برگشت به اصول اولیه: استفاده از یک دیدگاه فرزندداری برای رهبری تحول گرا

Developmental processes lie at the heart of the relationship between transformational leaders and followers. First, three major domains in which developmental outcomes have been mostly discussed, namely motivation, empowerment, and morality, are highlighted, expanded, and discussed. Next the analogy between transformational leaders and “good parents” is employed to explore the underlying developmental processes. Specifically, conceptualizations, notions, and findings are borrowed from the vast literature on parenting to help us understand these processes. Several major arguments and propositions, which can be tested empirically, are formulated by means of this analogy. These propositions and their conceptualization can broaden our perspective about the processes that underlie many of the outcome variables so frequently investigated and discussed in the leadership literature, and offer a major opportunity to probe the currently less explored developmental and dynamic aspects of leadership. Transformational leadership theory places great importance on developmental processes, such as empowering followers and helping them become autonomous and competent individuals who reach self-actualization and high levels of morality; it regards these processes as critical for distinguishing transformational leadership from other forms of leadership (Burns, 1978). Indeed, these developmental processes were described as being “at the heart of transformational leadership theory” (see Bass, 1997, p. 131). Yet, surprisingly, only few attempts have been made to unravel their nature and practice (e.g., Burns, 1978 and Shamir et al., 1993) though quite a number of researchers recently have addressed issues of process in leadership research (e.g., Howell & Costley, 2001, Jacobson & House, 2001, Ropo & Hunt, 1999, Ropo et al., 1997 and Yukl, 1999). For example, Jacobson and House (2001) presented a process model describing six stages in the interactions between followers and charismatic leaders. They start with identification and move through arousal and commitment to disenchantment, depersonalization, and alienation. Similarly, Ropo et al. (1997) discussed theoretical and methodological issues relating to dynamic processes in human organizations, and Ropo and Hunt (1999) examined such processes by highlighting linkages between leadership, organizational change, and managerial work. Pertinent to the developmental processes between leaders and followers, Shamir et al. (1993) suggested a self-concept motivational theory to explain the process by which charismatic leader behaviors cause transformational effects on followers. They argued that charismatic leaders motivate followers by implicating the followers' self-concepts, for example, by increasing the intrinsic valence of effort and goal accomplishment, and by creating personal commitment. This article seeks to extend these efforts beyond the question of harnessing followers' motivation by means of symbolic interaction (e.g., Stryker, 1980) as suggested by Shamir et al. (1993). We aim at providing a conceptual framework for studying and understanding developmental psychological processes involved in transformational leadership by means of the analogy of the leader as a parent. Leader–led relationships are analogous to parent–children dynamics in many respects. Leaders, like parents, are figures whose role includes guiding, directing, taking charge, and taking care of others less powerful than they and whose fate is highly dependent on them. The extent of the dependence of children on parents, or of followers on leaders, renders the influence of the latter highly important. Although the metaphor of the leader as a father was earlier introduced by Freud in the 1930s (Freud, 1939, pp. 109–111), it has never been further developed and elaborated. This analogy is the point of departure of this article. We assume that leaders with whom followers form emotional relationships function in many respects like parents. Just as parents protect, guide, and teach children, helping them to grow into functioning and autonomous adults, so do transformational leaders in their relationships with their followers. We can benefit from this analogy by studying the dynamics involved in good parenting and by applying the insight gained from such consideration to understand the developmental aspects of good leaders (i.e., transformational leaders), namely to understand how leaders help their followers grow and develop as people. The main objectives of this article are: (1) to highlight and specify the main domains in which developmental processes in the leader–led relationships are expected; (2) to elaborate on the analogy between leaders and parents, and to illustrate its pertinence and validity; (3) to employ this analogy to gain insights from parenthood in order to highlight the developmental aspects of good leadership, specifically transformational leadership; and (4) to suggest conceptualizations and possible research avenues derived from the analogy between transformational leaders and good parents.

In this article, we attempted to understand how transformational leaders affect their followers in three domains: motivation, empowerment, and morality. To analyze these processes, we drew on a powerful analogy between good parents and transformational leaders. This analogy, first introduced by Freud, was expanded in this article to highlight specific developmental processes inherent in the relationships between transformational leaders and their followers. As both types of relationships are asymmetrical in principle, they form the basis for psychological dependence, which exists between children and parents as well as between followers and leaders. However, unlike some previous theorizing in the leadership literature (e.g., Lindholm, 1990), we argued that this dependence is not inherently negative. Instead, it may be seen in some occasions, as a key to helping children and followers to satisfy needs, attain aspirations, and actualize capacities at the highest level. It may also serve for people to improve themselves instrumentally (by being competent and self-assured), interpersonally (by being secure and trusting), and morally (by acquiring universal values and behaving prosocially). This can be achieved if certain psychological processes (as described above) are maintained and promoted. These processes may be conceptualized as mediators, which explicate how good parents or transformational leaders bring about the specific outcomes of motivation, empowerment, and morality (see Fig. 1 for a configural demonstration). Throughout this article, we have described a large number of specific behaviors or strategies enacted by parents that promote developmental processes in their children. This specification may erroneously lead readers to regard the relationships as involving a series of unrelated actions or behaviors. This lack of association, however, is probably untrue. In many cases a specific parental behavior receives its meaning within the general context of the relationship, and a very similar act can have a totally different effect depending on this context (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Though specific “good” parenting strategies or behaviors can be identified, a more holistic attitude might be considered (Baumrind, 1996). A similar question may be raised regarding the effects of transformational leaders. Although in the leadership literature influences of transformational leaders have been measured, analyzed, and discussed with regard to separate domains and variables (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1990), the impact of transformational leaders (and parents) may be more holistic. The division into different domains is largely artificial. Simpson (1976), for example, found congruence between Maslow's developmental need sequence and Kohlberg's scheme of the motivational aspects of moral development. Simpson saw a meaningful correspondence between the more opportunistic, reward-and-punishment, and conformist attitudes at the lower levels of Kohberg's scheme and the survival and belongingness needs at the bottom and middle levels of Maslow's hierarchy. Similarly, Simpson observed a parallel between Maslow's need for self-actualization and Kohlberg's emphasis on higher and less self-involved values at the top of the hierarchy. Our delineation of the different domains in which developmental processes are expected raises an interesting question, namely how far development in each of these domains is independent, or are they related. Answering this question might be the task for future research. The conceptual framework and the specific propositions suggested in this article can open new avenues for thought, consideration, and research in the psychological literature on leadership. By employing the analogy between good parents and transformational leaders, our article has presented such a conceptualization, as well as suggested several testable propositions. These may guide future studies that focus on the relationships between leaders and followers and the development of followers, and open up a whole new area of research. The foregoing arguments, however, should not be discussed without reservations. The notion of leadership as well as parenthood may be culturally contingent Dorfman, 1996 and Rothbaum et al., 2000. Gerstner and Day (1994), for example, reported that attributes deemed most characteristic of leaders varied across eight countries; no single trait was rated in the top five as being most prototypical. In line with this diversity, “power distance” (i.e., respect for authority), one of Hofstede's (1980) known cultural dimensions, has been suggested as relevant to the cultural analysis of leadership. Hofstede reported that in cultures characterized by low power distance, subordinates expect their superiors (i.e., leaders) to consult with them and use their suggestions, whereas in cultures characterized by large power distances, subordinates expect supervisors to act autocratically. Triandis (1993), on the basis of years of cross-cultural research, claimed that individualism/collectivism (another dimension highlighted by Hofstede, 1980) was one of the most important dimensions of cultural variation with regards to leadership. In collectivist cultures, a successful leader is expected to be supportive and paternalistic. In individualist cultures, achievement-oriented and participative leadership would be key leader behaviors. In line with this suggestion, Farmer and Richman (1964), who rated a number of countries on paternalism, concluded that Japan (which is highly collectivist in Hofstede's terms) is most strongly paternalistic as evinced by policies of life employment. Similarly, using data on employees in Taiwan and Mexico (two collectivistic cultures) as well as in the United States (a more individualistic culture), Dorfman and Howell (1988) found more paternalism in the collectivistic cultures. When paternalism was strong, employees subscribed to expecting job security and being treated by their company and superiors as people and not only as workers. The analogy between leadership and parenthood might therefore be even more powerful in collectivistic cultures. Similarly, there might be “cultural boundaries“ regarding some of the claims and predictions of attachment theory. For example, in attachment theory, having a secure base is linked to the need to adapt effectively to the outside world. However, the meaning of adaptation may differ in various cultures. In the United States (and most Western countries) the major link is with exploration, and adaptation primarily refers to individuation and autonomous mastery of the environment. In Japan, adaptation primarily refers to accommodation, avoidance of conflict, fitting in with others, and ultimately loyalty and interdependence (Rothbaum et al., 2000). Similar arguments have been presented regarding “openness,” which is linked by attachment researchers to a sense of a secure base (Bretherton, 1995, p. 316). However, emotional openness is not a desirable quality in Japan, where children are encouraged to keep hostile feelings to themselves or to express them indirectly to preserve social harmony (Lebra, 1994). In sum, although the conceptual framework presented here has a limit in terms of its generalizability, it offers a framework for investigations taking into account cultural diversity (e.g., Triandis, 1993). The main concepts and models discussed in our presentation of the analogy of good parents and transformational leaders can be operationalized and measured. In the area of leadership research, validated measures of transformational leadership exist across cultures and languages (e.g., Avolio et al., 1999 and Bass, 1999). However, one of the conceptual and empirical gaps so far has been a way of operationalizing and measuring the developmental processes of the followers. Our article suggests that the developed and elaborate level of theorizing and measurement in the domain of parenthood can be applied to the study of leadership to advance empirical research in this domain. For example, during the last decade, several attempts were made to measure the internal working models of adults with regard to attachment. The two foremost methods are the Adult Attachment Interview (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985) and the attachment questionnaires modeled after Hazan & Shaver, 1987 and Hazan & Shaver, 1990. Both showed strong concurrent and predictive validity (Crowell et al., 1999) and can be used in research designed to examine attachment processes in leadership, such as the provision of a secure base and its effects. For example, a scale designed to assess the propensity to provide a secure base for one's children has been developed and validated Granot & Mayseless, 2001 and Kerns et al., 2000. The scale can be modified to assess this aspect in leader–follower relationships. Similarly, the leaders' or the followers' attachment styles can be assessed to examine some of the processes of change conceptualized in this article. See, for example, two recent applications of attachment notions to leadership in studies that examined the attachment styles of leaders of different kinds Mikulincer & Florian, 1995 and Popper et al., 2000. Similarly, the literature has identified various methods of measuring scaffolding and identifying positive and negative ways by which parents affect their children's motivation, self-efficacy, and performance (Mussen, Cooper, Sagan, & Hustor, 1984). For example, scaffolding was assessed in the parent–child relationships through observations of a common task in which the child required some assistance Clarke-Stewart & Beck, 1999 and Pratt et al., 1999. The principles employed to construct scaffolding interactions in educational settings (e.g., Herrenkohl, Palinscar, DeWater, & Kawasaki, 1999) as well as the identification of naturally occurring scaffolding within parent–child interactions can be consulted to design and assess scaffolding during instruction sessions or dyadic and group training which takes place at various levels in organizations. Likewise, within the parenting literature too, researchers have developed validated measurement techniques to assess parents' inductive discipline, their employment of emotional messages, and other aspects relevant to how parents affect internalization of values and prosocial altruistic behavior in their children Bar-Tal, 1976 and Hoffman, 1994. For example, the utilization of emotional messages and the reference to the parents' as well as the child's feelings have been coded during various types of parent–child interactions Halberstadt et al., 2001 and Saarni, 1999. These coding schemes can be adapted to analyze interactions between leaders and followers, the ways by which leaders conduct various meetings, or their speeches addressed to larger audiences. In addition, there are different questionnaires that may be used to assess some of the developmental outcome variables, for instance, self-efficacy (Jones, 1986), autonomy (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), or innovative behaviors (Quinn, 1988). By and large, the rigorous literature and extensive research on parenting open a wider door and offer new possibilities for exploration in the study of developmental and dynamic psychological aspects of leadership. For instance, concepts such as “scaffolding,” “attachment behaviors,” and “explorative and initiative behaviors” can provide frameworks for direct observations employed during research, training, and consultancy. In addition, these and other concepts can be effectively used for cross–cultural research, for example, the extent to which different cultures view similar behaviors as developmental. Finally, qualitative research that does not necessarily focus on behaviors but on more abstract notions such as feelings and cognitive constructs can significantly benefit from the knowledge gained in research on parenting.