User:JHKimAnalyst/sandbox

= Leadership's Grand Theory = From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'' This article is about Leadership's Grand Theory. ''

Leadership's grand theory (LGT) inspired by the late James MacGregor Burns, founded by Kenneth-Maxwell Nance, premised on a 3-year exploratory sequential mixed methods study that investigated the importance of moral values for sustainable leadership, explains how the phenomenon leadership works and does not work in any context. A theory emerged during a grounded theory phase that implemented theoretical sampling, constant comparative analysis, and theoretical sampling of interviews from six of seven continents of the world. The theory's emergence gave rise to the aphorism “leadership in the absence of moral action is unsustainable.” A longitudinal literature exploration across 3,000 years ensued after theory emergence, supported qualitative findings of a classical grounded theory approach. Random sampling from 2,523 global cases, analyzing 2,191 cases in a quantitative phase, showed statistically significant association between unethical leadership action (ULA) and unsustainable leadership outcomes (ULO), χ2 (1, N = 2,191) = 119.643, p < .001. There was relatively strong association between ULA and ULO, φ = .436, p < .001. Scientific methods, empirical and statistical evidence indicated unethical leadership action was associated with failure of otherwise effective leadership in 98 percent of the analyzed cases. The study confirmed the importance of moral action, unsustainability in its absence, advancing leadership inquiry with a tested grand theory.

The theory is a rare uncovering in the field, and offers explanation of empirical evidence cited by the leadership development industry and shown in public surveys (e.g., Pew and Gallup); relative to the loss of trust and confidence in what is understood as a leader and leadership over the past few decades. James MacGregor Burns was interested in the pursuit of a general theory for leadership. According to Burns "others argue that we must construct a general theory of leadership in order that we grasp the role of individual leaders and their traits." The Kellogg Leadership Studies Project (KLSP), a 4-year (1994–1998) initiative, to meetings with over 25 scholars over the early stages, sought a general theory to encompass all leadership. The group led by James MacGregor Burns, a leadership scholar, historian, presidential biographer, and Pulitzer Prize winner, contributed much, but admittedly did not attain that goal. Burns stated "something was lacking in my own intellectual background, I realized, and I began to see what it was: psychology. I had read books that used psychological concepts to explain crucial aspects of human behavior. But I lacked a disciplinary foundation." James's self awareness and awareness of those who he could reach out to led him to people like Al Goethals, a social psychologist.

When the founding scholar, an industrial and organizational psychologist, uses of the term grand theory, it is on the scale of theories such as Newton’s laws and Einstein’s theory of general relativity (GR), but for all of leadership. The field has theories on approaches to leadership and in some instances co-opted social learning theory (SLT) to help explain the phenomenon. According to Popper “theories are nets cast to catch what we call ‘the world’: to rationalize, to explain, and to master it. We endeavor to make the mesh ever finer and finer.” A well-constructed theory will meet the following criteria when judging its quality (1) understanding, (2) generality, (3) fit, and (4) control. Some benefits of a good theory are ecological validity, novelty, and parsimony. In the absence of a general theory, leadership definitions continue to broaden, adding to the abundance, disagreement on constructs, and obfuscation. According to Kislov and others, grand theories are (1) formed at high levels of abstraction, (2) may lack clear operational definitions of concepts, (3) loosely knit with internal diversification, (4) sometimes unfalsifiable. The scholar-practitioner triangulated the studies finding across 3,000 years of literature, also finding agreement amongst ancient thought leader's of the world in further support of generalization (e.g., King Solomon, Sun Tzu, Confucius, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and Siddhārtha Gautama). Importantly, such triangulation provides superior defense in addition to the theoretical saturation attained in global interviews, against arguments of international differences relating to moral universality. Givens asserts "some authors have described grand theories as normative; that is, that grand theories describe not the way a discipline is, but the way that discipline should be." Grand theories are useful in the development of midrange and local theories. Until recently leadership lacked a grand theory; thus, most midrange and local theories since 1840, formed in absence of LGT lack leadership's foundational dimension explicitly.

The sustainable-unsustainable leadership theory (SULTTM) explains how leadership as it is commonly understood fails. The explanation of failure also confirms how it does work. James MacGregor Burns asserted that leadership is a moral undertaking. The study confirms Burn's assertion. The central proposition that emerged from the study after the testing of the theory is that "leadership in absence of moral action is unsustainable."

Definitions:
Definitions formed around the study's finding and prepared for the dictionaries are:

lead·er /ˈlēdər/ noun

a person who practices leadership: In some cases, a president is not only a

president but also a leader.

lead·er·ship /ˈlēdərˌSHip/ noun (no plural)

a complex multiple-triadic relational practice of right-influence and or right-

inspiration toward purposes and transcendence: Leadership is

necessary to make progress on sustainable development goals.

Leadership Equation (Formula)
L=f(Mii, Wii, Uii, Kii, Pii)

The equations asserts that leadership (L) is a function (f) of moral influence or inspiration (Mi), which is conscience, cognition, and interacting with conduct, and the influences and or inspiration of wisdom (Wii), knowledge (Kii), understanding (Uii), and purpose (Pii). All of the leadership dimensions interact in the space of leadership's multiple-triadic relational practice. In the absence of leadership's moral dimension, the practice becomes unsustainable. In the states of degradation, harm, and failing, the practitioner has begun to become unstable without the sustaining influence of a developed conscience that influences or inspires cognition and conduct. The balanced interaction of moral influence and or inspiration helps to avert degradation and harm to the practitioner and or relational practice. Missing one dimension (Mii) leadership is unsustainable, in absence of other dimensions there is some dysfunctionality that can be overcome because of the construct’s foundational dimension.

Leadership's multiple-triadic relationship largely involves the leader, the influenced, and the context which all include subdimensions. Leaderships is less about the organization of systems and more about the psyche people. As a relational practice, leadership be can complex because of the differences in human interaction and the unique spaces where humans dwell. The conscience not directly observable interacts with the cognitive dimension of the leader, thus regulating and directing conduct. The cognitive dimension that reasons, thinks, and solves problems evolves over time, experience, and learning. The conduct is the most observable in the relationship, often reflective of the interactions of the conscience and cognition. Conduct may also be determined by inaction and not actions alone. One may voice conscience and cognitions. According to Kerr (2005), a key feature of the conscience is its ability to maintain moral functions separate from externalities, having basis in Freud's theory of tension between id and the superego. "Emile Durkheim's description of internalized morality as self-restraint, the precedence of social engagement over egoism, and autonomous reflection based on standards of conduct."

Those who interact with the leader directly or indirectly have the same psychological faculties, but not necessary the same in terms of development. When the leader rightly aligns with others at any level, but particularly in the space of human needs, the leader the influences and or inspires the influenced. In many instances outside of an organization, the influenced has only heard about the influencer and never seen face to face as in a local constituency. However, in such cases the larger community space is influenced and or inspired.

The context is the space that leadership exist consisting of a community, constructs, and culture. There are no two contexts alike, mainly due to the community. The leader, those influenced, and overarchingly people are different.