Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Humility: The Next Big (little) Thing for Trait Theory

by

When most people think about great leaders in the business world, several traits likely come to mind: bold, driven, powerful, dominant, and perhaps even passionate. What likely does not come to mind is the trait of humility. In the competitive world of work (and indeed, the world of academia), humility has long flown under the radar, but compelling new studies and myriad news outlets are slowly introducing the notion that it may be more powerful for leaders than once assumed.

Examining Leadership Through Traits

<span>Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@markusspiske?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Markus Spiske</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/s/photos/leadership?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a></span>

Leaders are thought to be set apart by the traits they possess. Photo Credit: Markus Spiske

 

As one of the earliest organized attempts to study the phenomenon of leadership in the 20th century, the idea that great leadership is enacted by great people is a well-established concept in modern-day research (Northouse, 2019). The trait approach focuses on individually held traits within leaders; studies tend to center on which traits differentiate leaders from followers and how those traits influence leadership processes (Northouse, 2019).

One of the challenges to the trait approach is its seemingly limitless supply of adjectives that aim to describe successful leaders (Northouse, 2019). Because the earliest trait research arose when men dominated leadership positions, traits like boldness, dominance, and masculinity were considered both highly desirable and valuable (Northouse, 2019). Leaders were thought to be decisive people that got things done and let nothing stand in their way. Intuitively, this makes sense: leaders should be able to direct others through their influence and willingness to wield power (Northouse, 2019).

By contrast to these traditional views on leader traits, newer research suggests that such personal factors by themselves are of limited value: because they are often largely immutable and resistant to change, leaders who display these characteristics may thrive—or not—on the basis of other factors outside of the individual. In other words, the value of a given trait is contingent upon both followers and the situation (Northouse, 2019). This is where some traits may actually thrive beyond that of leadership’s historic staples.

Humility

While the idea of putting the words ‘humble’ and ‘leader’ into a single sentence may strike some as odd, this trait actually may have significant implications that transcend the leader-centric confines of trait theory. Humility is described by Ou et al. (2014) and Owens et al. (2013) as an individual’s “orientation toward obtaining accurate self-knowledge, appreciating others’ strengths and contributions, and being open to self-improvement” (as cited in Ou, Waldman, & Peterson, 2015, p. 2). Humility, then, concerns not just leader behavior but how those behaviors intersect with followers’ needs and situational factors.

Humility’s Potential Value to Leaders

Humility’s potential value to leaders stems from three areas: prioritization of concerns (company/stakeholder well-being versus self-focused motives); accurate self-assessment; and organizational culture.

Prioritization of Concerns. Organizations require leaders that can prioritize the company’s goals and strategic vision over that of self-promotion and advancement (Ou et al., 2015). For those at the top (i.e., CEOs), this often entails a delicate balance between achieving firm performance targets in the short-term and maintaining stability in the long-term; what might look best on paper may be aggressive tactics that boost the firm today and leave tomorrow’s concerns for later. Humility can help address this ethical quagmire and prevent leaders from the temptation to simply “look good” because it discourages the use of power for power’s sake (Deutschendorf, 2021). Instead, humble leaders recognize their strengths and weaknesses as well as that of their followers, making delegation and shared responsibility central components to their leadership behaviors. Research by Ou et al. (2015) further identifies that leaders, while only indirectly responsible for firm results, have the capability to shape and directly influence the top management team; how well-integrated and ambidextrous (defined as equally comfortable with the exploitation of opportunity and exploration of possibilities) the firm’s management team is directly sets the grounds for firm strategy and sustainable success (p. 9).

Self-assessment. In order to really understand where they excel and falter, leaders must engage in objective self-assessment (Deutschendorf, 2021). Humble leaders have an easier time accepting their areas of opportunity and leaning on others to play to their unique strengths (Ou et al., 2015). For top executives, self-assessment also provides a counter-measure to the potential sycophantic overtures of followers; by staying grounded and aware of strengths and challenges, leaders are less likely to be convinced of their own infallibility (Deutschendorf, 2021; Ou et al., 2015).

Organizational Culture. Arguably the most important benefit of humility for leaders is the positive organizational impact on a given firm’s culture. Ou et al. (2015) found that leaders have the capacity to set the tone for collaboration and community support across the organization by their interactions with their top management team. Two concerns that are best addressed through humility are vertical pay disparity and participation/teamwork (Ou et al., 2015). Vertical pay disparity relates to the pay differential that exists between top management team members and the CEO. As the visible figurehead of the organization, CEOs can command extremely high salaries that place them at odds with management team members; team members may see pay gaps as a signal that they must guard information, jockey for position, and ultimately win at all costs (in pursuit of earning the “prize” of the CEO title) (Ou et al., 2015). Humble CEOs are more likely to work to minimize the disparity wherever possible in order to remove the self-promotive element of top management relationships (Ou et al., 2015). Ou et al. (2015) does point out that this is merely a mediating factor, but one that carries weight with followers and can hinder efforts to foster cooperation, participation, and teamwork. By minimizing pay disparities and role modeling humble behaviors, leaders who possess humility can foster a high-functioning top management team that will signal to the remainder of the organization the value placed on integrative, pro-social behaviors (Ou et al., 2015).

Humility’s Potential Value to Followers

Many of the benefits to leaders translate directly to followers as well. Leaders who model humility encourage self-assessment in others, establish a collaborative environment, and promote ambidexterity in pursuing organizational strategic aims (Ou et al., 2015). Additional key benefits for followers include increased support and higher team performance.

Increased Support. Followers who work with humble leaders benefit from increased support thanks to their willingness to capitalize on follower strengths (Deutschendorf, 2021). When followers can play to their strengths, their performance and passion can more easily come to the fore; humble leaders are often the last to take credit, which means that contributions are credited to followers fairly and accurately (Ou et al., 2015).

Higher Team Performance. Given the collaborative atmosphere, it should be no surprise that a leader’s humility creates the conditions necessary for the whole to be more than the sum of its parts. When competition for resources, attention, and promotion is mitigated through equitable pay and participation practices, top management teams are more likely to freely share information and demonstrate a willingness to work together (Ou et al., 2015).

Humility’s Situational Implications

Humble leaders have tremendous opportunity to capitalize on a variety of situations through their openness to feedback, their willingness to collaborate, and their ability to see past personal biases (Ou et al., 2015). Situationally, this means that humility serves to provide leaders with innate adaptability in the face of unique challenges and circumstances. A key example of this is in the extension of ambidexterity in top management teams to overall corporate strategy.

Humility levels the playing field, providing more opportunities for collaboration and organizational effectiveness. Photo Credit: Markus Spiske

 

Ambidextrous corporate strategy. In order to sustain growth over time, organizations must be willing to leverage their existing opportunities but also be open to explore future possibilities simultaneously, something Ou et al. (2015) refers to as central to paradox theory. Paradox management entails “differentiating the tensions inherent in a respective paradox, using a common goal to place tensions within a wider context, and identifying synergies to leverage the generative potential of tensions” (Smith & Lewis, 2011, as cited in Ou et al., 2015). In practical terms, this means that humble leaders establish an environment that provides an opportunity to management teams to bring differing, often conflicting information to the table for comprehensive debate and strategizing; no matter the situation, leaders who foster this collaborative climate open up possibilities to solve for thorny problems.

Humility’s Flip Side

Despite its many virtues and advantages in taking trait theory beyond the bounds of leader-focused characteristics, like any trait, humility may not always serve the greater organizational good. In spite of humility’s conduciveness for establishing high-functioning corporate atmospheres, there are certainly times when followers and situations call for direct, decisive action (Ou et al., 2015). In such cases or in environments where culture dictates that leaders should possess stronger, more “accepted” traits, humility may not be immediately equated with strong and capable leadership. However, the humble leader may very well turn even such situations to their advantage by being willing to hear divergent points of view and by inviting others to provide ideas on how to strike the optimal balance.

 

While traits are not the whole story when it comes to the art and process of leadership, it is well-established that they do provide meaningful benchmarks by which aspiring and current leaders can measure themselves. Perhaps with enough self-reflection and collaboration, humble leaders can prove the value of the “quieter” trait of humility, and reshape traditional notions of effective leadership.

References

Deutschendorf, H. (2021). 7 reasons humility is a highly desired leadership trait. Retrieved at: https://www.fastcompany.com/90595756/7-reasons-humility-is-a-highly-desired-leadership-trait

Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. Retrieved at: https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781506362298/

Ou, A. Y., Waldman, D. A., & Peterson, S. J. (2015). Do humble CEOs matter? An examination of CEO humility and firm outcomes. Journal of Management, 20(10), 1-27. Retrieved at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amy_Ou/publication/283950957_Do_Humble_CEOs_Matter_An_Examination_of_CEO_Humility_and_Firm_Outcomes/links/5cbeb5c392851c8d22fea890/Do-Humble-CEOs-Matter-An-Examination-of-CEO-Humility-and-Firm-Outcomes.pdf

Spiske, M. (n.d.). Leadership [Image]. Retrieved at: https://unsplash.com/s/photos/markus-spiske

Spiske, M. (n.d.). Pawns [Image]. Retrieved at: https://unsplash.com/s/photos/markus-spiske

Globalization, Culture and Leadership Challenges

by

Globalization is defined as “the increased interdependence between nations” on economic, social, technical and political fronts (Northouse, 2016, p. 427).”  Increased globalization in recent years has created new leadership challenges as well as the need for leaders to increase their understanding of different cultures and diverse work forces.  Overseas assignments and working abroad has been happening for decades, however.  De la Garza (2009) indicated that the 1980s saw many studies focused on identifying the characteristics of leaders and business executives best suited to lead in multicultural contexts.  This lead to a term in international business known as cultural intelligence.  Cultural intelligence is defined as being skilled and flexible in understanding cultures, learning from multicultural interactions and then adjusting personal thinking and behavior to interact appropriately with other people from different cultures (Thomas & Inkson, 2004 as cited in De la Garza et al, 2009).

Cultural intelligence is critical now more than ever with increased globalization.  According to Northouse (2016), leaders also have to become more competent in diverse, cross-cultural awareness and practice.  Adler and Bartholomew (1992, as cited in Northouse, 2016) suggested that leaders had to develop five cross-cultural competencies.  Amongst them was the need to be highly skilled in working with people from many cultures, as well as being able to adapt to living, communicating and relating with people from other cultures from “a position of equality rather than cultural superiority (Adler & Bartholomew, 1992 as cited in Northouse, 2016, p. 428)”.

Research on cultural intelligence indicated that it has three components: cognitive, motivational, and behavioral components. Trevino (2017) summarizes this and provides a version with two parts: the cognitive part, which relates to the person’s knowledge about the new culture, and the action part, which is the ability to translate that knowledge and motivation into an action.  This supports what Northouse suggests in saying that leaders need to be more competent in both behaviors and practice.  These cross-cultural competencies, however, are not only critical for leaders, they are also important for spouses and families who accompany them to assignments abroad.

We see this all too often in the military; in fact, it is essentially a way of life for many of our military families.  Studies indicate that diversity and cross-cultural training for spouses and partners of employees working abroad is equally important for them as it is for the employee.  Trevino (2017) suggests that the higher the position of the employee, the more likely it is that their partner also has functions or roles of “ambassador” for the company. This suggests that adapting to a new culture is critical for everyone, including families in global positions or jobs.  Fortunately, our families do receive the necessary training to assist in overcoming potential cultural barriers when we move to locations overseas.

Research indicates that there are some barriers, however, that are not explicitly presented and that there are factors that affect intercultural communication. This is particularly relevant in negotiation processes or between implicit and explicit communication.  For example, in countries like the United States, it is very common for people to say what they think explicitly, clearly and unambiguously.  On the other hand, in other countries such as Japan, people use more implicit languages and communications that are less clear.  For example, a person can answer the following to an unacceptable offer, “Thank you … I will consider your request very carefully.” For an American, this can easily mean that the discussion will continue and that the matter will be reconsidered in the future.  However, in Japanese culture (and in other cultures in which it is a common practice to avoid direct conflict), the message is clearly a “NO”.  My spouse and I received cross-cultural training when we first arrived in Japan, and I vividly remember when our host said, “In Japan, we don’t say NO, we just don’t tell you YES”.  We all laughed as she smiled modestly.

I would suggest that as leaders, we have to be familiar with the cultures, countries and places we operate in, but we must also be highly skilled in interacting with diverse groups.  According to Northouse (2016, p. 430), “a skilled leader needs to find ways to negotiate with followers from various cultural backgrounds.”  With increased globalization, this is critical now more than ever, and we must ensure that our organizations are implementing the right training strategies to assist us, other employees and families in overcoming diversity and cultural challenges.

References

De la Garza, M., Guzmán-Soria, E., Hernández-Soto, D. (2009). Cultural and personal considerations in international negotiations.  Journal of Globalization, Competitiveness & Governability, vol. 3, pp. 64-89

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Trevino, L. (2017). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do it Right (7th edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Leadership Adaptation in Complex and Rapidly Changing Environments

by

Twenty years in the military have taught me a myriad of things.  Of note, I’ve witnessed the different sides of the leadership spectrum and learned that you will get the good leaders with the bad ones.  I’ve also seen that effective leadership often begins with great followership, and I now realize that great followers learn from all of their leaders – again, from the good and the bad.  In the past two decades, the environments in which our military forces operate have become more and more complex.  Increasing demands are one of the many challenges while funding, personnel and resources continue to decrease.  These rapidly changing environments forced us to adapt and fortunately, our leaders and our teams have proudly stepped up to the challenge.

We recently covered team leadership in our class, and it felt that every line in the textbook reminded me of someone I had met or something I had seen.  In the profession of arms, we simply cannot function without effective teams.  We operate with deliberate approaches in planning for centralized decision-making and decentralized execution.  Discipline is not what makes these operations work; rather, it is our adaptive teams and their creative members who always succeed against the complex environments we face today.

As I read the lesson contents, I could not help but to think of the time when I was deployed to the Horn of Africa as part of an international military task force.  Two weeks ago, we learned that task forces are formed to solve problems and need structures emphasizing trust; this applies both in and out of the military (PSU WC, 2019, L. 9).  Deliberate structure design helps with accomplishing goals.  Just as task forces need trust, creative teams need autonomy so that their members can take ownership and accept risks at the appropriate levels.  Similarly, tactical teams must have clarity so that everyone knows exactly what to do and when to do it (PSU, WC, 2019, L. 9).  Certainly, our team in Africa had every one of these things, but most importantly, we had trust.

Trust is a critical component of a collaborative climate in team leadership and ensures that team members can effectively work with and trust in one another.  Within this collaborate climate, shared and participative leadership are what make teams more adaptive and capable of succeeding in rapidly changing environments.  In participative leadership, the leader involves other members in the decision-making process and consults with them before final decisions are made (PSU WC, 2019, L. 6).  This certainly builds trust, but it also makes all members feel valued, lets them see how decisions are made and, most importantly, it interlaces the team into the leadership process.

Similarly, shared leadership is a process in which all members of the team participate and contribute to leadership.  This process occurs when “members of the team take on leadership behaviors to influence the team and to maximize team effectiveness (Bergman, Rentsch, Small, Davenport, & Bergman, 2012 as cited in Northouse, 2016, pp. 365)”.  According to Pearce and Sims (2000), teams with shared leadership were more effective than others without (as cited in PSW WC, 2019, L. 9).  Shared leadership builds trust, develops individual leadership abilities and increases team adaptability.

Our team in Africa and other military task forces are not the only examples of trust and shared leadership, there are many other organizations and groups at national and international levels.  In fact, virtual teams such as the ones we have in online classes are the perfect examples; nowadays and in today’s rapidly changing environments, it is virtually impossible to operate without trust and without the distribution of leadership roles and responsibilities.  Research indicates that such shared leadership “has become more and more important in today’s organizations to allow faster responses to more complex issues (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Pearce, Manz, & Sims, 2009; Solansky, 2008 as sited in Northouse, 2016)”.

Looking back on my deployment, I now realize that our successes were not attributed to one member or one leader.  We all came home safely and were successful in our mission because we built trust, we built teams and we built leaders.  Like us, there are many others in military and civilian organizations that must constantly adapt to ever-changing environments.  Trust and team leadership is what will help us all in maximizing the flexibility and collaboration we need to achieve success.

References

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 6: Contingency & Path-Goal Theories. Retrieved October 2, 2019, from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 9: Team Leadership. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 11: Servant Leadership. Retrieved November 5, 2019, from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules

Saban: The “Nicktator”, or a Leader in Adapting Leadership Models

by

Nick Saban has been around the coaching block in the game of Football. From his days as a player on a dirt field outside of his father’s coal mine in West Virginia, to the championship podium at the 50-yard line following another NCAA BCS National Championship win as the coach at Alabama, Saban has been challenged as a leader for his entire professional career. 

Those who see Nick Saban in press conferences, on the field, or in passing see a man who many think to be a stone cold dictator; a man who expects only the best out of the people who play for him, work for him, and those he works for. Many consider him to be one of the most demanding coaches in the game. While those characteristics may be true, from a leadership perspective, he may be one of the most adaptive leader in sports. 

For the last decade, Saban and his sports psychology guru Dr. Lionel Rosen have been promoting the fine art of process learning and improvement, with each and every day serving as an opportunity to learn and improve. Prior to meeting Dr. Rosen, Saban expected his players and staff to work as hard as he did, and learn at the same rate he did, which was impossible considering the places each person found themselves in the game of football. He believed that through hard work alone, everybody could be great, and that by practicing harder than everyone else, you would improve faster. Before what he calls “The Process”, which is now a metric he uses with every member of his team, Saban had above average coaching success rebuilding the Michigan State Football Team, and serving as a Defensive Coordinator for the Buffalo Bills and Ohio State Buckeyes, but he never won the big games; Bowl Games, Rivalry Games, National Championships, or Super Bowls. 

Saban had to reinvent his approach to leadership to adapt to the people he was taking with him on the ride that is a football season. After spending an extended amount of time with Dr. Rosen, the two men found a way to schedule a football season based on process-driven learning. In an article by BalancedAchievement.com called, “Nick Saban’s Process: A Methodical Grind Toward Greatness”, Saban describes process-based learning as “what you have to do day in and day out to be successful.” (Zeis, 2018)

Through the adoption of “The Process”, Saban proved to the people who thought of him as a hopelessly structured dictator, fondly referred to as “The Nicktator” in a New York Time article (Bautista, 2008). Through my studies in leadership, I found Saban to be a classic example of a prominent leader who follows a Path-Goal Theory of Leadership (Northouse, 2018). The path-goal theory “assumes effective leaders will provide valued rewards for the follower and then help them find the best way to get there.” (Northouse, 2018). Saban proves time and time again that he does whatever it takes to get his players on a path to be successful. In the book, “Saban: The Making of a Coach”, by Monte Burke, he gives an example of a time while Saban was at Alabama, and his players had stopped eating before workouts. When their energy was low, and they werent’ working hard, the Saban of the past would have taken it as a lack of preparation by the players to be nutritiously prepared for practice. Today’s Saban asked why they were in this state, and learned the food was not appropriate for the athletes, and they weren’t eating because it would impact their performance in a negative way. Saban contacted the Alabama nutritionist responsible for football, and the next day, you better believe his players had the proper food they needed. 

Along the road to leadership through the path-goal theory, Saban has had to change his leadership style. Initially, many could consider Saban to be a directive leader (Northouse, 2018), who set all of the parameters of the program, expecting everyone to conform to those parameters. He made each task laid in front of them clear, and made sure each member of the team was certain about how to reach their goal. 

Since his commitment to process-driven learning, Saban has evolved into more of an achievement-oriented leader (Northouse, 2018). This type of leader “challenge(s) subordinates to work at the highest level possible.” (Northouse, 2018). Everything about Saban is now about getting his players to follow a process that he’s laid out for the players, and they are responsible for their achievement. Saban once said, “…the things that I talked about before, being responsible for your own self-determination, having a positive attitude, having great work ethic, having discipline to be able to execute on a consistent basis, whatever it is you’re trying to do, those are the things that we try to focus on, and we don’t try to focus as much on the outcomes as we do on being all that you can be.” (Zeis, 2018)

When asked what current leader has applied the path-goal theory to leadership within their organization, Nick Saban, the one-time “Nicktator” of college football, may be our best example in collegiate and professional sports of someone who will work his hardest to adapt to the needs of his team. 

 

References:

 

Battista, J. (2006, October 8). Tough Love and Hard Questions in Miami. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/sports/football/08dolphins.html.

 

Burke, M. (2016). Saban: the making of a coach. Place of publication not identified: Simon & Schuster.

 

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: theory and practice. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

 

Zeis, P., & Zeis, P. (2018, January 19). Nick Saban’s Process: A Methodical Grind Towards Greatness. Retrieved from https://balancedachievement.com/psychology/nick-sabans-process/.

 

The Importance of Adaptability in Leadership

by

Leadership is adaptive and although someone may be a leader in one situation, they may not be in another (Northouse, 2016). Heifetz, a forerunner in adaptive leadership and who wrote The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World, believes that leadership is “influencing change that builds and enables the capacity of individuals and organizations to thrive” (Wolinski, 2010). Leadership is not a “one size fits all” theory and what makes a good leader is situational (PSU, 2019). For example, those who are good leaders in a company may not be as effective if the goals of the company change. Furthermore, the system the leader has in place currently may not be working and needs to adapt to fit the current needs.

I work at a high-volume, stressful Japanese restaurant, which we will call OM. I am now 22 but I started there as a busser and host when I was 16. It was one of my first jobs and I was extremely nervous but I knew I had a good work ethic. The first person I met at OM was the general manager, Dave. From my first shift, I could see Dave was an authoritarian leader, callous and strict. He emphasized moving quickly and efficiently, never taking breaks. “There is always something to do,” he’d say. In hindsight, he was not wrong but stopping to get water mid-shift is necessary. Working for Dave was very hard at first; it was as if he never smiled. Turn over was extremely high and I originally blamed how high volume and quick paced the restaurant was – it was tough work. Servers, bussers, hosts, and kitchen staff were quitting almost weekly and it was impossible to establish a system that works or form relationships with co-workers. The owners started to blame Dave for the being constantly short-staffed and all the managerial complaints they were receiving. It must have occurred to Dave that his leadership style was not working and it was time to adapt.

Right around this time, I left for Penn State in 2014 after spending two years at OM with Dave as a manager. In September of last year I returned as a server to OM. I was surprised to see three coworkers who I worked with before I left still there – four years later. I thought to myself, our turnover used to be weeks or months and now it is years, but how? When I saw Dave’s new leadership style, I understood why. Dave was way more relaxed now but employees knew not to over step their boundaries. Dave used to make staff do everything themselves even if they needed help, “figure it out,” he’d tell us.

Now, Dave actively helps us during the shifts such as getting soups and salads, dropping off bar drinks to the tables, and bussing tables. His new leadership style helps the restaurant run smoother than ever before. He also became approachable, you could go to him with any request or conflict and he was there to help. He also made a significant effort to form relationships and recognize customers. Now, every night we write down VIPs who visited the restaurant and at the end of the year, reward their loyalty with gift cards. Plus, the customers love feeling special and valued.

According to Wolinksi, the three steps of adaptive leadership are preserving elements that are necessary, removing those that are not, and creating new ones to help the organization succeed (Wolinski, 2010). In Dave’s case, he kept what was working such as his expectations from employees, removed his authoritarian policies, and created a more flexible and open work environment. He adapted his leadership style to fit the needs of the restaurant and employees and became a superior leader. When I first started, the longest employed staff member had been there for a year, now it is five. There are also four employees, including myself, who returned to work for him again.

Northouse, Peter. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications. 7th Edition.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 1: Looking at Leadership through Many Lenses. Retrieved from https: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1972967/modules/items/25704818

Wolinski, S. (2010, July 07). Adaptive Leadership. Retrieved from https://managementhelp.org/blogs/leadership/2010/07/07/adaptive-leadership/

 

 

 

Skip to toolbar