington, D.C., DC: American Psychological Association.
Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008). The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate-employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 29, 219-238.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological Capital. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Lyman, L. (2000). How do they know you care? The Principal's challenge. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Malphurs, A. (2006). Values-driven leadership: Discovering and developing your core values for ministry (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: Basic Books.
McCall, M. W. (1998). High flyers: Developing the next generation of leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Moos, L., Mahony, P., & Reeves, J. (1998). What teachers, parents, governors and pupils want from their heads. In J. MacBeath (Ed.), Effective School Leadership: Responding to Change. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5-39.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pepper, J. (2007). What really matters – Service, leadership, people and values. New Haven, MA: Yale University Press.
Peterson, C. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Positive organizational studies: Lesson from positive psychology. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler.
Salovey P., & Mayer J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality. 9, 185–211.
Schneider, B., Paul, M. C., White, S. S., & Holcombe, K. M. (1999). Understanding high school student leaders: Predicting teacher ratings of leader behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 609-636.
Searle, T. P., & Barbuto, J. E. (2011). Servant leadership, hope and organizational virtuousness: A framework exploring positive micro and macro behaviours and performance impact. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 107-17.
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 401-424.
Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.>
Sergiovanni, T. (2001). The Principalship – A Reflective Practice Perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Shiva, M. & Suar, D. (2010). Leadership, LMX, commitment and NGO effectiveness: Transformational leadership, organizational effectiveness and programme outcomes in non-governmental organizations. International Journal of Rural Management, 6, 117-150.
Shum, L. C., & Cheng, Y. C. (1997). Perceptions of women principals' leadership and teachers' work attitudes. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(2), 165-184.
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Schools as learning organizations: The case for system, teacher and student learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 425-446.
Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Context and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.
Snyder, C. R. (1995). Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing hope. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 355-360.
Sosik, J. J., Jung, D., & Dinger, S. L. (2009). Values in authentic action: Examining the roots and rewards of altruistic leadership. Group & Organization Management, 34(4), 395-431.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30 (3), 23-28.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-65.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 308-331.
Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial leadership and student achievement: High school principals make a difference. NASSP Bulletin, 95, 5-30.
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37 (4), 1228-1261.
van Linden, J. A., & Fertman, C. I. (1998). Youth leadership: A guide to understanding leadership development in adolescents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2009). An affective events model of charismatic leadership behavior: A review, theoretical integration, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1428-1452.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126.
Whitehead, G. (2009). Adolescent leadership development: Building a case for an authenticity framework. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37, 847-872.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.