Chapter 5: Ethical Leadership
Chapter Abstract
Can you lead when no one is watching? Does your ethical foundations flow into your leadership style? This section examines these traits and provides leadership style that best fits the evolution of the CJ system. The following discussion is an explanation of mixed research relative to the Leader-Member Exchange defining the leader-follower requirement of leadership. The author of this discussion compares in brief form the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) with the Social Identity Theory of Leadership and provides a view from Adaptive Theory researchers as a comparison or more to the point their interaction with each other. The Transformational and Transactional styles are compared. The LMX style closely relates to Transformational leadership due to leader follower relationship. The transactional leader may relate to the authoritarian style more closely. The trait theory is examined in the context of this styles relationship with Transformational styles.
Leadership Defined
Ethical leadership is leadership through principles that influences followers. Leaders lead through choices developed amidst moral growth enhancing values, dignity, fairness, integrity, charisma and innovation without jeopardizing how we ought to behave. The main goal of the leader of any organization is to influence the membership to achieve goals and eventually attain the vision of the organization. Ethical Leadership means that which is morally good or considered morally right; therefore teleological leadership ethics are a leaders action with no intrinsic moral status whereas deontological leadership ethics considers leaders actions to have intrinsic moral status (Kanungo, 2001).
Inhibit Leadership Growth
Successful leaders exercise authority or power of authority in a free and pluralistic society consisting of members who choose to follow through no single code of ethics but several sets of values emanating from a variety of cultures and subcultures (Ortmeier & Meese, 2010). Leadership is about influencing and motivating and therefore as a motivator the ethical leader should seek to fit the individual member to the environment for the greater good of the organization.
Manipulation Leadership in a perfect world is motivation by bending people’s pathway so that they head toward a predetermined outcome. Leaders from time to time may find the need to bend the intended paths of others for noble reasons. Then is there such a thing as an ethical manipulator? Realistically there may events that require this measure and might be for self-serving gain as well. Either way, seeking to redirect the will of others is often referred to as directing, structuring or focusing behaviors (Zigarmi, Blanchard, O’Conner, & Edeburn, 2005).
Manipulation of others may be viewed as coercive, deceptive, or self-serving by followers while at the same time might be considered by the leader as fair, motivational, purposeful, humble and honorable. However, any leadership practice that increases another’s sense of self-determination, self-confidence, and personal effectiveness is practicing empowerment creating an atmosphere for success (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Leadership has always involved politics (Gardner, 1990) and substantive leadership requires an ethical leader who possesses the philosophical and moral foundation for decision making (Ortmeier & Meese, 2010).
The motives used to influence/motivate/manipulate (interactive/co-existent terms) others are generally labeled honorable when incorporated with the intent to benefit the organization. Likewise, honorable, when increasing the ability of the member(s) in an organization through the integration of discretionary decision making, legitimacy of action and accountability. The antithesis of the honorable motivator is the unethical leader that is deceitful, inconsistent, misplace and break loyalties and are irresponsible and generally self-serving (Ortmeier & Meese, 2010). The question arises when is it in the best interest of the leader, follower, and organization to implement manipulation. Is this method justified if the original intent is for the good of the order, or if the outcome is positively viewed by the membership?
An unintended outcome of this style is that a leader may become dreadfully challenged when it comes time to withdraw the manipulation and equally challenged because it is so easy to use it for self-serving purposes. When exercising manipulative leadership, it becomes comfortable to be drawn into the Authoritarian Leader/Coercive Leader that is task oriented and is hard on followers. The autocratic leaves little or no allowance for cooperation or collaboration. Heavily task oriented modes depict the authoritarian as: very strong on schedules; expect people to do what they are told without question or debate; when something goes wrong focus on who is to blame rather than concentrate on exactly what is wrong and how to prevent it; and intolerance for dissent. In short there is no room for subordinates to develop under this style.
In summary the Authoritarian leader corrupts an environment for growth, flexibility, and change. This method has a purpose in the CJ system but generally in tactical situations and not leadership roles. Personal and organizational ethics is now in question and it takes introspection and often humiliation to snap back to a more transformational style. Leaders that have survived Gen X, Y and Millennial time frames (not necessarily the people) have found non-authoritarian styles highly maintenance intensive, time consuming, and resource heavy to maintain.
Personal Courage & Organizational Courage
Innovation and creativity is the responsibility of tomorrow’s organizational leadership and I subscribe to the theory that, “Without a past, you can have no future.” The problem with our traditional bureaucratic public safety organizations is the manner today’s leaders have a death grip on tradition and fail to see past the industrial era of management styles. The traditional leadership and management strategies are crushing creativity under their own weight, (Stage & Dean, 2000). My experience implies that innovation and creativity do not emerge from the ivory tower of police headquarters but rather from the rank and file members performing the daily tasks. Kouzes & Posner, (2007) maintain, “Innovation requires more listening and communications than doe’s routine work” (p.177).
The industrial era of leadership was designed for the purpose of getting the information flow in one direction; downward and required little if any response; and within the profession, very much like the Psychotherapy and Counseling arena the police have responded to a body of “expert knowledge” and qualification that were well guarded by the profession for the profession and not to be shared (Totten, 1999). Once a paradigm has been established, the scientist enhances her/his reputation by writing journal articles that are addressed only to colleagues within the profession (Kuhn, 1996). Furthermore, the powers to be had little time for any input outside the organization; fatal to contemporary demands for innovation and creativity. It is critical to stay in touch with internal and external fabricators of organizational cultures in order to be a change agent (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Change agents or change centered leadership requires courage on behalf of organizational members, leaders, and organizational buy-in. Change Agents are also referred to as risk takers and the processes subscribes to intuitive and creative juices of the membership and leadership in conjunction with power motivated for the right reasons. That is foreseeing the urgency for change and meeting those demands through swift and thoughtful decisions (Andersen, 2000). Critical to this style is the development of the organizations members and a strong relationship between leader and follower (Andersen, 2000).
Succession planning is a process in trouble and selecting the right members for executive education requires deeper attention to existing rosters of organizations and selection of future leaders in cooperation with new vision rather than those mired in the past. Equally important is the requirement to find members with the required transformational traits to move the organization forward rather than maintain a status-quo (Haskins & Shaffer, 2010). Additionally critical is the attempt to gain ethical people from an unethical society (discussed at greater length further on in the material). In a transforming society, the leadership must be ahead of the game.
According to a recent study by the American Society for Training and Development, (September, 2010) surveying 674 senior executives of large companies across the globe indicate that they plan to rebuild their workforces to prerecession levels by 2012. Most had grave concerns of workforce capabilities and management capabilities to meet the transforming times (Haskins & Shaffer, 2010).
In summary the successful innovative leader must be caring, sharing and open to all ideas as described in the preceding as well as possessing the ability to work in teams, be creative and have a keen ability to forecast and move without hesitation.
Leadership Styles: Do Leadership Styles Require Ethics?
The true charismatic and ethical leader is forged from a set of assumption pertaining to the leader-follower relationship operating out of genuine concern for those he/she is leading as well as the organization being led (Ciulla, 1995). According to Bass and Avolio (1994) then the authentic transformational leader is guided by: charisma or idealized influence; inspirational motivation; intellectual simulation; and individualized consideration all leaning toward personal growth through coaching and mentoring. The transactional leaders/ approach controls behaviors of subordinates through reward for service or “TIT for TAT” or the “what’s in it for me”. Transformational leaders (TF) attempt influence through communications, inspiration, and the good of the order rather than purely self-serving interest (Bass and Avolio, 1994).
The Transactional Leader (TA) will differentiate from the TF. She/he as a TA will exert influence through setting goals independent of others in the organization, clarifies desired outcomes, provides feedback and then exchanges rewards for the accomplishments of the followers. In contrast with the TF who will through additional influencing broaden and elevate followers’ goals building the followers confidence in mission and manner and ability that will propel the follower beyond the original agreement of exchange (Bass & Avolio, 1994).
Transformational Leadership Qualities
The transformational leadership style is one that fosters the values of honesty, loyalty, fairness, authentic, morally and ethically centered and continually professes the organization values based on justice, equality and human rights. These are terms often described by Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. In contrast the pseudo-transformational leader endorses more wicked, unreasonable and vicious values such as favoritism, special interest, and self-preservation over that of the organization (Price, 2003). The latter can serve to create divisiveness, consternation and rebellious attitudes by organizational members; in turn serving no legitimate purpose for accomplishing the organizational goals/mission. The relevance of the former describes the authenticity required of leaders today, especially in changing societies. The transformational leader and the pseudo-transformational leader may begin with altruistic values, but the pseudo leader loses perspective and falls prey to more self-serving goals.
Within any organization, specifically in a CJ system, one may find differing layers of leadership styles. This is mainly dependent upon the task at hand, tactical as compared to strategic goals, and over-all mission. More often than not, the terms of management and leadership are juxtaposed when in reality they have different purpose and the style required is relevant to task, goal and mission to accomplish and they co-exist.
Leadership is without a single definition and is a complex process of constant change from moment to moment from member (follower) to member within environments made of multiple variables in a constant state of motion. However, I have reserved my position under the transformational umbrella as my personal style, at least as a starting point due to my belief that you first build a relationship and the leadership will follow in most cases. The honest and forthright leader finds communications a critical component for the development of members, future leaders and keeping external variables informed. Regardless of the legitimate style selected by the modern leader, there is no room for the pseudo-transformational leader in a successful venture.
Contemporary CJ leaders, as is public managers and leaders, must be flexible, adaptable, compassionate, influential, highly ethical and a good listener to point to a few differences from the old military/industrial autocratic style. The ability to align members and coordinate motivation, articulate goals, stressing values of the members, involve the members in decision making is critical (Kotter, 2001). Essential to the process is the ability of the transformational leader to energetically and enthusiastically motivate members as no human venture succeeds without strong motivation (Gardner, 1993). Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) concur with these modeling descriptors of the authenticity/transformational leadership and conclude the inauthentic leader ultimately acts against any altruistic values for the purpose of benefiting self and does so freely of choice.
Environmental considerations are essential to this proposition, it is important to understand where your members are and where they need to go in order to achieve a transforming organization. It is not sufficient to attempt leadership without a firm understanding of the generational differences compounded by economics, current events, and where an organizational member has gained their life’s programming (Salahuddin, 2010). The transformational leader understands and models communications, coaching and team building. During the same time frames the leader must coordinate efforts through organizational transformation in-spite of periods of disobedience and impatience (Hagen, 2010).
Consistent with the pseudo-transformational leader is the by-product of the Industrial age leadership/autocratic style and the law enforcement leader is mired in the outdated hierarchy military style of leadership, in turn creates stagnation rather than an atmosphere of achievement, change, learning and moving their organization in a positive direction. Since the early 1970’s and with the advent of bargaining units, police will no longer tolerate autocratic leadership. Where the winds of change have not advanced then I suggest there may exist strong bargaining unions in opposition to the police chief (other than right to work states, however is constantly being challenged in legislatures across the country). In reality the new entrants into the criminal justice system arrive with the goal of becoming all you can be, meaning more than achieving rank, a leadership that clings to the old management systems is destructive and serves in most cases no legitimate purpose (generally outside police tactical implications) and is destine for failure.
Furthering the lack of courage to embrace transformational leader styles, specifically within CJ systems, may be the lack courage to take the risks the role demands. This may require those things such as turning hiring over to human resource units, the use of hiring standards that contain not only ethical standards but also leader quality standards, and provide training and education for the development of leaders within the organization (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). If leaders lead from what they know and have never been trained differently than most will find a comfort zone that they wish to exercise authority from rather than perform their function from the ethical center and do what is right for the organization and not self.
Failing to become the new leader, the ethical leader, the change agent leader is particularly relevant to the police leader. The police leader that lacks the inability to bring about change, fosters the dissatisfaction of the rank and file, nurtures stagnation and has been the cause for rapid changeover at the top in the industry. Specifically, good leaders have been discounted as a result of a new Mayor’s/City Managers’ deal with bargaining units to bring in new leadership to gain support of the police.
However when the lack of positive change is evidenced by community and external groups and the leader is without requisite skills as discussed, then the final ax shall fall. While pseudo-transformational leadership is the antithesis of transformational leadership, both may have begun the journey with altruistic values the former sought the easy path in some situations and lacked courage and stamina to carry on ethically. Leaders failing to create vision, build future leaders, create learning environments and the atmosphere for change is failing to lead, explicitly evident during periods of constant change, politically, economically, socially and environmentally.
Leader-Follower Theory: Concentration of LMX
Heifetz & Laurie, (2001) contends, “Leaders who truly care for their followers expose them to painful reality of their conditions and demand that they fashion a response. Instead of giving people false assurance that their best is good enough, leaders insist that people surpass themselves, and rather than smoothing over conflicts, leaders force disputes to surface” (p. 14).
Standards create minimums, minimums create status-quo, and status-quo creates mediocrity. Leaders must set the bar (standards) as a moveable bar, in one direction, upward. To do otherwise is a disservice to the members of the organization and the community it serves. This is truer today than any other time in the history of this country. The younger generation entering the workforce wants change, they need change, and they rely on change as their only stable in life. Incumbent upon the leader is to provide this change.
In order to accomplish the leader-follower method of leadership a series of relationships must be developed. Relationships, between leadership and follow are essential for motivation. Members of an organization must have a reason for following and more important, you cannot have leaders if you have no followers (Zigarmi et al., 2004).
Hogg, (2001) defines a social identity theory of leadership as “a group process generated by social categorization and prototyped based depersonalization processes associated with social identity” (p.196). In this fashion the leader constructs a self- labeling that invests the most classical member with the appearance of having influence. Following this sequence of thought regarding LMX theory; power is not leadership, leadership is influence which will mobilize the masses (Hogg, 2001; Zigarmi et al., 2005; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Scandura, Graen & Novak, 1986; and Gerstner & Day, 1997). The remainder of this discussion will focus around the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) behavior to further define leader follower relationships and importance.
The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory is replete with operable alternatives to the traditional leadership approaches focused on trait and behaviors. Computation of over 25 years of research involving LMX findings remain enthusiastic, although there remains an ambiguity about the nature of the construct, its measurement, and its relationships with other organizational variables (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Graen and Uhl-Bien, (1995) classified the evolution of LMX theory into four stages:
- Work socialization and vertical dyad linkage where the focus was on the discovery of differential dyads (i.e., in-groups and out-groups);
- LMX where the focus was on the relationship quality and its outcomes;
- A prescriptive approach to dyadic partnership building (A dyad (from Greek dýo, “two”) in sociology is a noun used to describe a group of two people. A dyad is the smallest possible social group. (Sociology); and
- LMX as a systems-level perspective (i.e., moving beyond the dyad to group and network levels) (p.226).
Albeit the final two stages are relatively new and the majority of the empirical data relates to the first two stages, the latter stages may offer a deeper understanding of LMX in more complex organizations. However, the LMX theory describes leadership and it prescribes leadership. Descriptively it suggests that it is important to recognize the existence of in-groups and out-groups within a group or organization (Northouse, 2010).
Prescriptively, leaders should create a relationship with all subordinates offering each the opportunity to take on new roles and responsibilities and nurture the high-quality exchange between subordinate and leader rather than restricting the leaders focus on differences between in-groups and out-groups (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Regardless if considered descriptive or prescriptive, LMX focuses leader attention on the special relationships created between leader and follower. Although it makes sense to define workers or work groups as productive, or minimal contributors, or unwarranted existence (specifically in highly unionized settings) and rewards are distributed accordingly this may establish the perception of unequal or unfair treatment. LMX theory however validates our experience of how people within organizations relate to each other and the leader and some will contribute more than others and receive more than others accordingly (Northouse, 2010). The LMX approach emphasizes the importance of communications between the leader-member and in fact is bound by extremely high communicative measures making this approach effective and it is the one leadership theory that has as its central concept the reality of the dyadic relationship that exists in organizations and specifically policing (Scandura, Graen & et al Novak, 1986).
Finally, paramount to this discussion is the looming alert for leaders, warning of bias decision making when determining who is invited into groups (Northouse, 2010). Specific to this point is the fact that diversity is the key to changing the cultural differences in policing today. The due process courts of the 1960’s have prevailed in policing and are the singular success story for establishing more equality in police hiring via quotas. Diversity is credited with the dissolution of cultural barriers at a more rapid pace, reductions of brutality complaints and further erosion of the blue wall of silence (Sklansky, 2006). The principles outlined in the LMX approach remind leaders of fairness and equality. Herein another concern arises and that is of generational differences and how they may impact this relationship. Research according to Salahuddin, (2010) indicates that “failing to recognize generational differences do in fact impact organizational outcomes,” but with aggressive communications and difference deployment (aligning the member with the correct leadership style) is indicative of the LMX approach.
Trait Theory
Trait Theory: Leadership based on individual attributes is known as the “trait theory of leadership.” This theory does not take into consideration what kind of leadership is required or desired for a given situation, rather concentrates specifically on the leader alone. The Trait Theory emphasizes a specific profile and asserts the organization will run more efficiently if the leader possesses the profile. There exists a multitude of research supporting this style pointing to the important role of various personality traits in the leadership process and provides for the leader his/her strengths and weaknesses. A major criticism of the Trait Theory is that it fails to take situations into account and is not useful for training and developing leaders (Stogdill, 1948). Despite the criticisms it does provide information about the leader and although the list of traits desired is an infinite list, the research does not point to specific traits in a limited fashion however it can be applied to all individuals in all organizations.
Style Approach: The second method discussed fails to find a universal style of leadership that could be effective in most situations and similar to the Trait Theory, failing to identify the definite personal characteristics of leaders the style approach is unable to identify a universal set of behaviors associated with effective leadership. However researchers have found this approach consists of two main behaviors which are task and relationship. In other words this approach keeps at the forefront of the leader that their actions toward others are on a task and relationship level. The task orientation has a tendency lean toward the situational leadership while the relationship orientation hints of the transformational style.
Skills Approach: At the heart of this model is problem-solving skills, social judgment skills, and knowledge. The model does not provide a prescription for success but rather the skills approach defines a structure for understanding of the leader (Katz, 1955). The importance of the skills model will be dependent upon which level of management the leader exists and it takes into consideration the experience rating, individual attributes and environmental influences that will impact the leader’s capabilities. This is a process that research has determined as able to be learned but it is also short of predictability. The Military was the primary target of research for this particular model and how it can interplay with other organizations effectively requires greater research.
How well can each approach or style interact with the other and how well can the style interact with the leaders personal, in my opinion is the more logical question. Through my empirical knowledge of leadership spanning nearly three decades I suggest that they all interact and have done so prior to researchers attaching naming rights. A leaders style will, at least in the police setting, interact with the other dependent upon the situation (tactical, investigative, problem solving, etc.). The leader’s ability to identify which approach meets which situation is critical. Finally, selecting the style that meets the need but also meets ethical standards is substantially more critical.
References
Andersen, J. (2000). The weight of history: An exploration of resistance to change in Vicars/Managers. Creativity & Innovation Management, 9(3), 147. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5384634&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Anderson, T., D., Gisborne, K., & and Holliday, P. (2006). Every officer is a leader (2nd Ed.). Victoria, BC: Trafford Publishing.
Bass, B. M., & and Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4, 231-272.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=2406536&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Ciulla, J. B. (1995). Leadership ethics: Mapping the territory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 5-28. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5953981&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Dearborn, K. (2002). Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. Public Personnel Management, 31(4), 523. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9004400&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827
Gardner, J. W. (1990). John W. Gardner on leadership. (pp. 169-170) New York: The Free Press.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. Doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Hagen, M. (2010). The wisdom of the coach: A review of managerial coaching in the six-sigma context. Total Quality Management, 21(8791-798) Doi: 10:1080/14783363.487657
Haskins, M. E., & Shaffer, G. R. (2010). Using executive education program rosters to identify a succession cohort. Strategy & Leadership, 38(5), 39-44.
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1998). Adaptive strategy. Executive Excellence, 15(12), 14.
High-performance workforce study. (2010). American Society for Training and Development, September
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 5(3), 184-200. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4802751&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Kanungo, R., N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 257-265.
Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42.
Kotter, J. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 85-96.
Kouzes, J. M., & and Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenges (4th Ed.). 989 Market Street, San Francisco: Josey-Boss.
Northouse, P., G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5tth Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ortmeier, P. J., & and Meese, E. I. (2010). Leadership, ethics, and policing: Challenges for the 21st century. (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 67-81. Doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00187-X
Salahuddin, M. M. (2010 Second Quarter). Generational differences impact on leadership style and organizational success. Journal of Diversity Management, 5(2), 1-6. Retrieved from AN 51469725
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader–member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 579-584. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.579
Sklansky, D. A. (2006). Not your father’s police department: Making sense of the new demographics of law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 96(3), 1209-1243. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21820080&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Stage, B. R., & Dean, M. A. (2000). Leadership in the 21st century–unchartered waters or same drip. PA Times, 23(7), 4. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=3403857&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Totton, N. (1999). The baby and the bathwater: ‘professionalization’ in psychotherapy and counseling. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 27(3), 313. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=2340065&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Winston, M. G. (1997). Leadership of renewal: Leadership for the 21st century. Business Forum, 22(1), 4. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9709034342&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Zigarmi, D., Blanchard, K., O’Conner, M., & Edeburn, C. (2005). The leader within: Learning enough about yourself to lead others. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson: Prentice Hall.