From Transactional to Transcendental: Toward An Integrated Theory of Leadership Joseph E.

Sanders III

Willie E.

Hopkins Gary Geroy State University, Fort Collins, CO D.

Colorado

recognition of the transcendent in everyday experience, a selfless focus, and a set of beliefs and practices that facilitates a relationship with the transcendent. One might infer from this definition that spirituality is the gestalt of all manifestations of

power, In this article

we

explore

the

spiritual

dimensions of leadership by setting forth a theory that both integrates and extends the transactional and transformational theories of

leadership. Specifically, we propose that the transcendental theory of leadership set forth in this article comprises three dimensions of spirituality (consciousness, moral character, and faith) that incorporate the managerial aspects of transactional theory and the charismatic aspects of transformational theory to enhance leader effectiveness. Utilizing a conceptual model, we show the hierarchical relationship that exists between and transcendental, transformational, transactional theories of leadership and set forth several propositions related to the development of spiritual dimensions as leaders develop along the hierarchical continuum. Implications of the model for leadership theory and practice are discussed. It has been suggested, in several studies (cf. Wheatley, 1999; Jaworoski, 2000; Kouzes & Posner, 1999), that the journey of leadership is primarily an internal plight to connect with a higher influence. Further suggested in these studies is that in order to truly understand the notion of leadership, we must focus on the internal development of the leader. Other studies (cf. Kelly, 1995; Pargament & Park, 1995) suggest that a core component of internal development is spirituality. Emmons’ (1999) &dquo;ultimate concerns&dquo; defines spirituality as that aspect of life concerned with ultimate purpose and meaning in life, which translates into a commitment to God or a higher

treatise

on

an

individual’s essence, and conclude that

spirituality mobilizes the individual towards meaningful or &dquo;transcendental&dquo; accomplishment. Thompson (2000) posits that transcendental cannot occur without accomplishment We spirituality. conceptualize Thompson’s postulation in a model of &dquo;transcendental leadership,&dquo; which proposes that hierarchical levels of spirituality are associated with hierarchical levels of desired leadership accomplishments. The model proposes three structural levels of leadership accomplishment: (1) transactional, (2) transformational, and (3) transcendental. Essentially, the model proposes that leaders’ development along three dimensions of spirituality (consciousness, moral character and faith) is associated with development along these three levels of leadership accomplishment. Golden-Biddle and Greenwood (2000) contend that traditional approaches to lack understanding leadership depth, and are limited in scope. Moreover, research on traditional levels of leadership accomplishment transactional and transformational - (e.g.,

-

Bass, 1985; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Howell & Avolio, 1993) has neglected or only addressed the internal components of the leader, perhaps causing many to ask: &dquo;Is there more to leadership?&dquo; Although an emerging body of research (cf. Blackaby, 2000;

passively

Greenleaf, 1991; Hawley, 1999; Wilkes, 1999)

22

has

begun to provide insightful answers to this question by focusing on internal components such as spirituality, a framework that links this emerging approach to traditional approaches has yet to be developed. Such a framework would provide a lens for viewing leadership in a broader context. Our proposed theory of transcendental leadership is intended to provide such a framework. Our theory is not an attempt to redefine leadership; instead this theory purports to provide a more comprehensive view of leadership by connecting traditional theories to a meaningful domain, spirituality. We divide our discussions into three major sections. In the first section we lay down the foundation for our theory by examining the supporting literature, and by identifying the gap such a theory will fill in existing leadership literature. Through a conceptual model, we then explore the relationship of our theory to the

spiritual development of the leader him or herself. Cardona’s treatment of transcendental leadership hints at the spiritual dimension of leadership by viewing the transcendental leader as a &dquo;servant-leader.&dquo; However, his treatment only allows one to infer about the possible implications of this aspect for leader effectiveness. Moreover, although Cardona views transcendental leadership as incorporating aspects of transactional and transformational leadership, the relationship between these theories is not clearly established. In this section, we explore in more detail the spiritual dimension of transcendental leadership, the linkages between transcendental, transactional, and transformational leadership and incorporate our findings into an integrated theory of transcendental leadership.

transactional and transformational theories of leadership and demonstrate the integrating role that spirituality plays in the relationship. In the second major section we explore the three dimensions of spirituality (consciousness, moral character, and faith) and set forth propositions about their relationship to the transactional, transformational, and transcendental theories of leadership. In the last major section we discuss implications for further theory development and

Theoretical Foundations

management practice.

TRANSCENDENTAL LEADERSHIP THEORY Based

on

our

search of the

leadership

literature, the idea of transcendental leadership first broached by Cardona (2000), who describes the concept as a contribution-based exchange relationship. He views the transcendental leader as being concerned with his or her followers and tries to contribute to their personal development. Specifically, Cardona views the transcendental leader as developing followers’ transcendent motivation (i.e., the motivation to do things for others; the motivation to contribute). While Cardona’s perspective of transcendental leadership is on intrinsic the development of followers’ so that their needs are motivation, aligned with the needs of the leader, our perspective is on the was

The work of Kant (1997) associates the &dquo;transcendental&dquo; with whatever an individual’s mental and spiritual nature conceives as above experience or beyond ego. Kant’s work and a series of recent writings related to spirituality provide the foundation upon which we begin to develop our theory of transcendental leadership. For example, it has been argued that our society is experiencing a spiritual revolution (Haasnoot, 2000) and spirituality is a complex phenomenon that can no longer be ignored by society and its term

organizations (Judge, 1999). Moreover, Thompson (2000) contends that good and effective leadership is a developmental process of growth and maturation that is fed by the leader’s inner spirit more than his or her outer strivings. Finally, Harmon (1991) contends that no need is more compelling than the need for our lives to have meaning. Our theory of transcendental leadership recognizes the internal force (spirituality) that compels leaders to fulfill this ultimate need. For the most part, our theory’s emphasis on spirituality is rooted in Kantian thought. Kant (1997) taught that time and space are not external realities but ways in which the internal dimensions of a person makes sense and meaning of the world. Kant further asserted that striving to understand and connect to the

23

concepts of God, freedom, and immortality inevitable intuitions of human Kant

generally

individuals

are

development.

espouses that in order for

experience meaningful development, they (1) need consciousness of passing into a higher sphere of being, (2) possess a deepened conviction, (3) make sense of spaciousness, (4) seek clarity between reality and the relative unreal, (5) seek moral harmony, and (6) integrate the immaterial - i.e., spirit with the material - i.e., body. These basic tenets represent the heart of our transcendental leadership theory. We distilled these tenets into a definition of transcendental leadership, which basically translates into the &dquo;developing of leaders beyond the ego towards a higher influence in order to comprehend an extraordinary, spiritual presence in their lives.&dquo; Our specific objective in this article is to capture the essence of transcendental leadership development by focusing on three core dimensions of spirituality: consciousness, moral character and faith. We argue that development along these dimensions increases the capacity for leaders to experience meaning and transcendental fulfillment. Maslow ( 1971 ) suggests that spiritual development is a prerequisite to transcendental fulfillment, and to

Thompson spirituality

(2000)

that without fulfillment cannot

argues

transcendental

occur.

Basically, our theory incorporates the idea that developing spirituality along these three dimensions allow leaders to become less concerned about the constraining realities of the external environment, which can limit leader effectiveness, and more concerned about an internal development that transcend realities as defmed by the environment. Such an idea has not been thoroughly incorporated into theories of leadership such as transactional and transformational. We incorporate this idea into a conceptual model that shows linkages among our theory of transcendental leadership and transactional and transformational theories along several continua, including spirituality.

Theory Continua As indicated in Figure 1, our conceptual model of transcendental leadership both integrates and builds on existing leadership theories. Specifically, the model presents and transactional, transformational, transcendental theories of leadership as being linked together along common continua.

24

r

2 13 ’

0)

LL

25 Locus of Control Continuum. The first continuum shown in the model, locus of control, concerns the extent to which leaders are internally or externally oriented. Research (cf. Anderson, 1977; Kipnis, 1976; Miller, Kets de Vries, & Toulouse, 1982; Miller & Toulouse, 1986) suggests that leaders with an internal locus of control are more capable of dealing with stressful situations and generate higher group and company performance than do leaders with an external locus of control. As shown in the model, transactional theory is positioned at the external end of the locus of control continuum. Such a positioning is consistent with contentions (cf. Howell & Avolio, 1993) that leaders characterized as transactional tend to have an external orientation and they exhibit less confidence in their ability to influence the environment, and believe that organizational events are due to luck, fate, or chance. This belief is in contrast to Bass’ (1995) notion of transformational leaders, who have more of an internal locus of control (i.e., they have confidence in their ability to influence the direction of organizational events). The stronger internal locus of control for leaders characterized as transformational is indicated by the positioning of transformational leadership theory on the locus of control continuum. However, as indicated by the positioning of the

transcendental theory of leadership, the model suggests that leaders characterized as transcendental may have an even stronger internal locus of control than leaders characterized as transformational. We propose that this stronger internal locus of control is a result of such leaders being spiritually focused, which compels them to consciously place greater importance on the dynamics of the immaterial (i.e., inner spirit) as opposed to the material (i.e., the body). Effectiveness Continuum. The model indicates that effectiveness is also associated with the theories. As shown in the model, transactional leadership is positioned at the low end of the effectiveness continuum. This low position might be partly explained by observations that transactional leadership is based on an exchange process in which the leader provides rewards in return for followers’ effort and performance (Bass & Avolio, 1993). The exchange process involves a leader-follower

relationship that is impersonal; there is little affect (Yammarino, Dubinsky, Comer, & Jolson, 1997), and the relationship is maintained only if the benefits of the exchange accruing to the leader and follower outweigh the costs (Graen & Scandura, 1987). While Bass (1995) clearly identifies transactional leadership as being based on material or economic exchange, he just as clearly identifies transformational leadership as being based on social exchange. A central thesis of Bass’ theory is that transformational leadership goes beyond exchanging inducements for desired performance by developing, intellectually stimulating, and inspiring followers to transcend their own self-interests for a higher collective purpose, mission, or vision. Such activities on the part of transformational leaders are argued to render them more effective than transactional leaders (Bass, 1995). Thus, the model positions transformational leadership theory at a higher level of development on the effectiveness continuum. We argue in this article that transcendental leaders possess the same effectivenessproducing traits as transformational leaders. We also argue that because they have a stronger internal locus of control and a more focused spiritual orientation than transformational leaders, the effectiveness of transcendental leaders may be greater than the effectiveness of transformational leaders. Subsequently, transcendental leadership theory is positioned at a higher point on the effectiveness continuum than transformational leadership theory. Spirituality Continuum. Research (cf. Bass, 1985; House, 1977) suggests that traits such as high self-confidence, self-determination, inner direction, and a strong conviction in the moral righteousness of his or her beliefs characterizes the charismatic leader; charisma is a key construct underlying transformational leadership behavior (Howell & Avolio, 1993). Other research (e.g., Sanders, Geroy, & Hopkins, 2001; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995) suggests that traits such as these may play an important role in motivating the spiritual and transcendental behavior of leaders. Such traits have also been used to distinguish transactional leaders from transformational leaders (Bass, 1985; House, 1977). This distinction is reflected

26 in the model by the positioning of the transactional and transformational leadership theories on the spirituality continuum. The lower positioning of transactional leadership theory on the spirituality continuum suggests that leadership at this level is likely to be associated with a relatively low sense of divine awareness, a pre-conventional level of moral development, and faith in rational authority. By the same token, the higher positioning of transcendental leadership theory

transformational leadership theory on the continuum suggests that leadership at this level is likely to be associated with a highly developed sense of divine awareness, a postconventional level of moral development, and faith in a higher, spiritual authority. Indeed, we view transcendental leadership as operating at the highest level of spirituality.

over

Linking the Theories Our attempt to integrate transcendental leadership theory with the transactional and transformational theories is reflected by the intersections represented by (A), (B), and (C). The (A) intersection represents that aspect of transactional leadership that interfaces with transformational leadership, and that aspect of transformational leadership that interfaces with transactional leadership. For example, studies (cf. Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1996; Podsakoff, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994) have found high intercorrelations between transformational and transactional leadership. These studies and others (cf. Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990; Koh, Terborg, & Steers, 1991; Tosi, 1982) suggest that transformational and transactional leadership behaviors can be displayed by the same leader in different amounts of intensities while also complementing each other. These studies further suggest that while many transformational leaders engage in transactional behaviors (e.g., they engage in

Mackenzie,

activities such

managerial acquiring and assigning responsibilities), they often supplement those behaviors with some elements of transformational leadership. The concept of &dquo;contingent reward leadership,&dquo; which Bass (1985) associates with transactional leaders and focuses on positive exchange between leaders as

resources

and followers, suggests that transactional leaders may also supplement their primary behaviors with elements of transformational leadership. Similar to transformational leadership, transcendental leaders also in engage transactional activities such as acquiring resources and assigning responsibilities. This aspect of transcendental leadership is represented by the (C) intersection. This intersection also represents that aspect of transactional leadership that interfaces with transcendental leadership. Earlier we suggested that leadership at the transactional level is likely to be associated with a relatively low sense of divine awareness, a pre-conventional level of moral development, and faith in rational authority. The operative word here is &dquo;relative,&dquo; suggesting that although transactional leadership theory is at the low end of the spirituality continuum leaders characterized as transactional nevertheless possess some measure of the spirituality traits possessed by leaders characterized as transcendental. Finally, the (B) intersection represents that aspect of transcendental leadership that interfaces with transformational leadership, and that aspect of transformational leadership that interfaces with transcendental leadership. On the one hand, we view this intersection as an indication that transcendental leaders possess the same measure of charisma as transformational leaders while operating at the highest level of spirituality. This aspect of transformational leadership (i.e., charisma), when combined with the spiritual aspect of transcendental leadership, is viewed in the present research as increasing the amount of faith, respect and inspiration engendered by the transcendental leader. On the other hand, we view the (B) intersection as an indication that transformational leaders some measure of the incorporate spiritual focus transcendental leaders. This is possessed by such as their of traits suggested by possession inner direction and a strong conviction in the moral

righteousness of his Bass, 1985; House, 1977).

or

her beliefs

(cf.

SPIRITUAL DIMENSIONS AND PROPOSITIONS The various studies cited thus far provide support, albeit theoretical, for the existence of a

27

positive association between the transcendental development of leaders and their effectiveness as leaders. There is also support in these studies that spirituality is a major conduit for the transcendental development of leaders (cf.

Maslow, 1971; Thompson, 2000). Spirituality

is also a factor we propose links transcendental leadership theory with transactional and

transformational theories of leadership. This integrating aspect of spirituality was discussed in an earlier section of this article, represented by the (A), (B), and (C) intersections in the model. Based on the literature and discussions presented up to this point in this article, the following statements can be supported: (1) The nature of the relationship between transactional, transformational, and transcendental theories of leadership is defined along a hierarchical continuum, and (2) as leaders develop along the hierarchical continuum there will be a commensurate development in their spirituality. For purposes of advancing three dimensions (i.e., consciousness, moral character and faith) that contribute to the spiritual development of leaders, we developed the second statement into several propositions. These propositions are set forth in the next several sections of this article.

The Consciousness Dimension

Assagioli (1976) asserts that humans complete without spiritual dimensions,

are

and transcendence is the most inclusive level of consciousness. Boucouvalas (1993) admits that as a concept, the term consciousness can frustrate those looking for conceptual precision. However, she also states that exploration of this concept is imperative to understanding human development and the wide range of &dquo;awareness&dquo; that is available to humanity. She suggests that &dquo;levels of consciousness&dquo; indicate the degree to which an individual’s awareness is focused internally or externally, and that shifts in levels of consciousness are associated with brain not

and brain wave frequencies. This association reflects the relationship between consciousness and the mind, which is argued to occupy a central part in a leader’s spiritual development. Moreover, the use of the term consciousness to describe the mind is prevalent in human development literature (cf. Assagioli,

rhythms

1976).

Boucouvalas also suggests that shifts in &dquo;states of consciousness&dquo; are essentially a major alteration in the way that the mind functions, as each state of consciousness has its unique

configuration and pattern. Finally, she argues that shifts in &dquo;structures of consciousness&dquo; involve progressive transformations of the contextual foundation of the conscious. These transformations are argued by Boucouvalas to entail movement toward more complexity, greater awareness, and less egocentrism. Our model embraces the latter of these three types of shifts in consciousness - structural shifts. Our interest in structural shifts in is shared with several consciousness transpersonal models of human development. Transpersonal models focus on human development with the realization of unitized, spiritual, and transcendent states of consciousness. Transpersonal theorists have advanced several models that suggest stages and mechanisms of consciousness development. For instance, Wilber (1977) proposed a spectrum of consciousness that includes thirteen structural stages. Each stage progressively moves towards a spiritual end. His model suggests movement beyond the ego level of understanding to an expanded sense of identity and awareness, and that all humans are divine (Acker, 1999). This spiritual journey through transcendence facilitates a more inclusive perspective, which is more adequate and more conscious. In addition to Wilber’s thirteen-stage model, Kegan (1994) advances a five-stage model suggesting that humans evolve through orders of consciousness, and that they construct their own meaning and reality. From a leadership perspective, Kegan’s model suggests that the more adequate a leader’s sense of meaning-making is, the more developed and conscious he or she becomes. Finally, it has been suggested that as leaders develop along this dimension they become more divinely aware by awakening deeper intuitive areas of consciousness (Maslow, 1971; Nelson, 1993). With respect to the relationship between the and transactional, transformational, of transcendental theories leadership, spirituality, and leader effectiveness, the literature on consciousness would support the following proposition:

28

Proposition 1: As leaders develop along the transactional-transformational-transcendental hierarchy continuum, the consciousness dimension of spirituality and thus leader effectiveness will become more developed. The Moral Character Dimension Greek philosophers, such as Socrates and Aristotle, provide us with a foundational

understanding of moral character. They focused on the disposition that causes individuals to make choices between right and wrong, and the habitual actions that follow. Since then several scholars have built on their philosophies and even suggested developmental models for moral character. Kohlberg’s (1981) three-stage model, for example, provides useful insights into moral character development. Although this model does not specifically address spirituality, its focus on &dquo;common good&dquo; at the highest level parallels the moral destiny of a leader’s spiritual

j ourney. At the most basic level of Kolberg’s moral

development leadership is

model,

pre-conventional,

concerned with the disposition of rewards and punishment. This level, as previously discussed, is mostly associated with transactional leadership. At the next level, conventional, leadership is concerned with social obligations and adherence to established corporate norms. This level might be more closely associated with transformational leadership. Post-conventional is the highest level of moral development. It suggests that leadership is guided by an internalized set of

principles universally recognized as right or wrong (Hughes, Ginette & Curphy 1999). at this level Leadership places more value on these internal principles than on external or social laws, and is most closely associated with our concept of transcendental leadership. Thomas Aquinas advanced a moral development model consisting of three levels of virtues: intellectual, moral, and theological (Sadlin, 1992). Intellectual virtues seek rational truth in a practical and speculative manner. Intellectual virtues include: wisdom, science, understanding, and prudence. Moral virtues include: justice, prudence, fortitude, and temperance. The highest level of virtue

prescribed by Aquinas, theological, the moral

virtues, which

can

beyond naturally

goes

be

developed. Theological

virtues

are

divinely

infused, and include: love, faith, and hope. that love is the and a leader who leads virtues, love a sense of meaning and with provides fulfills the higher needs of the heart (Daft, 1999). Ryrie (1984) acknowledges the connection between moral character and the heart by asserting that the heart reflects social responsibility and the promotion of fairness and stands for the center and seat of life. Ryrie (1984) also contends that leaders with a highly developed sense of heart or moral character are likely to possess a unique set of values and virtues. Bums (1978) similarly contends that the essence of a spiritual experience for leaders is evident when they identify with higher levels of values, or virtues. Suggested by these writers is that the leader’s capacity to make moral choices is related to their level of spiritual development. As moral character is argued to be the essence of spiritual experiences (Kanungo & Mendoca, 1994), we associate development along the transactionaltransformationaltranscendental leadership hierarchy with development of this dimension of

Aquinas further

asserts

cornerstone of all

spirituality. Thus, Proposition

2: As leaders develop along the transactional-transformational-transcendental hierarchy continuum, the moral character dimension of spirituality and thus leader effectiveness will become more developed.

The Faith Dimension Fowler

(1981) argues that faith is not religious matter, but a universally human way of making sense of one’s existence. In Fowler’s six-stage model, which describes a shift in authority focus from outside the self to within, the final stage (universalizing faith) characterize individuals as becoming incarnates and actualizers of the spirit of the fulfilled human community. His model also characterizes faith as a matter of composing an image of how we holistically grasp the conditions of our existence. This is done through the commitment of the soul to a center of value and power, giving

necessarily

a

it coherence. In addition, faith denotes a way of giving order and understanding to the force field of life, while describing the investment of lifegrounding trust and life-orienting commitment

(Palmer, 1998).

29

Several studies (c£ Emerson, 1990; Fox, 1994; Miller, 2000; Parker, 1998) contend that the soul reflects the faith of an individual, and understanding the development of an individual’s faith provides an indication of the maturity of his or her soul. While discussion of the human soul has been relatively limited because of its &dquo;religious&dquo; connotation, these studies suggest that one cannot comprehensively discuss human development without recognizing the phenomenon of spirituality and acknowledging the existence of the human soul. Miller (2000), for instance, argues that the soul is a deep and vital energy that gives meaning and direction to our lives. He proposes that the soul connects the human with the Divine in a spontaneous and mysterious way that is transcendent. Parks (2000) describes the emotional development of the soul as four stages of faith. The first stage is the dependent stage, where the leader depends on an outside authority for feelings of assurance, rightness, hope, loyalty, and fear. However, as the leader evolves, he or she becomes more inner-dependent and eventually interdependent. This final stage of interdependence constitutes a qualitative transformation in the balance of vulnerability, trust, and faith. Such development makes it possible for leaders to depend on others without fear of losing the power of self, thus fostering a deeper trust of self and a profound awareness of relatedness to others. Suggested here is that attention to the development of the soul, as defmed by faith, provides some access to how the essence of a leader thinks and feels as he or she composes meaning in life. Proposition 3: As leaders develop along the transactional-transformational-transcendental hierarchy continuum, the faith dimension of spirituality and thus leader effectiveness will become more developed.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

leadership is a new and comprehensive way of viewing effective leadership. As noted earlier in this article, spirituality is a complex phenomenon that can no longer be ignored by society and its organizations (Judge, 1999). Suggested by this note is the notion that society and its Transcendental

more

organizations are changing, and new demands and requirements have emerged. Thus, in order for society and its organizations to meet current and future challenges, it is imperative that they embrace the notion of spirituality. Within the past decade, many companies have adopted some type of &dquo;learning organization&dquo; (e.g., Arthur & Aiman-Smith, 2001; Schulz, 2001) or &dquo;empowerment&dquo; (e.g., Argyris, 1998; Burpitt & Bigoness, 1997; Ford & Fottler, 1995) strategy to accommodate these changes. Although these strategies have had tremendous positive impact on organizational development and leadership effectiveness, they have not fully addressed the growing spiritual demands and requirements of our changing society. Our model embodies the spiritual demands of society and its organizations by explicitly suggesting spirituality as an important component of leadership. Our model also helps to fill some of the gaps that currently exist in traditional leadership theories. Traditional theories, for a large part, tend to focus

on

external manifestations of

leadership. Our model suggests that the essence of leadership is better grasped by exploring the leader’s internal components in addition to the external manifestations of leadership. Instead of just asking, &dquo;What are the behaviors of an effective leader?&dquo; our model asks &dquo;What contributes to effective leader behavior?&dquo; Exploring the answer to the latter will add a qualitative richness to the concept of leadership that we feel has not been thoroughly developed in prior research. At the personal/individual level, the model bridges the gap between spirituality and leadership by stimulating practical and scholarly consideration about their relationship. For leaders feel that have example, many may they to &dquo;check their spirituality in the closet before they enter the office,&dquo; and by doing so they are unable to be authentic and &dquo;whole&dquo; in their roles as leaders. Our model provides an alternative way of characterizing spiritually oriented leaders, as they strive to integrate spirituality into all aspects of their life. It brings spirituality out of the &dquo;closet&dquo; and places it where it belongs in the mind (i.e., consciousness), the heart (i.e., moral character), the soul (i.e., faith) and daily accomplishments of the leader. -

30

theory is by no means intended to be a defmitive theory on leadership; however, it is Our

instead intended to evoke ideas and discussion about the role that spirituality can play in leadership. As with other new theories that are in the developmental process, there are bound to be shortcomings and corollary criticisms. That it is&dquo; too idealistic,&dquo; that it lacks practical application in universal contexts, and that it is too qualitative in nature are likely to be major criticisms of our theory. We would argue that &dquo;too idealistic&dquo; is relative and should not preclude the notion of potential reality. For example, when viewed from a traditional perspective of leadership our theory would be seen as &dquo;too idealistic.&dquo; However, when viewed from a nontraditional perspective, transcendental

leadership represents potential reality. While our theory remains to be empirically tested in a variety of social and organizational environments, we view this as an opportunity for future research. Empirical research would provide evidence of the role that spirituality might actually play in leader effectiveness, as well as a practical framework of the nature and traits of transcendental leadership that might be applied in organizational settings. However, empirical research must be careful not to limit our understanding of the concept of transcendental leadership by analyzing it too narrowly through the lens of traditional scientific methods. According to Thompson (2000), these traditional methods sometimes use microscopes to search for something that can only by grasped in panorama. In addition, leadership is the natural expression of a fully integrated human being, and thus can only be seen through a broader lens of the leader’s total development. Finally, we acknowledge that spiritual experiences are very subjective and oftentimes subtle. Although we have broadly employed the term spirituality, our use of the term is still potentially limiting. For instance, one leader’s spiritual experience may be very different than another’s, and there may be many manifestations of spirituality depending on the person’s background. However, the belief in relating oneself with a higher-order influence is common in almost all spiritual experiences (Kanungo & The of Mendoca, 1994). challenge transcendental theory of leadership, within both

research and

practical contexts, is how to integrate spirituality into leadership without offending those who may not appreciate or understand how this aspect of leading relates to effectiveness. Another, and perhaps more involved, challenge is how to make visible and useful the reality of spirituality that is hidden in plain sight. It is our hope that our model will help clarify this relationship, as well as help leaders in their journey toward transcendental accomplishment. REFERENCES Acker, K. 2000. Developmental processes and structures: Requisite to the integration of spirituality and work. Ann Arbor, MI: Bell and Howell - UMI. Anderson, C.R. 1977. "Locus of control, coping behaviors, and

performance in a stress setting: A longitudinal study." Journal of Applied Psychology , 62: 446-451. Argyris, C. 1998. "Empowerment: The emperor’s new clothes." Harvard Business Review 76: 98-105. Aiman-Smith, L. 2001. "Gainsharing and organizational learning: An analysis of employee suggestions over time." The Academy of Management Journal, 4: 737-754. Assagioli, R. 1976. Psychosynthesis: A manual of principles and techniques. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. 1988. "Charisma and beyond." In J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas: 29-49. Lexington, MA: Heath. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.I. 1996. Construct validation of the multifactor leadership questionnaire MLQ-Form 5X. Binghamton, New York; Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton University Report: 96- 1. Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. 1995. "Transformational leadership redux." Leadership Quarterly, 6: 463-478. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. 1990. Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: consulting Psychologists Press. Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. 1993. "Transformational leadership: A response to critiques." In M. M. Chemers & Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions : 49-80. San Diego: Academic Press. Blackaby, H. T., & Blackaby, R. 2001. Spiritual leadership: Moving people on to God’s agenda. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman. Boucouvalas, M. 1993. "Consciousness and learning: New and renewed approaches." New Directions for Adult and

Arthur, J.B., &

Continuing Education, 57, 57-69. Bums, J.M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burpitt, W.J., & Bigoness, W.J. 1997. "Leadership and innovation among teams: The impact of empowerment." Small Group Research, 28: 414-423. Bycio, P., Hackett, R., & Allen, J. 1995. "Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership." Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 468-478. Cardona, P. 2000. "Transcendental leadership." "Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21: ##. Daft, R. L. 1999. Leadership: Theory and practice. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.

31 Emerson, R. W. 1990. Ralph Waldo Emerson: Selected essays, lectures, and poems. New York, NY: Bantam. Emmons, R. A. 1999. The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality in personality. New York, NY:

Kouzes,

The Guilford Press. J. N. 1981. Kant and the transcendental object: A hermeneutic study. New York, NY: Oxford Press. Ford, R.C., & Fottler, M.d. 1995. "Empowerment: A matter of degree." Academy of Management Review, 9: 21- 31. Fox, M. 1994. The reinvention of livelihood for our time. San Francisco, CA: HatperCollins. Fowler, J. W. 1981. Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins. "Nontraditional Golden-Biddle, K., Greenwood, R. 2000.

York, NY: Penguin. Miller, J. P. 2000. Education and the soul: Towards a spiritual curriculum. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Miller, D., Kets de Vries, M.F.R., & Toulouse, J.M. 1982. "Top

Findlay,

research: Editor’s introduction." Journal of Management Inquiry, 9: 146. Graen, G. B., Scandura, T. A. 1986. Toward a psychology of

dyadic organizing. In B.M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol 9. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. R. K. 1991. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Haasnoot, R. 2000. The new wisdom of business: Nine guiding principles from today’s leaders. Chicago, IL: Dearborn. Harmon, W., 1991 Global mind Change. Boston, MA: Sigo Press. Hawley, J. 1993. Reawakening the spirit in work: The power of dharmic management San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. House, R.J. 1977. "A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership." In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larsons (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge: 189-207. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B.J. 1993. "Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business- unit performance." Journal of Applied Psychology , 78: 891-902. Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., & Curphy, G.J. 1999. Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Jaworski, J. 1996. Synchronicity: The inner path of leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Judge, W. Q. 1999. The leaders shadow: Exploring and developing executive character. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Kant, I 1997. Prolegomena to any future metaphysics. Edited and translated by Gary Hatfield. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kanungo R. N., & Mendoca, M. 1994. "What leaders cannot do without: The spiritual dimensions of leadership." In J. A. Conger (Ed.), Spirit at work. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Kegan, R. 1994. In over our heads: The mentaldemands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kelly, E. E., Jr. 1995. Spirituality and religion in counseling and psychotherapy. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Kipnis, D. 1976. Powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Koh, W.L., Terborg, J.R., & Steers, R.M. 1991. The impact of

Greenleaf,

transformational leadership

on organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, teacher satisfaction and student performance in Singapore. Paper presented at the Annual Academy of Management Meeting, Miami, FL. Kohlberg, L. 1981. The philosophy of moral development: Essays on moral development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

J. M.. & Posner, B. Z. 1999. Encouraging the heart: A leader’s guide to rewarding and recognizing others. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Maslow, A. H. 1971 The farther reaches of human nature. New

executive locus of control and its relationship to strategymaking, structure, and environment." Academy of Management Journal, 25: 237-253. Miller, D., & Toulouse, J.M. 1986. "Strategy, structure, CEO personality and performance in small firms." American Journal of Small Business 15: 47-62. Nelson, A. 1993. Living the wheel: Working with emotion, terror, and bliss through imagery. York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser. Palmer, P. J. 1998. "Evoking the spirit in public education." Educational Leadership Journal, 56: 7 -11. Pargament, K. I., & Park, C. L. 1995. "Merely a defense: The variety of religious means and ends." Journal of Social Issues, 51: 13-32. Parks, S. D. 2000. Big questions, worthy dreams: Mentoring young adults in their search for meaning, purpose, and faith. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. 1990. "Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors." Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107-142. Ryrie, C. C. 1999. Basic theology: A popular systematic guide to understanding biblical truth. Chicago, IL: Moody Press. Sanders, J. E., Geroy, G. D., & Hopkins W. E. 2001. Loosening the constraints on individual potential: Toward a theory of inter-group movement. Paper presented at the thirteenth annual conference of the Western Decision Sciences Institute, Vancouver, Canada. Sandlin, R. T. 1992. Rehabilitation of virtue: Foundations of moral education. New York, NY: Praeger. Schulz, M. 2001. "The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows." The Academy of Management Journal, 4: 661-681. Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. 1995. "Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality integration." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68: 531- 543. Thompson, M. C. 2000. The congruent life: Following the inward path to fulfilling work and inspired leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tosi, H.J. 1982. "Toward a paradigm shift in the study of leadership." In J.G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views: 222-233. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Wheatley, M. J. 1999. Leadership and the new science. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler. Wilber, K. 1977. The spectrum of consciousness. Wheaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing House. Wilkes, C. G. 1999. Jesus on leadership: Becoming a servant leader. Nashville, TN: LifeWay Press. Yammarino, F.J., & Dubinsky, A.J. 1994. "Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions." Personnel Psychology, 47: 787-811. Yammarino, F.J., Dubinsky, A.J., Comer, L.B., & Jolson, M.A. 1997. "Women and transformational and contingent reward

leadership:

A

multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective."

Academy of Management Journal, 40: 205-222.